retail therapy

It's official: Rand Paul is my new Tea Party overlord, Russ Feingold is no longer a senator but somehow David Vitter is still a governor, and John Boehner will probably make history as our first orange Speaker of the House. Oh, it hurts (even though we all saw it coming).

So I bought a 35mm f/1.8 prime lens! And we made Rick Bayless's Texas Sheet Cake, which I do realize is named after a state that just reelected Rick Perry, but we had all the ingredients on hand and it sounded like the most delicious thing in which to drown our sorrows at 1:00 in the morning.

I sort of take solace in the fact that these kinds of things always spin the other way pretty fast—maybe tonight's events will give a boost to Obama's reelection bid in 2012? And did John Kerry just describe Harry Reid as being Dracula AND Lazarus in his press release? And how is it that I always find myself defending/cheering on Democrats with whom I'm not terribly enthused? Oh, right—because it could be worse.

It's been a while...

Our summer was busy and a little bit weird. Mostly consisted of me shuttered indoors hunched over a keyboard trying to meet work deadlines. We possibly heard a UFO while staying at my parents' house and went out looking for it but the search was not fruitful (at least as the memory wipe would have us believe). Then we went back to Lexington so TJ could start his second year of school and moved to a new and improved apartment.

I can't wait until next week: on Thursday is the third season premiere of Fringe, and on Sunday is the kick-off of Amazing Race 17 and the MTV premiere of 9500 Liberty. The latter is a documentary of what went down in my home county in northern VA a couple of years ago when the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance requiring police to check the immigration status of people they had "probable cause" to suspect of being undocumented. Huge culture war ensued. Droves of immigrants left the county, which generally made existing economic woes even worse. The ordinance was overturned after a few months. Take heed, Arizona.



For those that may not have cable access but want to find out more, the creators of 9500 Liberty have a Web site and a channel on YouTube, where the project originally started and which contains dozens of clips (some of which made it into the feature-length documentary).

Have a nice weekend, all, and talk to you again in about another four months, probably.

health care mailbag #2

First of all, thanks to those who have commented. It's always good to have an open, civil dialogue about issues like these even if we disagree. Now, here's something that jumped out at me from the comments section:

one poll showed that 47% of doctors will retire if this bill goes into affect.

I think I found the poll in question and since I am such a stats nerd, I had to analyze it. The poll was conducted and published by a newspaper called Investor’s Business Daily (IBD). Their report on it can be found here.

Of their polling method, IBD writes:

Our questionnaire went out Aug. 28 to some 25,600 doctors nationwide. Of that substantial sample, we got 1,476 responses. One hundred of those were retired, leaving 1,376.

This makes their response rate 5.8% (1,476/25,600), which is an unacceptably low rate. For perspective, a good rate for a mail survey (I’m assuming theirs was a mail survey but they don’t specifically say) is around 70%. Trying to make assumptions about a population with only a 6% response rate is impossible and so this poll ends up meaning absolutely nothing. This doesn’t even bring up other possible things wrong that they didn’t discuss, such as how they acquired the list of 25,600 doctors to begin with, how they worded the questions (since they didn’t provide a sample questionnaire), etc.

Getting some background about this newspaper might help explain why so many doctors did not participate and why those that did respond might not accurately represent the population of doctors in the United States. IBD made the news back in July 2009 when they printed this statement about health care and Stephen Hawking in an editorial:

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

Except that Stephen Hawking has always lived in the UK and receives treatment from their National Health Service. Hawking later made a statement defending the NHS saying that he is alive still because of them. This mistake at least gives the impression that IBD is more interested in disparaging health care reform than they are in the facts. Since this incident predates the attempted poll in question, it is likely that many doctors disregarded this request when it was received it in the mail (explaining the very low response rates). Those that would respond would likely be those more sympathetic to the views of the newspaper, creating an extremely large percentage of them to respond in similar ways.

health care mailbag

thejerry had an interesting question regarding the opposition to health care reform in the comments section of my last post. I thought I'd repost it here and provide my two cents, as it seems like something worth exploring in more detail.

I'm confused why some of this stuff (like employers required to provide health insurance, or expanding coverage by 30 million) makes people so angry, since that is what we all want for ourselves. . . . So what's with the mobs? Do they even know what they're mad about?

