Posts Tagged ‘Sarah Palin’

The Whitewash Convention

Sunday, September 9th, 2012

Bill Maher on the Republican Convention Whitewash of the Bush years.

No Bush, no Cheney, no Rumsfeld, no Bachman, John McCain relegated to a short speech out of prime time and Sarah Palin was not only not invited to the convention, but her scheduled appearances on Fox were cancelled as well, leaving her sitting in Alaska whining to the country on Facebook.  

 

 

Game Change, Sarah Palin, and The Republican Party

Sunday, March 18th, 2012


Great interview with John McCain’s 2008 campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, regarding HBO’s Game Change.

Caught the movie last Sunday. Highly Recommended.

I invited a few people over to watch it and one friend skeptically asked: “It’s a movie about Sarah Palin? Is it a comedy?”

I said “No, but it’s about Sarah Palin, so it’s probably funny as hell.”

I actually thought the movie was a sympathetic portrayal of Palin, but sympathetic is not the same as positive. Sarah Palin was a reckless choice, motivated by the imperative to win and the knowledge that winning was impossible with the usual suspects as candidates. Throughout the movie, Palin consistently demonstrates a shocking ignorance of American government, history and foreign affairs. She doesn’t understand how the Federal Reserve works, doesn’t know the difference between North Korea and South Korea, thinks that Saddam Hussein attacked America on 9-11, and believes that the Queen of England directs British foreign policy. Obviously, this is not a portrayal of a woman that would be qualified to become commander in Chief were President John McCain to die in office.

What it is, however, is a portrayal of a woman who has just given birth to a special needs child, has a 17 year old daughter who is pregnant out of wedlock, who is put in the unenviable position of being nominated for a job that she is clearly unqualified for, and is then separated from her family and thrust into the harsh glare of media scrutiny that comes with American presidential campaigns. While the movie chronicles how unprepared she was for the challenge, it also shows the adoring crowds she drew and the heartwarming connections she makes with the families of Down Syndrome children. Similarly, after scenes that show her in a downward spiral, lying on the floor of her hotel in her robe saying, “I miss my baby,” she seems reborn when John McCain brings her to his Sedona ranch to reunite with her family and begin debate prep.

While the movie portrays an erratic, sometimes petty Palin, who often seems more concerned about her own political future than that of John McCain’s, it also shows a woman who has an amazing ability to answer when the bell rings, delivering a great convention speech soon after she is plucked from Alaska, and standing toe to toe with Joe Biden for a Vice Presidential Debate on the national stage. But along with great performances on the national stage, come historic failures as Palin embarrasses herself on national TV in the Katie Couric interviews after she refuses to be coached by Nicole Wallace in the run-up to the interviews. Typical of the Palin we have grown to know over the past three years, she blames Wallace for her own lack of preparation for the interview.

Of course, Palin and her supporters have decried the movie as just another liberal media smear job, and while every movie has it’s own biases, (this one seems like it could have been written by Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace) I haven’t heard any credible refutations of the amazing gaps of knowledge that she exhibits throughout the movie.

Watching the movie was like reliving the campaign for me. I remember all of those moments vividly: Obama at the Brandenburg Gate (hard to believe he did that), the Bridge to Nowhere, the revelations of Todd Palin’s involvement in the Alaska secessionist party (“He checked the wrong box!” she exclaims), Palin’s Convention speech, and perhaps most vividly, when the campaign greenlighted her Bill Ayers attack and Republicans started showing up at McCain events yelling “Obama’s a terrorist!” One of the strongest images of the campaign was the look on John McCain’s face when he took that mic away from the crazy lady when she said that she couldn’t trust Obama, because, “he’s an Arab.”

“This is not the kind of campaign I wanted to run,” McCain says to Steve Schmidt after the event.

Just as vividly, I remember the fierce debates I had with my conservative uncle and other Republican diehards about whether Palin was just as qualified as Obama was for the job. Despite fiercely defending Palin, my uncle has consistently insisted that Obama’s “only qualifications” for President were that “he reads good speeches off of a teleprompter.” I think this movie (and, more importantly, the primary sources it is based on) clears up this debate: Aside from the star power and the hype, Sarah Palin is nothing like Barack Obama. Barack Obama may have had a thin resume, but he sure as hell knew what the Federal Reserve did and that you wouldn’t call the Queen of England to discuss British military policies.

