Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Archive for the ‘Politics and Poker’ Category

Book of lies

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 18, 2008

Michelle Malkin has what’s probably a pretty good fundamental post on the “banned books” thingy.  The story’s not all that fresh, but I am still seeing this issue make the rounds, and it seemed like a good idea just to make this available.

And you don’t have to be as partisan as Michelle to get the point:

We can say for certain that no book was ever banned. Nor is there any record that Palin initiated a formal process to censor any books.

June Pinell-Stephens, longtime chair of the Intellectual Freedom Committee of the Alaska Library Association, said she scoured the organization’s archives and could find no record of any formal actions to ban books in Wasilla under Palin’s tenure as mayor.

That jibes with Wasilla Library records as well. . ..

The 93 titles appear to be a generic list of frequently banned books. It was not part of the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board.

In fact, the Harry Potter series listed didn’t even begin until 1998, two years after this list is alleged to have been generated. In short, the list is a fake.

As for Kilkenny’s claim, there is no proof that Palin tried to fire the librarian because she refused to consider removing books. In fact, Palin asked for the resignation of a handful of department heads to test their loyalty, according to reports at the time. The claim that Palin had specific books she wanted removed is also unsupported. Kilkenny herself said she does not recall that any titles were named by Palin at the time.

Yes, a reporter provides a secondhand account 12 years later in which he says the librarian named books Palin wanted removed. But Stuart’s recollection seems hazy (he didn’t get the right title at first). The librarian isn’t talking. There are no public records or meeting minutes to substantiate the claim. And no one else corroborates that Palin ever listed any titles. So we find no basis to find that part of the story true.

But Palin did ask the librarian if she would consider removing books. Maybe it was posed as a rhetorical question as Palin says. But she asked. So we rule the statement Half True.

A very little half.

The email hacking story?  Now…. that’s something else.  But not for now.

Posted in Medialites, Politics and Poker | 5 Comments »

Iggy piggy

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 10, 2008

The “lipstick on a pig” thing?  Let’s get it straight, here:

Obama uttered the phrase in the midst of ridiculing the Republican nominee’s commitment to change. “John McCain says he’s about change, too,” Obama said in an appearance here, leading into a string of ways he contends McCain represents more of the same — on economic policy, taxes, education, foreign policy, campaign tactics.

“That’s not change. That’s just calling something that’s the same thing something different. You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig,” Obama went on, and the crowd erupted in cheers. “You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change. It’s still going to stink, after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”

I completely don’t get it.  I don’t see how any reasonable person can identify this comment as having been directed at a person, in the sense of describing that person as a pig.

Stop it.  Barack Obama has enough serious questions to answer.  This shouldn’t be one of them.

Posted in Politics and Poker, Stragety | 4 Comments »

Mobius and I debate what’s good for the Jews in American politics… and then some

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 9, 2008

My friend Mobius drew me into a discussion on Facebook of what an awful thing for Israel a McCain victory would be, and I posted a link to this post, where I addressed certain aspects of that issue a little while ago.  He weighed in big time in the comments, and while this is mostly inside baseball if you’re not Jewish, I am putting so much work into responding that I thought it would be worthwhile to elevate this into a post.

As to the first, it wasn’t that long ago that, when the Iraq War was widely “recognized” by smart opinion as a dumb, losing proposition, it was Israel’s fault that it happened in the first place — the “neocons” were handmaidens for the Zionists. Now winning it was dumb, because it’s bad for Israel! Not quite blame the Jews, but an interesting variation.

This is not an argument. This is playing games. I can point to plenty of sources, such as the CATO Institute, that in the run up to the war identified the invasion of Iraq as bad policy, stam, not bad policy because it was “a war for Israel.”

So what? Libertarians don’t prove (or do) anything. Ever.  This trope can, however, be found in virtually every camp that is hostile to “neocons.” As Dore Gold writes:

On the liberal side, Chris Matthews, who hosts MSNBC’s Hardball, echoed Buchanan when he spoke about “conservative people out there, some of them Jewish…who believe that if we don’t fight Iraq, Israel will be in danger.” Likewise, former Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart warned of “ideologues” who were not able to distinguish between their loyalty “to their original homelands” and loyalty “to America and its national interests. . . Another variation on the Israel theme is the assertion made by Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times columnist, that General Zinni heard from administration officials that the Iraq War would advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process because “the road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad.” According to this thesis, the Iraq War would chiefly help Israel’s drive to obtain peace on reasonable terms – still a benefit to Israel. “

How about this:

The notion that we could just waltz in and inject democracy into an extremely complicated, devout and ancient culture smacked–still smacks–of neocolonialist legerdemain. The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives–people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary–plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.

