Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

Recent posts

about

  • Joe “No Show”

    John McCain’s latest campaign prop and middle east advisor, Joe the Plumber who is not really a plumber, let down his sponsor today. He didn’t show up at a rally in Ohio and McCain futilely called on the absent non-plumber to show himself and fire up the crowd. Apparently, Maverick John and Show Boater Joe had not co-ordinated their joint appearance properly.

    DEFIANCE, Ohio — Where was Joe?

    Here in Defiance — a town that sums up the mood of Senator John McCain right now – the Republican nominee gave a shoutout this morning to America’s most famous plumber, Joe Wurzelbacher, who was, or so the candidate thought, in the audience.

    “Joe’s with us today!’’ Mr. McCain hollered at a cold outdoor rally at Defiance Junior High School. “Joe, where are you? Where is Joe? Is Joe here with us today?’’

    Nothing.

    “Joe, I thought you were here today,’’ Mr. McCain continued, with dimmed enthusiasm.

    Still nothing. The crowd murmured.

    “All right,’’ Mr. McCain said, realizing that Joe was nowhere to be found. “Well, you’re all the Joe the Plumbers! So all of you stand up and say’’ – Mr. McCain was interrupted here by cheers. “I thank you. You know, I saw Joe on television this morning, he did a great job. And wherever you are Joe, let’s give him a round of applause for what he has done for America.’’

  • Hockey Mama for Obama

    Another heartfelt, operatic endorsement of Obama. (link: Sujatha)

  • A Time to Rally (Sujatha)

    (Cross-posted from Fluff’ n’ Stuff)

    I nearly talked myself out of it
    quite successfully. I hate crowds and queues, I get migraines when I
    have to be in enclosed spaces for more than a couple of hours, couldn’t
    manage the timing with the kids getting back from school, they were
    going to cover the event on live television and everyone know that you
    get a better view on HDTV anyway, so I would be better off watching it
    at home.     And yet, barely four
    hours later, I was waiting with my son in midst of a crowd of about 13, 000
    screaming and adoring fans of …Barack Obama the political rockstar.

    (more…)

  • Post-Restoration Poetry and Campaign 2008 (Dean)

    Stanley Fish is famous for taking seemingly gratuitously extreme, provocative positions for the sake of aggravating his readers, many of whom wrongly associate him with a bland, outmoded flavor of so-called postmodern "thought." (That’s a topic for another day’s post.) His occasional columns in the New York Times typically generate polar responses in the comments when, for example, he writes in favor of an absolute prohibition against teachers revealing their political preferences in class. His latest column has largely avoided the intense disagreement, despite the fact that he casts the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates as, respectively, Jesus and Satan.

    Jesus and Satan, that is, as depicted in the poetry of John Milton. Obama’s campaign style has been passive and calm, while "[t]he McCain campaign huffs and puffs and jumps from charge to charge…"

    What’s going on here? I find an answer in a most unlikely place, John Milton’s “Paradise Regained,” a four-book poem in which a very busy and agitated Satan dances around a preternaturally still Jesus until, driven half-crazy by the response he’s not getting, the arch-rebel (i.e., maverick) loses it, crying in exasperation, “What dost thou in this world?”

    This post has apparently garnered more than the usual proportion of favorable responses. Leave it to Fish to render Milton pertinent to a 2008 US presidential election, and to do it without forcing an analogy. He locates the wisdom of the poetry and brings it to bear on the current scene. I appreciate his attention to words: each party affords "discipline and care" different shades of meaning. (Nobody, on the other hand, disputes the significance of "a boatload of money.") The Jesus/Satan business is all Milton’s doing, of course, characters in a literary work, types in a cosmology, perhaps. Fish just happens to know more about the underlying work—not to mention its enduring vitality—than anybody else on the planet.

  • Lunatic Brooks (Joe)

    David Brooks is a lunatic. Well, either that or he’s writing his columns in bad faith, and I’d hate to accuse anyone of something so insulting as willful dishonesty. So he must just be some combination of stupid and insane!

