An Open Letter to Mr. Obama

 Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

Dear Mr. President:

I heard recently that you plan to delay any executive action on immigration, such as delaying deportation of child refugees, until after the November elections — this in spite of your stated intention earlier to do something by the “end of the summer.”

I’m sure your advisers told you that this would be a smart political move. You may even believe it yourself. Well, they’re wrong, and so are you if you buy into that.

Oh, sure, it’s true that some of the more hotly contested races that could determine control of the Senate are in so-called “red” states. I know it looks like a bad idea to rile up the Republican “base” of xenophobes, bigots, Fox News-addicted outrage junkies, and various other angry, frightened old white dudes. My stars, taking executive action might even upset them enough to get to the polls to vote against Democrats.

But here’s the thing, Mr. President: They’re going to get riled up no matter what you do or don’t do. Riled up is their default state. They’ve been in a state of apoplectic rage since Nov. 4, 2008, when you sent the poster child for angry old white dudes and his empty-headed snowbilly running mate packing.

It only got worse four years later, when their supposed savior, Lord Mitt Romney, couldn’t get out of the way of his own feet and stumbled to a humiliating loss that everyone except them could see coming. All you have to do to upset the Republican base and get them to the polls is be a black Democrat in the White House.

You don’t believe me when I say that trying not to upset the Raging Right is a sucker’s game? Check out Newt Gingrich, who went on CNN’s “State of the Union” to call you “cowardly” and “indecisive” for delaying taking action on immigration.

Of course, no one on the program bothered to point out that on Aug. 3, Newt called such action “unconstitutional” and an example of “the Venezuelan-style, anything-I-want-is-legal presidency.”

Look at the House, where the speaker, John Boehner, urged you to act on immigration “without the need for congressional action,” the day after his caucus voted to sue you for acting without congressional action — to delay implementation of a law that they repeatedly voted to repeal.

You cannot placate these people. You cannot calm them down, especially since there’s a billion-dollar industry dedicated to keeping them angry and so afraid of everything that they’re convinced that they’ll be robbed, raped or killed if they don’t have a gun on them every time they leave the house.

Instead of trying to soothe the Republican base, why don’t you pay some attention to your own? You seem so worried at the prospect of right-wingers going to the polls that you’re forgetting the people you need to go there.

Latinos, of course, are the fastest growing demographic in the nation. You also need to get young people fired up. But what I’m hearing from them is a growing sense of frustration, complaints that “politicians are all the same,” and a general apathy about voting.

Dems will probably still get a goodly portion of the female vote, but that’s mainly because several Republicans will inevitably say something incredibly stupid, misogynistic, or patronizing toward women before it’s over. But we need the rest of the constituency, too. So now is not the time for half-measures.

I know, Mr. President, that you’re called “No Drama Obama.” But maybe it’s time for something dramatic. For starters, use the power you have as the executive to delay or defer the deportation of refugee children.

For all the caterwauling about “tyranny” (which, remember, they’re going to do anyway), that power falls squarely within the scope of what’s called “prosecutorial discretion”: the recognition that you simply don’t have unlimited resources to prosecute every law, all the time, so the executive branch can allocate those resources as it sees fit. Prosecutorial discretion has long been recognized by the courts as a legitimate use of executive power.

The Teahadists have threatened impeachment if you try that? Let ’em bring it. Lawsuits? Bring those on, too.

Iowa Rep. Steve King has raised the idea of another government shutdown in protest if you take executive action. Tell him, “Please proceed, Congressman.” Because if there’s one thing that will get wavering Democrats and independents off the couch and into the voting booths, it’ll be the spectacle of the wingnuts once again waving their torches and pitchforks and threatening to destroy the country in order to save it.

So do the right thing, Mr. President, and dare the Republicans to do something about it. Thank you, and God bless.

Look, How Wrong Can You Be?

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

The office was cramped and cluttered, with dusty posters of old TV personalities on the wall: Edward R. Murrow, Howard K. Smith, Walter Cronkite. The single window behind the desk was half open, letting in the noise from the street below.

“So, you wanna be on the network news talk shows,” the man behind the desk said.

He was a big man with a florid, jowly face and a cigar stuck in one corner of his mouth. He had his suit coat off, and his short sleeves were rolled up. The name plate on his desk read, “Mort Nuttman, Talent Agent.”

“Yes, sir,” I said. “See, I’ve been writing this political column for years, and I think I know a lot about the subject. I was wondering if maybe I could be one of those high-paid TV pundits.”

Nuttman grunted. He opened the folder of columns I’d brought and scanned through them. After a moment, he set it down. He looked at me, up and down, for a long moment, without speaking. “The question is,” Nuttman said finally, “how wrong can you be?”

“I beg your pardon?”

“Look,” he said, “You wanna make the big money as a guest pundit on the big shows — “This Week,” “Fox and Friends,” “Situation Room” — you gotta show that you can be completely wrong. Not just once, but over and over. Look at the heavy hitters — Bill Kristol, Dick Morris, The Cheneys, Palin, even John McCain. You know what they have in common?”

“They were all wrong?”

“You bet they were!”

“I don’t know if I can be like those guys,” I said. “I’m kind of center-left.”

