Archive for November 19th, 2008

November 19, 2008

Steele blasts RNC ‘cocktail party’

Telling it like it is:

Mr. Steele blasted the Republican Party’s lackluster effort in recruiting those same new voters, especially minorities.
“The problem is that within the operations of the RNC, they don’t give a damn. It’s all about outreach … and outreach means let’s throw a cocktail party, find some black folks and Hispanics and women, wrap our arms around them – ‘See, look at us,’ ” he said.
“And then we go back to same old, same old. There’s nothing that is driven down to the state party level, where state chairmen across the country, to the extent they don’t appreciate it, are helped to appreciate the importance of
African-Americans and women and others coming and being a part of this party, and to the extent that they do appreciate it, are given support and backup to generate their own programs to create this relationship.”

And, of course, the RNC will ignore Steele’s criticism and pick another middle-aged white guy as chairman. Well, anybody would be improvement on Mel Martinez.

November 19, 2008

Palin ‘a rallying point for women’

Says Dick Morris:

Sarah Palin made a vast difference in McCain’s favor. Compared to 2004, McCain lost 11 points amg white men, according to the Fox News exit poll, but only four points among white women. Obama’s underperformance among white women, evident throughout the fall, may be chalked up, in large part, to the influence of Sarah Palin. She provided a rallying point for women who saw their political agenda in terms larger than abortion. She addressed the question of what it is like to be a working mother in today’s economy and society and resonated with tens of millions of white women who have not responded to the more traditional, and liberal, advocates for their gender.

Look, my support for Sarah Palin has nothing to do with her being a feminist hero or a role model for working women. I like her because (a) she’s conservative, and (b) she could be a winner. And (c) she’s hot, too.

November 19, 2008

U.S. solves childhood obesity epidemic

If you believe the federal government:

Some 691,000 children went hungry in America sometime in 2007, while close to one in eight Americans struggled to feed themselves adequately even before this year’s sharp economic downtown, the Agriculture Department reported Monday.
The department’s annual report on food security showed that during 2007 the number of children who suffered a substantial disruption in the amount of food they typically eat was more than 50 percent above the 430,000 in 2006 and the largest figure since 716,000 in 1998.
Overall, the 36.2 million adults and children who struggled with hunger during the year was up slightly from 35.5 million in 2006. That was 12.2 percent of Americans who didn’t have the money or assistance to get enough food to maintain active, healthy lives. . . .
The findings should increase pressure to meet President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to expand food aid and end childhood hunger by 2015, said James Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, an anti-hunger group.

Why am I suspicious of this story? Maybe it’s because it comes with this map showing widespread hunger in the Deep South:

Which I ask you to compare to this map illustrating childhood obesity:

Eric Bost, under secretary at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), noted that in 2005, 600 Texas children underwent amputations because of complications caused by type 2 diabetes.

So if you believe the government, not only can jet fuel melt steel — sorry, 9/11 Truthers — but the Biscuit Belt has gone from feast to famine practically overnight.

November 19, 2008

Brace for coffee spew

It’s Ace, so you’d better be ready for a colorful simile or two.

November 19, 2008

Maureen Dowd wannabe

Kathleen Parker:

[T]he evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn’t soon cometh. . . .
[T]he GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows.

The familiar litany, up to and including more trashing of Sarah Palin. Hey, Kathleen, see if any of this stuff sounds familiar: No Child Left Behind. Iraq. Medicare Part D. Amnesty ’06. Katrina. Amnesty ’07. Financial meltdown.

Lots of objective reasons there for GOP woes. And which of these issues do you identify as a sop to the low-brow holy-rollers?

The evidence doesn’t match your argument, Ms. Parker. The main problem with the Republican Party is going back to Texas Jan. 20, and then conservatives will get back to rebuilding what’s left of the GOP, which is slightly less than what was left of it the last time a Bush left the White House.

November 19, 2008

Joe on Palin, Jindal, etc.

