November 5, 2008

Humor for the day after

From Obsidian Wings:
"Agenda for the 1st Hundred Days:

1. Sharia.

2. Communism.

3. Compulsory gay marriage for all preschoolers.

4. Surrender to Aztlan.

5. Abortion legal until 12 years after conception.

6. NASCAR banned, replaced by all-male ballet.

7. Official language of the USA: Ebonics.

8. Christmas banned.

9. ‘Red Dawn’ banned.

10. Box turtles.

That should do it."

36 comments:

steves said...

I guess we can't expect any kind of gracious humility. This is unfortunate. I am avoiding most of the coservative forums I usually frequent because they are just full of bitterness and anger. I sincerely hope that Obama can bring some kind of reconciliation, but I doubt this will happen if conservatives and conservative leaning independents (like myself) just get our noses rubbed in it.

leighton said...

Where did that come from?

Streak said...

Steve, I think you missed the humor part.

steves said...

Wouldn't be the first time. It is possible that I am reacting more to some of the gloating I have been reading or some of the stuff from the previous blog entry.

Streak said...

Good grief. You read my posts as gloating?

Then I have no idea what to even say. If you read that as gloating then you don't understand me very well at all.

steves said...

Gloating is not the right word, but what does this mean:

The Republican party and conservative Church finds themselves having to make their own decisions. Will they continue down that Palin road? The one that encourages hatred of others and dismisses intellect and science? The one that resends the emails about Obama's muslim past and mocks community organizers? Or will they reassert some semblance of a conservatism that is not obsessed with gays and abortion? The love affair with the mean-spirited Palin suggests to me that the Republican party will continue down that road where science is a punchline and God is an American.

You infer that an entire party should be judged by the actions of some chain-emailers and suggest that an entire party encourages the "hatred of other." I dug up some nasty liberals in my blog post on Biden, including people wearing the "Palin is a cun*" (without the asterisk) to an Obama event, and even I never suggested that this was mainstream liberalism or somehting that Obama supported.

Streak said...

I was asking the question that people all around the country are--is the republican party the party of Palin or the party of the reasoned Republican like yourself? I am not talking about random posters on some blog--but the putative leader of the Republican right herself, and the battle within the Republican party between Bill Kristol and others.

If you take offense to that, you do so on your own. It was not aimed at you--at all.

Streak said...

Steve, I see your point about the muslim emails, btw. I am responding to the Palin attempt to link Obama to current terrorists.

I have said repeatedly that neither candidate nor neither party is responsible for the wingnuts in their party. But Palin and McCain appeared to be playing to theirs. I was merely asking if that was the route of the future, or if the Republican party was going to move away from those tactics.

You took offense as if I was piling on. I didn't mean it as such, and I think you would know that from my previous posts. But I do not apologize for criticizing the Rovian politics that the Republican party has adopted. And you and I shared that frustration. How you took my comment to include you is beyond me.

steves said...

I am coming down with the flu. I know that is a weak excuse, but disregard my crankiness.

Streak said...

Steve, I hope you feel better. Know how that goes.

steves said...

Thanks for being understanding. Sometimes, I write without thinking.

Monk-in-Training said...

Streak,
Have you heard what Fox is reporting?

Now it seems Gov. Palin did not know Africa was a continent?! Could not name the memebers of the North America Free Trade Agreement?! Wow, I don't know how to process this news

Streak said...

Monk, I did see that. I am not sure I believe it, but I did see it. It is hard for me to believe that Palin didn't know that Africa is a continent. The other stuff in that report sounds a little more credible--that she refused to be prepped for her interview with Couric.

I don't think she is a very curious person, but I am not quite willing to believe she is that ignorant. Perhaps we will find out more. But right now, I suspect this is internal fighting to lay the blame for the election on her. Much of that is deserved, I suspect, but even if her negatives sunk McCain, he still chose her without sufficient vetting.

leighton said...

Steve, I don't know if yours is the kind of flu that involves chest congestion, but Mucinex was absolutely fantastic for me last winter--it shortened my coughing phase by days, maybe a week. I don't often recommend chemicals, but this one is great.

steves said...

