PSoTD

Somebody ought to explain to me the definition of this term, and perhaps after that, explain it to the Washington Post, because I don't understand how Michael Gerson, George W. Bush's chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, should possibly be allowed to write in a Washington Post section labeled as such.

From Alaska:

John McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate stunned and divided Alaska political leaders on Friday. Supporters said she was a shrewd choice, but others argued Palin has no business being a heartbeat away from the presidency.

...

The reaction wasn't so rosy elsewhere. State Senate President Lyda Green said she thought it was a joke when someone called her at 6 a.m. to give her the news.

"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

Green, who has feuded with Palin repeatedly over the past two years, brought up the big oil tax increase Palin pushed through last year. She also pointed to the award of a $500 million state subsidy to a Canadian firm to pursue a natural gas pipeline that is far from guaranteed.

The McCain camp had marching orders Friday, and the news media obliged yesterday: The word of the day was maverick.

Interesting. I wonder what the McCain campaign thought was the most solid attack on him during the Democratic Convention? Could it have been that he's only 5-10% different than George W. Bush on policy at most based on his votes over the past several years? Could it be that he's been lumped together with all the other national Republican regurgitants? That he's been exposed for no longer being a maverick, but being a guy that's been bullied by his party to do what they say rather than what he believes?

Yeah, I kinda think they see that as McCain's softest spot - that McCain is a Republican that has loaned his reputation to support Bush - and was desperate to find something to disprove the narrative. Rather than going with someone properly vetted, he grabbed a nationally unknown politician who apparently has some "mavericky" reputation herself, someone outside of DC, as evidence that he's still a maverick.

It's going to prove to be evidence of being more of a kneejerk politician, I believe. Republicans can declare that it's bold, that it's outside the box, whatever. They can't declare that it was done with any sense of planning for governance. They can't say that this selection makes sense beyond the gender vote. They can't say that it changes the fact that McCain has supported Bush's Presidency for the past 8 years more than any Democrat - or even Joe Lieberman.

Choosing one's own path away from the crowd may indicate independence - but it doesn't automatically confer either leadership or wisdom that that choice. We've had a President for 8 years now that didn't listen to people other than those in his ever-shrinking circle. McCain may not appreciate the irony, but his pursuit of "maverickness" he continues to resemble Bush.

"Heh heh heh, this choice was so mavericky."

I love how their state government officials talk about Alaska's ability to pay their own way. In 2005, $4.81 in federal funds came to Alaska for every $1.00 paid by Alaskans.

Seriously, this Palin selection is going to be a disaster. I keep seeing liberal blog commenters fretting about it, as if there was some sort of comparison to be made between Palin and Obama on experience that would benefit McCain.

Hardly.

You know, I might be concerned about Sarah Palin if she had more moderate view points, or came from a swing state, or seemed to energize John McCain himself. If she had won an election in a big state, or had done something politically impressive enough to make her name known to most Americans.

But she doesn't, and she hasn't, and she won't.

These comparisons on experience between Palin and Obama ignore the most important experience to be considered in the next two months - electoral politics. I dare say that unless Palin is some sort of amazing hidden genius in politics, that the experience advantage is Obama's. When Sarah Palin has beaten a candidate of the stature of Hillary Clinton, maybe then I'll be worried. But she hasn't. And she won't. Hell, McCain himself hasn't beaten a candidate of the quality of Hillary Clinton.

The story about how McCain came about to selecting Palin is going to become well known, because since hardly any Americans have heard of her, the vetting process becomes more important. One meeting? One discussion? Is that how we want a President to consider the most important policy decision to be made prior to election day? I just don't think normal Americans are going to accept this as the proper process for such decisionmaking.

I don't believe that Palin has been tested in a campaign anywhere near what she's getting into for the next two months. It's going to show. You can count on that.

Still, I see these liberal blog comments from worrywarts saying this is a brilliant move, how it's going to hurt Obama, blahtedyblahblah. I don't know who these people are, but they're not living in any reality that I can see. Fear can warp one's view, I guess.

Except Michael Palin is British, how can he be the VP?

Oh,he DID pick someone less known than Michael Palin. McCain likes the Dan Quayle strategy, I guess. Perhaps from now on, the desperate campaign move will be known as a "Hail Sarah"...

I think he nailed the assessment of Obama's speech.

The Democratic Convention did a great job, I thought, in balling up John McCain with the sordid Republicans that have been in power the past 8 years. It is part and parcel of a Republican Administration, and the message is, no matter how much respect we may have as Americans in John McCain's POW story, there's no way those people should be left in charge any longer.

Alright, I'm putting my marker down: McCain will pick Tom Ridge as his running mate. I've been thinking about it, and I think the Lieberman talk is to make Ridge more palatable to Republicans.