I'm confused about this, too. I just wonder where all of these protesters were when George W. Bush raised our national debt exponentially, green-lighted domestic wiretapping, etc. But I do believe that a good portion of the anger has been created and encouraged by many Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators, who have been very good at stirring the pot of divisiveness and fear among their constituents and audiences with over-the-top rhetoric and by loudly parroting scary catchphrases to rebrand aspects of the health care debate that they oppose (or simply just made up: see Sarah Palin and death panels). So the reconciliation process becomes the "nuclear option" and public-funded health care becomes "socialized medicine," just as in a separate example, the federal estate tax becomes the "death tax." Stephen Colbert actually had a good segment on this "define and conquer" tactic on his show a couple weeks ago.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Define & Conquer
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care reform

It's disheartening to see such levels of ignorance and poison in the political atmosphere, but now that the health care bill is being signed into law, presumably making it harder to mischaracterize the reform effort, it'll be interesting to see the public reaction to it and what will happen to the Republicans now that they've seemed to bet their whole party against it.

more musings on hcr

So health care reform (which I've been living and breathing for the past 24 hours) was passed last night, and surprise, the earth is still spinning and the sky isn't falling. To add to TJ's previous post on the distortion of polling numbers regarding HCR:

The New York Times has a handy graphic detailing key provisions of the Senate bill passed by the House last night, in addition to proposed changes in the reconciliation measure. Similarly, The Daily Beast has a breakdown of what is and isn't in the health care bill. Very helpful, straightforward stuff.

As far as the reaction from less-than-thrilled Republicans . . . I read on Rachel Maddow's blog earlier this afternoon that congressional wannabe Gunner DeLay (cousin to The Hammer) is calling the GOP effort to repeal the health care bill "a new civil rights movement." One commenter responds:

"Civil Rights? Civil Disobedience? What are they going to do? Sit-in at their insurance company and demand to be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition? March and sing "We shall overcome the extended coverage for our children?"

Well played, JoJerome. Well played.

It seems that the notion of the GOP triumphantly reclaiming power this year and immediately repealing the health care bill is becoming an increasingly prevalent idea among both crazy (I'm looking at you, Michele Bachmann) and mainstream Republicans (e.g. Mitt Romney, John McCain). Yes, historically, the incumbent party does not usually fare well in the midterms, and yes, Tea Party-esque hysterics get a lot of play (and thus more visibility) in the media. But among the many reasons that such a repeal would be unlikely, there's the fact that the math just doesn't add up. Republicans would require 67 votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto, and even if they won every seat held by a Democrat in the upcoming midterm elections, they would still be 8 senators short of the number needed for a two-thirds majority. And now that health care has turned into a story of policy, would it be smart politics for the Republicans to run against the tangible benefits that many Americans will see from this bill?

public opinion on health care

The big news from yesterday is that the Senate health care plan will now be made into law after getting enough votes in the House. This bill is not perfect by any means, but it is a move in the right direction. Insurance companies will no longer be permitted to deny coverage to kids because of pre-existing conditions or drop coverage for people who get too sick. It also allows to parents to keep their kids on their insurance plan until the age of 26 and fines companies for not offering insurance to their employees.

Republicans have been doing everything in their power to convince everyone that this plan is an evil communist/nazi plan that will kill your grandma and destroy America. They have also repeated that this bill is extremely unpopular and sometimes offer public opinion polls as proof. Most of the time these polls are taken out of context and ignore important details important in really understanding public opinion.

Take a look at one conservative's explanation of the unpopularity of the health care bill:

A new CNN Opinion Research poll, conducted over the weekend as the House debated Obamacare, finds that 59 percent of Americans now stand opposed to the health care legislation in Congress. Just 39 percent of the poll’s 1,030 respondents said they favored the bill.

This CNN Research Opinion poll is given as proof that Democrats are in trouble and that Republicans will takeover in the midterm election because the majority are on their side. What they fail to mention is why the 59% of respondents oppose this bill. It turns out a good portion of those individuals interviewed oppose the bill because they think it is not liberal enough (13%). So in reality, only 43% oppose the bill because they believe it is too liberal while 52% either support the bill or think it should be more liberal. Hardly the picture that is portrayed by the right.

