I Don't Like You Either.

More Liveblogging of the Republican Debate. Selected Quotes from Swampland and Wonkette!

Don't you people take ANYTHING seriously?   Not too, you say?  Then check out the following:

Swampland, LIVEBLOGGING:  THE GOP REAGAN LIBRARY DEBATE, by Ana Marie Cox (YAY!).

A few selected AMC quotes:

1. 7:59PM: LIEBERMAN is there. At the right debate at least.
2. 8:07PM: Tommy Thompson and his GIANT EARS OF JUSTICE
3. 8:31PM Romney loves America. His father, not so much -- he was born in Mexico, after all... since the family fled the U.S. in order to practice polygamy. What was the question about amending the Constitution again?
4. 8:32PM Roe v Wade repealed? "It would be ok," says Rudy. Yeah, ok. Okay. You know, ok.
5. 8:34PM "I've always been personally pro-life," says Romney. I have no further joke.
6. 8:58PM Romney just completely dodged the stem cell question. Also, love Matthews making it ABOUT NANCY. Brownback: "We can't 'create people to cure people.'" CREATE PEOPLE? McCain says what most sane people think: let's try to cure people.
7. 9:13PM Ron Paul: "I trust the internet a lot more." Can I get that on a bumper sticker? Or as a pin for my tin foil hat?
8. 9:15PM Rudy: "I try to look at the half full glass, rather than the half empty glass." You realize, Rudy, that there is only one glass, right? Okay.

[quote ends; link to Fox News Romney-bio with heavy emphasis on polygamy and importance of polygamy to Romney's family added by me.  I couldn't care less about that, but he'd better start adjusting since, you know, I found the link on FOX, who make sure you  know what a big part polygamy played in the lives of the Romney clan (while Romney's wife had that really snappy rejoinder)]

FOR WONKETTE LINKS AND SELECTED QUOTES, CLICK ON LINK BELOW!

Erik Ose in Salon. "I Saw John Edwards in the Shampoo Aisle."

I've been roundly rebuked by one or two of my friends for gently---gently!---mocking John Edwards' "Two Americas" haircut and defending Maureen Dowd against charges of being a catty little snip. 

So I feel honor-bound to point out this article at Salon:  "I Saw John Edwards in the Shampoo Aisle."  So, anyhow, Erik Ose was in the shampoo aisle at a neighborhood grocery store and he saw John Edwards in shorts and a T-shirt. Erik Ose didn't actually see him buy any shampoo products, but he did note that when asked his preference, Edwards chose plastic bags over paper.  This is,  I believe, the environmentally friendly thing to do these days, provided that the bags are recyclable and he takes them back. Plastic saves trees. 

[quote begins from Salon by Erik Ose "I Saw John Edwards in the Shampoo Aisle."]

He used the regular checkout lane, chose plastic over paper, and put his own cart away before leaving. Edwards may have gotten two overpriced haircuts on the campaign trail, but when he's home, hanging out with his kids, he goes to the grocery store like everyone else. That should count for something.

[quote ends]

Erik Ose doesn't think that the media should be covering "issues" (sarcastic quotation marks his) such as a candidate's haircut when so much is at stake.  One of the things that's at stake is whether John Edwards spends more on two haircuts than some people earn in a month.  While this issue shouldn't be dispositive of anything at all, it isn't entirely irrelevant, any more than W's promise to build back Trent Lott's house after Katrina is irrelevant.  Both reflect a certain insensitivity to context.  Both reflect the exact way in which, as Fitzgerald said, the rich are different from you and me. 

Ose speaks stirringly of Edwards platform and he isn't wrong as to its (or Edwards') merits but none of that alters the incongruity of Edwards' conduct.  In a political campaign in this country, congruity is of the essence.  It's just as well for Edwards and the Edwards campaign to learn this sooner rather than later.  If it didn't sink in with the "I Feel Pretty" videotape, it had better sink in with this.   

CONCLUSION.  I REALLY LIKE John Edwards.  I might vote for him over the other candidates..  That said, I was not best pleased that he (or his handlers) didn't take note of the aforesaid incongruity.   I am not voting solely for a platform but also (if I vote for Edwards) for the man.  Therefore neither I---nor anyone else----should be expected to listen to people who argue that these small but telling incidents don't matter.

Among other things, it is---or will be---grist to the mill of the Republicans' campaign.  I don't want to see Dems handing to Republicans the weapons to be used against them.

UPDATE.  Kudos to him for his handling of this issue last night in the debates.  Just keep saying the same thing till everyone shuts up, J. E.. 

Quote of the Day for 26 April 2007. Giuliani: Democrats "Will Wave the White Flag on Iraq...Cut Back on the Patriot Act, Electronic Surveillance, [and] Interrogation."

Yes; and?  I thought we'd kind of worked out by now that there are significant drawbacks to all of those things.  No?  Though I am not sure about "interrogation" because I don't know what he means.  I am sure most Dems are all for aggressive interrogation short of acts that civilized countries agree constitute "torture," so I'm not sure what he means here unless he means the sort of thing John Warner and Lyndsay Graham and McCain were worried about once upon a time.