Go ahead and put your guess in comments with your reasoning.

There's not enough alcohol in the world to make me agree with Peggy Noonan on this:

Michelle Obama's speech was solid, but not a home run. First impression: She is so beautiful. Beautifully dressed, beautifully groomed, confident, smiling, a compelling person. But her speech seemed to me more the speech of a candidate, and not a candidate's spouse. It was full of problems and issues. I continue to be of the Dennis Thatcher School of Political Spouses: Let the candidate do the seriousness of the issues, you do the excellence of the candidate. This is old fashioned but nonetheless I think still applicable. It has made Laura Bush (with a few forays into relatively anodyne policy questions) the most popular First Lady in modern American political history. Another problem with the Michelle speech. In order to paint both her professional life and her husband's, and in order to communicate what she feels is his singular compassion, she had to paint an America that is darker, sadder, grimmer, than most Americans experience their country to be. And this of course is an incomplete picture, an incorrectly weighted picture. Sadness and struggle are part of life, but so are guts and verve and achievement and success and hardiness and…triumph. Democrats always get this wrong. Republicans get it wrong too, but in a different way.

I think Laura Bush has benefited by comparison. Compared to her husband, she's a relatively rational, sensitive human being. And perhaps, by the term "modern", Noonan is limiting it to 21st Century First Ladies. Okay, but Hillary seemed VERY popular this primary season. Jackie Kennedy was more popular. Period, end of story, and if people don't believe it then they don't know the 60s and 70s. Lady Bird Johnson was very popular in her day. Nancy Reagan seems to be loved by a lot of Republicans.

The one thing that Noonan is bragging about here with Laura Bush - that there are no political or social accomplishments for her that Americans can think of beyond being married and devoted to George W. Bush - is the thing that is going to drag her down if she continues to act this way. Because people dislike George W. Bush very, very much, and he's going to receive a lot of the (deserved) blame for the pain we'll go through as a nation trying to correct the problems he's exacerbated or created, and if she doesn't have her own star to shine, she's going to suffer along with that.

Especially if she gets anywhere as defensive as her mother-in-law.

Great speech. Of course, it's going to be spun in a thousand ways, and already is, but really, she did frame Obama's candidacy and McCain's candidacy properly for her supporters.

Can the Clinton folks just shut up? I don't know, saying that Democrats should act like Republicans and demanding instant gratification for a 4 day serial on the first night is the kind of political advice that will drive people like me - including me - out of the party if it becomes clear that it's the only operating plan in the future. Give the convention a chance.

Howard Wolfson, James Carville, and all of the other Clinton high-paid political operatives that figured out how to lose her primary and run up a huge debt when starting with advantages never before seen in a candidate - just go away. Let the actual Clintons do their thing, and shut these campaign contribution syphons up.

BTW - for all the political pundits who somehow missed the point of what last night was about - it was the connection to a mystical time for Democrats. Obama doesn't want Democrats to think it's time to go back to the Clinton years. He wants them to think about the glory of Camelot. JFK, Jackie, Bobby... didn't they see that last night?

It's pretty clear to me that when some of these folks have a choice between shutting up and making something better, or speaking and making something worse, they will always choose the speaking option.

I have so many that I've lost track where the rest of them are.

You're not rich. So, does John McCain support a tax increase on those that make that amount per year?

What does being a prisoner of war have to do with the idea that McCain might have "cheated" on a political discussion?

Nicolle Wallace, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, said on Sunday night that Mr. McCain had not heard the broadcast of the event while in his motorcade and heard none of the questions.

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.

Sooner or later the press has to realize that "a former prisoner of war" is not part of John McCain's name, and doesn't belong in every statement made by the McCain campaign - and call the McCain campaign on it.

Not bad. Obama goes on vacation for a week, gives McCain the national stage in a time of heightened nationalistic fervor (Olympics) and anxieties about generational enemies (Russia) and loses a whole two points. There's a lot of chatter at 538.com about it, but I think by the end of the day, the week of August 10th will be considered to be John McCain's best week in the campaign, and that's not good news for Republicans.

This poor pine tree was once doing just fine. A few days after these rotting eggplants were put here, the pine tree was dead. Eggplant kills!

This is an assassination, and deserves a complete public investigation:

The Associated Press is reporting, "A gunman barged into the Arkansas Democratic Party headquarters Wednesday and shot the state party chairman three times, critically wounding him, authorities and party officials said."

Sen. Hillary and former president Bill Clinton quickly issued a joint statement on the shooting in their former home state, sending their prayers for his recovery.

It was a statement they had to update later in the afternoon.