    In today’s column, Brooks starts off by espousing his own flavor of Burkean ridiculousness, I mean, elitism, I mean, philosophy. (Actually, you could probably say the same thing about 99 percent of his columns!) Anyhow, he does his little rant about how he thought McCain was going to save the GOP by reforming it. He was going to prove he could reform the United States by reforming the Republican Party. But then a funny thing happened: John McCain acted like John McCain.

    Fair enough. This looks like the "I used to respect/admire McCain because he used to be honorable/mavericky" meme that I’m sick of hearing because it’s untrue and makes the false claim that New McCain is actually different than the fictionalized, mythical Old McCain. But by the standards of professional political commentators today, it would be solidly within the realm of reasonable discourse.

    But then: No! It’s not McCain’s fault! It’s the GOP’s fault, and actually John McCain is still the old reformer who could never fail to reform except in this case because the Party screwed up his non-attempt to reform it but if he were President he would definitely reform the country!

    McCain would be an outstanding president. In government, he has almost
    always had an instinct for the right cause. He has become an
    experienced legislative craftsman. He is stalwart against the country’s
    foes and cooperative with its friends. But he never escaped the
    straightjacket of a party that is ailing and a conservatism that is
    behind the times. And that’s what makes the final weeks of this
    campaign so unspeakably sad.

    Got it? Because I’m not sure I do. Even though New McCain failed to run a presidential campaign or to fix his party, he’s still Old McCain and would therefore run a good Administration and fix the country? Because I’ve already forgotten that I’m so sad about all his failures that I just devoted this column to, and on a bigger stage and with infinitely higher stakes I’m just going to assume that he would do things right this time and indeed I’m going to give him credibility as if he had done the exact opposite of what he’s done in this campaign?

  • B Movie (Sujatha)

    This morning, the local channels and newspapers were abuzz with the news report that a young McCain campaign worker had been robbed and assaulted near an ATM in Pittsburgh.

    [Ashley]Todd is a 20-year old Texas woman, a volunteer for the McCain-Palin
    campaign, who told police she was robbed and attacked by a man in
    Bloomfield.
    A police report states that Todd said the incident occurred around 9 p.m. Wednesday night near an ATM.
    Todd said she made her ATM withdrawal and was approached from behind by a man who put a knife to her neck and demanded money.
    She said she gave him $60 and managed to step away from the robber.
    But, then Todd claimed the mugger spotted a McCain sticker on her car, and became angry.
    She
    said she was punched in the back of the head, knocked to the ground and
    the man etched the letter "B on the right side of her face.
    Among other things, police are checking security cameras in the neighborhood to see what, if anything, they may have recorded.

     

    Ashleytodd
    A Drudge report photo of the young woman showed a reversed letter B on her cheek, but could not be authenticated by the KDKA news channel reporters.

    The Pittsburgh police were skeptical about certain inconsistencies in Todd’s report and administered a polygraph test to her, for which they have declined to release the results. They have however released this statement regarding the changing stories Ms.Todd keeps coming up with.
    The moot point in the statement :
      "We have received photos from the ATM machine at the Citizens Bank and the photographs was verified as NOT being the victim making the transaction." (sic)

    Is the whole thing real or just a hoax perpetrated on credulous media? Is this just another blatant attempt to play on the ‘hidden racism’ in Western Pennsylvania that Congressman Murtha was castigated for talking about in regards to Obama’s chances at electoral victory here?

    The whole thing seems like the plot of a bad B movie to me.

    Update from KDKA news:

    A Pittsburgh police commander says a volunteer for the McCain campaign
    who reported being robbed and attacked near a bank ATM in Bloomfield
    has confessed to making up the story. Police say charges will be
    filed. More details to follow.

    Hmmmpf,  it’s not even a full moon, and the loonies are creeping out of the woodwork!

  • Lipstick on Pigs Part Deux (Sujatha)

    With the difficulties Ruchira has been having trying to get out even short posts while in India, she has asked me to post this for her.

    Ruchira:

    Piglipstick
    A great illustration of putting lipstick on a pig.

    It seems that the RNC spent money to dress up the entire Palin clan. So much for small town values and the maverick point of view.

    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.

    Sujatha:

    So, let’s get this straight, this cool $150,000 in Palin family clothes funded by the generous donors to the RNC, combined with Senator McCain’s $8000 makeup artist and $500 Ferragamo loafers, not to mention the tinfoilly possibility that Palin had some cosmetic surgery done in preparation for her VP bid, they are not Joe Sixpacks, as they like to style themselves, but made-up mavericks.