He rolled his eyes. “Dear Lord,” he moaned. “Not a liberal.”

“That’s a problem?”

He shook his head. “Liberals are hard to work with, pal. They show up with facts, and figures, and” he made air quotes with his fingers and put a sneer in his voice, “reee-search.”

“Facts are bad?” I said.

“Facts make people change the channel,” he said. “I don’t need another Alan Colmes on my client roster.”

“Who?”

“Exactly. Now, if you were an actual liberal, you’d be dead in the water.”

“What about Rachel Maddow?”

He waved a hand dismissively “One show. One network. Plus, she’s a looker. The big money’s in being able to do a lot of shows, and it’s easier to do that if you’re a far-right wacko. More entertaining. We can work around the ‘center-left’ thing, like we did with James Carville and Bill Maher. But you’ve got to be willing to do what it takes to grab people. Now, yell!”

“What?”

“C’mon, yell! See if you can drown me out.”

I was confused. “Yell what?”

He handed me a piece of paper. “This script’ll do.” He began talking in a calm, measured voice. “One thing that makes the current border crisis more complicated is the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which was signed by President George W. Bush…”

I looked down at the paper and began to read at the top of my lungs. “WHEN IS OBAMA GOING TO STOP BLAMING BUSH FOR EVERYTHING?!” I hollered, doing my best to shout Nuttman down. “A COUNTRY THAT CAN’T PROTECT ITS BORDERS IS NO COUNTRY AT ALL! AAAAAAH!”

I stopped and looked up. He was nodding.

“OK,” he said, “good projection, just the right edge of barely controlled rage. We might have something here. But you still need to have been wrong a lot.” He sat back down. “So,” he said. “Were you in favor of the Iraq War? Do you still think it was a good idea?”

“Oh, God, no,” I said. “It was a debacle that should never have happened.”

Nuttman grimaced. “How about Romney? Were you predicting he’d score a landslide win over Obama as late as Nov. 6, 2012?”

“What are you, nuts?”

He pressed on. “Did you predict that Obamacare enrollment numbers weren’t going to reach predicted levels?”

“Nope.”

He sighed. “Sorry, pal. You just don’t have what it takes.”

“Let me get this straight,” I said. “The people who have been consistently wrong about everything get to pull down fat salaries on TV? That doesn’t make any sense.”

“What do you think this is, kid? News? This is infotainment. No one likes people who are right. Audiences like people who agree with them. Loudly.”

“Even if they’re wrong?”

“Especially if they’re wrong. People who know they’re wrong want someone to tell them they’re right, so they never have to admit it.”

I shook my head. “I hate to say it,” I said, “but you’re right.”

“Don’t let it get around,” he said.

Return of the Jed-I: What Sarah Palin Could Learn From the Beverly Hillbillies

Latest newspaper column:

Well, I thought former VP candidate Sarah Palin was going to drop off the radar after the Republicans' disastrous showing in the recent election. Made me kind of sad, really. I haven't had such a reliable source of material for mockery since I discovered PETA.

But it looks like I didn't need to be depressed. Caribou Barbie popped back up recently in an interview in which, in true wingnut fashion, she blamed everyone but herself for the troubles of the McCain campaign. She seems to have a particular ax to grind against Katie Couric.

"Katie," she said, "you're not the center of everyone's universe."

Oh, Mee-yow. In fact, much of the interview sounds the wingnut theme of "yew smart people think yer purty smart, don't yew? Well, yew ain't! So thar!"

The Palin fans still remaining in the Republican Party seem determined to turn the GOP into the anti-smart-people party, because smart people don't cotton to Gov. Palin's "folksy, down-home" style. The Palin Renaissance, however, apparently includes purging even the remaining smart people within the GOP itself.

A recent blog post by right-winger Robert Stacy McCain (who bills himself as "The Other McCain") takes the "conservative intellectuals" within the Republican Party to task: "That born-again, down-to-earth, drawling Texas thing," Other McCain writes, "somehow, it had once made Bush seem like Gary Cooper in "High Noon." But as the disasters mounted and the poll numbers headed southward, that Gary Cooper glow faded and these conservative intellectuals turned on their TVs to behold, with unspeakable horror, President Jethro Bodine."

You know, Other McCain, I'm glad you chose that analogy. Because if there's one thing I know plenty about, it's "The Beverly Hillbillies." I've spent many a happy hour before the tube, ruminating about the wacky Clampett clan and what their popularity tells us about our attitudes toward wealth and class issues. So allow me to retort.

If you're going to use a Beverly Hillbillies-based analogy, Other McCain, you'd be more accurate in saying that with George Dubbya Bush, people thought they were voting for Uncle Jed. Jed may have been uneducated, but he was calm, wise, and a peacemaker at heart. Jed was also a thoughtful man. When he had a difficult problem, he'd sit down and whittle for a spell until he thought of a solution. Jed was a guy you could count on in a crisis.

Unfortunately, what people got with George Dubbya Bush was not Jed, but rather, as Other McCain correctly points out, Jed's nephew Jethro: arrogantly convinced of his own rightness and full of crazy half-baked schemes that he thought were brilliant but which always ended in disaster.

The Other McCain goes on to say that those same "conservative intellectuals" turned on Palin, not because she was a trainwreck of a candidate, but because they were projecting their snotty smart-person disappointments with Bush onto her.

