Friday, June 20, 2008

Three Fast Funnies

1. For all you hard-working cubicle-dwellers out there, here's a hilarious "Pearls Before Swine" (click on image to enlarge):

2. For those of you who know it's not nice to speak ill of the dead but have no qualms about making fun of them, hie thee straight over to the magnificent Jon Swift, who has emerged from his excruciatingly long (for those of us who can't live without our regular doses of "reasonable conservatism") blog silence in time to plumb the depths of the significance (to humanity) of the death of Tim Russert. The important part of the post is Swift's insightful analysis of what he terms "the Russert rule," which reversed well-established journalistic practices of making all conversations with public officials on the record so that Little Timmy and his friends could enjoy pleasant evenings in Georgetown, but the funny part is Jon's reflection on the enormous shock of Russert's sudden death:
Russert's friends and colleagues were understandably shocked by Russert's premature passing. If an overweight workaholic with diabetes and a history of coronary artery disease can suddenly die without warning, is any one of us safe? Many of the pundits and politicians who spoke at Russert's funeral and during the hours and hours and hours of cable news coverage must have been wondering, for the first time in their lives, Am I, too, mortal? Tom Brokaw has never looked so human.
Moose is going to tape that quote up on the refrigerator to keep her motivated to stick to the Tim Russert Memorial Lifestyle Adjustment Plan she launched in the wake of the newsman's death. (Originally, she was calling it a "diet," but then she clicked over to the Weight Watchers web site and was reminded that just saying the word "diet" is a guaranteed way to gain weight. She did not sign up for Weight Watchers, but she appreciated the sound, free advice.)

3. For those of you planning to sit back and laugh smugly and cynically as Senator Barack Obama proves to be the calculating centrist Roxie's World said he was all along, here's a David Brooks column that you might find amusing. It pains us to agree with the smarmy, insufferable Brooks, but he captures the duality of Obama -- "the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier" versus "the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes" -- that we think a lot of Republicans and most of his starry-eyed progressive fans have overlooked. The money quote?
Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.
That nails it, doesn't it? Public financing? Hey, he was for it before he was against it. Call us when Obama puts Sam Nunn on his ticket, will you? We may need you to explain to us, just once more and very slowly, what a truly transformational leader the Lesser is. What's that you were saying about a new style of politics? Let me cock my head to the right a little so you can speak into this old dog's good ear.

Peace out, kids. Much to do today as the moms prepare for their journey to the Arctic. Stay tuned for the strat memo we're preparing for the Obama campaign as it works tirelessly (or is that cluelessly?) to woo disaffected Clintonistas. We'll have it before they take off on Monday. Honor bright.

5 comments:

  1. Rox,

    Once again you've pegged it and you were right all along. The cynical backpedaling of The Lesser all this week has been alternatively painful and funny to watch. All that railing against NAFTA? That was just "heated campaign rhetoric" (his words), he didn't really mean it. And once again he said that, yeah, well, if he would've been in the Senate when HRC was, then he probably would have voted the way she did in 2002 (to authorize force, if necessary), too. My my.

    I've rarely seen WaPo so disgusted that they open an op-ed piece with such sarcasm, "BARACK OBAMA isn't abandoning his pledge to take public financing for the general election campaign because it's in his political interest. Certainly not. He isn't about to become the first candidate since Watergate to run an election fueled entirely with private money because he will be able to raise far more that way than the mere $85 million he'd get if he stuck to his promise -- and with which his Republican opponent, John McCain, will have to make do. No, Mr. Obama, or so he would have you believe, is forgoing the money because he is so committed to public financing. Really, it hurts him more than it hurts Fred Wertheimer [who so roundly applauded the "reformer" Obama]."

    We've had so much backpedaling this week, I wonder what will happen next. I'm glad Moose and I will be in the Land of the Midnight Sun, Rox. You keep an eye on things for us, and Moose will send you postcards and you can let us know what The Lesser backpedals on next.

    Oh, by the way, on the conference call yesterday with Hillary, I was reminded of just what we are indeed stuck with. She has moved on and is already at work on the causes she knows will get thrown under the bus: women's rights, gay rights (yep, she mentioned us again), health care NOT written by Big Pharma, etc. What a mensch SHE is.

    much love, and we'll send you pics of the Midnight Sun,
    Goose

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rox,

    I also wonder how many of The Lesser's supporters will bother to do some fact-checking on what he says about this campaign financing stuff (they by and large haven't to date on other things, so I'm not optimistic). But before they grab their credit cards and give the Big Money Hog more funds, they might want to check out this article, which begins, "In a web video emailed to supporters Thursday, Barack Obama explained that he was opting out of the public financing system because John McCain is 'not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.'

    Republicans can only wish that were the case.

    Obama’s alarmist prophecy — a bit of typical campaign rhetoric meant to scare his own donors into reaching for their credit cards — is wildly at odds with the flatlined state of conservative third-party efforts.

    The truth is that, less than five months before Election Day, there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group." The article in full can be found at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11220.html.

    So he's going to buy the Presidency. Gee, and that's change from -- ???

    Back to work!
    --Goose

    ReplyDelete
  3. historiann12:31 PM EDT

    Well done, Roxie. Historiann made the same observation/prediction that Obama would not in fact be the Jesus Messiah of the Progressive Movement (because true progressives pay more than lip service to GLBTQ and feminism.) What would the mainstream and liberal press have to say about a nominee HRC meeting with anti-gay and conservative ministers? What did they say about it when Obama did it last week? Crickets? Crickets, you say?

    If you want more of a more realistic appraisal of Russer's life and times, click on over to dailyhowler.com. Bob's been running a great series all week on the improbable eulogizing of the Great Man Who Was So Wise and Yet So Humble. He Grew Up in Buffalo, You Know, And Was A Man Of The People!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, it's summertime, Historiann, and one of the great pleasures of summer is sitting in the back yard with a cool drink listening to the sounds of crickets filling the night sky with their symphony of sound. What? You say you don't hear them? C'mon, crickets -- get cricking! Yeah, that ministers meeting is on our list of reasons to stay skeptical. Thanks for the nod toward Daily Howler. Genius.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous8:12 AM EDT

    Hey -- I finally figured out how to comment on your blog! You just click on "comments"!

    My favorite Obama is Another Bush item of the day is the fact that their campaign hands out "fake hand painted" signs for supporters to hold

    http://theunfocused.blogspot.com/2008/02/passing-out-signs-at-obama-rally.html

    And Hillary was the operator?
    -- Hollis

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.