     

    Update(less than 10 minutes later, such is the speed of the Internets!):
    Damage Control Time:

    McCain-Palin spokesperson Tracey Schmitt’s response: "With all of the
    important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that
    we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses. It was always
    the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the
    campaign."

    So, the prospective Veep will not need the clothes after the campaign is over ??? Color me puzzled.

    And also, doggone it, why is talking about pantsuits and blouses any less important than the Ayers connection, considering the ‘important issues facing the country right now’ ? Will we talk about it? Yes we will because we can-  You betcha!

     

  • “A long-buried scandal may taint a giant’s reputation” (Dean)

    I wish I were more familiar with the works of Milan Kundera, one of whose books I read approximately fourteen thousand years ago when Philip Roth compiled a series for Penguin of then unfamiliar Eastern European writers. This story reminds me of the lingering disgrace of literary theorist Paul de Man, whose "palling around" with Nazi collaborationists in Belgium as a young adult journalist came to haunt him post-mortem and, for all practical purposes, thoroughly crush his scholarly reputation. The "taint" smeared many of his professional associates, as well, in a bizarre, juvenile episode of academic name-calling and imputation of guilt by association. (And that’s why, Ruchira, I have left the "palling around" bit in the post, contrary to your request.)

    My sense is that the literature is and ought to be protected. If Kundera’s novels were excellent, they remain so. I’m entirely open to the possibility that his writing is merely "intellectual pornography for mediocre Western readers," but that’s a judgment independent of his political misdeeds. The books are distinct from his reputation. I believe the same of de Man, whose work I continue to read and re-read. The irony, the hypocrisy in fact heighten the effect of the work.

  • The Prescience of Howard Dean (Anna)

    Clinton_slagle

    "White folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag
    decals on the back ought to be voting with us, and not [Republicans],
    because their kids don’t have health insurance either, and their kids
    need better schools too." –Howard Dean, February 2003

    "We have working white families in the South voting for tax cuts for
    the richest one percent while their children remain with no health
    care…The dividing of working people by race has been a
    cornerstone of Republican politics for the last three decades. For my
    fellow Democratic opponents to sink to this level is really tragic. The
    only way we’re going to beat George Bush is if Southern white working
    families and African-American working families come together under the
    Democratic tent, as they did under FDR." –Howard Dean, November 2003.

    Dean was roundly thrashed for these comments in the 2004 election cycle by Democrats including Joe Lieberman, who worried (ironically, as time has proved) about Dean’s "reckless" use of a "divisive" symbol, as well as by Dick Gephardt, who offered this mealy-mouthed, erroneous response:

    "I don’t want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in
    their pickup trucks. I will win the Democratic nomination because I
    will be the candidate for the guys with American flags in their pickup
    trucks."

    There are a number of reasons why the recent photo above, courtesy of Lisa Bocook via Al Giordano’s The Field, heartens me in these dark times.  At least one of those reasons is its vindication of Howard Dean’s belief that by explicitly rallying Americans against the devastating class warfare waged by the Republican Party through regressive taxation, a slash-and-burn approach to government programs, and a celebration of greed, the Democratic Party could overcome the successful, race-baiting tradition of Goldwater and Reagan, broaden its base, and win elections.

    That the candidate who may finally bring Dean’s political strategy to fruition five years and an election cycle later is not the white Dean, but rather Obama, a target of incessant, race-based attacks, does credit to the strategy, as well as to the candidate with the political talents to implement it.

  • Three Years Already!

    Accidental Blogger completes three years of its existence today – an unremarkable fact but still worth noting.  The milestone probably qualifies as middle age by the standards of the blogosphere. I am less surprised by the blog’s longevity on this anniversary than I was last year. Blogging has now become more or less a daily chore. I do it because it seems natural.  And like all daily chores, on some days it is a drag and on others, I go at it with gusto. Ours being a general interest blog, A.B. authors choose topics according to their own interests. Although some of the posts I enjoy writing most are book reviews and cultural commentaries, my main motivation for blogging continues to be politics.

