That's Sleazy, My Friends!

In the shadow of failed foreign policy, a commitment to the disastrous policy of deregulation, and in the face of falling poll numbers, John McCain has done the honorable thing--let's go all negative all the time! Reliving the 1960s! Racism! Xenophobia! We've got it all!

Curious Image of the Day

From CNN, via Pam's House Blend:



On an unrelated note, here's a story about how the Republicans have made--in the words of Jon Stewart--Minnesota even whiter. And they puzzle over the lack of diversity in their party. I'm sure this has nothin' to do with it.

Ooooh...Diverse.

The GOP has announced its line-up for the convention which they say highlights the party's diversity. By which they mean they embrace white dudes of all different tie colors. As long as they're blue or red. 75% of the speakers are dudes. 86% are white. And one of them is Joe Lieberman.

And in a stunning display of racial sensitivity and not at all white dude privilege, Rush Limbaugh said:

"it is striking how unqualified [Sen. Barack] Obama is and, and how this whole thing came about with, within the Democrat Party. I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy." Limbaugh went on to say: "I think this is a classic illustration here where affirmative action has reared its ugly head against them."

About that Cover

It has not been a great couple of weeks for Obama. He seems to be dancing to the right on FISA and abortion and other important things. And then Reverend Jackson threatened to neuter him. And now this New Yorker cover.

I'm quite a fan of satire myself but I'm not sure that this works and I'm not sure that saying so makes you a humorless liberal.

Two things. Number one is that satire is about exaggeration in order to reveal absurdity. When a poll at World Net Daily (aka, Wing Nut Daily which I will not link) showed that 60% of their readers thought that the cover actually depicted the real threat posed by the Obamas? That means it's not an exaggeration of their views (see below). But second, the New Yorker is trying to parody the folks who believe the conspiracy theories by deploying stereotypes which strikes me as sorta arrogant. As a bloggy friend of mine said, it's like the hipsters who wear racist T-shirts because of course it's ok for them because THEY'RE not racist. They're ironic. And the New Yorker thing seems similar--not so much political commentary but self-congratulation for being above it all. It feels insider-y. Which, ironically, is the other stereotype that Obama is fighting against, the idea that his supporters are soy latte sipping elitists who are thumbing their noses at their fellow Americans. And while people who believe the things in this cartoon deserve a bit of scorn, doing it in The New Yorker might only reinforce, not challenge, their views. Here's what the right wingnuttery has to say:

---

IMAGE IS EVERYTHING Sound off on the New Yorker's cover with turban-wearing Obama, gun-toting wife

---

Sound off on the New Yorker's cover with turban-wearing Obama, gun-toting wife (3130 votes)

The image isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family	59% (1856)
Funny, because there's some truth in it	12% (390)
Hilarious, it's perfect satire	7% (218)
It will do what it's designed to do: sell magazines	7% (214)
The image will only add to the massive publicity Obama receives while McCain remains in the shadows	6% (191)
Tasteless and offensive	3% (97)
This is character assassination, literally and figuratively	1% (40)
Other	1% (34)
It's obvious the New Yorker wants Obama to win	1% (26)
Everyone should boycott the New Yorker over this huge insult	1% (25)
There's no such thing as bad publicity	1% (22)
This is probably a joke and is not intended to hit newsstands	0% (12)
It's obvious the New Yorker wants McCain to win	0% (5)

Just when you thought it couldn't get more stupid

I have nothing to add to this. Other than that Wire Fox Terriers need to sue Fox Spews for slandering the good name of the Fox Terriers.