True or Better

Clear choices in the New Hampshire GOP primary

2012-01-10T08:05:00.000-05:00

Okay, Republicans in New Hampshire. Today's your primary for the 2012 presidential election, and here are your choices:

1. Bad ideas that only work for the wealthy (Romney).
2. Bad ideas that don't work for anyone (Santorum).
3. Crazy ideas that don't make any sense (Paul).
4. Spite (Gingrich).
5. False moderate who makes you feel like you're rising above your party's partisanship (Huntsman).
6. Choice likely to be made by crazy drunk people (Perry).

Good luck!

Health care and religion: what dogs Romney the most?

2012-01-07T10:58:00.000-05:00

Much hay has been made over Governor Romney and how his history with supporting health care and his affiliation with a non-evangelical Christian faith will trouble him in his bid for the Republican nomination this year. With the Republican field shaking out the way it has been, just how much of a problem will these traits that Republicans find so offensive be?

As to health care, Romney has been doing all he can to distance himself from his celebrated Romneycare, which we enjoy here in Massachusetts. He's trying to suggest that health care can only work if it's treated as a states' rights issue, and not as a national plan. This is not logical, but "states' rights" rings the right bells with Republican partisans, so that might work. Once Romney has the nomination locked up, Republicans will stop trying to hang health care around his neck. That's when Barack Obama will start expressing public gratitude to Romney for the great health care plan he inspired.

Romney's religion is probably going to matter, but exactly how, who knows? In the North and much of the Midwest, voters largely don't care; and in the West, his Mormon roots would probably serve as a net positive. Evangelical voters in the South and the southern Midwest, however, do have a problem with it. However, that problem might be neutralized by the fact that Romney's two main rivals, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, are Catholics--another group that evangelical Christians aren't too high on. (Many evangelicals don't even consider Catholics to be actual Christians, which is the same take they have on Mormons.) Rick Perry is the only Protestant conservative with a notable following, but his numbers aren't notable to wind up putting him in office.

In the end, the religion problem is bigger in the primaries than it will be in the general. The Romney campaign (well, its surrogates, anyway,) is more likely to go extremely negative, aiming to depress Obama support everywhere. If it can depress enough Obama support in the South, then the dampened enthusiasm on the part of evangelical conservatives won't matter. A guy like Mitt Romney doesn't excite anyone, which is why, overall, negativity is they way his campaign is going to have to operate. He has no other way to overcome the diffidence that even Republicans feel about him. It's going to get ugly.

Should Ron Paul have to disavow this ad?

2012-01-06T11:55:00.000-05:00

Here's a video made by some group that seems to support Ron Paul:

I guess this is the issue. A group that supports Ron Paul's presidential bid made this incredibly offensive commercial attacking Jon Huntsman, basing its attacks on Huntsman's ability to speak fluent Mandarin, and his long-running relationship with China, which is one of the reasons President Obama appointed Huntsman ambassador to China. However, since the Paul campaign didn't make the ad, does the Ron Paul campaign have a responsibility to comment on it in one way or another?

It's a legitimate question. Until recently, our election laws banned such attack ads, not allowing shadowy groups with God-knows-how-much money to make them. More importantly, it used to be that if a presidential candidate had an affiliation with one of these groups, he or she had to say so. In the wake of the Citizens United decision, in which the Roberts Court decided that money is speech, that's no longer the case. The group who made this ad could very well be affiliated with the Paul campaign—or with the campaign of any other candidate, including Barack Obama. Or maybe I made that ad. There's no way to know, and no one has to come forward about it.

The ad was made by someone saying they're in favor of Ron Paul. Even that might be kind of dubious. That ad makes me hate Ron Paul even more, which makes me wonder if it couldn't have been done by someone trying to embarrass Paul. I know that a lot of xenophobes are drawn to Ron Paul, but this seems to be a bit beyond the pale, even for them. Maybe I just think too highly of people in general, so I wind up giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I think Ron Paul should say something and move right past this. It's not a great solution, but I can't think of anything better. The bigger issue is that we're likely to see more ads like this in 2012 and beyond, which will make this election one of the ugliest ever. Unlimited funds to make anonymous attacks on candidates—how in the hell could even the partisan, activist judges aligned with Justice Roberts fail to see the danger here?

Fasten your seatbelts. We're in for one nasty ride.

2012 Republican cattle call

2011-06-09T23:59:00.000-04:00

So: who are the Republicans going to run for president against Barack Obama in 2012? Do they have a candidate? Oh, they’ve got plenty of candidates, former candidates, and potential candidates. I’ve got a list of 23 here, including potentials and also-rans. It paints a particularly dismal picture for the Republicans, one not seen since the Democrats’ 1972 field, or the Republicans’ in 1964. Still, since you’re going to be hearing most of these names tossed around until at least next March, and some possibly after that, you might want to know more about them. So I’ll do what I can to shed some light on these losers… er, I mean, candidates.

The 2012 Republican field, including dropouts and those who haven’t declared yet, is, in alphabetical order:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN) – She’s a darling of the social conservatives, and has been for a long time. She’s a stronger candidate than I gave her credit for earlier, but I remain doubtful that she could win in the general election. She could win the nomination, though, which will make for an interesting dilemma for the Republicans. She’s expected to announce her candidacy soon. She’s scored Reagan and Huckabee campaign veteran Ed Rollins, who apparently sees something in her. This is significant.

Gov. Haley Barbour (MS) – Here’s an example of how all politicians wind up believing their own hubris, to some extent. Barbour is probably one of the best-connected Republicans alive today. Yes, he’s the governor of Mississippi, but he’s also the former head of the Republican National Committee and a longtime lobbyist in Washington. While lobbying for more money is an essential skill in running for president these days, Barbour isn’t served with the “lobbyist” title. He already dropped out of the presidential race last month, though he was a favorite among Republican insiders, for what that’s worth.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush (FL) – Speaking of Republican insiders, what’s all this talk about Jeb Bush maybe getting into the race? He won’t, but it says a lot about the dire straits the Republicans are in when they start talking about pinning their hopes on a Republican governor named Bush. I don’t know what this guy’s going to do with the rest of his life, but he sure isn’t going to spend the next year and a half of it running for president. Maybe in 2016, but I doubt even that. America still has Bush fatigue; even Republicans have to acknowledge that. Even Republicans named Bush.

Herman Cain (MI) – The former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza and opinion columnist is running for president, and has something of a following already. Granted, he’s already demonstrated that he’s not terribly interested in or informed about foreign affairs, and can’t tell the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. In other words: he’s got a pretty good following among Republicans. Can he win? Hard to say. Not to be too blunt, but I don’t see a black man getting the Republican nod for president.

Gov. Chris Christie (NJ) – Here’s another guy who’s not running. Many Republicans are pushing him to, and I’m sure he’s relishing the attention, but I’m also sure he’s just using that attention to shore up his candidacy in what will probably be a tough reëlection campaign in 2013. He’s brash and obnoxious and, well, fat, so he won’t play well on the national stage (say whatever you will, but this country hasn’t elected a fat president since William Howard Taft in 1908. Don’t expect the TV age to allow it to happen again.) Christie is not actually going to run. He’s also a Catholic, which Republican evangelical voters don’t like. It plays well in New Jersey, but how do you think a Catholic would do in the South Carolina primary? Think about it.

Gov. Mitch Daniels (IN) – Daniels is probably one of the most level-headed, moderate Republicans out there. Which is why it’s no surprise he pulled his name from consideration. It also wouldn’t help his potential campaign to have to explain that his wife left him for another man, married that man, then came back to him and married him again. I have no problem with this, but I think many socially conservative voters would have a problem voting for a man whom they see as a cuckold.

Sen. Jim DeMint (SC) – With Barbour out of the race, there’s room for a Southerner, since, unless you count the longshot candidacy of Newt Gingrich, which is melting down as I write this, there are no Southerners in the race. That said, I think DeMint will decide against a run in the end, and that Rick Perry will wind up filling that slot.

Former Sen. John Ensign (NV) – I only mention Ensign because he had long been considered a top contender for the opportunity to run against Barack Obama in 2012. His sex scandal, in which he coerced a friend’s wife into a sexual relationship with him and paid her hush money, effectively killed Ensign’s political future on the national and on the Nevada stage.

Former Rep. Newt Gingrich (GA) – No one really thought of Newt Gingrich as a likely winner of the Republican nomination, and that was before he started getting plagued with character issues (like blowing wads of cash at high-end luxury broker Tiffany’s) and referring to Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to dismantle Medicare as “right-wing social engineering.” Speaking truth about right-wing social engineering upset a lot of right wingers, and Gingrich has been on the defensive so much that… so much that he and his wife took two weeks off to take a cruise around the Greek islands. And now, just this afternoon, Gingrich’s main campaign staff, his Iowa staff, and his South Carolina staff all walked out on him. Gingrich is promising to “reinvent the campaign” in Los Angeles on Monday. Um… we’ll see. Why the guy just doesn’t drop out already is hard to wrap my head around.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (NY) – Giuliani has long wanted to be president, but many (including me) thought that after his abortive 2008 campaign, he was done forever with presidential politics. Apparently he’s rethinking that. It’s still not clear what his campaign would be about, though.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR) – Huckabee was never running for president in the first place. He’s got a contract with FoxNews, and he renewed it back in March of this year. That means he’s out, and will continue doing his TV show. I wouldn’t rule out a Huckabee run in 2016 or later, but not this year. Pay no attention to the occasional chatter that he might get back in. There’s nothing to it.

Former Gov. Jon Huntsman (UT) – Huntsman is trying to run a very civil campaign, not bashing the president he hopes to replace. This is strange. Also, John Kerry tried the same tactic in 2004 and didn’t win. He almost won, but he didn’t. Huntsman is in a difficult spot, since he served as President Obama’s ambassador to China—how can he go on the offensive against his former boss? Honestly, I think Huntsman isn’t running for president, but is just trying to raise his own profile. Watch for him to run again in 2016. The question remains: will evangelical Republicans allow a Mormon to be nominated? Time will tell. My guess is: probably not.

Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA) – This young, Indian-American governor is not running this year, though his name keeps getting mentioned for some reason. I’m sure he’ll run some time in the future, but not now. He’s got time to wait. He also has a reëlection campaign to wage in November 2011. Watch for him again in 2016.

Former Gov. Gary Johnson (NM) – Johnson is popular among New Mexico Republicans, but that’s about it. He’s running on a very libertarian platform, opposing taxes and free trade. But he’s also openly supporting marijuana legalization—not the kind of position that gets you elected, exactly.

Political consultant Fred Karger (CA) – Karger has worked for Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. He’s never run for office in his entire life, though. He was also the first to declare as the Republican candidate for president. Oh, and he’s openly gay. Which will keep Republican voters away from him in droves. Still, it’s kind of nice that he’s trying, isn’t it?

Former Half-Governor Sarah Palin (AK) – She’s not running. She just isn’t. She’s out there on her magic bus, touring all the primary states, but she’s not running, so don’t be fooled. Her goal is celebrity, to get her name out there, to build up her own political clout. She wants to be the white Oprah for stupid people. And, to that effect, she’s drawing off a lot of media attention—but she’s just not running. Ignore her if you can, though. The Republican candidate of your choice will probably appreciate it.

Rep. Ron Paul (TX) – He’s running again. There’s something uncanny about Ron Paul: he’s not a serious candidate, but he’s got a serious movement. His entire goal is to pull the Republican Party toward some 1920s-style politics that have long since been written off by most American voters. There’s no denying Paul’s supporters’ enthusiasm—but their enthusiasm runs deep, not narrow.

Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN) – Some fuss has been made about Pawlenty, a two-term governor from what some refer to as a “blue state.” Indeed, Minnesota hasn’t gone for a Republican presidential candidate since Richard Nixon, but is Pawlenty the remedy? Eh… maybe. On one hand, he’s apparently scandal-free. On the other hand, he’s as exciting as lutefisk. Still, he could make it all the way to the nomination, maybe—depending on the dynamics of the other candidates. Pawlenty will probably try to position himself as the anti-Romney. If that works out, he could be the nominee. Pawlenty’s problem is that he’s such a blank slate that he might appear to be many things to voters that he actually isn’t.

Gov. Rick Perry (TX) – Following Newt Gingrich’s implosion today, several of the refugee staffers met with their old boss: Rick Perry. Perry had been dropping hints about running for president for well over a month now, and with so much quality staff suddenly available, and with no Southern candidate currently in the race, he just might do it. The questions the Republicans might want to ask themselves is: does America really want another conservative governor of Texas as its president? Maybe that doesn’t follow, logically, but it’s going to be problematic when the media and the voters start making that tenuous connection to George W. Bush.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney (MA, UT, MI) – Mitt Romney was only governor of Massachusetts, but he seems to hold an active claim on residence in Utah and Michigan, as well—Utah where he worked on the 1998 Winter Olympics and almost ran for governor, and Michigan, where he was born, and where his father actually was governor. Romney has problems. He’s a Mormon, for one, which doesn’t sit well with conservative Evangelicals, who don’t see Mormons (or even Catholics) as actual Christians, and believe that their president ought to be a Christian in their own sect’s mold. Worse for Romney is that as governor of Massachusetts, he created a health care plan that resembles the one that President Obama signed into law last year, which Republican opponents of health care don’t care for. Romney also governed as a pro-choice governor—a position which, unlike his health care plan, he’s trying to run away from. Romney’s problem is that the socially conservative candidates and voters alike are gunning to take him out. If he can get past them, he’s the Republicans’ best chance to win over independents. Of course, Romney still supports starving the government of enough revenue to render it nearly non-functional, but that’s about the only policy position he’s got that social conservatives can get behind. Right now, Romney’s trying to navigate the primaries by appearing to be above the fray, dodging the conservative-dominated Iowa straw poll, for example. I have to say this is probably his best option. It’s hard to say if it’ll work. If it does, Obama will be facing what is probably the strongest Republican challenger possible.

Rep. Paul Ryan (WI) – Ryan isn’t running, though there’s plenty of talk flitting about, suggesting that he might. Ryan’s profile has risen considerably, thanks to his anti-Medicare plan, which would replace payments with vouchers to cover some of your medical expenses. It’s a wildly unpopular plan, which Republicans who aren’t on Medicare love, so the 2016 buzz for Ryan makes no sense right now—though maybe a little more sense than the loony 2012 Ryan buzz.

Former Rep. Rick Santorum (PA) – Santorum doesn’t stand a ghost of a chance, and he’s making things worse for his nascent campaign by sticking to socially conservative positions like how homosexuality is unnatural, homosexuals are bad people, abortion is evil, etc. It’s hard to imagine a less relevant presidential campaign at a time when jobs and the economy are on everyone’s minds. Considering the tone of his campaign, Santorum is probably running just to raise his own profile and perhaps become a significant media personality. Because as far as politics are concerned, he’s over and done and has been since he got crushed for reëlection in 2006.

TV impresario Donald Trump (NY) – Trump folded his campaign not long ago. Now he’s dropping hints that he might get back in. Here’s a simple thing to remember whenever you find yourself wondering if Donald Trump is running for president: Donald Trump is not running for president. Trump is running for more publicity for his TV show. He’s not running—period. Never was, just like during the first time he faked a run for the presidency. And the second time he faked a run for the presidency. Anyone who was fooled when he faked a third run really needs to start following their country’s politics better.

Gabrielle Giffords was shot with a gun

2011-01-12T09:13:00.000-05:00

A question I frequently find myself asking these days is, “Have we lost our minds?” I always feel a little silly asking it, though. If you look at any age throughout history, you can always find someone wondering why it is that civilization is finally running off the rails and careening toward collapse, yet somehow, civilization hasn’t collapsed yet.

That’s not to say there’s nothing worth worrying about. Consider the Nazis, who weren’t an example of civilization collapsing, but sure were an example of decency evaporating in the face of a government that Kurt Vonnegut described as truly obscene. Had the Nazis succeeded, and I’m sure it was possible, we’d be living in some vile parody of the flawed world that we all know and despair about.

The shooting in Arizona last Saturday has been on my mind almost constantly since it happened. As an avid political junkie, I’ve been following Gabrielle Giffords since she was first elected in 2006. I remember feeling optimistic about what she would bring to Congress, then feeling disappointed in what she was actually doing in Congress, then feeling relieved at her positions as they evolved away from the Blue Dogs’, and leftward toward the political center. It’s not like I was ready to start campaigning for her or anything, but I was pleased to see the evolution. She seemed to honestly reflect on how she felt, revising her opinions from time to time, as needed. This is an all too rare quality in anyone, much less an elected official. So while I would be disturbed by the shooting of any member of Congress, the fact that it was someone like Giffords only made the situation worse for me.

I doubt many, if any, people reading this is happy about the shooting. People seldom are, once shootings happen. Over my years of following politics and talking politics with people, I’ve encountered plenty of inappropriate talk and pictures. I remember someone who had a picture of Bill Clinton on the door of his college dorm with a gun sight drawn over his head. I remember people telling me that we’d all be better off if someone would just shoot George W. Bush. Obviously we all feel exasperation, but it’s never acceptable to speak so cavalierly about assassination. I doubt these people I’ve known actually would shoot a politician or anyone else. Assassins are almost always crazy. Charles Guiteau shot President Garfield because he believed the man, whom he’d never met, owed him a job in the administration. Leon Czolgosz shot President McKinley because he wanted to demonstrate that American anarchists are just as serious as European anarchists. John Hinckley shot President Reagan because he wanted to impress actress Jody Foster. And Squeaky Fromme shot at President Ford because, well, she was with the Manson Family—what further explanation do you need?

And now we see the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by Jared Loughner whose motives are not clear yet. The best I’ve heard in the way of explanation is that he’d written Representative Giffords some years ago, asking her, “What is government if words have no meaning?” This question resembles the several incoherent videos he posted on YouTube, which also make as much sense. The assassin Loughner has also left us a hard-to-read trail of personal information, his YouTube site citing as his favorites books that are as disparate as “The Communist Manifesto” and “Mein Kampf” and “To Kill a Mockingbird.” He also likes “The Wizard of Oz.” What does it mean? How can we connect any of those books? It’s a fool’s errand.

That said, there are fools willing to take up that errand. Already we’ve been hearing from people who are convinced that this is somehow indicative of Loughner’s political philosophy and thus his motivation. Some are also bringing up his marijuana use, suggesting a modern version of “Reefer Madness” might explain what this is all about.

Naturally, no one wants to place Loughner on their side of the political argument. And really, I don’t think he belongs on anyone’s side. North Carolina Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, no stranger to inappropriate hyperbole, has called Loughner “The liberal of liberals,” in a desperate attempt to place the assassin in what she views as the opposing political camp. Where does she even get this? Could it be his reading list? “To Kill a Mockingbird” has a definite liberal message—but “The Communist Manifesto” and “Mein Kampf” certainly do not.

Though there has been no official diagnosis yet, most of us, myself included, are concluding that Loughner is insane. For me, the answer to, “Why did this guy shoot these people?” is “He’s insane,” and that’s as good an explanation as we’re going to get. Loughner is not my political enemy; I don’t even think of him as having political motives. So don’t worry, conservatives: I’m not going to try to give him to you. He’s no more one of yours than he is one of mine.

The harder-to-answer question that’s been coming up in the wake of the Arizona shootings is: what, if anything, has our political climate to do with this? Much has been made about Sarah Palin’s again-famous map showing “targeted” congressional districts in the 2010 elections, marked with gun sights. Since Representative Giffords is one of two members of Congress who were on that map and survived reëlection, some are pointing fingers at Sarah Palin. I pointed a finger at Sarah Palin for this very reason. “Sarah Palin has blood on her hands,” I said. I meant it, too.

