Archive for July 27th, 2008

July 27, 2008

Whore hoppers for Hope

The Smoking Gun reports that two men in Chicago have been arrested in recent weeks on charges of solicitation of prostitution — while wearing Barack Obama T-shirts:

Memo to Barack Obama supporters everywhere: If you plan on soliciting some sexual favors from a prostitute, perhaps you should leave your t-shirt promoting the Democrat’s presidential campaign at home. For the second time in recent weeks, a Chicago man has been nabbed on a misdemeanor rap for soliciting sex from an undercover officer while promoting the hometown pol’s White House bid.
Sherman Cleveland, 40, was arrested last week and had his car impounded after he allegedly offered a female police officer money if she’d perform a sex act upon him, according to Officer Laura Kubiak, a Chicago Police Department spokesperson.

There must be an innocent explanation. These grassroots activists were just trying to do some outreach to the sex-worker community, canvassing the precinct, when they said something to these undercover cops about recent polls showing that approval ratings of Congress are so low, they’re below the low job approval numbers of President Bush. A simple misunderstanding . . .

July 27, 2008

Dumb things to say

“We better pray Obama gets elected, so Republicans will start acting like Republicans again.”
guest at a wedding attended by Sister Toldjah

July 27, 2008

Obama ads: ‘No measurable impact’

Donald Lambro, Washington Times:

Barack Obama’s summer saturation ad campaign in key battleground states has not increased the Illinois Democrat’s poll numbers, according to senior strategists for John McCain’s campaign and recent independent polling. . . .
The Obama campaign, flush with cash, is spending record amounts of money on big media buys in states like Virginia, Georgia, Florida, Colorado and Michigan, but the latest polls show that, if anything, the polling in these states has either changed little or the Arizona Republican has narrowed the gap in them. . . .
“So far we’re not seeing any evidence that they have had any measurable impact,” said a top McCain campaign official on the condition of anonymity.
McCain campaign officials say their own polls show that for all his spending, “Obama’s numbers haven’t budged a bit.”

Read the whole thing. This was obviously written before the latest round of tracking polls, but that “budge” had nothing to do with advertising and everything to do with network news fellatio . . .

July 27, 2008

‘Come with me if you want to live’

Arnold Schwarzenegger terminates trans-fats in California. So when you and your gay spouse get the munchies after smoking too much medical marijuana, you’ll have to make do with cholesterol-free low-fat organic bran muffins. Maybe if Mexicans start smuggling trans-fats into San Diego, Schwarzenegger will finally get tough on illegal immigration . . .

July 27, 2008

Obama bounces to +9

St. Hopey’s got his biggest lead so far in the Gallup daily tracking poll — 49% to 40% for Crazy Cousin John.

Notice that McCain has actually lost three points since Wednesday. Could this be a backlash against McCain’s new aggressive approach? So far, there’s no sign of a negative impact from the Landstuhl controversy for Obama, but it’s probably too early to tell.

Remember: This tracking poll is a three-day sample averaging results from Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Obama’s press coverage Thursday was all sunshine and cuddly bunnies, and it wasn’t until Friday that the blogosphere and talk-radio jumped all over the Landstuhl controversy. I wouldn’t be surprised if Monday’s Gallup tracker showed Obama losing a couple of points off his lead.
(Rasmussen‘s latest has Obama ahead by 5 points, 49%-44% including “leaners.)

It’s too soon to tell how this will play out, though. On the day Obama landed in Afghanistan, I said we’d have to wait until July 31 to know the net impact of his trip. We just have to wait and see.
July 27, 2008

‘Stunningly dishonest’?

So says Matthew Yglesias about John McCain’s new ad invoking Obama’s snub of the wounded heroes at Landstuhl.

Granted, as Allahpundit has noted, the ad does seem to mischaracterize the specific reasons why St. Hopey decided that visiting the brave American men and women who sacrifice for freedom wasn’t quite as important as working out with an awestruck German reporterette.

But what’s with this all-of-a-sudden progressive concern with facts? Why, just four short years ago, the Left was perfectly happy with “fake but accurate” news.

