Whoopi preparing for the worst

By Jennifer J. Foster

Speaking of embarrassing one’s self, how about Whoopi Goldberg’s comments to John McCain last week on “The View?“

That program, as you know, ranks just above misplaced apostrophes as the bane of my existence. The constant unabashed political pseudo-punditry, the misinformation, the misrepresentation and the outright lobbying—yes, lobbying—that goes on day after day after day is an affront to anyone who cares about the development of an informed electorate within this country.

Joy Behar alone qualifies for some of the EPA’s air pollution penalties.

Exhibit No. 359,425 in my argument that “The View” is bad for America is Goldberg’s question to the GOP nominee last week.

During a discussion about McCain’s views on judges and “judicial activism,“ McCain said he wants judges who will interpret the Constitution, not “legislate from the bench.“ He added that he believes that if the Supreme Court ever did overturn Roe v. Wade, states would still have the authority to implement their own laws on abortion.

It was at that point that Goldberg made what is unequivocally one of the most outrageous statements in modern political history. (Watch here.)

“Should I be worried about being a slave, being returned to slavery?“ she said. “Because there were some things in the Constitution that needed to change.“

If it wasn’t so ridiculously outrageous, it might be a little funny.

Yes, Whoopi. John McCain, the man who spent five and a half years as a tortured prisoner of war, wants you to be a slave. Now, you wait here in the Green Room while we go get the men in the white jackets.

The only thing more unbelievable than Goldberg’s misinterpretation of McCain’s statement was that she actually prefaced it by saying, “I don’t want to misinterpret what you’re saying.“

I’m sure she was sincere. I’m sure she didn’t mean to distort his words that way.

Riiiiiiiight.

And as if Goldberg’s statement wasn’t disturbing enough, there were actually some audience members who applauded her saying it. McCain felt pressured into saying that he understood her point and appreciated what she said.

Good grief.

It is ironic, though, that Goldberg chose slavery as the issue with which to match challenge McCain on abortion and judicial philosophy. She might be surprised to find that there are plenty of pro-life advocates who actually agree with her, who believe that there is a correlation between the two (see here, here and here).

Or, for one-stop shopping, Whoopi could just ask Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.‘s daughter, Alveda King, what she thinks.

If you can’t say something nice ...

By Jennifer J. Foster

RCP’s Blake Dvorak provides us with “Palin Derangement Watch,“ a quick rundown of some the latest insults being hurled at the GOP vice presidential candidate.

Winners (or is that losers?) include writers for the Boston Globe, Newsweek and Salon.

Remember what your mama said: If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.

Of course, that doesn’t work in a political campaign. But Mama might appreciate it if we made the following modifications for political purposes:

“If you can’t say something nice, then don’t say anything about anyone under 18.“

Or:

“If you can’t say something nice, keep your comments above the belt.“

Or, failing all else, she’d give us the political equivalent to “Wear clean underwear:“

“If you can’t say something nice, at least don’t embarrass yourself to make your point.“

Ah, Mama. Even punditry lives by her rules.

Boeing vs. Airbus—through the eyes of the candidates

By Jennifer J. Foster

Let’s talk about the Pentagon’s $40 billion Air Force tanker project.

The project, you recall, was awarded to Northrop Grumman, which pitched a partnership with Airbus parent EADS for the deal. As the Times’ Dominic Gates reported in March, large sections of the Northrop/EADS tanker were to have been built in Europe, then shipped across the Atlantic for assembly at a new widebody-jet plant to be built in Mobile.

The Mobile plant was to have been a $600 million project in itself, and it would have created about 1,500 jobs.

But Boeing protested the Pentagon’s decision, challenging the factors military officials considered and the process they used. The General Accounting Office agreed with Boeing that the process was deficient (report here); under political pressure, Pentagon officials threw out their Northrup Grumman decision and announced that it would use an expedited framework to rebid the entire project.

Then Wednesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates reversed course again and announced that the Pentagon would not rebid the contract until 2009—a decision that will delay the tanker’s delivery several more years. (For a timeline of major events in the tanker project saga, click here.) In explaining the move, Gates admitted that “mistakes and missteps” by the Department of Defense preclude military officials from being able to “complete a competition that would be viewed as fair and objective in this highly charged environment.‘’

Washington state’s politicians and Barack Obama cheered; Alabama’s politicians Alabama’s politicians—Mobile-based U.S. Rep. Jo Bonner, in particular—jeered.

That’s all background.

Now that the competition will begin again under the auspices of a new Department of Defense, Dominic Gates, the Times’ aerospace reporter, takes a closer look at John McCain’s and Barack Obama’s different economic philosophies and how they will affect decisions “on the ground,“ as military commanders like to say.

In a nutshell:

Democrat Barack Obama’s political supporters in Congress and in labor unions, and the broad Democratic Party agenda, tend to favor the Boeing airplane, built by union workers in Washington state.

The Republican Party’s free-market agenda would tend to be neutral on the choice of companies, but Republican John McCain has clashed with Boeing in the past over the tanker. And McCain’s Southern political supporters favor the Airbus jet, with parts sent from Europe for assembly in Mobile, Ala.

Read the rest here.

Speaker Boehner?

By Jennifer J. Foster

Could it be possible?

Could beleaguered congressional Republicans really wrest control of the U.S. House away from Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats?

Could a President Obama have to contend with a Speaker Boehner?

RealClearPolitics’ Blake Dvorak comments on “an astonishing new poll” from Gallup that shows the GOP with a five-point advantage over Democrats on a generic ballot.

“If these numbers are sustained through Election Day—a big if—Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives,“ Gallup’s Lydia Saad opines

WHAT????

John McCain’s gains on Barack Obama, improved favorability ratings for the GOP, Republican gains in party identification, “the positive impact of the GOP convention” and increased enthusiasm among Republicans post-convention are all factors driving the increasingly encouraging picture for congressional Republicans, Saad wrote.

See the poll itself and supporting information here.

Americans tend to appreciate a balance of political power between the executive and legislative branches, so it’s not unusual for Americans to elect a Congress that’s of the opposite party of their president. In fact, that split has been more common than not.

But is this poll indicative of problems for John McCain or Barack Obama? Or is it just reflective of the 73 percent disapproval rating afflicting Congress?

(By the way, for all the talk about President Bush’s record disapproval ratings, his current numbers are actually two points better than those of Congress.)

It’s worth mentioning that Congress has had a higher disapproval rating only once—in 1992—over the past 20 years.

And you remember what happened in 1994.

By the way, guess who was a part of that event?

Some guy from Ohio named Boehner.

Anyway, Dvorak points out that the Gallup poll is the only one in the RCP Average that shows Republicans ahead of Democrats on the generic ballot, so “the GOP isn’t about to bust out the champagne just yet.“ And Saad writes that “the sustainability of all of these findings is an open question that polling will answer over the next few weeks.“

But the GOP’s generic ballot strength has gone from a low of 15 points down in February to just outside the margin of error. People are starting to talk about it.

The generic ballot means nothing on its own. But the trends behind it indicate that big things—big, unexpected things—may be happening right under the pundits’ noses.

And according to conservative pundit Rich Galen’s guidelines, it’s time for congressional Republicans to get to work on a fundraising letter.