That thing about Palin is hard to believe. Time will tell if she is a viable candidate. I will certainly watch her, but I am not sold on her.

I wondered about Mucinex. Thanks, I'll have to give it a try.

Streak said...

Just had coffee with a friend and he said that the story behind the Africa comment was not necessarily that she didn't know that Africa was a continent, but came from a comment that implied she thought South Africa was the southern portion of a country called Africa. Not sure that makes it any better.

My issue with Palin is really her lack of curiosity, or at least what I have seen as a real lack of curiosity. Doesn't mean that she couldn't be good in some situations, and what I have read suggests that within the context of Alaskan politics, she did some good things. But what appears to be her provincial world view is completely unworkable and destructive at the national level. I also will never be able to get past just how much she seemed to enjoy the race baiting elements in the campaign. McCain often looked uncomfortable in those moments. She never did.

I second the recommendation of Mucinex. That stuff rocks. SOF will affirm that too. Better living through chemistry, I always say. Or sometimes say. I have said it.

Tony said...

My issue with Palin is really her lack of curiosity, or at least what I have seen as a real lack of curiosity.

That was a large issue of mine with her as well. It dumbfounded me how some conservatives adopted her though because of her level of ignorance and then passed it off that she is "one of us," or "she understands us," or "she seems like a real person." Then because she didn't read a daily newspaper regularly (until the Ayers association), couldn't name a judicial case beyond Roe, and cannot tread water in a shallow interview--oh my, everyone is picking on her.

Huh? I mean, really, huh? No one who can spend $75K on clothes (even if the bill was footed by the RNC) without batting an eyelash is NOT one of us.

Frankly, I don't want a leader who is "like me." I want some one a whole heck of a lot better than me. And I think we got it.

steves said...

Just had coffee with a friend and he said that the story behind the Africa comment was not necessarily that she didn't know that Africa was a continent, but came from a comment that implied she thought South Africa was the southern portion of a country called Africa. Not sure that makes it any better.

No, that doesn't really make it a whole lot better. I certainly don't expect a person with a non-legal background to be fluent in jurisprudence, but I do expect them to have understanding of history and geography.

The "regular person" thing isn't always bad. Being a hunter, I liked the fact that she hunted. It wasn't a reason to vote for her, but it is always nice to see some commonality in a candidate. It also helps if it is genuine. Bush trying to come off all "aw shucks, down-home" was phony and irritating.

JoeG said...

I agree with Streak, this is the beginning of a quick-strike campaign to blame Palin for McCain's collapse. In four years, she will be but a distant memory in the GOP leadership. Time to move on, as far as I'm concerned.

Tony said...

Steve,

No, I wasn't saying that the regular thing isn't bad, but what I am saying is that was all she had. And it showed in such simple things--I expect a leader on the state and national level to have a general grasp of basic civics, basic geography, and basic history. Palin, in my opinion demonstrated none of that, and then only when expedient.

Joe,

In four years, she will be but a distant memory in the GOP leadership.

I have to differ with you there. I think this is only the beginning for her. People tend to have short memories anyway. I think the blame for McCain's loss lies squarely on his shoulders. He could have been known as the one who went toe-to-toe with one of the brightest, most intelligent, most skilled the DNC has had to offer (and I frankly think he had the goods to do that) but he didn't. Instead he went completely negative, racist, and Rovian. He could have rejected all of that and elevated the level of discourse but instead lowered it.

John McCain surrendered--pure and simple. He gave up the moral high ground, traded is what a genuine conservative in for a mess of pottage in an effort to retain power and he failed spectacularly. It wasn't the fact that McCain lost, it was the fact that he lost ignobly.

He didn't even acknowledge the historicity of the race until it was over. So Palin will be back. Count on it.

Streak said...

I am afraid that Tony is right, we have not seen the last of Sarah Palin, but I am not convinced she will be a major force. Or, let me say, if she is the major force, then the Republican party has chosen to become more and more narrow.

I don't think that is a winning proposition for Republicans, and while I am not cheering for them as a party, I think a healthy dialogue between actual conservatives and actual liberals is a good thing for our republic. We won't have that with Palin.

steves said...

