Obama Spell-Check Watch

A letter I just sent to Andrew Sullivan:

Dear Andrew,

I blog on blogger and it has annoyed me that "Obama" is still considered an incorrect word according to their spellchecker. Of these four names, only Obama's is highlighted in red: "Obama Clinton Giuliani McCain" Note, the correct word proffered for Obama is not Osama (which is actually also highlighted in red) but "ABM." Osama gets "Asama" for some reason. Asama is a mountain in Japan according to the Wiki .

Anyway, maybe we can start a petition to get the spellchecker updated. The man's the nominee (and next president!).

Thanks for all your work,
JC

Let's see if Sullivan quotes me and how long it takes from his quote til it gets done.

GOP: It now looks like Romney

While there may be no real GOP front-runner, it's becoming more of Romney's game now. Giuliani, while a strong candidate because of his 9-11 halo, has some insane skeletons in his closet. The most recent is Shag-Gate (TPM has done great work on this) wherein Rudy spent millions of my tax money to have the police walk his then mistress' dog. While this is run-of-the-mill New York City graft, that doesn't play well outside the cynical world of Nu-yawk. The scandals (and there are now quite a lot) plus his disastrous personal life (which echo each other) plus his liberal policies on abortion, guns, immigrants and Da Gays, may be enough to sink Giuliani for good.

And on Tuesday Romney got a crucial endorsement by National Review. That endorsement, plus his successful speech the other night defending his right to be a religious whackjob, has established him as the candidate of the GOP establishment. Combine that with his money, and with his movie-star looks and persona, and I think he's the guy. Unless he makes some spectacular gaffe, his money and acceptance by the GOP machine politics should get him the nomination.

While I don't discount Huckabee's success in Iowa is impressive, Huck doesn't have the money, the support of local GOP machine politicians, the policy-knowledge, or the staff to make it much farther. Being a media darling is great, being a populist is great, but it's hard to defeat the candidate of The Money and The Machine (note, this is why I still haven't ruled out Hillary... but, like above, her current wounds are all self-inflicted and gaffes can kill anybody).

If it is Romney, then I am worried about who his Veep pick would be. TNR has said a few times now that the rest of the candidtaes hate him and won't work with him. Will that matter if he offers them the VP slot?

I believe Romney will choose a rock-ribbed conservative as his running mate; I believe it will be Rick Santorum. By doing that, even when Romney flops over to the center-left in general election (which he is guaranteed to do), he can thus pander his true centist bona-fides while winking at the cultural conservatives with Santorum.

Smart Guy Alert

This blog is very good: Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics' Horserace Blog. And by 'good' I mean 'he thinks like I do'

The above link is an example of what I like. His main point in that post is that despite the blog's unfortunate title, the primaries are not a horse-race to the general voter. The voters only start paying attention very close to the actual election. The pundits and political junkies (like me) think that voters are paying attention like we do. Note, they don't.

What this means, in short, is that early polls are not worth much. Candidates - like Obama and Giuliani - who wait for the month before Iowa/New Hampshire to start spending mucho dinero and to levy their best attacks are being very smart.

He also gives some good info about the effects of Negative Campaigning (something I've wondered about for a while).

Republican Update: Bob Jones

In the scant few hours between when I wrote yesterday's post about the Republican candidates for 2008, Bob Jones III has come out to endorse Romney, saying:

This is all about beating Hillary. And I just believe that this man has the credentials both personally and ideologically in terms of his view about what American government should be to best represent the rank and file of conservative Americans. If it turns out to be Giuliani and Hillary we've got two pro choice candidates, and that would be a disaster.

What do we learn from this:

• Hillary is public enemy number one to the GOP, but like their overblown wedge freakshow, it may actually be over-the-top
  
• Being a pro-choice Christian is actually worse than a pro-life 'Cultist'

Hattip: TPM

So far, I'm Still with Edwards

2008 is still a ways away; but the field is filling up quick and the two top Democrats - Hillary & Obama - are getting money and donors and attention, so it's time to restart the '08 topic I blurbed about a few months ago. While I find Obama intriguing (and Hillary disgusting), I'm still putting my oomph behind John Edwards. Right now, I think an Edwards-Obama ticket would be very powerful. It'd match Southeast & Midwest, a moderate hawk & a social liberal, and two attractive (physically and emotionally) men who create a lot of voter excitement.