To be fair to Palin, most of the people in the United States do not know what the Federal Reserve does. But “most people” aren’t running for Vice President, either.

More importantly, the Republican defense of Sarah Palin’s ignorance is par for the course in a party that now seems to celebrate ignorance. Somehow, the Republican meme of: the Democrats are a bunch of elitists who want to impose their worldview on youhas morphed into something bordering a distrust of anyone with an education. To cultural conservatives, Sarah Palin was seen as a great example of how intelligence and competence can come from salt of the earth, pro gun, Christian conservatives who didn’t go to elite Ivy League schools. Unfortunately, when measured by the criteria of competence and intelligence, Palin is an epic failure.

As Steve Schmidt notes in the clip above, even more important than her lack of knowledge in 2008, has been her reluctance to do the hard work and homework required to become an effective national leader. Instead of keeping her head down, learning about the issues and emerging as a more substantial candidate for future office, she quit her job and spent the last 3 years enriching herself and her family, becoming a reality TV star and practicing the politics of grievance that she is so adept at. It’s now obvious that Palin was hoping she would be able to use her very effective skills at media manipulation to be nominated for President in 2012 without actually having to run for the nomination. Certainly, we have to give her credit for the manipulating the media for her own ends, but the events chronicled in Game Change and her record over the subsequent three years should end any serious discussion of her as a viable contender for a national position.

I Know There Were Arms Involved…

Wednesday, June 15th, 2011

 

…and there were bells too.

I can’t resist posting this one.

I’ve watched it a few times and  I still laugh every time.

As Jon Stewart points out, it’s not so much that Palin regularly puts her foot in her mouth, it’s that she consistetly insists that she’s right and that the media are responsible for the fact that she isn’t, even when we can all see that she’s not, and they aren’t….

Sarah, note to self:

“What have you seen so far and what are you going to take away from your visit” isn’t a “gotcha question.”

Glenn Beck off the Deep End

Sunday, March 6th, 2011

It seems like Glenn Beck may have finally gone too far.

The week that the Egypt protests broke wide open, Beck seemed to go off the deep end with his talk of how the peaceful protests in Egypt demanding the end of Mubarak’s rule could be a precursor to the eventual establishment of an Islamic Caliphate that would take over the entire Middle East and potentially spread into Asia and Europe.

If you didn’t know that Beck was a pasty faced huckster with no real sense of international politics or history, then you might get really freaked out watching him manipulate his touchscreen to create a phosphorescent Islamic Caliphate out of the entire Middle East and then explain how Spain, France, Britain and Italy could come under the sway of the new Caliphate because they also have some Muslims living in their countries. Beck goes on to weave a complex tapestry of conspiracy, which includes among its members both President Bushes, “the Left,” and labor unions, just to name a few. In fact,  throughout the week Beck tied the Islamic caliphate theory to quite an impressive list of Fox News villans, including Islamic Socialists, ACORN, Code Pink, Anarchists and Bill Ayers, all of whom Beck claimed were engaged in a  ”well orchestrated campaign” to pave the way for the caliphate.

The next week, Bill Kristol at the American Standard, the most idealistic (Pollyanish?) of the neo-cons, called Beck out. Kristol contrasted Charles Krauthammer’s words of caution about events in Egypt and Beck’s paraniod ravings, noting:

hysteria is not a sign of health. When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He’s marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.

In fact, as Chris Matthews pointed out, Beck’s paraniod ramblings seems to be cribbed directly from the John Birchers‘ recent talking points.

In the month that has followed, a number of prominent conservatives have joined Kristol in denouncing Beck. Joe Scarborough (no fan of Glenn Beck before) called him ”bad for the conservative movement” and said that he was “losing it before our eyes.” Peter Wehner, from the uber-conservative website Commentary, called him the “most disturbing personality on cable television,” and urged conservatives to distance themselves from him before he “blows apart professionally.” Time columnist Joe Klein noted that he had heard from more than a few conservative sources that “prominent conservatives” have approached Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes and pushed for his ouster at Fox.

While Fox has never been a network particularly concerned with the truth, perhaps a better motivator may be Beck’s declining ratings: January’s ratings were the worst he’s posted since his Fox show debuted in January 2009.