After a little bit of reflection, I’m not sure that’s quite accurate. Not directly accurate, anyway. Loughner was not operating on real or imagined marching orders from Sarah Palin, as far as we know. It’s more accurate to say that Sarah Palin is more responsible for the killing of rational, level-headed political dialogue (though there’s plenty of blame to go around for that.) I’m not sure if a more civil dialogue between all of us would stop massacres like this. We’d be better off as a country if we learned to be more civil and decent for us, since I believe that the lack of decency in civic discourse is threatening our country, our government, and our society itself. The smart thing to do would be to calm down and stop shouting. But as Jon Stewart said the other day, “You can’t outsmart crazy.”

Our reaction has been to pin this on violent imagery, on metaphors of guns and killing. Words can spur people to act in dangerous way, sure, but I get the feeling we’re all doing some serious contortions in order to avoid talking about the elephant in the living room. Jared Lee Loughner shot eighteen people, and he did it with a gun. A semi-automatic handgun with thirty bullets in it, to be specific, and the gun was purchased legally. Such guns have been legal in the United States since 2004, when the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire by the Republican Congress and President Bush, who didn’t even want to bring it up for a vote. And here I’m pointing fingers again, this time at Bush and those Congressional Republicans who saw political advantage in kowtowing to the National Rifle Association by making it easier for anyone to get these dangerous guns.

Massacres like Saturday’s massacre in Arizona are done with guns. Not arrows, not knives, not swords—guns. And after more than thirty years of relentless lobbying, the NRA has succeeded in making every single one of our politicians flinch at the mere mention of controlling any kind of weapons. “Our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!” they wail, citing the Second Amendment to the Constitution. But they’re missing a significant point: our right to keep and bear arms has already been infringed. The government won’t allow private citizens to own hand grenades. Or machine guns. Or anti-aircraft guns. Or nuclear weapons. Sure, most people wouldn’t bother with these things, even if they were legal, but the fact is that they’re not, and there’s no reason for them to be.

Likewise with assault weapons. The idea that anyone would need a machine that can kill as quickly and as efficiently as Loughner was able to last Saturday is absurd. We need to return to the assault weapons ban. The mere mention of banning any kind of gun sends many Americans into a tizzy, and you start to hear all kinds of irrational justifications repeated, like, “They want to ban ALL our guns!” “We need to be armed to the teeth in case we have to overthrow a tyrannical government,” etc. To drive this home, gun fanciers will carry guns conspicuously to political rallies, offering no more justification for the menacing display than, “It’s my right to carry one, so I’m carrying one.”

Apparently not all conservatives think it’s rational to carry guns to political rallies. Republican Representative Peter King of New York plans to introduce a bill that bans the carrying of guns within 100 feet of any member of Congress. Because, he says, how can politicians do their jobs while worrying about their own physical safety? Yes, how indeed? However, Mr. King would do well to recall that there’s already a law against shooting people in the head and otherwise murdering. Odds are that people like Jared Loughner aren’t going to consider the law when getting within 100 feet of anyone, politician or not.

Guns are the problem. They’re too easy to get, and too easy to distribute. Jared Loughner did not break the law when purchasing his gun or his ammunition. Even though he’d been dismissed from college for apparent mental problems, his name didn’t show up on any database that red-flagged him as a possible threat. And even if it had, he could still purchase guns at gun shows, where such background checks aren’t even required. It should be harder to get a gun than it is, and that’s what the mess in Arizona has shown us all too clearly.

The NRA has successfully conflated gun control with outright gun bans. They’re two different concepts, but to hear the NRA and its disciples say it, there’s no difference. No one is seriously talking about banning all guns, but too few of us are talking about controlling access to guns. We need to renew the assault weapons ban. We need to perform background checks on everyone who tries to buy a gun. And we need to end the gun show loophole. Guns are machines designed for one purpose: killing. For that reason, it only makes sense that we hold them to a higher standard, and make it harder to get them. Our politicians are too willing to cave to NRA pressure and thus make guns far more available to everyone.

A less toxic political atmosphere would help with our national debate, but only improving our gun laws will improve our gun laws. As easy as it is for politicians to stand up for the NRA, do they also find it that easy to stand up for the next Jared Lee Loughner? It’s not enough to condemn violence. We're well overdue to do something about it.

Rethinking Christopher Columbus

2010-10-11T12:22:00.004-04:00

Europeans' descendants have been living in the Americas for over 500 years now. Columbus was used in the past as a sort of mythic forefather of the modern Western hemisphere, a sort of Romulus or King Arthur or George Washington or Vercingetorix. Creating such myths is an understandable impulse for new countries, but we're all getting long in the tooth on this side of the Atlantic, so we no longer need the myth of the bold, intrepid Christopher Columbus.

He needs to be deëmphasized in history teaching. He didn't really have a vision, except that he felt the world was smaller than most people did, and that if you sailed across the Ocean Sea, you wouldn't starve to death before you got to the other side. He was wrong about that, and would've starved to death before he reached the other side, along with his crew, and would've been forgotten about in the annals of history.

He was a merchant mariner; that's all. If he didn't bump into these continents, someone else would have before too long. His contact with the Americas brought Western disease, which the Americans didn't have any kind of resistance to, which wound up killing most of the people he came into contact with. If not for those diseases, Westerners wouldn't have had such an easy time conquering the civilizations here, and likely wouldn't have managed to do so.

In sum, Columbus should be taught as a minor figure, as the guy who happened to be commanding the boats that started it all. But a hero? Nah. A villain? No more or less than anyone else who showed up here around that time. Teach that we made contact, and what resulted from that contact, but really, as far as Mr. Columbus goes, that's quite enough.

Cotton-polyester blends are a sin against God.

2010-10-03T12:02:00.002-04:00

Here's an interesting point from Biblical scholar Michael Coogan. According to the Bible, those very popular cotton-polyester blends are sinful, but there are plenty of Biblical adherents who choose to ignore this point. Do you selectively cite the Bible? According to this guy, we all do. Which makes sense—there's too much to it to allow us to throw out all the inconsistencies. There are simply too many inconsistencies.

Also note the bit about where he compares following the Bible rigidly with following the U.S. Constitution rigidly. Neither are perfect documents; neither can be followed rigidly.

And what did Jesus ever say about homosexuality? Once more, with feeling: "Not a word."

What's so bad about Sharia law?

2010-08-27T12:21:00.000-04:00

There's a lot of talk about Sharia law in the media these days. It might leave you wondering what that is, and what's so bad about it. Well, it's not actually a bad thing at all. All that "Sharia law" means is "Islamic law." And that, of course, is broadly open to interpretation. It's like saying "Christian law." What is the law that all Christians must follow? Well, it depends on the Christian sect. Christians have lively debates over how their religion should operate--just like Muslims. All Muslims are not the same, just like all Christians are not the same. Every Muslim does not celebrate the crashing of planes into buildings just like every Christian does not celebrate shooting doctors dead in front of clinics.

The so-called "Ground Zero Mosque"

2010-08-22T07:37:00.003-04:00

There's been quite a lot of talk lately about an Islamic center to be built a few blocks away from where the World Trade Center stood, once upon a time. Many voices have been raised in opposition to this, suggesting that it's in poor taste that an Islamic center be built near where some people who called themselves Muslims committed the worst terrorist attack in American history. The feeling is that Muslims in the neighborhood are trouble, and any member of that religion is not welcome in what some believe should be a Muslim-free zone.

Does anyone remember how there used to be such discussions about whether it was appropriate to erect Catholic churches or synagogues in the United States, since these faiths gave offense to true Christianity (namely Protestants?) Probably not, since these debates were over before any of us were born. But there have been laws in the past banning Catholic churches and synagogues in particular cities. In fact, there was even a proposed state to be called Hazard, which would have run from roughly between Erie, Pennsylvania and Chicago, Illinois, where Catholics were to be barred from entry. This plan fell apart not on constitutional grounds, but because its would-be founder died before he was done pushing the idea on Congress.

Those of you who hate Islam: you have that right. You can hate Judaism, too; you can hate Catholicism, you can hate any other branch of Christianity, if you want. But you owe common decency to recognize that al Qaeda is as representative of Islam as Rev. Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps is of Christianity. This is not an al Qaeda monument--this is a mosque, and nothing more.

And you know what the hell of this whole thing is? The imam who's behind this new Islamic center has been declared an apostate by al Qaeda because of his attitude of tolerance toward Christians and Jews, and his opposition to militant Islam. You opponents to this project might want to think about that. Opponents to this project have more in common with al Qaeda than the imam who's driving it. I'd much rather have people like this imam in my neighborhood than the bigots who think that everything vaguely related to Islam and the Arab world, from algebra to al Qaeda, must all be part of one big terrorist conspiracy.

Cross-country road trip

2010-06-26T07:20:00.003-04:00

Okay, so my wife and I are leaving in a couple hours for a cross-country road trip, one that we've been dreaming about since we were both kids. We will leave Boston for Seattle, then Los Angeles, then Atlanta, and then home, seeing lots of stuff in between. I'll try to post from the road, but no promises. We'll be gone for about a month.

If you see a gray Oldsmobile with a black mark on the front bumper and with Massachusetts plates, it's probably us, so wave.

Our next two presidential elections: a preview

2010-06-24T19:11:00.005-04:00

Of course everyone wants to know what the next presidential election's going to look like. That's not a hard thing to figure out; all you have to do is read this blog. Specifically, you have to read this post. Then you'll be prepared to talk intelligently about everything there is to know about the 2012 and 2016 elections. You're welcome.

