Not having it anymore. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:13 PM | Comments (109)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

I assume that title came from Michael Ian Black, who is reasonably funny (although I can never get people to agree to that proposition). He co-authored the book.

Apparently the book consists of Meghan McCain trying to be funny and Michael Ian Black trying to be political...

[A]s the liberal half of its authorship [I think she means the "male liberal half; the other half is liberal too], [Black] offers lots of insight into what’s wrong with America. For example: “If you want to find at least one significant reason why America is polarized, this is it: because Republicans are lying to their base about science.” There’s also this little gem, in defense of Obamacare: “These days a lot of people will never get back on their feet. . . . These days a lot of people are just good and forever f***ed.”

You know what bothers me? All this blog-level writing on TV and in books. There's nothing wrong with that kind of low-skill observation on a blog; blogs are written at a fast clip, usually without an editorial hand to guide them, and the imperative is quantity, not quality.

But it always bothers me when I see this crap in an ostensibly professional medium.

Blogging is what it is. It's generally a more speed-of-thought mode, like the glorious old pulp-writer hacks would do (except they were, of course, better; they were pros).

They were getting paid very low rates, by the word, so their imperative was to churn out words.

You wouldn't confuse Doc Savage with Hemmingway.

Rejected cover for "A Farewell To Arms;"
from this site, Ernest Hemmingway: Destroyer of All Serpents

But while I'm an abuser of this sort of throwaway, toss-off sort of writing, I'd never in a million years even consider putting my blog into book format.

The format itself is more prestigious. You've gotta up your game a little bit, don't you? What is the point of a blog on paper?

Anyway, it appears that even with a book editor, and publishing house, overseeing her, Meghan McCain's laptop is still cursed:

Readers may find that McCain’s prose style — she employs turns of phrase such as “self-admittedly” and “final last days” — leaves a tad to be desired.

And then lapses into Tweeting on to a printed page:

“God for me is found everywhere; in my family, in the desert, in first kisses, in smiles, in laughter, in friendship, in cheesecake, in red wine, and above all else in love.” Or her thoughts on Little Rock, Ark.: “This place sucks.” Or on strippers: “Strippers. Strippers. Strippers. What is a proper trip to Vegas without strippers?”

Again, on Twitter, I'd just shrug and say "That's what Twitter is made for."

But a book? That I pay for?

Anyway, the combination of "funny" Meghan McCain and serious, sour political Cassandra Michael Ian Black works out as well as you might have expected.

The title is reasonably cute. Kind of derivative of the various Steven Colbert titles, but still cute.

But I've read the title, I've processed it, I've had my one-quarter smile. I don't think I'll be paying for this book.

Tell a lie, I'm ordering this book. I have to review it. I will put aside Game of Thrones for this book, but only this one.

Jonah Goldberg:

"Meghan McCainÂ’s new book offers all you need to know about the subject, except IÂ’m not sure we need to know even this much. Apparently the premise is that a liberal and conservative set out in search of common ground. The reality is apparently that a liberal doesnÂ’t change his views at all and the conservative isnÂ’t conservative in the first place but learns that she should be even more liberal."

Thanks to WalrusRex.

One trick you can use to make a book like this seem to have something going on is to claim a "personal journey and evolution" on the part of one of the authors.

You see this trick in TV all the time. The good Monk episodes would have a decent puzzle, or some good comedy, or, if they couldn't manage the last two, they'd make it a "character episode" about something Monk learned. Some of these character episodes were touching, but others were just strained, or repeated stuff Monk had already learned two seasons ago.

You could almost hear the show-runner saying, "Damn, our mystery this week is trite, there's no comedy... we've got to amp up the Personal Journey. Throw Trudy in there someplace."

I sort of wonder how much of this "Narrative Arc," as they'd call it in TV or movies, is real, and how much of it is the publisher saying, "We need some kind of through-line here, some kind of resolution, some kind of evolution. Because this manuscript, as I read it, is just a series of late-night Tweets, but with more errors in usage and grammar."

Posted by: Ace at 11:56 AM | Comments (370)
Post contains 821 words, total size 5 kb.

Five point lead for Obama, but..

Most troubling for Obama is that he trails his GOP rival 36%-43% among independent voters, with 12% undecided.

The large number of undecided voters should greatly concern the Obama campaign. Such voters are more likely to break for the challenger rather than the incumbent, notes Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducted the poll.

He also said Obama's biggest problem is unemployment.

"If you look at the number of households with at least one person looking for employment, it's 23%," he said. "That translates into 30 million people looking for work. It's something that the mainstream media often miss."