"The conservative intellectuals," he scolds, "looked at her and saw Vice President Ellie May Clampett."

Well, no. Ellie May was noted not only for her hotness, but also for her sweetness. Oh, she could kick the snot out of Jethro if she had to, but mostly she was devoted to the care of her "critters." It's hard to imagine Ellie May talking about someone "pallin' around with terrorists."

Sarah Palin, in contrast, came off as an attack dog. Palin, sad to say, was more like Granny than Ellie May. Granny (aka Daisy Moses, late of Napoleon, Tenn.) was, like Palin, belligerent, prone to dramatics, and shall we say, a little fuzzy on her history. Granny thought the South won the Civil War; Sarah Palin insisted she'd said "no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere.

It's important to remember this fact: Granny, like Jethro, rarely if ever prevailed. In fact, most of the show's plots involved Jed trying to mitigate the damage from Jethro and Granny's crazy ideas and antics. And, lest we forget, Jed wasn't above enlisting the help of the only intellectual on the show, the long-suffering Miss Jane.

Here's the secret to that folksy, down-home, unschooled persona: It works only so long as the person exhibits some sort of innate wit or intelligence. It works even better if the apparent simpleton can slip in some zingers that deflate the pompous eggheads.

Look at Ronald Reagan. Reagan could pull off folksy and down-home, despite his years in Hollywood, because (a) as an actor, he actually could think on his feet and come up with the occasional good line, and (b) he had some decent speechwriters for when he couldn't do it on his own.

In short, if you want to learn how to do the down-home folksy thing right as a politician, you definitely should study up on your "Beverly Hillbillies." But you need to be more Jed and less Jethro or Granny. If Sarah Palin had just taken that lesson, she might be a heartbeat away from the presidency today.

RNC shells out $150K for Palin fashions During Financial Crisis

Jeanne Cummings - Politico.com

The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.


Makes John Edwards' 400 dollar haircut seem like pretty small potatoes, dunnit?

And it gets better. They actually spent more money on makeup for McCain's old mug than they did for makeup for Caribou Barbie:

The make-up artist to the wannabe-stars is getting paid beaucoup bucks to make McCain, 72, more telegenic.

Tifanie White, who reportedly has done makeup for the shows "So You Think You Can Dance" and "American Idol," was paid a total of $8,672.55 in September by the McCain-Palin campaign, according to the campaign's latest monthly financial report filed this week with the Federal Election Commission. She was paid $5,583.43 the previous month, records show.

We asked McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers whether McCain was happy with the American Idol make-up artist's work, and whether Ms. White also does makeup for McCain's naturally telegenic vice presidential running mate, Sarah Palin. Rogers replied via email, "No comment."

Oh, and as it turns out, the reports of Mrs. Obama's lobster dinner at the Waldorf? Hoax.

The source who told us last week about Michelle Obama getting lobster and caviar delivered to her room at the Waldorf-Astoria must have been under the influence of a mind-altering drug. She was not even staying at the Waldorf. We regret the mistake, and our former source is going to regret it, too. Bread and water would be too good for such disinformation.

See, guys, there's this thing called "Fact-checking" that you might want to look into before you print something some campaign shill whispers in your ear. I know it's a lot like work, but it's kind of important.

Liberal media my ass. Our biggest problem is lazy media.

Dear Lord....

Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain Exchange Letters on Ethics Reform

As noted below, I didn't really see what a lot of other people apparently saw in the debate last night: John McCain being condescending and angry toward Barack Obama. But this extraordinary exchange of letters makes me think that maybe there's something to it that I missed.

Read the whole thing and tell me if you disagree with these two propositions:

1) Obama comes off as reasonable, respectful, and professional.
2) McCain comes off as a raging petulant asshole.

The Debate

No big zingers, no big gaffes, no cheap shots. They both looked and acted like professionals, although McCain did paste that frozen, uncomfortable grin on his face when he wasn't speaking. Obama didn't say where he'd cut spending, but McCain gave Obama lots of material for future ads when he said that he'd freeze spending across the board except military and entitlements. O RLY? No education? No alternative energy? No health care reform? No disaster relief? No infrastructure? Just freeze everything the way it is right this second? Yeah, good luck with that. That had the feel of another McCain "shoot from the hip" moment.

In the long run, though, this was the area where McCain was supposed to be able to put Obama away: security and foreign policy. And he just didn't do it. Obama looked serious, calm, well-prepared, and above all Presidential. With no clear McCain win, Obama accomplished what he had to do.

Guest Blogger: Charlie Stella Has His Say

"This is Liberty Hall. You can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard."

--A. Bertram Chandler

As most of you know, occasional commenter Charlie Stella and I don't agree on much when it comes to politics. But the guy's a hell of a writer. I love his work, and I was more than a little pleased to discover that he likes mine as well. So when he sent a version of the following post to his e-mail list, I invited him to have his say here on What Fresh Hell.

After all, I'm all about free speech and the marketplace of ideas.

Now, I know Charlie doesn't expect that everyone here's going to agree with him. But I know my loyal Hellions will play nice.

