Not a Big Truck

Lesley Stahl just interviewed Barney Frank on 60 Minutes.  This snippet of their conversation was hilarious and really thoughtful at the same time.

LESLEY STAHL: I’ve heard someone describe you this way: you’re a liberal on social issues; you’re a pragmatist on economic issues.

BARNEY FRANK: No, I reject the notion that there is — you’re talking about two different things. That’s like saying, are you more of a cook or are you left-handed? I am a liberal. What I’m rejecting is this liberal here, pragmatist there. That’s like comparing Tuesday to ice cream. As a liberal, I am morally obligated to be pragmatic. What good do I do poor people, elderly people, people who are being discriminated against because of sexual orientation, if I am not being realistic about accomplishing something?

If you can find video of this clip, let me know and I’ll post it here.

I’m generally of the opinion that Bill Kristol is an idiot and a terrible writer, but his column in today’s NYT is not only his best work that I’ve yet seen, but also a pretty decent piece of commentary generally.  His argument today is, essentially, Let’s cut the bullshit, nobody really has much of an idea what to do about our worsening economic nightmare.  We need people in charge who will be pragmatic and willing to throw economic dogma out the window.

Wolf Blitzer suffers from an affliction that my high school English teacher would’ve called “diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.” He has no insights to share, so he repeats obvious and vacuous statements and sprinkles in unnecessary narration of on-screen graphics, seldom pausing to organize his verbal mayhem into sentences but instead using “um” and “uh” to keep the stream of shit flowing without interruption.

Here he is during the seconds leading up to the polls closing on the West Coast last Tuesday night.

Transcript of his remarks:

So in a few seconds, those states will be closing their polls and uh, presumably we’ll be able to, uh, see what’s going on and uh, make uh, perhaps a major projection at that point, uh, this is a moment that a lot of people have been waiting for.  This is a moment that potentially could be rather historic.

“Potentially could be rather historic.” What a dolt.

Saw this at the Dish.

This post is somewhat amusing — but what the hell is CBS doing allowing it on one of their affiliate sites?

Tap the keg!  Drinking game for the first presidential debate

OK, sorry about so many videos.  But some good stuff to share.

Let’s take a look at Sarah Palin’s response to Charles Gibson’s inquiry about the Bush Doctrine:

Now, what does this remind me of?

Oh yeah, that’s what.

Interesting article from the hometown newspaper. 

Sarah Kugler, Anchorage Daily News, writes:

Obama hasn’t asked for any earmarks this year. Last year, he asked for $311 million worth, about $25 for every Illinois resident. Alaska asked this year for earmarks totaling $198 million, about $295 for every Alaska citizen.

Palin has cut back on pork project requests, but under her administration, Alaska is still and by far the largest per-capita consumer of federal pet-project spending.

Even The Wall Street Journal (a part of that elitist liberal media?) has an articlechallenging Palin’s claims about the bridge.  It reads:

But Gov. Palin’s claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.

I don’t blame Palin for trying to do everything she could to represent her constituents by battling for federal aid. That is a reasonable role for a mayor or governor.  But lying about her record to fit some fictional narrative that more easily applies to a national campaign is a different matter.  Hopefully the media and the Obama campaign will expose the facts.

I hope the Obama campaign can convince the public that McCain and Palin are not mavericks.  McCain was, perhaps, a maverick, but has since shown himself to be a conventional Republican (except perhaps more Hawkish than many).  As for Palin, there seems to be little evidence that she stood up against Republicans in her own state until it became politically necessary to do so. 

But, Republicans are skilled at repeating an untruth enough that the public believes it. Sarah Palin is a reformer who stands up against entrenched interests. Oh yeah? When? How?  Doesn’t matter. Republicans repeat the line and people will buy it, unless the media or Obama can expose it as a fantasy.  With the media having been fairly intimidated by the sexism and elitism charges, that leaves the Obama campaign to push back. I am starting to worry that it is not enough.

The “controversy” ginned up by Matt Drudge about Sarah Palin not being invited by Oprah to appear on her show is nonsense.  There’s no reason why Oprah should have to have Palin on her show.  The fact that Barack Obama appeared on her show before he declared his presidential candidacy in no way compels her to take a standing vice presidential candidate on the air less than two months before the election.  Sure, Oprah is an Obama supporter, but then her show isn’t supposed to be an impartial news broadcast and she is under no journalistic ethical obligation to interview Sarah Palin.

This is yet another example of how Matt Drudge has disappointingly turned against Obama, as I wrote in an earlier post.