‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
Hey Ed, update your talking points — McCain now thinks the debate is more important.
Epic, epic fail:
Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the Administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House. He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans. The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon. Following the debate, he will return to Washington to ensure that all voices and interests are represented in the final agreement, especially those of taxpayers and homeowners.
Man, does St. BBQ’s judgment look downright insane. This is the single silliest stunt I have ever seen a major party candidate pull. You fail big time, St. BBQ. Thanks for handing Obama the election.
Summer lovin,’ had me a blast:
Palin’s Palliative, by Kathleen Parker, Sept. 5
When Sarah Palin took the stage Wednesday night, the reaction of conventioneers went beyond mere appreciation. It was gratitude. And relief that the first Republican woman on a presidential ticket wasn’t going to let them down. No one was going to be embarrassed by John McCain’s maverick pick.
Summer lovin’ happened so fast:
Several days of brutal scrutiny leading up to her acceptance speech had given them cause to wonder.
Tell me more, tell me more, did you get very far?
Much of the off-mic talk in St. Paul the past few days centered on whether she was up to the fight. Would she be able to make it through? Would she crumble? Did Palin have the stuff to withstand the bludgeoning scrutiny?
Tell me more, tell me more, like, does she have a car?
I suspect that even many Democrats would confess to a private hope that Palin would do well. There aren’t enough women in high places yet for us to enjoy a first-woman’s stumble, no matter what the arena.
Palin delivered.
Summer sun, something’s begun, but uh-oh those summer nights:
A Time to Worry, by Kathleen Parker, Sept. 19
I love Palin for her chutzpah, courage, maverickness and her authenticity. As a woman, I want her to be fantastic. I want her to expose the fraudulence of identity politics and show the world that Woman is not just one thing. But my inner eye is watching. And my inner voice is saying: These are not good enough reasons.
I worry.
Tell me more, tell me more, was it love at first sight?
The Palin Problem, by Kathleen Parker, Sept. 26
I am guilty of charging her early critics, supporting only a certain kind of woman.
Tell me more, tell me more, did she put up a fight?
Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged.
Summer fling, don’t mean a thing, but uh-oh those summer nights:
Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.
Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.
It was fun while it lasted.
It turned colder; that’s where it ends, so I told her we’d still be friends:
McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.
Only Palin can save McCain, her party and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.
Do it for your country.
Summer dreams ripped at the seams, but oh, those summer nights…
Did anyone see Bush’s “statement” from the White House on the bail-out package just now? The one that lasted, like, 20 seconds and was filled with such wonderful insights as “it’s hard work” and “the reason this rescue package is so big is because it’s a big problem.”
I know I’ve been belaboring this point for the past, oh, eight years, but Bush is a really sucky president.
The claim by the conservative dirtbags in the House that their “insurance” plan is kinder and gentler to the taxpayers seems to me to be a rancid stream of raw sewage being marketed as chocolate fondue. Without the full details of either plan, I could be wrong, but, in general, it seems that the “insurance” model is simply a way of giving more taxpayer money to the companies that created the mess.
The difference between the dirtbag proposal and the White House proposal is that under the dirtbag proposal, the distressed company holding a troubled mortgage-based asset gets a taxpayer-funded insurance policy for the full value of the asset in exchange for a small premium payment. Under the White House proposal the federal government pays an amount to the distressed company that will, at least temporarily, assuage the company’s financial woes in exchange for the troubled mortgage assets and an equity interest in the company.
Now compare the two results. Under the dirtbag proposal, if the mortgage-based asset performs, all the upside goes to the distressed company, and if it doesn’t, the taxpayers bear the full downside, potentially the entire “face value” of an otherwise worthless asset. Under the White House proposal, if the mortgage performs, the taxpayers may get more than they payed for the asset plus an appreciation in the government-held equity interest; if it doesn’t perform, the taxpayers’ liability is limited to the amount paid to buy the asset. The dirtbag proposal potentially costs the taxpayers more and gives the taxpayer no upside.
Granted the final dirtbag plan might continue provisions that mitigate or eliminate some of these problems. But the point is that on its face the insurance model will cost taxpayers more and provide all the upside to distressed companies. Or am I missing something here?