Amici:

Recently some on my reader list were confounded by my support for the baked Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin. Once a poster child for the left, I've done some about facing over the last 8 years that included votes for Rudy Giuliani and Bush twice. While Rudy was my original preference for president this go (because 9-11 aside, he actually did a good job cleaning the cesspool New York had been left post Dinkins), I was fine with Obambi being the winner (because it would be good for the country if a minority got a chance to sit in the big seat). Then I changed to Nader (for the sake of genuine change) and then the baked Alaskan appeared on the scene and, well … here's something that'll make no sense to most, but perfect sense to me. The following is an edited version of an email I sent to my Knucksline distribution list (what my old blog was called; I'm the Knuckster/Knucks/Knucklespeare/Generalissimo; the Principessa is my wife).

Where I stand on hot-button issues:

Abortion: still pro choice

Gun control: absolutely favor it in urban areas

Censorship: Abhor it--any form of it

Religion in public schools: keep it out

Religion in general: I'm an atheist, but knock yourself out if you're not

Creationism: don't buy it

Gay rights: the constitutional amendment should be to permit gay marriages/not preclude them

And then here is where things get a little muddy:

Environment: Drill baby, drill.

Immigration: Something needs to be done and sooner rather than later or all those outsourced jobs both parties seem to support (Hillary supported companies outsourcing jobs in NY a few years ago) will put a lot of American citizens in contention for whatever is left (currently being handled by illegals). Word processors will soon be washing dishes and I'm really not very good at it.

Death Penalty: when it's an absolute positive conviction like the clown caught on video torturing the kid whose family the same clown had just killed? I'm for pay-per-view torture until dead but would settle for two in the back of the head five minutes after the video was verified. Otherwise life in solitary is fine with me.

Iraq: Fool me once, shame on you … we're out of there.

Afghanistan: One last push to get OBL (which might include a "single" surgical strike or "600 surgical strikes" into Pakistan), but get it done and get out.

Israel: I've said it many times. If I were born Palestinian, I'd probably be a terrorist … but I wasn't. I was born here and favor security for us first, then allies as a priority. I'd put more genuine pressure on Israel to "get along" but if Israel was attacked militarily (especially by nations already at extreme odds with us), I'd help defend her (which includes a potential and devastating {see below} war).

War (in general): If we're not going Roman, let's not waste our ___ing time. There's no need for "boots on the ground" unless we intend to occupy and we shouldn't ever want to do that again. In the Generalissimo's world, trust me, you won't want to go to war with us (or sponsor terrorism against us).

Darfur: the ultimate hypocrisy of this nation's current foreign policy. If we can help those most in need, we have no business in Iraq (especially since we've come to learn the several reasons we were given turned out to be nonsense).

And then there's this …

Bush/Impeachment: Absolutely, his entire administration (the same people I passionately defended four years ago) … and if the collective UN had anything between their legs besides the New York City parking tickets they'll never pay, they would bring war crimes charges against GW & Co. for the absolute disaster their Iraq gambit turned out to be.

The Supreme Court: I prefer a left leaning court, but figure the court will always sort itself out sooner or later. I used to be much more concerned about appointments when I voted strictly Democrat, but have since relaxed my concerns. I don't see Roe v. Wade being overturned (no matter what the court makeup is), nor do I see a constitutional amendment precluding gay marriages ever happening.

I'm not sure how I'm classified anymore, although the following adjectives have been used: Neanderthal, lunatic, crazy, maniac, whacko, jerk, fat, fat jerk (but that's a really low blow) and a few expletives most of your email filters won't permit. By the way, "jerk" is the Principessa's personal favorite.

My voting record most of you(s) know … a straight Democratic ticket until Slick Willy's 2nd term (when I didn't bother voting because his lack of a response to terrorist attacks home and abroad ended my support for him and the Democratic Party). Then back-to-back Bush votes I now regret, but mostly because he's made it so easy for the Democrats to regain power in the form of a mandate (by screwing up pretty much everything he did, although I do give him credit for scaring off terrorist attacks here).

A co-worker recently found it comical (I think) that she'd be considered an elite. This after verbalizing how she couldn't understand how people who were (or seemed to be) so smart could vote Republican. To be fair, there was nothing malicious in her statement. She was merely wondering aloud how people she genuinely liked and admired (and who seemed so on the ball) voted (or were) Republican. I pointed out that I sure used to think that way (when I thought anything that wasn't liberal was dumb) … but that that is exactly what the right labels an elitist attitude; the idea that someone else's divergent opinion is ipso facto stupid.

I prefer arrogant to elite but we all get the picture.

I know there's a gigantic passionate political divide in this country (but, let's face it, that's been forever); extremists on both ends think (or assume) the other end is uninformed and/or delusional and/or guided by divine spirits, etc. The question is which side is right? The answer, obviously, is neither. The problem, however, is what plagues this country election year after election year. What is lost, I think, is how the left has been so marginalized it's barely visible anymore. Obambi is NOT a liberal (certainly not by my definition). What is considered left today is barely left of center (which is why someone like Dennis Kucinich is literally laughed off the Democratic stage by his own party during its debates ... the same DK I'm probably most in line with socially/but at polar opposites with regarding terrorism). Hillary Clinton (originally a "Goldwater girl") couldn't have sat more on the middle of the political fence without giving birth to plywood. John "the Maverick" McCain proved as much a maverick as Barry Bonds proved his very late budding career wasn't chemically enhanced.

