January 06, 2008

GOP Debate Quick Hits (Part Deux)

- I watched the Frank Luntz "patented" dial-o-meter focus group and you can only come to one of three conclusions: 1) the "undecided" group of 30 were all actually in the tank for Romney and pretending to be "undecided", 2) they were under secret mind-control from the Romney campaign or 3) Mitt Romney did a lot of good for himself tonight. My gut tells me he did well for himself, specifically in making the case that a President does best when he has a good amount of executive experience under his belt. If Romney wins on Tuesday, you can point to this debate as a turning point.

- McCain definitely dialed it back a notch from last night. He was less "testy" and "bullying" than last night. He made better cases for his candidacy which helps him. The immigration issue, however, may prove to be his Achilles Heel. It may also be the thing that makes voters say "yeah, he did do a lot of things in the last seven years that really pissed me off".

- Ol' Fred is just fading into the background. I really like him but, honestly, when I listen to him talk I think he'd make a great part of the next administration. But President? Eh, not so much.

- Huckabee did pretty well. I think his answer to Wallace's question over his recent foreign policy "gaffes" was very good. I'm a lot less frightened at the prospect of his being the GOP nominee but he's still number five out of a field of five for me.

- Giuliani didn't hurt himself tonight. He still remains in the hunt if we get to a stalemate by the time Florida rolls around. But after New Hampshire he needs to kick it into gear if he expects to be in control by Feb. 5th.

- Did I say yesterday that I don't mind Ron Paul being in the debates? Screw that, it was refreshing not having him around. What a pain in the ass. Might as well have a Democrat up on the stage.

Recent polls show McCain's lead dwindling. Don't know if it's Mitt mojo or if it's just too close to call.

I will say this. After watching two debates in the last twenty four hours I feel a lot better about the choices we have than the Dems have.

UPDATE (REDSTATE, That is):

Huckabee's in trouble in the Granite State, according to Jackie and Dunlap, because "New Hampshire hates Jesus".

Posted by: Gary at 10:20 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Max Boot on the Mideast "Peace Process"

In the Sunday OpinonJournal. Read it. Negotiation for the sake of negotiation does not settle lawsuits nor does it settle wars. In civil actions, the parties settle when the principals see it in their best interest. If they do not, then they fight it out to a verdict where a resolution of the dispute is imposed by the court or by a jury.

Diplomacy is no different. The disputes between Israel and her neighbors will be settled when the parties see it in their best interest and not a moment before. If not, resolution will come when one side so thoroughly defeats the other that the victor will impose the peace.

Posted by: LMC at 09:59 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Random Epiphany Observation

Took the ol' Christmas tree down this afternoon.

For some reason, it seems the ornaments neglected this year to nominate the tradition sooper-sekret kamikazee decoration that lies craftily hidden within the foliage, waiting until one has hoiked the tree out of its stand before hurling itself to the floor in ruin.

Must be slipping.

Posted by: Robert at 03:57 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Gratuitous Historickal Posting

It's taken me about a year to get all the way through the series, but last evening I finally finished off the last book of Winston Churchill's memoirs on WWII, Triumph and Tragedy.

I have to say that this is one of the saddest books I've ever read.

So here's a question for you history buffs out there: Given "Uncle Joe" Stalin's ruthlessness, FDR's declining health and feebleness at Yalta, Truman's slowness to pick up on the threat and the strong political pressure in the States to yank the American troops from Europe as soon as possible either to send them to fight the Japanese or bring them home, was there a damned thing that Winston could have done to stop the loss of Poland, the swallowing of Eastern Germany and the rest of the villainy that occured behind the Iron Curtain? Or did the Old Boy do the very best he could with what he had?

Discuss.

UPDATE: Mrs. P brings up the Home Front issue in her comments. I've tried to respond twice but got spammed both times, so I'll put my answer in the main post:

No, I did not forget the politicians. However, my compound sentence was already hidiously bloated and I was afraid it would burst if I added any more factors. Also, the truth of the matter is that without enthusiastic American support, Britain simply didn't have the capacity to face down the Soviets by herself, no matter how unified at home.

This raises an interesting question, though. Supposing that FDR and then Truman had decided to act to stop the Red Tide rolling into Central Europe. For example, what if the Americans had refused to withdraw from their farthest line of advance into Germany, or had pushed even farther in a concerted effort to beat the Soviets to Berlin. Supposing it had been the Allied policy to encourage German surrender to the Western powers, instead of throwing them to the tender mercies of the Soviet juggernaut. Supposing Alexander had been given the go-ahead to squash Tito and drive on Vienna. Supposing, even, that we had threatened to nuke Moscow if the Russians didn't get the hell out of Poland. Given that, could Winston have mustered enough support on the home front in order to keep the Coalition Government together?

