Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Darcy Burner Concedes | Take It From a Sex and Relatio... »

Saturday, November 8, 2008

The Morning News

posted by on November 8 at 8:35 AM

Posted by News Intern Aaron Pickus

Daily Palin: Homeward bound.

Turkey Doesn’t Want IMF Band-Aid: Resisting aid package.

Prop 8 Protest: 2,000 march in Long Beach.

Boycott Utah: Boycott idea has traction.

Westlake Center For Sale: Yup.

Daily Palin Redux: 64 percent of Republicans want Palin in 2012.

Venezuelan Gold: Venezuela to nationalize country’s largest gold mine.

RSS icon Comments


How much is it going for? I'll take it.

Also, goddamn republicans. I never want to hear that woman's voice again!

Posted by sepiolida | November 8, 2008 9:19 AM

Please let Sara run in 2012, not only will it be good for a laugh, if she becomes the candidate, Obama will be a shoe-in. We should actively, earnestly, and with a degree of subterfuge, work to make this happen.

Posted by jnonymous | November 8, 2008 9:25 AM

No no no no no. We saw what happened when we put in idiot Bush. The republican party must think we're all severely retarded if they think we'll elect her. It's insulting.

Posted by sepiolida | November 8, 2008 9:50 AM

Yes, yes, yes! Palin 2012!!!

Caribou Barbie: the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | November 8, 2008 9:56 AM

Great. If Venezuela nationalizes all of its resources we'll have another Alaska in our hemisphere.

Posted by elenchos | November 8, 2008 10:04 AM

@2: I have to disagree that shrub is a complete idiot; he's probably of average intelligence, but seems resolutely incurious about many of the topics and issues one would think a politician, let alone a president, would find intellectually engaging. Plus, he was very easy for the "king makers" behind the scenes in the GOP to direct.

Failin on the other hand, not only seems to share shrub's sense of disinterest in all but the narrowest range of subjects, but comes across as even LESS articulate (who would have thought that possible?), and furthermore, seems completely unmanageable.

Now that the suits who REALLY run the GOP have gotten a taste of what she's really like, I don't think she stands a snowball's chance of getting back to the top of the ticket. With a good two or three years to look, they'll certainly find someone better - heck, almost anyone WOULD be better - who can simultaneously appeal to the right-wing base, as well as to the fiscal conservatives, AND who will "play ball" with the beltway insiders, and behind-the-scenes movers in the party.

After all, 65% isn't even 2/3 of the party - presumably, it doesn't even include independents - and there's simply no way the GOP can win a presidential election (barring, diety forbid, some unexpected and complete meltdown in the Obama Administration) with only the support of the "base".

Posted by COMTE | November 8, 2008 10:15 AM

Sorry, meant to address that to @3...

Posted by COMTE | November 8, 2008 10:17 AM

64% of Republicans supporting a "Palin in 2012" bid tells me something about the breakdown of Republican voters. I'd guess the majority of people who voted for Bush are working-class social conservatives who are voting on the basis of one or two Christian hot-button issues like abortion or gay marriage. The remainder are Fiscal Conservatives, i.e. people who make enough money to benefit from trickle-down economics.

If the Republicans who are motivated by greed are outnumbered by those motivated by fervent imprecations from the pulpit, this points to a serious problem for the GOP going forward. Because Wall Street Journal Republicans are going to have a hard time voting for a Christian pseudo-populist like Palin with a tenuous grasp of fiscal policy, and the base won't continue to vote against their economic interests for anything less.

The Devil's Bargain at the heart of the Republican Southern Strategy seems to be unravelling.

Posted by flamingbanjo | November 8, 2008 10:19 AM

Shrub wasn't stupid, just uninterested in actually governing, and it showed. Really bad instincts, too; he didn't go into the White House intending to turn into the Torture President, but broke that way instinctively when the squeeze came.

That Telegraph article is frightening. She's a classic demagogue, and shot through with pure evil.

