Is Obama's Campaign Spinning Out Of Control?

Either this is a trial blimp destined to crash and burn in the infield, or Obama needs to apply the brakes to some folks in his campaign. The media-anointed one is going all NASCAR on us? My God!

I wonder, will Obie wear a fire-suit to the presser? Given his constant wrong turns when not being steered by a teleprompter, I can't imagine him wanting to cruise into this potential third turn wreck. Wait until some speed journalist asks him what he thinks about the legacy of King Richard.

"Unfortunately I haven't had enough time to truly reflect upon the wonders of Shakespeare recently given the demands of the campaign," responded the candidate.

SI.com has learned that for the first time in history, a major presidential candidate may sponsor a race car in NASCAR's premier series. According to sources, Barack Obama's campaign is in talks to become the primary sponsor of BAM Racing's No. 49 Sprint Cup car for the Pocono race on August 3. Details of the agreement are expected to be worked out over the coming days.

A BAM spokesperson has revealed the team will hold a press conference July 23 in Miami to reveal the partnership, currently a proposed one-race deal with an option to continue. Obama will be at the briefing, which will be tied to the "Get Out The Vote" campaign message he spread throughout the 2008 primary season.

Comments

[shockwave]

Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who said that a liberal is an open-minded person whose brain had fallen out? Well, whether it was Reagan or not, whoever said it was spot on. After reading the Markey peice, it's quite obvious. What a jerk.

[Worst President Ever]

Fred asks: What has the government got to do with whether I'm better off or not?

Think Fred, think. I'm sure something will eventually come to you.

[Fred Beloit]

"Think Fred, think." Odd admonishment from someone whose motto could be "Feel, Worst, feel."

I don't rely on the government to make me better off. That is a fool's occupation. I do feel safer than in 2002, however. The military actions of the government, what governments were originally invented for, have made me feel safer though.

[Anne]

oh, Fred, get a load of this ---

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Ya_cant_make_it_up.html

[BobInStamford]

"Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who said that a liberal is an open-minded person whose brain had fallen out?"

I don't think that ole Ronnie should have been talking about brains falling out.

[Miss Snarky Doucher (pronounced DooSHAY)]

Two great candidates in this election, Anne. For the first time I feel proud to be an... an...Americano del Norte (as Obie would say, "You know, a, you know, Gringo"). I am trying my best to get fully into the Obama style. You knows sprinkled into foreign phrases. Dig?

[Anne]

Miss Snark,

Someone has a t-shirt with douChe on it. Hm, where did I see that?

[Miss Snarky Doucher (pronounced DooSHAY)]

Maybe it was right here. Dan would not be one to miss that, if the opportunity presented itself. Have you ever seen the photo of Jimmy Carter Dan uses when he mentions Jimmy's name?

[IslamoLlama]

"-- And Lame shit head, let me give you a lesson in politics. The Democrats control both houses of Congress. They can stop any legislation that supports the war. --"

Civics class fail. I'm continuously amazed at how someone who supposedly follows politics knows so little about it. Yes, the Democrats can potentially block war-funding legislation, but as we've seen Bush has threatened to refuse to withdraw the troops and simply requisition money from other sources. Simply cutting funding for the war would be irresponsible, which is why the Democrats instead attempted to revoke the AUMF resolution and install timetables for draw-downs.

But all this is very, very complicated. Its far easier to cover your ears, stomp your feet, and continue to vote for a united pro-war Republican Party in hopes that Iraq will magically stop being violent.

"-- Tom Daschle said it best. Iraq isn't "Bush's War", it is one of America's wars. America spoke with one voice, except for the lunatic fringe exemplified by Moe. --"

In 2002, General Colin Powell informed the US public that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons in underground bunkers and chemical and biological weapons in roving labs. America believed Colin Powell, and that was a tragic mistake. The scandals that were spawned from fallacious claims about Nigerian Yellowcake, "Curveball" insider sources, aluminum tubes, and secret meetings with AQ are legion. Hopefully, the country will never again make the mistake of trusting Republicans.

You might also notice that Tom Daschale isn't a member of the Senate any longer. Nor is Max Cleland. Nor is John Edwards. These are but three of the 21 Senators who voted for the AUMF, but it is worth noting that it was the "mainstream" Democrats who lost their jobs while the "lunatic fringe" remained ensconced in encumbancy. Funny that.

Meanwhile, 2006 saw 5 anti-war Senators and scores of House Reps ride into office on promises to restrain Bush's war powers. The "lunatic fringe" now dominates American politics in terms of public opinion.

Again, I'm not sure who you are trying to fool, unless you are trying to fool yourself.

[seekeronos]

The Shaggy Moon-worshipping Mountain Beastie spake thus:

"--- ...in hopes that Iraq will magically stop being violent. ---"

Now imagine that. Despite all claims to the contrary by the proggies, the violence level and acts of random splodeydopery seem to have abated from the highwater marks of several incidents and several dozens of US servicemember deaths prior to the Surge.

It isn't completely peaches and cream and Iraqi girls and boys dancing together around the maypole, but I think that we've definitely put the brakes on much of the violence.