Then, after 8 years of Edwards we can plausibly have 8 years of Obama (by then people will be used to his name).

On the GOP side, I'm frightened of a Giuliani-McCain (or vice versa) ticket because they both have appeal to Independents. But McCain looks like death warmed over (and will be 72 in November '08) and Giuliani is massive S.O.B. - which is an asset for the NYC mayor's seat, but doesn't play well anywhere else.

While there's a funny symmetry to have a Giuliani-Clinton race - when's the last time the major party candidates came from the same state, probably Lincoln-Douglas - I am praying that Hillary will implode before the year is through. And Giuliani is a ticking bomb of an even higher degree (and remember he ducked out of their first fight in 2000 blaming is naughty prostate... like having cancer could keep you from the Senate; just ask Tim Johnson]

In any case, I will comment more about this issue as time permits. I do like that Krugman gave some support to Edward's bona-fides here (praising his health plan).

{2009 Update: Pic from Edwards' endorsement of Obama in 2008; my how things change.}

Impeachment, Gonzales

As I've said before, I am looking forward to the impeachment of the major up-foulers in the Executive Branch. It should be inevitable, given the levels of malfeasance and criminality. Wireless wiretaps and torture lead the day but the fabricated intelligence that lead to the Iraq War, or the negligence with Katrina could also work.

It's similar to how Saddam will be executed for a teeny-weeny mass murder (hundreds of victims) instead of the full hundreds of thousands. Murder is murder, dead will be dead. I just want Saddam to stay alive until all his misdeeds are put into public record. Killing him too quick may prevent us from finding the full truth (and who else participated).

So too with Bush. He should be impeached for every single sickbag thing he's done. And his dog Cheney too. How the information is revealed will determine whether he'll go out like Nixon or stay in office like Reagan/Bush 41. My feeling tends to Nixon because the horrors were domestic. All Reagan/Bush did in Iran-Contra was dupe congress and fund atrocities abroad. Yawn. Nixon, however, helped cover up for a freakin' burglary. It was pathetic.

However, it's not just that the American people don't particularly mind if a president declares a stupid war but they do care about criminal negligence on these shores. Nixon was impeached because the FBI hated him and kept the heat on, leaking information from the Grand Jury to Woodward and Bernstein, etc. The FBI killed Nixon, the FBI/CIA didn't care about Iran-Contra.

That's why Bush is likely to go down like Nixon - because Bush has tried to destroy the CIA and Bush/Rumsfeld has been abusing the military. Two big institutions with a lot of domestic support (military) and/or access to skeletons (CIA). If the Democrats play this right, they'll get all the info they need from the Army/CIA and Bush will be toast. The Republicans will dump him so they can save 2008.

My prediction of impeachment, now that the Democrats won, is that as soon as the water starts to boil, Cheney will bail. Health reasons, ya know. If we're lucky, he'll go out like Casey. But his early departure can come with a promise of leniency if he names names. He would, too. It's just that he's the top prize, but like Kaiser Sose he'll leave the Meathead In Chief to take the fall.

Anyway, when Cheney leaves, Kaiser Rove will find someone to replace him. At this point, were the GOP to have decency and sanity, they would find a lone Republican with a brain and a heart. Someone untainted by this administration who can plausibly run in 2008 from a position of experience and strength. Any of the putative, moderate, front-runners like McCain or Giuliani. Or someone completely free and clean, like John Danforth. That won't happen. My prediction is that they'll choose Alberto Gonzales.

Yup, Torturin' Al. He'll be chosen because (as seen below) the GOP believes they can purchase respectability by trotting out their token minorities. Who cares if Alberto is a horrible, talentless lackey? What matters is that he is loyal to the Bush Family and can use his skin-color as a get-out-jail-free card.

