Krehbiel Commentary

I actually like Joe Biden.  He is long-winded, yes, and I don't agree with all of his policies, but he always seems to skip past the B.S. and get right to the point.  That's pretty refreshing in this day and age.

Among the possible VP choices mentioned, Biden was clearly the most qualified choice to help with governing the country.  He has the knowledge and experience Obama lacks, and he's not a yes-man.  He has a reputation as a centrist and a history of working with Republicans.  That's the kind of associate you'd want if you're really serious about doing a good job as president.

Unfortunately, you have to get elected before you can do a good job as president, and we live in an age of YouTube politics and voters that are dumber than rocks.  From that perspective, Joe Biden is an unbelievably risky choice.  It's only been a couple of days and we've already been subjected to Joe Biden's Greatest Gaffes over and over and over again, and you can bet Republican blogs will be re-publishing those same YouTubes every day from now until November.  Not to mention the legions of overzealous activists with video cameras that will be following Biden around, hoping to get The Next Big Gaffe on tape to sell it to the highest bidder.  Or whatever those kinds of people do.

So I think Obama made an interesting and bold choice.  Not what I would have expected, to be honest.

One of the previously mentioned scoopers now has a new scoop:  Hillary.

Notwithstanding, it seems that all the stars are aligned for Tim Kaine to be announced as Obama's running mate at John Tyler Community College tomorrow (including the intriguing clue that John Tyler was the last vice president from Virginia).

This is exactly why I suspect an elaborate ruse.  I'm not sure that America is in a good place when presidential campaigns require so much time and effort to keep their plans secret from the paparazzi media.  Maybe I'm just being paranoid.

Anyway, John Tyler is actually pretty close to me, so it would be kind of cool to head over there and check out the festivities.  Except, you know, some of us have to work.  Once again the politicians are putting the jobless and retired ahead of the people actually driving the economy.

Three different scoops about Obama's VP pick:  One for Kaine, one for Bayh, and one for Biden.  Take your pick.

I heard a microscopic blurb on the radio this morning about violence between Russia and Georgia.  The radio guy talked about missiles and fighting and troops and then went right on to discuss the opening ceremonies of the Olypmics or something, leaving me totally in the dark about news that sounded pretty freakin' serious.  Why do they even bother?

Anyway, I finally got around to looking up more information and it turns out that Russia and Georgia are in a situation described as "close to developing into full-blown war."  That's almost certainly a media-exaggeration, but still, Reuters reports, "Russia sent forces into Georgia on Friday to repel a Georgian assault on the breakaway region [Ossetia] and Georgia's pro-Western president said the two countries were at war."  I don't really know all of the details but it sounds kind of bad (especially since the U.S. is supporting the heavily-outnumbered Georgia).

On the plus side, if a large-scale war develops in Georgia, perhaps there is hope that it will bump the election and the Olympics off of the TV for a few moments of welcome respite.

I didn't think it was still possible for me to be disappointed in elected officials... John Reid Edwards' admission of an affair proves they can never be trusted.  I was actually somewhat impressed by the improvement in his rhetoric in the 2008 primaries.  I should never have fallen for that Southern Baptist-sounding* accent.

P.S.  Too Conservative wins the prize for the first post I saw in Virginia trying to link Obama to Edwards.  So, um, I guess the above rule about elected officials applies to partisans in general.

* He's actually Methodist, according to Wikipedia.

Virginia blogger Scott White has been spamming the Virginia blogosphere with breathless posts about the Twitter thread #dontgo for the last several days.  It's being called a "movement," a "turning point," a "revolution," an "online orgy of oil drilling bliss" (okay, I made that one up).

Strangely, it is not being called a big entrepreneurial opportunity for some bloggers capitalizing on a staged publicity stunt by Republican lawmakers.

Ahem.  Anyway, we're told we need to spread the word and head over to dontgomovement.com to join the legions of conservative Twitterers fighting back against those dirty, dirty Democrats who are deliberately trying to raise gas prices, destroy America and oppress the will of the people.  (I might be paraphrasing their message a little bit.)