Wow, who said that? Some black-hearted neoconservative? Yeah, sure — that’s one way you could describe Joe Klein, I guess.

Now, it’s possible that Barack Obama does not share this view — but how many members of his administration, based on the hard-left crowd around him now as well as the militant black cadre that is part of his base, would disagree with these assertions?

(Mind you, the first person to fire that salvo was Pat Buchanan, who is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a Lefty, let alone a Democrat.) Furthermore, you will find few on the Left or on the Paleoconservative Right who are worried about Israel’s security prospects.

I agree, and Barack Obama is on the Left. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Faith and Works, Heart and spirit, Politics and Poker, Sisyphus | 5 Comments »

Greene with envy

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 6, 2008

The Master of Charisma

The Master of Charisma

Don’t feel too bad if you don’t know that Richard Greene has a radio show called “Clout.” It’s on Air America which means, of course, that the title is pretty ironic, even if it isn’t meant that way.  Greene is one of those lefties who cannot fathom any reasoned basis for disagreement with his political faith, and therefore writes tired, cliched and barely readable pieces such as “The Psychopathology of The Republican” to demonstrate to himself and his vast audience that the half of the country that doesn’t see things his way is mentally ill.  Yeah, mentally ill — and this coming from no less than a “9-11 Truther” and assassination conspiracy loon.  So far, nothing newsworthy here.

In fact, though, Greene, a former lawyer, is a professional “communications coach,” and his website tells you — twice in the first 65 words — that he was crowned by the Times of London “the Master of Charisma.”  (That’s gotta hurt someone!)  Indeed he does have a nice smile, and a book.  Now that I’ve suffered my first adverse jury verdict, it’s clear I should have gotten a free consultation in exchange for this ultra-valuable plug!

The Master of Charisma also has a nice publicist, the charming and straightforward Leslie Grant.  And what is interesting is that the same Greene — who is, after all, an expert at speechifying  — has circulated, via

Psychopath and Family

Greene's "Psychopath" and Family

Leslie, a pretty interesting, and arguably objective, “report card” of “psychopath” (per Greene) Sarah Palin’s speech at the convention, and it goes like this:

The Sarah Palin Speech Report Card

As Greene predicted, Gov. Sarah Palin did, indeed, “rock the house” with her address.  She instantly became a “celebrity”/”rock star” much like Sen. Obama (due to HIS speech at the 2004 convention) and has changed the game for the 2008 general election.

Greene says that the speech accomplished 4 things:

1.      Solidified and energized the Republican base

2.      Ratified John McCain’s suspect judgment in picking her

3.      Made the Republican ticket attractive to small town residents and women across the country who would not otherwise have participated in the election in any way

4.      Made a huge step forward in establishing her as ready to step into the Oval Office, if that were necessary.  There is still more work to be done on that front, however.

Quality:

Poise:  A+
Humor:  A-
Connection to the crowd:  A
Voice Tone:  C-
Toughness:  A
Gravitas:  B-
Warmth:   B+
Modulation and variation of voice to achieve effect:  A

Substance:
a)      When talking about John McCain:   C+
b)      When talking about her life and family:  A
c)      When attacking Obama and Biden:  A
d)      When discussing national and international policies:  C-

Likability:  A

Ready to be “Commander in Chief”:  C (up from a D before the speech)

Overall Grade:  A

An A — that’s good!

There are two possibilities here.  One is that Richard Greene makes believe he’s deranged, bona fide radical-left hatemonger, because from such things people can sometimes make a living.  Note that this is a guy with a syndicated radio show and a blog on something akin, at least conceptually, to a national platform — and he’s circulating a press release to conservative bloggers instead of publishing the item himself.  Acknowledging Sarah Palin’s merits could be bad for business.

The other possibility is that the political Richard Greene is for real, but the speechmaking and consulting hustler within him cries out, Truther-like, that Sarah Palin is …. that good.

Cross-posted on Right Wing News.

Posted in Medialites, Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

Oprah: “I’ll decide, you shut up and watch”

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 6, 2008

The great question of the week has been, will Sarah Palin be able to crack the Democratic Party’s grip on women voters?  Well, what better laboratory to test that question than Oprahworld?  “Content of his character” notwithstanding, Oprah, having already thrown Hillary Clinton overboard and pledged her troth to Obama, made it clear that skin trumps sex in identity politics — she won’t consider having Palin on her show (or would she?)

If I were Sarah Palin I would consider this a gift, frankly.  She may get all the benefit of this backlash without having to sink to an Oprah appearance!  Instapundit rounds up the growing backlash.

Posted in Americana, Medialites, Politics and Poker | 3 Comments »

Palin comparison

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 5, 2008

Kaus to fellow “conspirators”:

Forget Palin. Stop writing about her. If we make the election about Palin, we will lose. She’ll probably win her debate and will almost certainly handle the interviews well enough (to the satisfaction of the voters, at least, if not the experts). The election’s not about Palin. It’s about McCain. We can beat McCain.

Maybe, maybe not.  But his advice sounds right.  The more they flail on about Governor Palin, the worser it gets for ’em.

Posted in Medialites, Politics and Poker | 5 Comments »

“No longer strictly operative”

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 3, 2008

My friend Aziz Poonawala posted the following at Dean’s World:

I found this to be a very interesting essay, which argues that Obama sees Iraq through a lens of sectarian conflict which is no longer strictly operative.

I couldn’t help myself.  Here was my comment:

You have to consider the proposition that it was never really operative, but rather that it was a meme that sounded like an incisive, profound insight but really put a thoughtful looking face on just plain opportunistic opposition to the war.

Well, I can’t make you consider it, Aziz, so you don’t really “have to.”  But “Obama sees Iraq through a lens of sectarian conflict which is no longer strictly operative” sounds like a very euphemistic way of saying, “Turns out Obama was dead wrong, but on the bright side it’s possible that he never really believed what he was saying in the first place.”

UPDATE:  Dream on!

Posted in Politics and Poker, Stragety | 2 Comments »

Chopping down the mast

Posted by Jack on September 1, 2008

Well McCain just chose Palin and as a father of two little girls, and as a husband of a black woman, I can tell ya straight out that this is really whipping up the women folk around me. I suspect it will whip up the women folk just about everywhere. As in real excited.

At lunch the girls and I watched her give her coming out speech and her performance was excellent. I still don’t know a whole lot about her, but what I have learned about her and her family is pretty impressive, given her age. She seems to share a lot of values in common with me personally, and she seems like a stand-up gal. She’s as good looking as the summer day is long too. She ain’t hard on the eyes, that’s for durn sure. And that’s my kinda gal too.

From her credentials I could accept her as President, she seems tough enough, strong enough, classy enough, and capable enough.

You know though this has been the single most interesting Presidential race I’ve seen since Reagan pounded Carter. (And I’ve been participating in politics for awhile, and this race is just fascinating to me.) In the past I’ve never really been a McCain man and truth be told I’ve always been kinda suspicious of him. I just didn’t really trust him, and part of me still doesn’t.

But I have to admit that the man has run the single best, and I mean single best Presidential Campaign I’ve ever seen. He and his strategists are just simply politically brilliant. They’ve hamstrung the Democrats at every step even during the period when the Dems should have been at the top of the mast. But McCain keeps chopping the mast down before the Dems ever get close to the crow’s nest. From a political point of view it is almost phenomenal the tactics employed. This campaign should be studied for years to come as a sort of lesson learned in the Judo politics: Take a strength and make the other guy use it against himself. If McCain and his team could govern the same way he campaigns, well hell, he’d be a modern marvel. I sure do like fellas who can turn not only the other guy’s weaknesses against him, but can exploit the seeming strengths of the other guy and make him eat those too. That’s exactly what we’ll need against the Ruskies and Al Qaeda. (Maybe the Chinese too. We’ll see.) But you don’t just hit a man where he ain’t, you hit a man where he is, and if you hit smart enough and long enough and hard enough then all his seemingly impressive armor is just a liability that weighs him down and won’t let him escape in time. If McCain is that kinda clever, and given this campaign and his early start on the Surge sorta proves that he might be, then I can’t say it would break my heart none, especially given the nature of our enemies.

Something about McCain still sorta eludes me, and I’m still sorta wary of him, but with picks like this and campaign tactics like he is employing, I’ve gotta admit out loud now, that I’m beginning to really admire the man, maybe even grow some affection for him.

