Redstate Is Mostly An Empty Snarkfest

I still follow RedState in my reader these days, but ever since they kicked me out for talking about the GOP's lousy political practice where blacks are concerned, I have to say I read their headlines with a more juandiced eye. I've come to the conclusion that about 75% or more of all their posts are simply snark.

They put a lot of time and energy into crafting sarcastic, biting, cutting, insulting and name calling posts to make their point that anyone who doesn't agree with them is pretty much the unpatriotic devil. Case in point; their post about Obama's gift to Queen Elizabeth of an Ipod. They take pains to paint the entire deal as a deadly insult to the Brits, and they don't note that he also gave her a signed songbook by the composer Richard Rodgers. So they are happy to tell their stories in the way that slants in the direction they want to point it and they will leave out facts to get the impression they want. More to the point, does anyone honestly give a crap what the heck Obama gives to the Queen, who lacks for nothing? Do the folks at Redstate really think that people living out here in the heartland and just trying to make it give a flying flip about that? Do they really expect us to believe that in the great game of geopolitics between nations, that our relationship with the United Kingdom turns on what stupid gift the Queen gets when the President comes calling?

I think most of their posts are lightweight just like this one. Now, Redstate has a big following and by any measure is a far more successful blog than my own modest effort, so they are not losing any sleep over my opinion and can live their day justifiably smug that they are on the right track. But a blog that excludes dissenting voices because they only want to hear those who agree with them is lame. APS may not be the daily traffic stop for thousands of conservatives, but I won't kick you out because we don't agree and I can't take the heat of debate.

And yeah, I'm still cheesed off about being banned.

If You Are Too Scared to Criticize Obama For Fear of Being Called Racist, Then Keep Your Mouth Shut

I listened to a right leaning talk show host whine repeatedly that any one who criticized Obama would be called a racist. I've heard this same complaint throughout the campaign and now that Obama has assumed the office, I'm still hearing it.

All I have to say is STOP YOUR WHINING AND MAN UP! No excuses, cuz here is the deal. If you got a valid critique to make of Obama's policies or decisions, then make your case. If you're afraid that whatever you have to say will get you called a racist, then keep your frikkin mouth shut, because chances are, whatever you have to say is lame. Because if you have something worth saying and you know how to communicate, it's credibility will be invunerable to serious attack on the basis that it is racist. Period.

Banned from Redstate?

Anybody know what the heck this is?

601 Database redigestation error.
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/redstate_wordpress/webroot/wp-content/mu-plugins/bannage.php:28) in /var/www/redstate_wordpress/webroot/wp-content/mu-plugins/bannage.php on line 29

Every time I attempt to log into Redstate.com now, from any computer, I get this. I note the little bannage thing at the end and wonder have I been kicked out? I've been having a spirited debate there about the fact that the GOP does not consider blacks important to its aspirations for governance and it conducts its political business accordingly.

Now I can't log on anymore. Hmmmmmm.

Update: If you're reading this post, chances are you've been banned from Redstate too. Tell us in the comments, what was your independent thinking crime that got you booted?

Obama v. McCain Round III Reflections

McCain lost this debate decisively, and for the first time, I think Obama clearly won it. Debate #1, Obama held his own, got it called a draw and that equated to a win. Debate #2, a shaky performance but no lost ground, again ruled a draw and equates to a win in effect for Obama. This time, he actually won the debate.

Why did he win? Because he for the most part gave coherent answers that would appeal to moderates and independents, as well as his democratic base.

McCain the entire night delivered attacks against Obama that are red meat for the conservative base, but will not snag independents and moderates. All night long, I felt like he was talking in base shorthand.

I actually thought Obama was baiting him, enticing him to bring the Ayers attack, which McCain took forever to get to even when the moderator offered up the opportunity with his opening question. When he finally did get to it, it was clumsily executed, as were many of the hits.

