At least, it was for Kleinheider, coupled with a big heaping of sour grapes about how nobody wants to come out and march for left-populism the way that they want to march for right- and libertarian-populism (not quite the same thing). For that matter, the sexual connotations in Kleinheider’s first paragraph* would provide interesting fodder for a remote psychological viewing, if I inclined that way. On the other hand, I haven’t actually seen THAT WOMAN’s speech, so I probably shouldn’t even be opining on the subject. On the gripping hand: it’s Sunday, and since when do people not opine on subjects just because of… any reason, really?
*The erotic and sexual aspects associated with vampirism in modern Western society are of course well known; I suggest this post for a perusal of some of the literature. And this one for a more pragmatic take.
I think that Dan and Stacy have gotten the details worked out by now, at least for Act I. Real short version: it appears that Dan has discovered the blogger who spread around the Palin divorce rumors a couple of weeks doesn’t seem to have the job that he said that he did, and may instead be subsidized by deep-pocketed liberals. More on that here:
After all, it couldn’t have been ‘swarmy, over-privileged, obnoxiously arrogant would-be aristocrat.’
Which is what I’d mean by that; but Greenwald’s a member of the Online Left, so that sort of thing wouldn’t bug him when it comes to a reliable Democrat.
None the less, Dan Riehl noted that Greenwald isn’t happy about the sudden cratering of Chas Freeman’s career:
Isn’t it rather obvious that at some point, there will be a substantial and understandable backlash as Americans watch people like Chuck Schumer openly boast that anyone who makes “statements against Israel” that he deems “over the top” will be disqualified from serving in our Government, despite a long and distinguished record of public service and unchallenged expertise?
:The Menendez rebellion was a jolt of political reality for Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Obama, signaling that the solidarity of the stimulus debate is fading as Democratic lawmakers are starting to read the fine print of the bills they will wrestle with in the coming weeks and months, and not always liking what they see.
Menendez knew that his hard-line approach to Cuba was a minority view within his party, and that it was at odds with Obama’s approach. But he did not expect to discover a significant policy change embedded in the text on an appropriations bill. His policy aides came across the language when the legislation was posted on a congressional Web site.
“The process by which these changes have been forced upon this body is so deeply offensive to me, and so deeply undemocratic, that it puts the omnibus appropriations package in jeopardy, in spite of all the other tremendously important funding that this bill would provide,” the enraged son of Cuban immigrants said last week on the Senate floor. Menendez even slapped a hold on a pair of Obama nominees to draw attention to the issue.
If you’re wondering why a spending bill has in it a provision that would quietly change our Cuba policy, it’s really very simple: the Democrats want to change our Cuba policy, they control Congress, and they can thus put anything in the appropriations bill that they blessed well feel like putting in. “Appropriate” or “inappropriate” doesn’t really enter into it; what’s important is that they can do something, they desire to do something, and so they will do something.
I know what both Steele and Cantor are trying to do below. But they and other GOP members continue to fall into the trap of having a debate on the opposition’s terms. No matter how you slice it, you end up giving them the quotes they want. That isn’t how you win debates in sound bite politics today. You control the debate, or you lose.
Never concede a point. You can agree with one, but never concede it. If conceding it is the price you pay for having the discussion, let the whiny so-and-so pack up his ball and leave. It’s not your job to make the other guy’s job easier by letting him frame the debate in terms that he likes.
PS: And don’t be shy about rudely interrupting somebody when they try to brazen an everybody-knows past you, too. If he respected you, he wouldn’t have tried it in the first place.
I am running out of ways to say that irony is dead.
At least, if you believe the American Spectator, which admirably deadpans this hysterically funny revelation:
“It looked scripted beyond the scripted part, the speech,” says one former communications adviser, who has been feeding notes and suggestions to the White House team and worked with them on the inauguration. “Every president has gone into one of these things knowing that there were some pre-arranged questions or journalists to be called on, but this one was pretty ham-handed.”
To that end, he says, the White House is looking to install a small video or computer screen into the podium used by the president for press conferences and events in the White House. “It would make it easier for the comms guys to pass along information without being obvious about it,” says the adviser.
Dan Riehl, once he finished laughing at everybody who screeched about Bush and earpieces in 2004, went on… no, wait, Dan never actually stopped laughing at those poor, deluded folks. Hard to blame him for that, really.