(CNN) — Randy Scheunemann, a senior foreign policy adviser to John McCain, was fired from the Arizona senator's campaign last week for what one aide called "trashing" the campaign staff, three senior McCain advisers tell CNN.

One of the aides tells CNN that campaign manager Rick Davis fired Scheunemann after determining that he had been in direct contact with journalists spreading "disinformation" about campaign aides, including Nicolle Wallace and other officials.

"He was positioning himself with Palin at the expense of John McCain's campaign message," said one of the aides.

Senior campaign officials blame Schuenemann specifically for stories about the way Wallace and chief campaign strategist Steve Schmidt mishandled Palin's rollout — stories that the campaign says threw them off message in the critical final weeks of the campaign.

Another aide said McCain personally was "very disappointed by Randy," who worked for McCain for many years in the Senate.

Scheunemann became close with Palin during her debate prep process.

That reference to Nicolle Wallace? She's often said to be the staffer who bought Palin's $150,000 (actually $50,000) wardrobe, and then didn't stand up and say "I erred" to protect Palin.

I don't know if that's true. Just scuttlebutt. Fred Barnes named her, but he wasn't sure of that, either -- he just heard it.

Whoever it was, she did have an obligation to fall on her sword. That she didn't speaks badly of her.

Thanks to the controversially named Evil Goateed Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 05:19 PM | Comments (30)
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

Sean requests a thread where depressed morons can arrange local meet-ups to drink their worries away, and celebrate the fact that President Barack Hussein Obama will give them each, Oprah-like, a brand new ca-aarrrr!

Good idea. Having gone to a few of these myself, they're awesome. I don't even like talking politics at them -- but simply talking with like-minded souls is very enjoyable.

We Republicans don't do enough of such political networking, I don't think.

So, I guess, anyone interested in taking care of one of these should nominate himself or herself as host/grunt and name the city where one is planning on arranging one. Just set up an easily ditched email address for these purposes and encourage people in the area to write for information.

It doesn't take much, really. Just a date, a time, and a bar that serves decent hooch and which is kinda quiet so you can talk, and big enough that an influx of 15-25 people isn't going to cause hassles.

Here's some video from the last Moronapalooza. It was pretty fun. Slightly creepy, and I could have done without the sexualized Satanism, but fun.

(DrewM.): Gabe says people have been asking for this to be bumped but he's mister busy lawyer guy who can't do his own grunt work so here I am doing it for him.

Posted by: Ace at 10:53 AM | Comments (314)
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

Another article blatantly stolen from Hot Air.

Summary: San Francisco proposed naming their municipal sewage treatment plant after President George W. Bush, but the ballot initiative lost by a 70-30 vote. As a Civil Engineer, I think this was a laughable move on their part: A sewage treatment plant performs a valuable, thankless job for a community. Without it, all the residents of San Francisco would be knee-deep in their own shit by month's end.

My opinion: It's one of those ironic moves that will cause historians to laugh about the times we're living in someday way off in the future.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 04:39 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

Uncritically, Carl Cameron and Shep Smith are reporting that some anonymous McCain aides say that Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent; she thought, allegedly, it was a country.

It does not occur to either man to question these anonymous, and quite absurd, claims.

Or to wonder if perhaps these aides are of the Buckley/Parker sort, or if they perhaps have in mind a candidate they prefer in 2012...

Thus even Fox News begins the campaign to irradiate Palin to toxic levels for 2012.

Video... At Hot Air.

Incidentally, if any of the staffers pushing this have ever worked for another campaign, that candidate is dead to me.

It might not be that candidate's fault. But at some point this crap has to be met with consequences.

Cameron Even Worse on O'Reilly: Now we're really getting into the shit.

Here's a story these staffers tell: Sent to collect Palin from a hotel, she greeted them, straight from the shower (running late, I guess ) dressed (scandal!) only in a bathrobe (presumably a very thick hotel bathrobe).

These staffers called that "uncommon" -- Cameron delighted in the word to give it the sound of "whorish, unprofessional."

Heh, assholes? She had to open the door and had just gotten out of the shower. Did you want her to use her magical powers of telekinesis to open the door for you?

