Sunday Night Open Thread
By Bronwyn on October 31, 2010 at 9:15 PM in Current Affairs
Sarah Palin is revealing that she’s down-hearted about Joe Miller’s chances, while the GOP is turning its lonely eyes to Lisa Murkowski … Nevada’s top political reporter thinks that Harry Reid is going to pull it off … the WaPo’s top columnist David Broder suggests that Obama can save himself by threatening war with Iran, and I kid you not … and we end with a few words from Maureen Dowd who, I also kid you not, makes a good point about Obama … then there’s that, today, Obama could only draw half the crowd that the Ohio arena could hold
Despite her rousing rally for Joe Miller Saturday, Sarah Palin’s Tweet reveals her worries for Joe’s ability to pull through come Tuesday. Via TPMDC’s “Sarah Palin Calls Joe Miller A Lost Cause, Quotes Scopes Monkey Trial Attorney“:
“Joe Miller – do not give up. It’s you against the machine. This is it. ‘Lost causes’ are the only ones worth fighting for,’”
Oops. Not sounding too hopeful there, Sarah.
In another prominent story today, we find that the Republican party has shifted its hopes to Lisa Murkowski’s write-in campaign. From ABC News’s The Note, “Republicans Counting on Write-In Lisa Murkowski Over Joe Miller in Alaska“:
ABC’s Jonathan Karl reports: A high-level GOP source tells me that party leaders have essentially given up on Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller and are now banking on a victory by write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski as the best bet for Republicans to keep the Alaska Senate seat.
Murkowski defied party leaders by running a write-in campaign after she lost the Republican primary last month. But with Miller’s campaign faltering, the source tells me that Republican leaders are now worried that Democrat Scott McAdams has a shot of winning and that Murkowski may be the only way to stop him.
It’s a remarkable turnaround for Murkowski. She was punished by party leaders last month — unceremoniously stripped of her post in the Senate leadership — when she refused to bow out of the Senate race and endorse Miller. But she has consistently said she is still a Republican and will caucus with the Republican party if she wins.
The nightmare scenario for Republicans is that McAdams comes in second on Election Day, trailing “write-in candidate.” Those write-in votes won’t be counted unless there are more write-in votes than there are votes for any candidate on the ballot. Once the write-in votes are counted, however, some of them will inevitably be disqualified (illegible writing, wrong name, etc.). And a small number will be for candidates other than Murkowski. If enough are tossed out, second place McAdams would be the winner.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee has been forced to spend precious resources in Alaska. …
OF NOTE: I am listening to the special Sunday edition of Bret Baier’s Special Report. Baier and Hume are saying that this ABC story has been “discounted.” Whatever that means.
Every time you see Jon Ralston on TV news programs, he is introduced as the most knowledgeable and savvy political reporter in Nevada. From the Las Vegas Sun column today, titled “Atmospherics are terrible for Reid, but he will hold on“:
Harry Reid or Sharron Angle is dead, last in an occasional series:
It just feels as if Reid is going to lose.
Forget the enthusiasm gap — that word is too mild. There is a passion gap in this race that is palpable. You don’t find many people shivering with excitement to vote for Reid. But the feverish animation of voters hot to oust Reid is unlike anything I have experienced in nearly 25 years of covering politics. And it seems to have been building since January, evidenced by Reid’s inability to move his highly elevated disapproval rating.
[...]
So take this for what it’s worth:
Harry Reid is the most resilient figure in Nevada political history. He should not even be here. He lost a U.S. Senate race in 1974, embarrassed himself in a mayoral race in 1975 and should have lost his re-election bid in 1998. But he found a way to win 12 years ago, and he will again Tuesday.
How? Let me count the ways:
Considering they were dealing with a moribund politician, and one who was sure to make their job more difficult during the year with his spontaneous effusions, Reid’s handlers have run one of the most spectacular campaigns in history at all levels: The turnout machine is formidable. The TV has been pitch perfect. The strategy — to peel moderate Republicans and independents who might not like their guy away from Angle — has worked.
And, perhaps equally important, Republicans managed to nominate the one person this year who could lose to Reid. …
Do you all think that Sharron Angle is going to pull off a win on Tuesday night?