A student reporter for the Tufts Daily scores an interview with Joe the Plumber:

Q: As a Republican, do you feel that Gov. Sarah Palin was the right vice-presidential selection?
Honestly, I think she shines too much. I think vice president no, president definitely. She has moral values. She has a record of change that … John McCain had supposedly … Sarah was actually too big of a personality, too big of a person to be vice president. . . .
Q: The Republican Party was dealt another devastating blow [on Nov. 4]. In your opinion, what do you feel the party needs to do in order to successfully regain control of the government? Also, what should disappointed conservatives like yourself do following the election?
: The party should remember that they are conservative Republicans – that has been forgotten. They no longer hold to their ideals. They blow with the wind on just about every public opinion poll. So they are not right-wing; they are trying to show that they’re middle or even left-of-middle sometimes. You have to remember two years ago, the Democrats loved John McCain. That is not what this is about. If you’re a party, you have to stick to your ideals. The frontrunners in the Republican Party have definitely seem to forgotten that. Governor [Bobby] Jindal of Louisiana seems to have the right idea. We have got to get back to the grassroots of the Republican Party and not apologize for being conservative …

More where that came from.

November 19, 2008

Good-bye, Ted

Thanks for all your help in destroying the Republican Party, sir.

November 19, 2008

Jonah Goldberg threatens David Brooks

But I think he’s just joking:

I too will be at the NRI event tomorrow. I’m on “The Future of Conservatism” panel at the end of the day moderated by (drum roll please) David Brooks. As this is fundraising week, if you pledge $25,000 right now, I will promise to attack Brooks like he was Rifki in Midnight Express the moment he calls Sarah Palin a cancer on the GOP.

Driving home today, I passed a house where previously there had been a “McCain-Palin” sign. The owner had folded it in half and hung it from his mailbox so it read simply, “Palin.” And no, the house wasn’t a double-wide. It was a mansion on Kirby Road in McLean, Va.

Since Goldberg mentions fundraising that means it’s time for you to hit the tip jar, or else I might be forced to post more Anne Hathaway cleavage pics. And you don’t want me to do that, do you?

November 19, 2008

He announces his post-National Review plans:

Starting over Inauguration Weekend, I’ll be launching a new website, It will be a group blog, featuring many different voices. Not all of them identify as conservatives or Republicans. But they – and people like them – are the people conservatives and Republicans need.
I hope we will debate policy as well as politics. I hope above all that we can create an online community that will be exciting and appealing to younger readers, a generation often repelled by today’s mainstream conservatism. . . . We will be experimenting with video commentaries – and offering a very much expanded “bookshelf” section.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. “Young readers . . . repelled by today’s mainstream conservatism” — they’re called Democrats, David. Surely he doesn’t plan to allow any “unpatriotic” types to contribute.

He doesn’t say who will be bankrolling his project, but another group blog — will Christopher Buckley, Ken Adelman, Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan be among those making it “exciting and appealing to younger readers”? — isn’t exactly the cutting edge of societal evolution. I already contribute to two group blogs (AmSpecBlog and RightWingNews), so I guess I’m ahead of the game here. Also, since he’s going for the younger readers, does this mean new competition for the Anne Hathaway cleavage market share?

November 19, 2008

Dept. of Diminished Self-Awareness

Andrew Sullivan:

The NYT has National Review’s traffic at 788,000 unique visitors and The Weekly Standard’s at 490,000 last month. What struck me, unless the numbers are off (and in web traffic, it’s sometimes murky), is that by the standards of some blogs now, those don’t seem like big numbers. I bet Malkin or Reynolds are in the same ball-park, if not more successful. . . .
It may be that the blogosphere will kill off opinion journalism as we have known it. . . . Or maybe the print magazines will hang on as appendages to the online debate, as a way of milking those email addresses for money and offering a luxury product that will still be worth it. But I suspect that model works better for a monthly magazine like the Atlantic, which is more than opinion journalism, than a bi-weekly like NR, let alone a weekly like TWS. Their days may be numbered.

Whose days are numbered? Sullivan went from the New Republic, to blogging, to The Washington Times, to Time, to the Atlantic Monthly. He’s like a journneyman utility infielder hovering in the vicinity of the Mendoza Line, and he’s always been more about opinion than news. When has he ever done reporting?

Print journalism in general is a declining industry, but political opinion has never been a for-profit enterprise and as much as I enjoy the Atlantic, it’s been a long time since they’ve published anything as important as Barbara Dafoe Whitehead’s “Dan Quayle Was Right.”

There is no business basis for Sullivan to presume that the Atlantic is a better bet than either National Review or The Weekly Standard or The Nation or any other magazine. All of these magazines (like every other journalistic enterprise) will continue expanding their online footprint, but the prestige and permancy of print continues to offer value.

However, speaking of excellent print journalism, let me remind you that now would be a great time to buy a subscription to The American Spectator. And with the holidays approaching, don’t forget to buy a gift subscription for someone you love!