This schtick is so old that I’m embarrassed we fall for it again and again. It happened when the media finally looked into George W. Bush’s being AWOL from the National Guard. It was a legitimate story, and it was also refreshing that our timid national media was finally doing some legwork. But Dan Rather got busted for citing a document that turned out to be forged, and the story died. Rather, for being uppity, was fired.

Media people after that refused to look into the AWOL story, and Bush skated.

The Republicans are experts at media management – they use their noise box – they can throw out an incredible amount of flak. The tube today was full of noise about how Palin was somehow vindicated and now untouchable. But for a brief while, it looked like media was doing its job. Now with the screeching, “the speech”, which was an affront to us all and full of lies but supposedly “hit out of the park”, media is again intimidated. They are afraid of being called sexist, and Palin, who seems to have a closet full of skeletons, will skate.

It’s our own fault. We walk into a trap. We have no one to blame but ourselves – the Republicans, who pummeled Kerry with the Swiftboat campaign, are no one to fool with. These are experts at manipulation, and the media, easily intimidated, are no match. Democrats seem to jump bare-assed into this pool every four years, all concerned about being dignified and above the ordinary knife fights. The only saving grace is that they might take a commanding majority in the senate, and that they might use that majority to stop (gulp) ‘President’ McCain. But that depends on election integrity. For so long as our ballots are counted in secret, exit polls will continue to go awry, and there will be surprising and unexpected Republican wins, and doe-eyed media analysts who can’t for the life of them figure out why exit polls can’t get it right.

But allowing Democrats to defend us is like sitting atop a bowl full of Jello. I don’t doubt that Harry and Nancy will be back, and the concessions and cave-ins will continue.

Things aren’t looking so good right now. I fear for the country – we’re rudderless – a minority party in charge, a majority party too weak to do anything about it. We’ll continue our drift into right wing paranoia and madness.

This link arrived by email from a reputable source. It seems fair and balanced – Anne Kilkenny of Wasilla,Alaska, tries to give credit where due. But Palin comes off as kind of a thug – she fires old hands and experienced people and then hires people who are loyal to her first, Alaska or Wasilla second. She seems to have built an network of cronies around herself. Didn’t I read about these kind of people in business management classes? Beware the empire builders, we were told.

In this regard, she seems to have things in common with another VP I know about. I doubt she’ll be running covert ops out of the White House basement, but you never know. From what Kilkenny says, she’s very, very smart.

National Enquirer, fresh off its victory over John Edwards, now says that Sarah Palin had an affair with her husband’s business partner. The McCain camp is threatening to sue, of course (bring it on), and is relying on the Enquirer’s lack of credibility as a journalistic source in disputing the story.

After all, that’s the strategy that worked for Edwards.

The Daily Show last night ran tape of Karl Rove, Bill O’Reilly, and Dick Morris, each pre and post-Sarah Palin. The comic effect was intense – each said exactly the opposite of what he had said before to accommodate the nomination. Palin has forced them to abandon previous rhetoric in order to adopt this rough and opportunistic woman who has abandoned her family for her career. For one thing, they’ve had to embrace choice in the face of an unwanted pregnancy.

Republicans now have to change course on talking points they have been using for twenty-eight years. But they do it, they do it on a dime, and with straight faces. Is there a better example of the craven hypocrisy of these political opportunists? The only thing that has mattered to them, Reagan to the present, has been to get a hold of the reins of government and to ram their policies down our throats – to change the tax system, to adopt an imperialistic foreign policy, eliminate civil liberties, reduce the standard of living of working Americans and create a highly segregated class-based society of haves and have nots.

These are not popular positions. So they hide behind a populist platform. To get hold of power, they’ve had to adopt cheesy slogans and embrace ideals they don’t care one way or the other about. Abortion is one of their opportunistic policy positions.

One would think that when they are caught in open contradiction, they would at least blush a little bit. But they don’t – they carry on as if Bristol Palin’s right to choose had always been their policy – it would be comical if not so devoid of shame.

Jon Stewart closed on a serious note last night, worth repeating. His guest was Newt Gingrich:

Stewart: One serious issue that I do want to address is sort of close to my heart: the issue of teen pregnancy. They have said this was Bristol’s decision and we should honor that. I have a daughter. The reason why I think it’s fair game is that Sarah Palin is on record as saying that she would veto abortions for women even in the event of being raped. So what she is in essence saying is “Respect my family’s ability to make this decision, and elect me so that I can keep your family from having the same opportunity”.

Gingrich: No – what’s she saying is that you and she can have a policy debate about whether or not Obama’s defending infanticide by abortion doctors was appropriate in the Illinois legislature.

Stewart: No no no – I’m going by her words … no abortion even in the case of rape.

Gingrich: Obama’s position in the Illinois legislature is one extreme, her position may be the other extreme. That’s a policy debate.

Stewart: But, when it comes down to her family, she says “respect her decision”.

Gingrich: Respect the privacy of her daughter, which is very different than …

Stewart: No – she said ‘Respect Bristol’s decision’ – that was their press release. It was Bristol’s decision. That is another word for choice.

Gingrich: And Bristol’s decision was to keep the child because in Alaska today she may have choice …

Stewart: I’m just saying that if she was president that choice would be removed from the family and the government would make it.

Indeed. The point is that Republicans frame the debate and will adopt any posture or stance that advances their cause, and the legions that they are manipulating apparently will fall in lockstep. The trick is, when it comes time to change that position, the legions have to follow again, lockstep. And they apparently have done so.

To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed; to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while take account of the reality which one denies – this is all indispensably necessary. (Orwell)

I listen to Dr. Laura Schlesinger when I can – I mostly agree with her, and have high respect for her on those issues where we are not in agreement. I understand her position on abortion and working mothers. Being on the other side of that debate is not a comfortable place. She has bedrock values on her side. In a perfect world, there are no abortions, and the working Mom is unnecessary.

Real life a little more gray. Just on abortion, she doesn’t accept that people drink, do stupid things, that women place too much faith in men, act impulsively, and the result is little darlin’s and ruined lives. And regarding working mothers, young Americans have very high expectations – they want that dream house very early on, the SUV and entertainment center, and having all that requires a working mom. I wish it were not so. They are too absorbed by material things – we all have too little time for family and care too much about ‘stuff’.

Since time immemorial, women have opted for abortion. If Roe v Wade is overturned, that will not change. I wish it weren’t so, but it is so, and I think it a huge mistake to outlaw abortions. In Dr. Laura’s perfect world, each baby would be wanted and planned for and would have a mothher at its side. But people aren’t like that.

So I take issue with Dr. Laura – she doesn’t deal with people as they are, but rather as she wishes they were. Her standards are unattainable in the real world.

But Sarah Palin is not your typical Dr. Laura caller – the woman knowingly had five children, one with Downs Syndrome, and has made a conscious decision to put the family on the back burner, to turn the baby over to surrogates, to expose her pregnant daughter to the worst kind of public attention. She’s ambitious – it’s the power of the ring.

Dr. Laura probably would not approve. And in fact she doesn’t.

addendum Jay mentions below that health care and housing costs have more to do with working Mom’s than dream houses and entertainment centers. I’ll accept that. Regarding surrogate caretakers for children, it was my experience with my kids that the hired help didn’t begin to care as much about the kids as I did. You can’t buy parental love. I’m politically incorrect, I realize, but I think them to be the hard facts.

Sarah Palin is going to be grandmother of an illegitimate child. Here’s the immediate fallout, as I see it:

First, McCain went with his gut, and his staff did not override him. It must have been emotional. They hadn’t even bothered to check the stories in her local paper. He looks impulsive, and doesn’t seem to respond to sober voices around him. They must be going nuts.

Second, there will be a rebellion at the convention, and a movement to dump her. It could result in a Romney pick, but it will make McCain look very bad. There are no good outcomes at this point.

