After yesterday’s vote in the House of Representatives on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, there was a heavy, disgusting game of blame being played.   Republican leaders blamed a floor speech by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.   Democrats countered by (deservedly) mocking them.   And then there was this:

This is why people hate politics.   This is why people don’t care anymore and don’t pay attention.   And this is why people don’t vote.

Fine if lawmakers don’t like legislation.   Argue against it.   Suggest alternatives.   But don’t look for excuses to cover your asses.   Now if (when?) the economy tanks this week without Congress passing legislation to attempt a prevention, Democrats can blame Republicans for not acting sooner.   Ugh.   More blame.   Blaming each other, not getting anything done, and who’s left holding the short straw?   You and me.

After the failed vote, lawmakers as a whole have only themselves to blame.   Ben Pershing at the Washington Post offers several reasons why the vote failed (and why lawmakers as a hole are to blame):

1) Poor Salesmanship. Did you know that the general consensus is now that this bill will not cost $700 billion? If you didn’t, it’s because the bill’s proponents did a poor marketing job. From the start, the Bush administration did not do enough to emphasize the point that taxpayers would get at least some of the money back, and that gigantic price tag got stuck in the head of the public (and the media).

The administration was also too eager and ambitious with its initial proposal, alienating many lawmakers right from the start by seeming to ask for the moon — give us everything we want, with no oversight. This White House has long played political hardball, but this was not the time for hardball. This was the time for begging. The administration also let the “bailout” label stick to the package right from the start. By the time President Bush started calling it a “rescue” measure, it was too late.

3) No Center of Gravity. Who’s running Washington right now? Bush is the lamest of lame ducks, with a minuscule approval rating and no clout or political protection left to offer. Bush and Vice President Cheney were reportedly making calls to wavering Republicans right to the end; obviously that didn’t do the trick. Barack Obama and John McCain both supposedly support the bill, but neither of them has been exactly wholehearted in their backing, and there haven’t been any reports of either candidate calling members of their own party to lobby.

House leaders, meanwhile, did support the bill and did whip it. But this wasn’t a party-loyalty vote; lawmakers were asked to vote yes, but they weren’t threatened. They (probably) weren’t bribed. Add all that up, and you had a power vacuum. […]

It’s possible despite weeks of warnings, and a stock market that is cratering as we speak, that a lot of members still aren’t taking any of this seriously enough. And that, ultimately, may be the real reason for today’s vote.

Also, Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com says the many lawmakers in swing districts that voted against the bill doomed it:

ALL VULNERABLES = 8 YEAS, 30 NAYS (21%)
OTHERS = 197 YEAS, 198 NAYS (50%)

Members of Congress: instead of pointing fingers at each other, point them at yourselves.   Accept responsibility and do your job.   That’s what we elected you for, that’s what we pay you for, and that’s what we expect from you.

Tina Fey was back on SNL last night:

While we’re on the subject of movie trailers:

Check out their timeline.

Oliver Stone’s “W.”:

And Bill Maher’s “Religulous”:

If John McCain wins, this woman will be one 72-year-old’s heartbeat away from being president of the United States, and if that doesn’t scare the hell out of you, it should.

When I first heard that candidates were allowed to address each other, unlike in past debates, I was excited.   I thought we might actually have a full-fledged debate on our hands.   That hope didn’t quite pan out, but there were a few moments of questioning and interjections.   I would have liked to see more, but since one candidate barely acknowledged the other’s presence (see below), that was pretty hard to do.

McCain closed by noting he doesn’t need on the job training. I’m fairly certain that this argument is so far out the window that it went through the neighbors’ windows and hit the squirrel in the yard seven houses down when he selected a certain governor of a state that begins with A and ends in laska.

McCain exhibited a strong contempt for Obama, not ever looking at him when either candidates were talking or McCain was listening or addressing Obama, and not chuckling at points Obama made that McCain disagreed with but instead snickering and wily sneering at them.

Why does McCain belabor pork-barrel spending?   Are there no other problems with fiscal policy in this country?   Or does he have nothing better to talk about?

Was McCain’s over-defending the war in Iraq a good thing for him or a bad one?

Why won’t Obama say the surge was only a part of reducing violence and not the only responsible strategy?

