[Washington, D.C., November 20. Image via Getty]

WASHINGTON - NOVEMBER 20: A Republican Senate aide carries a copy of the 20-pound health care reform bill into a news conference at the U.S. Capitol November 20, 2009 in Washington, DC. The Republican senators accused the Obama Administration of rationing health care after a panel of doctors announced that women should begin getting regular mammogram at age 50 instead of 40. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Twitter users were uninterested in McCain's reading choices, but were apparently very concerned about her decision to show them the tops of her breasts. A flurry of insults (now "temporarily unavailable") prompted her to tweet:

so I took a fun picture not thinking anything about what I was wearing but apparently anything other than a pantsuit I am a slut, this is

why I have been considering deleting my twitter account, what once was fun now just seems like a vessel for harassment

Later, she was more contrite:

I do want to apologize to anyone that was offended by my twitpic, I have clearly made a huge mistake and am sorry 2 those that are offended.

Did McCain really make a "huge mistake" by posting a picture of herself, fully clothed, with a book? It's tempting to say that she must've known people would be looking at her tits. However, McCain is clearly well-endowed in this department, and a tank top that might look like demure sleepwear on a smaller-chested woman looks revealing on her. Yes, she's been on camera a lot, but she's also 24 years old, and she's probably not used to being photographed without someone around to style her. She might have been legitimately unaware that her photo looked kind of cheesecakey.

Then there's the issue of who the fuck cares. LA Times blogger Johanna Neuman writes that, "if she's hurt by the reaction, you can only imagine how her parents feel." And Twitter user uselessgoo echoes, "I bet papa McCain is REAL happy." But John McCain is probably aware that his daughter has breasts. And given that she is in fact wearing a shirt over them, I doubt he's really all that scandalized. All Meghan McCain has really done is turn the image of the buttoned-up, hyper-conservative Republican woman on its head, which she's been doing for a while anyway. Twitter user ReikoEoh writes,

It makes me laugh bc she's so "Unrepublican-like" and upfront about everything; not the usual GOP hypocrite. So rad!

Showing off your boobs may not determine whether or not you're a hypocrite, but it does make Megan McCain look "Unrepublican-like," and thus it may be kind of a smart move. As we mentioned earlier, McCain is getting a lot of press as a young, cool, socially liberal Republican, and this picture — on Twitter, no less — can only strengthen that perception. It might also help drive traffic to her latest venture, a column at The Daily Beast, where she recently wrote about Jessica Simpson, another public figure whose breasts have gotten a lot of attention. Blogger Adam Ostrow writes,

That seems unlikely, as the buzz created is no doubt helping her stats over at The Daily Beast, and her account has become an important medium for promoting her work. Before signing off for the night, she even posted a link to her latest post. Ultimately, this just might add up to a savvy social media play, even if unintentional.

McCain probably shouldn't delete her Twitter account just yet.

Meghan McCain Twitter Photo Causes Stir [Detroit Free Press]
McCainBlogette [Twitter]
Meghan McCain Exposes Her Cup Size On Twitter — Maybe Republicans Really Are Out Of Ideas [LA Times]
Meghan McCain's Twitter Photo Creates Drama [Mashable]
Stop The Fat Jokes! [The Daily Beast]

In a Washington Post editorial today, columnist Kathleen Parker hails entrepreneurs Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina and famous daughters Meghan McCain and Liz Cheney as "a glimpse at what could become a surge of hormonal correction on the conservative side." Whitman is running for governor of California, Fiorina is challenging Barbara Boxer in the Senate, Liz Cheney just started a new website, and Meghan McCain is, well, Meghan McCain. Parker points out that these women — especially those actually campaigning — might help mitigate the dearth of powerful women in the Republican party, which currently boasts only three female governors. She writes,

This deficit in high office is both a taint on the GOP and a reflection of the broader assumption that Republicans are monolithically against women's rights. Specifically, the party's pro-life platform alienates pro-choice women, as well as moderates, who otherwise might find common cause with conservative principles.

Women such as pro-choice Whitman and "personally" pro-life Fiorina could help change that impression, while also raising other issues women care about. Fiorina caused a slight ripple in the Republican zeitgeist during McCain's campaign when she criticized insurance companies for covering Viagra and not birth control.

