"...O'Reilly Can Be A Riot....Maher's More Likely To Incite One..."

Old joke.

The definition of mixed feelings is watching your ex-wife drive off a cliff.

In your brand new Lexus.

New joke.

The definition of mixed feelings is tuning in to watch Bill O'Reilly.

And enjoying every minute of it.

While, at all times, remaining fisted up and wishing for an opportunity to punch him into next week.

I've written, more than once, on the infuriating, yet charming, almost charismatic, way that he, in my view, combines the very, seemingly worlds apart skills of self deprecation and self righteousness.

A guy who seems to be able to laugh at himself while, in the same breath, totally dismissing anything anyone has to say if that something said moves the needle a micrometer from the line that represents the gospel according to Bill.

And, just like those folks who are convinced from watching and playing along at home, that they could kill on Jeopardy if they only had the chance to get up there, I've always felt like I could go toe to toe and play point for point with the O'Meister if'n I only had the opportunity.

Because when I counter his wit and/or thrust and/or parry and/or bullshit playing the home game, the conversation is, almost always, a push.

Save for those occasions, of course, when I kick his ass.

This collection of essays tends to rag more on Bill and Bill's colleagues (I was going to say peers, but Bill would, I'm sure, be hair trigger ready to fire off that he is without peer) and their particular cable network more than it does any other political target.

And, those who think that it's time to replace the eagle with the Fox as the symbol of truth, justice and the American way, most likely dismiss me as another one of them bleeding heart, do gooding, tax and spend liberals.

Or, in the eloquent prose of the articulate and, seriously, kids, much respected Charlie Daniels, they think I'm a.....

"long haired hippie type, pinko fag" and they "bet I've even got a Commie flag, tacked up on the wall inside of my garage"

But, I'm not.

And I really don't.

Although I will concede I do have a garage.

No flags.

Got a pretty nice riding lawn mower, though.

Built right here in America, thank you very much.

And if my sardonicism tends to slant, more often, in the direction of those for whom the Fox is more sacred than the buffalo or the eagle or, hell, even the Fozzie Bear, it's only because they tend to make themselves the biggest targets, what with the twenty four seven broadcast display of rolling eyes and disgruntled grunts and snarky asides and smirking smiles that seem to be a pre-requisite for having a camera go red light on you there on the fair and balanced network.

Make no mistake, though.

There's plenty of hot air balloon popping to be done on both sides of the aisle and plenty of diss to be dispensed in both dogmatic directions.

It just seems, though, that the more left leaning folks, CNN, MSNBC, HLN, among others, have, I think it fair and balanced to say, a less snotty way of blowing their bugles.

Self promoting, fully salivated spit valves notwithstanding.

Again, though, make no mistake.

There is no shortage of "my father of our country is smarter than your father of our country" being shoveled out from their side of the street.

But "we're smarter than you are" never seems to smart as much as "we're holier than you".

Or thou, as the case-eth may be.

Meanwhile, HBO has its own contributor to the spit take sweepstakes.



Stand-up comic and Real Time with Bill Maher host Bill Maher really killed on Friday night with the penultimate joke in his “New Rules” segment.

In an episode that featured an otherwise listless audience, the crowd roared with laughter when Maher joked that since the Grammy Awards featured the liberal dream of a mass gay wedding, conservatives should even things out with a mass shooting.

“Now that liberals have forwarded their agenda by inserting a mass gay wedding into the Grammys,” Maher said, “conservatives must match them tit-for-tat by having a mass shooting at the Country Music Awards.”


Okay.

Fair is fair.

Balanced we'll leave for another time.

When it comes to vile, venom and vitriol and the spewing of same, a spew that I have done my fair share of skewering when it has come from the caustic conservative kissers on the faces of the Fox, there is no denying or defending that Bill Maher is, more than every now and then and, certainly, in this case, way more than just one toke over the line.

Sweet Jesus.

I bet your Nielsen ratings in Aurora and Newtown are about to take a crapper cruise, there, Billy.

In 1964, Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart spoke a line that has become intellectually iconic.

".....I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced [as"hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it. "

Bill O'Reilly does a feature on his program he calls "Pinheads and Patriots".

Has to do with singling out an individual and/or their action and assigning them one of those labels or the other based on whatever criteria O'Reilly deigns valid in assigning them one of those labels of the other.

I've created, for today's writings, a little spinoff on that idea.

I call it "Pornography and Putzes"

Props to Potter for the possibilities.

And I quote....(me)

".....I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of commentators I understand to be defined as putzes and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know one when I see one. "

Or hear one.