Turning away from the hype for a moment, here's what the movement is, distilled to its essense:  It's a handful of opportunistic conservative new media marketeers (including Scott) co-opting the work of Republican Congressmen, starting up a web site and trying to convince you it's a conservative movement you need to be a part of.  The new site is themed around what was a group of tweets from Republican Congressmen looking for publicity for the American Energy Act, but now has descended into a typical massive Internet chatroom -- a spewage of incoherence, self-promotion, noise, bickering, trolling, and, occasionally, a canned press release from one of the brave, brave Republicans remaining on the House floor fighting for the oil companies... err... businessmen with oil company stock... err... the Republican base... err... the American people.

Look for plenty of upcoming posts and media appearances from the #dontgo principles talking about how the #dontgo movement is not -- I repeat, not -- just a viral marketing campaign for a new web site for conservatives, but a real, substantive shift in the very nature of Washington politics, the new media, America, and the very foundations of the earth itself... and say, why not buy a T-shirt?

There's been some consternation lately about Google allegedly "shutting down" some blogs that were critical of Barack HUSSEIN! Obama.

Prepare to be disappointed, but it's not a conspiracy by our Google overlords.  These bloggers are simply running into the dark side of the Web 2.0-style self-regulating community (which is what any "flag this site" or "rate this post" system is).  This is why I've always been skeptical of the Web 2.0 community philosophy -- it's basically mob rule with zero protection for minorities.  We all know it's relatively easy to whip up a frenzy and build a mob to torch some poor unsuspecting community member... humanity loves the circular firing squad.  It's now even easier in the digital age, because the mob could actually be a single technically saavy person with a grudge.  That's undoubtedly what's happening with the Blogger shutdowns -- some guy or guys gaming the system to harass some blogs he doesn't like.  It's an annoying but commonplace occurrance in the world of Web 2.0 -- it's like some punk egging your house.

But alas, in the continuing effort to divide America, everything must be leveraged into an us-or-them issue when there's an election coming up, so here we go with the conspiracy theories.  It's not a kid egging your house, it's the egg manufacturers infringing on your rights!  Yeah, that's it!  That could work!  Google and the dirty, dirty libs are trampling our First Amendment rights and censoring our free speech!

Side note:  You may notice a certain disdain in my tone.  It's hard to be sympathetic toward bloggers complaining about their completely free blog platform disappearing.  It's a bit like complaining when the government stops giving you food stamps.

I didn't pay any attention at first.  After all, these people probably have no experience setting up and administering a massive network of hardware and software like the one supporting Blogger, so it's understandable that they might reach the wrong conclusions.  But now these people are starting to sound like 9-11 Truthers.  These Google Truthers are convinced that the Obama campaign and the dirty, dirty libs are shutting down their blogs to silence them and a massive attack on their civil liberties is underway.

Well, okay they probably don't really believe all that.  It's just politically expedient to say they believe it so they can deceive some unsuspecting voters out there.  J.R. of Bearing Drift, who usually stays on the rational side of the fence, recently picked up the censorship meme and wrote:

First, on Blogger, certain Republican blogs, including Virginia’s own SWAC Girl and Contemporary Conservative were identified as “Spam Blogs” by Obama supporters to Google. This caused the algorithm to automatically shut these blogs down for a period of time before Google finally realized what was going on and corrected the problem. (emphasis mine)

Golly, that evil free-speech-squashing algorithm must have shut down those blogs for weeks or months or even years!  That's an outrageous violation of the First Amendment!  Those dirty, dirty libs have gone too far!  Hey wait, he didn't actually say how long they were down.  I wonder why he wasn't more clear on that point?

If you want to be taken seriously in political discourse today, it's very, very important to create a childish nickname for the opposition -- you know, something that would fit in with the fourth grade playground set.  Here's a look at the playing field so far.

McCain Nicknames

You have to admit that Democrats have it pretty easy this election.  It's inherently easy to make a funny-sounding name out of anything that starts with "Mc."