Seriously. At this point, you might as well just let the economy collapse so we can start hoarding all our worldly possessions in tiny shacks while using large quantities of firearms to protect them from roving bandits. To do anything else would only be delaying the inevitable, since President Sarah Palin will surely finish us off if Bush doesn’t get around to it.
The question now becomes, which post-apocalyptic world would you find most appealing? The choices are:
Personally speaking, I’d love to have a telepathic dog. But if I had a pimpmobile like Isaac Hayes in Escape from New York, I’d be pretty tempted by that as well.
Thoughts?
UPDATE: Before any of you suggest The Postman: don’t.
The status of a rescue plan for the nation’s financial system was in doubt on Thursday, at least for the moment, as lawmakers emerged from a meeting with President Bush to say that negotiations had a ways to go.
The Treasury secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and the Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke quickly returned to Capitol Hill to try to revive the proposal. One critical snag seems to be opposition to the $700 billion plan by conservative House Republicans.
“My hope is that we can get a deal,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, hours after House and Senate negotiators had announced that an accord was at hand. President Bush had hoped that an agreement could be announced after the late-afternoon meeting.
Mr. Dodd, looking tired and annoyed, complained that the late complications were making the episode sound more like “a rescue plan for John McCain,” the Republican presidential candidate, than one for the financial system. […]
Democrats said that Senate and House Democrats and Senate Republicans and the White House were ready to hammer out a deal, but that House Republicans balked.
“We were ready to make a deal,” said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who attended the meeting and was standing next to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as Mr. Paulson Jr. asked for more time.
“The House Republicans now tell us we’re not for this, we have got something else,” Mr. Frank said.
He complained that the new House Republican counter-proposal included ideas about private mortgage insurance and a cut in the capital gains tax that Mr. Paulson had already testified would not work.
It’s time for the Democrats to call the GOP’s bluff. They have to hammer the SOBs and tell them that they had a deal all set before John McCain and his big fucking ego decided to ride in on his white horse and fuck everything up. They cannot allow themselves to be used as pawns to get John McCain elected.
Democrats, give them the finger and walk away until they meet your demands. And then go on television every day and loudly blame for the coming stock market crash. Crush them and don’t stop crushing them until you’ve won.
Yeah, yeah, yeah — Palin economy war blah blah blah. The important thing is, our asses are getting sued!
Yes, it’s true: famous law blogger Ann Althouse, who is not at all an unhinged drunk who sits around her cat-infested Wisconsin Lustron house sipping cut-rate Franzia inventing extravagant reasons to be offended, has long despised the practice of a certain blog of allowing people to post obviously satirical comments on her nonsensical ramblings under assumed names (such as, oh, I don’t know, “Ann Althouse’s Undiagnosed Hebephrenia”). And now, with the help of her rock ‘n’ roll boyfriend, Steven Tyler of Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, she’s going to litigate us back to the Stone Age!
For you see, by allowing people to post as if they were Ann Althouse (who, we would like to emphasize for any future depositions, is not in any way a demented bottle blonde whose tragic career arc would drive her to despair if it were not for the existence of Charles Shaw merlot), we are, as were the ruffians who so dismayed the co-author of “Bone to Bone (Coney Island Fish Boy)”, making public disclosure of private facts, making false statements, and misappropriating her valuable likeness.
Unfortunately, as much as we would like to see this matter settled amicably out of court, Ms. Althouse — who is not the person once described by one of her law students as “that humorless, insufferable old pedant who used to live above the cut-rate until they threw her out for attracting the wrong kind of person” — would not return our phone calls. Oh, if only she would contact us in some way! Say, in the Comments section of this very post! I wonder what she would have to say…
Ann Althouse adds: I DID NOT WRITE THIS!!!!!
Tintin adds: Ah, but Ms. Althouse, we are on to the silly game that you are playing. In fact, some, if not all, “Ann Althouse” commenters are actually you impersonating someone impersonating you. You are engaged in this transparent charade so that you could manufacture grounds for a lawsuit against us. But we’ve consulted our New York law firm and they’ve told us that because you are really behind the “Ann Althouse” comments that you dispute, your argument that we are harming your professional reputation is now a slander against us, which we will not take lightly, no-siree, we will not. Drink the expensive stuff now while you can still afford it. When our New York Law Firm has finished with you, you’ll be drinking Grape Kool-Aid and Everclear Sterno and pretending it’s Pinot Noir.