Brains, Back To The Shrill Mines...

[elfs]

Uh, Sarah... WTF?

(via Brad DeLong)

Al Qaeda writers hope McCain wins.

American monitors watching jihadist forums around the world report Al Qaeda sympathisers are overjoyed at our financial crisis, hailing it as vindication of Bin Laden's strategy of bleeding "the West" dry in expensive foreign engagements. Even more damning is one password-protected forum where Al Qaeda members express hope McCain will win and continue supporting Bin Laden's "bleed to bankruptcy" strategy.

McCain strategist Randy Schuenemann tried to suggest that the Al Qaeda operative was being dishonest to hurt Mccain, and then quoted a Hamas' leader's opinion that Obama would be better for Hamas. When reporters asked why we should believe the Hamas speaker was being honest, but the Al Qaeda writer is not, Schuenemann declined to answer the question.

Wow. Does John McCain know anything?

Steve Benen brings us an analysis of an interview McCain did with Wolf Blitzer yesterday, and it reads like McCain's taking his cues from Palin. It starts off with McCain defending Palin against Colin Powell's comments, and then he rails against "bridges to nowhere" and "planetarium projectors."

The first has been a hoot. The latter, well, McCain has completely lost the science vote. As we all know, America doesn't need more kids interested in science.

McCain says that he's been "very consistent" and it's Barack Obama who's been "all over the place." Even the mainstream media doesn't believe that anymore. And finally McCain attempts to "correct" Blitzer and claims that in the current Status of Forces Agreement being negotiated between the US and Iraq, withdrawl is "conditions based."

The current public text of the agreement, as distributed by the Associated Press, reads "The U.S. forces shall withdraw from Iraqi territories by December 31st, 2011 at the latest."

Unconditionally.

Josh Marshall has more on McCain's historical revisionsism over social security policy.

McCain's latest senior moment

If you follow the link it takes you to the video, but here's the transcript:

I think you may have noticed that Senator Obama's supporters have been saying some pretty nasty things about western Pennsylvania lately. And you know, I couldn't agree with them more. I couldn't disagree with you... I couldn't agree with you more than the fact that western Pennsylvania is the most patriotic, most God loving, most, most patriotic part of America, and this is a great part of the country.

Watch the guy to his left; you can see the stone-faced "WTF?" look as he realizes that his candidate's not exactly on his 'A' game today. Maybe ever? (via )

Alabama school seeks protection from preachers

Ed Brayton brings us a lovely tale of two seriously deranged street preachers and their three-year case against an elementary school in Alabama (!) that would rather have them not evangelizing students during school hours. As their case has repeatedly been declined, they have turned their vitriol on the judges, calling one "a lying bastard from the pit of hell," "demon bastard," and more. Charming!

Radley Balko on "Why the Republicans Must Lose"

Balko, who I've admired for a while, lays out the case for an Obama win. It's not that Obama must win-- he doesn't care for Obama and I agree that there's no reason to believe he'll limit his own power-- but the Republicans need to find their souls once more.

Conservatism: What the F-ck?

Christopher Buckley is turning into my new hero. The man is damnably funny. He's called for what remains of conservatism to get together and discuss WTF happened. Culture11 puts together the schedule.

Brad Delong defends Sarah Palin!

Think Progress ripped into Sarah Palin's claim recently that "[The Vice President] is in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes." Chris Matthews hammered at her and asked her spokesperson if Palin had ever read the Constitution.

Brad DeLong wonders if Matthews has ever read the Constitution:

I§3: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

Yes, the VP is President of the Senate (that's an executive job, by the way, Mr. Cheney), and although few VP's have exercised that right and have usually given way to a Senate President pro tem, that's still in the Constitution.

The idea of Sarah Palin wielding the gavel and making procedural rulings-- which will be systematically overruled by the likely Democratic majority next session-- is surely comedy gold for John Stewart, but Palin wasn't wrong.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

A lot of columns have been asking what went wrong with the Republican party lately, and it makes me scratch my head. Is it really some big mystery? They pandered to the evangelicals in order to cement the religious vote, which precipitated a 30-year cycle of spiraling anti-intellectualism within the party. The point of no return was reached in 2000, after which point the Republicans had to focus on the religious right if they wanted to win elections (which McCain discovered and quickly, if ineptly, embraced).

Now, thankfully, the bill has come due, and at last a rift is forming between the Odd Couple of fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. I agree with Balko and Buckley that the GOP needs a good bloody nose and at least four years of soul-searching if they want to return to the realm of rationality.

As for the Senate, yes, the vice president can preside over procedure and cast tiebreaking votes, but that's a far cry from Palin's claim that the VP is "in change of the U.S. Senate," and her assertion that she would be involved in policy discussions is laughable. Can you picture Sarah Palin sitting in on a committee meeting?

I can picture Biden popping into a committee meeting as vice president, but that's because he's worked with some of those people for 30 years, not by virtue of the office.

Anonymous Blog Reader #127

[heofmanynames.livejournal.com]

I agree with Anonymous #127.

This is IMO a deliberate & quite disingenuous attempt to reinforce the idea that Cheney has *not* wildly exceeded his authority during his term as VP, and to lay the groundwork for continued expansion of the VP's supposed role & so-called powers.

There is nothing even remotely 'conservative' about any of this.

And having watched repeatedly while Fluffindumpster lied, twisted and mangled her way through Q&As with various news people, I was awed by Matthews' turning of the tables on her. Can't wait to see him serve Tucker Bounds in similar fashion!

...and while I'm at it:

[heofmanynames.livejournal.com]

Thank the gods for Chris Buckley! His dad was a huge influence on me during my formative years, and his treatment by the movement he created and fostered has been insufficiently damned in my view.

That his son has been served much the same is less important that Chris is apparently his father's son in every meaningful respect.

Write on, Chris Buckley - and, "right on!"

[(Anonymous)]

To put the Senate thing another way, is a judge "in charge" of a jury trial? He presides over the courtroom and enforces legal procedure, but he has little to no control over the outcome of the trial (at least if he's doing his job right), and he certainly can't "really get in there" with the jurors.

Anonymous Blog Reader #127

A question about judges...

[(Anonymous)]

In that case, what does it mean to have a judge "set aside a [jury] verdict"? The judge is empowered to strike the jury verdict completely, provided he can justify it. I call that more than "little to no control".

Re: A question about judges...

[(Anonymous)]

Do you think there's a parallel of that in the case of the vice president and the Senate? The VP's tie-breaking vote, maybe? I dunno. Obviously the analogy is imperfect, but I think it does a decent job of highlighting the difference between "presiding over" and "in charge of."

(Besides, even having the power to set aside a verdict under certain very specific conditions doesn't really amount to "in charge of" in my book.)

Anonymous Blog Reader #127