Posted by: Robert at 10:43 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

GOP Debate Quick Hits

- Romney was the focus of attack, as if he was the front runner. Generally, he responded pretty well which may offset any collateral damage and he might get a little sympathy from the NH voters who already know him so well their neighbor's former Governor.

- McCain came across as a little too cocky. His contempt for Romney was clear and the "candidate of change" shot was less effective because of a silent audience (by Charlie Gibson's instruction). All in all, not that Presidential. And no matter how he tries to defend the immigration bill of last May, it's clearly his weak point.

- Ol' Fred is the elder statesman here. I really like him personally and agree with him on a lot. But there just seems to be something missing. Perhaps the charisma he demonstrates as an actor just isn't there in the candidate. Treading water.

- Huckabee is a swell guy. Nice enough. But I can't help but coming away from his non-substantive comments and thinking: Is he as surprised as everyone else that he's doing so well?

- Giuliani is still very much in the mix. He held his powder and focused on his own principles and experience. Even his aside to Romney that Reagan might have been the subject of one of his attack ads seemed more a good-natured jab that a slap.

- Ron Paul definitely has a consistent point of view. Unfortunately for him, it's a minority view in the Republican party. I don't mind him as much being in the debate because it gives the other five an opportunity to contrast themselves against his neo-isolationism.

I expect it to be close between McCain and Romney on Tuesday. I wonder how much independent support McCain can depend on considering that they have an opportunity to back Obama instead. If Giuliani campaigns hard I think he can make a strong third place showing. Fred and Huckabee are probably already looking to SC.

BTW, did anyone else notice that Romney won the lion's share of the delegates in Wyoming yesterday? He's actually in the lead for delegates at this point.

Posted by: Gary at 09:47 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 05, 2008

The unkindest cut

The DeeCee Clinton Democrats are out for blood, and one of them dropped this MacBeth-worthy dagger into Time Magazine's ear:

"Fundamentally, she is who she is; she can't change who she is, and maybe this is not her time."

Who said it? I don't know, but I'm sure if a body of a former Clinton insider shows up in Fort Marcy Park later this week we'll have a pretty good idea.

Yips! from Robbo: "Maybe this is not her time." As it happens, the Missus and I were discussing this very question at din-dins last evening. (The Missus is a moderate, fairly non-political person. Her take on She Who Must Not Be Named is that she would certainly like to see a woman become president, but not that one. SOOPER-SEKRET NOTE TO CLINTON CAMP: Remember all those moderate Republican women who were going to cross party lines to vote for Hill' in the general? Ain't. Gonna. Happen.)

My take is that while maybe this is not her time, she really doesn't have any other. Clintonism will, I think, go down in the history books as a footnote, a political fluke only made possible by the false peace of the 90's. For better or worse, SWMNBN is firmly tied to Bubba's legacy, and as it sinks, she goes with it. (This is also his worst nightmare, btw. Nemesis certainly knows where to place her daggers most effectively.)

If this is the case, she has no choice but to keep going now. And if her position continues to crumble, she'll have to go nuclear. Ft. Marcy Park isn't big enough for all the bodies of which she'll have to dispose if she expects to make it to the Oval Office.

Posted by: Steve-O at 09:06 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Gratuitous Llama Netflix Movie Review (TM) - Family Film Night Division

So the gels came home from Blockbuster last evening with Happily N'Ever After (2007), an animated flick that purports to be a hip retelling of the Cinderella story in which the powers that ensure happy endings in fairy tales go awry, allowing evil to triumph temporarily.

Well, the one good thing I can report about this film is that writing a review of it is easy: In a word, it sucks. The plot is lame, the characters either cardboard or incomprehensible, the writing so self-satisfied that you want to pound it with a two-by-four, the animation clunky. And if I were the legal team over at Pixar, I'd be suing the pants off whoever produced this dog because the bone-headed Prince character is a direct visual rip-off of Mr. Incredible.

It's too bad, also, because I've been a fan of this type of thing ever since "Fractured Fairy Tales". But in order to pull it off successfully, one has to have wit, not just flippancy; a coherent story, not just gratuitous swipes at the originals; and style, not just edginess for its own sake. In this case, it was three strikes and you're out.

Robbo's Recommendation: No Yips! for you! I wouldn't just recommend against buying or renting this flick, I'd also recommend against watching it free if the offer is ever made.