"--- but it is worth noting that it was the "mainstream" Democrats who lost their jobs while the "lunatic fringe" remained ensconced in encumbancy. Funny that.

Meanwhile, 2006 saw 5 anti-war Senators and scores of House Reps ride into office on promises to restrain Bush's war powers. The "lunatic fringe" now dominates American politics in terms of public opinion. ---"

And yet that lunatic fringe cannot do a wit to put Bush into the doghouse (either by impeachment, or censure, or by cutting off the funds.

Oh yeah, there's that slim majority thing. But if the MSM and the far left fringe over in Kossack land are to be trusted, a 350+ seat Democratic House and a 70-seat Democratic Senate are all but a fait accompli, then y'all have plenty of opportunity to bring the troops home in January.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Now imagine that. Despite all claims to the contrary by the proggies, the violence level and acts of random splodeydopery seem to have abated from the highwater marks of several incidents and several dozens of US servicemember deaths prior to the Surge. --"

Indeed, the civil war has been reduced from a raging holocaust to an intermittent street fight. This, six years and four generals later. And it is all because of the magical powers of the Surge (please ignore the Sadarist cease-fire, the previous ethnic cleansing, and the 3 million man Iraqi exodus). Genocide in Darfur has leveled off as well. I'm sure you'll be thanking the Surge for that, too. It's certainly not because everyone just started running out of people to kill.

"-- And yet that lunatic fringe cannot do a wit to put Bush into the doghouse (either by impeachment, or censure, or by cutting off the funds. --"

Impeachment and censure both require majorities in both houses of Congress. The current swing vote in the Senate is (I) Joe Lieberman, and we all know which way he'd swing, given that he's practically running for (R) VP already. And this is before the Republican Minority turned the entire process into a circus of obstruction and hyperventilation.

Cutting off funds to the war would require one of two options. Blanket refusal to pass funding legislation, which we've already discussed is a political non-starter, and targeted funding limitations which would require amendments to existing legislation and the filibuster/veto proof majorities that Democrats don't have.

So we come back to the same old song-and-dance of not having the votes. A sad state of affairs, any "lunatic fringe" member of the 70% of America that opposes the war, but a product of a political system designed to be slow and cumbersome. I'm sure it would be easier if Democrats could have won immediate autocratic control of the legislative process in 2006, but I'm not a big fan of that style of government, so I'll be patient and wait for 2008.

"-- Oh yeah, there's that slim majority thing. But if the MSM and the far left fringe over in Kossack land are to be trusted, a 350+ seat Democratic House and a 70-seat Democratic Senate are all but a fait accompli, then y'all have plenty of opportunity to bring the troops home in January. --"

Time will tell. A Democratic President certainly won't hurt the process.

[seekeronos]

"--- please ignore the Sadarist cease-fire, the previous ethnic cleansing, and the 3 million man Iraqi exodus... ---"

Yes, one of the few smart things the Sadrists ever did was to stop shooting at US armour columns or patrols that could call in air strikes; rather than throwing themselves needlessly into the grinder, like good little splodeydopes, they are waiting for (a) more Iranian and Syrian aid/weapons and (b) waiting for us to get tired of the desert and go away, or (c) for the Iraqi bosses to make good on their rhetoric to ask us to leave/set a time table.

The previous ethnic cleansing was largely a result of Shi'a/Sunni strife, much of it motivated by the Sadrists or other extremist groups looking to fill in the vacuum left behind by the deposed Ba'athists. Ditto for many of the refugees, who didn't particularly relish being turned into cat food.

Of course, "running out of peeps to kill" could come into play as well. I can't make a good comparison on Sudan/Darfur atrocities, since I haven't studied up on that. It looks bad though, another foul fruit from the "Religion of Peace".

"--- So we come back to the same old song-and-dance of not having the votes. A sad state of affairs, any "lunatic fringe" member of the 70% of America that opposes the war, but a product of a political system designed to be slow and cumbersome. I'm sure it would be easier if Democrats could have won immediate autocratic control of the legislative process in 2006, but I'm not a big fan of that style of government, so I'll be patient and wait for 2008. ---"

Indeed we dance... I think that it would not be unfair to say that the two parties have failed to govern either wisely or equitably; regardless of actual party affiliation, the congresscritters should have some sort of contact with the base(s) who elect them.

In an ideal world, such a mixed congress (a little under half Rs and a little more than half Ds) should be forced to migrate toward the middle, toward a consensus of what the American Republic desires... what the 70% desire.

Indeed, the only consensus that the Gang of 535 can routinely agree upon is their annual pay raise, which they can (and do) receive in spite of their actual job performance.

Equally noteworthy may be the relative uselessness of both parties, in that neither one nor the other has effectively done its job to limit the excesses of the Executive Branch, but rather give up its checks on power, while at the same time squashing liberty through its own corruption and inaction.

Or does the slow and cumbersome nature of these checks and balances also serve a dual function, in that it slows our descent into tyranny as much as it enables it through the Government's abandonment of the Constitution?

* - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *