Why one running mate will matter more than all others

There's a significantly better chance that McCain will die in office than any other candidate. It's macabre to say so, but inescapable all the same. Even if he lives through his hypothetical term(s), McCain must surely have the greatest risk of being otherwise incapacitated in office. Who McCain picks as a VP nominee will matter.

Stupor Tuesday

I'm watching CNN in the background, but I'm not sure what the point is of watching these things live. I don't think we'll know anything substantial about what has happened until tomorrow morning.

The Sleeper Issue of '08: 1980s Kitsch

If you had told me back in 1988 that the political endorsements that would make the news would be those of Chuck Norris, Hulk Hogan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, I imagine that I would have said, "AWESOME!"

That's because I was a ten year-old boy in 1988.

Seriously, why are the fake superheroes of the 1980's so culturally relevant? Who will Sylvester Stallone endorse? How did McCain get Arnold's endorsement anyway? I imagine that there was a conference call that went something like this:

Arnold: This is good, but what is best in life?
Mitt Romney: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.
Arnold: Wrong! John McCain! What is best in life?
John McCain: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.
Arnold: That is good! That is good.

Actually, that may have also been the conversation that earned McCain's Giuliani endorsement too. What about Obama and Hogan? Will Hogan offer to let Obama use this as his campaign song:

I can only hope so.

Obama Kicking Ass

I don't know if there's a better way to put it. He's got a significant lead on Hillary in New Hampshire these days. I wonder what this guy would be like as a president. I think it would be significant for a breaking a colour barrier that we've all been told doesn't exist. What else though?

The Angry Confusion of Jonah Goldberg

Matthew Yglesias has come upon Jonah Goldberg's latest tirade that he describes thusly:

"I read this Jonah Goldberg post that seemed to be complaining that liberals don't cite enough sacred texts that can then be debunked (and therefore gain an unfair advantage by keeping our true theological roots shrouded in mystery) with some puzzlement, so I was glad to see him eventually clarify that he thinks a handful of inane pranks can rectify the situation."

I admit that I got a bit of a chuckle out of this, but nothing really replicates the disingenuous pleading of the original post:

"The beauty of religious conservatives is that their dogma is open to scrutiny and investigation. Conservatives generally have a written canon that includes everything from the Bible to scores of political books. Liberalism's canon is largely unwritten, it's dogma made-up as they go along."

Wow. Right after this bit, Goldberg states that he's overgeneralizing but it would seem rather that he's lying outright. Many of the principle liberal texts (Locke, Rousseau, et cetera) predate many principle conservative texts (Burke, et cetera). Burke, you will recall, was reacting to the lurching attempts to install liberalism during the French Revolution... Oh wait, hahaha, I'm assuming that the average conservative voter has read Burke.

Yes conservatives, I'm calling you out, who's read Burke? Who's read Oakeshott? Leaving aside the ridiculous, vaguely offensive claim that Goldberg makes that religion is the sole domain of political conservatives, a reading of popular political aims might make one conclude that the Christian bible is broken down into these chapters:

1. Keeping it out of the bum,
2. No abortions,
3. Taking the brain-dead off of life support (don't do it),
4. Did we mention keeping it out of the bum?
5. Tax cuts have to be in here somewhere... Anyone? Bueller?

The idea that all conservatives are earnestly attempting to adhere to biblical principles puts the horse before the cart in my mind. I think that many conservative politicians attempt sell policies that they've arrived at through a variety of means with a post-hoc religious justification. Moreover the problem with platforms based solely on religious texts is that they attempt to put policies beyond questioning. The other problem is that Jonah Goldberg really shouldn't be allowed to write, but you knew that already.

Hemingway Update and Naivete

I posted about my new kitten here. She continues to eat, sleep, and act in cute/destructive ways. Weirdly though, she seems unimpressed by Bill Maher, mashing the keyboard while I was watching a YouTube clip of Maher's show and causing Bill Maher to disappear. It wasn't even a bad clip of Maher (who can be irritating or sanctimonious at times) rather it was his discourse with John Mellencamp on naivete in US politics:

If you watch the clip, one of the things that they touch on (but not quite) is the power of narrative and of image in US politics. Fred Thompson has a pickup truck! That in itself is not a reason to vote for or against Thompson, but it is a marketing ploy trying to convince anyone who can't be bothered to follow the issues that Thompson is someone to whom they can relate as opposed to man who has spent his life around power and money in Washington and Hollywood and Washington again (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Interestingly, there is less of an aspect of this narrative in Canadian politics. Perhaps this is because our current Prime Minister has been a career politician/policy wonk and our previous Prime Minister was a shipping magnate.

Spreading democracy? Psssh, that's so 2003!

Remember all that talk about remaking the Middle East as a democratic paradise? Forget that, authoritarianism is the new rage! The new hot trend spreading on the right is ignoring democracy.

Consider:

In Canada the Conservatives have appointed an unelected party hack as the extra-special government representative for a riding that already has a member from another party. They may have done this in several ridings. Why have an election when you can just appoint these sorts of people?

In the US a credibly mainstream right-wing think tank has published a piece calling on Bush to become President-for-Life. Because it worked for the Caesars in Rome. Seriously.

Gonzales Gone

According to the New York Times, Alberto Gonzales is stepping down as AG. Supposedly, Chertoff is going to replace him.

Dennis Perrin on Hillary

She's still the number one pick to win the Democratic nomination, and yet her appeal is a very narrow centre to centre-left slice. Anyone very far to either the left or the right of her has no use for her. So for all of you who don't fit into that narrow Hillary slice of the population, here's Dennis Perrin's take on her campaign song. Enjoy.

Neocons Alone

Juan Cole has a most excellent piece today on how Nancy Pelosi's visit with Bashar al-Asad represents not only Democratic Party attempts to revive a full spectrum of foreign policy tools (not just bombing and invasions) but also mainstream opinion in Israel. Why? Well, as Cole writes,

"So since the Neocons' Iraq War has turned into a catastrophe that poses an asymmetrical security threat to Israel, since the Lebanon war they so strongly backed turned into a fiasco, and since their plans for overthrowing Bashar are likely to even further endanger Israel, then the Israeli political and military elite must be fuming and seeking a way to outmaneuver the Bushies and their wild man Neocon allies."

Arguably the most aggressive attempt at building a new conservative coalition since Nixon's "Southern strategy" has been centered on convincing Jews in North America that neoconservative foreign policy is best for Israel. It is apparent now that the strategy is not really working. Of course such a position was formulated in part because on the surface it fused well with Evangelical premillenialist beliefs about a Jewish state being necessary for Armageddon. If you read most premillenialists, you'll see that the Jews end up mostly getting wiped out in this scenario.

All the stuff is now getting thrown out (I hope) for a more sensible foreign policy. You know, one that doesn't see hard power as the only power.

The War and Conservatism in the US

It appears that launching an illegal war with no exit strategy tends to be a drag on the rest of your platform. Small "c" conservative views on a whole range of subjects are now profoundly unpopular among the under-25 set.

Of course this forces us to ask the question, if the Iraq war had gone swimmingly, would gay marriage now be less popular in the US?

People tend to sign up for a political party or activist group because they believe strongly in one or two things. The might be ardent about abortion rights, lower taxes, health care, affordable housing, a strong military, family values - anything. What happens though, is that once someone buys into a party because of their stance on one issue, they tend to adopt that party's stances on a variety of issues.

People who were driven from the Republican party by this administration and its war, may now question the entire GOP platform.
Picture: Could the preserved head of Nixon save the GOP?

Mind the Gaps

The US Justice Department scandal is now turning on a sixteen-day gap in the White House and DOJ emails that have been released. Gaps are one of the things that ultimately chased Nixon from office - in his case those in the transcripts that he released to Congress. Nixon left when he had to turn over the entire tapes under order of the Supreme Court.

The questions that are being obscured by that gap sound an awful lot like "What did the President know, and when did he know it?" Plus ca change...

Godwin's Law Award

I missed this, but apparently US Senator James Inhofe had compared those who believe that global warming is occurring to the Third Reich. Go read the link, his comparison is faulty on several levels.

Bonus content: Inhofe gets bitch-slapped for not letting Al Gore answer any of his questions.

John Bolton on The Daily Show

First of all, yes, he's an asshole.

Bolton apparently thinks that anything that undermines the president's authority is anti-democratic. Why? Because it undermines the will of the people who voted for him.

Uhhh, John, voting for someone is a hell of a long way from wanting all his (or her) ideological soul-mates run things with uniformity. Personally I usually end up voting for the lesser of two or more evils.

U.S. History (and Canadian Prophecy?)

Atrios has a post today on the mainstreaming of radical right-wing ideas in the US. Money quote:

"Over the last few decades we've seen just about every radical conservative idea be completely mainstreamed into our politics and discourse, while at the same time the Noble Defenders of the Left Flank like Joe Lieberman Weekly and Joe Klein have valiantly fought to ensure that every political idea or thought to their left on the rough political spectrum is declared to be "extremist." It's marginalization rhetoric which paints those who those who have those ideas as not just wrong, but actually ineligible to have a seat at the debate table."

This is, I think, a fair assessment of the success of far-right groups in the US in the past two decades. I can't help but think that this is exactly what Stephen Harper wants to import. It's been said that he wants to shift Canadian politics so that the Conservatives are the new "natural governing party" of this nation. The new cadre of editors at Macleans, the alarmist (and alarming) Ezra Levant and his rag, as well as a variety of think-tanks (Fraser among others) are more than willing to facilitate this mainstreaming of radical right-wing ideas.

Conservatives of both the small and big "c" variety are feeling ascendant in this country. The challenge will be to respond to their attempts at driving national discourse. In the US they were aided and abetted by a complacent and sometimes sympathetic media, we have no reason to assume the media will behave differently here.