My own take on this is that two trends are driving this backlash against Beck and people like him:

First, the country has had a full two years of heart rending bitter partisanship. While Obama and Pelosi were running the country and the Right was fully mobilized against them, there was a strong tendency toward cohesion. The nutty conspiracy theories that Beck was spouting were tolerated because they were aimed at a common enemy. Now that the inexorable march toward liberal “tyranny” has been stopped, people are looking for a respite from the continual pitched battles between left and right. This has shown up not only in Beck’s declining ratings, but in public opinion about Sarah Palin after she clumsily and agressively went on the attack after Gabby Giffords was shot. At a time when the country needed healing, Sarah Palin showed the same pettiness that she has shown throughout her career, and the public took note. While Obama delivered a stirring speech on the need to come together as Americans and tone down the rhetoric, Palin once again seemed obsessed with her own public image and sense of victimhood.

In a similar vein, the Republican victory is revealing cracks in the facade of conservative unity that were obscured during the fight against a common enemy. These cracks were conspicuously on display during the Egyptian protests.  Neo-cons who still believe in Bush’s “freedom agenda” have a far different worldview from the cautious realpolitik that Repulicans like Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft used so effectively (and that Obama’s team has tried to emulate), and Glenn Beck’s Bircher influenced conspiracy theories are almost diametrically opposed to the neo-con worldview. As events unfolded in Egypt, you had people like Beck and others basically arguing that Muslims can’t be allowed to have democracy and neo-cons like Kristol arguing that Middle Eastern democracy is essential to achieving our national security objectives.   

While no faction has a monopoly on truth, Beck’s recent rantings are undeniably nutty and it is clear that it’s probably in the interest of the Republicans to distance themselves from him. As Kristol alluded to, we may finally be seeing a replay of the early 1960′s when William F. Buckley famously denounced the John Birch Society in the National Review.

The secretive Birch Society had views that were not far from Beck’s. It’s founder, Robert Welch had called President Dwight D. Eisenhower, ”a conscious, dedicated agent of the communist conspiracy” and he claimed that the US government was “under operational control of the Communist party” (can’t you hear Beck saying something like this on his show?).  

In his 1962 editorial, Buckley called Welch “idiotic” and “paranoid” and said his views were “far removed from common sense.” This effectively banished the Birchers from the conservative movement for almost 50 years, until  they re-emerged in 2010.

Could we be watching history repeat itself 5o years later? I won’t hold my breath, but this might be fun to watch. 

Scarborough: Moving Past Right Wing Rhetoric

Tuesday, January 18th, 2011

Here’s a link to another great Joe Scarborough piece on the Giffords tragedy and his discussion of it this morning.

Scarborough is fast becoming the chief critic of Palin and Glenn Beck in the Republican party, perhaps because of the fact that he is more concerned about the Republican party’s future than he is in saving his own political bacon.

Check this out:

We get it, Sarah Palin. You’re not morally culpable for the tragic shooting in Tucson, Ariz. All of us around the “Morning Joe” table agree, even if we were stunned that you would whine about yourself on Facebook as a shattered family prepared to bury their 9-year-old girl.

The same goes for you, Glenn Beck. You’ve attacked your political opponents with words designed to inspire hatred and mind-bending conspiracy theories from fans. Calling the president a racist, Marxist and fascist may be reprehensible, but it did not lead a mentally disturbed man to take a Glock to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s “Congress on Your Corner” event.

Good on ya, buddy. You weren’t personally responsible for the slaughter at the Safeway. Maybe you can put it on a poster at the next “Talkers” convention.

MEOW!

Later in the article, he makes the point that it’s not only the right thing to do to call out people who engage in this kind of rhetoric, but it’s probably the politically savvy thing to do as well because, while overheated political rhetoric might be a great way to win elections in midterm years,

Presidential-year elections are driven by a completely different demographic. Good luck trying that “Second Amendment remedies” crap on swing voters in the suburbs. It just won’t fly. And neither will the cacophony of crazy talk that has gripped the far right for the past two years.

Nice to know that at least some nationally known Republicans have managed to survive the Obama-Pelosi years with both their brains and integrity intact…  

BTW, The reference Scarborough makes to Bryon Williams and the Tides Foundation is about a guy dressed in body armor who was on his way to shoot up the ACLU and the obscure San Francisco based Tides Foundation last July, but who was stopped by the police for drunk driving and decided instead to take on 10 CHP officers. I wonder where he could have heard about the Tides foundation?