Posted by: Robert at 05:27 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Tedious

Mrs. LMC teed up the latest installment in the Pirates of the Carribean series last night after lights out for the Future ROTC Scholarship Recipient and his little sister. The plot was thin, the acting stilted, and not even Kiera Knightley could save this flick. I am glad we saw it through Netflix rather than incurring the substantial costs that come with seeing it in the theater.

Posted by: LMC at 12:44 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The first time I've said anything nice about Henry Waxman. EVAH!

No more nosehair combover jokes from me: Waxman's going to have Clemens' ass under oath on steroids.

BTW, I'd expect a libel suit over this. Sour grapes from the mile high choke club.

Posted by: Steve-O at 12:42 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Oh Logos!

Sorry, couldn't resist. Mickey Kaus flags the funniest thing I've read in a long time:

Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I've heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence

I've got an epiphany on this, but am too busy to photoshop the Obama brand of frankincense.

UPDATE SPECULATION ON NEW HAMPSHIRE: How much pull does McCain get in New Hampster with Curt Schilling campaigning for him?

Posted by: Steve-O at 12:24 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Interesting quote of the day

This one's going to leave a mark, coming from Clinton biographer John Harris:

A second Clinton presidency would suggest that Clintonism was not just a 1990s-era bag of political tricks, but a historical movement dominating American politics for a generation or more.

Without a second Clinton presidency, Bill Clinton might be remembered as a colorful but in the end not terribly consequential president who governed in comparatively placid times between two war presidents named Bush.

For all that he is often touted as a political superhero, Bill Clinton was always a mere mortal. He never cleared the 50 percent threshold in two presidential elections. He steered his party to disaster in the congressional elections of 1994 and never steered it back over the next six years even through years of peace and prosperity.

In Iowa, it is not clear that Bill Clinton’s tireless campaigning and importuning on behalf of his wife did any good at all.

At times, it seems likely he hurt the cause, as with his clumsy and ill-supported assertions that he was opposed to the Iraq invasion at the time. His very presence, coupled with his legitimate but sometimes irrelevant defenses of his own record in office, seemed to draw attention to the 1990s and undercut one of his own political truisms — that all elections are about the future.

It was not so much that he was off his game as that he was on it in some very characteristic ways.

The fear to Bubba that he will wind up on the list of presidential consequence and greatnes amidst the Chester Arthurs and Grover Clevelands burns with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns.

And it's causing Bubba to make comments like this: you can almost see the finger wagging in this granite gem of self-pity

"Nobody would like it better than us if you could get that personal vilification out of there, because nobody’s been vilified more than we have," he said, after noting that he thought Hillary and McCain could run a respectful campaign. "One of the problems with laying down and turning the other cheek is McCain had one dose of it. They gave it to us for eight years.

"And the fact of the matter is, independent voters think you’re polarizing if someone else attacks you, even if that someone is Rush Limbaugh, even if you’ve been totally exonerated of every single charge ever leveled against you, which Hillary was — and some people forgot to tell you about that," he said, jabbing again at the press.

"Nobody would be happier to see all this go away than us. But you can’t ask somebody who is at a breathtaking disadvantage in the information coming to the voters to ignore that disadvantage and basically agree to put bullets in their brains," he said.

But attacking the press in this way isn't smart, as they always hit back (how smart was it for the Clintons to go after Tim Russert?) Harris counters:

Some of that petulance has been seen lately, as with comments in New Hampshire Friday suggesting that the media has been unfair to his wife. In fact, the Clintons’ celebrity has been a constant media advantage, giving them entrée to network interviews and magazine covers. They used this to promote a narrative of her “inevitability” and can hardly complain now that Obama has exposed that she is not inevitable at all.

Posted by: Steve-O at 09:52 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 04, 2008

Finally, an online quiz with some real utility

20

Posted by: Steve-O at 08:05 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Filch-Worthy

A leetle Friday afternoon heh:

Stolen from GroovyVic.

Posted by: Robert at 04:47 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Random Literary Observation

I discovered just now that lovely WordImperfect decided it was not in the giving vein today viz the automatic saving of documents, and therefore that it had swallowed about half of an interview outline I'm putting together.

Fortunately, this discovery only warrants about half a head-bang. The outline was still pretty short and primordial, and I had most of the main points in my head anyway. But it prompted me to think again about the business of composition.