As for "waving the white flag," I don't think that's what the Dems mean to do at all.  What was it Bush said?  MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!  Saddam's gone and Al-Quaeda rushed in to fill the power vacuum as everyone but the Administration knew it would.  Are we really supposed to stay there till that's all settled?  Because that'll take years.  All I'm saying is:  consider your priorities carefully, good people. 

[quote begins from The Politico by Roger Simon, Giuliani 9-11 Remark Draws Angry Reply]

"If any Republican is elected president -- and I think, obviously, I would be the best at this -- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what (the terrorists) will do and try to stop them before they do it," Giuliani said....

If we are on defense (with a Democratic president), we will have more losses and it will go on longer."

"I listen a little to the Democrats, and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense," Giuliani continued. "We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense....

"The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us."

After his speech to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner, I asked him about his statements and Giuliani said flatly: "America will be safer with a Republican president."...

"This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!" Giuliani said in his speech. "Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!"

[quote ends]

"Obamanomics." The Wall Street Journal Online Weighs In. My Comments and a Cautionary Note to the Obama Campaign.

The Wall Street Journal Online has an article today discussing the emerging picture of Obama's probable economic policies.  It is fraught with interest, for Democrats, Obama supporters, and the sort of people who have to read The Wall Street Journal.   

As a bonus, its subsidiary title accurately points out exactly what the Obama campaign needs to do, or do more conspicuously  ("Democratic Candidate is Just Beginning to Fill in the Blanks.")  In Obama's case, that's what is needed more than anything else.  Everyone ALREADY knows (to quote Deborah Solomon in the above-linked article) about "his biography, his charisma, and his early opposition to the Iraq war.  And---speaking as a centrist Democrat---none of that would ever be enough to get him my vote in the primaries. 

As I've said before, what's needed for the next go-round isn't charisma, but gravitas.  The last thing I want at this crucial juncture in the history of our country and at this crossroads, maybe, in the fate of the entire world, is glamour.  I need to hear more about what Obama is planning to do if elected.  So far, his campaign isn't doing a stellar job of getting the press to focus on that (perhaps because the press has already tacitly crowned Queen Hillary to lead us out of the darkness?)

I've set out my own thoughts on this article, for what they're worth.  I have a pretty keen sense of what changes in economic policy I would like to see in favor of my own interests, but very little sense---I want to be clear about this---about how such changes, if implemented, would affect the national and global economy.  The economy is one of those systems that you can't tweak selectively because every tweak affects every component. 

I know or "know" or at least have read or been told that one reason for allowing the wealthy to keep a lot of their money is because they traditionally recycle it, thereby sustaining industry and creating new jobs and paying the salaries of the worker bees like you and me and the benefits of people who are not employed. 

Or, to quote Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead:  "I don't know, but I've been told, if the horse won't pull you have to carry the load." So it really might be true, or partly true, or more true than not, that some of the run-off from the flow of tax breaks going to the wealthy eventually trickle into my little cup.

I know or "know" or have been told that tax policies that look pretty lumpy from a distance sometimes are put into place in order to lubricate the gears of some other part of the system that ultimately spins out benefits for everyone.  If you are a conservative, you believe this with all your heart.  If you are a liberal, you are skeptical.  If you are a progressive, you think it's a pack of lies.  If you are me, you don't know what to think. 

The little cup I'm holding out is half-full, which means it is also half-empty.  Will Obama or some other Democrat contrive to fill it?   And if so, with what and from where or whom? Aye, there's the rub.  Work it out for yourself.   If you want to see the inside scoop on "Obamanomics" (a word I can foresee getting very tired of very quickly), you can look at his official website.

Anyway:  the article.  Deborah Solomon remarks:

Edwards: Running Into Maureen Dowd's Scissors.

Since I'm dissing (but affectionately!)  candidates right and left, I don't want to leave out John Edwards.

I love John Edwards as much as I love Barack Obama.  For one thing, Edwards is a Carolina boy, from my old homestate.  His accent, which allegedly strikes many people as effete  is the way everyone from his neck of the woods sounds.  It's that down east drawl and it sounds plenty manly to me, if manliness is what people feel they need .  (I'm not so sure). 

I'm very fond of it and of him.  Furthermore, I love him for his stand on the rights and needs of the poor and disenfranchised.  He's a good person too.  The "I Feel Pretty" video didn't bother me.  I find it sweet.

I don't mind that the current Democrat contenders are flawed human beings; my favorite part of a campaign are the moments when the candidates forget that there is a part to play and a script for the character.  I like that sort of thing.  I don't think the flubs make a bit of difference to people who form the Democrats' base because, you see, a large proportion of them are pretty tolerant.  I doubt they make much difference to the sort of independent who would be at all likely to vote for either one.  In any case I'm sick of feeling as if I am voting for a package rather than a person.  I like it when they fall down and tear their wrappings so their real faces peep out for a moment.