Somehow the various causes and extremes have been muddled to the point of confusion and unless you're at one of the extremes looking in … well, it becomes one big jumbled mess.

Enter the politics of presidential convention sideshows. Obambi picks Biden. McCain picks Palin. Neither has anything to do with how the top slot candidate's themselves would govern and everything to do with perception and appeal. So much for Change We Can Believe In and/or Country First, eh?

Except for the cosmetic appearances of both tickets, what's the difference? Even Bill Maher recently exposed the private corporate parties going on outside the Democratic Convention for members of Congress (where some ducked rather than be caught on camera). And we all know it went on at the Republican Convention as well (perhaps with more expensive champagne/call girls).

Both parties have been bought and sold and neither really seems to do much for the people they passionately claim they represent. The cronyism, nepotism and inherent corruption fostered by the bureaucracies of government leave little in the way of hope and/or change for the people electing their officials. Do the Democrats really work for the little guy? I don't think the 9% approval rating supports that notion. Do the Republicans only support the rich and powerful? It sure seems that way, especially since the only layoffs and outsourced jobs I notice are the ones directly affecting the poor slobs in the lower and middle classes. But wait, many of those outsourced jobs are fleeing blue States, too! Is Hillary really fighting for the middle class in New York? Ask some of those affected by the 10% across the board (except they're all service staff) cuts many of the law firms, financial institutions and other corporations and companies are making in favor of having their services performed in Chennai, India.

Personally, I don't think either party gives a rat's ass what happens to the poor schmucks trying to get by. If they did, I have to ask, why don't they'd do something? Here the question becomes rather nebulous … almost like, "if there really were a God, how could he (or she) let there be war, hurricanes, earthquakes and the like … to which, I'd like to add, Democrats and or Republicans …

Recently my very goal oriented older son (working full time for an outsourcer at Goldman Sachs while pursuing his MBA nights) was very much moved by Joe Lieberman's address to the Republican Convention. The left shouldn't think my son stupid for liking Joe Lieberman and the right shouldn't think they've won him over. Charles is voting for Nader (God bless him--Charles, not Ralph Nader). I attacked Lieberman and then one of his friends did the same in emails (albeit for similar, but not fully the same reasons). Charles liked the idea of pols crossing party lines to say what needs to be said and to do what needs to be done. He doesn't get the point of polar partisanship. Good for him (Charles--not Lieberman or Nader) … he's thinking. That's a good thing (and something the left need not bother taking credit for--or they'd think maybe they were wrong once in a while). Remember, some of you lefties so in the know, those more than half a million who died during World War II really did sustain your right to obnoxious protests (whether you geniuses think the fire bombing of Dresden or the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan was necessary or not). And some right-minded folk likewise need to get over their Christian selves when they declare homosexuality and/or abortions abominations against God deserving of violent assault. Nobody minds that either side has its own opinion, but the vitriol and rancor each side seems to have for the other appears equally uneducated and unchristian (sarcasm intended).

And then there are the Neanderthals, lunatics, crazies, maniacs, whackos, jerks (and a few expletives most of your email filters won't permit--but no more fat jokes) like myself who, after being burned for staying with one party or switching to another (and being made a fool in both cases), just want something genuinely different. So much so, in fact, we'd take somebody off the street who ran a successful lemonade stand (anybody over the age of 11 in fact). And if that somebody happened to run a business, government or lemonade stand successfully (frankly, I don't care if it was a PTA meeting so long as the constituency was over 18, bathed at least once a month and could speak the mother tongue), no matter what his or her social views are, if he/she can get things done, I'm all for him/her.

Let's face it, the lawyers (Yale, Harvard, etc.) have struck out big time "running things" … Yale gave us Bush (and should be burned to the ground for it). Harvard gave us Obambi (130 "present" votes--what I call "change my ass"). Alaska (and all that whacky religious stuff) gave us a woman who accomplished a few things I can relate to (even if I don't believe in most anything she is a proponent of). Palin (for all her attempts to censor books, etc.,) seems to get things done. As a half-assed author, I probably should be worried about this book banning thing … but I'm not. If Palin were President, I'm pretty sure the Democratic Congress (and some more moderate Republicans) would keep the book banning, etc., in check.

As to her troopergate scandal, if what I saw on CNN last night was half accurate (her former brother-in-law admitted to having tasered his stepson, was caught drinking in uniform in his patrol car twice and illegally killed moose(s)) … well, it just makes me like her a little bit more.

So, it may be a "no brainer" to the elite left (and some independents) that the country should elect a slick talking professor like Obambi, but it's an equal "no brainer" that the hardheaded right (and some independents) choose the war hero who, although he can't remember how many homes he owns, can be crafty enough to pick the "barracuda" babe from Alaska (a woman whose only purpose on the ticket is to solidify a portion of his disgruntled party and desperately appeal to disgruntled Clinton supporters).

And for me, it's an even easier choice (or reason) to vote for a ticket with somebody I'm diametrically opposed to on so many social issues. Sarah Palin (the mother/PTA/Mayor/Governor) is something different (dare I say it?) for a change.