UPDATE: McCain stays on the attack:

(Via Hot Air.) How will this play? Too soon to tell, but the latest polls are not encouraging.

July 27, 2008

Gratuitous pinup eye candy

This was the art at Pirate’s Cove Sunday roundup, which included a link to me. And since I’m already “the Winston Churchill of patriarchal oppressors,” I figure my fellow swine wouldn’t mind a little cheesecake.

UPDATE: What is it with redheads in classic pinups? Redheads, redheads, redheads. Were there simply more redheads in the ’50s, or were there just more redhead models? Ain’t complaining, just noticing.

July 27, 2008

Another veepstakes rumor

Marc Ambinder says the scuttlebutt is that Crazy Cousin John will announce his running mate Monday. Fine, I’ll wait for Monday.

The game of speculating over running mates, and pundits pushing this or that possibility, bores me to tears. It’s like kids who spend weeks wondering what gifts they’ll get on Christmas morning, but worse, in that so many people claim to have the inside scoop on what’s going on.

There may be a certain amount of trial-ballooning that goes on — names being floated via press leaks to see how people react — but most of it’s just gossip. In the end, candidates usually pick either a blindingly obvious choice (Kerry and John Edwards) or they come up with a name so obscure that none of the pundits guessed it (Bush 41 and Dan Quayle). And beyond the genuine disasters (e.g., Thomas Eagleton) running-mate choices almost never have any real political impact.

Just wait until Dec. 25, kids. It will be here soon enough.

July 27, 2008

Did Team Clinton expose Edwards?

Fleet Street gets the gist:

Scratch John Edwards off the list of potential vice-presidential candidates. The former White House contender, who had been hoping to get the nod from Barack Obama, is in the midst of a full-blown sex scandal.
Every supermarket shopper knows that the preternaturally youthful former senator for North Carolina may have fathered a love child with a film-maker while Elizabeth, his saintly wife, is dying of cancer.

If the consequence of the Enquirer story is to scuttle Edwards as veep, why not suspect that the purpose of the story was to scuttle Edwards as veep? And if that was the purpose, then who had the motive?

This is invalid as logic, but as a gut-hunch, it feels pretty solid.

Everybody knows that the last thing in the world Team Obama wants is to have Hillary Clinton as his running mate. And among those who know it best are the Clintons themselves. The motive for torpedoing Edwards is obvious enough.

As James Carville likes to say, when you see a turtle sitting on top of a fencepost, you know he didn’t crawl up there by himself, and when a sex scandal sinks an obvious rival for Democratic running mate while Hillary’s sitting on top of a huge campaign debt, you start thinking: Jack Palladino, Terry Lenzner, Sidney Blumenthal … Hey, whatever happened to Kathleen Willey’s cat?

This is why you know that, if Barack Obama’s ever cheated on his wife, he must have been very discreet about it. Trust me, if Obama had any disgruntled ex-girlfriends out there, we’d have heard about it shortly after Super Tuesday. Of course, it’s still four weeks until the convention, so there’s still time for any aggrieved erstwhile paramour to make a deal with the Clintons.

If a sex scandal ruins Obama between now and Denver, and his ex-girlfriend ends up as Hillary’s ambassador to Costa Rica, don’t say I didn’t warn you.
July 27, 2008

‘No fear of being cut off for life’

So says Gabriel Malor, in response to my mocking of feminist bloggers, and you know something? He’s right. I’ve been married for 20 years, I’ve got six kids, and what do I have to fear from the opposite sex at this point?

Really, it would be unseemly for me to act “enlightened” and “sensitive” in order to impress women in general. The married man who makes a big show of his sensitivity and enlightenment . . . does the name John Edwards ring a bell, hmmm?

“Feminism” is a catch-all term that means many things, and the reason the term has such an unpopular stigma is that it is associated with whining victimhood. Nobody likes a whiner, and no matter how much intellectuals try to turn victimhood into virtue — “Admire me because I’m oppressed!” — the ordinary American rightly rejects such humbug.