Parker points out that Meghan McCain is pretty liberal on social issues too, and that she, Whitman, and Fiorina might represent an emerging breed of Republican woman — one ready to roll back some of the GOP's more woman-hating policies. This would presumably be good for women who are, say, fiscally conservative, but who have felt alienated by the party's direction in the last 20 years or so. That said, Liz Cheney is pretty much a chip off the old block of grade-A evil, and Parker's predictions of a woman-led tide of greater ideological diversity slam up short when they hit one very visible woman: Rep. Michele Bachmann.

In a Times profile, Monica Davey tallies up the disturbing markers of Bachmann's popularity. She's in the calendar of "Great American Conservative Women"
(apparently she's November). She appears on cable an average of once every nine days. She's seeking reelection to the House, but some speculate she might run for governor of Minnesota. And Sean Hannity has called her "the second-most-hated Republican woman in the country, second to Governor Palin, which is a good position." Given that Bill O'Reilly also thinks she's hot, Bachmann's cred with the far right could hardly be higher.

Of course, she's also batshit insane. Davey points out that Bachmann won't complete her census forms because she thinks they're "intrusive." She thinks health-care reform means death panels and "prayer and fasting" are the way to stop it. She also thinks reform will cause schoolgirls to "be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back and go home on the school bus that night." And she apparently thinks Obama might try to get rid of the dollar. It's not just that Bachmann's views aren't woman-friendly — they're not friendly to anyone with a brain.

Parker's hopes for a "hormonal correction" to the Republican Party are all fine and dandy, but being a woman doesn't necessarily mean that you're in favor of women's reproductive rights — or that you're sane. McCain, Whitman, and Fiorina might be early signs of an expanding and diversifying GOP, or they might be decoys, luring fiscally conservative but socially liberal women into a party that's not really going to represent them. Sarah Palin continues to consolidate her power (this time with a national organization called Stand Up for Our Nation), Liz Cheney echoes her dad's old pro-waterboarding rhetoric, and Republican women who stray too far outside the party line (like Olympia Snowe) get called "stupid girls" and, interestingly, "Jezebels" by conservative commentators. So while a newer, broader GOP is a nice idea, Meghan McCain and her ilk might just be beckoning moderate women into a tent that doesn't actually have much room for them.

Time For The GOP Women [Washington Post]
A G.O.P. Agitator Not Named Palin [NYT]
Palin To Launch 'Stand Up For Our Nation' [Politico]
Conservative Radio Launches Sexist Attacks Against Snowe, Collins [Media Matters]

The National Republican Congressional Committee laid down the gauntlet. Yesterday, Contessa Brewer called Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz to discuss the egregious remarkk, and it was evident that she was using all of her journalistic restraint not to go off. Brewer pointed out:

"Last week, when General Gates said the exact same thing, you didn't hear the Republicans standing up and saying that McChrystal should put him in his place."

Joanna Burgos, the NRCC spokesperson, didn't bother to engage with the charges of sexism, instead focusing on how Wasserman Schultz was "attacking white males," by revealing the demographic make-up of the NRCC and pointing to those same Faux News polls Karl Rove trotted out in the WSJ as proof that the GOP is winning over the public.

Brewer added, "even though our polls show the approval rating for Congressional Republicans at nine percent." For real, GOP, y'all need to stop testing her.

Wasserman Schultz pointed out that the Republicans hatred of women "goes wide and deep." (Case in point: Yesterday's vote on the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill.)

Brewer, however, had a point to drive home. She noted:

Even though Ken [Spain, spokesperson for the RNCC] had the opportunity to go back and say "You know, I poorly chose my words," he said "Nancy Pelosi is playing out of her league." [Why] is it that when men disagree with women they have to demean their intellect?

Brewer FTW!

Wasserman replied "when Republican men disagree with women." Personally, I'm with Brewer. The primaries showed us that a lot of Democrats don't really have an issue with misogyny, even if they aren't as willing to voice it as the Repubs.

Today, Pelosi struck back. saying, simply:

"It's really sad; they just don't know how inappropriate that is," she told reporters during her weekly presser on Thursday morning.

