Poor Tina Fey

Poor Tina Fey. She's a victim of politics....even though a) She openly
supported Hillary Clinton during the Democrat primary in 2008 b)
She openly supported Barack Obama when he won the primary

Quote from Vogue article:

Ever since her devastatingly funny Sarah Palin impressions, she has
for the first time in her life attracted unwanted attention—and hate
mail. "People started projecting politics onto me," she says.
"There are people who hate me now because of that." Fey's parents
are Republicans, and she herself is an Independent.

Geez, if you don't want people to "project politics" on you, then maybe you
shouldn't be advocating for one side. Just a thought.

This is what Fey said on September of 2008:

"I want to be done playing this lady Nov. 5, so if anyone could help me
be done playing her on Nov. 5, that would be good for me," Fey said,
adding that she was totally resistant in acknowledging her uncanny
physical resemblance to Palin until her young daughter turned on the
TV and teased "that's mummy."

What is it with comedians? They want to lambaste politicians they don't like while
simultaneously claim they aren't very political. Bull crap.

Invoking FDR

I bought Amity Shlaes "The Forgotten Man" a few weeks but really hadn't
made time to read it. While I reading the section about how FDR campaigned
and his economic philosophy during the Great Depression, I couldn't help but
think of President Obama. I know earlier this year there were claims that
Obama was trying to invoke FDR. After reading one particular chapter in the
book, I can absolutely see why!

I'm going to give you snippets and tell me if they don't remind you if President
Obama and the current Democrats.

Snippet 1 (p. 128):

The candidate also did not mind assailing the wealthy, a feature rare in
loyal culture of his class.

All this horrified some Democratic colleagues. Al Smith gave a speech at
the Democrat's Jefferson Day dinner, taking issue with the way Roosevelt
and others seemed willing to assail others: "We seems to seek negative
victory rather than affirmative victory," he told his party. "I will take
off my coat and fight to the end against any candidate who persists in any
demagogic appeal to the masses of the working people of this country to
destroy themselves by setting class against class and rich against poor."

Haven't we been hearing constantly about the Wall Street "fat cats."

This part also sounded familiar:

Roosevelt offered yet more ideas- again, contradictory, and more political
and moral than economic. On the one hand, he stuck to old and conservative
policies. He talked like Hoover about how "government, of all kinds, big and
little, be made solvent." He complained about high taxes: government "costs
too much." One the other had, he made expansive statements whose import
was hard to gauge.

I.e. supposed middle class tax cuts that have been the mantle of Republican
economic policy for decades.

Let's continue the paragraph:

The country, he believed, had grown too fast: beyond "our natural and
normal growth." The problem was there had been "an era of selfishness."
There existed "throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the
political philosophy" of the last years.

See Obama calling for a new era of responsibility.

Next sentence:

These people "look for us for guidance and for more equitable opportunity
to share in the distribution of national wealth."

Hmm. Sounds like Obama got his "spread the wealth around" comment from
FDR.

A couple of sentences down:

Roosevelt also assigned blame to Hoover and Coolidge for the inflation
that they both wrongly believed was doing the damage.

Obama and Democrats have spent most of their time assigning blame to
Bush and Republicans.

These paragraph really reminded of Obama's whole '08 campaign (p. 136):

This vision was a darker one than had prevailed in the 1920s.
Where Americans- even the very poorest of Americans, such
as Father Divine's constituents souls- had believe in a future of
plenty, Roosevelt believed in a future of scarcity. The paradox
was that he presented the message in a framework of
optimism, to the music of the tune "Happy Days," and with,
simultaneously, and unspoken offer of an end to Prohibition.

That is what always perplexed about the '08 presidential campaign: Why
was the candidate who made it seem like everyone is poor and treated
unfairly the candidate of hope? That's not hope.

This just goes to prove the Democratic Party is not the party of new ideas.
It's still the party of FDR, wrought with class warfare. Well there is one thing
different from the Democrats of the '30s and those of today. Back then
the Democratic Party wasn't beholden to isolationists (the reason why I love
FDR), so now they have the worst of both worlds.

You Know: The Remix

Music to my ears:

Caroline Kennedy, You've Just Been Palin-ized!

I sorta touched on the media double standards in the whole Caroline Kennedy vs.
Sarah Palin qualifications debate in my last post. Ace writes this in response to an
Op-ed published in yesterday's edition of Washington Post:

Meanwhile, it is believed that Sarah Palin did some light volunteering work
herself, raising the profile of Alaska by accepting the figurehead position of "governor."

Avoiding the press? Check.

Giving answers in a sometimes-unpolished vernacular? Check.

Unable at times to clearly answer questions? Check.

But Princess Caroline is just like other women, so she's qualified,
unlike Sarah Palin, who's unlike many other women in the sense
that she's been the governor of a state and has negotiated multibillion
dollar deals with large oil companies and foreign governments.

Also note that with Sarah Palin off the stage (for the moment), it's
safe once again for the MSM to begin pedaling the sexism card.
Sexism was an important concern when Hillary was running; then
not so much when Palin was being attacked; and now that Princess
Caroline is running asking her relatives to make phone calls to get
her appointed, it's back.