Similar conclusions can be made from the poll regarding public perception on how effective this bill will be. 61% think this bill will be beneficial for themselves or for other families while 37% think it will not help anyone. The only question that really supports the Republican point of view is that 70% think the deficit will increase. However, this question does not distinguish between short- and long- term deficits so its hard to know whether some respondents actually felt that it would temporarily increase the deficit but reduce the deficit ($130 billion in 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the decade after that according to the CBO) in the long run.

on the return of prop 8

As I type, the California Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on whether Prop 8 will stand. The main question at hand is whether Prop 8 amends or revises the state constitution—the difference being that an amendment is a small change or addition that can be placed on a ballot and approved by a simple majority of voters, while a revision is a more substantial alteration that must be approved by 2/3 of each house in the state legislature before going to the voters.

You could probably guess which conclusion each side wants the court to take. So far, various reports seem to indicate that the justices will uphold Prop 8, but at the same time, recognize existing same-sex marriages.

By posting this, I don't mean to set off another discussion on whether gay marriage is right or wrong. Here's my question: does it bother anyone else that this issue seems to suggest that any right can be taken away by any group through a simple majority on a ballot measure?

In the LA Times article on the current hearings, there was a passage describing an exchange between Ken Starr (scrub, rinse, repeat) and one of the justices on the court:

Asked by Corrigan if the people's power to amend the Constitution extended even to changes deemed "unwise," Starr said it did, and that it remained up to the people to decide what was or wasn't a wise amendment.

"It's not for another branch to say otherwise?" Corrigan asked.

"Absolutely," Starr told the justices.

So listen up, people: if you want to take away the rights of gay people or racial minorities or journalists or anyone else you don't agree with or simply don't like, have at it. The Constitution? Checks and balances? Whatev. Do what you will because your power is unlimited.

Tyranny of the majority was a common point of discussion among the framers of the Consitution. In 1788, James Madison wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: "Wherever the real power in a government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents." And here is Madison again, in Federalist #51: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

I hope we can heed those pieces of warning and advice. Women's suffrage, interracial marriage, school integration—take your pick. It's scary to think where this country might be today if a majority of voters, with no checks on their zeal, were able to sacrifice the rights of others.

rock bottom?

Here's what the Republican Party has been up to since it lost the election.

Gave the RNC chairmanship to a guy who thinks that government creates work and not jobs.

Considered giving the RNC chairmanship to a guy who thought it would be funny to send committee members copies of a CD containing the song"Barack the Magic Negro" . . .

. . . and to another guy who just recently resigned his 12-year membership in a whites-only country club.

And now, they got Kenneth from 30 Rock to explain that the current government can't help us through this economic crisis by using as an example the failures of his own party after Hurricane Katrina (transcript here). Also, that the government shouldn't spend money on monitoring volcanoes (along with other measures to prevent natural disasters) or imaginary high speed rail projects from Las Vegas to Disneyland.

And Karl Rove thought he was creating a permanent Republican majority.

happy inauguration day

We had a inauguration breakfast party at 7:30 this morning. Waffles and quiche were had by all. And because everybody cares about my observations of major political events...

• George H.W. in that yellow turtleneck/purple jacket combo looked like Willy Wonka. Or maybe the Joker.

• Cheney in wheelchair: as my manager observed, who invited Dr. Strangelove? Also, "pulled a muscle moving boxes" or sympathy move to avoid prosecution?

• Obama was introduced to the public as "Barack H. Obama." Whose idea was that? Hmm, better leave out the "Hussein" part lest large swaths of the midwest, south, and Utah implode.

• Lost excerpt from creepster Rick Warren's invocation: "Bestow upon President Obama the good judgment to never grow a goatee like mine."

• Aretha Franklin's hat: did someone get a Bedazzler for Christmas? I love it.

• At first, it seemed that Obama was expecting to repeat shorter phrases during the oath of office. Either that or John Roberts was trying to trick him into not becoming president. Nice try, chief.

• I think I heard Dianne Feinstein say "oaf of office" at one point. Was she referring to the guy leaving in the helicopter?

• Nice benediction by Joseph Lowery. It's about time someone spoke out for us yellow folk.