Among independents, 29% are in a household with at least one person looking for employment.

The poll was conducted before the "doing fine" gaffe. Another nugget is that 65% aren't satisfied with the direction of the country.

I keep saying this, but: Polls are predictive, but earlier indicators are facts on the ground, which in turn will predict the polls.

Yes, Romney has not yet made the sale. The block of undecideds doesn't like him and doesn't support him.

But they also do not like Obama -- and are nearly as down on him as actual Romney supporters.

The key is getting these people to the polls, by hook or by crook. Most of them will vote against Obama, even if they're not really voting for Romney.

I expect canvassers targeting these voters, going door to door, will have two Plans. Plan A: Make the case against Obama and for Romney. Plan B: If Plan A doesn't work, urge them that it's their duty as Americans to vote.

Then let the chips fall where they may in the voting booth. Most of those chips will fall against Obama.

Posted by: Ace at 11:37 AM | Comments (141)
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

Narratives.

Democracy Corps, the political consulting group run by Greenberg and Carville, showed several Obama campaign commercials to focus groups in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Several of the group members, who were "all independents or weak partisans and ticket-splitters" and included both Obama and McCain voters from 2008, became irritated when shown Obama ads touting economic improvement. They don't see that improvement in their own lives, the report says, and they don't believe Obama when he claims things are better.

...

After extensive interviews with the groups, Greenberg and Carville conclude that Obama's current campaign message -- that he inherited a terrible economy but that now things are getting better -- is disastrously wrong. "We will face an impossible headwind in November if we do not move to a new narrative," Greenberg and Carville write, "one that contextualizes the recovery but, more importantly, focuses on what we will do to make a better future for the middle class."

Although the report looks bad for Obama, it was a reality check for me because these independent/weak-partisan/ticket-splitting voters dislike Romney as a person, calling him "out of touch" and insulated from the problems of ordinary Americans. One nugget that resonates with him is Romney's overseas bank accounts.

At the end of the day, though, more of these voters select Romney as better able to guide the economy back to health.

Although Romney's problems seem deeper than I expected -- and this jibes well with that analysis by Larry Sabato, noting that while these voters have almost as low an opinion of Obama's job performance as actual Romney supporters, and yet still don't support Romney -- I still think my general take is sound: Obama is, right now at least, the underdog. Romney has problems, no doubt -- Bain/offshore bank accounts/rich guy/"Horse Ballet" have had their impact -- but at the end of the day these voters prioritize the economy over the issue of Horse Ballet (of course).

I will also say this: Romney has not had what you would call a non-confrontational moment in the spotlight. All the stuff the public knows of him is from acrimonious debates and probing/hostile interviews (in which he often gets peevish and angry).

Obama, on the other hand, has had a lot of opportunities to just be friendly, loose, and human on camera.

In 1992 Clinton experienced what was termed a "Super Bounce" at his nominating convention. He gave a good speech, connected with the national audience, and finally looked like the gifted politician his supporters had thought he was. The media -- which was of course in his corner anyway -- wasn't far off when they proclaimed he "made the sale with the American public" with his presentation. (Even so, of course, he only got 43% of the vote, albeit in a three-way race with a serious third-party opponent.)

Romney hasn't yet had that opportunity, of course. But Romney's been involved in a lot of major sales.

Looking It Up: An old post of mine asserts that Clinton got a 16 point "Superbounce" from the 1992 DNC speech. I imagine that was in level of actual support (voter preference) because that's what they'd be polling at that time. But my old article doesn't specify. The historic average for post-convention bounces is 8 points, but I believe that old average is no longer operative: There are fewer true undecided voters up for grabs anymore.

Putting on my prognostication cap, I'm pretty confident Romney will get a big bounce from his (bigger than present circumstances would suggest, on average). He really has had no opportunity, yet, to make any kind of human connection with the public. Even a meh effort will still be 45 minutes of talking to the public without reporters or rivals sniping at him.

But I really hope he manages something more than meh.

More: It occurs to me that expectations will be Romney's friend. The Democrats have successfully painted Romney as robotic and Other; Romney thus has to appear to be a human being (which, in fact, he is) and to some extent he's already winning.

I don't know if this is true or not -- O'Reilly asserted it in an interview with Romney and Romney didn't want to talk about it. The assertion is that Romney actually gave up the inheritance from his father, donating it to charity, so he could make his own way. (Armed, however, with his dad's connections and a first-rate Ivy League education.)