Thoughts on the Giffords Shooting

Monday, January 17th, 2011

Here’s Joe Scarborough on the Gabbrielle Giffords shooting.

The discussion about civility is important, but I connect even more with the personal story of how he and his wife felt when they heard the news.

My response was similar. When I first heard the news, I thought to myself: the thing that we have feared for so long has come to fruition. Sharron Angle’s “2nd Amendment Remedies” have finally caught up with the nation. Watching the video of Giffords talking about how her office window was shattered after her vote on the health care bill  just reinforced that belief:

our office corner has really become an area where the Tea Party movement congregates and the rhetoric is incredibly heated. Not just the calls, but the e-mails, the slurs..things have really gotten spun up.

 

I watched Giffords talk in the interview about how Palin targeted her district with gun crosshairs. Her father was asked after her shooting if she had any enemies and responded “Yes, the entire Tea Party.” All of this just added to the sense that the shooting was a result of the overheated political climate we have seen in this country since Obama was elected. 

As more info came to light, it became clear that the truth was slightly more complicated than that: Jared Loughner had been obsessed with Giffords since 2007; he was not involved with any organized political movement, and the philosophies he espoused didn’t really fit neatly into any of our usual political debates.

Whether or not the overheated rhetoric created a climate that gave Loughner the go ahead in his demented brain to act on his long held feelings may never be known. What is clear, however, is that the discourse has become poisonous, and that we’re lucky that we only have a few broken windows, empty death threats and some swastikas on black congressmen’s signs to show for it.

While people on the left have tried to blame Sarah Palin for the Giffords shooting, others on the right have played the victim, protesting that they and the Tea Party have been falsely accused and that Democrats also used to say mean things about President Bush while he was president. While I understand the basic principle that it’s not nice to say mean things about national leaders, this is clearly a false equivalency. Consider the fact that death threats against Obama after his inauguration spiked by over 400 percent from George Bush levels; or the fact that the last time we had a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, the doomsday rhetoric was also off the charts, and the result was that someone killed 168 people and blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City.

I don’t mind a good partisan fight, but when you have a whole group of people who believe that the President of the United States is a “secret muslim” Manchurian Candidate… and you have an even bigger group of people who can’t tell the difference between “tyranny” and losing two elections…and those same people have a tendency towards gun fetishes and a heightened sense of victimhood… and they are manipulated into believing that the biggest threat to their “freedom” is giving health care to people, this all adds up to a volatile mix. The worst thing you can do in this situation is to have community and political leaders fan the flames of that fire.

I’m not one to go on a big tirade against Sarah Palin for her ill advised gun crosshairs targeting map. It’s pretty outrageous, but I don’t think it’s worth spending too much time hyperventilating about it. Still, a few basic common sense rules might be in order here: It’s irresponsible to tweet to your supporters (many of whom are gun fetishists with an overwrought sense of victimhood): “Commonsense Conservatives and lovers of America: don’t retreat–Instead RELOAD,” as Sarah Palin did just after health care passed. It’s irresponsible to tell people to come to a rally against Obama’s policies “armed and dangerous” as Michelle Bachman did in 2010. It is way beyond the pale to suggest that if Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama aren’t thrown out of office, people on the Right might have to turn to an armed overthrow of the government, as the Republican’s best funded 2010 Senate candidate did, and if you are tempted to bring your semi-automatic weapon to the protest across the street from where the president’s speaking “because that’s your right,” you might just want to reconsider. 

As Bill Clinton said on the 15th Anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing:

What we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or reduce our passion from the positions we hold – but that the words we use really do matter, because there’s this vast echo chamber and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike.

So again, this isn’t an argument that all people who sympathise with the Tea Party are violent thugs, or that they shouldn’t fight for what they believe in. It is an argument that, in this charged political environment, leaders have a responsibility to think about the ramifications of what they say before they say it and make their case for a particular policy without resorting to incitement.

My sense of this is that, now that they got their way, some on the right will tone down the rhetoric. It’s my bet that, now that they’ve actually won a national election for the first time in 6 years, the government looks more like the elected representatives of the country than a “tyrannical regime” bent on imposing socialism on the country. But violent rhetoric is a tricky thing. Once you’ve taken that genie out of the bottle, it is hard to get it back in.