This apparent scandalous reaction to a woman just out of the shower not making them wait outside but letting them into the suite wearing a bathrobe... well. Okay.

I want names.

Posted by: Ace at 05:23 PM | Comments (610)
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

Audio.

Gee, isn't it funny the media doesn't ever seem interested in Democratic dirty tricks.

Press release:

NEWS ALERT

Dispicable Voter Suppression Calls Hitting Republican Households in Western States

San Diego, November 4 (6:15 PM) - Dispicable voter suppression calls started hitting Republican households in California around 5 PM PST. The message left on the answering machines of Republican households reads s follows:

"This is a breaking news alert! Early returns show Barack Obama will win Florida, Ohio and Virginia, closing John McCain's only path to the White House. Obama landslide is virtual certainty. Early returns also show Democrats will have large majorities in both houses of congress, regardless of final results from western states like Colorado and California. This was a breaking news alert."

Tony Krvaric, Chairman of the Republican Party of San Diego County called the messages "dispicable", and called for local Democrat leadership to immediately denounce the tactic, and demanded to know who paid for these calls. "Clearly, these calls are designed to depress Republican turnout here in San Diego County."

"We call on all Republicans to get out and vote, and our volunteers will keep calling Republican households until 8 PM, to encourage them to go cast their ballots, regardless of what is going on elsewhere in the country," continued Krvaric.

Posted by: Ace at 03:04 PM | Comments (55)
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, here's the thing: Although the hard left certainly won't slur him to the extent they slur Michael Steele or Clarence Thomas (or Michelle Malkin, for that matter, an Asian woman who doesn't know her proper place), Obama has created fantastical expectations of wealth redistribution -- and free government gas, and free government houses -- in the left-leaning share-the-wealth sectors of America, especially among minorities.

So this will be only the first time he's called an Uncle Tom. Hopefully. Because the only way to avoid the slur is to go whole-hog for share-the-wealth and racial reparations. (Or reparations disguised as "refundables.")

more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:58 PM | Comments (52)
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

I seem to remember Bush being blamed for the market selling off when he would speak during the day.

But I'm sure the rules are different for The One.

It's All Part of the Plan... Sandy Burger:

The Dow Jones drop isn't bad news; Obama just lowered the price of stocks so the little guy has a chance to afford some, too.

Thanks, Barack!

Restarted Thread: The other attempt at a humor thread got diverted with further recriminations and musings. So let's try it anew with this one:

Embrace the New Age of Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Work!

After the 2006 debacle, we collectively embraced the new age of Pelosi/Reid, and all the wonderments it would bring.

Well, I think we have a whole lot more to look forward to, now.

I personally am thankful for all the increased economic activity and new jobs that will flow from a basic cost of enterprise -- energy -- skyrocketing in price, as Obama guaranteed.

That's how it works, right? If a basic cost of doing business soars, everyone sells even more product, hires more workers, and makes more money, right?

Verily, that has been the history of mankind itself -- as energy costs have risen, wealth has risen with it.

So thanks Obama! I didn't know the key to economic plenty was simply skyrocketing the costs of essential components of industry! If only we had known that previously, we could have artificially jacked up the costs of labor and commodities to the heavens (like Russia did)!

(Thanks to Tushar for suggesting the thread.)

Posted by: Ace at 01:48 PM | Comments (115)
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

Hope! Change! And test the new guy to see if he's as weak as we think he is!

Russia will deploy short-range missiles near Poland to counter U.S. military plans in Eastern Europe, President Dmitry Medvedev warned Wednesday, setting a combative tone that clashed with global goodwill over Barack Obama's election.

In his first state of the nation speech, Medvedev blamed Washington for the war in Georgia and the world financial crisis and suggested it was up to Washington to mend badly damaged ties.

...Medvedev appeared to be trying to improve Russia's bargaining position in potential talks with the Obama administration on missile defense. His wording suggested Russia would reverse the decision if the U.S. scraps its missile defense plans.

"Moscow isn't interested in confrontation, and if Obama makes some conciliatory gestures it will respond correspondingly," said Alexander Pikayev, an analyst at Moscow's Institute for World Economy and International Relations.