• Good to see that Michael Beschloss recovered from his Election Day orange tan disaster.

• The new Obamamobile is sheathed in military-grade armor and bulletproof glass, can withstand all sorts of blasts and chemical attacks, and comes specially equipped with...a 10-disc CD changer? No wonder GM's in trouble.

What a day. It remains to be seen what Obama will do with the presidency; the problems are immense, the expectations are huge, and I'm sure that popularity-wise, it's all downhill from here. But for now, the change feels pretty good, and I'm just going to enjoy it.

the day after

You win some, you lose some. It's a bittersweet feeling.

We watched election coverage in hi-def with some friends at a certain dining establishment with "downtown" in its name but which is not actually downtown. The winner of our electoral college pool is yet to be determined. In the meantime, let's hand out some prizes:

A wag o' the finger to CNN, which showed Anderson Cooper interviewing will.i.am...via HOLOGRAM. Honorable mention goes to NBC and its bizzaro digital rotunda. Totally unnecessary/cheesy/creepy uses of technology.

A tip o' the hat to channel 21, which helped us get up to speed on how to fill in the non-Barack bubbles on the ballot by broadcasting forums and debates with candidates for various local offices in the weeks leading up to the election.

A wag o' the finger to Alaska. Ted Stevens? Really? Do you want another reason for us to make fun of you?

A tip o' the hat to John McCain and his classy concession speech—he said a lot of things he didn't have to. Where was that John McCain during the campaign? It seems that in the end, instead of changing the party, the party changed him.

A wag o' the finger (or is it a tip o' the hat?) to presidential historian Michael Beschloss, who appeared on NBC with the best/worst fake tan I've ever seen on network news. It's kind of sad—okay, hilarious—to imagine that all he wanted to do was look good during his big election night moment, but somehow, somewhere, it went horribly, horribly wrong.

And finally, a tip o' the hat to everyone who voted, even if it meant waiting in line for two hours. It was good to see so many people excited about and interested in the political process.

no on 8

Twelve ballot propositions will appear on the statewide ballot in California on November 4, but as members of the LDS church, one has been particularly prominent in our minds during this election season: Proposition 8, which would "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

On June 29, the First Presidency of our church announced its support for Prop 8 in a letter read over the pulpit in every Mormon congregation in California that encouraged members to "do all you can" to support the initiative. Since then, members of the church in California—including family and good friends whom we respect and love—have responded overwhelmingly by blogging, making phone calls, canvassing neighborhoods, putting up signs and bumper stickers, and donating millions of dollars in support of the Yes on 8 effort.

Needless to say, it has been very hard and pretty lonely for us to have a different perspective on this issue.

After giving it hours of thought, study, and prayer, we could probably list dozens of reasons why we are choosing to vote no on Prop 8. For one, proponents of the measure would say that its passage is necessary to protect families and children; however, as eloquently stated in these reflections on Prop 8, "Voting 'Yes on 8' will not save one failing marriage or create one more loving home for abandoned children. It only eliminates civil rights now belonging to gay and lesbian Californians. It is painful to me that we have spent an estimated $70 million dollars in this campaign—not to relieve the debtor, or feed the hungry, or house homeless families, or heal the dying, or reclaim prisoners, or show stewardship for God’s creation—but to eliminate civil rights."

For us, that is the bottom line. Some supporters of Prop 8 might say that same-sex couples have nothing to complain about since the rights they desire through marriage can be found in current state anti-discrimination laws and domestic partnership provisions. However, when the California Supreme Court affirmed same-sex marriage in In re Marriage Cases, it alluded to the "separate but equal" conditions preceding Brown v. Board of Education (1954) by pointing out how exclusive usage of the term "marriage" by opposite-sex couples can stigmatize same-sex couples: "[P]articularly in light of the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay persons, there is a very significant risk that retaining a distinction in nomenclature with regard to this most fundamental of relationships whereby the term 'marriage' is denied only to same-sex couples inevitably will cause the new parallel institution that has been made available to those couples to be viewed as of a lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of second-class citizenship."

Previously on this blog we've paid tribute to Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in a landmark Supreme Court case decided only 41 years ago that ended restrictions on interracial marriage in the United States. Because we are an interracial couple ourselves, we feel even more hesitant to prevent any class of individuals from making a legal commitment to love and honor each other.

