A reader writes:
I know the court site is really slow to load, but I thought you’d like to know the motion to seal the divorce was denied:
09/04/2008 Order Denying Motion Case Motion #3: Motion to Make Case File Confidential
09/03/2008 Motion to Make Case File Confidential Attorney: Pro per (0100001) Scott Alan Richter (Petitioner); Case Motion #3
Paul Mirengoff of Powerline states the obvious:
We conservatives have had a good time ridiculing the Obama phenomenon, especially its messianic feel — the willingness of its adherents to pour so much hope and belief into such an empty, or at least incomplete, vessel — and its elevation of "narrative" over substance.
It turns out that we were dying to have basically the same experience.
The difference is that Obama earned it; Palin was given it.
McCain reveals the extent of his knowledge of Palin:
"You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on eBay — made a profit," he said, introducing Palin.
Nope. The state sold it at a loss of half a million dollars – and not on eBay. McCain picked her on thinly sourced anecdotes. At best.
"McCain is a perpetual adolescent… a 65 year old man behaving like he’s a frat brother."
I don’t want an adolescent dealing with Iran, do you? With an end-times fanatic as his running mate?
Michael Wolff has been interviewing Rupert Murdoch for the last nine months. This is fascinating:
Obama…was snubbing Murdoch…It wasn’t until early in the summer that Obama relented and a secret courtesy meeting was arranged. The meeting began with Murdoch sitting down, knee to knee with Obama, at the Waldorf-Astoria. The younger man was deferential—and interested in his story. Obama pursued: What was Murdoch’s relationship with his father? How had he gotten from Adelaide to the top of the world?
Murdoch, for his part, had a simple thought to share with Obama. He had known possibly as many heads of state as anyone living today—had met every American president from Harry Truman on—and this is what he understood: nobody got much time to make an impression. Leadership was about what you did in the first six months.
Then, after he said his piece, Murdoch switched places and let his special guest, Roger Ailes, sit knee to knee with Obama.
Obama lit into Ailes. He said that he didn’t want to waste his time talking to Ailes if Fox was just going to continue to abuse him and his wife, that Fox had relentlessly portrayed him as suspicious, foreign, fearsome—just short of a terrorist.
Ailes, unruffled, said it might not have been this way if Obama had more willingly come on the air instead of so often giving Fox the back of his hand.
A tentative truce, which may or may not have vast historical significance, was at that moment agreed upon.
Coming soon:
He takes issue with this sentence of mine:
So the first reason we have Palin is the Christianist veto, not some reform fantasy that exists in David’s and Ross’s and Reihan’s brilliant heads.
His response:
I do think it’s worth noting that calling the project that David and Ross and I are committed to a reform fantasy is a little unfair.
(I won’t say I’m hurt by Andrew’s remarks, because I know he means well and that he sees our business as a brass-knuckle business.) We’ve articulated a set of narratives and frameworks and goals for the Republican party, which informs the advice we give conservatives in various writings. The project is prospective and prescriptive. So calling it a reform fantasy seems odd: it is a vision, it is an argument about the future of a political movement, so yes, it has elements of fantasy, broadly understood. Right now, I am fantasizing about eating the delicious chicken I just ordered from Astor Mediterranean here in Washington, D.C. I’m pretty sure, though, that I’m actually going to eat it within the next five minutes.
But I’m dodging the issue — is this vision for the future of the Republican party fantastic, the product of delusional minds? That’s not the sense I get.
No: I didn’t mean that Reihan’s and Ross’s ideas for reform are a fantasy. I mean that seeing Palin as anything to do with those reforms is a fantasy. I’m sorry if that wasn’t crystal-clear.
Rasmussen finds that Palin is more popular than either McCain or Obama. Survey USA reports that voters reacted favorably to her speech. What does it all mean? Mark Blumenthal does his best to explain. My view is that the GOP is now like Wile E Coyote about half a mile off the cliff suspended in mid-air. Yes, the speech was a great moment: a former sportscaster knows how to deliver a speech written for her. But we have two months to get to know her, if she’s still on the ticket in November.
James Poulos wrestles with the claim that Palin represents national reform:
For Sarah Palin to come to terms with America, and for America to come to terms with Sarah Palin, she must make good on the promise of her lot in life. If she wishes to become a major figure in her part in a party on the ropes and depleted, with a world of rebuilding to do she must have the courage to begin explaining explicitly why Bush has failed and how she repudiates those failures as a public figure and a conservative Republican.
ABC News’ devastating report. Palin clearly lied:
The Dish 