It’s a little bit like McGovern/Eagleton. Pardon me for citing a great poet of my era: Everyway you look at it you lose.

The wife is out of town, so I took the opportunity to see a movie that she didn’t want to see. It just shows how much better her judgment is than mine. The movie is Tropic Thunder.

Just a few impressions from what turned out to be wasted time and wasted money.

1. It’s a very fast-paced movie, with quick cuts and rapid dialogue. I think this might have to do with younger kids and media. Everything moves fast for them. I’ve noticed this with my own kids – they are very quick and I have a hard time keeping up with them. In the movies there’s hardly time to catch one’s breath. It’s too fast for me. I’m much more into plot and character development, and this movie has little of either.

2. The humor is edgy and crude, often absent – maybe one of three jokes work. The f-bomb is used so much that it isn’t even offensive. Jerry Seinfeld said once in a magazine interview that if a comic has to resort to vulgarity to get a laugh, he’s either not funny or he hasn’t worked his material hard enough. In movies and on premium channels there are no restrictions on language, and it brings out the low-talent in today’s set of comic ‘geniuses’. The New Yorker, in reviewing this movie, called it a lack of elegance.

3. There are special effects galore. Yawn.

4. Tom Cruise is getting high praise for playing a balding overweight Hollywood executive. I knew it was him going in, and wonder if I would have figured it out without advance notice. He brings intensity to the scenes he’s in, and took a real risk doing this. He’s pretty good.

5. There is really, really low and vile humor about mentally challenged people – retarded people, we used to call them. The movie mocks them.

I know – I should stick to my own demographic. I think back to comedy movies I enjoyed when I was in my twenties – Airplane, Blazing Saddles, for instance. David Zucker and Mel Brooks had a whole lot more talent going for them than the current crop, in my humble opinion. Maybe I’m just dating myself. I sound old.

Come to think of it, Blazing Saddles did have a fart scene.

Organizers estimate that there will be 50,000 protesters at the Republican National Convention in the Twin Cities this coming week. We will be treated to the spectacle of the unwashed and unshaven madly objecting to the clean and conservative – from a television standpoint, it’s exactly the opposite of what the protesters seek to accomplish.

But they ought to know this by now. They ought to know that the media will spotlight the seediest among them, and it will make the Republicans inside look very reasonable by contrast. And the Republicans will get a bump in the polls.

It’s only happened a hundred times before. Even the Daily Show makes fun of them. They ought to know this. But they don’t. They’re idiots.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

As noted below, Democrats in Denver sought to confine their protesters to Orwellian “Free Speech Zones”. Republicans are going to let them wander freely. And now we know why.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Interesting conclusion – the American intelligentsia is overwhelmingly agnostic or atheist, but the public is overwhelmingly religious. Therefore, our smartest potential leaders are unelectable unless they lie about their religious beliefs. Which means that we cannot have a leader who is both smart and honest.

I have said many times before that most of our presidents were probably closet atheists. I include the current resident in that category too.

I don’t normally watch conventions – they can be frightfully staged and boring. But I’ve been following the Democrats, watching on MSNBC. Keith Olbermann and Chris Mathews have been gaga over the speakers. Last night we were also treated to the ‘A Team’ – Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw, a professional suckup who seems to be perpetually drunk. Not much insight from any of them, but Olbermann and Williams mixed it up a little but – I could see that Williams is no one to mess with while on camera. He is quick on his feet.

Michelle Obama is a neat lady – it’s too bad the Democrats have to tone her down, take away her spontaneity. She’s refreshing, smart, and real. But now they’ve got her saying all the right things, so she’s not so much fun anymore. Is there anything more dehumanizing than being a prominent Democrat?

What is the big deal about the Clinton’s? I was a little pissed as I listened to Hillary – her followers are so intent on inflicting her on us that they would punish us with McCain before voting for the black dude. She’s nothing special – doesn’t care about ordinary people they way Democrats are supposed to care. Her voice is shrill, inflections staged. She’s a little bit robotic as she reads her lines, her punches anticipated and poorly delivered. And don’t talk about Hillary and health care – she’s taken more money from the insurance companies than any other candidate. C’mon folks – just as in 1992, she was the one whose job it was to turn our health care system over the the insurance corporations. She didn’t set out to help us or fix anything. She’s not one of us.

Get over this woman, please and soon. She’s poison.

Then there’s Bill – a half million Iraqi kids would have refused to applaud for him last night if they were alive to not applaud. This is the USA – we can’t say certain things, and one thing we are not allowed to talk about is how Bill Clinton enforced murderous sanctions on Iraq for eight years, and how all those kids perished as he looked on and blamed Saddam. What a butcher, what a phony, what a Machivellian manipulator. No – he would not personally kill a child. That’s not how it works. When powerful people like Clinton kill people, they wear tailored suits and attend lavish parties and make decisions in the abstract. They don’t have to personally witness the deaths. That’s why Bill to this day thinks he’s not responsible for all that suffering. But he is.

And don’t tell me he’s not still chasing other women. I can forgive him that – look who he is married to. But not the kids. Now they talk about him like he was some sort of compassionate liberal while he was in office, how he “put people first” – good grief. I’ll grant that he was a liberal if the Democratic Party will take responsibility for all the liberals who got us into Vietnam. Bill follows in their foot path. He’s that kind of liberal.

Bill Clinton’s speech sounded genuinely insincere to me. He’s lost his touch – he’s not faking sincerity like he once did. Maybe he’s been out of the circuit too long.

Brian Schweitzer could have given his speech at the Republican convention and pulled it off. He’s a right-leaning centrist, but these Democrats – they aren’t exactly policy wonks. They just want to be in power, and will make any philosophical concession to get those D’s elected. Schweitzer is genuine and folksy and likable, though.

Joe Biden was pretty good – I mean, I want to see Obama elected for one reason only – I think he’ll give us better judges. There’s not much else in the pipeline from these Democrats. I thought Obama really helped himself when he nominated Joe, who comes across as human and fallible, a guy who might cry a real tear instead of a politically staged one. And he has fire in his belly – he gives good speech. But I was wondering last night why he didn’t go after Dick Cheney or mention wiretapping. The Vice President is, as Rachel Maddow said, “low hanging fruit”. He chimes in at around 18% popularity, but Biden tippy-toed around him, not even mentioning him by name, and for sure didn’t talk about all of the laws that have been openly violated these last eight years.

If Obama is elected, he will very quickly close the book on the Bush/Cheney years – there’ll be no punishment for all the wrongs that have been done. That’s a shame – many of them belong in prison, and Bush and Cheney need to be twitching at the end of a rope. They are that bad.

I get the impression that Cheney has been in charge during the Bush presidency and that he runs an enforcement racket. He’s been tapping all the phones, and extracts his pound of flesh. People are genuinely afraid of him. That would explain why a man so despised is so untouchable, why even firebrands like Biden won’t cross him. He knows what’s in all the closets.

Anyway, that’s Democrats for you – our ‘alternative’ party. There’s not much to get excited about. Republicans make change, Democrats adapt. Amy Goodman did a good piece on the so-called “Blue Dogs” – they were at a party staged by AT&T, who wanted to thank them for FISA, letting them off the hook for wiretapping us since February of 2001. Goodman stood outside the door while maybe 25 of the dogs walked by – each one refused to talk or even look at her. These are arrogant pricks. But they’re Democrats.

By the way, I think the sheen has worn off Obama. He’s not new or exciting anymore, his charisma is waning. That might have something to do with his sagging popularity – that, and the fact that Democrats don’t know how to work the media. McCain’s people have been pummeling them and they don’t know how to respond, and they sure don’t know how to dish it out themselves. They’re all about respect and talking up McCain’s good points, afraid to mess with the phony war hero. It doesn’t hurt that the media will take these 15 second McCain spots and run them for free ad nauseum, but the Obama campaign desperately needs some creative force behind it. Bob Schrum – where are you?