• McSame.  This is the best childish nickname for this election so far, used almost universally on all Democratic blogs.  It succinctly summarizes the entire width and breadth of the Democratic argument against John McCain in two tiny syllables.
• McBush.  Also good for the same reasons, but it loses points because it doesn't rhyme with McCain.
• McLame.  This one is just silly.  It rhymes but it doesn't say anything about why he's lame.

Obama Nicknames

Republicans have it rough with "Barack Hussein Obama."  There's a really fine line between a childish nickname and blatant xenophobia... they haven't yet found a universally accepted nickname, but they keep trying.

• Hussein.  Great for riling up the conservatives, but it loses points because it's hard to imagine schoolyard kids taunting each other with it.  Plus it's, you know, his real name -- not a nickname.
• Barry.  This one doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  I guess calling him "Barry" implies he's a child.  Either that or it's some kind of allusion to Barry White's smooth-talking 70s disco.
• Obamessiah.  This is one of the best, but I think it's more of an indictment against Obama supporters than Obama himself.  Also, it's got way too many syllables to really catch on -- you can't use it in a chant, for example.
• Obambi.  A noble effort, but you have to stop and think about what it means, and even then it's not terribly obvious.  I'm assuming it's intended to suggest that Obama is going to fold under the weight of the Republican attack machine like a deer in headlights or something.
• Both Ways Barack.  This is a strong contender I saw recently.  It's got aliteration, and it evokes that whole "flip-flopping" meme that the coveted uninformed voters fall for.  So far it hasn't caught on.
• Barack Who's-Same.  This new one is pretty clever, but it's obviously a desperate attempt to out-do "McSame."  Unfortunately, the Democrats got there first.  Also, it doesn't make a lot of rational sense to attack Obama for being "the same."

Third Parties

No known nicknames for third party candidates Gene Amondson, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney.  Too bad they don't get to play with the other kids. :(

I never particularly liked Sitemeter because of the wacky redirecting it did, and I always intended to replace it.  Today I see there is an even bigger reason not to like it:  No site using Sitemeter will open in Internet Explorer.  Nice.  I'm sure they'll fix it, if they haven't already, but for me, they have crossed the line from merely annoying to completely untrustworthy.  I've removed them from all my sites, as I would urge everyone else to do.  Guess I'll have to write my own statistics code now.

Jeff Frederick's stellar IT background has brought the exciting world of ASP (c. 1996-2000) to the Republican Party of Virginia's web site:  http://rpv.org/news.asp.  What could be next?  An Access backend?  By the way, when are they going to start the competitive bidding for those cool projects they're working on? :)

It occurs to me that there is a serious flaw with politicians deferring to military commanders on the ground when it comes to Iraq:  It undermines the principle that the U.S. is a civilian government.  This isn't Burma, after all.  Obviously you want military commanders leading military campaigns... but foreign policy?  Five years after the end of major combat operations?  (No, I still don't believe the situation in Iraq is a "war.")

John Kerry partying with college girls?  It's hard to imagine a bigger buzzkill.  Anyway, the Boston Herald provides a somewhat less sensational version of the story, if you're interested.  Best quote:

“No wonder everyone in the Massachusetts Republican Party was shocked by the photo - they’ve never had a candidate surrounded by supporters,” Wade said.

Secondarily:  Are Republicans so horrified to talk about John McCain that they'd rather re-fight the 2004 election?

Too Progressive gives us the scoop (actually just links to the YouTube where Andrea Mitchell gives us the scoop).  One of the meatiest nuggets that conservatives have found in Obama's overseas junket to reinforce their "Hussein" fantasies is that he snubbed wounded troops !! in Germany.  I myself wondered why Obama's campaign would do something so politically disasterous.  Funny story... Mitchell reports that the military told him he couldn't visit.  This is where I begin to speculate of course, but obviously high-ranking military officials (undoubtedly Republican supporters) wanted to give him a political black eye on an otherwise pristine photo op tour.  Ah, politics.  The never-ending struggle to influence gullible bloggers voters.

