Chris Bag O’ Matzohs

So with all the “will he or won’t he” speculation about Marco Rubio being the Marquis de Mittens Liason To The 99% or something this week, I wondered what our old friend Chris Christie is doing in the meantime when all the attention is on Marco here.  Don’t feel too bad for Christie though.  Turns out he’s heading to Jerusalem for Holy Week on somebody else’s dime.

In a trip billed as a “Jersey to Jerusalem Trade Mission”, Gov. Chris Christie will travel to Israel during Holy Week to expand business opportunities, experience the culture and meet with world leaders. He will also spend time in Jordan with King Abdullah II.

A delegation of business and religious leaders will join Christie, his family and staff, the administration announced this afternoon. The Republican governor will be in Israel from Sunday through Thursday and Jordan until Easter Sunday.

“I think it’s important for me to continue to get a greater awareness of the world around me as a leader and someone who now has a bit of a national voice,” Christie said in an interview in Washington in late February. “I think it’s important for me to continue to open up my mind and my experience to things that are outside of the state of New Jersey.”

Good general advice for anyone, I would think.  Worked for Dubya, after all.  Heck, the same group that inflicted him and Mittens on Israel is picking up the tab for Christie here, the Republican Jewish Coalition.  He may not be the flavor of the month, but he’s still on the fast track to be the face of compassionate austerity for the party.  Who knows.

So no, the GOP hasn’t kicked Chris off a cliff or anything.  They’re still investing plenty in him so he’ll plague us later.  Oy vey.



Bring On the Asteroid

Todd Palin’s Alleged Prostitute Releases “Tell All” book.

Boys Will Be Boys: Media, Morality and the Cover-up of the Todd Palin Shailey Tripp Sex Scandal is the true story of how Shailey Tripp (Wait, what?), a young single mother of two special needs children became sexually involved with Todd Palin, husband of former Alaska Governor and 2008 GOP Vice-Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin.

This book explains the many factors that culminated in Shailey becoming not only the mistress of ” Alaska’s First Dude” but also a prostitute working for him which ultimately resulted in Shailey being arrested in March of 2010.

The end is officially fucking nigh.

I mean it.  We, the human race, deserve to die a fiery, pulverized death if so much as one tree is killed for this abomination.

Also too, open thread.



The Action Is Affirmative

It was so worth watching the last half-hour of the MHP show this morning for this discussion on affirmative action, and especially for Elon James White taking Reasonoid emperor Matt Welch’s lunch money, buying a milkshake with it, then then drinking it all up in front of him.

Elon also had a nice exchange with Nona Willis Aronowitz from GOOD Magazine on this too, and he was having none of the Glibertarian nonsense at. All.

I’m loving this show more and more.

Open thread, also too.



Gun for hire

Since noon on February 16, Megan McArdle has written six posts, four of them questioning the authenticity of the (Koch-connected) Heartland memos and/or attacking the leaker personally, and one attacking the Democratic party for focusing on David Koch. Her husband works for the Koch-funded Reason magazine where he was recently a Koch fellow.

At what point does this start to bother McArdle’s colleagues — Fallows, Coates, etc. — and online buddies — Yglesais, Drum, etc.? Is this whole thing an even bigger circle jerk than I imagined?



Whatever people say I am, that’s what I’m not

Steve M. on what conservatives really want:

First of all, ask yourself why fifteen-year-olds say “Fuck you” at the dinner table to their parents. That’s easy: they do it because they know they’re stuck living with these people; the only way to make that bearable is to needle their parents by saying whatever pisses them off the most. Well, that’s how right-wing pseudo-intellectuals feel about us liberals and moderates — they have to live in the same country with us, and they hate it, so they become God-botherers and moralists because they think nothing could possibly annoy us more. I really believe that’s one of the primary reasons they do this — do you believe Brooks and Murray and Ross Douthat and William Bennett really have a deep, abiding love for God and a profound level of spirituality? I certainly don’t. Jimmy Carter really loves God — not these self-satisfied clowns. It’s all just a bird-flip disguised as a moral philosophy.

I think that’s some of it but some of it is I’m-a-special-snowflake. You’ll notice that a lot of media-world right-wingers like to call themselves “libertarians” (Murray, for example), as in you can’t call me a conservative because I support gay marriage/smoke dope/believe in legalized contraception. Megan McArdle takes it to an extreme, vegetarian who hates vegetarians, “libertarian” who’s uncomfortable with reproductive rights, economics blogger who can’t add numbers. You can’t pigeonhole her! That’s exciting. Today’s Kaplan has a classic example — an arty critic/poet/artist who’s really a tough factory worker and hates imaginary worker-hating liberals. Modulo his desire to be ruled by a strong Chinese leader, Tom Friedman’s positions are almost entirely standard Obot-fare, but he’s also a pimp for third parties.

It goes on and on. No one (excluding many of us here of course) wants to be a standard liberal, even if they support Democratic policies on every issue. You are all different. Yes, we are all different.



There are no big secrets, you can’t believe what you read

In a few months, establishment media will cease all serious criticism of Mitt Romney. He will be seen as a serious, resolute, Burkean moderate and anyone who disagrees will be cast as a highly partisan liberal. So let’s enjoy this while we can:

The most consistent note in Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign is attacking his rivals for their ideological inconsistency. It’s a nervy strategy for a candidate whose own greatest vulnerability is the sense, especially among conservatives, that he has serially reconsidered his positions for political advantage on issues from abortion to gay rights to immigration.

[….]

In 2004, Republican strategist Karl Rove made famous the tactic of attacking an opponent’s greatest strength by directly assaulting Democrat John Kerry’s credentials on national security. Romney seems to be taking that idea one step further by attacking his opponents on a front that is perceived to be his own greatest weakness. Or maybe Romney is just validating the old belief that the best defense is a good offense.

Greg Sargent asks the obvious question:

Fun thought experiment: Imagine the wall-to-wall media mockery that John Kerry or Al Gore would have endured if they’d tried even a fraction of the shenanigans Romney has resorted to so far.



Suck on this, Tommy

A pretty awesome put-down of Friedman’s relentless pimping for Americans Elect by Harold Meyerson:

If Mitt Romney manages to squeak through with the GOP nomination, there won’t be much political space that Americans Elect could occupy: Wall Street will already have a candidate of its own. But if Santorum is the GOP nominee, Americans Elect could offer an alternative for moderate Republicans and sundry independents.

This is why it took Americans Elect’s champions about a nanosecond after Santorum’s surge began to start promoting a candidate. The group’s foremost advocate, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, penned a column on Sunday introducing his readers to David Walker, the U.S. comptroller general from 1998 to 2008, and for two years thereafter the head of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, an organization established by the billionaire co-founder of the Blackstone Group to preach the gospel of cutting Social Security, Medicare and other government spending.

In his column, Friedman acknowledged that he wasn’t sure that a Walker presidential candidacy would positively affect the outcome of the election, but he stated that he’d “pay good money” to see such a candidate raising his points in the presidential debates. (Those who remember Friedman’s columns on the eve of the Iraq War, expressing doubts about the Bush administration’s ability to wage that war but supporting it nonetheless because it might just make things better, may see a pattern here.)