What in God's holy name are you blathering about?

Sarah Palin in an interview with Sean Hannity:

"Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we're talking about today. And that's something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this."

Sarah Palin in an interview with Katie Couric:

"I'm not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who's more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who's actually done it?"

The Dude talking to the other Jeffrey Lebowski, the millionaire:

"I dropped off the money exactly as per... look, man, I've got certain information, all right? Certain things have come to light. And, you know, has it ever occurred to you, that, instead of, uh, you know, running around, uh, uh, blaming me, you know, given the nature of all this new shit, you know, I-I-I-I... this could be a-a-a-a lot more, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, complex, I mean, it's not just, it might not be just such a simple... uh, you know?"

You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll piss yourself

Reacting to concern among some Democrats that his campaign is not pushing back hard enough against increasingly pointed (not to mention misleading) Republican attacks, the NY Times reports that Barack Obama will be stepping up his criticism of John McCain going forward. But if you're worried that this is a knee-jerk reaction that's incongruous with Obama's notoriously disciplined approach to campaigning, the following statement should put your mind at ease:

“We’re sensitive to the fluid dynamics of the campaign, but we have a game plan and a strategy,” said Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe. “We’re familiar with this. And I’m sure between now and Nov. 4 there will be another period of hand-wringing and bed-wetting. It comes with the territory.”


This guy really does seem sensitive to the "fluid" dynamics of the campaign. Sort of a strange choice of words, no? He may as well have said, "We fully expect there will be another period of fretting and vomiting. It comes with the territory." Or, "This is all par for the course. The hand-wringing, the pooping in our pants. That's politics."

You can't spell Rangel without Angel

In an utterly unsurprising development, Representative Charles B. Rangel has been accused of failing to report $75,000 in rental income from his beachfront villa in the Dominican Republic. The 78-year old chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which is tasked with the electrifying duty of writing our nation's federal tax code, has asked the House ethics committee to investigate the matter.

Just in case you're counting, that's the third separate inquiry Mr. Rangel has requested since his personal finances began coming under intense public scrutiny in July.

Take a look at this guy:


You believe him, right? At first I wasn't sure if he looked trustworthy, but then I saw all those books behind him.

I call shenanigans.

In case you missed it, President Bush got all up in Congress's grill on Wednesday, berating Democrats for not lifting the federal ban on offshore oil and gas drilling. Some choice comments included:

"There is no excuse for delay... Families across the country are looking to Washington for a response... I know the Democratic leaders have opposed some of these policies in the past. Now that their opposition has helped drive gas prices to record levels, I ask them to reconsider their positions."

Bush went on to say that if congressional leaders head home for their July 4 recess without taking action, they will need to explain why "$4 a gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act. And Americans will rightly ask how high gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it."

You tell 'em, W. I'm sure the Democrats will get right on that. While they're at it, are there any other long-standing policies that we can lift in an effort to pander to the oil industry? I've never been crazy about habeas corpus. And don't even get me started on eminent domain.

Primary Colors

I enjoyed this "conversation" in today's NY Times between David Brooks, the conservative all liberals can agree on, and Gail Collins, a columnist for the paper. Here's an excerpt, in which Brooks kicks off the dialogue:

Gail,

I watched “Recount” on HBO the other night and learned a bunch. For example, did you know that Republicans are evil yet efficient, while Democrats are noble but slightly too good for this world? I also learned that Republicans stole the 2000 election from the Democrats even though the media recounts afterwards showed that Bush did indeed win Florida. It’s amazing what you can learn watching HBO.

I mention all this because we’re supposed to be discussing the merits and demerits of the Republican and Democratic primary rules. I think the Republican rules are much better, albeit in an evil and ruthlessly efficient sort of way.

The Republicans like winners and disincentivize losing. Hence the profusion of winner take all primaries. They got a nominee efficiently and cleanly. Wham, bam, thank you Fred.

Each candidate got a chance to be front-runner — Rudy, Fred, Mitt and John — and since the first three weren’t able to sustain the magic, John got to be nominee in short order.

The Democrats, being better people, wanted to make sure everybody gets a prize each primary. After all, it’s unfair for there to be just one nominee. We’re all nominees in our own way.

The Democratic race now threatens to stretch on until 2012. Even the winner can’t really win. If I were working for Obama I’d look at those gigantic losses in West Virginia and Kentucky and I’d sweat bullets. He’s been robbed of all momentum by the silly rules. The holes in his support have been ruthlessly exposed.

It all goes to confirm the old saying that all historical rivalries pit one side that is right but repulsive against another side that is wrong but romantic.