UPDATE 7/26: The game continues... SWAC Girl tries to rebut using evidence from a story issued the day before Andrea Mitchell's report on Morning Joe. That's not very convincing to this observer.

UPDATE 7/27:  Now the McCain campaign is jumping into the fray with a new ad about this, undoubtedly because they saw how much traction the story was getting with conservatives.  For some weird reason, McCain thinks the accompanying "facts" on his campaign web site give them a check mate.  Um, I'll wait for the FactCheck writeup, thanks.

Also, conservative bloggers must have gotten a memo from McCain central because they've morphed their story from "he's a troop-hating America-hater" to "he couldn't bring cameras"... that at least is more believable, and fits in better with the "Obama is elitist" theme.

Personally, when I look at a situation like this, I try to deduce the truth by asking myself which side benefits politically.  (Because, clearly, everything about a campaign is geared around that.)  You've got to think that Obama's image-conscious campaign staff is smart enough to know that cancelling a visit to see wounded troops -- when a signifcant portion of the country (ie. more than zero) already believes your guy is a Muslim trying to infiltrate the White House -- on an overseas trip where millions of reporters are covering every single microscopic detail of what you're doing -- is going to hurt bigtime.  So the idea that Obama would cancel a visit simply because he couldn't bring cameras, while plausible in the sense that it fits with Obama's rock star image and McCain's general attack strategy, makes absolutely no sense from his campaign's viewpoint.

Not that any of that matters... what matters is who gets their attack meme into the 2-second sound bites of drive time radio news that Joe America makes their voting decision from.  *rolls eyes*

UPDATE 7/28:  Sure enough, the Obama troop-hating incident was prominently featured on a WRVA news snippet this morning, so I guess Republicans won this round of mind control.  Mike Huckabee of all people got the last word, saying something to the effect that Obama's explanation was "nonsense."  I'm sure Huckabee went on to explain in great nuanced detail why that was so, but alas the radio did not play any more of the recording.  P.S. FactCheck chimed in on this today, and I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Republicans will not be linking to it.

UPDATE 7/31:  McCain's proxy George Allen was on Richmond's Morning News with Jimmy Barrett this morning (audio here), and guess what he thought was the most memorable part of Obama's overseas trip?  Yes, shockingly enough, it was Obama snubbing those wounded troops "because it wasn't going to be a good photo-op."  He has a down home folksy manner so I'm sure he's more reliable than FactCheck.

Does anyone else get the sense that NBC Nightly News for Dummies simply can't wait to report on another hurricane destroying a U.S. city?  While they were spending approximately 20,000 hours reporting on The Long Road Back from Katrina, they must have put a lot of hurricane disaster reporting resources in place, because they sure are anxious to tell us about these things now.  This year, they're building up fear and drama about hurricanes before they're even hurricanes.

A while back, Brian Williams gave us a breathless report about Bertha's potential for destruction ("it's just gotten a lot stronger... a major storm with a well-defined eye...") long before it was anywhere near the U.S. (followed a day later by a slightly exasperated admission that Bertha in fact would not cause any destruction at all).

A few nights ago we got a full report of dire warnings about Dolly, but not once did they mention it was barely even a Category 1 storm at the time.  One of the most memorable quotes in this story, from a terrified resident:  "We're gonna have a lotta water comin' down this way."  Stay strong, brave soul.

Last night we saw the report about Dolly making landfall, where intrepid reporter-turned-voiceover-artist Don Teague actually said, "They expected Dolly to make landfall... but what they didn't expect was this:  Ferocious winds."  Um... hello?  Hurricane?  You know, the thing with the ferocious winds?  The best example of devastation they could get on tape was... a window breaking.  And it didn't even happen on camera.

Nice work, guys.  Better luck next time.

Jerry Furman hailed SWAC Girl's coverage of the Homestead debate between Jim Gilmore and Mark Warner as "unbiased" (compared to the local media's coverage).  That makes perfect sense, because SWAC Girl is an enthusiastic Republican activist, vice chairwoman of the Augusta County Republican Committee, and a public supporter of Jim Gilmore for Senate.