If that anecdote is true -- For God's sake, Mitt Romney has to mention it in his speech. Don't give me this crap about being uncomfortable with bragging. It ain't bragging if it's true.

Context For the Superbounce: @justkarl tells me that Clinton got such a huge bounce because Perot had dropped out of the race (temporarily), and de facto endorsed Clinton by ripping the first Bush, so a larger than usual number of voters were, at that moment, up for grabs.

Posted by: Ace at 10:03 AM | Comments (345)
Post contains 862 words, total size 6 kb.

Outten Sie:

"I would say that you leave me no alternative but to join those that call upon you to resign your office," Cornyn said. "Americans deserve an attorney general that will be honest with them, they deserve an attorney general who will uphold the basic standards of political independence and accountability. You've proven time and time again, sadly, that you're unwilling to do so."

Holder in response accused Republicans of playing politics, and specifically accused Cornyn of "breathtaking" inaccuracies.

"I don't have any intention of resigning," he said.

More positioning before the contempt vote as Boehner denies he's not on board with this.

Posted by: Ace at 09:21 AM | Comments (176)
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

Ooooooo.

The Republican presidential candidate refuses to identify his biggest donors who "bundle" money for his campaign. He often declines to say who's meeting with him or what he's doing for hours at a time. He puts limits on media access to his fundraisers. And he resists releasing all of his tax returns, making just a single year public after facing pressure to do so.

-----------snip-----------------------

Not that Obama has been totally open, either.

Oh, no? "Not...totally open?" The article goes on to insinuate that while Obama restricts access to information, he has his reasons. Somehow Romney is more sinister about it.

Let's consult the Wayback Machine, since reporters do not care to do any actual work anymore. Nor do they have any personal memories of 2008 other than of following their heartthrob breathlessly around the country and writing "Mrs. Gregory Christina Obama" in lipstick on their hotel mirrors.

Democratic National Convention, 2008. Colorado. ABC reporters are on a public sidewalk watching who is going to meet Obama.

DENVER -- Police in Denver arrested an ABC News producer today as he and a camera crew were attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel.

Police on the scene refused to tell ABC lawyers the charges against the producer, Asa Eslocker, who works with the ABC News investigative unit.

This is what happens to reporters who want to know who Obama's big donors are.

And THIS is what happens to Romney's big donors, when Obama identifies them to his deranged fanbase and the MBM (but I repeat myself).

I certainly can't imagine why Romney isn't hurling all his files open for media perusal. Very mysterious.

Let's talk about what is, and is not sinister, now, please. PLEASE. We have a lot to say on that front lately.

Thanks to Skinbad.

Posted by: LauraW at 08:25 AM | Comments (135)
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

[Potential anger-evoking "nooner" quip redacted to enhance your calm]

Posted by: andy at 07:55 AM | Comments (179)
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.

A blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things, but it sure seems like a long time ago ...

Posted by: andy at 04:25 AM | Comments (391)
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Tuesday.

The environmental impact assessment has been completed for the first segment of California's high-speed rail project. It finds that the project will foul the air, harm aquatic life, and threaten no less than eleven endangered species. Enviroweenies are not happy.

The Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus says that the word "cool" has objectionable racial connotations when applied mockingly to President Obama. Alternate Headline: CBC Official Would Prefer That You Called the President "Uncool."

Florida will sue DHS over its refusal to provide access to its database of aliens as part of Florida's purge of noncitizens from the voter rolls. DOJ already threatened to sue Florida over the same issue.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:49 AM | Comments (250)
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Remembering The Tiananmen Tank Man

Just over 23 years ago the Chinese government broke up the pro-democracy demonstrations at Tiananmen Square killing thousands of protesters in the process. But as the tanks moved in a single man stepped in front of them and blocked the entire column. He kept the tanks stopped and at one point climbed aboard the lead tank and talked with the crew before blocking them again. Here's the scene we all remember:

And here is the wider perspective:

To this day no one knows who this man was or what happened to him - some say he was executed soon after while other say he managed to lose himself among other prisoners and eventually escape into hiding. But one thing we can be sure of is that the lead tank commander and the crew were all shot shortly after this picture.

An authoritarian police state like the Peoples Republic of China can deal with the occasional dissident with bullets and tank treads, but it absolutely cannot tolerate any of its forces failing to literally crush opponents of the regime. When your power and legitimacy comes out of a barrel of a gun, shooting people is pretty much always your first and last option.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:13 PM | Comments (697)
Post contains 1017 words, total size 12 kb.