Honestly, no sarcasm intended.

My only issue with Palin, by the way, is McCain. It won't be easy to pull the lever for that guy after all the unmaverick-like compromising he's just engaged in (including his Palin pick). That said, I won't be losing any sleep if Obambi wins. I do think it would be good for the country if he won and he would certainly have a majority in the House and Senate to push through his agenda (whichsuggests things would get done; nothing has happened since the Democratic Congress was mandated to end the war in 2006, has it?). But, if he still feels compelled to vote "present" (or the presidential equivalent, which is to talk us through the next four years about how good the following four will be with him making all those changes down the road), I suspect we'll be headed back to the right as the pendulum does seem to swing back and forth anyway.

For my money, it's defense first (which still may require some offense, albeit from the air rather than boots on the ground). I don't see anybody neglecting our defense the way Slick Willy did again for a while. While I'm not opposed to playing hide the cigar (to each his/her own), I don't expect my President to be doing it while the country is branded a "paper tiger" (Bin Laden's label) after one attempt on the World Trade Center was dealt with in court and several other terrorist attacks against us abroad were barely dealt with at all. That still bothers me.

So, despite her personal convictions, I really do prefer Palin. If for no other reason, to show all us dopes casting votes that it doesn't take a well groomed lawyer and/or a war hero to get things done (see Harry Truman). I like the idea of somebody with enough determination to see through the bullshit and come up with solutions. Palin used Democrats to clean house of some dirty Republicans in Alaska. What's wrong with that?

—Knucks (Charlie)

Charlie Stella is the author of:

Mafiya: A Novel of Crime (January, 2008) Pegasus
Shakedown: A Novel of Crime (June, 2006) Pegasus
Cheapskates: A Novel of Crime (March, 2005) Carroll & Graf
Charlie Opera: A Novel of Crime (December, 2003) Carroll & Graf
Jimmy Bench-Press: A Novel of Crime (December, 2002) Carroll & Graf
Eddie's World: A Novel of Crime (December, 2001) Carroll & Graf
www.charliestella.com

Who's The Elitist Again? Part Deux...

From the McCain Campaign:

"The reality is they have some investment properties and stuff. It's not as if he lives in ten houses. That's just not the case," Rogers said. "The reality is they have four that actually could be considered houses they could use."

Anyone who can say "only four houses and the rest are investment properties" with a straight face has lost the right to call anyone an elitist and out of touch.

Who's the Elitist Again?

McCain unsure how many houses he owns: Politico.com

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an interview Wednesday that he was uncertain how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.

"I think — I'll have my staff get to you," McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. "It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you."

Also, it appears that Honorable John likes him some fancy footwear.

So how does this guy get to call anyone an elitist?

McCain's Green Eyed Monster

Latest Newspaper Column:

I know, I know, it seems like I keep picking on Sen. McCain. I really tried to find a topic this week other than Honorable John. But the guy's like PETA: when it comes to comedy, he's a gift that just keeps on giving.

McCain's most recent series of political ads seems to be zeroing in on the idea of Barack Obama as a "celebrity." One shows him in front of thousands of cheering fans during his recent overseas trip, juxtaposed with pictures of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. The ad refers to him as "the biggest celebrity in the world."

One of his campaign advisers sneered that "Only celebrities like Barack Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand MET-RX chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars, and bottles of organic Black Forest Berry Honest Tea. "

I'm no political consultant, but it would seem that pointing out that Barack Obama is more charismatic, draws bigger crowds, and is more physically fit than McCain would work against McCain. But there may be another agenda at work here.

If you go to McCain's page at the trusty Internet Movie Database, you find appearances by Sen. John McCain on "Saturday Night Live" (twice), the movie "The Wedding Crashers," a 2004 episode of "24," "Entertainment Tonight" (twice), "Late Night With Conan O'Brien" (three times), "The Daily Show" (12 times!), "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" (10 times), "The Late Show With David Letterman" (eight times), "The View" (twice), "Live With Regis and Kathie Lee," "WWF's Raw is War," "ESPN Sports Century," etc. etc.

Unfortunate though it may be, "celebrity" is the lot of any serious candidate, and has been for years, ever since Tricky Dick Nixon appeared on "Laugh-In" all those years ago. So why, I wondered, would Sen. McCain be so grumpy and out of sorts about Obama being a "celebrity" when he himself apparently is one?

That's when it hit me. McCain's jealous! He's mad that Obama's getting better gigs than he is! Obama's working big crowds all over the world, whereas Honorable John, after paying his dues by appearing as an extra in a Vince Vaughn movie, is reduced to opening for Kid Rock at the yearly biker rally in Sturgis, S.D., and offering his wife Cindy as a candidate for the bikers' often-topless "beauty pageant."

(No, I am not making that last part up. "I encouraged Cindy to compete," McCain told the drunken, cheering crowd. "I told her with a little luck she could be the only woman ever to serve as first lady and Miss Buffalo Chip." OK, I'll admit that Mrs. McCain is well preserved in that heavily lacquered way common to the very, very rich, but all I can say is: John. Dude. Eww. But I digress.)

