Category: The Dish

"For the love of crap, just grow up conservatives. I’m sorry that you can’t pronounce complex words like "balsamic" or "calico," but maybe you should take that problem up with your local adult literacy center rather than CNN. Personally, I would find my inability to read  unusual words much too embarrassing to broadcast to the entire nation,” – Chris Bowers, Open Left.

Heh:

I just thought I ought to thank you for turning me onto the film Into Great Silence.  I am a massive insomniac.  And I get through about 2-3 scenes of the film and I’m out like a light, drug free sleep follows. Yes it is a holy, sacred movie.  The film maker does an awesome job. Yes, I have some issues to debate with contemplatives who withdraw from the world, as I do not believe that isolation from the world is the message of the gospels, and in turn leads to the whole celibacy thing.  But I do think these men, one way or another, are living a holy life and the cinematic capture of that life is almost hypnotic. As for me, it brings me solace and rest.

A reader writes:

I just do not know what to make of the fact that the two candidates who are by far the most competent – Romney and Clinton – are the two I loathe the most, the two who seem least willing to run on their own competence rather than on their their PR directors’ advice.  If only they would let me trust them by trusting me  first, then  I could be happy with either of them. As it is, I must support McCain and Obama.   

I’m not sure Clinton is the most competent. She’s just the most competent at conveying the sense that she is the most competent. I mean, she’s not going to win on charm, is she?

I may regret this, but a reader who demands attribution (he is one Bruno Maddox) has sent me a campaign limerick:

There was a strange fellow named Romney,
A shamelessly pandering zombie.
He once told some bikers
That one song he liked was
Def Leppard’s "Pour Some Sugar On Me."

Okay, send me your worst. But on the usual Dish rules: no attribution. I don’t have the time to verify i.d. I’ll post the most fun.

It seems to me that Novak cuts to the chase of this hideous race-row that the Clintons and their allies jump-started to derail the Obama campaign:

The fight really was about the Clintons’ resenting an obstacle on their return to the White House. A prominent Democrat who saw the former president this week described him as "furious, outraged, angry and utterly dismissive of Obama."

That anger was reflected by Hillary Clinton’s performance on NBC’s "Meet the Press" last Sunday, when she said, "When Sen. Obama’s chief strategist accuses me of playing a role in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, there’s silence (from Obama)." Actually, David Axelrod never made such an accusation. He said former Prime Minister Bhutto’s death will "call into issue the judgment" of "taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq." Perhaps Hillary Clinton’s comments should be vetted.

What we’re seeing is the Clintons’ amazement that anyone – white or black – could dare challenge the Restoration Project. It will make defeating them all the more satisfying. The Republicans haven’t managed it in a long time.

Why am I not surprised that a far right anti-gay anti-modern evangelical Christian would find something to admire in the theocracies of Islamism? Here’s his own 1986 manifesto. And here’s his explicit statement that bringing the anti-modern logic of Christianism and Islamism together could "create a movement, a dynamic" or shared ideals.

Another neocon-paleocon spat. Larison:

I don’t consider my membership or my views on the War to be shameful or requiring any apology.  I don’t defend the legacy of the man who ushered in a destructive, illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands.  It does take a certain fanatical mindset to see mass destruction and violence as the correct solutions to morally repugnant institutions, and let me be clear that I believe slavery was such a morally repugnant institution. I reject the mentality that says that the ends justify the means, and that the slaughter of other people is acceptable for the sake of ideology and centralising power.

The more challenged he is the angrier he gets. Here he gets pissy with a reporter on the lawsuit to stop voters caucusing in their workplaces. He lies as well. So what else is new? Good for the local reporter who flushed out the Clintons’ real position on the lawsuit. They’re for it but don’t have the balls to say so as such.

Unsurprising but encouraging.

Romney is getting close. Ambers:

Mitt Romney’s ability to tap his own fortune has influenced every race in every state more than just about any single factor. His ability to flood Michigan with television spots helped him; he did well (enough) in New Hampshire mostly because of his television; he’s going to be competitive in Florida because of his television.