Entries for November 2009

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

The Sarah Palin book tour is revving up, and along with it the media-Palin co-dependent relationship. Where would she be without the press to kick around? With a lot less to say. (And don't think that as a blogger I'm not delighted to have her back in the spotlight.) Just this morning, Palin posted on Facebook about—wait for it—the press. Her post also touches on another one of her favorite topics: How much she loves the United States of America. To wit:

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

A charismatic leader promising hope, change and universal healthcare ... a complicit press ... and hiding a terrible secret that you might have read about on the Internet ... a new Beck/Limbaugh biography of Barack Obama? No! It's V, the ABC remake of the classic early 1980s alien invasion mini-series. MSNBC just reported that the show's creators deny that they're taking a shot at Obama. But of course they are: The aliens bring healing technology that they'll share with all. "You mean universal healthcare!" the co-opted reporter responds, as if anyone had not yet made the political connection.

But the politics aren't all conservative. As the show's first episode reaches its dramatic climax, a character reveals that the aliens have been here for years, quietly infiltrating human society in order to set the stage for their takeover. Among their nefarious actions were "unnecessary wars"--apparently George W. Bush is a space alien. (Well maybe not Bush; maybe Rove or Cheney. Oh definitely Cheney.) And as Jonah Goldberg points out, one could argue that "much of the stuff about the dangers of 'devotion' and promises of miraculous cures amounted to an indirect shot at faith-healing evangelicals." (He's also right about this: "If I were 17 and the super-hot alien blonde wanted me to put on a German gay disco doorman's jacket, I would have done so.")

So is V thinly veiled GOP propaganda? Nah.

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Today's Washington Post has an interesting piece on skyrocketing sales of guns and ammo (12 billion—that's billion, with a b—rounds sold in the last year, up from 7 to 10 billion in an ordinary year). Whichever side you're on in the gun control debate, it's an interesting read. And buried deep in the piece is this arresting explanation for the phenomenon:

"I think it's Katrina. I think it's terrorism. I think it's crime. And I also think that it's people worrying about [whether] they'll be attacked by politicians," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "They're suspicious, and justifiably so."

Attacked by politicians? Now presumably he means that people think politicians are going to push gun control laws, and so "attack" their right to bear arms. But presumably as a long-time participant in this particular debate LaPierre understands the importance of picking the right words (especially since every other example he gives involves a real, physical threat). Couple LaPierre's comment with the assertion by North Carolina GOP Rep. Virginia Foxx that healthcare reform is a greater threat to the United States than "any terrorist right now in any country."

The message all around? Be scared.

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

GOP12 has some interesting video where the Morning Joe gang tries to nail Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty down on whether Olympia Snowe is welcome in his Republican Party (that, GOP12 smartly argues, should be a 2012 Republican debate question: Do you want Snowe in your party?). Pawlenty dodges and weaves, repeating a mantra about what disqualifies one as a Republican. The list includes being for tax increases "repeatedly" (one can, apparently increase taxes if you don't inhale while doing it), being for card-check, being a friend of ACORN, being for the stimulus bill and being for bank bailouts.

But ... weren't the bank bailouts an idea originated by Republican President George W. Bush? The answer is that Pawlenty says that being wrong on these issues in totality is a sign of non-Republicanism. But it's striking that in his mind one of the signature domestic policy initiatives of the last Republican president is a bright line litmus test for ideological purity for Republicanism. Not conservatism, mind you, but Republicanism.