With the upcoming 2008 Lambeth Conference, I've seen some reports lamenting the imminent demise of the ECUSA.  It makes me wonder:  Why exactly do we need these childishly squabbling human bureaucracies to have a relationship with God anyway?

Phil Graham said we are "a nation of whiners."  So, um, what's the controversial part again?  Also:  Doesn't the very fact that everyone was whining about his comment sort of confirm his observation?

There is a noticable lack of Third Party representation in the Virginia political blogosphere, so I'm making a point to pass along any relevant third party candidate news I come across.

According to a press release on Third Party Watch, Independent candidate for president Ralph Nader will be appearing in Richmond on July 12.

July 8, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Chris Driscoll, 202-360-3273, chris@votenader.org;
Local contact: John Wade, 804-432-1611

NADER TO HOLD RICHMOND, VA NEWS CONFERENCE AND CAMPAIGN RALLY, SAT., JULY 12

Ralph Nader will bring his Independent “Shift the Power” presidential campaign to Virginia, Saturday July 12. There will be a 12:30 p.m. news conference and a 1 p.m. Nader/Gonzalez campaign rally, both to be held at the Virginia Holocaust Museum, 2000 E. Cary St. Richmond, VA 23223. Suggested contribution: $10/$5 student.

Nader will also be appearing in Charlottesville the following day:

July 8, 2008
News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Chris Driscoll, 202-360-3273, chris@votenader.org
Local Contact: Michael Green, 520-906-8661

NADER TO HOLD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA NEWS CONFERENCE AND CAMPAIGN RALLY, SUNDAY, JULY 13

Ralph Nader will bring his Independent “Shift the Power” presidential campaign to Virginia, Sunday July 13. There will be a 1:30 p.m. news conference and a 2 p.m. Nader/Gonzalez campaign rally, both to be held at the Gravity Lounge, 103 South First Street, Charlottesville, Va. 22902. Suggested contribution: $10/$5 student.

Comical side note:  Do people really take time off from work to go to these rallies or are they supposed to be for the retired and unemployed only?

I found this post on Too Conservative somewhat amusing:  When Surrogates Attack.  It's a warning to Barack Hussein Obama and his surrogates about going down the road of attacking the military service of John Sidney McCain.

First of all, I have to mention the obvious:  All this outrage about Wesley Kanne Clark's remarks is completely manufactured.  Gen. Clark is 100% correct -- getting shot down is absolutely not a qualification to be president.  And before you start yelling, neither is not getting shot down.  The whole thing is a moot point, completely irrelevent to the process of selecting a president -- just like virtually every other news story about the presidential campaign so far.

But I digress... the amusing part about any Republican's faux outrage is that in the 2004 elections, they already established the precedent that it's perfectly acceptable for the candidate with no military experience to attack the military credentials of his opponent.  And not just acceptable, but successful.  So naturally now that the military boot is on the other foot, so to speak, somehow everything is different.

Lowell wrote:  Bloggers as Paid Consultants.  So, um, was that supposed to dispel the myth that Raising Kaine is a pay-for-play blog?  Lowell's post basically says, "Yeah, I've always been pay-for-play, but since I'm telling you about it now, it's okay."

I must admit I'm not quite clear on how bloggers being in the back pocket of candidates (and/or vice versa) is supposed to be a good thing for the citizenry.  Whatever happened to independent bloggers holding politicians accountable?  In my opinion, bloggers who are paid consultants to a candidate must either stop blogging about the campaign, or put a "paid for and approved by such-and-such campaign" disclaimer at the bottom of every single post.  Anything less is willful dishonesty, and frankly I'm not so sure it shouldn't be illegal.

Unless somebody wants to pay me $1500 a month to setup a $15 web site and write some favorable blog posts.  In which case I would take it all back.  Because here in America, capitalism trumps all ethical considerations.