Funny how the timing always works out so joyously to liberals'
benefit. Why, if I didn't know any better, I'd suspect some
kind of double-standard or something.

I wonder if the double standard also has to do with Gov. Palin's looks.
Here me out now. She's a former beauty queen. The left called her
"Caribou Barbie." Tina Fey's now famous impression (which is getting
her major props from the media) made sure to remind us she's a former
beauty queen:



In my previous post about women in politics I noted that woman politicos are
stereotyped as either Elle Woods (high maintenance beauty queens) or Tracy
Flick (cold, calculating, and overly driven). Gov. Palin was carefully painted as the
Elle Woods, beauty queen type by the left, therefore, one can question her credentials
and intellect. Caroline Kennedy, however, has not been casted as the Elle Woods
stereotype, therefore, in their mindset it's sexist to question her resume or intellect
even if she does sound like teenager, you know? It was just a bad interview! You
know!

I don't think it's sexist to question a woman's qualifications, you know. However, I do
think it's sexist to question one can be a mother and do her job (as happened with Gov.
Palin). I still don't think the media realizes their double standard.

If Caroline Kennedy ends up being Senator Caroline Kennedy, it's because she was not
successfully 'Palin-ized'. So even though Caroline Kennedy and Sarah Palin have
similarities; weak resumes, carefully managed, unpolished vernacular, only one was a
former beauty queen. And with our superficial media does that make a difference?
You betcha!

Coleman's Lead Down to Two

No way! I can't believe that Al Franken might be a U.S. Senator.
I guess some decorum in political discourse is absolutely out the
window.

Blagojevich Heads Back to Work

This should be awkward for his co-workers. Here's what I imagined a conversation
between Gov. Blagojevich and one of his co-workers went like:

Co-worker: How are you doing crooked Governor?

Gov. Blagojevich: Oh, just fine. I'm just hoping I don't get impeached or
go to jail. Other than that my day is swell. How is your day going?

Co-worker: I must admit it's kind of jarring to see news reports about my
crooked and arrogant boss splattered across the nation. I already knew you
were a jerk, I didn't know about the whole putting a U.S. senate seat
for sale. Other than that my day is splendid.

Gov. Blagojevich: Alright. I have to head to my office now and avoid the
press all day.

Will Universal Health Care Pass?

Apparently President-elect Obama has in mind the failed attempts of the
Clinton administration to pass universal health care when he tries to tackle
the issue very soon. From the AP

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama and his aides are
determined not to repeat the mistakes the Clinton administration
made 15 years ago in trying to revamp the nation's health care
system. That means applying some of the lessons learned — moving
fast, seizing momentum and not letting it go.

Tom Daschle, Obama's point man on the issue, discussed the early
strategy, although details of Obama's proposals won't be finalized
for a while. Already, however, the political and public relations
parts are coming into place.

The strategy begins with giving people the chance to highlight their
concerns and experiences. Daschle invited people around the nation
to hold what amounts to house parties from Dec. 15-31. Obama's
transition team will gather the information from those meetings and
post the material on its Web site, http://change.gov.

I think one difference between the 1990s and now is there is more public support
for universal health care. I've found conflicting polls, some say Americans favor
universal health care and others not so much. So I'm not exactly sure where the
majority of people stand. But my guess is that we've an increase support for health
care reform since the 1990s. Look at this video of people protesting Hillary Clinton
during a rally on health care in Seattle:



Can you imagine this happening today? Actually, I live in Texas and went to
both a Hillary and Obama rally and heard many people in line saying that want
universal health care passed. No one booed when the Democratic candidates
talked about universal health care. Also, Hillary and Obama went all over the
country during the Democratic primary (north, south, west, and east) and universal
health care was the major topic during the Democratic debates. Did anyone hear
of a protest about universal health care? I didn't. So my guess is the Democrats
are probably going to pass universal health care and we are going to have little
(probably some) public outcry about it. What do you think? Will Congress pass
universal health care and will there be public support or dissent?

SNL on the Bailout

Angry Al

Wow:



If I'm not mistaken they were predicting that Norm Coleman was
probably not going to be able to get re-elected, until Al Franken.
What was the DSCC thinking? Franken is a partisan running in an election
year when so many are saying they want more civility and bi-partisanship.

Good News: Democratic National Convetion to be Celebrified

All the cool people will be attending. But always remember who will be
the biggest celebrity there: Barack Obama. Have you donated yet to
have a chance to go backstage to meet Barack?:

Would Hillary Clinton Been the Better Fall Candidate?

With Sen. Barack Obama leveling off on the polls, I think it's a good question
to ask: Would Hillary Clinton been the better choice to lead the Democrats
to a win in November? Victor Davis Hanson thinks she would have been the
winning candidate:

Barack Obama and John McCain are running neck and neck.

Impossible?

It would seem so. Republican President Bush still has less
than a 30 percent approval rating. Headlines blare that
unemployment and inflation are up -- even if we aren't,
technically, in a recession. Gas is around $4 a gallon. Housing
prices have nosedived. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, has been
indicted -- another in a line of congressional Republicans
caught in financial or sexual scandal.

