skip to main |
skip to sidebar
There was a story on NPR the other day about the brain's propensity to look for patterns, even when there aren't any. If you're feeling out of control in your life, your brain will look for patterns everywhere, even see faces in static. Conspiracy theories seem to sprout up over the most devastating and baffling events in life-- JFK, AIDS, 9/11, Katrina. When the events of the world are so beyond your control, you look for something to explain it all.
With the current economic meltdown, with the DOW dropping another 700 points just moments ago, or the insane proposal that Sarah Palin, another gun's-blaring, don't blink, don't think, don't prepare, god-is-my-co-pilot'er could possibly be half a heartbeat away from control of the nuclear codes, Frank Rich, in his New York Times article piece this weekends, seems to suggest Palin is a modern day Manchurian Candidate, installed in the VP slot with the intention she'll go on to the Presidency because the striking omissions in McCain's medical records are similar to the blank spots in the Watergate tapes. Is McCain just another tantrum away from death? Is his melanoma more likely to return than previously suggested? Will the October surprise not be that McCain drops Palin from the ticket, but that they switch positions, with Palin at the top?
Or is that just my brain looking for a pattern?
So John McCain may be pulling out of tomorrow night's debate because the economic crisis is too crucial at this moment in time-- despite the fact that Congress has already come up with an agreement that could be signed off on as soon as Saturday. So what could be McCain's reasoning?
The economy has been his sore point. He has said in the past that he doesn't know much about it, was saying up until last Tuesday that the economy is "fundamentally sound," and was asking for less regulations up until last Wednesday morning, before abruptly switching tack, calling for more regulations Wednesday afternoon, with any reference to his earlier statements. Even Bush, in his economic address last night (15 minutes of hilarity!), said Republicans hate regulations (since regulations put a cramp on all their raping, stealing and pillaging), but noted, under the circumstances, ie, "we've bankrupted the country!" -- regulations suddenly seem like a good idea.
Tomorrow night's debate is supposed to be about foreign policy-- supposedly McCain's strong suit-- so you'd think he'd be all gung ho to turn the focus back on a Republican strength, fear-mongering. So why does he still want to pull out?
1. He wants to make himself look strong on the economy, that it's somthing he takes seriously. He's even suggesting that the economic crisis is tantamount to 9/11, where leaders of both parties cam together to hash out a plan. Well, guess what? They already did, this afternoon.
Still, the specter of 9/11 is always good. If he can somehow link being tortured for 4 years with economic upheaval, he just might have a winning strategy. Perhaps he can say he was excused from the tortuous negotiations over the economic package, while his fellow senators would have to remain, and he declared until his fellow senators were allowed to go free as well, he would remain. Thus, no debate.
McCain has consistently been on the front page of the Times since his announcement, and I wonder if other papers have been doing the same. Economy + McCain - Obama complaining in background = Big PLUS for McCain!
2. He's making people think he's afraid to debate Obama, afraid the economy wil be raised, thus lowering expectations of his performance. No matter how well Obama does, McCain will appear the winner because everyone thought he would bomb.
3. I'm making a giant lasagna and having a number of guests over to watch the debate-- I've even brought more goddam chairs to fit around the tv. I specifially chose these people because they're easiest to have over with the tv on. What the hell am I going to do if it's cancelled? And why has John McCain chosen to punish me by his decision?
What a surprise. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has been reviewed by Media Matters for America who found that throughout the 2007-2008 campaign season, Dowd did what she did best, "played with gender roles," consistently referring to Hillary Clinton in masculine terms, while feminizing Clinton's opponents, Senator Edwards, and especially Senator Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee. In contrast, Dowd left the Republican field untouched, although she did refer to presumptive Republican nominee John McCain as "a tough guy."
But if Clinton had won the nomination, perhaps McCain, too, would have been reduced to a girly-man. Dowd only called Edwards and Obama "sister" and "girl" in contrast to Hillary, because, unlike Dowd herself, Hillary doesn't purse her lips and shake her hair in front of her eyes like a sexy pussycat; therefore, Hillary must be a man, so much so that any man is reduced to a girl in comparison.
Dowd suggests she's "twisting gender stereotypes," but really, it's the same old stereotype to call a ambitious woman a "man," and an anti-war Democrat a "girl." Dowd seems to have lost steam since Clinton dropped out of the race; maybe she'll have to start playing with racial stereotypes to maintain her "transgressive" edge.
Photo courtesy Gawker