Overall, a draw; I think both candidates did a good job.   Neither made a game-changing mistake or had a game-changing positive moment.   With McCain’s slipping poll numbers, I think he had more to prove and needed to say something to gain ground or force Obama to say something to lose ground.   That neither happened is a minus for McCain, but we’ll see how the debate plays out in the next few days.

Maureen Dowd over that the NYT asked Aaron Sorkin, creator and writer of The West Wing, to imagine a meeting of Senator Obama and West Wing President Jed Bartlet (played by Martin Sheen).   As a hard-core fan of the show, I was as giddy as Ralphie clutching his Red Ryder on Christmas morning when I read about this.

Classic Bartlet (er, Sorkin):

GET ANGRIER! Call them liars, because that’s what they are. Sarah Palin didn’t say “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said “Thanks.” You were raised by a single mother on food stamps where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I’d ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you’re at it, I want the word “patriot” back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn’t know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can’t do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie the truth isn’t their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they’ve earned it. McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It’s not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It’s not bad enough she’s forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It’s not enough that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist’s baby too? I don’t know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she’s got the qualifications of one. And you’re worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!

Ok, “what’s next”?

(Fellow Wing-nuts will catch the post title’s reference)

The Obama campaign should be running high-road advertisements, whether they be pushing Senator Obama’s plans or critiquing Senator McCain’s.   Like the McCain campaign, however, the Obama campaign has released ads that stretch the truth and distort quotes and past votes in Congress.

Ad one attempts to tie Senator McCain with Rush Limbaugh and out-of-context quotes Limbaugh in a manner that seemingly attempts to pit Hispanics against Senator McCain.   From Jake Tapper at ABC:

First of all, tying Sen. McCain – especially on the issue of immigration reform – to Limbaugh is unfair.

Limbaugh opposed McCain on that issue. Vociferously. And in a larger sense, it’s unfair to link McCain to Limbaugh on a host of issues since Limbaugh, as any even occasional listener of his knows, doesn’t particularly care for McCain.

Second, the quotes of Limbaugh’s are out of context. […]

The greater implication the ad makes, however, is that McCain is no friend to Latinos at all, beyond issues of funding the DREAM act or how NCLB money is distributed. By linking McCain to Limbaugh’s quotes, twisting Limbaugh’s quotes, and tying McCain to more extremist anti-immigration voices, the Obama campaign has crossed a line into misleading the viewers of its new TV ad. In Spanish, the word is erróneo.

In ad two,

Obama says that McCain voted three times to privatize Social Security, and that he is willing to risk the nation’s retirement program on the risky stock market. Now, it is true that McCain did support President Bush’s effort to privatize a portion of Social Security. But it is not true that McCain is running for president on a platform of turning Social Security over to Wall Street.

Ad three (from the same article)

says McCain “voted against tax incentives for alternative energy against ethanol, against fuel cells, against hybrids, against electric cars, against wind and solar, against geothermal.” Then the ad says McCain wants to give $4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies. This is all a nifty bit of misdirection. The oil company tax breaks the ad refers to are a corporate tax cut McCain favors, which would apply to almost all profitable companies, not just oil companies including those companies that work on wind, solar and biofuels.

I understand the necessity of the Obama campaign to make low-road hits after the onslaught of similar ads from the McCain campaign.   But surely there are enough critiques to be made of the McCain plan for America that don’t involve stooping to his level of dishonor.

I really don’t understand why someone in the Obama campaign thought this was a good idea.   What a disappointment, Barack.   You’re better than this.   Please remind us.

Kinda reminds you of this, eh?

Silliness aside, there are still so many known unknowns about Governor Palin, and the McCain campaign’s seemingly outright refusal to allow reporters to question her, discover what she really believes, and how she would run the country should the 25th amendment be invoked is astoundingly scary.   But don’t worry, Senator McCain is putting country first.

It’s hard to prepare because I don’t know what she thinks.

Sen. Joe Biden on how he’s getting ready to debate Governor Palin next month.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain released new ads on the economy.   Compare the message, the tone, and the framing and composition of the candidate in both ads.   Then tell me which candidate is serious and which one is just an empty suit.

Why can’t the media-types grill both sides like this all the time?