"I'm in my place. I'm the speaker of the House, the first woman speaker of the House, and I'm in my place because the House of Representatives voted me here. But that language is something I haven't even heard in decades."

Video here:

Predictably, the GOP had a response to that:

"Rather than deflecting from the real issue at hand and refocus on defeating terrorists, Nancy Pelosi would rather make party politics a higher priority than our national security. The fact of the matter is that most Americans agree with General McChrystal's strategy on Afghanistan, but Pelosi self-righteously believes she is better suited to craft our country's military policy. The last time Americans saw this type of outright contempt directed toward a four-star general is when this same San Francisco liberal attempted to undercut General David Petraeus by declaring his successful surge strategy a ‘failure.'"

Addition to the earlier list: Start firing people. NOW.

"I'm in my place. I'm the speaker of the House" [Politico]
GOP: Pelosi's Objection To Our "In Her Place" Crack Means She's Soft On Terror [The Plum Line]

Earlier:

Crazy Like A Fox: Karl Rove Declares Victory In Healthcare Conflict
Sen. Franken Fights KBR On Behalf Of Rape Vicitims
Pimp My GOP: How The Republican Party Can Become Relevant Again

To conclude, Republican party needs to add Kelli Goff's book Party Crashing: How the Hip Hop Generation Declared Political Independence to the general reading list. (Hey, strategists: Put down The Bell Curve and read something that might actually help you. And stop reinforcing the racism, it's strong enough in the party.) Guess what - young black people are dying to leave the Democrats! We are ready to go! There are lots of conservatives and moderates of all backgrounds currently with the Dems who would love to cross the aisle. After all, it gets really easy to be taken advantage of if a political party thinks your constituency is on lock. So come on people, work with us. As soon as the GOP starts seeing us as a little more than macacas, border jumpers, dangerous/stupid foreigners, and ingrates who should be thankful for the white man's salvation, we're totally over there. And guys - which I say because there is little to no female leadership - you may want to start fast. It's going to take a while before we start to believe you.

John McCain's Mission: A GOP Makeover [Politico]
The Wizard Of Beck [New York Times]
Schmidt: Palin Would Be Catastrophic [Politico]
Hip Hop Republican [Hip Hop Republican]
Where HipHop and Libertarianism Meet [Official Site]
Words. Beats. Life[Official Site]
Bad Day For USA. Good Day For GOP? [Politico]
Rush Limbaugh On David Brooks: 'JEALOUS' [Politico]
Party Crashing: How The Hip Hop Generation Declared Political Independence [Amazon]

Earlier: Top 10 Ways Male Politicians Confess To Extramarital Affairs

On the Republican side, Michael Steele has written an op-ed for Politico, in which he says, "As an African American, I know what racism is and that is not racism." I can't dispute that Michael Steele has an experience of racism that I, as a white woman, have no clue about. But I certainly can dispute his logic when he says, "It is becoming increasingly clear that some in the Democratic Party need a serious history lesson. Slavery was racist, Jim Crow laws were racist, segregation was racist – opposing a radical political agenda is not."

Without even getting into the implication that if it's not as bad as slavery and segregation, it doesn't count as racism, let me say I agree with Steele that opposing a radical political agenda is not an intrinsically racist act. The problem with his framing here is that our president does not have a radical political agenda. Our president is, in fact, a centrist who's increasingly pissing off his progressive base. The notion that he's a secret socialist, or that a health care reform proposal designed to increase market competition and regulate only the most monopolistic and downright evil business practices is somehow radically anti-capitalist, is pure bullshit. And it's pure bullshit intended to stoke the fears of those voters already predisposed to assume they cannot trust the president. That mistrust is, of course, largely a function of decades of Republican deception about Democrats in general, but the suggestion that racism is not playing a crucial role in arousing baseless suspicion of the current president is an expression either of willful ignorance or craven politicking. I'm going with number two.

And that goes for the Democrats as well. I can understand perfectly well why white Dems up to and including my beloved senator Dick Durbin are all over the news this morning saying, "Racism isn't the issue at hand, nothing to see here, move along folks." I can understand why Obama is distancing himself from Carter's assertions. Because discussing race makes white people fucking crazy. (Be assured that I include myself in that.) We don't want to examine how racism operates systematically, regardless of whether we as individuals use the N-word or have friends of color. What we want is reassurance that we are good people — and that good people by virtue of their very goodness will never, consciously or unconsciously, behave in racist ways or perpetuate racist systems. So politically, it's wise for Dems from Obama on down to offer that reassurance to the white electorate. There's a mid-term coming up and all.