We all hope for the best here, but as the events of two weeks ago show, we need to prepare for the worst as well.

What the Hell Happened to John McCain?

Friday, January 7th, 2011

Two years after his historic loss to Barack Obama, it is worth asking: “What the hell happened to John McCain?” 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
It Gets Worse PSA
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

McCain was one of my favorite Republicans back in the day (it’s a very short list), but in the past two years (and especially in the past one year), he has become unrecognizable.

The process started with the 2008 campaign, when he started kissing the asses of Jerry Falwell and the Christian Right after he had called them “agents of intolerance” in the 2000 Republican nomination campaign against George W. Bush. It continued as he embraced the Bush tax cuts in 2008 after campaigning in 2000 on a program that wasn’t much different than Al Gore’s “lockbox” and then voting against the tax cuts in the Senate in 2001.

But even through the 2008 election, he stuck to his guns on issues that he had bucked his party on, including Cap and Trade, Immigration Reform, the Border Fence, Campaign Finance, the DREAM Act and at least keeping an open mind on the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. On each one of those core issues, he has since reversed his position or stopped actively advocating for the policy.

Inevitably, these 180 degree reversals have invited parodies and armchair psychological theories on what is going on with this guy. Most of those analyses start with the fact that, as Richard Wolfe noted on Hardball, losing a presidential election “messes with your head.” Jacob Weisburg laid the situation out well (although quite melodramatically) during the 2010 primaries in an article which posited that a badly run campaign and the choice of Sarah Palin weighed heavily on McCain’s conscience. After McCain ended the year bitterly leading the charge against the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal, the DREAM Act and the START Treaty in the Lame Duck Session of the Senate, Time Magazine’s Joe Klein hammered McCain, writing: 

His public fall has been spectacular, a consequence of politics…and personal pique. He’s a bitter man now, who can barely tolerate the fact that he lost to Barack Obama. But he lost for an obvious reason: his campaign proved him to be puerile and feckless, a politician who panicked when the heat was on during the financial collapse, a trigger-happy gambler who chose an incompetent for his vice president. He has made quite a show ever since of demonstrating his petulance and lack of grace.

Jon Stewart’s piece (posted above) on how John McCain’s continual moving of the goalposts on on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will forever put him on the wrong side of history is particularly devastating. Stewart (another former admirer of McCain) started this year lampooning McCain as a cranky old man who had become, “less as a paragon of straight talk independence… and more of an object lesson in just how f-ing mad people get when they don’t get their way.”

Of course, I can’t resist adding my own theory to all of this psychobabble:

It’s been a rough few years for McCain. His frustration that America chose the inexperienced Barack Obama over him was painfully visible throughout the campaign (think of the debate where he referred to Obama as “That One“). To top it off, McCain lost ugly, picking the inexperienced Sarah Palin after his advisers told him that, if he picked Lieberman, he would lose the election by fracturing the Republican base (not to mention creating the cranky old man/whiney old man ticket). Then, soon after this gut wrenching defeat, he faced a primary where he felt the only way to keep his job was to run as far to the right as possible, effectively going back on many of the things he had stood for throughout his career.

While this 180 degree change might have been easy for a politician like Mitt Romney, McCain has always had a strong sense of honor. My PhD in armchair psychoanalysis leads me to believe that the only way that McCain could cope with this was to internalize this new set of values and (as he has done so many other times in his life) embrace the new identity wholeheartedly. Add to this the anger at losing to Obama and McCain’s consistent tendency to rebel against any authority and you have a perfect storm to make the transition from Maverick to dogmatic cultural conservative.

Tragically, McCain’s transformation comes at a terrible time for the country. In this time of crisis, more than ever, we need rational centrists that can look past the narrow political interests of party and work together to find common sense solutions to our problems.

Put more succinctly, we need Mavericks.

Does anyone know where we can find one?

Joe Scarborough Rips Sarah Palin

Thursday, December 2nd, 2010

Finally, a Republican (besides Barbara Bush) stands up to Sarah Palin.

Joe Scarborough, in a scathing opinion piece in Politico (and later on his show), ripped Palin:

Republicans have a problem. The most-talked-about figure in the GOP is a reality show star who cannot be elected. And yet the same leaders who fret that Sarah Palin could devastate their party in 2012 are too scared to say in public what they all complain about in private.