Once the VP is in place, Bush's impeachment will follow. He may resign before it gets too far. I hope he won't and he actually might not.

Bush's defining characteristic, even more than his staggering stupidity or his lack of any positive moral quality (compassion? no; respect for human dignity? no; generosity? no), is his need to appear strong despite crushing internal weakness. He's a bully; a dumb, rich bully.

Being a dumb rich bully leads to his well documented inability to distinguish between success and failure. Exhibit A: Iraq; B: Katrina; etc. So in the disused piece of meat that is his brain, he may think that sticking through an impeachment hearing will be the strong, manly thing. He'll repeatedly ask "What Would Jesus Do [Were Jesus mean stupid and corrupt]?" and come up with the answer that he wants.

It would be nice to have a successful impeachment after 217 years; to finally set the bar for malfeasance to come.

All this means that we may be looking at a President Gonzales or Rice in a year.

Gates, Giuliani

The body of a letter I sent to TPM:

About the Gates nomination, I agree with your readers, especially this line:

I think the "use nomination hearings as a bully pulpit" logic shows that the Democrats are still thinking like a minority party. They got the subpoena power, they got the committees, they can open any can of worms any they want to and don't have to snipe at the Administration from the bushes.

Gates and to a larger extent Diamond Jimmy Baker are signs not only that GHW Bush is exerting his influence but more likely the Republican patricians who watched the wacko bomb-throwers take over the party in 1994 and then drive the party off a cliff in just over a decade.

Its possible that Bush Sr. and the GOP patricians are trying to save the party in the next two years by playing out the coming scandals like they did Iran Contra - as opposed to the Bush Jr./Cheney methods which would in all likelihood lead to another Nixon.

About Giuliani: You ask:

do we really have to pretend that Rudy Giuliani has more than a snowball's chance in hell of getting the Republican presidential nomination.

You're right, as shown by the anti-Giuliani rhetoric on the red-blogs, that he has no chance. But he may be running in order to get back into the political ring (which he left completely in 2001) and to enter national politics for the first time. He's 62 (two years older than Clinton & Bush Jr) and may be hoping to get the VP nomination or even just Attorney General in the next GOP administration.

Yet, naturally, as a Democrat, I'm pretty frightened of a McCain-Giuliani ticket.

Backpost finished 2009-12-14.

Kerik and Rudy

So Bernie Kerik has imploded (Lapses Feared in 2000 Vetting of Kerik) - and that's saying something for a Bush appointee. Kerik's big error was to commit his felonies *before* he joined the cabinet. The sad thing is that Kerik is so terrible that Giuliani may go down because he vouched for him!

Backpost finished 2/17/05, started Dec 17 2004 with really just one insight... I don't even know if the link works.

Finally Back Up

We needed to run out and do some imperative errands so I missed all the speeches. I've been feeling like the world has crashed down and I can see only these conclusions:

1. The only silver lining is that if the vote is determined to be accurate then Bush has the majority of the popular vote - making his brand of feckless evil more palatable knowing that the American people actually asked for it. What made the past four years unbearable was knowing that he had ripped us of in 2000. Now we truly get what we deserve

2. Kerry has proven himself to be a coward and a loser. Gore had an excuse to give up - because who knew the extent of the thievery and lies of his opponents. Kerry knew that and he still gave up the ghost.

3. I hope Edwards will still take up the fight - maybe he'll spearhead the legal effort to ensure every vote has been counted (even in the precincts of Florida and Ohio where the computer polls left no paper trail)

4. Now that we're facing 4 years of W, I don't see McCain being possible in 2008. The GOP will make it a rule that whomever runs for president must use Rove - and McCain seems to have too much integrity to do that. Giuliani doesn't so maybe we'll see him, but I think with W as strong as he's been made, we'll see Jeb in '08.

5. I'm very afraid that the democrats will learn the wrong lesson and shift to the left (and thus Hillary in '08). The lesson was to get a Southern democrat with charm and a popular message - i.e. Edwards.

More as soon as I catch my breath and stop hyperventilating from fear.