It is no secret that I think that Palin was not treated fair by the press. She is on her own again, so she has a chance to demonstrate some level of skill.

I think the blame for McCain's loss lies squarely on his shoulders.

He certainly shares it, but I odn't think it is fair to blame him entirely. He had a difficult road, at best. He was going up against one of the most gifted and skilled politicians of today. He beat the Clinton machine, which is something that I wouldn't have thought possible. He was also hurt by a poor economy and a desire for most people to want a change. It probably also did help that Bush was doing a poor job. Since WWII, only one party has been able to pull off a victory following an incumbent not running, and that was Bush I.

Streak said...

No doubt that McCain had a difficult race. But as many have noted, he was 10 points up in the national polls after selecting Palin. Her (and his) polls started to dip badly after her Couric interview and plummeted after he declared that the "fundamentals" of the economy were sound.

Tony said...

Neither do I think Palin will be a major force. I think Huckabee will attempt again in four years and even Romney, but Palin will be up there, too.

I have contended your exact point, Streak, and gave gotten toasted one to many times. The GOP has gotten more narrow and a McCain victory, even though he is more left to centrist than right, would have excluded far more Republicans than included them.

Steve,

Are we talking about the same person? how did McCain beat the Clinton machine? I am not following you there.

He was going up against one of the most gifted and skilled politicians of today. That was my point--that he became the Repub nominee though he didn't beat Obama. He could have at least campaigned against Obama in a positive way, but he didn't.

And sure, the media may have been unfair to Palin, but she provided them enough fodder to keep them busy. I have never hidden that I do not hold the same grace for her that you have (which I think her pro-gun stance buys a lot from you, which to me isn't an issue).

We have hashed these things out numerous times, no sense revisiting them.

McCain's choice of Palin would have reflected how he would govern--virtually thoughtless and easily swayed.

steves said...

Tony, the 'he' was Obama. I should have been more clear. I certainly wouldn't say that Palin was blameless or that she is some kind of intellectual, but the media treatment of her was shameless and it doesn't surprise me that data tends to show that trust in the media is at an all-time low.

I still believe that McCain wasn't all that nasty in the election. I recall that his aids wanted him to bring up Rev. Wright towards the end of the election, but McCain said no. Positive only goes so far. With the exception of "pallin' around with terrorists", I don't think that he was too overboard. In the end, I don't think they had a coherent message that was appealing to most people.

Frankly, at this point, I think the Republican party needs to revamp/start over/rebuild. I heard some people mentioning Newt Gingrich, but he had his chance. I would like to see them develop a more coherent message and show some integrity. I would also like to see some new blood. They let the neo-cons take over and run the party into the ground. Enough, already.

Streak said...

If McCain wasn't that negative, then Palin certainly was. I don't accept the first part completely, but think the Palin rallies were shameless, to borrow your word.

speaking of that, we know what you think about the Kos stories about Palin, but if we just look at the media, what about their treatment of Palin was shameless?

Tony said...

Steve,

I feel like we are beating a dead horse, but I just don't buy it. The media is inherently biased one way or the other, but everyone here I think tries to filter out what is true and newsworthy.

Palin was consistently uninformed and unprepared, from Gibson to the debate with Biden--I'm not sure how the media could fabricate such a deep level of ignorance, but it was there. However, my problem was not so much that she was ignorant, but that she played up to it. I think she liked being the "diva," and like divas play their physical attributes up, so she played hers to make up for other deficits.

When McCain ceded on the Jeremiah Wright "controversy," I think that was more the fact that it was water under the bridge and Obama had already graciously handled that. McCain would have shot himself in the other foot had he brought that up, in my estimation.

I don't think they had a coherent message that was appealing to most people. Absolutely. Obama had clinched the change message two years ago whereas McCain never identified himself with anything; he changed memes too many times. When they finally settled on "Country First" it looked bland and stupid.

And I could not agree more with your final graph. If the GOP is ever to be taken seriously again, they need to jettison all the neo-cons and begin again--it is their only hope.

steves said...

I don't know if I want to completely rehash the Palin media debacle. I think I have postred on it and I did a entry on my own blog, too. Shameless might be too strong a word, maybe unbalanced is a better choice. If you really want examples, I will be happy to provide them, but to some degree, it is a moot point.