2012 primary season

Iowa caucuses: Sarah Palin wins. Everyone is surprised; Palin is our next president!
New Hampshire primary: Mitt Romney wins. No one is surprised; he's from the state next door (Massachusetts).
Michigan primary: Mitt Romney wins. No one is surprised; he's from Michigan.
Florida primary: Mitt Romney wins. Everyone is surprised, since Sarah Palin came in so close. She's our next president!
Nevada caucuses: Mitt Romney wins. No one is surprised; he's from the state next door (Utah). Plus, you know, all those Mormons.
South Carolina primary: Sarah Palin wins. Everyone is surprised! She's our next president!
Super Tuesday, 2012: Mitt Romney clobbers Sarah Palin everywhere except in the South, where she wins. Talk turns to the deep, irreversible divisions in the Republican Party.
Mitt Romney wins the nomination. Everyone is surprised. Sarah Palin was robbed!
Mitt Romney chooses a conservative Southerner for a running mate. Maybe Haley Barbour. Bobby Jindal doesn't want the job. Go figure.
Election Day, 2012: Mitt Romney loses to Barack Obama in a landslide. No one is surprised.
Speculation begins: is 2016 Sarah's turn? Our first woman president!
Election Day 2016: Sarah Palin has secured the Republican nomination for president. Will we finally have a woman president? It's Sarah's turn! She and running mate Scott Brown are poised to make history!
January 20, 2017: Jeanne Shaheen sworn in as our 45th president. SarahPAC gears up for 2020.
Epilogue: The torture never stops.

Now you are prepared to speak intelligently about American politics for the next six years. Go forth and dazzle. Amen.

Why 2010 doesn't look so hot for the Republicans

2010-06-17T08:59:00.002-04:00

All things being equal, 2010 ought to be a fantastic year for the Republicans. The reason for this is that the Democrats just had two fantastic election years in a row, and we're in the middle of a Democratic president's first term. Plus the economy sucks. This should spell great news for Republicans.

But it won't. The Republican Party is either leaderless or has too many leaders, depending on how you look at it. The Tea Partiers are revving up voters, sure, but they also risk scaring off moderates from voting Republican--even moderate Republicans.

Much attention has been paid to the special elections in New York's 23rd district, Pennsylvania's 12th district, and Massachusetts' Senate race. But I don't think any of these really set the narrative the way a lot of people would like to think. It's more like we don't want to have to wait until this November before we can talk about which way the country is definitely heading. So I could be just as wrong as anyone, but my takeaway is that the Tea Party is a weird populist movement, in that it opposes government but doesn't actually stand for anything. (Sure, it claims to be in favor of the Constitution, but seriously--who runs for office while taking a stand against the Constitution?)

In the end, I think the Republicans will come out with a few more seats in the House and Senate than they did before, but that's about it. It'll hurt them, too, because of all this talk we've been hearing about how Obama was spelling certain doom for the Democrats, for America, for Western civilization, for Christendom, etc. When the doom fizzles, what are the Republicans going to have left to freak out about? Not that they'll stop freaking out or anything, but unless they take at least one of the houses of Congress, they're going to look pretty impotent.

If Rand Paul loses his election, the Republican Party is going to want to have a lot less to do with the Tea Party. However, there's not a whole lot they can do to get rid of them. The Republicans are going to be in a bad way until someone inside the Republican Party stands up and actively tries to rip the Tea Party out of their party, because no one can clean the Republicans' house for them. Until that happens, the Republicans are going to remain a very vocal minority, and very likely shrinking in influence.

Republicans win Obama's hometown district

2010-05-29T12:26:00.001-04:00

You might have heard about this. Might. Last Saturday there was a special election in Hawaii's first congressional district. Democratic Representative Neil Abercrombe stepped down a few months ago to run for governor in that state, which triggered a special election for the seat. In Hawaii, special elections have a come-one-come-all format—there are no primaries. As a result, there were two Democratic candidates, Ed Case and Colleen Hanabusa, running against one Republican. The national Democratic Party tried to get one of the Democrats to agree to drop out, but neither budged. As a result, the vote was split three ways, and Republican Charles Djou won the seat.

This is kind of remarkable. Djou became the first Republican to win a special House election under the Obama administration. Furthermore, he did it in a very heavily Democratic district which also happens to be where President Obama was born. Over the past week, what has been said about this? Not much at all.

You'd think they'd be parading a victory like this around as if it were the head of John the Baptist. The Democrats sure did in New York's 23rd district, which hadn't gone for a Democrat since before the Civil War. They also did so in Pennsylvania's 12th district, which is the only district in the country that voted for John Kerry in 2004 but for John McCain in 2008, which means it's apparently trending more conservative. Why aren't the Republicans gloating here? This is a golden opportunity!

Well, there are reasons why this hasn't been trumpeted by Michael Steele and the Republican Party. It's like this:

1. Charles Djou isn't very conservative at all, as evinced by the recent vote on the repeal of the Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell policy, where he became one of the five House Republicans to vote in favor of the repeal.

2. He's not affiliated with the Tea Party and the Tea Party had nothing to do with his victory. With the Republican Party scrambling to curry favor with the Tea Party, you can be sure they'll do what they can to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with any Tea Party victory, to build their Tea Party cred. This was no such victory.

3. This seat is up again in November, anyway. This time, however, there's going to be a Democratic primary. Case and Hanabusa are all but certain to duke it out again in that primary, and we can count on one of them winning. With one Democratic opponent, Djou is most likely not going to be returned to Congress.

4. This district contains President Obama's birthplace. The Republican Party might enjoy drawing attention to that fact if they weren't already counting on hordes of crazies who believe that Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya. If the Republican Party were to try to trumpet this aspect of their victory, that would deflate the Birthers who mean so much to the Republican base.

What's odd is that this Republican victory is probably a better bellwether than the other special election losses that the Republicans have seen since 2007. A guy like Djou is what they need to win in districts where they're somewhat competitive, but since they're also trying to maintain a juggling act with the Birthers and the Tea Party (and all the overlap those groups see,) the Republicans are stuck lurching toward the political right due to the radicals who have increasingly loud voices in their party. All things being equal, 2010 should be a great year for the Republicans—but all things are not equal. There's a good chance we'll see Republican gains in the House, but if we do, they'll be much smaller than they ought to be, considering that 1) the Democrats have just had two unusually good Congressional election cycles and 2) the first midterm elections of a president's term usually favor the party that doesn't control the White House.

This is the best opportunity the Republicans have had in years, and they probably won't have another good year until at least 2014. Even the Senate elections don't bode well for them. While the Republicans are all but assured to pick up the Senate seats in Delaware and North Dakota, they need to at least run to the center if they want to hold on to states like New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida and Missouri—and they're not running to the center in those places. That's what the Republican Party needs to do, and they're just not doing it. They're listening to the Tea Party, and doing so at their own peril.

Democrats looking to use reconciliation for health care bill

2010-01-26T00:32:00.003-05:00

Okay, so it looks as though in light of Massachusetts having gotten stuck with a fringe radical senator following the tragically diffident campaign of Martha Coakley, last week, Congressional Democrats are going to try to push through the bill through reconciliation.

What does this mean? This means that health care reform isn't getting fully reformed. Reconciliation applies to budget matters, for the most part, and requires 51 votes to pass, unimpedable by filibuster. It's not everything the Democrats wanted, but it's something.

I'd say the bill the House has in its hands right now is subpar, but better than what we can accomplish through reconciliation. Still, we need to get something passed. If we don't, we'll face Republicans calling it a failure throughout the year, all the way up to the next election. Of course, they'll call anything the Democrats do a failure, even if it succeeds, so we can't pay much attention to what the Republicans have to say. Bipartisanship no longer exists in this country, so there's no sense in reaching out to the Republicans for compromise or for support. I've been saying that for years now. I don't know what the Obama administration was thinking when it calculated it could count on Republicans listening to anything the Democrats have to say, but at least now they know what's feasible and what isn't—I hope.

Andre Bauer defends his anti-poor comments

2010-01-25T23:00:00.002-05:00

Sorry for spoiling the surprise, but Andre Bauer, who compared hungry poor people with hungry stray animals last week, defended his remarks today, still insisting that, well, hungry poor people are like hungry stray animals. Because they're depended on food, you see. Or, in the case of human beings, they're dependent on food, health care, mass transit, schools, and so forth.

Watch Lt. Governor Bauer get a good taste of his feet in the link below.

South Carolina: Should we feed stray animals or poor people?

2010-01-25T10:29:00.004-05:00

Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer of South Carolina, who is running to be the next governor of South Carolina this year, offered a conservative perspective on social programs. Last week, at a South Carolina town hall meeting, Bauer said

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better." (The State, "Needy 'owe something back' for aid," January 23, 2010)

Some might say it's fair to compare poor people with dumb animals, who eat and breed without heed to the consequences. I'm not a conservative, myself, so I'm not able to defend that take on things. However, this is emblematic on modern American conservatives' justification for killing social programs in this country. The thinking is that the only reason we have to spend money on poor people is because they're selfish enough to want to not die.

The logic is consistent. If you starve a stray animal, what happens? Either it dies or finds food for itself. Same with human beings: either they die or find food for themselves. Lt. Governor Bauer seems to think that all anyone needs to survive (not necessarily to succeed) is a push out the door, rather than a hand up. Because how can you expect the middle class to pay an extra $5.00 per year each in taxes in order to keep the poor from completely falling through the cracks? Of course, Lt. Governor Bauer might want to explain to us whom he expects to pay for the security guards surrounding the shantytowns of the future, as well as the disposal of the bodies of dead poor people. I look forward to hearing his enlightened leadership on this subject.

Seriously, in case anyone out there is wondering why Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina hasn't been impeached, it should be obvious. Impeachment of Sanford would have made Bauer governor. As bad as Sanford is, Bauer is far, far worse. Unless you really think that "culling the herd" is a good way to address poverty in this country.

Why did Martha Coakley lose?