So, will Obama try and buy the 'good will' of Russia by scrapping something he originally didn't want anyway? Hell Barney "I love Fannie Mae" Frank was floating the idea of cutting defense spending 25% before the election. Let's just say I think McCain had a better chance of winning Illinois yesterday than missile defense does in an Obama administration.

The next 4 years should be fun. And by fun I mean fraught with peril.

Posted by: DrewM at 01:45 PM | Comments (54)
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

Bumped.

This thread got off track from its intended humorous purpose. I've changed the DOW Jones thread to be the humorous one.

This one I guess is for rancor.

One topic I'm curious about is the proper mix of boosterism and realism.

If I can be so bold to offer a criticism of Republicans on the internet -- and I do so knowing that such are my readers (and hence my salary) so I offer this critique with trepidation and respect. But I offer it all the same, because I think it's important:

Conservatives have long had a healthy distrust of the media and the establishment take on things. However, there is a point where skepticism -- healthy and rational -- becomes denialism, a simple unwillingness to confront anything resembling objective reality in favor of a more "optimistic," but less realistic, take on the world.

A lot of what the media claims is bullshit. But we can't stop discriminating entirely and decide everything they claim is bullshit, either.

The proliferation of various internet-driven conspiracies is one example of this. Some conspiracies -- such as Obama's fundraising scam -- are real. Others -- the whole rathole of the Kenyan birth -- aren't based on any evidence at all, just wishful thinking.

We also have to be more willing to take a hard look at our assumptions, programs, messages, and candidates. I knocked on Bart and JackStraw for lighting up Sarah Palin last night, but I think now I shouldn't have; she is/was a flawed candidate -- a good candidate, but her shaky interviews hurt her badly, and perhaps she cannot recover from them even for 2012 -- and there should not be a conservatively-correct code for political speech.

The media savaged her. That doesn't mean, however, she didn't screw up on her own. As Nixon said, "I gave them the knife and they twisted it with relish." She did give them the knife, however. (Or perhaps McCain did, by agreeing to the interviews before she was quite ready, etc. I don't know where to assign the ultimate fault, but I know there is someone to blame here.)

Don't get me wrong: Sarah Palin is my current favorite politician. But I do fear her brand has been (unfairly) damaged beyond repair. If she can repair it-- I'm a Palinista. But if she can't -- I want to win. I'll accept a nominee in 2012 I don't like as much as Palin if they can deliver what's most important to me -- a plausible shot at winning.

Another problem is the misplaced faith in "running on principle." Principles are important -- but if principles can't be articulated in such a fashion as to persuade a majority of the public (or close to a majority, so the point is a net wash or close to it), it's a principle that either needs to be reexamined, or at least strongly deemphasized. We can't fight for all "principles" with equal vigor. I don't have any particular principle in mind here (social cons always assume they're the ones being eyed, which doesn't happen to be true in this case), but I do know that "principle" isn't enough.

Gingrich didn't run on mere principle in 1994. He ran on six promises which had been poll-tested and commanded a great deal of public support.

Did they reflect conservative principles? In the main, yes. But it was not merely a randomly-selected list of promises. They were popular promises, not merely principled ones.

One thing everyone has to remember: Any candidate or any movement gets elected for a slate of popular policy points. They can then implement their less-popular policy points -- but such points get "smuggled in," as it were, packed up with the issues that actually win elections.

Not many were thinking of national security or terrorism in 2000, for example -- but the nation got Bush's less-well-known foreign policy when they elected him for his main planks of leadership, bipartisanship, and "compassionate conservatism."

There are issues a party leads with and gets elected on, and then there are issues a party doesn't particularly advertise and doesn't actually receive a popular mandate for, but implements (to some degree anyhow) nevertheless when it's elected on the strength of its lead issues.

Social cons and capitalist cons and national-security cons all need to keep this in mind. We all do. The candidate who most strongly professes an allegiance to your key issues may not in fact be the one most likely to be elected, and hence the one most likely to actually deliver (to some degree) on those issues.

There is no issue that's more important than a political winner -- because only a political winner has any chance at all to actually push an agenda.

A political loser gets to start a PAC.

The Democrats grasped this in 1992 -- and in 2008. We recognized it ourselves in 2000 -- George W. Bush, whatever his flaws, was a political winner. (In 2000, I was a bit torn, because I recognized the character and sacrifice of McCain and thought he deserved the nomination --but that George W. Bush was a political winner who could unite the base and therefore must be our nominee).

