That's funny. Jane Swift might be one of the few politicians who is shallower than Palin. Unlike Palin, who does appear to have a brain (although it's clearly not firing on all cylinders), Swift is dumb as a stump.

Palin's folksiness is fake. Look at her Alaska debates--none of that gosh-darn nonsense. There are two possibilities as to why she was coached to use it. First, she's the female version of W--clueless, but likable. Second, it's all code to the pro-lifers and other assorted religious nuts. Her folksiness had a particular flavor--and religious overtones (ok, "you betcha!"--no, but "gosh-darn it!" and "bless your heart!"--no doubt, and she used far more of those).

Posted at October 3, 2008 12:35 AM in response to Vice Presidential Debate

OK... I wasn't sure about the Rangle inclusion--TV sound too fuzzy. CNN has it as Lingle (I did not mention Romney, but, yes, he was on the list too). Still, Palin claims that Giuliani, Romney and Lingle, essentially, are all mavericks but very different from her, McCain and Lieberman. It's all horseshit of a different color. The line does not work no matter what she intended.

I am glad, at least, that she did NOT say "Rangle". That would be shocking.

The scary thing about Palin is that she appears to have a compulsion to lie. Whenever she did not have a solid on-the-facts response to Biden, she just made stuff up, as she did, for example, with "General McClellan". She got the name wrong, but, more importantly, she just accused Biden of lying about what the general said when Biden was exactly right.

Remember that W appealed to people who don't read--not even something as rudimentary as local newspapers. So they get all their news from TV. And, according to a recent survey, most of McCain supporters are TV watchers, while Obama supporters get their news from a variety of media. So if a TV spot lies outright, it cannot be debunked on TV right away, the probability of catching a TV show debunking it is low and, if you don't use other sources of information, the point sticks. So, for McCain (and Republicans, in general), it pays to lie in their campaign spots and stump speeches because they will never be called on it in the medium that their supporters partake in.

Posted at October 3, 2008 12:25 AM in response to Vice Presidential Debate

OK, it took a long time to load, but did Palin just list Lieberman, Giuliani and RANGLE as the multi-party supporters of McCain??

Posted at October 2, 2008 10:29 PM in response to Vice Presidential Debate

OK, it took a long time to load, but did Palin just list Lieberman, Giuliani and RANGLE as the multi-party supporters of McCain??

Posted at October 2, 2008 10:29 PM in response to Vice Presidential Debate

Actually, Alaska Republican Senate President is also hitting at the McCain campaign. It's nearly a non-partisan issue in Alaska right now.

Posted at September 24, 2008 1:55 AM in response to AK Lawmakers Fire Back on GOP Bid To Shut Down Trooper-Gate Probe

The "no change" ad is awful for a number of reasons. First, it ignores the fact that many people find sending email--or using a computer, in general--difficult. So, in a way, it belittles them. Second, by claiming McCain has not changed in 26 years in the Senate, it reinforces McCain's underlying message of him being a "maverick"--if he was a maverick back then, and he has not changed, there is no reason to doubt him now. Third, there has been an obvious decline in McCain's ability to be honest over the past eight years--if he has not changed, we are being asked to ignore this important fact. McCain's response should be, "Yeah, it's he same John McCain you've known for 26 years!"

McCain's ad echoes the fact that printed publications have not been accusing Palin of lying even if they might mention the fact that she's been twisting the truth. Technically, in political circles, a direct accusation of lying has been seen as disrespectful, especially at the national level. Republicans have recognized this for a long time and realized that it gave them a free hand to just make stuff up--if they can't be called liars directly, some of the lies are bound to stick. And if someone breaks the taboo and challenges them on this, they accuse him of breaking the decorum. How much better if they can stick that to an "uppity celebrity".

Dem groups should come out with an ad "What has John McCain learned in the last 8 years?". Forget the email. Nail him on the fact that the only lessons he's carried from the 2000 campaign are 1) that it's better to play dirty and 2) it easier to sell a dumb-ass W than an idea. So, instead of bucking the system that floated a deeply flawed administration at his expense, he decided to be more like them. The Palin selection seals the deal.

Posted at September 12, 2008 12:31 PM in response to New Ads: Obama Presses "Change"; McCain Spot Says Obama's "Star Is Fading"

It's a "Sense of the Senate" resolution and has no legal value. It expresses the sentiment of the senators and, in case you have not noticed, most of them believe that there should be limits on free speech. Luckily, this opinion is limited to "sense" resolutions and not actual laws (these would have been thrown out as unconstitutional).

There is nothing unconstitutional about them publicly expressing an opinion as officials and not just individuals. We can disagree with it, criticize it, condemn it--but it's not illegal. What bothers me far more is the lack of conviction in slamming excesses on the Right and calling the Republicans on maneuvering to avoid such condemnations.

The differences between Republicans and Democrats cannot be summarized as conservative vs. liberals. More accurately, it's "Me first!" vs. "Me too!".

Posted at September 3, 2008 2:48 PM in response to Democratic Self-Hatred

just in case it was not clear--I was replying to the original post (kateo), not the subsequent remarks.

Posted at September 3, 2008 2:35 PM in response to Did Bush break the law in his speech to the RNC?

No, this is not correct. Political appointees are employees and the Hatch Act was specifically put in to prevent them from politiking from their offices. Civil service appointees are not supposed to have any political considerations in their jobs at all, let alone campaigning. It's the appointees that you have to worry about--and Lurita, in case you forgot, was an appointee.

The President, on the other hand, is also paid a salary from the appropriations for the Office of the Executive--he is the Executive. There might be some question as to whether he would be considered an employee, but a CEO is certainly an employee of a corporation, so, by the same standard, the rules should apply here.

Posted at September 3, 2008 2:32 PM in response to Did Bush break the law in his speech to the RNC?

There is another problem here. The personnel board can review conduct of, er, personnel, not elected officials--which is why it is an appointed board. So they could look into Monegan's conduct and find reasons for his firing. What they would not be able to do is to look into the administration's ethical lapses, which is what this investigation is supposed to look into. So, it's not just that the board is completely partisan, but they also don't have the authority to do anything on the issue.

Posted at September 3, 2008 2:22 PM in response to Palin Wants Independent Trooper-Gate Probe Called Off