2010-01-24T13:12:00.002-05:00

There's a narrative that Massachusetts is some kind of liberal bastion, full of neo-hippies who take great offense to American pastimes like eating meat, shooting guns and the internal combustion engine. While it's true that you're less likely to get harassed for disliking any of those three things in this state, we don't fit the stereotype. And anyway: meat, guns and cars are more social issues than philosophical ones, and last week's election was more philosophical than social.

That said, why did Scott Brown's philosophy win? Well, it didn't. Sure, he won the election fair and square, but he won it by calling for change, attacking incumbents in general, and by avoiding mentioning the fact that he's a Republican at all costs. Believe me, I live here, and I watched the commercials, listened to the speeches, watched the debates. While you're hearing a lot of Republican bellowing that this election was a repudiation of health care, the income tax, gay marriage, abortion rights, etc., the fact is that those issues were rarely mentioned during the campaign. Senator-Designate Brown might be talking about them now—and certainly the Republican pundits are—but that's not what Massachusetts voters had on their minds.

It was more about what Martha Coakley said—or failed to say—during the campaign. Martha Coakley was a terrible candidate who barely campaigned. She was scarcely visible, she ran very few TV spots, and made about twenty public campaign appearances compared to Scott Brown's 63. It's naïve to suggest that anyone can get elected in this state just by being a Democrat. You still have to work for your seat, which is something Coakley failed to do. Brown is a good politician but a bad fit for Massachusetts. Martha Coakley is a bad politician who—let's face it—would probably have been a bad fit for Massachusetts, too. Granted, she would have been better, since her vote in the Senate would have meant that health care legislation could be passed, as opposed to Scott Brown's campaign promise that he'd be the 41st vote against health care in the Senate. This electrified his supporters, who oppose health care. Coakley, on the other hand, would have been an obvious supporter of health care, and she even mentioned this now and again. And that was the problem: she only mentioned it now and again. She barely campaigned, and even took a vacation during her campaign. A vacation! Did she want this job or not?!?

When asked why she wasn't hitting the pavement campaigning, Coakley said, "You mean shaking hands outside Fenway? In the snow?" Hell YES that's what it means. A candidate who doesn't reach out to the voters is in trouble. Ted Kennedy treated every single election of his as if he were twenty points behind at any given moment. He did not take his seat for granted. Coakley did, and we're paying the price.

You hear a lot about how this is a national referendum on Barack Obama. This is just wishful conservative thinking. Barack Obama is still very popular in this state, as is health care and the stimulus. "Federal spending" might be an issue with traction if those who complain about it would ever say what they wanted to cut. The voters of Massachusetts did not view this election through the lens of the national Republican party, as much as they'd like the country to think that we did.

Look, I'm a true believer in health care. I believe that the government can and should be a force to help us all. I know that the Republican party is not interested in working to allow the government to do anything except cut taxes as close to zero as possible, and to slash all social programs back to the way things were in the 1830s, if not earlier. When the Coakley campaign finally realized it was in trouble, only then did it start campaigning. I volunteered that day, offering to drive people to the polls (though it turned out I needed only to drive one person there) and holding Coakley signs outside of polling places. I'd sent out emails and Facebook posts to friends and enemies in Massachusetts, reminding them how important it is to vote for Coakley this time. I had a problem when doing this, though. I couldn't honestly ask people to vote for Coakley, since I wasn't doing that, myself. Sure, I cast my vote for Coakley and asked others to do so, too, but I wanted everyone to do it to keep health care alive, and to prevent Congress from getting bogged down for another two (or more) years due to Republican obstruction. While that's enough of an argument to get me to the polls (as well as to get most of my friends there, too, thanks very much to them,) it's not enough to generate the enthusiasm needed to drive many voters to vote. That's the candidate's job: she's got to ask the voters to vote for her, and she didn't do it. And now we're paying the price.

Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, the popular and powerful Massachusetts congressman, once told a story about Election Day. As he was leaving his house he ran into his next-door neighbor whom he'd known for most of his life. They exchanged pleasantries, and O'Neill said, "Don't forget to vote!" His neighbor said, "Well, Tom, I don't know if I'm going to vote this time." O'Neill was stunned. "What! But you've known me all my life! We agree on nearly everything! Why on earth would you not vote for me?" The neighbor replied, "Well, you haven't asked me to yet."

That's what it comes down to. True believers like myself (and maybe you, too,) will vote every time, no matter what. But most people want the candidates to tell them that they want to get the votes. Most people want to see their candidates in public, pressing the flesh, speaking, kissing babies if they have to. This is politics 101; everyone who runs for office has to do it. How Martha Coakley missed that message is beyond me. Even in a heavily Democratic state like Massachusetts, you have to ask. Ted Kennedy, who never had a close election in his life, always asked voters for their support, even if the pollsters were telling him he needn't bother. You're going to hear the media try to spin this into a national narrative, that it's a repudiation of health care, it's anti-incumbent fever, it's the end of the Kennedy legacy—whatever. The truth, as usual, is not as exciting. Martha Coakley took the voters for granted, so many of them stayed home, and now Massachusetts has a senator who's pointedly out of touch with the majority of his constituents. Period.

Running a campaign is like driving a car: if you don't watch where you're going at all times, you're probably going to crash.

Why voting for Martha Coakley matters

2010-01-18T02:20:00.001-05:00

You may have heard about how close the special Senate election coming up on January 19 is. It’s forgivable if you haven’t, since it’s only gotten press in recent days, and it’s unusual: Democratic candidate Martha Coakley is running neck and neck with Republican candidate Scott Brown. Few expected things to be this close, and the closeness of the election caught the Coakley campaign off guard.

You may wonder, “So what? What does this have to do with me? They’ll all go to Washington and spend money and do nothing for me. Why should I bother to vote?” Fair enough. Washington has let us down before, and as Americans, disparaging our government is something of a national pastime. And this country has seen quite a lot of debt piled up over the past decade, so how can we be sure anyone will spend our money wisely?

We can’t be sure of anything, of course. If you find yourself let down by the people you voted to send to Washington, well… it wouldn’t be the first time. Disappointment in leaders has been around for as long as leaders have. It’s nothing new. But one thing about democracy is that we have a say in electing our leaders, and this system, for all its flaws, actually works. Some would like for you to give up on it, to say, “My one vote doesn’t matter; I’ll just stay home.” But it does matter. Odds are your one single vote won’t swing an election one way or another, but your vote matters when it comes to how close an election is. If an election is close, the party you don’t like looks stronger. But strong turnout for the party that best represents what you believe in means that whoever gets elected will more feel that their job depends on what the voters think. That’s where you—and me, and everyone—make a difference.

Martha Coakley hasn’t done a whole lot to ask for our votes. Scott Brown hasn’t, either. Scott Brown has asked for your vote if you believe that insurance companies should be allowed to decide whether or not they feel like letting everyone in the country have health insurance. Scott Brown has asked for your vote if you believe that hospitals should be allowed to turn away rape victims if the hospitals want to. Scott Brown has asked for your vote if you believe that wealthy people’s taxes should be cut so we can cut services like mass transit, Social Security and public schools. If you haven’t heard much from Scott Brown, it’s probably because he has no reason to think you like his positions. And, if you’re from Massachusetts, you probably don’t.

So that was Martha Coakley’s miscalculation. Scott Brown is a good politician; Martha Coakley is not. However, we need to get someone in Washington who will work for us, even if they don’t look so good on TV. Scott Brown has vowed to vote against any health care reform in Congress, if he’s elected. Martha Coakley has vowed to vote for it. Do you care whether health care reform passes or not? Do you feel comfortable with the idea that if you or your family, friends and neighbors lose their jobs, health care suddenly dries up, too? Maybe you don’t—that’s your business. If you think health care doesn’t cost too much and is fine the way it is (as multimillionaire Rush Limbaugh recently said,) then Scott Brown’s your candidate. But if you want reform, vote for the candidate who will go to the Senate and work to make sure that health care reform passes. Because if it doesn’t pass, we probably won’t see anyone try to reform it for another ten or fifteen years, at least. That’s a lot of taxpayer-funded emergency room visits. Can you really afford to wait that long for health care?

Please vote for Martha Coakley on January 19. If you live in the Boston area, email me at trueorbetter@gmail.com and I will give you a free ride to the polls. Yes, this is that important.

Rudy Giuliani's terrorist memory lapse

2010-01-08T10:57:00.002-05:00

"We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama," said Rudolph Giuliani to George Stephanopoulos while talking about terrorist attacks.

Odd that the man who doesn't seem to be able to form a complete sentence without saying "9/11" managed to forget that the domestic attacks of September 11, 2001 (known colloquially as "9/11") happened, well, under Bush. And under a Republican mayor of New York City, a one Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Further: shame on George Stephanopoulos, who fashions himself to be some sort of journalist. Anyone with a mind that moves faster than a drunken three-toed sloth on novocane should have caught Giuliani's lie. Either Stephanopoulos is stupid, lazy or dishonest. I'm not going to speculate on which term applies in this case. Maybe they all do.

2010 Congressional retirements: good news for whom?

2010-01-06T11:05:00.002-05:00

If you waste as much of your life as I do reading and listening to American political news, you've surely heard that the number of retirements from Congress for the 2010 cycle are picking up. The elections are nine months away, and January is typically the most popular month to announce one's retirement from Congress. So far, of the 36 (possibly 37, depending on how the Texas gubernatorial primary turns out in March) seats up in November, ten senators have announced their retirements (including Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota) and Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) who both announced they won't run again yesterday.) 24 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives have also thus far announced their retirements.

You hear a lot of talk about how this is bad news for Democrats. There's some logic to this—the party that controls the White House usually loses seats in Congress during the midterms, especially during the incumbent party's first term in office. These losses are not guaranteed, and most speculators who believe the Democrats will lose seats don't think they'll lose enough so that control of either chamber will pass to the Republicans again.

