The Biggest Liar In America?

Here’s what James Carville told TPM last month:

I have not done domestic political consulting since President Clinton was elected. I’m not getting back into domestic political consulting. If I do go back, it would be safe to say that I’m the biggest liar in America.

So why was there a "HRC strategy call" on his schedule yesterday?

A Clinton Campaign Conference Call

Reporters are allowed to listen in:

Former Amb. Ed Romero, who until a few weeks ago was finance chair for Gov. Bill Richardson’s campaign, said, that he, too, "had a call from one of my guys who said, "if she’s in, I’m in."

Another donor asked for more events with Chelsea, which prompted Penn to note that Clinton won the votes of the youngest demographic — 18 to 29 year olds — in California and Massachusetts. New York biggie Alan Patricoff said that Clinton’s self-contribution "really showed people that she was prepared to go to the line," and that he’d had several donors call him and mention the same thing.

For some reason, this wasn’t broadcast on the Hallmark channel. I realize I have two more reasons to hope the Clintons lose: Terry McAuliffe and Mark Penn.

Video Games As Art

Alastair Harper makes the case:

When the popular novel was as new an idea as video games, the great and good were certain, as they were with early cinema, that no sophistication could come from this prose business, especially the sort of filth Samuel Richardson scribbled about

They were proven wrong, as doubters will be about video games. As happened with comic books becoming graphic novels in the 80s, each year there are more developers willing to take risks with storylines, develop more complex moral situations and generally raise the bar so high that it’s becoming plain ignorant for anyone interested in stories to ignore them. […]

We need more real writers getting involved in making video games, not fewer. The results could be astounding. It will happen. Elitist suspicion of a new way of storytelling will only last so long, and I doubt the next generation of writers, who grew up on the likes of Beneath A Steel Sky, would have so many prejudices. Heaven only knows what a great writer could do with this new format. I can’t wait.

McCain’s Speech

Mccainkevinccoxgetty

I have been on Capitol Hill and haven’t had time to watch it. But I have read it and it struck me as a stirring, honest, forthright and properly conservative speech. I am relieved that in the important debate about the war, McCain is unbowed but civil. I’m eager for a McCain-Obama contest this fall in part because I admire the integrity of both men and in part because I think it’s vital that this country have a candid, clear, open, factual, empirical debate about the war in Iraq. McCain did not engage in the shameful divisiveness of Romney. He framed the debate in a more responsible and civil fashion:

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.

I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.

I don’t think it’s fair to describe Obama’s position on the war – which he took when it was unpopular – as a function of political expediency. Despite myself, I actually think Clinton’s positions on the war have in general been responsible ones based on the evidence in front of her. Nonetheless, McCain’s challenge to his opponents is a lot better than Romney’s accusing them of wanting to surrender to terror. And it is always good to hear a conservative invoke Burke. I wonder how many people at CPAC have even heard of him. For me, this was the best passage:

I began by assuring you that we share a conception of liberty that is the bedrock of our beliefs as conservatives. As you know, I was deprived of liberty for a time in my life, and while my love of liberty is no greater than yours, you can be confident that mine is the equal of any American’s. It is a deep and unwavering love.

The Republicans are lucky to have a man of McCain’s caliber. And it says something about the state of American conservatism that they do not recognize it.

(Photo: Kevin Cox/Getty.)
 

Moore Award Nominee

"What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act. It’s an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years," – Dr. David Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Where Romney’s Right

It was a far-right speech, but it was not without some core conservative truths. Like this one:

Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug—we have got to fight it like the poison it is!

Amen. But this is from the party that gave us the Medicare prescription drug benefit. And it’s foolish for conservatives not to notice that liberalism has indeed changed since the 1970s. It was a Democratic president who signed welfare reform, remember? You can’t run against Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jckson for ever. Then there were some real oddities, e.g. an argument that "tolerance for pornography" leads to illegitimacy. Can you run that logic by me one more time? Then these non-sequiturs:

The development of a child is enhanced by having a mother and father. Such a family is the ideal for the future of the child and for the strength of a nation. I wonder how it is that unelected judges, like some in my state of Massachusetts, are so unaware of this reality, so oblivious to the millennia of recorded history. It is time for the people of America to fortify marriage through constitutional amendment, so that liberal judges cannot continue to attack it!

It is not an "attack" on civil marriage to seek a way for gay people to belong to it. It’s an endorsement of marriage! And "liberal judges" did not invent this issue, any more than they can invent the millions of gay people, and hundreds of thousands of gay couples, who seek mere civil equality. The last thing many of us want is an end to traditional marriage. We are one of the few segments of society enthusiastically endorsing it. Was my own marriage an attack on my own family? An assault on my own niece and nephews and in-laws? I wonder how it is that Republican party candidates are so unaware of this reality, so oblivious to the fact of homosexual human beings and the need to find some way to integrate them into their own families and their own society. Romney once knew this. He hasn’t forgotten it. He has decided that getting power by appealing to fear is a more promising career option. When that isn’t appalling, it’s simply sad.