Whining is incompatible with the can-do spirit of America. The Pilgrims and pioneers weren’t whiners. George Washington didn’t sit around Valley Forge whining. And so whenever some activist intellectual type starts whining about “equality” and “rights,” the ordinary American is instinctively suspicious: “What kind of scam are they running?” Lee Reynolds captured this in a comment:

Whiny leftists love to look for situations that they can point to as proof of bigotry and discrimination. They don’t care if that bigotry and discrimination is real. Their purpose is not to improve things or promote understanding. Their purpose is to promote and maintain the myth that the US is a nation plagued by racism, sexism, and any other inter-group discrimination they can invent or promote as being real.

It’s a racket, a hustle. Activist intellectual types invent or exaggerate grievances in order to justify their own existence, and to keep the money rolling in. If you’ve got a 501(c) operation dedicated to advancing the cause of “equality,” you have a vested interest in seeing inequality and discrimination everywhere. Why else should deep-pocket donors and foundations give you money?

William F. Buckley Jr. was once asked by Oxford University to debate the feminist Germaine Greer, but after much back-and-forth via trans-Atlantic telegram, he and Greer were unable to agree on the proposition to be debated. Finally, in frustration, Buckley offered, “Resolved: Give ’em an inch, and they’ll take a mile.”

In that witticism is much wisdom. Like other “progressive” ideologies, feminism is implacable. There is no fixed objective, no ultimate goal. Rather, feminist is rooted in a culture of complaint. It seeks out grievances to protest and, because there will never be a world without grievances, the protesting never ends. As soon as one concession is granted, another will be immediately demanded, and the specifics of the grievance are essentially irrelevant to this process.

You might as well try to negotiate with a hungry shark as to seek to pacify a feminist. They are permanently indignant and perpetually aggrieved. It’s who they are and what they do, their raison d’etre.

Now, Gabriel Malor suggested I “crossed the line” when I viciously mocked the HuffPo feminist who helped organize the “BlogHer” conference. But why was I mocking her? Because she couldn’t be satisfied with getting her conference written up in the New York Times. No, she had to complain that the write-up appeared in the “Style and Fashion” section.

Talk about whining! You get a 1,200-word write-up in the New York Freaking Times and then have the effrontery to complain about the placement? Screw you.

Feminism, however, is more than whining. It’s also a form of extortion. One reason middle-class men are afraid to denounce feminism as a dishonest scam (which it most certainly is) is for fear that it will harm their careers. Look at what those monsters did to Larry Summers at Harvard. To denounce feminism is to risk being branded an employment liability. What corporation would take the risk of hiring or promoting a man who openly scoffed at feminism? If they were ever sued for discrimination, that guy would become Exhibit A in a “hostile environment” case.

So I’ve got zero sympathy for whiny feminists who moan endlessly about how bad they’ve got it, while simultaneously using legal intimidation against any man who dares say them nay. They’re the Victimhood Mafia.

Feminists enjoy playing a little game of equating hostility to their bogus ideology with hostility toward women per se. Any man who questions feminist ideology is therefore a “misogynist,” a woman-hater. But I don’t hate women. I don’t discriminate against women. If anything, I tend to discriminate in favor of women, to cut them some slack and give them a break in a way I wouldn’t do with men. I’ve got a wife and two daughters whom I would never want to be treated unfairly or discourteously, so the last thing I would ever do is to encourage or tolerate hatred toward women.

Do feminists even care about stuff like that? No. They are intellectual totalitarians. Disagree with their ideology and you are a sexist. OK, fine: I’m a sexist.

Feminists are like Hitler at Munich, demanding the Sudetenland, and I refuse to be Neville Chamberlain. I’d rather be the Winston Churchill of patriarchal oppressors: We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them on the landing fields — we shall never surrender!

Now, run along and get me a cup of coffee, hon.

UPDATE: Katie seems to have been offended because a Democrat called her “darlin.” Well, you don’t have to call me darlin’, darlin’ . . .