As a student of history, I say that the notion that history repeats itself is more of a warning than it is a fact. Though more bets are landing on some Republican gains in 2010, I'm not convinced it's going to happen. All things being equal, the Republicans might see a fair outcome in this year's midterms. But, as they say in the finance industry, past performance is not a guarantee of future results. What could go wrong for the Republicans, and why shouldn't they assume they've got nothing ahead but blue—er, sorry—red skies?

The numbers. It's almost certainly true that we're not done hearing about retirements yet, but so far, the Republicans are leading the Democrats in sheer numbers of retirements. Six Republican senators have announced their retirements while four Democratic senators have; fourteen Republican representatives have announced their retirements while ten Democratic representatives have. All things being equal, this makes for a tougher situation for the Republicans. But when you consider that the Democrats already outnumber the Republicans in both houses, it's even tougher still.

On the other hand, if you look at each of these races individually, at least in the House, a lot of them are not competitive. The vacancies of these incumbents likely points to a couple of pickups on the part of each party, thus nullifying any advantage they might get. The Democrats will probably lose control of Kansas's 3rd district and Louisiana's 3rd district, while the Republicans will probably lose control of Delaware's at-large district and Pennsylvania's 6th district, for example. There are competitive races in the House this year, but most of them involve incumbents' seats, like Walt Minnick (D-Idaho) and Anh Cao (R-Louisiana).

The Senate is a little different. Most of the ten open seats are likely to be competitive. In fact, at this point there are only three open Senate seats that we can safely write off as uncompetitive at this point: Kansas, where Sam Brownback's seat will stay Republican; Connecticut, where Chris Dodd's retirement has turned his seat from a tossup to a safe hold for the Democrats; and North Dakota, where Byron Dorgan's retirement has opened the door for a safe pickup by Republican Governor Joe Hoeven. The other seven, at this point, are still up in the air, and there are some incumbents who might (and some who will) face tough elections this year.

Money. So, all things being equal, the numbers point to moderate Republican gains this year. But, as I keep saying, all things are not equal. Republican fundraising has been low this year. Many big donors are disheartened that they can't get much done with a minority party, and the Republican base has shrunk. Funding reëlection efforts costs money, and while having fewer seats to defend does make things somewhat easier for them, their dwindling cash reserves do put them in a tight spot. Mounting takeovers of seats takes money, too, so the reality is that the cash that the Republicans need to do this might simply not be there.

Tea parties. As I said: the Republican base has shrunk, but there's no denying that its enthusiasm has not. While many of the Tea Party activists would be loathe to call themselves Republicans, well... they sure aren't Democrats. If the Tea Partiers vote at all this year, they're going to vote Republican if they want to pick up a seat; or, if they just want to make a point, with the Libertarian or Constitution parties. The Tea Party activists are arguably good news for the Republicans, but that good news is not a sure thing. The Tea Party movement is not a unified one, and its factions don't all agree on whether or not they should align themselves with the Republican party. Republican leaders have made clear overtures to them, but it's not clear they'll be able to count on most of them to vote Republican, or to vote at all.

The Tea Partiers could well backfire on the Republicans, too. For one, Tea Parties are festivals of anti-incumbent anger—not necessarily a desirable trait for the Republican party, which would like to oust Democratic incumbents, but also wants to protect its own incumbents. Possibly worse, the Tea Partiers might demonstrate plenty of enthusiasm, but enthusiasm for candidates who are not electable. Consider the Tea Party activism that took down DeDe Scozzafava in upstate New York. This was a district that should have been easy for the Republicans to retain, but instead the Tea Partiers rallied around an unelectable candidate, handing this House seat over to the Democrats for the first time since the 19th century. If the Tea Party activists get involved in primaries, they could potentially knock out moderate and moderate-seeming Republicans in favor of candidates that moderate Republican voters (and independents and Democrats) might not find palatable, which would cause headaches for an already bruised Republican party.

Also the style of Tea Party politics could put voters off. Your more moderate and mild-mannered voters are put off by the brash signs you see at Tea Party rallies, shrilly decrying socialism and gay marriage and the graduated income tax and the United Nations as if 50% of the American public were card-carrying members of the John Birch Society. It's not so much that many voters don't agree with the Tea Partiers' stances (they don't,) but incoherent bellowing about a secret socialist plot in the Oval Office is more likely than not going to turn them off.

Election Day is November 2—about ten months off. Two weeks is a long time in politics; ten months is an eternity. So who can say what the landscape is going to look like when voters head to the polls? This far ahead, it's rash to predict whether one party's going to come out ahead in the upcoming elections or the other will. But I think from the way things look, the Republicans have many more obstacles to overcome than do the Democrats. If you put a gun to my head and forced me to predict the outcome, I'd say that at this point it looks like the Republicans might gain a couple seats in the Senate and that we won't see more than a total gain of three or four House seats for one party or the other. The only problem that could hurt the Democrats in 2010 is a lack of enthusiasm among voters, which is a real concern. The Republicans could really benefit from the likely Democratic midterm diffidence, but that might not happen if they don't get over their problems of their own.

Limbaugh: Health care system works for me!

2010-01-04T09:36:00.002-05:00

Limbaugh, who makes $40,000,000 a year, says the professionalism of the doctors at the Hawaiian hospital where he was recently laid up demonstrates that the American health care system doesn't need any reform. And I'm sure that's right: access to health care is no problem for Americans who make $40,000,000 a year. So that part of health care is all taken care of. Nothing more to worry about.

Watch the FoxNews [sic] video below. Limbaugh politicizes his situation, and then states that he's grateful that the reporters are respecting his request that his presser not be politicized.

Limbaugh is scum. I wish I could think of something cleverer to say there, but I think that sums him up nicely.

Republicans use underwear bomber for political ends

2009-12-31T12:04:00.003-05:00

I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Republicans are using the recent foiled terrorist attack by the son of a Nigerian banker for short-term political gain. Republican gubernatorial candidate Pete Hoekstra is already exploiting this incident in ads, vowing to be hard on "weak-kneed liberals" if elected governor of Michigan this coming November. Fellow Michigan Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Snyder is falling in line, also resorting to this kind of sleaze.

Of course, it's not just two-bit Republican politicians who are pulling this. Former [Vice] President Dick "Dick" Cheney has also been making the same case, saying that the Obama administration and the liberals are putting too much faith in our justice system and not enough faith in martyring failed terrorists, and that we need to declare a Global Jihad for Christianity and White People or something. The Republicans seem to think that if they talk tough enough about terrorism and if they malign the Democrats enough as being soft on terror that they'll somehow manage to divide the country enough to pull off massive Republican victories in 2010. They seem to think that the Republican party has an unimpugnable record on security, and that the American people (read: right-wing base voters) will swarm to the polls on Election Day to reward this divisiveness.

Security is not a conservative/liberal issue. It's not a political football. Security should be politically neutral. If it isn't, we're putting lives and institutions at risk, as did the incompetent Bush administration. And it's not because the Bush administration was conservative or crypto-fascist or theocratic or anything like that (that's a different conversation altogether.) It's because the Bush administration was opportunistic, and used the September 11 crisis to shore up its marginal popularity and to bash the Democrats with the national security club. And now that the Bush administration is thankfully out of office, it's still doing it. And right-wing Republicans like Pete Hoekstra and Jim DeMint and Jon Kyl are doing it. And they'll keep on doing it until the White House starts answering their absurd accusations, at which point they'll probably continue to keep on doing it.

The White House has finally begun to respond to Cheney's attacks. It shouldn't have to be this way, but clods like Cheney have to be responded to. There's just no other way. National security is where the Republicans seem to be placing all their bets. They seem to want to reach out to the Teabaggers but are having trouble making inroads with them. After all, the Teabaggers want tax cuts for everyone, not just the wealthy; the Teabaggers also want crazier things, like isolationist foreign policy and a return to the gold standard which, as nutty as today's Republican party might be, are ideas that today's Republican party can't embrace and which today's Republicans can't pay lip service to without coming across as insincere.

When the Republicans controlled the White House and the House of Representatives, it was easy to bludgeon the opposition with the cudgel of national security. When the Republicans also controlled the Senate, it was easier still. Now that they control none of they above, it remains to be seen whether they can get any traction out of calling the United States government, the Pentagon, and the majority of its voters a bunch of weak-kneed terrorist stooges. Will it work? God, I hope not. The Obama administration's response to these scurrulous charges is a good initial sign. We'll find out how the Republicans' continued politicization of security stands up in 2010. If this is the best the Republicans can do against the Democrats, then I'll agree with the Teabaggers on one point: the Republicans need to be replaced with a new political party. With any luck that new party will be more in the mold of Lincoln Chafee and less in the mold of the John Birch Society, but I'm not optimistic.

Linked below is an excellent clip from the Rachel Maddow Show where she touches on many of the points I made, and inspired this little post of mine. It's Rachel at her best, and it's worth the ten minutes you'll need to spend watching it. I don't expect any right wingers to bother, but it's refreshing common sense. Toward the end is my favorite part, so if you don't have ten minutes to spare, at least check out the last half. Maddow clearly has her biases, but that doesn't mean that what she says is necessarily unfair. In fact, she's quite fair in her commentary in general, and in the piece linked below in particular.

Parker Griffith (D-AL) is now Parker Griffith (R-AL)

2009-12-22T11:21:00.005-05:00

Freshman Democratic Representative Parker Griffith of Alabama has just quit the Democratic party and is now a freshman Republican representative.

No great loss, really. He represents Alabama's fifth district, which runs along the northern border of the state, and is heavily Republican. There are currently three Republicans running against him, and odds were very good that one of them would blow the freshman Democrat out of the water. Now that he's a freshman Republican, he's safe.

Griffith has been consistently voting against the Democratic agenda, so really, who gives a damn what this guy calls himself? The numbers in the House will change slightly, but the results of the votes won't. We can call a spade a spade now: Griffith is the Republican he always was, and now it's official.

