Who cares?

Obligatory media criticism:  When was the last time you heard a reporter challenge a Republican with something that a loony leftist said?

(h/t Jezebel)

If he filibusters, make him pay

I've long advocated Atrios's program: Force feed the Republicans their own bullshit by making them filibuster in the Senate well on C-SPAN, with press releases from the Leader's office that pick out juicy and wingnutty quotes for the easy consumption of our perennially lazy big media organizations. Cut Youtube clips together for stinging ridicule? Duh.

Then, on Jan. 3, 2011, kill the filibuster.

Wiener dawgs unite!

Click image for full Joel Pett/Lexington Herald-Leader cartoon.

Internet slammed today

Millions of Americans will see history later today in person. Many of my friends will be among them, shivering from the cold and the excitement indistinguishably.

Hundreds of millions will not be there. We will depend on TV to show us the momentous events in Washington.

Or those of us at workplaces that don't block streaming video will be trying to find a server at C-Span or one of the networks that hasn't been brought to a frame rate of one per five minutes by the overwhelming demand.

So, loons, dimbulbs, wingnuts, and moonbats, just because the Internet doesn't work tomorrow, that doesn't necessarily mean something bad has happened.

Update: Well, no, not only is our government still working, the Internet is, too.

Update: The slam happened later than I expected. It was funny that CNN cable continued to tout its web site, when all I could get out of that was page load failures.

Avoidance behavior

It's important to have debates, but it would be better to have revealing debates. No, I'm not talking about the pundit-fueled faux revelation we've seen so often in the past.

Still, I have to confess that the only part of the VP debate I've seen so far was an image of Sarah Palin shining off a widescreen TV through the window of a house I used to live in, as I drove by at 10:20 on the way home from tennis.

Well, I thought, she didn't collapse and need to be wheeled off the set, so she must have exceeded expectations.

Yes, I have it on the DVR - I think. That didn't go well for the first Presidential debate, so I can't be sure. I promise to watch it someday. I'm guessing that she completely met my expectations - since I didn't have any positive ones.

(Note: I got a helpful email that C-SPAN has a mash-up site for the debates, and the VP debate is there, too.)

C-SPAN blues

My DVR recording of the debate carried the helpful crawl to tell me now that C-SPAN's coverage had been moved to C-SPAN2, so I guess I'm SOL. No, I didn't feel like listening to throwaway speeches from the House of Representatives. There's only so much praise across the aisle for retiring long-time Republicans that I can stand, and that's measured in nanoseconds.

Ah, hell, probably all the insight into the performance has already been said somewhere. But I've been holding off reading from the great soup of punditry so that I could write something fresh for me and uncolored by all the other commentary.

So, on this rainy Sunday when the Pats have a bye and the Red Sox are locked in a scoreless and meaningless duel with the Yankees, when my tennis club is booked solid, when the dog didn't even want a walk, I'm listening to a little John Mayall. (Yeah, the laws must change one day, but not that CD.)

I'm not a big fan of debates anyway. They're not aimed at me; they're aimed at the muddled and unanalytical middle, at people who don't know enough or think hard enough to need anything approaching information or argument that would be useful to a political junkie like me.

Usually a general election Presidential debate has me cringing at both contestants. The Republican spews a fog of atomized bullshit in a spray so fine you'd think it came out of a snow-making machine, and I guess that's not far off the truth. The Democrat tries to reduce his positions to the sort of Splenda-sweetened sound bites that appeal to the lowest common denominator. Since I fancy 75% cacao dark chocolate, treacly sweetness makes me say, "Yuck!"

Much of the trouble in our politics stems from the need of both sides to appeal to the worst, dumbest voters of all, the ones who start as clean slates for the debates. The bases on both ends are locked up, and the left and right are fighting over voters who are marginal in several senses. They only vote in Presidential elections, they get their news if any from the most pandering TV outlets, they can't remember who did what last year, much less ten years ago (unless it involved a soap opera), and they believe all sorts of myths that would be demonstrably untrue if you could actually demonstrate anything to them that differed from the opinions they have been filled with by rote repetition, starting with their parents but culminating in their becoming perfect foils for advertising of every kind.

This marginal middle won't notice if their decision process, such as it is, results yet again in the choice of yet another image-driven establishment bullshitter. Rational actors would re-examine how they decided and think about changing. These people are more likely to "remember" that they voted for the guy they actually voted against.

So, debates often devolve into pandering contests. I don't mean that the politicians can pander to small audiences. What they can to, though, is pander to the short attention span and lack of depth of citizens who meet the very minimum standard of social engagement and vote once every four years.

But you go to the election with the citizens you have, not the ones you wish you had.

And, hey, I'm actually guardedly optimistic about November 2008. Given the McCain-Palin ticket's dismal and transparently manipulative performance over the past two weeks, even voters who choose based on tie color are noticing that the Republicans are full of bullshit. Still, while that's better, it's not even up to half a loaf.

Obama and Biden really should be twenty points ahead.

Not on C-SPAN early enough

Network coverage is increasingly bullshit-ridden. They'd rather let raving lunatics like Pat Buchanan strain his voice as if what he says has any value. And they miss things like this:

He told his story of losing the Indiana factory job he'd held for 30 years and then said America needed a president who paid more attention to "Barney Smith" not "Smith Barney."

I didn't tune to C-SPAN soon enough to hear Barney Smith, but obviously somebody's TV cameras were rolling:

Crazy political junkies

I've never called C-SPAN, but I might. At least I'm only level 2 crazy.

See the whole Get Fuzzy strip here. (Single cel posted under Fair Use. Use it or lose it.)

MAD, mad world

When the Bushist Republicans go nuclear, what would be the negative consequences for Democrats if they simply refuse to accept the order of the chair? Why should they sit down and shut up? Why not continue to filibuster while the Republicans make their charade "legal"? It would be easy to bring in a portable PA. "The minority no longer recognizes the authority of the chair."

The objective here would be to provoke the Republicans to their natural thuggery, captured on video (and don't rely on C-SPAN; bring your own cameras). The Republicans long ago began their revolution against Constitutional government. It's time we joined the battle in its defense. For best effect, it means that we will have to bleed. I'm willing, but I don't have access to the Senate floor.

(Originally a comment on NextHurrah.)