Bill O'Reilly, for my entertainment and/or edification dollar can be both pinhead.

And patriot.

Bill Maher, on the other hand, has a more singular specialty.

He's a putz.

"...Rumors Persist That They Chose To Call It "Fox" Because Their Demo Found MSNBC A Little Tough To Spell...."

Educated guess.

Lots of make-up sex going on this morning.

That opinion is really kind of a no brainer what with it being the day after the State of the Union speech and all.

Passionate discussions/debates/conflicts/arguments were likely flying around more prolifically last night than Peyton Manning passes on any given Sunday.

Even this morning.

Maybe even carrying on as we speak (write and/or read).

And, given the level of that aforementioned passion that this particular resident of 1600 Pennsylvania conjures, a lot of harsh things were likely said in the last twelve hours or so (at this writing).

Or currently.

Even between loving spouses/partners who, most of the year, find the whole opposites attract thing works for them  but, lo, come January and the pep rally masquerading as patriotic profundity, couches of America, get ready to be slept upon.

Meanwhile, said advocates of the "anti" persuasion seem, as always, to be more visible, audible, (vegetable or mineral?) than those on the "thumbs up, Mr. Prez, good JOB!" side of whatever aisle is handy to act as demarcation line.

And, boy, oh, boy, the comments sections of the online news sites.

Yowza.

A river of bile that makes the mighty Mississip look like the kind of trickle that would indicate a trip to the urologist is in immediate order.

Personally, I don't have any problem with that.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

And they are Constitutionally assured of their right to express said opinion.

No, my problem isn't so much with the landslide of expression as much as with the lack of erudition.

And my long held, and oft expressed, sentiment that the only problem with freedom....

....is that you have to give it to everybody.

Please allow me to illustrate.

One particular, local news blog ran a piece this morning in which the blogger, a well known local news/talk radio host expressed his disdain for the whole idea of even bothering with a State of the Union address in the first place.

His contention is that.....well, actually, I think he said it, himself, very articulately.

The president travelling to the Capitol to engage in this phony bit of political theater is one of the most over rated and meaningless exercise in DC. It's very predictable, and therefore boring. The entire production reminds me of some sort of Monarchy with the King laying down the law to his subjects. It's wasteful, divisive, and inane. News people and talk hosts talk about it only because they think they have to, and have nothing to do but parrot the next guy who is talking about it.

Is there anything so fake as this? Washington puts on a play, delivering the lines already revealed to the audience before the show. The various players clap on cue like trained seals pretending they didn't know the words in advance. The camera pans to the various guests to see the pre-rehearsed responses. Afterwards the TV commentators talk to the masses and play along (like Doug Llewelyn on the old Peoples Court) pretending what they saw actually meant something, but ultimately agreeing that the "agenda" presented either will "have a tough time passing" or "will move forward a great vision", something along these lines.

My own, well thought out and carefully considered response to his observations?

You go, dude.

Because, probably not all that coincidentally (great minds and all that), I had just written and posted, earlier in the day, my own two cents (a nickel and three pennies adjusted for inflation) on the matter.


in fact, the Constitution only mandates that the President report annually on "the state of the Union"....technically, the Constitutional requirement could be fulfilled in a memo (these days, even a post it note).....the "big speech", in front of Congress and "the American public" is nothing more, or less, than a tradition (kind of like the holiday get-together with those people you really don't like but don't know how to break up with)....a tradition that actually accomplishes very little, given that those who like the current leaders will continue to like the current leaders and those who dislike will continue to dislike...and any people who might deserve credit for honest, hard work resulting in positive benefits play no part in any of this circus at all....think the Grammy Awards and take away the really cool gramophone trophies.....


So, as it turned out, this particular news/talk radio host and I, probably not all the coincidentally (great minds and all that), were, without having any contact with one another, on the same page.

Here's where erudition enters the plot.

Another listener/reader of the local host's blog site offered up, in full use of his Constitutionally mandated right to do so, his own two cents (yet another nickel and three pennies, adjusted).

(For obvious reasons, any indication of the poster's identity has been excluded, as a personal courtesy to him/her and a legal courtesy to me, what with not wanting to get hassled or sued or have the NSA move me up a couple of notches on the ol' list, there)



********· Top Commenter · **********

The king has no cloths.

Here's the thing.

First, props where props are proper...the allusion to the classic children's tale, The Emperor's New Clothes was, for my nickel and three pennies, witty and pointed.

And I'm going to assume, for the sake of courtesy, that this particular poster was, as many of us are, more and more these days, a victim of that newest of technological super villains....

the evil AutoCorrect.