But those of us who aren't running for office should still be taking this opportunity to discuss why that's the politically savvy move even for liberals, why we crave that reassurance more than an open discussion of racism, why we automatically give the benefit of the doubt to the person saying, "There's no bigotry here" instead of the one saying, "You know, I think there is." Or why we keep making arguments like, "Oh, all of this has happened/would happen to a white president, so it's not racist" without acknowledging that it's impossible to make a useful comparison when our sample size of presidents of color is 1. Why is the default assumption that white people are not behaving in racist ways — again, consciously or unconsciously — when we live in a country that has only had equal rights on paper for a generation? Not to mention a country where the latest meme about Joe Wilson's outburst is that Obama started it — by being a poor guest. (Here in the Midwest, we also prioritize being a gracious host, but maybe etiquette's different in South Carolina.)

Thankfully, Jimmy Carter is not running for reelection, which means he's not shutting his big, fat, beautiful mouth on this subject. Yesterday, he continued his commentary about race and racism, telling students at Emory University in Atlanta:

When a radical fringe element of demonstrators and others begin to attack the president of the United States as an animal or as a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler or when they wave signs in the air that said we should have buried Obama with Kennedy, those kinds of things are beyond the bounds.

I think people who are guilty of that kind of personal attack against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African American. It's a racist attitude, and my hope is and my expectation is that in the future both Democratic leaders and Republican leaders will take the initiative in condemning that kind of unprecedented attack on the president of the United States.

It's not racism, it's being an American [Politico]
In the race from race, Democrats rebut Jimmy Carter [Politico]
New GOP Meme On Joe Wilson: Obama Started It! [TPM]
Carter again cites racism as factor in Obama's treatment [CNN]

Kirchick, whose studied intolerance of the LGBT rights movement, dislike of liberal gay men and antipathy towards feminism hardly makes him a hard-hitting interviewer, lets that — and, let's face it, quite a bit — pass in his breezy interview of the woman who wants to be the voice of a Republican generation. He apparently rather likes being liked by Meghan McCain for his gayness, as opposed to his actual personality.

What Kirchick doesn't like is how mean everyone is to Meghan McCain.

Not surprisingly, McCain the younger has drawn poisonous quips from the party's moralizers-in-chief, including conservative columnist Laura Ingraham, who dismissed her as a "plus-sized model" ("Kiss my fat ass," McCain retorted on an episode of The View), and Rush Limbaugh, who suggested that she follow Arlen Specter's example and leave the GOP. More surprising has been the scorn of liberal writers such as Judith Warner of The New York Times, who called her Colbert appearance "stupid" and "foolish." Much of this has to do with McCain's slightly girlie, conversational speaking style, which lacks the spit and polish of professional pundits and occasionally strays into gauche phrases and pat formulations.

It also has to do with the fact that she does a lot of fluffy interviews, repeats talking points from her father's campaign ad nauseum and gets on Colbert to tell the world how she likes sex and the GOP should stop being so prudish about it (a position I agree with, but that hardly brands her as the voice of a new Republican generation).

But, hey! She's pro gay marriage! I'm sure that's why so many Republicans dislike her. Kirchick is, naturally, convinced that McCain's pro-gay marriage stance is the source of her power."

But it's her position on gay marriage that has garnered McCain the most attention. In a speech to the Log Cabin Republicans, she said that "old-school Republicans" were "scared shitless" of the future and retreating further and further into an ultraconservative crouch.

No, it might be the fact that she was the official blogger of her father's Presidential campaign (and a damn sight better than Michael Goldfarb, I might add), that she's quite pretty, and a young woman in a political movement that is increasing white, old and male (see also: Michael Steele). That she's opposed to the party's position on gay marriage is hardly the only reason she gets attention, or else her dad's former campaign manager Steve Schmidt would have a Daily Beast column, too.

Kirchick has also decided the conservative pundit class hates her, too, because she's so good at connecting with young people.