Life in the Styx vol. 4, no. 29 (Old Styx)

Life in the Styx vol. 4, no. 29, March 5, 1997 (Excerpts):

NEWS BRIEFS

The cover of Tuesday's New York Times, featuring the picture of Clinton about to plant a wet sloppy kiss of Arafat's behind was only marginally less disgusting than the picture of Rudy Giuliani dressed in drag. I have no idea what Clinton is doing anymore. I have given up trying. I wonder what will happen when Arafat declares a Palestinian state the moment a spade-ful of dirt is raised from Har Homa. AS I have said in the past, a state is a very good thing since it will allow Israel to deal with the Palestinians as a belligerent neighbor -- which the Palestinian's seem determined to remain -- as opposed to the overlord-vassal relationship we have now. Remember, the Palestinians have declared war against Israel and they are winning handily. The war is fought on many fronts with many weapons. Israel's inability to see this, especially the otiose astigmatism of the Right, is the main cause of our failures to this date. Cut and Run, Bibi.

SHABBAS IN QUEENS

I spent this past Shabbas in Kew Garden's Hills, Queens for my roommate'S aufrauf (oof-roof?). This was the first extended time I have spent in the Royal Borough, and although I was tempted, David Letterman-like, to use "woman's minyan" as the punch-line for every third joke, I showed admirable restraint. I few comments about Queens, though:

(1) It is a very nice area in terms of having green, leafy thangs lying around in the dirt, but there's a BIIIIG problem with the street names.

They were obviously created by a damaged mind. Get this: [My roommate] lives on 71st Road. But there is a 71st Street, 71st Drive, and 71st Lane as well. All right next to each other. It's like that for every number. Makes you want to pitch the city planners into a vat o'boiling goo and scream in their ears with a bullhorn:

"YO! Jerky! The reason why we use cardinal numbers in the first place is cuz you will NEVER RUN OUT OF THEM! [scream like Sam Kenison]."

Note: there is no functional difference between a street, road, drive, or lane. None. Never had it. Never will. [Laugh like the 7Up guy] (But I'm sure there's some Nimrod out there who will defend the Kings' County Planning Commission; save it for someone who cares).

(2) There are sooo many Jews in Queens. When I was walking to shul in my ol' home-towns, one could find where the synagogue you were going to by playing "follow the Jew." Not so in Kew Gardens! It felt like I was in pre-war Krakow. Hundreds o'Jews going into houses, shuls, yeshivas, park benches, ... everything was turned into a shul there. Not that I'm complaining, it was kinda cool actually, but verrry verrry different from my experiences.

(3) In the bedroom I stayed in, my hosts has their collection of Intellivision cartridges. This brought back immense memories of the whole Atari Culture I grew up in. Of the three denominations, Atari, Intellivision, Coleco, I was of the orthodox Atari faith. Just thinking about it over shabbas made me realize what love and joy I have and had for my Atari 2600. I and [my other roommate](also an Atari acolyte), went through all the great games of our youth -- Warlords, Adventure, Berserk, Yar's Revenge, Superman. So, publicly, I want to thank my parents for allowing me to get an Atari (and to get all those cartridges). This should be good proof to some parents out there that yes, your kids do remember these things. [I'll wax more philosophic about Atari elsewhen].

(4) That Weird Aufrauf feeling. For all those out there unacquainted, an aufrauf is a Shabbat before the wedding that is dedicated to honor the groom and his family; it is held in the groom's home synagogue, as opposed to the wedding which is held usually in the bride's hometown. The groom's friends come in for the aufrauf, are put up in neighbors' houses, and usually eat meals in the synagogue. The weird feeling I refer to is the identity one has as the groom's friend, cuz you are oftentimes a complete stranger in the groom's shul, yet the should becomes your place of meals and you are given a special status more so than a usual guest.

Anyway, I hope the wedding goes through well. It will be in St. Louis; I may take notes.