And that dastardly demon quickly, sneakily, slipped the word "cloths" in where the writer had very possibly, and correctly, typed the word "clothes".

You know, to make the aforementioned witty and pointed point.

But, and I'm just puttin' this out on the stoop to see if the kitty licks it up, so, go with me here, if AutoCorrect was off somewhere else, busy struggling with what the hell to do about Ann Coulter, for example, and the poster posted what he typed as he typed it, then, okay, now we come to the problem.

At least the problem that I have with it.

People, everyday, good ol' God fearin', flag wavin', honest and well meaning Americans who are wading hip deep into the passionate, philosophical, admittedly sometimes maddeningly pedantic political discourse, giving best effort to express, profoundly, some insight, some perspective, some thought that might be that grain of sand that rubs the oyster that creates the pearl of wisdom that might actually lead us all to the practical, moral, political, even spiritual higher ground.....

And don't know how to spell the word "clothes"

Especially in a Google and/or Spell Checker world.

Unless, of course, they are Ricky Ricardo (or Gloria Pritchett for you youngers) and just say it that way.

(And if that be the case, then, sincerely, y mil perdones).

 Does that sound a little snobbish?

Probably.

Not my intention.

Here's more of the thing.

Lack of education, inevitably, results in ignorance.

And ignorance tends to manifest itself, in situations where the ignorant are faced with things they can't, don't or, worse, won't understand as fear.

Which breeds more ignorance, which breeds more fear.

Then, the wheel on the bus goes round and round.

The case, I believe, in fairness, can then be made that those who are ignorant are, by lack of other skills, offering opinions, making decisions, even acting on those decisions based on their emotional, rather than intellectual, instincts.

And, historically, decisions based on emotion rather than intellect, tend to work out not so swuft.

Custer comes to mind.

So, here's my suggestion as regards dealing with the thing about the thing.

Freedom of speech should remain sacred and unfettered.

Freedom to express, though, at least in terms of a national forum, should have, at least, a minor qualifying requirement.

So as to keep as much emotion out, and intellect in, as possible in the global gabfest.

Something fair, but uncomplicated.

Like, for example....






And, please, don't crawl up my back about being called ignorant.

It's not the same as being called stupid.

Really. Look it up.

Use Google.

And/or Spell Checker.



 

"....How To Crash A Plane Or Sink A Ship Without Having To Actually Be ON The Plane Or The Ship...."

Speech was my college major.

 

Well, at least, during that one semester that my major wasn't marketing, English, primary education, philosophy, psychology, sociology.

 

Or welding.

 

Ironically, though, never political science.

 

Which seems odd, now, given that the art of interpreting politics seems to come so easily.

 

For example, I know exactly what the Democratic Party needs to do in order to insure not only decisive victories in the upcoming 2014 mid term elections but, also, very likely maintaining residency rights at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave come 2016.

 

Stand by.

 

Simple strategy shortly.

 

 

 

(CNN) – Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin reposted a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous "I Have A Dream" speech on Monday–and took a swipe against President Barack Obama at the same time.

 

"Mr. President, in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. and all who commit to ending any racial divide, no more playing the race card," she said in a Facebook post Monday, a holiday that marks the civil rights icon's birthday. 

While the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee didn't give a specific example of Obama playing the "race card," her comment comes after the President referenced his race in a New Yorker article published over the weekend.

"There's no doubt that there's some folks who just really dislike me because they don't like the idea of a black President," Obama said.

The quote came in a section of the story about his declining poll numbers among white voters over the last year. He also lost the voting demographic by a wide margin in his 2012 re-election bid, the article notes.

According to CNN national exit polls, Obama won only 39% of the white vote.

"Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I'm a black President," Obama added.




First, a little twist of the plot.

Contrary to what instinct and/or hunch might inspire, the path about to be taken here has nothing to do with the potential debate on whether the former Alaska doorknob's Governor's take on all of this has, or has not, validity.

Primarily because the inevitable and inarguable laws of political physics are in play here.

Those who think Palin is a world class political mind will be unmoved by any argument and/or comment to the contrary.

Those who think that Palin is a doorknob lightweight will be equally unmoved by any argument, yada, yada.

What's offered here, by your humble former marketing, English, primary education, philosophy, psychology, sociology, welding major turned part time political postulator is simply the aforementioned and promised suggested strategy for Democratic victory in the next two to four years.

ATTENTION: Democrats (and, for that matter, any political participant of any kind other than card carrying, freely admitting to be members of the traditional Republican Party):

Stop any activity that even remotely runs the risk of discouraging Sarah Palin from opening her mouth and speaking.