Posted by Fnarf | November 8, 2008 10:29 AM

I surely don't want to make this a Venezualan or International News discussion tread--its not that great of a country, but again this falls under (slightly) Old News. Plus your source is extremely more biased than the following breakdown. Dig a little deeper if you care, and realized that sometimes nationalization of a resource or industry is not always a dark cloud looming over the horizon.

Please if you are going to post a newsy item, give us a whole story otherwise its just more web flotsam.

Posted by matt davis | November 8, 2008 10:50 AM

whoops--here's the real story.

Posted by matt davis | November 8, 2008 10:53 AM

Palin does seem too good to be true.

And the sun is shining on beautiful Capitol Hill!

Posted by itsmarkmitchell | November 8, 2008 10:55 AM

Apropos of Westlake, what a stupid asswipe reprint of a press release PSBJ published! Westlake is but one of 200-plus millstones nationwide around owner General Growth Properties' neck right now. Business Week reports speculation that if they can't sell ALL these shopping malls, including those with attached offices like Westlake, they whole shebang goes tits up in a big hurry. Their debt load is $27.4 billion, totally unsupportable. One analyst is quoted as saying "GGP is at an end as a going concern. It's time for them to go away." Two class action lawsuits allege GGP violated SEC regulations by overstating their access to the capital they need to keep in business. A big uncovered margin call in August reminded some of what started unraveling WorldCom back in the day.

Any buyer for Westlake better have super-deep pockets, for they'll get no cash flow out of it for years. And if GGP can't sell it and goes bankrupt, the retailers there will have a court trustee for a landlord. Urgh.

Posted by tomasyalba | November 8, 2008 11:39 AM

Boycott Utah??? The Mormon church didn't just become a bunch of bigots on Nov 4, folks. I was already boycotting the land of magic underpants.

I say boycott California (and Florida and Arizona). Show 'em that the minimal reduction in sales tax they expected Prop 8 to generate is a drop in the bucket next to the huge drop in tourism dollars they deserve.

And to gays and lesbians and anybody who just happens to believe in equality and who lives in California (and Florida and Arizona) I say this: MOVE. Pack up your houses and your bank accounts and your businesses and your daytime talk shows and take that money to support an economy somewhere you will be treated with equality and respect.

Posted by chasman | November 8, 2008 12:01 PM


And that would be in what? Three states in the country? A boycott against Utah is futile enough, but boycotting California is laughable. It will not work. It's the biggest economy in the country and they can more than afford to lose a trifling amount of tourist dollars.

Posted by keshmeshi | November 8, 2008 12:14 PM

Venezuela as per the link isn't nationalizing anything it's holding up a "concesion" that was never finalized. So if it doesn't give up to the mining company the right to mine, relating to mineral assets owned by the state that are sort of franchised out by the discretion of the state, it's a total LIE and right wing propaganda to say it's nationalizing something.

Furthermore the link says Chavez has "nationalized or purchased a portion of" various copmanies.

Um, buying a portion of a company isn't "nationalizing" it.

Please Slog and all media do not use right wing code words that are (a) false and (b) misleading and (c) code words.

Nationalize can mean to take public ownership via payment or expropriation. Two very different things. But here the link suggests they weren't taking public ownership at all -- they already had it and are deciding not to give away the right to mine the publicly owned mineral reserves under whatever terms were under discussion.

I'd like to commend Hugo Vhavez for reviewing the proposed terms in light of the current world economy. Smart man. Looking out for the public good, it would seem.

I wish we would do the same thing with all those mineral reserveson USA public lands that are handed out basically for free under that stupid 1876 Mining Act (whatever) we've got here under which the mining companies can rape the land and take the gold and pay basically nothing.

BTW LOTS of third world companies have NATIONALIZED mineral assets like, um, Iran, Saudis, Libya, MEXICO IN THE 1930S etc. Where do you think PEMEX came from? is MEXICO a scary communist country?