Then there was the whole "tire gauge" flap. It seems that part of Obama's comprehensive strategy for reducing dependence on oil is reducing the amount of gas we use. That would include higher mileage standards. But it would also, Obama pointed out in a speech, include things we all can do. Things as simple as making sure your tires are inflated to the proper pressure. If everyone did that, Obama pointed out (quoting actual studies), we could reduce consumption by 3 to 4 percent.

Now, "you'll save gas if your tires are properly inflated" is advice that's been given to me by everyone from the Department of Energy to Triple A to my car's owner's manual to my dad. But apparently, when commonsense advice is proffered by Barack Obama, it's an occasion for big yuks from the McCaniacs. They started passing out tire gauges to people at their campaign events, embossed with the words "Obama's Energy Plan" on them.

I'm having trouble trying to work out who McCain thinks his new base is. Is it out-of-shape bikers who hate celebrities and don't care about automotive maintenance or their gas mileage? I'm not sure how many electoral votes you can carry with that demographic, but again, I'm no political consultant.

Frankly, the entire McCain campaign is starting to sound like a fat, pimply high school outcast posting furious screeds on his MySpace page about the popular kids, complete with multiple exclamation points: "They think they're so cool!!! They think they're so smart!!!! But they're NOT!!!!! I LAUGH at them!!!!! HA!!!"

Then, the other day, McCain did an about-face on tire inflation. He came out and admitted that Obama (and the DOE and Triple A and my car's owner's manual and my dad) are right. He stated in a "telephone town hall" meeting with voters in Pennsylvania that, "Obama a couple of days ago said we all should inflate our tires. I don't disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it."

Which raises the question: Is John McCain flip-flopping on tire pressure? Or does he just not remember what his own campaign just said?

More of That Maverick Straight Talk From "Honorable" John McCain

Jonathan Martin's Blog:"

McCain's campaign didn't have footage of Obama's actual trip to the gym Wednesday in Germany, so for the portion of their new ad when they ding the Democrat for making time to work out they flash imagery of Obama shooting hoops.

The problem, as noted by many e-mailers, is that the shots are taken are from a gym on an American military post. That's right, McCain's camp went after Obama for ditching a trip to see wounded troops with images of Obama's visit to see American military personnel stationed in Kuwait last weekend.

Good thing for McCain, the picture is too blurry to make clear Obama is with soldiers at the time."

Obama Bestrides the Energy World Like a Colossus

Latest Newspaper Column



Gas prices are hovering at unprecedented heights, with no end in sight, and everyone's looking for someone to blame. Who, we ask, is responsible for this mess? A recent ad for the McCain campaign tells us the answer: Sen. Barack Obama.

"Who can you thank for rising prices as the pump?" the ad's voice-over states as a picture of a smiling Obama appears on the screen next to a gas pump as a crowd chants "Obama! Obama!" in the background.

Wow. Who knew the junior senator from Illinois wielded so much power over oil prices? I thought the Republican talking point was that Obama was weak and inexperienced. But now, it seems, he bestrides the energy market like a Colossus, wielding the power to drive up the price at the pump.

Wait, it gets worse!

As recently as last week, John McCain said that the current energy crisis was "30 years in the making," which means that if Barack Obama's to blame, he's been in control of gas prices since he was 16 years old! Who knows what new powers he's developed in the interim! If he has this much clout, folks, we have to vote for him, because you don't want to make someone that powerful angry. Heck, he might even be able to make big rocks rain from the sky!

This, of course, is absurd. Barack Obama isn't solely responsible for the price of gasoline, any more than George Dubbya Bush is. The current energy mess is the product of years of failures by both Republican and Democratic administrations to realize that we are too darn dependent, not just on foreign oil, but on oil in general as a source of energy.

So what's McCain's solution? The exact same solution as Bush's: find more oil.

What McCain and Bush want to do is open the offshore areas of the U.S. to more oil exploration and more drilling. In fact, Bush the Younger recently reversed his own father's executive order banning drilling in areas of the U.S. coast, setting the stage for a showdown with Congress, which has its own longstanding moratorium.

At least that's McCain's position now. In 2000, McCain opposed offshore drilling. Of course, this is a guy who made a reference last week to the "Iraq-Pakistan border," so it's not surprising that he maybe doesn't remember what he said eight whole years ago.

The "drill our way to energy independence" plan is like saying that the solution to the problem of heroin addiction is to find new sources of heroin. And it's not going to do anything any time soon to bring prices down.

According to a report from the Energy Department released last year, the soonest Gulf Coast drilling, by itself, would have any effect on gas prices is 2017, with no "significant effect" till 2030. Even conservative T. Boone Pickens, an oilman his ownself, says, "This is one problem we're not going to drill our way out of."
Ah, McCain says, but even if it's not going to have any real impact, for "some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have a psychological impact that I think is beneficial."

Got that? It won't have any effect for years, but we'll all feel a little better about energy. And Republicans have the nerve to call Obama the "feel-good" politician.

The fact is, there is no short-term, quick-fix solution to the energy crunch. "Psychological impacts" aren't going to change the grim calculus that inevitably results from more and more demand (especially from developing countries) chasing a finite amount of oil. With no short-term solution, who's offering a long-term one? Hint: It ain't John McSame.