It turns out those old-school Republicans are not only scared shitless of the future; they're scared shitless of her. Or, as media writer Michael Wolff put it, Meghan McCain "was a mild diversion during the presidential campaign....But empowered, she's turned into someone who actually wants a seat at the table, apparently unaware of the incongruity and awkwardness of a 24-year-old girl among the guys with their pants pulled up high."

Well, how about the possibility that they don't like having a 24-year-old at the table who doesn't want to run for office, has no campaign or political experience outside of blogging for her father and little in the way of a coherent political philosophy other than "everything my dad thinks, plus gay marriage" and who seemingly is as interested in her own celebrity as policy formation and base-building exercises trying to brand herself as a Republican thought leader? I mean, plenty of people aren't exactly pleased that everyone's kowtowing to Limbaugh like he's Republican royalty either, for many of the same reasons.

Kirchick, again, slips in a gay stereotype as he asks Meghan McCain why she never said a damn thing about same sex marriage the entire time she was blogging for her father.

McCain — a fan of Lucky Cheng's drag club in New York City where she gets her Lady Bunny fix — says that during the campaign no reporter bothered to ask for her views on the matter. Had they, she would have told the truth and not worried about further upsetting conservatives already wary of her father's maverick reputation. "I never would have lied," she says.

I mean, she's obviously all gay friendly, she goes to drag shows! And despite the fact that same sex marriage and Prop 8 came up through the campaign, never once did she think to write or say anything about it, but now it's her big bugaboo? That might be why people think she's using the issue to seek attention, other than professional jealousy, sexism or homophobia.

And in a week when some Republican members of the Senate have quoted Ricky Ricardo at the first Latina Supreme Court nominee, lectured her about racism and the need to show empathy to the poor, beleaguered white man and repeatedly invoked her Wise Latina comment and yet other people have begun talking about how Regina Benjamin might not be the right body type (for a woman) for a Presidential appointment and the Young Republicans elect an unreconstructed racist to lead their organization (and all of this barely a year after Hillary Clinton ended her run for the Presidency which was marred by over sexism, especially among Republicans), this quote rings pretty hollow.

"Homophobia is the last socially accepted prejudice," McCain says, repeating it for emphasis. So it's only natural that she also views the fight for gay equality as "my generation's civil rights movement."

McCain must walk in some pretty rarified Republican circles to have missed all the racism, sexism and sizeism that some seem to find more than just socially acceptable. But I guess since there's only one prejudice Kirchick really cares about, that's what's important.

Megan McCain Will Be Heard [Out]

Related: — [Yale Daily News]
Shorter James Kirchick: I Can't Get Laid Because Of "Liberal Intolerance" [Ezra Klein]
Will Someone Tell Feminists to Get a Sense of Humor? [Commentary]
Surgeon General Post Is A Big Job For A Big Lady [MSNBC]
Young Republican Leader Finds Racism LOL-Worthy [Gawker]
Young Republican Leader Audra Shay Is Crazy, Illiterate, Racist [Gawker]
Audra Shay, Facebook Hate Monger, Elected Leader Of Young Republicans [Gawker]

Earlier: Female Nominees Continue To Face Scrutiny Over Their Size, Weight

Snowe blamed it, in part, on the increasing ideological purity tests within the Republican party.

"[We] as a party are saying we're not supporting Republican moderates. That's a terrible message to send," said Snowe, who with her Maine counterpart Susan Collins represents 50 percent of the Republican women in the Senate. "It tells everyone else in America who might have an interest in running as a Republican moderate, they're going to have to think twice. The messages coming out of the national party are critical. They've got to be embracive and inclusive of political diversity. They can't on one hand say we're going to build a majority and then say we only want people with certain characteristics, like white males from the South. That's a concern to me."

Of course, at the rate the GOP is losing Senate seats, white men from the South may be the only ones left who can win any seats.

Cary agrees with Snowe whole-heartedly.

The negative campaigns at all levels, the extremist rhetoric coming out of the right wing, the litmus-test mentality of those accusing others of being "RINOs"-Republicans in Name Only-all present a less-than-welcome message to moderate women who believe in limited but active government, a strong defense, and market-oriented solutions to the economic downturn. Right now, to most reasonable women-like my sister-the GOP isn't much of a democracy.