Boy oh boy. David Broder represents the pin-heads of D.C. What a goofy column this is. Interestingly, best I can find out, only the liberal bloggers are going to war today, and that’s with Mr. Broder’s column.
First, here’s what Broder wrote in “The War Recovery“:
What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy.
Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.
Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran’s ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.
I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history. …
Here’s a typical lefty blogger response, from “David Broder Calls for War With Iran to Boost the Economy“:
This is not a joke (at least not on my part). David Broder, the longtime columnist and reporter at a formerly respectable newspaper, quite explicitly suggested that fighting a war with Iran could be an effective way to boost the economy. Ignoring the idea that anyone should undertake war as an economic policy, Broder’s economics is also a visit to loon tune land. …
What’s perhaps the funniest part of Broder’s idea is that Barack Obama is utterly incapable of doing what Broder suggests. A more savvy, fleet-footed, experienced president perhaps could. But Obama is too inexperienced to play such a highly risky game. He could put us in grave danger.
Are you eager to go to war with Iran, fair readers? Do you think it will help our flagging economy?
I would really like to know what all of you think we should do about Iran.
Maureen, the Queen of Mean, actually makes a couple good points today in the NY Times. From her column, “Can the Dude Abide?“:
Barack Obama became president by brilliantly telling his own story. To stay president, he will need to show he can understand our story.
At first it was exciting that Obama was the sort of brainy, cultivated Democrat who would be at home in a “West Wing” episode.
But now he acts like he really thinks he’s on “West Wing,” gliding through an imaginary, amber-lit set where his righteous self-regard is bound to be rewarded by the end of the hour.
Hey, dude, you’re a politician. Act like one. …
Well, as a devotee of “West Wing” — I have seen every episode at least four times each — I heartily disagree with her comparison of Obama to President Josiah ‘Jed’ Bartlet, portrayed brilliantly by Martin Sheen. President Bartlet was an extremely brainy guy, but he was also a pragmatic politician. He often asked the big philosophical questions, frequently in the Situation Room, but he almost always made the right call which was usually the practical call, attentive to the well-being of his nation.
Further, NOBODY worked as hard as President Bartlet. Would you have ever seen him out on the golf course half the time? Hell no! He worked day and night, sleeping roughly three to four hours per night. I don’t know how much Obama sleeps but I bet it’s a lot more.
Bartlet also had a far more astute, experienced and profoundly wise Chief of Staff in Leo McGarry. He didn’t have a ruthless clown like Rahm Emanuel who bulldozes people for fun.
I could go on and on.
Maureen is right when she writes, “To stay president, he will need to show he can understand our story.”
In fact, that is a significant statement that points out precisely what is wrong with Barack Obama. But it’s worse than that he doesn’t understand us, it’s that he doesn’t give a damn about us. And that is an incurable flaw. That is why psychiatrists and psychologists who diagnose anyone with narcissism also say that it is a condition that cannot be cured. Barack Obama cannot be fixed. We know that because it is evident to all of us that he is a narcissist. So we must fix the problem by getting rid of him in 2012. For our nation’s good.
Postscript: Imagine being the narcissist that Obama is and looking out at the crowd in Ohio today, and seeing that the venue is only about half full. Ouch. Too many people have realized that he talked a good game in the running, but in the delivering, he has nothing to offer. I cannot imagine how he can run in 2012 and regain all of those dreamy voters that he has disillusioned. Surely people cannot be that gullible twice. It’s just like the saying, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Let’s just hope that, when Obama starts up again, delivering his hopey-changey baloney, that people smirk and walk away.
Then there’s that you and I warned people in 2007 and 2008 that Obama was not the real deal. And we suffered the slings and arrows from the Obamabots who attacked us non-stop, using the most under-handed means possible. Their favored tactic was to call us “racists,” thinking that shaming us would make us stop. I, for one, will never recover from their attacks, and they have forever more made me exceedingly wary of The Left and its hard-headedness. Now they too must know — surely they do, don’t they? — what we knew back then, but I wonder if they ever think about the damage they did to people like us who were simply trying to point out Obama’s missing qualifications to be president.
And, take a look at this photo. Doesn’t that Secret Service agent look an awful lot like Charlie Sheen?
(
)