Now we’ll see what Palin is like too. From what I’ve seen so far though, she sure seems to be the right man for the job. And I believe a lot of Repubs and Independents could ride into office on the coat-tails of McCain and Palin. An awful lot. As a matter of fact McCain and Palin could end up reshaping the Repubs in a way that no-one else could. It’s like “only Nixon could go to China.” Except in this case I suspect that both McCain and Palin are far better men than Nixon.

Posted in Politics and Poker | 1 Comment »

Johnny, we hardly knew ye

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 1, 2008

John Hawkins, whose Right Wing News blog is, he says, one of the 15 largest conservative blogs, has been shut out of the GOP convention.  Why?

My best guess as to why I’m not being allowed to go to the RNC is a post I wrote back in March called, “Why I Will No Longer Support John McCain For President.” The piece savagely denounced McCain for his breathtakingly dishonest flip-flop over illegal immigration, was widely linked, and a source of mine inside the campaign told me they were very aware of it.

Of course, it also wouldn’t surprise me if there were some hard feelings over at the Republican National Committee because of some of the things I’ve written; so it’s possible someone over there put the kibosh on me.

There was the time I did a short interview with RNC Chairman Mike Duncan, thought his answers to 4 out of the 5 questions I asked him weren’t very good, and only ran the answer to one question. I’ve also criticized them for supporting RINOs in the primaries, for refusing to try to even the playing field for conservatives in the presidential primaries, and for generally moving backwards since Ken Mehlman left.

Well, okay, those are reasons.  John clearly is not broken up over it and, as he says, the show must go on.  Being true to his principles is certainly preferable to being coopted.

Posted in Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

Palin as in mail-in

Posted by Ron Coleman on August 29, 2008

Your vote, that is.  Plus some gelt.  It’s Sarah Palin, America’s first Vice President who asks for directions when she gets lost driving!

John McCain has made his vice presidential pick: the Republican contender will tap first-term Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska, is the first female governor of the state. She has been a longtime supporter of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who will accept the Republican nomination for president in Minneapolis/St. Paul.

The 44-year-old Palin brings working class roots and appeal to female voters, becoming only the second female vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket and a first for the GOP.

Such the move.  Any time I heard someone mention Romney, I knew that person had no idea what he was talking about.  Run two wealthy white men against the Rainbow Candidate?  Sure death.  In fact, when John Hawkins ran his poll of righty bloggers’ predictions on McCain’s choice, these were the numbers (zero-vote-getters excluded) —

Out of the following VP candidates rumored to be on McCain’s short list, which one DO YOU THINK HE WILL TAKE?

Kay Bailey Hutchinson (Senator, Texas): 1 (1.5%)
Eric Cantor (Congressman, Virginia): 1 (1.5%)
Rob Portman (Former Congressman, Ohio): 1 (1.5%)
Charlie Crist (Governor, Florida): 2 (3%)
Joe Lieberman (Senator, Connecticut): 2 (3%)
Tom Ridge (Former Governor, Pennsylvania): 2 (3%)
Sarah Palin (Governor, Alaska): 4 (6%)
Tim Pawlenty (Governor, Minnesota): 14 (22%)
Mitt Romney (Former Governor, Massachusetts): 37 (58%)

— who do  you think was one of the four who predicted Palin?  Your host!  I’m good like that — the brilliant prognosticating that I only trot out when it turns out I’m right!

As John explains in another post:

[W]hy would McCain choose Palin? Well, she does have some real strengths.

* The conservative base would love her.
* She would strongly appeal to Hillary voters.
* She would help McCain go head-to-head with Obama on the “change” meme.
* She is probably the best of the women McCain could pick if the rumors about him and Kay Bailey Hutchinson not getting along are true.

What were John’s reservation?

I really don’t think someone with only 2 years of relevant experience (She was elected governor of Alaska in 2006) should be the Vice-President. I also think her selection would undercut McCain’s “not ready to lead” attacks on Obama . . .

He’s in error here, because there are no qualifications or experience required for a job whose main task is attending funerals.  And unlike Obama, she is number two on the ticket, not number one.  That’s a huge difference.  Meanwhile, all the bullet points are huge political positives.

Hurray for America!

Posted in Politics and Poker, Stragety | 14 Comments »