From The Guardian:

Due to a quirk of Brazilian law, candidates are allowed to run under the name of their choice. As a result, at least six Brazilian politicians have officially renamed themselves “Barack Obama” in a bid to get an edge over their rivals in October’s municipal elections.

No one wanted to be George W. Bush?

After seeing the cool word clouds of speeches from the Democratic and Republican conventions, I played around with the free online tool used to create the clouds: Wordle.   Uber-fun!

The United States Constitution (larger image):

The Declaration of Independence (larger image):

The Gettysburg Address (larger image):

My thesis paper (larger image):

The script from some 80s movie (larger image):

The Washington Post’s Tom Toles:

And this one:

In case you missed Tina Fey last night on SNL:

10000Words.net posts word clouds of the main speakers at both the Democratic and Republican conventions:

Obama:

McCain:

An uber-cool graphical representation of movie box office charts:

I think I have to tame my excitement over a new Ghostbusters movie.   Coming Soon reports an email from Harold Ramis to the Chicago Tribune:

columbia is developing a script for GB3 with my [Year One] writing partners, gene stupnitsky and lee eisenberg. judd apatow is co-producing [Year One] and has made several other films for sony, so of course the studio is hoping to tap into some of the same acting talent. aykroyd, ivan reitman and i are consulting at this point, and according to dan, bill murray is willing to be involved on some level. he did record his dialogue for the new ghostbusters video game, as did danny and i, and ernie hudson. the concept is that the old ghostbusters would appear in the film in some mentor capacity.

Hmm, Ghostbusters meets Superbad? No thanks. I’ll save my excitement for when we have more details.

As of right now, I’ve only had a few sprinkles… but it looks like that’ll change:

Well this is another first for me: a tropical storm wind warning.   From the National Weather Service:

TROPICAL STORM HANNA LOCAL STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE TAUNTON MA
1207 PM EDT SAT SEP 6 2008

…TROPICAL STORM WIND WARNING IN EFFECT UNTIL 8 AM EDT SUNDAY…

…WINDS…
SUSTAINED SOUTH WINDS OF 10 TO 15 MPH ARE EXPECTED TO RAPIDLY SHIFT EAST AND INCREASE TO 25 TO 35 MPH WITH GUSTS UP TO 50 MPH BETWEEN 7 AND 10 PM TONIGHT. THE STRONGEST WINDS WILL BE MAINLY BETWEEN 10 PM AND 3 AM. THE WIND SHOULD SHIFT TO THE NORTH AND START TO DECREASE BETWEEN 4 AND 6 AM.

…PROBABILITY OF HURRICANE/TROPICAL STORM CONDITIONS…
FOR HARTFORD CT…
THERE IS A 36 PERCENT CHANCE OF WINDS 34 KT /39 MPH/ OR GREATER… MOST LIKELY TO BEGIN BETWEEN 8 PM SAT AND 8 AM SUN.

…INLAND FLOODING…
TOTAL RAINFALL THIS WEEKEND OF 3 TO 6 INCHES…WITH LOCALLY HIGHER AMOUNTS UP TO 8 INCHES…IS EXPECTED. THIS COULD LEAD TO FLASH FLOODING OF URBAN OR LOW-LYING…POOR-DRAINAGE AREAS. MINOR RIVER FLOODING OF A FEW OF THE LARGER TRIBUTARIES IS POSSIBLE TONIGHT INTO SUNDAY.

(Nod: Patrick)

Variety reports:

Columbia Pictures is getting serious about scaring up a new installment of its blockbuster “Ghostbusters” franchise.

The studio has set “The Office” co-exec producers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky to write a script for a film designed to bring back together the original cast of Harold Ramis, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson.

I couldn’t believe this when I read it. One of my favorite movies growing up.

Just Another iPhone Blog is reporting that EA is developing NINE new iPhone/iPod Touch games:

• Yahtzee Adventures
• Mini Golf
• Lemonade Tycoon
• Mahjong
• Monopoly: Here & Now The World Edition
• SimCity
• Tiger Woods PGA Tour ’09
• Need for Speed Undercover
• Sims 3

I’ve been wanting a Yahtzee game, and I can’t believe the Sims and SimCity are coming.   My only concern is battery life!