PDS – Is there a cure?

---

Elizabeth Wurzel at Atlantic:

Sarah Palin, Riot Grrrl

To paraphrase Lillian Hellman, I don’t agree with a word that Sarah Palin says, including “and” and “the.” And as a liberal feminist, it drives me absolutely bonkers that Palin is the most visible working mother and female politician in America, that she is the best exemplar of a woman with an equal marriage, that she has put up with less crap from fewer men than those of us who have read The Second Sex and marched in pro-abortion rallies and pretty much been on the right side of all the issues that Palin is wrong about.

So I suppose I should confess: I like Sarah Palin. I like her because she is such a problem for all these political men, Republicans and Democrats alike, with their polls, and their Walter Dean Burnham theories of transformative elections, and their economy this and their values that–and here comes Palin, and logic just doesn’t apply. She speaks in spoonerisms, she raises wretched children, she’s a quitter, she’s a refudiater, she shoots moose and beats halibut, she has a dumb accent that doesn’t have the charm of Charleston or the Brahmin of Boston–really, she is just a lot of quirks.

But it doesn’t matter. It will never matter and I bet it never has mattered, because Sarah Palin is hot. She has sex appeal. That’s why people like her. That’s the whole story. Everyone has to stop trying to deconstruct and decode it, because there is no accounting for chemistry, and Sarah Palin has lots of it going on with her public. I don’t think anyone knows or cares what in particular she stands for, other than some general conservative cache of principles, because they are in love with her.

The Democrats are total morons for not finding their own hot mama before the Republicans did so first, or maybe I should have left off the qualifiers and called it straight: the Democrats are just plain morons, at least where women are concerned. The right wing, for whatever weird reason, has been much more receptive to outrageous and attractive female commentators who are varying degrees of insane or inane, but in any case are given a platform on Fox News and at their conservative confabs. Look at how great life has been for Megyn Kelly and Laura Ingraham and the assorted lesser lights. But there are no Democratic blondes, no riot grrrls on the progressive side of politics, no fun and fabulous women in the liberal scene who could pave the way for a Palin. Yes, there are women who are successful in the Democratic party, but none of them are successful because of their feminine wiles, none of them have played up their sex appeal the way Palin has. MSNBC’s female host is Rachel Maddow, who is completely good in all manner of ways that good can be good–but still I must ask: Where are the policy babes?

I know, I know: all of you are saying that it’s a good thing it’s like that, it’s a sign that liberals have integrity and blah blah blah. But I think you are kidding yourselves. It’s a sign of another thing: that liberal men are wimps who can’t handle the hot potato that is a combination of feminine sexuality and female political brilliance.

Anyone with a sense of humor, a sense of fun, and a sense that women should be taken on their own terms really ought to like Palin. I mean, of course, you should hate her at the same time, but you should hope she is the beginning of revolution, grrrl style.

At least she’s herself. Every damn day, if you tune in to any of the 24-hour news outlets, the same pundits retread through the same stuff–they all say the same thing. I spend a great deal of time trying to figure out how the whole DC opinion apparatus remains employed. If there were any justice, their ranks would swell the unemployment rate beyond 10 percent. And still, some moron known as a news executive who hasn’t registered a thought beyond mediocre in my lifetime approves of this, and Americans, educated to believe 2+2=5, will put up with anything.

Into this horror walks Sarah Palin, who is kind of a sexy librarian, kind of a MILF, kind of just crazy, and altogether does what she wants to do. This, actually, is normal behavior. But we are so used to watching other female politicians compromise in so many ways that there is not enough Vaseline in all of CVS to make the situation comfortable–so Sarah Palin seems completely strange.

Unfortunately, Sarah Palin is not very bright, not very thoughtful and not very qualified to run a country. Or a state. But really, are any of the other idiots who want the job so much better?

WTF? Is she snarking or schizophrenic?

The first couple paragraphs are okay, but then she takes a hard left turn into Crazytown.

“I love her! I hate her! She’s a hottie! She’s a naughty librarian! She’s a dummy! Our side needs hot dumb librarians too!”

Seriously, WTF?

---

---

---

And the winner is . . . ABC!

---

Tonight’s the night. Will it be Jennifer, Kyle, or the Spawn of Evil? Will Jeralyn’s head explode? Will more innocent televisions have to die?

Tune in to ABC at 9 p.m. Eastern to find out.

Meanwhile:

Sarah Palin Wants Christine O’Donnell on Next ‘Dancing With the Stars’

Sarah Palin was not only playing the role of proud mama grizzly last night when she sat in the front row cheering on daughter Bristol Palin in the finale of ‘Dancing With The Stars’ — she was also playing casting director, lobbying the show’s producers to consider signing up her Tea Party pal Christine O’Donnell for next season.