You see, I'm firmly convinced that the words I actually put down on the page - whether dead-tree or pixilated - are influenced by time, place and circumstances. Give me a specific topic and the assignment to write something about it half a dozen different times. The result will be half a dozen very different compositions. Maybe not different in terms of ultimate conclusion (although one can't rule that out completely), but different in choice of word or phrase, priority of arguments, logical connection and, ultimately, perhaps persuasiveness or artistic merit (depending on the type of compostion). And those differences can be influenced by a staggering variety of factors. Just a few examples include: time of day, amount of sleep I've had, diet, a recent piece of praise or criticism, whether I'm in dutch with the Missus, what musick is on the radio, even what book I last read before I sat down to do my own writing.

Indeed, the list of possible influences - and the continually shifting combinations of them - is virtually endless. And if that is the case, then the number of potential writings with which I might come up is also endless. And when I look at something I've written and contemplate the theoretically infinite number of versions it might have taken but didn't, well, then I get quite dizzy.

Posted by: Robert at 11:39 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

Remember the "600,000 civilian deaths in Iraq at the hands of the U.S. military" meme? Eh, perhaps not so much.

This just reinforces my personal view that science and politics is a baaaaad combination.

Posted by: Robert at 10:22 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Gratuitous Domestic Posting - "Same Words, Different Tune" Division

The Missus and the Llama-ettes have been planning a "family movie night" for tonight. So this morning I asked the soon-to-be-eight year old what movies she had in mind.

"Oh, Daddy!" she said. "How about the Sponge-Bob Movie?"

"For Heaven's sake, child," I replied. "You've seen that about a dozen times already! And anyway, I know for a fact that Mom wouldn't sit through it in a billion years."

"Well....." she said, "I know! What about Atlantis Squarepantis?"

"Um," I answered, "How is that any different? It's just more SpongeBob."

"Oh, no, Dad-dee!" she countered, "It's different! In this one, they go to Atlantis!"

"So I gathered. The answer is still 'no'."

"Nothing that has anything to do with Nickelodeon, dammit!" came the voice of
the Missus floating down the stairs.

"That's right!" I said, switching on the cranky old geezer rant function. "You're missing the point! The idea to find some good old-fashioned wholesomeness! Something you haven't seen before! One of those old Disney films like....like...say the "Flubber" movies!"

"Flubber? Oooh, Daddee! I'd love to see Flubber!" she exclaimed.

"Huh?" I thought. Well, okay. Good! Except, where would the girl possibly have heard of......

"Yes!" she went on. "That's the one with the butt-shaking moves!"

"Whuh?"

"Oh! And the little dancing flubber guy! Can we see it? Please?"

"Whaaaaa...?" I thought again. And it was at that moment that I suddenly realized that she wasn't talking about the harmless old Fred MacMurray gems from the early sixties that I remembered fondly from lazy weekend matinees in my own yoot. No, she was thinking of that abominable Robin Williams remake from a few years back, which had totally slipped my mind until this point.

I suddenly felt very old. It was about all I could do to tell her not to use the term "butt-shaking".

Sigh....

Posted by: Robert at 09:44 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Who Really Won Last Night

Not to sound too snarky, but the citizens of the other 49 states are now the big winners because we can forget about Iowa until 2012. Aah. Sounds good, doesn't it?

Now we have to undure the over-hyped importance New Hampshire. They really, really need to change this process.

Anyway, let's look at how far I was off:

Me:
Romney: 31%
Huckabee: 27%
Thompson: 14%
McCain: 12%
Paul: 9%
Giuliani: 6%
Hunter: 1%

Actual:
Huckabee: 34%
Romney: 25%
Thompson: 13%
McCain: 13%
Paul: 10%
Giuliani: 3%
Hunter: 0%

Let's see.
1) Ol' Fred will edge his buddy McCain - check (barely)
2) Ron Paul passes Giuliani - check (more than expected)
3) The big story: Fred ain't dead (yet) - WRONG

The big story is the Huck-upset. My rationale for a Romney win was that organization beats passion. WRONG. Turnout was good for Romney but better for Huck. Why? A slew of new/first-time voters for the Huckster. And they were by and large younger and evangelical.

Let's take a look at the data. Patrick Ruffini explains:

"In the 2000 Caucuses, only 37% described themselves as “religious right.” This year, 60% described themselves as “Evangelical Christians.” That’s an imperfect comparison, but the universe of Evangelical voters almost certainly expanded this year."

One other result from last night is that Giuliani's got to be smiling. True he registered just 3% in Iowa, but he pretty much wrote off the state. Huckabee hurt Romney in Iowa. McCain is surging in NH. A muddle race by the time Florida roles around benefits his Super-Duper-Mega-Extreme Tuesday strategy.

