This is going to seem petty, but I can't avoid it. John McCain thinks this country on the left exists. In fact, it hasn't since 1992. McCain, whose main argument for his candidacy rests on his brilliant mind concerning foreign policy issues, during a press event yesterday, said, "I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia."
Today, a.k.a. one day later, he said it AGAIN; for the second time!
Not the biggest deal, I understand, and precisely the kind of silly slip up the media overblows, but it is a pretty silly mistake for someone who has made foreign policy his crowning achievement.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Two parents
I have not heard a lot about this from the mainstream media, but in an interview with The New York Times, John McCain said the he doesn't "believe in gay adoption." Actually, what he said, when asked if he agreed with Bush's belief "that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children," he answered, "we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption."
As a relative of two wonderfully loving gay parents to two adopted children, I'm not going to cite anything other than my personal experience to refute McCain's nonsense. I will, though, note that despite a blog post by the gossiper Perez Hilton, McCain's quote has gotten zero notice.
As a relative of two wonderfully loving gay parents to two adopted children, I'm not going to cite anything other than my personal experience to refute McCain's nonsense. I will, though, note that despite a blog post by the gossiper Perez Hilton, McCain's quote has gotten zero notice.
Satire
While spending the last few weeks on the sidelines, I wondered what it would take for me to be moved to write again. Unfortunately, it was a tie.
First, this cover. I'm baffled by all the attention this is receiving. The coverage, so far as I can tell, is being driven by the Obama campaign, which is rightfully sensitive to such images. The campaign lashed out, calling the cover "tasteless and offensive." But Obama's underlings are barking up the wrong tree this time.
It's stating the obvious to say the cover is satire. But that comment is not only obvious, it's an understatement -- it's smart satire.
Imagine a different scenario. Imagine that Frank Rich had written a column about the smears and rumors repeated about the Obamas. I'm not Frank Rich, but I would not be surprised to see him write something like this,
"This election, if the John McCains and Karl Roves have their way, will center on the image of Barack Obama standing in the Oval Office in traditional Muslim garb. But it won't be just about religion. The Republicans will portray him as having a portrait of Osama bin Laden (his namesake) resting above a fire fueled by a burning American flag.
But the image won't just be of the Senator from Illinois. The McCains and Roves will have Michelle there, too. She's the foot soldier, ready for battle. She'll hold an AK-47, boast a giant afro, huge lips and give a secret hand signal to her presidential hubby."
I doubt anyone would call those two paragraphs "tasteless and offensive." No one would think twice about seeing those paragraphs in the Sunday Times.
The cover is drawing the ire of the Obama campaign because it is exactly what is happening. It is great satire for the same reason.
First, this cover. I'm baffled by all the attention this is receiving. The coverage, so far as I can tell, is being driven by the Obama campaign, which is rightfully sensitive to such images. The campaign lashed out, calling the cover "tasteless and offensive." But Obama's underlings are barking up the wrong tree this time.
It's stating the obvious to say the cover is satire. But that comment is not only obvious, it's an understatement -- it's smart satire.
Imagine a different scenario. Imagine that Frank Rich had written a column about the smears and rumors repeated about the Obamas. I'm not Frank Rich, but I would not be surprised to see him write something like this,
"This election, if the John McCains and Karl Roves have their way, will center on the image of Barack Obama standing in the Oval Office in traditional Muslim garb. But it won't be just about religion. The Republicans will portray him as having a portrait of Osama bin Laden (his namesake) resting above a fire fueled by a burning American flag.
But the image won't just be of the Senator from Illinois. The McCains and Roves will have Michelle there, too. She's the foot soldier, ready for battle. She'll hold an AK-47, boast a giant afro, huge lips and give a secret hand signal to her presidential hubby."
I doubt anyone would call those two paragraphs "tasteless and offensive." No one would think twice about seeing those paragraphs in the Sunday Times.
The cover is drawing the ire of the Obama campaign because it is exactly what is happening. It is great satire for the same reason.
Time off
It's been a long time since I've posted. I'm dealing with a busy personal schedule, but more importantly as far as the blog is concerned, I'm struggling with the letdown of the changing political season. The contrasts between the general election candidates is so vast that I find the topics of discussion to be obvious to anyone who follows politics. Indeed, the differences now are ones of policy, not politics. I will adjust, of course, and intend to continue posting as frequently as before. My apologies for the lull.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)