The good news is that, if we look around hard enough, energy is everywhere. Solar. Wind. Tidal. Geothermal. Biofuels. Heck, they're even working on making fuel out of algae-pond scum -- which can be processed into diesel. A DOE report suggests that we could supply all of America's energy needs from algae-based fuels that don't have the disadvantage that ethanol does, namely that ethanol uses up the corn we may need for food.

Sound like pie in the sky? Sure, there are problems with any of these solutions that need to be overcome. But folks, this is America. We split the atom. We cured polio. We put a man on the moon. Have you naysayers stopped believing in America's potential to discover great things? Do you hate America?

Let's not forget, there's an added bonus for getting off our oil addiction: We can tell terrorist-supporting dictatorships like Bush's pals in Saudi Arabia to -- literally -- go pound sand. But we're not going to get there if we keep looking for the same old solutions. We're not going to get there with the same old, same old Bush/McCain plan to drill our way out of this.

Wingnut Explosion in Three...Two...One....

Vanity Fair Parodies a Parody....




In case the picture's not clear, John McCain's wife is holding a handful of pills (a possible reference to her previous prescription drug addiction) next to McCain in a walker (he's very very very old, remember) while the Constitution burns merrily in the fireplace and a picture of George Dubbya hangs on the wall.


Let the storm of wingnut indignation begin!

I expect to be particularly entertained by the convoluted explanations of how the Obama cover was no big deal and/or was funny, but THIS IS DIFFERENT! Because John McCain is a WAR HERO! And everyone should LAY OFF HIS WIFE, even though Michelle Obama is fair game, because...because...BECAUSE SHUT UP, THAT'S WHY!

Questions for Senator McCain

Latest Newspaper Column

Call me naive, but I'm still surprised to find that there are some people who believe the myth that the national media are overwhelmingly "liberal."

It's like finding people who still believe that people roamed the Earth in the company of dinosaurs, like in "The Flintstones." Oh, wait; some people actually do believe that. Anyway ...

Look, folks, if the national media were even anywhere near balanced, much less "liberal," they wouldn't be compliantly handling John McCain with the kid gloves he seems to demand, lest he and his supporters have yet another hissy fit. Let me walk you through some of the questions really "fair and balanced" media would be asking. Imagine how Big John McCain would react to questions like these:

Recently, Gen. Wesley Clark asserted on Bob Schieffer's show "Face the Nation" that, while he honored your service, he didn't think that "having served as a fighter pilot ... prepare[s] you to be commander-in-chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved." When Schieffer stood up for you, Sen. McCain, and protested that Barack Obama had neither piloted a plane nor been shot down, Clark said, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

So let me ask, Sen. McCain: Do you think that riding in a fighter plane and being shot down, in and of itself, qualifies someone to be president? Should we elect you president and leader of the Free World for no other reason than your honorable service and the fact that you were a POW? And if so, isn't making honorable military service the centerpiece of your message the same mistake John Kerry made in his campaign?

Following up: After the comments by Clark, your campaign sent out an e-mail quoting retired Adm. Leighton "Snuffy" Smith as saying, "If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain's service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates." Sen. McCain, wasn't Adm. Smith himself a surrogate? Does it take less guts or more guts to respond to an attack by an alleged surrogate by using a surrogate of your own?

Also, did you or any of your supporters make any kind of protest when President Bush's supporters mocked John Kerry's Purple Hearts by wearing Purple Band-Aids at the Republican convention? And if not, why not? If it's so far out of bounds to question whether one's military service makes you qualified to be commander-in-chief, why is mocking a former serviceman's war wounds appropriate?

Moving on: Sen. McCain, a recent story in Newsweek magazine reported that a trust fund overseen by your wife was $10,000 in arrears on property taxes on a beachfront condo in La Jolla, Calif., and that the San Diego County tax office had been trying to get the trust to pay this bill for four years. We understand that the bill has now been paid and that your campaign says that the matter had been "an oversight."

As you remember, the square-footage of candidate John Edwards' house became a major story in the primary and led to charges that Edwards was an elitist and a hypocrite. So here's the question: Considering that your wife oversees an extremely well-funded trust fund and that it apparently owns so much property that large tax bills can apparently slip through the cracks, would you describe you or your wife as an elitist or a hypocrite? Can you explain why it's not OK for Sen. Edwards to have one big house when your wife owns eight? And if you assert, Sen. McCain, that questions about your wife are out of bounds, are you also prepared to deplore attacks on Michelle Obama?

Let's talk about some recent policy shifts. In 2008, you advocated putting a nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mountain, Nev. In May 2008, when campaigning in that state, you advocated for an alternative that might make Yucca Mountain unnecessary. The Las Vegas Sun accused you of "taking the state for a bunch of rubes." Sen. McCain, do you regard the people of Nevada as a bunch of rubes, or do you just hope they have short memories?

In 2000, you told CNN that you'd "favor a road map towards normalization of relations" with Cuba like the one that led to normalized relations with Vietnam. Now you criticize Barack Obama for proposing that we hold negotiations with Cuba's leaders. Have you forgotten your prior position or do you hope we have?

I'm obviously not holding my breath in hopes any of these questions will ever be asked. But it sure would be entertaining. I don't think I've ever seen a presidential candidate's head explode.