However, my problem was not so much that she was ignorant, but that she played up to it.

I saw a few bits where she did this and didn't like it either. I am still mostly neutral on her. I figure she has some time to build a more solid image in the next 4 years. I am willing to listen, but she still needs a ways to go before I would consider her as a candiate.

Tony said...

I read your post on it and from our exchanges know where you stand on it. We don't and won't agree, I surmise.

There is just too much there that I am not willing to offer latitude on, but they are personal opinions on her policies and her abuse of theology and feminist ideology.

However, she does have a lot of growing up to do, but I don't think I will be persuaded to consider her viable for national leadership. I will have to come a l-o-n-g way for that to happen.

Streak said...

Not to belabor the Palin issue (though it is my blog, eh? :) ) but I saw this little tidbit in the excellent Newsweek series on the campaign.

The Final Days | Print Article | Newsweek.com: "Another reporter asked if he was happy with 'the pick of Palin.' He ducked the question. Schmidt was trying, not very hard, to hide his true feelings. He had been compelled to personally take over Palin's debate prep when she seemed unwilling to engage in the drudge work of learning the issues. McCain's advisers had been frustrated when Palin refused to talk to donors because she found it corrupting, and they were furious when they heard rumors that Todd Palin was calling around to Alaska bigwigs telling them to hold their powder until 2012. The day of the third debate, Palin refused to go onstage with New Hampshire GOP Sen. John Sununu and Jeb Bradley, a New Hampshire congressman running for the Senate, because they were pro-choice and because Bradley opposed drilling in Alaska. The McCain campaign ordered her onstage at the next campaign stop, but she refused to acknowledge the two Republican candidates standing behind her."

I would humbly suggest that kind of absolutism is horrible for our Republic and is the kind of partisanship that we simply cannot afford. Disagree with the pro-choicers all you want--argue about drilling in ANWAR--all legitimate topics, but she won't even acknowledge them.

If that is the Republican party of the future, Democrats will do very well. But I am not sure our country will be better off.

Bootleg Blogger said...

Streak and gang
What is there about Palin that would lead anyone to think she's going to be a player in the republican party in the near future? Once she was chosen as VP candidate, it seemed like the repubs I know had to do alot of rationalization and possibly self delusion to convince themselves and try to convince me that she was a good choice. There are about 22 republican (I'm not sure if that's still accurate) governors. Considering these and so many other republican potentials, what does anyone see in Palin to say she has a future in national leadership? I honestly feel like this is almost a joke.
Later
BB

Streak said...

After 8 years of Bush, nothing seems impossible to me. Especially when Palin has the backing of some of the same people from the neo-con and religious fundamentalist corners.

steves said...

I would humbly suggest that kind of absolutism is horrible for our Republic and is the kind of partisanship that we simply cannot afford. Disagree with the pro-choicers all you want--argue about drilling in ANWAR--all legitimate topics, but she won't even acknowledge them.

No, this isn't good. I'll have to read the whole story.

Bootleg Blogger said...

Streak- I agree that nothing surprises me. I'm just trying to figure out what there is about her that would make her more of a potential national contender than the field at large. Once she was chosen people stepped up to defend her. With her no longer the potential VP I don't see a rational set of reason's now that she's back into the mix.
BB

Streak said...

I think you are probably right. But absent something new, I think that Dobson and Bill Kristol and his crew will be lobbying strong for Palin behind the scenes in what may really be pretty substantial power struggle within the Republican party. If her or Huckabee emerges as the putative leader, then the Republicans will have decided to further narrow. They will do very well in Oklahoma, if the past election is a guide, but will do poorly elsewhere.

But this is all speculation. I can tell you that what I read suggests that Palin will not be content to just stay in Alaska. As one of her coworkers up there said, she never intended to stay on the JV team.

steves said...

I am sure that Palin will make a push, but she will also go up against Romney, Jindal, Huckabee, and others. I think a lot will depend on how the Republican Party rebuilds.

A lot of this stuff on Palin seems to be coming from McCain aids. I have some issues with their truthfullness, but this stuff should be verifiable.