Of course, the RNC is likely to pull its TV ad against Griffith. But does anything really ever die on the internet?

Joe Biden: Pass the health care bill

2009-12-20T09:34:00.003-05:00

Vice President Joe Biden has an editorial in yesterday's New York Times. He says we should pass the bill now and fix it later. An imperfect bill can be amended later on; a dead bill will leave us in the wilderness like we saw after 1994's health care attempt.

Joe's right. This bill is far from perfect--hell, a lot of it pisses me off--but still it's better than no bill at all. And we can make changes later. It won't be easy, but we can make changes later. It will be hard to, say, make changes to the abortion provision, but it will be impossible to pull the plug on health care in general.

My feelings are mixed, which is why I've refrained from commenting on it earlier, but I want this bill to pass. This week.

Jim Traficant is a bitter man!

2009-12-18T09:49:00.004-05:00

Jim Traficant is out of prison and speaking up again. You just can't keep the guy down. Youngstown, Ohio's WFMJ TV has a forty-minute presser that Traficant recently gave. If you're not familiar with local issues in Trumbull County, Ohio, this might not interest you that much. But even if you have no connection with the area, I recommend heading to the twelve-minute mark and watching for a few minutes. Anyone would agree that that's where it gets interesting.

Jim Traficant's video events never disappoint. My hometown is right on the border of what used to be Traficant's district. My hometown is Hermitage, Pennsylvania, so there never was a possibility of being drawn into Traficant's Ohio district. But Traficant was immensely popular in the area. He used to have a Sunday morning TV show where he talked about whatever he wanted to talk about. My dad used to watch it. Dad also worked in Washington, DC for a while and told me that Traficant was a huge joke among his fellow representatives down there.

That said, Traficant was always taken immensely seriously in his district. He was convicted in 2002 and sent to prison before the election. During the decennial redistricting, Traficant's district was carved up, but his name was still on the ballot. Despite his being in prison, and his district having gotten cut into three pieces, he still won 10% of the vote. I happened to be in the area a couple weeks before the 2002 elections and there were pro-Traficant signs everywhere, many announcing, "You know he's right!" and similar sentiments.

This video is interesting. Traficant talks about local issues but can tie most of them to national issues (with the significant exception of the Youngstown Scrappers, the local minor league baseball team that he was instrumental in bringing to the area.) Crooked? Sure, maybe he is. But Traficant really does care about the Mahoning Valley, and many of the people there believe that. The local media--most conspicuously the conservative Youngstown Vindicator--indeed do not like Traficant much at all. But his support runs deep among the locals, prison record or no prison record.

I don't know if Traficant's going to run again, or if he's going to run as a Democrat again. Two of the representatives who occupy Traficant's old district are Democrats; one is a Republican. It would make most sense for him to make a play for the 17th district, though that might be difficult, because that's represented by Democrat Tim Ryan, who's very popular.

I don't know if Traficant would win an election, but (heh) I do know this: he'd do okay in an election, and would definitely draw supporters out to rally around him. Personally, I don't think I'd back Traficant. His support for casinos is something I have a big problem with; casinos are a lousy remedy for a flagging economy--and the Mahoning Valley definitely has a flagging economy. But as much as Traficant (and his toupée) might be a joke outside of northeastern Ohio, he's definitely a force in northeastern Ohio.

Nerding out on politics: Sarah Palin's 1896 parallel

2009-12-16T23:55:00.005-05:00

We hear a lot about Sarah Palin's all-but-certain 2012 run for the White House. Some talk is about how cataclysmic that would be if she won, or about how great that would be if she won. I personally don't feel it's worth it to play out the scenario of her winning, since I just don't see that happening. I do think it's very possible that Palin will win the 2012 Republican nod, though.

If you've ever read this blog before, or if you know me at all, you'll know that I'm not at all a fan of Palin or of the modern Republican party. All the same, I don't see the benefit to the Democrats specifically or to the United States generally if she did run a loser campaign. Sarah Palin is capable of bigger things than merely winning the presidency. Sarah Palin is a movement.

Yes, a movement. She couldn't hope to become president herself, but she could well serve to move the party toward the Christian right. It's not like a party's never been moved like this before. In 1892 a man named James Weaver became the first nominee of the Populist party, also known as "the People's Party," which felt that the Republicans and Democrats weren't doing enough to meet their needs. With Weaver as the nominee, the Populists won 22 of the 444 electoral votes up for grabs that year, entirely in the Midwest, the Rocky Mountain states, and one electoral vote in Oregon. Not a lot, no, but enough to cause America's political establishment to stand up and take notice.

In 1896, the Democrats were nervous. They weren't sure whether to stand by incumbent president Grover Cleveland or to look for a fresh face. One fresh face won them over: a rising political star from Nebraska--William Jennings Bryan. Bryan understood the lay of the land, and that the Populists were the Democrats' natural allies. Bryan snared the Democratic nomination in 1896 and pulled the heads of the Populist party with him. There were many Populists who didn't want to go along, but the die was cast: the Populist movement was absorbed by the Democrats. The Democrats didn't just pay lip service, either: they embraced the Populists' policy agenda completely. Though Bryan would lose that election, the Democratic party was strengthened considerably and changed forever.

It's true that after the Populist/Democratic merger of 1896 the Democrats only won two presidential elections before 1932 (and even then, 1916 was a very close election, while 1912 was more a Democratic year, which Woodrow Wilson would have won even if Teddy Roosevelt hadn't run.) But what's more relevent is that the Democratic party built on the Populists' progressive movement during this time, and got much of their agenda passed: the election of senators, women's suffrage, prohibition, a graduated income tax, an eight-hour workday, the abandonment of the gold standard and, eventually, Social Security. While they might not have won the White House as often as they'd have liked, their movement saw great leaps forward as a result of the Populist/Democratic union.

Once the Democrats had the old Populists at their core, they became essential to winning elections. Note that in 1904, when the Democrats nominated "goldbug" Alton B. Parker, they got crushed, since they alienated the "free money" wing (those are the opponents of the gold standard) of the party. They made the same mistake with John W. Davis in 1924 (another "goldbug,") which caused a huge defection to the Progressive party's candidate Bob LaFollette. When Bryan was the candidate (in 1896, 1900 and 1908) the Democrats tended to do better, and better still with Wilson (in 1912 and 1916,) but James Cox (1920) and Al Smith (1928) were only slightly stronger candidates than Parker and Davis. When Franklin Roosevelt came along, part of his success came from his great charisma, and part came from the dire times the country was in, but he wouldn't have had the staying power he did, Depression or no Depression, without a vision for the country to stand on, which is what the Democrats had been building for the past thirty-some years.

I think Sarah Palin might well get the nomination in 2012, but what scares me isn't that she'll get elected--I just don't see that happening. What I'm scared of is the movement she'll be fronting. Granted, if she does get elected, the silver lining at least would be that her likely disastrous term would discredit the right-wing agenda she'd push, but who really thinks that's worth four years of damaging the country. Palin would glom onto the Teabaggers, pulling the Republican party closer and closer toward a bloc of voters that believes that taxation is always bad, that government has no business providing services of any kind to its people, and that compromise on any issue is never tolerable. Whatever you think of the Republican party today, with a person like Sarah Palin in charge, it would get a whole lot worse. And if Palin manages to win the nomination and lose the election, her vision will alter the course of the Republican party for at least a generation, if not longer. American politics does not need her influence. We've got enough trouble as it is.

Picking up where Idi Amin left off

2009-12-10T14:41:00.003-05:00

You might have heard that a Ugandan legislator has proposed a bill to make being gay a crime punishable by death, and that making knowing someone is gay but not reporting him or her to the authorities a crime punishable by up to three years in prison. This Ugandan legislator, whose bill is likely to become law soon, based his legislation on the "findings" of a one Dr. Richard Cohen, who has written a book about what causes gayness, how to degayify yourself, and what kind of threat gays are to our children. Mr. Cohen, like that Ugandan legislator, is a disgusting vermin.

Richard Vermin Cohen, who claims to be a "cured" homosexual himself, had the balls to go on the Rachel Maddow Show Tuesday night and defend his book against Ms. Maddow, who is gay herself (as Mr. Cohen feels he must point out,) though she seldom talks about it. Maddow takes down this fraud who pretends to be a psychologist, despite his having been kicked out of several psychological associations in the United States and Canada.

The interview lasts 17:56, and is worth every minute. I recommend keeping an eye on Rachel's facial expressions during the interview; they say a lot.

435 rotten things in Denmark?

2009-12-10T10:23:00.003-05:00

So apparently Congressional Republicans, opposed to halting climate change, feel they should all get to go to Denmark to negotiate America's part in the Copenhagen treaty. They claim that the Constitution gives them the right, which is true, except for the part in the Constitution where it says that "He [The president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." That means that the president negotiates the treaty and then brings it before Congress, who can approve or reject it. This is how it's been done only for the past 222 years or so.

Now America's Congressional climate change supporters feel that the only way to negotiate our position in international treaties is to fly all of Congress around the world to give their own two cents each time. Honestly: doesn't the proscribed way to change the Constitution involve submitting amendments or something like that?

Is the hiatus over?

2009-12-10T10:22:00.001-05:00

So I've been away for, like, a year. The post made here Tuesday was made when I was in my graduate class, giving a presentation on blogs and how they work. I think I'll let it stay.

And now I'll post other things.

I am posting now

2009-12-08T21:13:00.001-05:00

Lookit this throwaway post.

Rod Blagojevich attains new heights of corruption and stupidity

2008-12-12T09:24:00.003-05:00

So Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich had a complaint. On page 66 of Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment against him it reads, "In a conversation with Harris on November 11, the charges state, Blagojevich said he knew that the President-elect wanted Senate Candidate 1 for the open seat but 'they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation. [Expletive] them.'"