I happen to believe that Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney might well have turned out to have been better candidates than John McCain. (I would put my man Giuliani into this mix as well -- but for the fact he committed deliberate political suicide by stating without caveat or walkback "I'm pro-choice," thus demonstrating an inexcusable and fatal lack of savvy himself. At the point he said this, I wrote him off as a plausible political, despite having supported him my entire adult life -- he was the first politician I supported, ever. I didn't get on the Reagan bandwagon (still a nominal Democrat during that period) but was one of the first on the Giuliani bandwagon. With two words he demolished his chances of uniting the conservative base, and with that my enthusiasm for his candidacy.)

I am chagrined that so many members of our party demonstrated a lack of political savvy by voting for a somewhat implausible candidate, Mike Huckabee, rather than focusing on more plausible socially-right candidates. Resulting in the nomination of a man who, while possessing many fine qualities, was less of a social con than any of the plausible alternatives.

Giuliani was I thought the best candidate on my main issue, terrorism and the war (and also the best, I thought, for my next issue, fiscal conservatism). He had one minor flaw, though: he couldn't win the crucial religious con base and therefore could not win the election.

Huckabee was a mirror-image. He might have been the dream candidate for some religious cons... except he couldn't win many beyond that large, but not nearly majoritarian, segment.

Because we couldn't seem to agree collectively on a candidate we could all live with (and I cite myself as an offender in that regard, pushing Giuliani well beyond his expiration date), we got backed into a candidate that really excited a small segment of the party.

And of course we got President Elect Barack Hussein Obama.

Even if you don't buy that slam on Huckabee, if we're going to win, we have to be, as a party, savvier. Maybe I'm wrong about the political viability of Huck vs. Romney vs. Thompson vs. McCain. But the general point remains: Voting purely for "principle," without any eye towards who can actually win, is a mug's game.

Note: To clarify, I certainly do not suggest throwing the pro-life issue under the bus. Even if it's not my issue, I recognize it as a key part of our issues.

The issue animates 40% of the country, and 90% of Republicans. Therefore, it's crucial our candidates be pro-life (at least in the main, or at least against Roe v. Wade or judicial lawmaking in this arena).

My suggestion is more nuanced. It is this: One cannot lead with this issue, as Huckabee did. 40% is a big number, but it cannot be overlooked that 40% is less than 51%.

A candidate less forward-leaning, less publicly strident, on the pro-life plank -- rather soft-spoken about it, as George W. Bush was in 2000 -- has a chance to advance the pro-life position.

A candidate who leads with this 40% issue does not have such a chance.

My problem with Huckabee was not that he was a social con or a religious man. George W. Bush was a social con and a religious man and I was as strong and enthusiastic supporter of his -- and not just as the lesser of several evils. I affirmatively liked him.

No, my problem with Huckabee is that he was leading on the issue, and seeking support on social issues which had an outside chance of winning him the nomination and no chance at all of winning the general election.

My problem, in short, was that he was a guaranteed loser, and simply drew attention and votes away from candidates who could win.

The pro-life plank, and traditional moral issues planks, are critical. But they are not lead issues.

Savvy is what we need. I'm tired of hearing this or that principle compels us to do decidedly unproductive things.

The Constitution, it is often said, is not a suicide-pact. And neither are any of our principles.

No principle ever gets advanced by a losing candidate... except, perhaps, in the long view, the Goldwater Phoenix Arising as Reagan sort of view.

But bear in mind that took sixteen years.

If you advocate the Goldwater Option, be prepared for the Goldwater 16 year exile as well.

Posted by: Ace at 02:59 PM | Comments (483)
Post contains 1637 words, total size 10 kb.

Unexpectedly. Apparently he had had cancer, which he fought privately, keeping the affliction secret from the public.

He was just an amazing guy. It's a pity for us he never identified as a conservative -- he would have been a wonderful addition to our public intellectual ranks, which are a bit shaky of late -- but his cogent critiques on global warming were more than we could have asked for.

Posted by: Ace at 12:40 PM | Comments (37)
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.