Engage in any and all activities that will, in fact, encourage Sarah Palin to open her mouth and speak.

Include, in any text of ANY public remarks made during the forthcoming 2014 and/or 2016 political campaigns, direct and SPECIFIC mentions of the name Sarah Palin.

IMPORTANT: In each and every SPECIFIC mention of the name Sarah Palin, it is CRITICAL that the following phrase be used when making said specific mention of the former Alaska doorknob Governor:

     "REPUBLICAN Sarah Palin"

DO NOT, at any time, refer to the former Alaska doorknob Governor without referring to her as:

     "REPUBLICAN Sarah Palin"

Begin to think of it as her complete name.

As in "Mary Tyler Moore"

"Julia Louis-Dreyfus"

"Amy Farrah Fowler"

"Kim Kardashian" (this will allow for true Kardashian-ites whose taste in celebrities indicates they may struggle a little with basic math skills)

and "Jennifer Love Hewitt" as.......

      "REPUBLICAN Sarah Palin"


Trust me when I tell you that repeated use of that very key three word phrase will result in another three word phrase that practically guarantees defeat of the Republican Party in 2014, 2016 and any future years that the former Alaska doorknob Governor continues to publicly inject her unique brand of perspective and insight into the American mainstream.

Guilt by association.

Fear not, Democrats (and, for that matter, any political participant of any kind other than card carrying, freely admitting to be members of the traditional Republican Party) that damage will result from your opponents playing:

The race card.

The economy card.

The health care card.

The Benghazi card.

The IRS card.

The deficit card.

Or any card that the media can and/or will dub "the ____ card".

No worries.

As long as Sarah Palin is at the table ever ready to play the former Alaska Governor doorknob card.

Oops.

Sorry.

REPUBLICAN Sarah Palin.

 

 

It's About Time Someone Was Honest And Told Us About What It's Really All About..."

At long last, he provides us the answer.

Who?

And what question?

Momentito, por favor.


Washington (CNN) -- Just days after dismissing two top advisers for their roles in the George Washington Bridge scandal, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is facing questions over the use of Superstorm Sandy relief funds.

CNN has learned that federal officials are investigating whether Christie improperly used those relief funds to produce tourism ads that starred him and his family.

 

The news couldn't come at a worse time for the scandal-plagued Republican, who is facing two probes into whether his staff tied up traffic near the country's busiest bridge to punish a Democratic mayor who refused to endorse his successful re-election bid.

 

If the Sandy inquiry finds any wrongdoing, it could prove even more damaging to Christie's national ambitions. His performance during and after the superstorm has been widely praised and is a fundamental part of his straight-shooting political brand.

 

In the new probe, federal auditors will examine New Jersey's use of $25 million in Sandy relief funds for a marketing campaign to promote tourism at the Jersey Shore after Sandy decimated the state's coastline in late 2012, New Jersey Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone told CNN

 

In an August letter, Pallone asked the Department of Housing and Urban Development inspector general to look into how Christie chose to spend the marketing money approved by the department.

Neither the governor's office nor the inspector general's office has replied to CNN's request for comment on the investigation.

 

Pallone wrote that he was concerned about the bidding process for the firm awarded the marketing plan; the winning firm is charging the state about $2 million more than the next lowest bidder. The winning $4.7 million bid featured Christie and his family in the advertisements while the losing $2.5 million proposal did not feature the Christies.

 

On Sunday, Pallone told CNN that the inspector general conducted a preliminary review of the spending and concluded that there was enough evidence to launch a full-scale investigation into the state's use of federal funds. The audit will take several months, and the findings will be issued in an official report, he said.

 

Pallone, a 27-year veteran of the House and vocal Christie critic, said this is not about politics.

 

"This was money that could have directly been used for Sandy recovery. And, as you know, many of my constituents still haven't gotten the money that is owed them to rebuild their homes or raise their homes or to help," he told CNN.

 

Democrats slammed Christie over the summer for starring in taxpayer-funded ads as he was running for re-election in November, arguing it gave him an unfair advantage. Christie aides said at the time that the winning bid provided more value.

 

Last week, Christie dismissed two top aides for their involvement in closing down access lanes to the George Washington Bridge last year, a move that tied up traffic for four days. A New Jersey State Assembly committee is investigating whether the aides ordered the lane closures as political retribution, and the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey has opened a probe into the matter.