I hate this red baiting. Please, liberal newspapers, do not join in the sulphoruously smelly, unfounded disparagement of Chavez. I'm sure he has done some bad things here and there but spreading the oil wealth and ensuring a good return for publicly owned mineral assets looks like good government to me.


Posted by PC | November 8, 2008 12:36 PM

Palin is Bush with lipstick. No brains and a messianic complex.

Posted by Vince | November 8, 2008 1:16 PM

Yep, my galpal keep s telling me there are good things going on in Venez. despite all the barking done here by the many (including Obama). There is now a double wide trailer in every poor neighborhood to provide basic dental and medical care, mostly staffed with doctors from the O.A.S. and some from Cuba. And nationalization is proving to be a pretty decent thing there, enriching many, instead of a few foreigners. Please do not let the unpaid intern research any more international news, same with ex-staffers too wrapped up in law school to follow stories with the scrutiny that they demand.

Posted by freedy | November 8, 2008 1:28 PM

@16 You're partly right: "trifling" boycotts don't work and if there aren't enough people willing to put their money where their mouths are then the bigits win. But those three states all rely very heavily on tourism dollars, and if there aren't enough people willing to put their money where their mouths are to make a big dent, then maybe the bigots (who did put their money where their mouths are) deserve to win.

But, hey, if going to Disneyland or wine country means that much to folks who actively or vocally opposed Prop 8 and who've been crying/whining/complaining since Nov 5, I just hope the beds at the hotel are super comfy so they'll be able to sleep at night.

Posted by chasman | November 8, 2008 2:24 PM

I'm for a California boycott/exodus in theory, but, um, we kinda really need those 55 electoral votes.

Posted by jrrrl | November 8, 2008 3:42 PM


The fact is that most people really don't care enough to go through with a boycott. Let's say gays make up 10 percent of the country, let's also say that another 10 percent of the country is outraged enough to boycott California. At most that's 20 percent of tourist dollars lost, not including gays who don't care enough to participate in a boycott and not including foreign tourists to California, which are probably considerable. Also consider the shitty economy we're in right now, where most people can't afford to travel anyway.

Everyone laughed when Ken Hutcherson tried to boycott Microsoft, partly because he couldn't get people interested, partly because it wouldn't make a dent in Microsoft's bottom line, partly because many of Microsoft's competitors are also pro-gay. (Apple contributed $100k to defeat Prop 8).

The suggestion to boycott California is equally laughable. I mean, for fuck's sake, California still has civil unions and antidiscrimination protections in housing and employment. It's doing better than most of the country. Why boycott California? Why not boycott Alabama, Virginia, or any of the other states that are rabidly antigay?

And those three states I mentioned would be among the few that have better protections than California: Massachusetts and Connecticut, which offer marriage equality, and New York, which acknowledges same sex marriages from other states. #15 stupidly suggests that gays in California leave. To where? One of three states? Absolute nonsense.

Posted by keshmeshi | November 8, 2008 4:08 PM

Also, if anyone is actually serious about a boycott, try this, a list of people, organizations, and companies that contributed to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. How about boycotting A-1 Self-Storage, Cal Fruit International, and Hoehn Motors? Those companies and their owners are far more responsible for Prop 8 passing than the 48 percent of California voters (many of them gay!) who voted against Prop 8.

Posted by keshmeshi | November 8, 2008 4:16 PM

the only thing wrong with the people who worked for McCain is that they are so jealous of Sara Palin that they can not sleep at night, Sara is smart, good looking, and sexy, and the old broads on the McCain help can't stand this, so they have to keep ragging her, i wish they would find somebody else to bug. If i was Sara i would sue the SOBs. Soon they will be able to rant about Obama, you people voted him in now take what you get. Lots of luck

Posted by Rose Platt | November 8, 2008 7:10 PM

Good looking AND sexy. Well, at least "smart" was first on the list, even if the other two were superficial bullshit reasons.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | November 8, 2008 11:28 PM

Add Your Comments

Please click Post only once.