For this reason,  I don't much care that Maureen Dowd made fun of Edwards' $400 haircuts and possible other titivations.   Come on, it IS funny that he got caught out for having spent $800 on his hair.  $800?  That's the cost of a ticket to visit my husband's family in England, for God's sake. He needs to get called out for it.

It was a genuine flub.  Laura Bush, First Lady for a president who never exactly claimed poverty as his issue, can have a $700 haircut, but John Edwards, who speaks powerfully and sincerely on behalf of the least fortunate and most under-represented people in our society, had better forego the decorative touches, particularly when they cost more than some of those people's monthly rent.  If Edwards' handlers don't know that, they'd better learn it sooner rather than later----or try to find someone like "Duane Delacourt" from the Carter years Doonesbury Strips to be in charge of managing their symbols. 

Has the Straight Talk Express Gone Off the Rails?

McCain sings.**

Joe Klein at  Swampland:  "This is about as funny as the video President Bush searching under his desk for the missing weapons of mass destruction. I guess, with Imus gone, McCain needed an outlet for his boys room sense of humor."

I didn't think this parody ("Bomb bomb bomb/Bomb bomb Iran") was funny the first time I heard it---way back 25-odd years ago when we all thought we'd learned that you never go to war till you absolutely have to.  Contrary to what younger people seem to assume, it's not something McCain made up.  But you know what, I've changed my mind. 

Some time back I said that even though I'd never vote for McCain we could do worse.  What was I thinking?  There is no "worse."   Unlike Klein, this former South Carolinian thinks this video is hilarious.  Though not for the same reasons as McCain's  South Carolina "base."

**Whoops!  The videotape was removed earlier today "due to use violations" but has since been restored.  The story by Declan McCullagh is here at CNET.  File that one under things that make you go, "WTF?"

UPDATE. McCain thinks critics of his joke should "get a life."  What a trenchant comeback!

[quote begins from The Washington Post, McCain Message to Joke Critics:  Get a Life]

"Please, I was talking to some of my old veterans friends," he told reporters. "My response is, Lighten up and get a life."

When reporters asked if the joke was insensitive, McCain said: "Insensitive to what? The Iranians?"

McCain's joke, which was circulating on the Internet, was prompted by an audience question in Murrells Inlet, S.C., about whether he believes the U.S. should send Iran "an airmail message to Tehran."

After his joke, McCain turned serious and said that he agrees with President Bush that the United States must protect Israel from Iran and work to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. McCain has long said that the military option should not be taken off the table but that it should be used only as a last resort.

[quote ends]

I am not one; I love these moments when the candidates forget that they are on the national stage and say what they really think.   

The old McCain that moderate Democrats sort of respected?  He's evolved to fill the ecological niche on his party's rightward right wing.  And the evidence indicates, as Ana Marie Cox comments at Swampland, is that in the process of doing so he has made himself significantly less acceptable to the general public. 

Gringrich Says Personal Lives of Candidates Shouldn't be an Issue in 2008.

Yet another glorious piece of political irony from the Republicans:  First, Gingrich recently admitted that he was having an affair during the time he was bravely hounding Bill Clinton over the Lewinski scandal and helping to pave the way for impeachment.

Now that he's considering making a run for the presidency himself, he suggests that the personal lives of candidates shouldn't be an issue in 2008.

[quote begins from NewsChannel 5 in Nashville]

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said in Nashville that the personal lives of White House hopefuls shouldn't become an issue in the 2008 campaign.

Earlier this month Gingrich said he was seeking forgiveness for his own extramarital affair committed while he pursued President Clinton's impeachment in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

[quote ends]

Newt, Newt, Newt.   I couldn't agree more; and I'm the first to say we should let bygones be bygones.  I couldn't care less about your little indiscretion; it's none of my business (which was basically my position on the Lewinski scandal).  And you haven't proved to be substantially more hypocritical than the other Republicans who seemed determine to spend whatever time and resources were necessary to punish Clinton for lying about Monica. 

So, all together now:   WE FORGIVE YOU, NEWT!!

There now.  Whew!   I feel much better about the whole Clinton impeachment debacle. 

My House, Divided! And You Know the Rest of the Line.

[published on July 12, 2005 in "The Flatland Oracles," my previous blog]

for the record, I've done a 180 about Senator Lieberman since writing this.  They were right; I was wrong.  Honesty compels me to include this.

See, this REALLY ANNOYS ME:

Arianna Huffington: Bill Clinton: Dems Shouldn't Be Divided By Differences Over Iraq.

[quote from Arianna Huffington's blog begins; I left in her links in case you want to look at the sources]

The headline grabber was, of course, Joe "Greater Loyalties" Lieberman filing papers to form a new party called Connecticut for Lieberman, just in case this whole letting-Democratic-primary-voters-decide thing doesn't work out in August. Cue Simon & Garfunkel: "Where have you gone, Joe Lieberman, a Party turns its disgusted eyes to you. Woo woo woo. What's that you say, Mrs. Boxer, Boltin' Joe has left and gone away? Hey, hey, hey."