 

For his part, Christie has said he didn't know about the scheme and was "embarrassed and humiliated" by it. Democrats, both in New Jersey and nationally, have jumped on the scandal, saying it finally gives the nation an opportunity to see what they've known for years, that Christie is a bully who governs by fear.

 

But as bad as the bridge scandal is for Christie, if investigators find he improperly spent Sandy funds, it could get far worse, tarnishing the signature achievement that has made him a serious contender for the White House.

 

 

As with all the other garden variety improprieties that are as much a part of political news as rehab entrances are a part of entertainment news, after endless weeks of hearings and speeches and mind numbing blathering on every cable news panel west of the Pecos (and, obviously, east, north and south of it, too) this little Christie crisis will play itself out in whatever way it plays itself out.

 

That said, coupla three observations.

 

First, twenty five million bucks to essentially let people know that the Jersey beaches have been cleaned up and are open for business?

 

That's the kind of prudent cost effectiveness that makes the average American voter trust politicians only marginally more than they trust Alec Baldwin to keep a cool head.

 

Second, this "second" probe into Christie shows up almost exactly on schedule, assuming the schedule is to derail any chance the guy might have to run for President next year.

 

Yes, I know the election isn't until 2016, but we all know that the running pretty much starts, at least, a year out.

 

And third.

 

Chris Christie may, or may not, be a scoundrel.

 

Remains to be seen.

 

Pretty sure, though, that Frank Pallone is a putz.

 

At the very least, a shady pet store owner.

 

"Norwegian blue...beautiful plumage...no, he's not dead....he's just sleeping."

 

Which brings us around the earlier mentioned question and answerer.

 

The question?

 

What's it all about?

 

The answerer?

 

Alfie, of course.

 

The answer.

 

Politics, of course.

 

Perfect music segue, n'cest pas?

 

Oui.

 

But, not Alfie so much as....

 

Animals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, Maybe It Will Turn Out That Jimmy Hoffa Is Actually Somewhere On The Beltway....

Remains to be seen if this bridge delay scandal will have any major effect on the ambitions of Chris Christie and/or the presidential politics of 2016.

It's not always a given that damage will fatally wound a candidate.

In contemporary times, Richard Nixon survived his "last press conference" in 1962 and went on to become President in 1968.

Ronald Reagan survived Iran-Contra and went to become revered, at least on the right side of the revered bleachers.

Bill Clinton survived Monica Lewinsky, avoided impeachment and has gone on to become, arguably, a respected statesman.
 
It's way too soon to speculate, let alone "know", how Christie will come out of this.

But speculate and "know" is what the pundits will do for a long, long time to come.

What's already getting overlooked, though, is how much things have changed.

Standard operating procedure for political dirty tricks has included, for generations, such classic moves as bugging, wiretapping, breaking and entering, not to mention heavy handed tactics by the FBI, CIA, IRS and a host of other government agencies created for the people, by the people and always seemingly too ready to blackmail the people.

And what dark, sinister, clandestine political payback did the high ranking members of Christie's staff pull?

"....Hey, man....you mess wid us....and we'll cause a traffic jam like youse ain't nevah seen..."

I guess this is all supposed to be serious.

Hard to take it that way, what with being unable to shake the image of Tony Soprano ordering the boys to meet at midnight to move the orange cones around.

"This Could Give Sarah's Visits To Shake Hands At Construction Sites A Whole New Spin...."

She serves a purpose.

But not the purpose she purports.



 (CNN) -- The Republican establishment can't stand her. The media mocks her. But Sarah Palin isn't going anywhere.
 

Far from it.

 

After laying low for much of this year, Palin is gingerly stepping back into the public arena with a national book tour, a trip to the always-important political state of Iowa, and an eye on making yet another series of splashy endorsements in a variety of competitive Republican primaries.

 

Five years after rocketing from Alaska obscurity to worldwide fame, Palin wants to be a political player in 2014.

 

Which raises the question: Does she still matter?

 

"She is the most important endorsement in Republican politics today, by far," said Sal Russo, a Republican consultant who co-founded the Tea Party Express, a group that has booked Palin to speak at numerous public events dating back to the 2010 midterm cycle. "She can move the needle in a primary more than anyone else can."

 

Her detractors see things differently.

 

After flirting with a presidential bid and stirring up a tidal wave of media attention in the run-up to the 2012 Iowa caucuses, with a slew of punchy speeches and a madcap bus tour of historical sites along the East Coast, Palin eventually decided to pass on a shot at the White House.

 

When her presidential potential evaporated, a number of Republicans said, so did her relevance.