"We are deeply saddened by the news that Bill Gwatney has passed away," they said. "His leadership and commitment to Arkansas and this country have always inspired us and those who had the opportunity to know him. Our prayers are with his family during this time."

Part of that investigation needs to be the political climate into which this assassin dwelled. It may not end up being pertinent, but if it turns out that the gunman oozed in the political hate climate of the worst of Republicans versus Democrats and visa versa, it needs to be publicly known.

Isn't it time we have a well-funded hoax, with the best special effects money can buy, for a "find" of a Bigfoot?

John McCain has not been able to get past 44 in the polls. He can try to beat up Obama as much as he wants, but it doesn't seem to help him significantly increase his own share in the polls.

What McCain desperately needs at this point is someone to take votes away from Obama that ISN'T John McCain, because John McCain probably can't. He needs a third party candidate. It's just a matter of time before he starts referencing third-party candidates - most likely Ralph Nader - in his press in an effort to elevate their visibility.

John McCain is going to have to explain his position about sovereignty as it relates to Georgia with his position about sovereignty as it related to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And the journalistic use of the term "moral clarity" is bullshit.

Apparently McCain hasn't been paying attention to what Lieberman does, if he's really considering him for the VP slot:

Although Democrats have rejected Mr McCain’s image as a maverick politician, Mr Lieberman’s support for the presumptive Republican nominee has, much to the chagrin of his former ­colleagues, helped to boost Mr McCain’s reputation as a bi-partisan legislator with friends on both sides of the aisle. Mr Lieberman, a staunch supporter of Israel, could also help Mr McCain win over Jewish voters.

“[McCain] loves Lieberman. And he is on the [short-]list because Lieberman has never embarrassed anyone, never misspoken. The first rule is, don’t take someone who costs you votes,” said one McCain adviser.

Joe Lieberman has been costing the Democratic Party a Senate Vote for a while now. He's embarrassed Democrats in his lovefest for a lot of Bush's efforts. I hope McCain takes him.

I supported his run for President, and I think he had the best ideas of the three main Democratic candidates when they were all in the race. And I try to be understanding about human needs and impulses and weaknesses and changes, we all have them from time to time about a smorgasboard of possibilities, and things happen.

But... You can't expect to get away with a lie in a Presidential campaign, not about an affair, not in this climate, not with the press as it is and Republicans as they are. Nor should you. It isn't even about morality, it's about common sense. It isn't going to work, and when it blows up on you, it blows up big. Imagine if Edwards had been the nominee. Where would Democrats be now?

Again, this isn't about the moral value of what happened in the first place: that's not the point of this post. It's about the wisdom of lying about something that there is NO WAY he was going to get away with over the course of a campaign. Not in 2008. The mess created from this lie is greater than the mess created from the affair.

I hope that Gallup or some other "venerable" polling company does a poll on the U.S. population about whether they believe the FBI and the Federal Government about their assessment of who the guilty party was in the anthrax case. I think this is a good case to measure credibility of the FBI with the American public on a high profile case. I don't think the FBI will appreciate the results, however.

Anyone have any experience with Vocus' Government Relations database? I'm wondering how well it works, looking for feedback.

I think it's been obvious for a while...

Sure seems to be falling apart more every day.

If I ever go to a McCain rally, and get to ask a question, I'm going to list off all the things that terrify me, and see if I get applause. Zombie Nixon trying to eat my brains, George W. Bush moving in next door, that kind of stuff. Maybe even the idea that this woman would get a job in government.

I think it was CNN that was showing a bit of a McCain fundraising/publicity stop. McCain was taking questions from the audience, and some 18 year old woman grabbed a microphone, and one of the first things she said was something like this:

I hope you win this. Obama, whew, he terrifies me! Whew!

and she kind of paused, and then...

the crowd applauded.

And I thought, there it is, in a nutshell. Republicans. Cheering for fear. Are you afraid? Yes? Hooray!!!!! Vote for Republicans then.

It was one of the most sad displays of political sissihood I've ever seen, the entire crowd, McCain laughing when she said she was terrified and WHEW, just pathetic. Why would America want their country to be run by those supported by the afraid? Are we really wanting to become Wuss Nation? New things! Ideas! Change! HOLD ME I'M FRIGHTENED!

Why, here's a blog that actually captured the video IN SUPPORT OF WUSS NATION.

Why do Americans accept a political party who cheers for Wuss Nation? What happened to our values?

I think Public Radio should have better things to do than run The Great Barack Obama Joke Contest. Unless, of course, they really want evidence that their listeners are not funny.

I wonder if Joe Lieberman would have a problem with an Obama commercial hitting McCain with comparisons to Grandpa Munster and Phyllis Diller. Hey, it's just humor.