Additionally, it seems that many Mormons are voting for Prop 8 out of fear that temple marriages will come under legal attack if the measure fails. A document describing "Six Consequences If Prop 8 Fails" has been widely circulated and helped stir up this fear, along with concerns that gay marriage will be taught in schools and church-run adoption agencies will be shut down if they don't place children with same-sex couples. However, these fears are based on dishonest and misleading statements which have been refuted by many legal scholars, including a graduate of BYU law school, who rightly points out that "relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church."

If or when the marriage doctrines of the LDS church or any church are at risk, we will be the first to defend their right of freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment. However, the marriage practices of churches are already protected by the California Constitution as well as the First Amendment, and as very clearly stated by the California Supreme Court in its In re Marriage Cases decision, "affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."

The last thing we want to mention is that we disagree with some of the questionable tactics being practiced by the Protect Marriage coalition, the latest being sending threatening (verging-on-extortion) letters to donors to the No on 8 campaign. Additionally, it seems that Ron Prentice—the president of California Renewal, the group behind Protect Marriage that is currently prohibited from doing business in California for not paying franchise taxes—has set aside more financial contributions from the public for himself than for his nonprofit's charitable work. Pretty shady stuff.

That was a pretty long post on a pretty divisive and sensitive subject, but these are things that we've been thinking about for a long time and wanted to share. Thanks for reading.

boo

Presenting the annual posting of "Do They Know It's Halloween?" (featuring Beck, David Cross, Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth, members of the Arcade Fire, Islands, Wolf Parade, and more people we really like):



You can read the backstory on the song in this article from the New York Times. If there's one thing I love more than the elite media, it's the elite of indie rock.

Also, here's a scary story from Slate to keep you awake at night: a study by a group of forensic economists shows evidence that U.S.-led coups didn't just benefit multinational corporations like United Fruit Company in Guatemala, Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in Iran, or American Sugar in Cuba—they also lined the pockets of unidentified government insiders.

Which brings us to Halliburton, the latest corporate beneficiary of U.S. government intervention; when (or if) the decisions behind the Iraq war become public, it'll be interesting to see what happened to Halliburton's stock price in the weeks leading up to the invasion, especially on days when meetings inside the White House took place.

Happy halloween!

a mob named gob

Supporters of McCain just took a page out of Gob's playbook. In the Arrested Development episode Immaculate Election, Gob tries to help out George Michael with his campaign for student body president by implementing some dirty tricks. Here's a excerpt from the transcript.

(After Indian candidate's video)
Gob: (hiding in crowd) Go home, you terrorist!
Michael: How stupid do you have to be to say something like that ...?
Gob: (revealed) You're not wanted here!

If you listen closely to the video below, you will hear similar attacks from McCain supporters about Obama.



What's next? Is McCain going to rip up Obama's posters like Tracy Flick did in the movie Election?

the trainwreck express rolls on

On Slate's XX Factor blog, E.J. Graff commented on Sarah Palin's discussion of foreign policy and the economy with Katie Couric:

I am speechless. She cannot possibly be this uninformed. You absolutely have to see these [video clips] for yourself to believe them. These are self-mocking; they could be SNL appearances. Tina Fey couldn't possibly improve on this.

This is why they've been keeping her under wraps.

Oh my goodness, I couldn't agree more. No wonder McCain wants to cancel, I mean, postpone, the VP debate. Here's just one snippet from the interview:

Couric: Well, explain to me why [Alaska's proximity to Russia] enhances your foreign-policy credentials.

Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…

Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.

Even Miss South Carolina was more coherent.

news from Bolivia

The LDS church announced recently that all North American missionaries serving in Bolivia have been transferred to Peru temporarily. This is in reaction to political unrest in Bolivia resulting in the expulsion of the U.S. ambassador (or a more leftist take on the events, click here). I found an article in Deseret News about the church's decision to pull missionaries out of Bolivia. Here's a non-random sample of comments from readers of that article.