Enough. It’s time for the GOP to man up.

and later:

this is one Republican who would prefer that the former half-term governor promote her reality shows and hawk her books without demeaning the reputations of Presidents Reagan and Bush. These great men dedicated their lives to public service and are too good to be fodder for her gaudy circus sideshow.

If Republicans want to embrace Palin as a cultural icon whose anti-intellectualism fulfills a base political need, then have at it. I suppose it’s cheaper than therapy.

But if the party of Ronald Reagan, Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio wants to return to the White House anytime soon, it’s time that Republican leaders started standing up and speaking the truth to Palin.

Here’s a clip from his show where he defends the article:


MEEOOW!

Let the Republican Civil War Begin

Saturday, November 6th, 2010

The cracks in Republican unity are already beginning to show.

Even before the election, Politico reported that the Republican establishment was working to try to find a viable alternative candidate to defeat Sarah Palin in the 2012 primaries for president.

Increasingly, it seems that Palin would have a good shot at the nomination, starting with a win in Evangelical dominated Iowa, followed by a tougher, but not impossible race in New Hampshire, and then another good chance in South Carolina. But John Heilman’s recent piece on how she could actually win the presidency relies on the idea that New York mayor Michael Bloomburg would run, split the electoral college vote and send the election to the House of Representatives (where the Republicans would elect her president, even though she failed to win the election outright). The fact that he needs to rely on so many “ifs” for Palin to win the general election shows how difficult this would be.

Sister Sarah fought back hard on the Politico article, using her favorite Republican tactic of blaming the media, calling out Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen by name and telling them to ”man up.”   The woman’s a treasure.

Meanwhile, another intra-party skirmish has broken out in the wake of the Republicans underperformance in the Senate elections. To be sure, a 6 seat pickup is nothing to scoff at, but there’s a clear case to make that two more Senate seats (in Delaware and Colorado) would have shifted to the Republican column and a plausible case that Sue Lowden could have succeeded in Nevada where Sharron Angle failed, effectively tie-ing up the Senate and elevating Joe Biden’s official role of presiding over the Senate to more than ceremonial duty.

The day after the election, the divide was in full effect, with prominent Republicans Lindsey Graham stating the obvious:

Candidates matter,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “It was a good night for Republicans but it could have been a better one. We left some on the table….If you think what happened in Delaware is ‘a win’ for the Republican Party then we don’t have a snowball’s chance to win the White House,” he said. “If you think Delaware was a wake-up call for Republicans than we have shot at doing well for a long time.”

An anonomously sourced “high-profile” Republican senator was even more direct, saying of Senator Jim DeMint, the biggest supporter of GOP ideological purity, “It’s like you’re on the five-yard line ready to score and the quarterback calls the play and some member of your team tackles one of your members and keeps you from scoring…We came tantalizingly close to a majority.”

Fox talking head Mort Konracke was just as withering, pointing the finger at Palin and DeMint specifically:

The people who got slapped the hardest in this election — besides Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama — are Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin…Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin are responsible for the fact that the Senate did not go Republican. They’re the ones who are responsible for Christine O’Donnell. They’re the ones who are responsible for Joe Miller in Alaska. They’re the ones who are responsible for Ken Buck in Colorado. They’re the ones who are responsible for Sharron Angle in Nevada.

Kondracke also said of Palin,  ”She’s a joke even within her own party. The idea that she would be the presidential nominee is unthinkable.”

The fight between the old country club Republicans and the Tea Party nuts is going to be a fun side show over the next couple of years.

Labor’s Plan to Boost Latino Turnout in California

Monday, October 18th, 2010

Here’s my new friends at CalBuzz.com on labor unions campaign to boost Latino turnout in California. The campaign takes advantage of outrage over Arizona’s SB 1070 and the general scapegoating of immigrants by many in the Republican party. It very effectively combines images of Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer and Meg Whitman with the none-to-subtle religious iconography of prayer cards that include images of Jerry Brown meeting with Mother Theresa and speaking to Cesar Chavez.

The goal is to bring 200,000 new Latino voters to the polls this year, a 3-4% increase over 2006 levels. This is the Democratic answer to the flood of corporate money that has deluged the election process this year. It could be a difference maker for both Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer.