Today’s opining on the public discourse.
The Republicon party has now officially become a farce.
John McCain not only supported the bailout package rejected by the House, he bragged about his role in getting the bill to the floor yesterday. His running mate suggested the bill was necessary to avert a depression. His campaign credited McCain personally for the bill’s very existence.
So it was a little odd to see the Republican National Committee come out with a new ad this morning blasting Barack Obama for the bailout package.
The Republican Party’s independent expenditure arm is up with an ad that hints at opposing the bailout, and links Obama’s spending plans, in a vague but ominous way, to it.
The ad was expected to air in Indiana and Virginia, along with more traditional battlegrounds of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Let me get this straight. The Republican president supported the bill. The Republican Senate leadership supported the bill. The Republican House leadership supported the bill. The Republican presidential nominee supported the bill. And the Republican National Committee runs an ad insisting that Obama’s bailout package “will make the problem worse.”
Indeed, the RNC unveiled its breathtaking ad literally within minutes of John McCain telling Fox
News that in order to get increased support for the bill, “We’re going to have to change enough Republican and Democrats’ minds.””
Does this remind anyone else of two children trying to pull a wagon by tugging in opposite directions? We have McCain not speaking for the McCain campaign, the McCain campaign not speaking for McCain, Sarah Palin not speaking for either one, and now the RNC takes up a position diametrically opposed to its own fucking candidate. I’m expecting clowns to come tumbling out of the campaign plane any minute now.
Oh, wait. They already have one:
Howard Kurtz generated some interest yesterday when he reported that as bad as Sarah Palin’s interview(s) with Katie Couric were, the “worst may be yet to come for Palin;
sources say CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely prove embarrassing.”
How much worse could it be? Apparently, one of the problematic responses has to do with the Supreme Court.
The Palin aide, after first noting how “infuriating” it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.
After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.
There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.
Usually, she can at least respond with incoherent babble. This actually isn’t a hard question: anyone with a passing familiarity with national issues can name at least one Supreme Court case other than Roe. Off the top of my head, I can name Miranda vs. Arizona, Hamden, Bush vs. Gore… there’s plenty more. If you read as many newspapers as Sarah Palin, rattling off a Supreme Court decision or two should be no problem:
Tonight on the CBS Evening News, host Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin which sources she relies on for her news consumption. Three separate times, Couric tried to elicit a response from Palin about which specific newspapers she reads. Seemingly caught off guard, Palin could not name a single news source:
COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?
PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —
COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.
PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
For fuck’s sake.
McCain could’ve run a parrot as his veep and would’ve gotten a more loquacious, aware partner. African grays are intelligent birds, and they could at least repeat the talking points his aides have been stuffing down Palin’s maw with some degree of accuracy.
Moving on from that trainwreck, the devastation doesn’t get any better. I’ve heard talk of Obama being like Lincoln and appointing a bipartisan cabinet containing a few intelligent, hard-working Republicons, but I have no idea where he might find some. Would he choose… Newt Gingrich?
Now that House Republicans are insisting their vote against the bailout yesterday had nothing to do with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s supposedly “partisan” speech, some are wondering what in fact turned at least 10 Republican votes Blunt thought he had against the bill.
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported this morning that conservatives may have been taking their marching orders from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who “was whipping against this up until the last minute” — despite issuing a statement supporting the bill as the vote was
MITCHELL: I’m told reliably by leading Republicans who are close to him, he was whipping against this up until the last minute when he issued that face-saving statement. Newt Gingrich was telling people in the strongest possible language that this was a terrible deal, not only that it was a terrible deal, that it was a disaster, it was the end of democracy as we know it, it was socialism. And then at the last minute comes out with a statement when the vote is already in place.
No, too hypocritical and devious, not to mention totally fucking insane. House Republicons, maybe?
Yesterday, after the proposed bipartisan bailout package failed to pass, the House Republican leadership declared in a press conference that a “partisan” speech by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was to blame for GOP opposition to the bill. But after being ridiculed by Democrats, media observers, and even some conservatives, Republicans are now walking back that claim:
– Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN): “We are not babies who suck their thumbs.”
– Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO): “I think you don’t want to give too much blame to that speech.”
– Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ): “It was embarrassing for leadership on both parties to lose the bill, so they went out and made a stupid claim.”
– Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): “That speech was not the reason I voted against the bill.” [MSNBC, 9/30/08]
Oh, fuck no.
I think Obama’s gonna have to stick with regular ol’ Dems and maybe the occasional Independent. I hear quite a few of those used to be Republicons before the crybabies and toddlers took over the party.