Cary, by the way, was a speechwriter in the first Bush Administration, so she's no Janey-come-lately to the Republican party.

Cary continues:

No woman wants to be seen as intolerant or mean. And that's how the Republican Party is coming across these days. For a lot of GOP women I know, the cringe factor is high. They don't want to hear talk radio's Top 10 List of Who Should Leave the Republican Party. They want to hear a broader message of inclusion and diversity. They're not single-issue voters, and they're not even "women's issue" voters anymore. They want to be part of the debate about the looming Obama agenda, especially when it comes to keeping their families safe in the war on terrorism, fixing the economy in ways that don't bankrupt our children, and reforming healthcare without a government takeover.

I don't know about "no woman," but the Republican party's problem with the perceptions of people who don't scream about Obama's birth certificate and immigrants takin' their jobs and Nancy Pelosi's looks and how the GOP shouldn't be like a whorehouse is beginning to rather well-documented. It certainly isn't helping the GOP with women at a time when electoral, incumbency and demographic trends are making it harder to Republican women, when they exist, to win office.

Republican Women: A Minority In A Minority [Politico]
Why Women Are Fleeing the Republican Party [US News & World Report]

Related: A Passion for Anonymity: Mary Kate Cary [University of Virginia Magazine]
Yet Again, Media Figures Respond To A Pelosi Controversy With Attacks On Her Looks [Media Matters]
Rick Perry Aide: Don't Open Up GOP Like A "Whorehouse" [Huffington Post]

Rush's response here.

• Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs thinks people have more important things to worry about than whether Wanda Sykes would prefer Rush Limbaugh dead. Unfortunately, the Republicans don't, since they've got nothing to do. [Politico]

• I mean, it's getting so bad Alan Keyes got himself arrested just to make headlines again! [Pandagon]
• And Florida governor and 100% completely heterosexual Charlie Crist is going to run for Senator. [NY Times]
• And Michael Steele is telling people Obama would nominate Perez Hilton to the Supreme Court because he's "empathetic," which is one word I've never actually associated with Perez Hilton. [Huffington Post]
• A former McCain blogger is pissing on his former colleague for working for the environment, since working to stop companies from destroying the earth has been deemed insufficiently Republican. [TalkingPointsMemo]
• Texas Congressman Pete Sessions says that Obama is deliberately putting more Americans out of work for political reasons. [Huffington Post]
• And Dick Cheney is literally just sitting around waiting for Joe Biden to call him like a teenage girl with a crush. [Time]
• Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is defending the existence of the United Nations, which would seem like a no-brainer, but this is America and she represents no-brainers, too. (Insert inappropriate Terry Schiavo joke here, if you like.) [ThinkProgress]
• And even Joe Liberman has gotten sick of Dick Cheney's bullshit, and when even Lieberman thinks you're being foolishly, destructively hawkish, it might be time to re-assess. [Politico]

McCain continued her attack on divisive Republican tactics at the Log Cabin Republicans Convention last night, noting that she feels "many Republicans want to cling to past successes. There are those who think we can win the White House and Congress back by being 'more' conservative. Worse, there are those who think we can win by changing nothing at all about what our party has become. They just want to wait for the other side to be perceived as worse than us. I think we're seeing a war brewing in the Republican Party. But it is not between us and Democrats. It is not between us and liberals. It is between the future and the past." As for Coulter, McCain calls her "overly partisan and divisive."

Meghan McCain: 'Old School' Republicans Are "Scared Shitless" [HuffingtonPost]

• Barack Obama had a meeting and a bunch of potheads showed up. Somebody told them there would be brownies. [NY Times]