People want to hear the parameters of the candidates policies, not just the ideological engine that drives them. McCain’s centerpiece on education for example; Vouchers, a reasonable enough and reliable tried and true republican, conservative idea on addressing failing public school systems. In my own opinion, its a half measure, and the truly effective, conservative policy approach was actually championed by….Obama! in the form of charter schools (competition, accountability). McCain tossed them out as an aside, Obama elaborated on that a bit. On healthcare, Obama spent more time explaining McCain’s plan than McCain did.

On many points, McCain enthusiastically extolled the conservative ideological point of view, but almost always expressed in base shorthand, easily understandable to the likes of conservatives, but not nearly explanatory enough for moderates and independents who are not of the same bent and want some elaboration.

The “I’m not Bush” line was great. Too little, and way too late. The Ayers and Acorn attacks, delivered in base shorthand, no detail, no narrative, clumsy, lacked impact (for the base, moments to cheer maybe, but not for anybody else).

Demeanor wise, McCain seemed agitated and tight and once or twice annoyingly snarky. Obama seemed calm, loose, prepared and was not shaken much out of that the whole night.

While McCain had more energy in this debate, he communicated in way too much base shorthand and he devoted too much time to attack angles that don’t net independents and moderates. When he was not making that mistake, he was at several points totally squandering attack lines or pivoting from one subject to the attack in very clumsy ways that robbed several attacks of their force and made him appear, dare I say it…wait for it, wait….erratic.

Another dynamic which I don’t think helps him in how he comes across is that he doesn’t like Obama and believes him to be an upstart, untested pup and poseur who has the audacity to offer himself in opposition to McCain as though he were an equal (I suspect Hillary felt the same). That feeling is there and it colors the way McCain debates Obama and causes him to be dismissive of Obama’s rebuttals in a shorthand way, instead of absorbing them and then systematically dismantling his arguments. He doesn’t think he should have to. The problem is, he does, because the base accepts the shorthand explanations, moderates and independents don’t and he can’t win with the base alone.

A better performance for McCain. Problem was, Obama brought his best debate game tonight and if Obama’s lackluster performance in debates #1 and #2 were regarded as Obama wins based on the polling afterwards, I predict this one will poll as an Obama blowout over the next several days.

Join Us for Obama vs. McCain: Round III Live Blog Tonight at 9:00 - w/Video

Thoughts Out Loud

From the post debate comments at Hot Air

Only God can win this for McCain our country now.

JellyToast on October 7, 2008 at 11:54 PM

If God were to take a direct hand in this election, I doubt it would be to get McCain elected. God tends to think waaayyyy outside the box.

full disclsoure: the rest of the quote was about how McCain would die, Palin would finish and Romney would be her running mate. I just like the phrasing of the part above.

Our Take on the Debate: Nothing Changes

The format was a kludgey hybrid that was constraining. Brokaw completely sucked as a moderator. I mean you don't need to let him moderate anything else. He asked more questions than the voters did, and his questions were largely stupid. I didn’t really think Obama won so much as he didn’t lose. I thought Obama was better on foreign policy than on the domestic issues in this debate and in the first and I found him a mad muddle and mishmash talking about domestic policy. He had some real passion on foreign policy and was much more coherent on that point. He was scattered and unfocused on domestic issues and failed to concisely make his point. They should have someone in debate prep wire him up and shock him every time he does not answer a question succinctly.

The hot little number I call Mrs. Political Season left the room to go watch something else on TV because it was a snoozer, but she thought McCain made his answers with more clarity and I had to agree that Obama had great difficulty being anything close to succinct most of the time.

McCain and Obama both were off base on Georgia and Russia. We are most certainly headed for another cold war and the idea of Georgia in NATO is ridiculous. NATO is a decrepit military alliance and the EU is not going to pay the price to change that. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq mean we don’t have the resources to project force into that region in a meaningful way and we won’t have the support of Germany, where they have decided they will not be caught between the West and Russia in another cold war conflict.

McCain didn’t score a major hit or get a gamechanger moment, so he didn’t win it. But he didn’t lose it either. All in all, I think nothing changes from this, and the McCain campaign will have to rely on the fear and smear strategy to break and potentially reverse Obama’s momentum.