 

"I don't think that she has the juice that she had four years ago, I really don't," said Katon Dawson, a GOP fundraiser in South Carolina who runs a Super PAC backing Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the Senate's batch of endangered old guard Republicans up for re-election in 2014. "She does have a following and when she speaks, people listen. I just don't know if that voice is as loud or as important as it used to be."

 

Dawson said he gives Palin "credit for monetizing her run for vice president," a backhanded compliment that appropriately sums up the feelings of eye-rolling GOP professionals everywhere, who wish she would disappear back into the frigid wilderness of the Last Frontier.

 

Palin's standing as a serious political figure, already tenuous, has seemingly been in decline ever since she decided not to run for president and saw conservatives sidelined as Mitt Romney captured the Republican nomination, only to lose to President Barack Obama.

 

In reporting her upcoming speech to the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition on November 9, The Des Moines Register this month described her on first reference as "conservative pundit Sarah Palin," rather than the honorifics usually bestowed on her, "former vice presidential candidate" and "former Alaska governor."

 

Contributions to her political action committee, Sarah PAC, tapered off after she passed on a presidential bid. Earlier this year, she publicly parted ways with Fox News, where she had been employed as a paid analyst since 2010 (she re-joined the network five months later).

 

Palin hasn't been completely absent from politics in 2013. She issued a range of political pronouncements on her Facebook page, attacking President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats, taking particular umbrage at their efforts to scale back gun rights. And in March, she delivered one of the more well-received speeches at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

 

But she has devoted much of her energies this year to a Christmas-themed book, "Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas," that will release in November and launch her on a multicity book tour through states like Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Texas and Arizona (the promotional tour also offers her a loophole to appear on other television networks).

 

It was the 16-day partial government shutdown, a fight sparked by Republican-led efforts to dismantle Obama's Affordable Care Act, that energized Palin once again, those around her say.

 

She has been impressed, one Palin aide said, by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Utah Sen. Mike Lee, two tea party stalwarts who helped orchestrate the defund-Obamacare movement that led to the shutdown and set off a new round of establishment-versus-grassroots warfare inside the Republican Party.

 

"There is a need to step up now," said one Palin aide who declined to go on the record like most people around her usually do. "She steps up when she sees there is a need. She sees the fire that Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have started."

 

Palin opened the door last week to helping unseat Graham in South Carolina and a number of other incumbent Republicans, including Sen. Mitch McConnell in Kentucky and Lamar Alexander in Tennessee. 

 

"We're going to shake things up in 2014," Palin wrote on Facebook, still her preferred public megaphone. "Rest well tonight, for soon we must focus on important House and Senate races. Let's start with Kentucky -- which happens to be awfully close to South Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi -- from sea to shining sea we will not give up. We've only just begun to fight."

 

The post, which was "liked" by more than 31,000 of her followers, was rapidly picked up by a range of conservative websites. Palin's small circle of advisers received an uptick in their usual flood of speaking requests, one adviser said, including from some of the insurgent conservative candidates running for Senate.

 

One of those who reached out was Chris McDaniel, a state senator from Mississippi gunning to take out six-term Sen. Thad Cochran, a low-key but powerful member of the upper chamber who has served in Washington for more than three decades. McDaniel has already been endorsed by three conservative outfits, the Club For Growth, the Madison Project and the Senate Conservatives Fund, hungry to unseat Cochran.

 

McDaniel said Palin's endorsement, if it comes, would be an unquestionable boon, especially in a deep red state like Mississippi, where GOP primaries are dominated by a small-but-motivated base electorate. Even during the high-profile Republican presidential primary of 2012, only about 300,000 people cast ballots. That's in a state with nearly 2 million registered voters.

 

"Sarah Palin understands that there is a movement out there of good conservatives and just regular people," McDaniel told CNN. "She taps into that. We would absolutely welcome her."

 

Palin's ability to propel tea party-aligned candidates into office was a well-documented phenomenon in 2010, when she endorsed over 60 Senate, House and gubernatorial candidates, the majority of whom won. Her midterm travels even inspired The Washington Post to launch a "Palin Endorsements Tracker," complete with clickable audio of a growling grizzly bear, an homage to her self-styled "Mama Grizzly" image.

 

Though Palin's political action committee, Sarah PAC, doled out contributions to her favored candidates, her endorsements bring more than just hard dollars.

 

When Palin showed up in South Carolina to endorse Nikki Haley during her 2010 gubernatorial primary, a race Haley went on to win, a Republican working for a rival campaign calculated that the event generated "over a million dollars" in television and radio coverage.

 

"There was absolutely no way when that endorsement came down to break through the news cycle," the Republican said of Palin. "It was an earned media blowtorch."