“Sarah is a genius at marketing herself and her message,” an insider tells me. “She doesn’t care about all the old rules about how political people are meant to behave and act. Sarah believes the best way is to go directly to the people — use Twitter, Facebook, ‘Dancing With the Stars’ and ‘Entertainment Tonight’ to get potential voters excited and leave ‘Meet The Press’ and those boring Sunday morning shows to the old-school politicians.”

And with the huge success of her own reality show, ‘Sarah Palin’s Alaska,’ and Bristol stunning everyone with the fact that she is still in the ‘Dancing’ competition, Sarah might be onto something. Plus, who else are the ‘Dancing’ producers going to get after Bristol?

“Christine is not a bad idea at all,” one ABC executive tells me. “After Kate Gosselin and Cloris Leachman, O’Donnell would fit right in. She certainly would be so controversial that the amount of press attention and buzz the show would get would be huge. Plus, you know they would make her dance in a witch’s hat with a broomstick.”

---

If Christine O’Donnell isn’t available, maybe they could get Carrie Prejean.

This is an open thread

---

What's the matter? Don't you like clowns?

---

---

TSA: Tough Sh!t Asshat; a Tuesday afternoon open thread

The TSA doesn’t get it at all. Yesterday they visited Capitol Hill demonstrating to 200 Democratic and Republican Congressional Staffers just how benign their search procedures really are:

TSA uproar moves to Capitol Hill

The comprehensive briefing of House staff, by a TSA deputy, covered everything – the threat from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, screening procedures, pat-downs (standard and enhanced) – “the whole works,” one House staffer who attended the briefing told POLITICO.

. . . .

“The dumbest part: they did two pat-down demonstrations – male on male, and female on female,” the House staffer said. And they used a young female TSA volunteer “and in front of a room of 200 people, they touched her breasts and her buttocks. People were averting their eyes. The TSA was trying to demonstrate ‘this is not so bad,’ but it made people so uncomfortable to watch, that people were averting their eyes.”

“They shot themselves in the foot,” the staffer continued.

It’s hard to say whether they’ve learned their lesson though.  I mean, how many videos of bungled seaches have to show up on YouTube before they get the idea that this stuff isn’t exactly happening in secret?

And as one staffer put it:

One staffer who attended the House briefing this morning asked the TSA officials, essentially, why are we doing all of these intelligence operations if we are going to treat the entire traveling American public like terrorists, the staffer relayed. “Why fund this huge intelligence operation if we are going to treat everyone like terrorists?”

---

The pattern is really clear

---

WKJM:

I was just reading this article about Mike Huckabee saying that President Obama’s going to be harder to beat than a lot of Republicans think. I think he’s right, for a number of reasons. But one he mentions is incumbency. And he’s right. People simply don’t appreciate how seldom elected presidents get denied reelection. By my count, it’s only happened three times in the last century. Carter, the first President Bush and Herbert Hoover.

[…]

But what it comes down to is that presidents who are elected tend to get reelected. The pattern is really clear.

Hoover – bad economy in 1932 (Great Depression)

Carter – bad economy in 1980 (“Misery Index”)

Bush I – bad economy in 1992 (“It’s the economy, stupid”)

Yup, the pattern is really clear.

---

---

---

Remind me again, which party is stupid?

The other day, I found this link from Corrente’s post, Who’s Going Rogue?, to what I initially thought was the left coming to its senses.  It’s all about the “secret” meetings that Democratic donors are having about the 2012 election season.  It turns out that what we had suspected in 2008 was true.  Obama had captured the donors and had all of them funnel their money to his campaign instead of outside advocacy groups.  Peachy.

Well, those groups have seen what the last two years of Obamaism hath wrought and they’re not going to do THAT again, by golly.  No, by neddyjingo, they won’t get fooled again.  In 2012, they’re going to give their money to whomever they please and not just solely to Obama:

In meetings this past week, some of the top financiers in the party advanced discussions about building a third-party apparatus to counter that on the Republican side of the aisle. The tone, said one person involved in the talks, was remarkably different from 2008, when the Obama campaign urged donors to funnel money strictly into their coffers. In 2010, similar requests are being made — but they’re not always heeded.

“Those days are other,” said the individual. “It is a really big sea shift. People said we need an outside structure and we are going to do it. It is no longer ‘Will you give us permission to do it, sir.'”

As is often the case in Democratic circles, little consensus was reached over the past week. If anything, the meeting of the Democracy Alliance — a formal community of well-funded, progressive-minded individuals and activists — ended with more lingering questions and promises for future discussions than concrete answers. Among the issues left unresolved were how a third-party group would be structured, what it would cost, and whether it was more effective to decry outside money helping Republicans or to simply match the Republican’s outside money.

“There probably is some kind of need [for a third-party outlet]. The one thing about us though is when we lose we have a lot of meetings. We are not even getting started on the retreats or retrospectives,” said James Carville, a longtime Democratic strategist, during an unrelated breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. “There is probably going to be one now, it is just the nature of what it is. Undoubtedly the Democrats will have symposiums and retreats.”