As for the Dems, I said "Obama wins, 'You-know-who' squeaks past Edwards." Well, Obama won and Edwards squeaked past HRCR, barely. Edwards needed a win but he'll hang around hoping that she tanks. Because of the "viability" requirement, the rest of the crowd registered either at zero or single digits. Interesting when you think of it. 38% of Democrats basically told She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named "we hate you so much we're willing to throw the dice on a guy with absolutely no experience." Of course, the problem with Obama is that right now he is an empty vessel, filled with all the different expectations of a dissatisfied Democrat party. Will the voters of NH and beyond agree with Iowa? We'll have to wait and see.

Oh, and another plus - we don't have to see the pantload and the plagiarist in anymore debates.

In the meantime, the candidates will spend the next five days listening to local yokels say things like, "Well, then guess your way to Redbud."**

** spot the quote

And, as always, Jim Geraghty has the best (and most amusing take) on each candidate's finish. My personal favorite - advice to Obama: "Just brace yourself, because Hillary is going to go negative on you, in a way that the Clinton machine has never gone negative before. Wear two cups."

Heh.

Posted by: Gary at 08:56 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Obligatory Quick Post-Caucus Take

Gary's the one who's swallowed the political kool-aid round here, so I'll leave the heavy analysis to him. However, I have just two points to make:

1.) The Huckster is not going to be the next President of the United States. Period.

2.) As for She Who Must Not Be Named? "Melting! Meeeeeelting! What a world! What a wooooorld!!!" Heh.

Yips! from Gary:
And on that note, allow me to filch this gem from Allahpundit.

Posted by: Robert at 08:51 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 03, 2008

Pack-Rats Of The World, Unite!

The so-called "Medical Establishment" is trying to suppress our perfectly normal urge to keep everything by branding us with the stigma of suffering a mental disorder:

Compulsive hoarding is defined, in part, by clutter that so overtakes living, dining and sleeping spaces that it harms the person’s quality of life. A compulsive hoarder finds it impossible, even painful, to part with possessions. It’s not clear how many people suffer from compulsive hoarding, but estimates start at about 1.5 million Americans.

Dr. Tolin recently studied compulsive hoarders using brain-scan technology. While in the scanner, hoarders looked at various possessions and made decisions about whether to keep them or throw them away. The items were shredded in front of them, so they knew the decision was irreversible. When a hoarder was making decisions about throwing away items, the researchers saw increased activity in the orbitofrontal cortex, a part of the brain involved in decision-making and planning.

“That part of the brain seemed to be stressed to the max,” Dr. Tolin said. By comparison, people who didn’t hoard showed no extra brain activity.

While hoarders are a minority, many psychologists and organization experts say the rest of us can learn from them. The spectrum from cleanliness to messiness includes large numbers of people who are chronically disorganized and suffering either emotionally, physically or socially. Cognitive behavioral therapy may help: a recent study of hoarders showed that six months’ therapy resulted in a marked decline in clutter in the patient’s living space.

Although chronic disorganization is not a medical diagnosis, therapists and doctors sometimes call on professional organizers to help patients. One of them is Lynne Johnson, a professional organizer from Quincy, Mass., who is president of the National Study Group on Chronic Disorganization.

Ms. Johnson explains that some people look at a shelf stacked with coffee mugs and see only mugs. But people with serious disorganization problems might see each one as a unique item — a souvenir from Yellowstone or a treasured gift from Grandma.

Hmph! Personally, I think Ms. Johnson is just afraid to come to terms with her own feeling that perhaps her collection of mugs is somehow inadequate. Come out of the cupboard, Madam!

[Not to spoil the meme of this post, but as an aside I have to say I can't help but shake my head in disbelief that somebody has not only fadged up a gravy-train job title like "professional organizer", but that they've also put together a pseudo-scientific "study group" to legitimize it. Honestly, there are times when I think I ought to chuck the Law and just set myself up as a kind of Consultant Without Portfolio. Sure, I might eventually wind up on the Golgafrincham "B" Ark,*** but in the meantime, I'd be living high on the hog.]

***Spot the reference.

Posted by: Robert at 04:52 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Llone Star Llama Blegging

I have to go to Texas next week, hitting Dallas, San Antonio and Houston in rapid succession.

Travel usually wears me out. Plus, I hate eating alone in public. So I may well wind up hiding in my hotel and ordering room service each night. Nonetheless, any recommendations about good foody spots would be appreciated. Specifically, what's the best Tex-Mex down on the Riverwalk these days?

Yip! Yip!

Posted by: Robert at 01:12 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.4077 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.4013 seconds, 64 records returned.
Page size 64 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.