 

Palin's star was burning much hotter in 2010 than it is today, but she demonstrated similar clout last year in Nebraska's three-way Republican Senate primary -- and she did so without even traveling to corn country.

 

In that race, establishment figures had lined up behind attorney general Jon Bruning, while outside conservative groups like FreedomWorks and the Club For Growth backed state treasurer Don Stenberg, who also had the backing of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

 

But Palin jumped in the race late and got behind Deb Fischer, a little-known state legislator, pushing her over the finish line and stunning the political class in Washington. Fischer coasted to a win in November and is now a United States senator.

 

The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call described the Palin endorsement as "an adrenaline shot six days before the GOP primary." Fischer's campaign manager, Aaron Trost, said Palin helped them "dictate the tempo of the last week of the campaign." All Palin did was post a statement of support online.

 

"Before she endorsed we were down four points, within the margin of error and coming up slightly, and then all of a sudden the narrative changed and we dominated the news cycle," Trost said. "People who underestimate the power of her endorsement are going to be really sorry. People that write her off don't understand Republican primaries."

 

Given the tea party's toxic national brand -- only 31% of Americans had a favorable view of the conservative movement in a recent CNN poll -- Palin's sway is almost certainly limited to Republican primaries.

 

Earlier this month, Palin campaigned on behalf of New Jersey Republican Senate candidate Steve Lonegan, who ultimately fell to Democrat Cory Booker in last week's special election.

 

Like few Republicans can, she attracted thousands of fired-up, flag-waving conservatives to an out-of-the-way motor speedway in the middle of the state, but Democrats were equally pumped to welcome the polarizing Palin to the Garden State. "Sarah Palin's endorsing Lonegan thrills both parties," read one headline in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

 

Still, Palin continues to wield great influence among grassroots conservatives, Trost argued, especially in Republican primaries in right-leaning states like Nebraska, where winning a primary all-but-guarantees a general election victory over token Democratic opposition. About 200,000 people participated in last year's Nebraska Senate primary, and Fischer essentially won a Senate seat with barely 80,000 votes.

 

"People forget about this sometimes, but because Sarah Palin has a child with Down syndrome, a lot of people in the pro-life community view her as not just talking the talk about pro-life but walking the walk," Trost said. "Social issues play a big factor in a low turnout Republican primary."

 

Despite Palin's veiled threat to campaign against veteran senators like McConnell, Cochran, Alexander and Graham, her endorsement history reveals a preference for dabbling in open primaries, rather than endorsing challengers over incumbents.

 

There's also the fact that each of those senators has a long-standing relationship with her former ticket-mate and political patron from 2008, Arizona Sen. John McCain, whom she continues to hold in high esteem, people close to her say. As for Graham, one of McCain's closest pals, Palin donated $1,000 to his 2014 re-election campaign through her PAC back in 2009.

 

At the same time, Palin is now aligning herself with members of the tea party's uncompromising new guard, especially Cruz, who has made plain his distaste for old bull Senate leadership.

 

Palin's relationship with Cruz dates to last year, when she endorsed him during his underdog Republican primary bid in 2012. It was Cruz who introduced Palin when she spoke at CPAC in March.

 

During the shutdown, Palin and her husband Todd traveled to Washington to appear with Cruz and Lee at a rally to re-open the temporarily shuttered World War II memorial.

 

The conservative quartet later joined up with Cruz's wife for lunch at Hill Country Barbecue, a casual downtown Washington restaurant known for its brisket.

 

Chip Roy, Cruz's chief-of-staff, said Palin and the senator were often in communication during the shutdown, he said he expects their back-and-forth to continue into the midterm cycle.

 

"There is enormous respect between the two, and there is increasing communication between the offices," Roy told CNN. "As the year has progressed, I think Palin has been pretty simpatico with what Sen. Cruz and Sen. Lee have been trying to accomplish over the last year, fighting these debates, talking to the American people and challenging the status quo."

 

 

 

Page after page could be written debating the virtue/vice nature of Palin's political presence.

 

Around here, we enjoy getting to the chase cutting part of things.

 

If credit must be given at all, then let it be that Palin's participation ,at worst, serves the purpose of giving us a clear cut vision of what to avoid when making the serious choice in 2016 and, at best, keeps the discussion and debate fires burning.

 

In much the same way as, for example, Miley Cyrus's antics keep the discussion about boundaries in entertainment alive and kicking.

 

Ironically, South Carolina's Katon Dawson's comments might arguably be applied to either or both the stumper and the singer.

