From the blog at RiverfrontTimes.com:

Has this election caused a lot of strife in your relationship?
Lauren: Not really.
Karl: People do take a lot of pictures of us, though.

Seriously: good for them. Just like them!

Let’s say I, all 34 unwed years of me, was Bristol Palin’s older sister. I wonder how our mom (first name: Hockey) would introduce us to constituents and rallygoers. Would she moon over Bristol’s courage and convictions for surrendering to a for-show, shotgun wedding to a gutter-mouthed hunk of man-child, then mention me with a half-joking, “And here’s our choosy one.” Or worse: “And she’s single, guys!”

Signs point to yes, if (if!) the McCain-Palin ticket falls into lockstep with the Bush adminstration’s marriage propaganda programs. And if this analysis of the pro-family photo ops that ran throughout both conventions holds water. Not only would I be shunted to the kids’ table come Thanksgiving (the sort of holiday embarrassment I’ve fretted about before), but I bet Bristol — half my age! — would be promoted to the adult table by virtue of her less-than-virtuous insemination.

If marriage must be mandatory for an invite to A White House Family Christmas, at least let it defy the Republican party’s seeming “do as I say, not as I do” pedagogy and stiff-limbed public appearances. Whether you’re single, married or somewhere in between, there’s little denying that the Barack-Michelle union’s got zum zizzle, baby — evidently enough to carry them through awkward spouse-gaffes with humor and aplomb. And that many think their mere presence together on a world stage could do more in defense of marriage than any “fatherhood grant.”

Again I say: Those poor kids.

From the Times of London, via TPM:

In an election campaign notable for its surprises, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice- presidential candidate, may be about to spring a new one — the wedding of her pregnant teenage daughter to her ice-hockey-playing fiancé before the November 4 election.

Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby.

“It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”

“He was a lovely person and loved to go out with me,” says “Brazilian beauty” Maria Gracinda Teixeira de Jesus, now 77, “fondly [recalling] the affair she had with the young ‘good kissing’ midshipman” she dated in 1957. “I called him ‘John’ but he was my dear and my coconut dessert.”

*H/T Rachel Maddow show

[Lame note: Whoops! I thought I posted this days ago, when it was actually, like, news. Now it’s just a behind-the-times coco-treat for the three of you who missed it.]

Single gals! Vote early and often. 

 I don’t know about you, but I’d rather be going through a breakup than sitting in these poor kids’ seats:

Second, sitting three-quarters of the way up the bleacher was Bristol Palin and her eighteen-year-old impregnator, Levi Johnston. Once I noticed them, I kept my eye on Bristol and Levi. What I learned provoked an odd empathy for the awful pickle Wasilla High School’s hockey stick wielding homeboy now finds himself in.

Bristol and Levi sat shoulder-to-shoulder. But not once did they look at each other, speak to each other, or in any way acknowledge each other’s physical presence. Not once. For an entire hour. Instead, Bristol stared straight ahead and Levi had the glazed look of a trapped feral animal.

Then when Sarah wound up her autograph signing and the people sitting in front of him on the bleacher began climbing down, Levi stood up and, without looking at or speaking to his betrothed, turned in the opposite direction and walked away.

What I took away from that is that the People Magazine spin about how excited the happy couple is about their upcoming nuptials and Levi’s “Bristol” finger tattoo is the Karl Rovian nonsense that anyone who thinks about it for a scintilla of a second intuitively knows that it is. If McCain-Palin lose, my easy bet is that there will be no nuptials. But if they win, the hand Levi dealt himself by having had the poor luck to knock up the daughter of the Vice President of the United States (at the time who could have known?) will have to be played out.

Don’t you wish this sort of thing happened in real life?

A blatant, bling-laden, warmongering jerkwad receives quick and humiliating justice when a mysterious super-person of questionable ethics (hero? villain? you be the judge!) lays a seductive trap using ToolBoy’s own ego against him.

Oh, wait. I guess in this season of political celebrities and scandal, when the plots of comic books and Times articles can be easily quilted together like partisan MadLibs, “reality,” while very grim,  is also occasionally entertaining.

I’m talking, of course, about the case of Mr. Gabriel Schwartz. After a busy day telling LinkTV.org he supports a platform of “less taxes, more war,” which Team BG can’t defend even grammatically, the 29-year-old attorney and delegate to the Republican National Convention is now missing at least $50,000 worth of loot (possibly up to $120,000, say the cops).

You see,  just hours after Schwartz’s feisty interview, he met a young lady in a hotel bar, took her to his swanky room — and when he woke up, he just couldn’t figure out where he’d left his favorite $30,000 watch. Or the $20,000 ring. Or the $4000 earrings. Or the $1000 Prada belt.

Police!

(more…)

According to a new poll, 77 percent of people avoid discussing politics. Which is funny, ’cause around me these days, at least 77 percent of people can’t stop. But anyway: this survey, conducted by VitalSmarts and the authors of Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High, suggests that they dodge the topic not because they don’t care, but because conversations about politics with friends and family can be nasty, brutish, and not short enough. Nearly half of respondents, according to a press release, “have had bad experiences in the past when sharing their political views — and rather than risk a verbal battle, they hunker down and shut up.” And: “As soon as the discussion escalates or becomes the least bit controversial, only 28 percent feel they can control their own temper and only 23 percent believe they can handle if it the other person gets upset.”

Yeah, I know. This is not good for the political conversation, small or large. “This is a tragedy for democracy,” said Joseph Grenny, co-author of Crucial Conversations. “Our founding fathers believed spirited public discourse was the crucible of democratic decision-making. And here we have evidence that dialogue has all but ceased. The result is a public whose opinions are rarely tested and challenged.” (His latter point is taken, especially since we so often hang out with our own choirs, but “dialogue” has hardly “ceased.” Um: political blogs?)

But stay with me; I’m getting to my — apolitical — question. “People no longer feel safe discussing politics,” says Grenny. “These discussions quickly turn from casual conversation into personal attacks on people’s values and interests.” Especially now, apparently, with 66 percent of people, according to this study, “believing the current political race is more controversial than in past elections.” [Supercomputer? Are we sure that’s not 166 percent? — BG]

Okay. So never mind friends and family — what about more-than friends? Promising dates? On the one hand, it does always seem advisable to avoid potentially controversial topics (politics, man skirts) during early courtship. On the other, especially these days, it really does seem unavoidable, especially if your first date is at MooseBurger King. I mean hey, it comes up.

So BG wants to know: How are you handling that little conversational dance these days? Especially that — perhaps now more than ever? — your date’s red or blue status may be a deal-breaker for you? (Of course, depending on how or where you met, like at the Ron Paul dance marathon, you’ll already know.) How do you balance the demands of getting-to-know-you with your own personal need-to-know (if any)? (And of course, even planning to vote the same way doesn’t mean you feel the same way about what’s going on.) In other words, no matter what, plenty of room for other sparks to fly. So what, in terms of political conversation, is your dating campaign strategy these days?

I remember family reunions and Thanksgiving dinner tables that occasionally turned into the freaking Nuremberg trials when family members debated politics.

And weren’t we supposed to absorb those sorts of lessons and avoid repeating those mistakes in our own adult relationships?

Wait, or are we supposed to transcend the pettiness of politics in our quest for true love?

I’m so confused. But I now know this: I’m relieved, all partisanship aside, that I will not be present at The McCain Family Christmas.

Hmm. Eerie similarities between the Duchovny and McCain stories?