Meanwhile, the GOP's presumptive candidate, John McCain,
is 71 years old. The Republican base thinks he's lackluster
and too liberal.

So, everyone is puzzled why the Democratic candidate isn't
at least 10 points ahead. It seems the more Americans get
used to Barack Obama, the less they want him as president --
and the more Democrats will soon regret not nominating
Hillary Clinton.

After such a tightly contested primary the question was likely to present itself. I
think it's very possible she would have been the stronger candidate. During the
primaries polls showed that she beat Sen. Obama on the Commander in Chief question.
I also think the American people associate good economic times (perhaps unjustly or
justly) with the Clintons. So that might issue might have given her a commanding lead
on that issue. I also think she would have been much better talking off-the-cuff than
Sen. Obama.


Of course, the Clintons have their setbacks as Ed Morrissey points out:

Well, maybe. After a season of Barack Obama as the nominee
and his serial gaffes and contortionist flip-flops, it’s easy to forget
that Hillary could have been even worse for the Democrats. Early
on, Republicans salivated at the thought of having Hillary as a
fundraiser, tapping into the palpable hatred of the Clintons to
fire up the base regardless of who the GOP nominated to run
against her. Thanks to the long track record of the Clintons,
they had plenty of ammunition to remind people just how
tawdry their first occupancy of the White House turned out to
be.

Yes, the Clintons have a long history of scandals. The one that immediately comes
to mind is the Monica Lewinsky scandal. However, Hillary is not at fault for that;
that was Bill Clinton's affair. Also, I'm curious how much that issue will resonate
today. We've just spent the past seven years fighting terrorism, we're engaging in
two wars and other important issues. I wonder how many people look back to the
whole impeachment trials with such triviality. In fact, it might even remind people
the vicious way the GOP can go after someone.

I think the main issue Hillary Clinton would have had to fight against is the whole
family dynasty conundrum. And, yes, that would have been a big problem to overcome.
Also, let's face it she ran a poor campaign in the beginning. After a couple of staff
changes her campaign went into full gear but it was too late by then.

If Sen. Obama loses (although I think his chances of winning are good), the Democratic
Party might have second thoughts about how their primary played out. I also believe
if the Democrats suffer another lose they will tell the MoveOn.org's of their Party to
take a hike and that would be a good thing for them and America. I say this because
I think one reason why Hillary Clinton is not the nominee right now is because
MoveOn.org did not want her to win.

I think at the end end of the day both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton proved not
be the strong candidates we once thought they were. Perhaps, the question shouldn't
be 'Who would've been the stronger candidate in the fall?' but 'Why after being kept
out of the White House for years they still couldn't come up with a home run candidate?'

Pelosi: 'I'm Trying To Save the Planet"

Hey Nancy, how about worrying about just getting your legislative duties done
in the United States' Congress first, alright?

Does Enthusiam Matter?

A CNN poll finds shows Democrats are "extremely enthusiastic" about voting this
year and Republicans, not so much. From the CNN.com article:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Republican party may face tough
times at the polls come November, according to results of a new
national survey.

Sixty-three percent of Democrats questioned say they are either
extremely or very enthusiastic about voting this year. Only 37
percent of Republicans feel the same way, and 36 percent of
Republicans say they are not enthusiastic about voting.

"Republicans are far less enthusiastic about voting than Democrats
are, and enthusiasm has plummeted among GOPers since the start
of the year," said Keating Holland, CNN polling director. "There was
already an 'enthusiasm gap' in January, when Democrats were 11
points higher than GOPers on this measure. Now, that gap has grown
to 26 points."

"Bottom line: After eight years of the Bush presidency, Republicans
are demoralized," said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst.

My immediate thought: Who cares about enthusiasm? Isn't voting about electing
someone whose policies you agree with and can best do the job? Voting is a civic
duty, I never realized I'm suppose to be pumped up about pulling the lever.

Also, this should be a clear signal to John McCain that he needs to choose a
Vice-President candidate who can brings a spark life into his campaign. Someone
more media friendly, perhaps.

Will the Democratic Primary End Tomorrow?

Finally, it there seems to an end in sight. Obama is looking to win
over the number of superdelegates needed to put him over the top.
Bill Clinton told supporters, "I want to say also that this may be the
last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind." However,
tomorrow's speech will not likely be a concession speech, blogger
Marc Ambinder reports, but a suspension, according to Thomas B.
Edsall.

So, we will see tomorrow exactly what she will do.

Update: Let's remember she's given us some lovely moments during
this election so far. I can think of these two so far:

More on appeasement

Heh. President Bush has been the Democrats punching bag for past
few years. Why are they so surprised that sometimes when you hit
something hard enough sometimes it comes swinging back? I just
can't understand their outrage. Do they just want him to spend the
last year in his presidency not saying anything and not defend his
policies. Another thing is that President Bush didn't mention the
Democratic Party or anyone in particular. Why all the defensiveness?