Exit comment: Its a punk move to have your running mate and every surrogate you claim calling out Obama as a terrorist sympathizer in the media and on the stump every day, but you don’t have the balls to bring that in the debate?

Live Blogging the Debate

Oh What A Relief

The Biden- Palin Debate is receding into the rearview mirror and the republican party and McCain campaigns are breathing a sigh of relief. Frankly, so am I. After the the many cringe worthy moments from the Couric interview that became the gift that keeps on giving, I was not looking forward to a 90 minute cringefest. It would have been too painful for me. The muscles that power the cringe reflex can only take so much punishment.

Palin did herself a solid and pulled her political future out of the crapper. Too bad her performance (in every sense of the word) is unlikely to do the same for McCain's campaign.

McCain Dead Wrong on Reagan

Our thought: For a man who has lived through so much history, you'd think he'd get his representation of Reagan right.

h/t The Hill's Pundits Blog (Brent Budowsky)

When McCain said during the debate that Ronald Reagan refused to negotiate with the Soviets until Gorbachev has instituted reforms, McCain had the facts and the truth exactly backwards. Shortly after the attempted assassination of Reagan — shortly after he assumed office — Reagan wrote a personal plea to Leonid Brezhnev calling for a new era of reconciliation and hoping for diplomatic negotiations to achieve it.

I am linking here a story from Time magazine that includes the first draft of the letter Reagan wrote to Brezhnev, in his own handwriting, with his plea for negotiations.

John McCain simply does not know what he is talking about. In fact, not only did Reagan write to Brezhnev in his own handwriting, not only did Reagan send a final version of the letter that was released in 1990, Reagan said, famously, that he wanted diplomacy to improve relations but Soviet leaders kept dying on him before he could achieve it.

Dwight Eisenhower believed in negotiating with adversaries. Nixon believed it. Ford believed it. Even George W. Bush has come to believe it. But John McCain stands alone, radically out of touch with every Republican and Democratic president since World War II, isolated and wrong.

That is bad enough, but to so grossly and falsely misrepresent Ronald Reagan on a matter so important only proves that loud talk, angry threats, name-calling, bellicose rhetoric and misinformation are no substitute in a president for sound judgment, common sense, strategic vision and an accurate knowledge of history.

McCain was dead wrong about Reagan and that is a mistake no president should make.

Obama vs. McCain - Mississipi Burning

The Debate: Things to Watch For

h/t Diva in NASCAR Nation

Things to Watch For:

1. Whether or not Senator Obama comes out of the gates strong-a strong start should set him up for a solid performance;
2. Whether he employs the “Uncle Fred Test:” is what he is presenting easily understood by my Uncle Fred, or his own grandmother. That is, short, succinct answers, with both depth and breadth-no big words, no run-on answers, the KISS method;
3. The impact of the last 48 hours on Senator McCain-his game-altering move didn’t seem to alter much, so how will he handle the evening; and finally
4. Ratings in the Rust Belt and NASCAR Nation: it’s Friday night, so large numbers of swing-state voters will be at a high school football game. The message will be lost on those who need to hear it the most!

Political Season's Obama - McCain Debate Prediction

I'm going to go out on a little bit of a limb here and predict that Obama will not merely hold his own, but will win this debate decisively.

Don't think so? Tell me why I'm wrong.

Obama v. Clinton: Momentum is Bulls*#@t

Between the imperatives of work and family and the super fast pace of developments on the campaign trail, blogging has been an exhausting draw for my time. But with a free moment handy, I've got some thoughts and predictions.

The contests ahead: Wisconsin, Hawaii.
Presumably, Hawaii is a slam dunk being Obama's boyhood stomping grounds, though I hear the state is pretty much a political machine dominated state. The Clinton strategy has been built to a degree around piggybacking on the backs of pre-existing political networks favorable to them. Its why they have gotten their clocks cleaned in caucus states, no organization on the ground. But machine politics provides a good environment for HRC's campaign, so its possible she might do better than expected, but I predict Obama wins it. As for Wisconsin, I'm calling it for Clinton. The polls have Obama ahead, but the demographics perhaps favor HRC, but then again, Obama has already won a state just like it (Missouri) demographically. But being a northern state, I think the dynamic is different. I don't think momentum counts for anything in this campaign. The talking heads on cable say that word like its going out of style, but if nobody has figured out that people are taking a lot of time with this and getting right down to the wire to make their decisions, they are not paying attention yet.