EMPIRE STATE KILLER

I want people to know that in n my comments in Styxii27, in ever considered the attack on the empire state building to be considered 'terrorism' at all. Rather, I put it under a special, growing, category 'wacko with a gun' (WWAG). Even though this wacko blames the Zionists -- he's a Palestinian and they blame Zionists like wacko Americans blame the UN, it's their term for the secularized devil (why is the Medieval hairy man-goat any different from Timothy McVeigh's black helicopters?) Hamas calls Arafat a Zionist tool (when those guilty of civil disobedience are tortured by Arafat's regime, I'd bet their first thought is 'why is Arafat such a Zionist?')

It is sad, though, that I can put Ali Amu Kamal in a set category (i.e. WWAG). He is an honorary member of Disgruntleds Anonymous (have you noticed that 'disgruntled' has taken on a specific meaning -- the adjective meant to modify a formerly quiet man who kept to himself who one day turns into a mass murderer). Being disgruntled in this highly specific meaning is an American specialty -- and despite the fact that it happened recently in Devonshire & Tasmania, it is an American regularity. Maybe its the full force of Modernity in America with its seismic uncertainties that pry apart weak minds, minds that in simpler times would have been mildly unhinged are blown apart by the bombardment of media images, war, weapons, technology, buzzing like nuclear bees around our heads.

It is as if American society is saying: "Makes sense to me; Kamal was annoyed at the world so he bought a gun and started firing." It's his god given right as an American to bear arms and express his personal opinions with an unmistakable 9mm diction. In fact it should be protected by the First amendment not the second -- because what else conveys the particular message that Kamal wanted to express besides semi-automatic pistol fire?

The WWAG are people who feel that complex problems can be solved with a gun. Call 'em Gordian Knot-Heads. A gun is so glorious, so powerful, so beautiful. In our culture, the gun is turned into a symbol of the fullest expression of the power of man -- a natural extension of will, what we are born to use to set things right. No wonder a gun is called an "equalizer" (it's also called a "mohaska," at least according to Sean Connery in The Untouchables, but that doesn't help my argument much). Weak minds -- the Wackos -- a gun is a natural item to be drawn to (one can extend this to rapists as well). This leads to:

THE FLORIDA ASSASSIN

If you saw the Wednesday 2/26/97 New York Times, you know that right under the follow-up article about the Empire State killer is a story about another YC Grad (JSS) who planted a bomb in a Jacksonville, Florida synagogue in an attempted assassination of Shimon Peres. [Note about the title, I consider anyone who attempts an assassination, yet misses, is still an assassin]. The bomb didn't go off and was found 9 days later by a bunch of kids who were playing with the package during a bat mitzvah. This shows a few things:

(1) This man, Harry Shapiro, is a monster whose brain is a big ol' sack o'puppy chow.

(2) The FBI can solve a case! (Now all the FBI has to hope for is that all criminals turn themselves in on their own accord like Shapiro did). Shapiro also called 911 and warned them about the bomb, claiming he was the Islamic Jihad (which would have fooled no one in Israel cuz we all know the Islamic Jihad has no need to kill Peres).

(3) The GSS (Israel's security agency) is as bad as the FBI. How could they not find the bomb? Shows you that they protect Peres as well as they protected Rabin, eh?

In any case, even though Noam Friedman (from the recent Hebron shooting) and Baruch Goldstein are under the category of WWAG, Yigal Amir and now Harry Shapiro are not so easy to place in the wacko bin. They are more sane; stupid but sane. But maybe not -- it could just be a different style of crazy. They are best described as Extreme.

The Disgruntleds are transferring their need for anxiety relief into an act of violence. People like Friedman, a full-blown whack-a-mole delusional schizophrenic, are drawn to extreme philosophies cuz (a) wacko groups don't really mind the people they take in (b) it's hard to separate the Extreme from the Insane. Whatever the case may be, it just reinforces our need to patrol the wacky denizens of the yeshivas even more.

AVI WEISS

If anyone wants a copy of the remarks Rav Avi Weiss made at the recent conference of Orthodoxy and Feminism, I have a copy I can email out. Don't ask me for my opinions on the matter; I fear that no matter what I say on the matter I will get resoundingly schmeitzed. And we all know that discretion is the better part of valor, and cowardice is just prudence with bad PR.