Hurrah!  They are finally getting the picture.  These donors are not going to let Obama take their money without some kind of pro quo for their quid.  They demand satisf… wait… what’s this at the end?

That such money would be available to help Democratic causes is in and of itself a remarkable reflection about the evolution of the party. In 2008, attempts to build an independent arm was essentially axed when the Obama campaign nixed donor giving to outside functions. This go-around, even the president’s team seems to be of the mindset that such a tight restriction on funds is impractical or perhaps disadvantageous.

“One of the things the White House is recognizing as they think about the reelect is it is going to cost a lot of money, which is not to say the last one didn’t,” said one Democracy Alliance attendee. “It will be an expensive campaign though and they will need some help with it.”

Hunh?

Ohhhh, OK, I get it.  They still have a crush on Obama.  B to the A the R-A-C-K, O-B-A-M-A!

It’s not that they’ll be pushing Obama from the left so much as they will be “perceived” to be pushing Obama from the left.  What they will really be doing is the same old thing and funneling all of the cash they will be hauling in from their duped small donors directly into Obama’s re-election campaign.

So, the outside advocacy groups will take our money and shake their tiny fists and wail at the Obama administration and the blue meanie Republicans and then turn around and use the money to help Obama’s re-election campaign.

Sweeeet!

Wait!  Let’s back up a minute.  This whole scenario depends on the general public sort of already buying into the idea that Obama will not be challenged in his own party.  Says who?

Oh, sure, the press will keep beating Hillary over the head with the question of whether she will run in 2012 and she will (carefully) keep denying it. (OMG, Andrew Sullivan says Hillary has finally won him over- as long as she behaves quietly at State and doesn’t make a fuss.  Oh, please, what nauseating bilge.)  And, heck, it might even be true.  But who’s to say that there won’t be some other Democrat or third party candidate who will see all of the disaffected Democrats and working class stiffs that both parties have left on the table and swoop down to grab them?  In fact, if ever in the history of the US of A there was a better time for an Independent or primary challenger to win, this would be it.

These donors are stupid.  They were stupid in 2008 and they’re just as stupid now.  They are falling for the Obama Haka once again.  He’s the only one.  No one else cares about them but him.  No one else dares challenge him.  That’s a crock of frog bollocks.   There he goes, strutting around like the proverbial cock on the walk and as James Carville says, he’s got no balls.  The donors should do an aggressive pat-down on him to find out but they’re too afraid.

And I don’t buy this nonsense that it wouldn’t be genteel or couth for Hillary to challenge him.  Does anyone think for one minute that the assholes who ran Obama’s campaign would have given two $#@%s about running HER over?  Um, no.  We already know they have no scruples when it comes to dirty campaigning.  But they expect Hillary to not feel her cheerios and put aside every concern she may have for her country so as to protect Obama’s and the DNC’s sense of propriety?

At this point, it doesn’t matter what the donors think or what Hillary thinks or Obama thinks or the DNC thinks.  All that matters is that there are hundreds of millions of Americans right now who see their lifestyles negotiated away by Barack Obama and his Democratic Congress and they are ready to throw Obama out.  No, I’m not kidding.  It’s only going to get worse in the next two years and his chances of turning this ship around are rapidly fading.  By the time 2012 rolls around, his re-election is going to look remote, just like the Democratic Congress’ re-election this November looked remote.  We saw it from a mile away.  When the Republicans go all Fallujah on Obama’s ass in the next two years, he’s going to start looking like a punching bag and no one wants to vote for four more years of that.

At that point, we will want an uncouth, uncivil. hairy, unibrowed renegade from the left to push Obama out.  A left wing version of Atilla the Hun will look like a viable alternative.   The left doesn’t produce many of them from its Stevensonian branch, which is why Obama’s retainers should feel really nervous right about now.

It is too late to try to cheer Obama on for a second term.  And anyone who attempts to do so should be gagged for being irresponsible and dishonest.  He is what he is, which is what we told them he is.  He is an opportunistic, Republican lite politician who does not have the experience or the temperament to operate the levers of government to get things done for the vast majority of Americans.  We already know this in 2010.  An infusion of spine is by no means guaranteed to work and is likely to be shortlived anyway.  If he gets re-elected in 2012, what’s going to stop him from reverting to form?

We gave this guy the job and we have evaluated his performance and found him lacking.  He is not entitled to a second term.  He has to earn it.  So far, he isn’t doing that.  But the Democratic donors have decided to play it safe and re-elect him even though they don’t like him or his policies, forcing him back on the hapless voters in 2012.  And we call Palin voters stupid? Hey, it’s their money.  Just don’t ask me to throw my good, hard earned money down that drain too.

Do us all a favor and get Hillary or someone of her political persuasion to run.  Just save us all the time and agony of a prolonged death by bipartisanship Obama style. He can’t win in 2012 no matter how many billions you siphon to him on the side.  Stick a fork in him, he’s done.