• Then the Republicans held a meeting to talk about their alternative budget and a bunch of people expecting numbers showed up and there were neither numbers OR pot brownies because the Republicans ate 'em. Jason Linkins calls that "happy hour at the Chuckle Hut." [Huffington Post]
• Then Robert Gibbs went all Jon Stewart on them, harshing their mellow. [Washington Post]
• And then Michelle Bachmann introduced a bill to prevent the establishment of a world currency and everyone got really pissed that the Republican leadership had bogarted all the weed. [CBS News]
• Lacking in mind-altering substances, John McCain finally admitted everyone voted for Sarah Palin instead of him. [Washington Independent]
• His former lead staffer Steve Schmidt came out for gay marriage but not in that way, and McCain turned to the bottle and some old Vicodin he found. [Huffington Post]
• Sarah Palin sought to blunt Republican criticism of her plan to reject one-third of the federal stimulus money by not showing up to a meeting with Republican legislators. [Politico]
• New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand prefers straight nicotine to weed by, like, a lot. [NY Times]
• Papa's got a brand-new Afghanistan strategy that includes Pakistan and doesn't make your heroin any cheaper, so stick to weed. [NY Times]

The truth is that there aren't enough super-committed Democrats or Republicans in this country — particularly if you con some of the assholes who never vote to the polls — to win an election for a Presidential candidate. A larger truth is that not all of Rush Limbaugh's listeners agree with him, despite the dittoheads he puts on the air. Liberals are masochists, what can I say? The thing is, Michael Steele was right (and that may be the only time I ever say that): Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. He doesn't get ratings because he's smart, or because he gives nuanced and thoughtful policy analysis to Americans hungry for real information and analysis about the issues that affect their lives. He provides commentary — and not particularly insightful commentary at that — packaged in a way that far too many Americans can understand without having to think too hard, because we don't like to think that much about things bigger than ourselves. David Frum is right about Rush Limbaugh, too, but somewhat wrong in that he doesn't think many Americans are like Rush:

A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence

Well, with the private plane and women who will fuck him despite his cigars, multiple marriages, drug problems and general assholeness, he might be more aspirational to some Americans.

The thing is, by feeding his ego, by presenting himself as the intellectual (I actually laughed typing that) basis of the Republican Party, the guy with more of a base among the faithful than Michael Steele, Rush is doing for Rush what Rush always does for Rush: making money. By apologizing to Rush for stating the truth — that he's an entertainer who does what he does for audience, ego and money — Michael Steele marginalized himself in the process of rebuilding. Rush listeners probably wonder what a black guy is doing heading up the RNC anyway, because they have no sense of strategy, no sense of 2010 or 2012, no cares for anything other than rhetoric that makes them feel good about what they already believe and somehow think they can convince the other 280 million Americans to believe (and vote for), too.

The great thing is that the Obama Administration knows full well that Limbaugh might have 20 million listeners, but he doesn't have 20 million voters and he sure as shit doesn't appeal to the moderates and independents who help turn states like Virginia blue. And Rush may be anti-intellectual, but he knows it, too. He knows he polls for shit among liberals and centrists. So, if he cared about Republicans winning elections or taking back the White House or anything about the party he professes to be ideologically tied to, he probably wouldn't be willing to risk their comeback for his own ego and bank account — not that he couldn't stroke the former and fill the latter even if the Republicans were doing better. So Rush Limbaugh, who isn't stupid, isn't just a mad Republican: He's a closet Obamaniac. He's gay for Obama. He likes him. He wants socialized medicine, he wants the nationalization of our financial system, he wants everything that Obama wants if for no other reason than he has cynically calculated that all those things will make him a richer, more popular entertainer. May he feud with political Republicans for four more years.

Dr. Rod Martin, a psychologist who wrote The Psychology of Humor, says that conservatives are happier than liberals in general, and therefore more prone to a good chuckle. “A conservative outlook rationalizes social inequality, accepting the world as it is, and making it less of a threat to one’s well-being, whereas a liberal outlook leads to dissatisfaction with the world as it is, and a sense that things need to change before one can be really happy," Martin tells the Times.

Or maybe, as Tierney posits, social scientists are a hugely liberal group and while they think they're noncomformists who are dissatisfied with the world, they're actually just as closed-minded as conservatives! "Maybe the stereotype of the dour, rigid conservative has more to do with social scientists’ groupthink and wariness of outsiders," Tierney says.

Another explanation: the jokes that researchers told the study's participants were completely lame. I mean, has anyone been entertained by a joke about golfing since the Ford administration? Either way, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives alike can giggle at the above picture of George W. molesting a bunny.

Obama and McCain Walk Into a Bar… [NY Times]