 

"She does have a following and when she speaks, people listen. I just don't know if that voice is as loud or as important as it used to be."

 

Put into a different perspective, it goes like this.

 

At this writing, Sarah Palin can claim just shy of four million people who have indicated that they "like" what they see on Mama Grizzly's Facebook page.

 

While over thirty two million people have indicated the same "like" for Miley Cyrus.

 

And though they are separated by a twenty eight million Facebook friend margin and walk, technically, two different professional paths, there is one quality they share equally, as expressed by the proverbial conventional wisdom.

 

They're a joke.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"...Oh, Look, Honey...The Republicans Have Put Their Candidate Back Out On The Street Again..."

Attention Shirley Ellis.

Opportunity knocks.

The talented soulstress who gave us 1965' top 5 hit, "The Name Game" would probably rocket back to the top of the charts were she to record a little updated version of her classic, adjusted for what's going on inside the Beltway these here days.

"The Blame Game..........

....let's do Obama........Obama, bama, bo bama, banana fana fo fama, fee fi mo mama, Obama......a little bit with Boehner....Boehner, ainer, bo boehner, banana fana fo fainer, fee fi mo mainer, Boehner...."

and so on.

Pick the applicable recipient of your individual wrath and Shirley away.

The various partisan panel news shows seem to have all settled into a comfortable, and consistent, groove.

The Democrats support Obama and disagree, even dispute, what the Republicans are all about.

The Republicans hate Obama and disdain anyone who doesn't share their hatred.

Liberals would like to see Obama cut a little more slack.

Conservatives would like to see Obama impeached.

Or worse.

Here's a thing, though.

While I do, sincerely, understand, intellectually, the frustration of the Republican party at their inability to make good on their public stated vow to spend the years 2009 through 2016 laser focused on the single goal of thwarting anything and everything that Barack Obama stands for, I have come to realize, through long hours of listening to the Fox News pontificators and thoughtful reflection upon said pontificating, a basic, inevitable truth.

The Republican Party has ,in absolute fairness, no one to blame for all of this but themselves.

And here's a little why to go with the who dun it.

The 2012 presidential election brought to a close the first term of Barack Obama. The country as a whole and Republicans in particular had just spent four years gauging, assessing and judging the good, bad and/or ugly of what Obama had, or had not, accomplished in those four years.

And, reasonable truth be told, it wasn't, to the lion's share of everyday Americans, regardless of party stripe, a whole lotta.

So, as is our national custom, the four year mark rolled around again and the Republican Party had a constitutionally guaranteed opportunity to end their unhappiness and replace Barack Obama with a President who would cure what ailed them and, in their belief system, the country.

And who did the Republican Party offer up as an alternative to the incumbent?

Yet another upper crust, older, white rich guy turned Governor turned presidential candidate who not only spouted the same, old tired upper crust, older, white rich guy manifesto but failed to sell anyone but the hardcore right wing dreamers the same, old tired, upper crust, older, white rich guy manifesto.

Put more sound byte-ishly...

If Barack Obama was the problem, it was clear almost from the outset that Mitt Romney was not the solution.

Now, a year or so into Barack Obama's second term, the right wingers are even more frustrated, even more angry, even more hateful, even more vitriolic, even more, even more, even more than they were before.

And it's their own damn fault.

Because they had a chance, a very good chance, of offering up an honest change.

Not a change from Obama.

A change from the same old, tired, upper crust, older white rich guys they've been offering up for what now seems like a couple of generations.

Memo to the right:

If you really want this country to get behind your candidate, then give us a candidate we can get excited about.

Give us a candidate who speaks to all age groups, all income levels, all ethnicities.

People who don't believe that everything that flows out of Hannity or Limbaugh's mouth is gospel but don't always agree with Matthews or Maddow, either.

People who have both Fox News and MSNBC on their remote favorite buttons and go back and forth to hear, and consider, any and all points of view, looking for any little nugget that shines in the direction of what might be good for their family and their jobs and their lives.

People who don't give a damn about what party a candidate belongs to and just want, desperately want, to have somebody ask for their votes who makes us believe, for the first time in a long, long, long time that they have a fucking clue about what it really means to be a leader, a statesman, a president of all of the people, all of the time.

People like me.

And a lot of people I know.

Bottom line, GOP.

And, while we're at it, this is good for the Democratic gander, too.

Do you want us to swallow what you're offering?

Then, for the love of God, stop trying to feed us the same, stale white bread.

That..is the name of the game.

Let's do different.

"different, ifferent, bo bifferent, banana fanna..."