Texas & Ohio - I predict Obama loses both. He may close the gap, but I don't think he gets all the way there because momentum is bullshit. Best case scenario, he splits them with her. Again, the demographics seems to favor her and her back is to the wall. Underestimating her would be a mistake, especially since they have made it clear that they will do whatever is necessary to win it at the convention up to and including any strategy necessary to secure superdelegate votes. Furthermore, his tentative frontrunner status I predict means he will begin to face more withering fire from the so far fawning media. That honeymoon is going to end at some point soon. He's set for an old fashioned showdown with Clinton in Texas with a Feb. 21st debate and he had better be loaded for bear. The "where's the beef critique" has dogged Obama throughout the campaign. I predict he will be pressed hard to demonstrate policy chops in that debate and he better eat his Wheaties. His prep team needs to make sure he is ready. I suggest a few screenings of the Great Debaters to get up for it. He does not have to be, nor should he try to be a policy wonk. Thats Bill and Hillary. What I want to hear from him, and what I think he needs to do is to capably lay out his philosophic and conceptual approach to the big issues and be able to defend them against the primary counter arguments. If he can do that and demonstrate that his understanding of issues is not merely superficial, I believe he will do fine. In all other respects, he needs to clean her clock in that debate. A performance on Feb. 21 like his performance at the last debate will not close the deal. Texas and Ohio are Obama's opportunity to put his eye of the tiger on display. Its killer instinct time baby. The rhetoric and oratory has been great. Now, he's got to bring it.

I predict a close loss in Wisconsin coupled with losses in Texas and Ohio will blunt Obama's momentum and prevent him from drawing out a lead, and we will witness the political equivalent of Ragnarök and Armageddon at the convention.

Uncertain Ground

"He has wandered into a tactical battle — over who is behind what radio ads or robocalls, or over the correct interpretation of stray quotes — with the best tactical politicians in the business."

Republicans Don't Give A Rat's %#@& About Black Votes

I'm pretty much going to disavow being a republican through the remainder of this election cycle and the Univision debate is more than ample reason. As I noted in an earlier post about the failure of republican candidates to show for the Tavis debate, republicans seem to have a natural knack for screwing up the party's conversation with black voters. They blew off the conversation with Black America because they simply did not deem it important enough to talk to that constituency. They made a clear statement by their absence that they did not consider the African American vote important or necessary to their candidacy.

This stands in stark contrast to their johnny on the spot appearance for the Univision debate to talk to the Latino community. Clearly their judgment about that voting block is that it was important and worthy of their time, not too mention their patronizing, as they struggled to give broad stroke answers that softened their hard positions on immigration. The message is clear: latino community - worth talking to; black community - don't give a damn.

Why I Continue to Be a Reluctant Republican

Black Republicans may have to reassess - Herald-Mail News for Hagerstown, Washington County Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia

The no-show performance of the top tier republican candidates at Tavis' debate is the kind of crap that makes being a black republican such a pain in the &@# on a regular basis. Republicans repeatedly get this communication with black America wrong and they have a knack for making it clear that they intentionally screwed the conversation. This is the stuff that makes me a reluctant republican.

The top 4 candidates gave schedule conflicts as the reason they did not attend the debate and here is what burns me. Its clearly a lie. These debates were put on the schedule back in March and there was plenty of time to make arrangements to be there. There are black republicans, but the message this sends is that republicans don't care if there are ever any more of them. This was an important opportunity for the party to put in work with the black community and explain why the conservative viewpoint and policy prescriptions are in black interests. But noooo, instead we are no shows. It pissed me off, so I decided I wasn't voting for a republican candidate, that I would just support Obama's bid for history. I may change my mind later, but that's how bad it ticked me off.