The first comment, referring to the Bolivian government:

Pray for them, folks; they don't know any better

Yes, it would be so much easier if you just let our government make your decisions for you. A few examples to show exactly what the U.S. government can do for your Latin American country: the 1973 Chilean coup resulting in human rights violations and the Pinochet dictatorship; the 1954 Guatemalan coup organized by the CIA that led to military rule, genocide, and increased discrimination; and the Iran-contra affair, where Oliver North sold weapons to Iran and used the money to fund a bloody terrorist war to overthrow a democratically elected Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Speaking of democratically elected leaders, this next comment refers to the Morales administration specifically:

It is sad to see the loss of democracy in some of these South American countries.

Apparently, these people lost democracy by electing someone in a fair election where Morales received a true majority (53.7%) of the popular vote. After Morales had been in office for a few years, the politicians opposed to him were fed up and were able to finally organize a recall referendum to kick him out, but the people of Bolivia voted against the referendum with a 67% majority. Now the prefects of the rich regions are trying again to restore "democracy" by using violence to physically remove Morales from office and continuing to oppress the poor majority.

He's trying to re-write the Bolivian constitution like Venezuela for crying out loud!

Please, no re-writing of constitutions. That should be reserved for really serious problems like gays wanting to get married.

moose in headlights

James Fallows wrote the best analysis on Sarah Palin's interview with Charles Gibson last night. Click here to read.

I thought Fallows's take was fair and insightful, not to mention totally scary and frustrating, given the close state of the current national polling numbers. As Mencken said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

In related news, Politico is reporting that Palin's doing her next interview (and I'm using that term loosely here) with Sean Hannity next week. I'm shocked.

notes from bizzaro world

I mean, the Republican National Convention.

• Fred Thompson, at the triumphant conclusion of his speech: "God bless John McCain, and John bless America!" Was he trying to equate McCain with God? Or was it simply way past his bedtime?

• U-S-A! U-S-A! Drill, baby, drill! U-S-A!
  

• Finally, a 9/11 reference from Rudy Giuliani about 15 minutes into his speech. I knew he wouldn't let me down.

• Mitt Romney's energy plan: keep Gore's imaginary private jet on the ground. (that one's from TJ)
  

• Sarah Pawlenty, er, Palin: did a nice job of channeling her inner Rove. Talked a lot about her family for a person whose family is supposed to be publicly off-limits.

• First McConaughey, and now this. Poor Levi.

• Actual signs being waved in audience: "Raisin McCain," "The Mavrick." Because proper spelling is so un-American.

• Cindy McCain: campaigning to succeed Laura Bush as First Robot.
  

• What did we learn about John McCain? That he is a POW. And a maverick. Policy? What policy?

Ugh. I feel like I need a shower.

two words: dan quayle.

McCain is doomed. So much for his favorite "lack of experience" line of attack against Obama.

I'm kind of sad that Mitt's officially out of the running for veep, if only for the quashed opportunity to post this picture several times between now and November 4:

kucinich power

So we've been tracking the Democratic National Convention for the past few days, and maybe with the exception of Ted Kennedy on the convention's opening night, most of the speakers = major snoozefest.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: "Barack Obama's change is the change America needs."

Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius: "With Barack Obama as our president—together, we'll turn the page on the politics and policies of the past."

Former Virginia governor Mark Warner: "We need a president who understands the world today, the future we seek and the change we need. We need Barack Obama as the next President of the United States."

Zzz.

But of course, the mainstream media fails to pick up on the most rousing speech of the convention so far:



Go Dennis! Lots of Democrats like to talk about the need for change and shaking up the status quo and how Bush & co. broke the law by authorizing domestic wiretapping and sanctioning torture, but you're the only one with the huevos rancheros to introduce legislation to impeach them.

head, meet desk

From the Washington Post this morning:

"I think Obama would be a disaster, and there's a lot of reasons," said Pollard, explaining the rumors he had heard about the candidate from friends he goes camping with. "I understand he's from Africa, and that the first thing he's going to do if he gets into office is bring his family over here, illegally. He's got that racist [pastor] who practically raised him, and then there's the Muslim thing. He's just not presidential material, if you ask me."

The article also mentioned a false rumor that's circulating about Obama being "possibly gay." First of all, who cares. And second, wow. That's one I actually haven't heard before.

Someone point these people to Snopes, stat.