    Nothing much has changed since the second annual report although no A.B. authors got married in the preceding 12 months. Mercifully therefore, I have little to say.

    I am grateful to my co-authors for good naturedly putting up with my badgering. It is also heartening that despite six different points of view expressed here, A.B. remains a harmonious place to meet and shoot the breeze. We are thankful to our regular readers for visiting our blog although we don’t hear from all of them. It will be nice if some long time readers who have maintained their silence until now, choose this year to chime in and introduce themselves. 

    As has been the practice in previous birthday posts, I am attaching one of my paintings as a celebratory gesture. And as has been the case before, the subject matter of the painting has nothing to do with the content of the post.

    (Note: This post was composed ahead of time and is set to appear when I am away on a trip. If you comment and don’t see a reply from me, it is probably because I am not checking the blog regularly.)

    Rp_dancer (click to enlarge)

  • Straight Talk (Joe)

    In the last debate, the candidates were asked if they would consider nominating someone to the Supreme Court who supported abortion rights. In a sentence that would grammatically make Palin proud, he responded, "I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test."

    Luckily, Mike Dorf is here to untangle that mess.

    Let’s try to deconstruct that. The first sentence presumably means
    something like "I would be willing to take a look at anyone who had the
    requisite professional, i.e., non-ideological, qualifications, such as
    demonstrated excellence in the law and judicial temperament." The point
    is awkwardly put, to be sure, but I think McCain’s meaning is
    reasonably clear. Now comes the tricky sentence: "I do not believe that
    someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications."  This appears to mean that whether someone has supported Roe is
    not a matter of professional qualifications, and that therefore, yes,
    McCain would consider nominating an otherwise professionally qualified
    person who had supported Roe.
    This is complicated, however, by the fact that the following sentence
    begins with "But," which suggests that McCain’s intention not to apply
    a litmus test cuts against what he has just said in the middle
    sentence. That makes no sense if the middle sentence means that McCain
    would be willing to appoint a Roe supporter.
    Hence, it seems plausible to read the middle sentence to mean something
    like the opposite of what we first think it means, namely: I
    wouldn’t reject someone who supported Roe on professional
    qualifications grounds, but that support would count against him or her
    on other, ideological grounds    .  Read this way, the final sentence simply means that while prior support for Roe is very damaging to a candidate for nomination, it is not completely disqualifying.

    Thus, taken as a whole, McCain’s three sentences should probably be read to say:
    1) The first step in my screening process for Supreme Court nominees will be to look for professionally qualified people.
    2) Prior support for Roe is
    not disqualifying in this first step, although it will count heavily
    against a potential nominee in a subsequent, ideological step.
    3)
    The ideological step, however, is not a "litmus test," i.e., it is
    theoretically possible that someone could be so well qualified along
    every other dimension that I would nominate him or her notwithstanding
    prior support for Roe.

    That should be a noncontroversial opinion. At minimum it’s pretty it’s pretty mainstream, right-of-center Republican. So why is McCain putting it so badly, i.e., incoherently? Is that too far left for the base that’s always kind of hated him? Is it too far right for the three morons left in the world who still think he’s a "maverick"?

  • Wait, he’s black now? (Joe)

    According to Giblets: yes.

    FACT! Barack Obama and sixties radical Bill Ayers were both associated
    with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a radical education foundation
    whose radical goal is to radically educate black children by educating them… while they are still black.

    FACT! Barack Obama spent twenty years
    in the same church as radically black pastor Jeremiah Wright, who has
    been known to make such incendiary claims as "white people enslaved
    black people" and "white people killed Native Americans." Is Barack
    Obama part of the international black conspiracy to trick white people
    into thinking about racism? Answer: maybe.

    FACT! Barack Obama has been friends with Rashid Khalidi, an openly Arab Arab who is so Arab he writes about other Arabs. Is Barack Obama part of the international Arab conspiracy to trick white people into thinking about Arabs? Answer: also maybe.

    It would be nice if the campaigns stopped keeping stuff like this a secret? How are those all-important undecided voters supposed to make up their minds when the important issues are neglected?

  • The Election Of The Gods

    Now its not just McCain vs Obama but also the Christian God vs Allah / Buddha / Vishnu!