Wow. It's no secret that Blagojevich is corrupt and has a political tin ear, but I'm astonished at how rotten he is. And stupid. I understand Blagojevich was considering appointing himself to the Senate because that would offer him more legal resources, should he need them, and it might position him for a 2016 presidential run. A presidential run. The man is insane.

The only logical explanation I can come up with is that the governor must have been drinking the agricultural runoff from the Illini River. There's no way normal head injuries could cause thinking that's this addled.

Citibank cuts its lollipop budget

2008-12-12T09:22:00.001-05:00

Banks have always passed out lollipops at drive-through teller windows, but I always figured it was just a nice thing that the local manager did. It never occurred to me that there was a corporate budget item behind it.

Of course, when I was young enough to get a lollipop ("sucker" in my neck of the woods) at a drive-through, there were still local banks. There were six branches of McDowell Bank, which served western Mercer County, Pennsylvania, since the first settlers drained the wetlands and built the town where I grew up in. We had an annoying ritual at the drive-through when we were kids. Mum would be sitting in the car, getting things ready to stick in the pneumatic tube, so my siblings and I would crouch down into the seat wells and start chanting, sotto voce, "Sucker! Sucker! Sucker!" The money and the suckers would come back in the pneumatic tube, bringing blessed relief to my mother, who had to put up with that nonsense.

Anyway, the company that pays Sallie Krawcheck $10.5 million a year (not including $11 million in stock options per year) and Chuck Prince nearly $30 million a year (and another $13 million in stock options) is embracing fiscal austerity by ceasing to pass out suckers at the drive-through bank locations. Excellent. They sure know the best corners to cut.

These bastards won't learn anything until we storm their corporate offices and start fixing their heads on the ends of broom handles.

Suckers for all!

Predictions for the November 4 election

2008-11-04T15:51:00.002-05:00

Folks, I'm hopelessly optimistic sometimes. Hopelessly. To prove it, I'm going to make predictions for this election this year. They're pretty stellar numbers that I'm predicting, but I offer you my predictions with a caveat: in order to be good at predicting an outcome, you need to be as neutral and as non-partisan as is possible. Considering that I'm not at all neutral or non-partisan, I'm useless at this.

That said:

Obama 402 electoral votes
McCain 136 electoral votes

Democrats net +30 seats in the House

Gubernatorial races: the only change of party is in Missouri—Republican to Democrat.

Democratic pickups in the Senate: New Hampshire, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, Alaska, Oregon, North Carolina and Minnesota. Georgia will go to a runoff, which the Republicans will unfortunately win. Kentucky will be narrow, but the Republicans will keep it.

Republican pickups in the Senate: none.

The states I figure for Obama's 402 electoral votes:

the Kerry states (252)
Virginia (13)
North Carolina (15)
Georgia (15)
Florida (27)
Ohio (20)
Indiana (11)
Missouri (11)
Omaha, Nebraska (1)
North Dakota (3)
Montana (3)
Colorado (9)
New Mexico (5)
Nevada (5)

Possible surprise pickups that Obama could pull:

Arizona (10)
Alaska (3)
Louisiana (9)
Mississippi (6)
West Virginia (5)

...but don't count on those.

Okay, folks: always look on the sunny side. And, if you haven't yet, GET TO THE POLLS RIGHT NOW. Democracy, and civilization itself, depend on it. (And no, I'm not exaggerating here for any kind of effect.)

Conservatives don't want you to vote.

2008-11-04T15:40:00.001-05:00

Well, no, of course they do. They wouldn't advocate voter suppression—not openly, of course.

Their strategy is an erosion of your rights. Remember that.

Obama trails by less than 3% in Alaska

2008-11-04T04:01:00.002-05:00

I originally figured Alaska was going to be close and a likely Democratic pickup this year, but after Palin made her way onto the Republican ticket, I assumed that couldn't happen. But now it looks like it might. Hayes Research has the McCain/Palin ticket leading Alaska polls 46.6% to 43.9% for Obama/Biden.

Odds are still better for McCain to win Alaska, and it's not like its three electoral votes are likely to swing the election one way or another, but what a thumb in the eye that would be for McCain and especially for Palin!

Landslide for Obama in Dixville Notch

2008-11-04T03:50:00.004-05:00

Okay, so the first election results are in from Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, as usual, where 100% turnout is the rule and the polls are closed soon after midnight on Election Day. It looks like a landslide for Barack Obama in Dixville Notch, with Obama securing 15 votes, John McCain 6. In nearby hamlet Hart's Location, New Hampshire, Obama beat McCain 17-10, with Ron Paul snaring 2 votes.

If these results continue throughout the country on Election Day, Barack Obama will win an historic 64% of the nation's popular vote, with John McCain getting 32% and Ron Paul 4%, which will likely translate into something like 530 electoral votes for Obama. So, yeah, it's a good start. Let's keep it up!

Of course, it's not like Dixville Notch is some sort of historic predictor of how presidential elections will turn out. In fact, it hasn't gone for a Democrat since Hubert Humphrey in 1968. The fact that Dixville Notch went Democratic this year probably says more about the way New Hampshire is changing than it does about America's attitude right now. Still, it's kind of nice it's going Democratic this year, isn't it?

2004 results: Bush 19, Kerry 7
2000: Bush 21, Gore 5
1996: Dole 18, Clinton 8
1992: Bush 15, Perot 8, Clinton 2
1988: Bush 34, Dukakis 3

They have school in Alaska, don't they?

2008-10-12T07:48:00.003-04:00

We've all noticed how Sarah Palin is dragging her kids all over the country with her on campaign stops. We can disagree as to whether we should criticize her for using them as props, but can I be the only one wondering why those kids are missing so much school? I mean, come on, it's the middle of October already. School usually starts by Labor Day. If she keeps traipsing around the United States with her brood, they'll have missed two months of school by the end of the campaign. That can't be healthy.

Thursday night fight: who won the VP debate?

2008-10-06T10:26:00.003-04:00

It would be disingenuous of me if I said I wasn't hoping for an utter train wreck Thursday night, and something in me felt that that train wreck might happen. Something else told me it wasn't going to happen. One of those two somethings had to be right, so here we are. Sarah Palin is painful to watch, particularly in light of the fact that she's so adept at saying nothing, and saying it very well. As John Binkley, one of her 2006 primary opponents in the Alaska gubernatorial race, said, "She's the master of the non-answer." Watching those debates (they can be found on YouTube) bears that out. Granted, since those debates were about Alaska issues, Palin was more familiar with what she needed to talk about and knew how to talk about it, but the fact remains that she really knows how to gloss over a subject that she either doesn't want to answer or one that she flatly knows nothing about. Thursday night, Sarah Palin said a whole lot of nothing. The commentariat has expressed dismay and alarm over the things she said: wanting to expand the powers of the vice presidency, her reluctance to assign human activity to global warming, her desire to build an American embassy to Israel in Jerusalem(!!!), etc.—all this done in shocked tones, as if they really believed she was speaking as someone who had genuinely reflected on these issues. I'm sure none of them believed she actually has reflected on much of anything, of course, but the fact is that if she's to be vice president, we need something to base our opinions of her on, so we might as well take what comes from the horse's mouth. Or the pig's. But she said nothing, and she said it just like that nice lady up the street who's glad to come feed your cat and collect your mail while you're away on vacation. This worried me at first, but I've calmed down. The way I look at it, Sarah Palin could have completely blown a hole in the bottom of the McCain campaign if she'd crashed and burned. She didn't crash and burn, though; she performed... adequately. Some conservative commentators have claimed that Palin knocked the ball out of the park, but that's a bridge too far. The bottom line is: no one thought that Sarah Palin really had a very good idea what she was doing when this debate started. Though she didn't come off as entirely incompetent, Sarah Palin really didn't convince anyone who didn't already think so that she knows what she's doing. She didn't hurt, but she didn't help. With 29 days to go before the election, quite a lot is going to capture our attention. The economy will continue to crash. The campaign will continue to roll on, with two more presidential debates to go. And Sarah Palin will continue to stump for John McCain throughout the South and in other places where they need to gin up support from religious right conservatives (like southern Ohio, Missouri, southern Colorado and northern Nevada.) But come, say, October 10, we probably won't remember this debate. The only way it would have been memorable would have been if Sarah Palin had really dazzled us or if Joe Biden had somehow bombed terribly. Since neither happened, this one, for all its anticipation, is going to fade. The polls are bearing this out, with CBS reporting that 46% thought Biden won, 21% thought Palin won, and 33% feeling it was a draw. In a way, it was a draw, but only because the bar had been set so low that Kate Moss herself would have had difficulty squeezing under it. It's depressing that someone like Palin could be taken so seriously, but there's a bright side. The McCain campaign is pulling out of Michigan, which is worth 17 electoral votes and is a state that Obama more or less has to win. McCain is sending many of his Michigan staff to Indiana—a state that hasn't voted Democratic since 1964. (Michigan hasn't voted Republican since 1988.) This means that Obama has a signficant lead in every state that Kerry won in 2004. Obviously, that's not enough, but if Obama wins any two or three of the remaining states (or Ohio or Florida alone, or even Nevada plus the solitary electoral vote that Omaha, Nebraska offers,) he wins the election. It's an uphill struggle for McCain, and I'm sure he knows it. Watch for mud; it's going to start flying soon, doggone it, dontcha know.

Dow Jones average drops below 10,000

2008-10-06T10:18:00.001-04:00

That's what it is intraday, at least. I don't know what to expect by the close of business, but today's already shaping up to be another lousy day on Wall Street.

This announcement has been brought to you by the Keating Five Easy Credit Savings & Loan®, because rules just complicate things™.

Why bother voting?

2008-09-21T19:05:00.002-04:00

Often I hear the complaint that it's not worth voting, that because of the Electoral College, my vote won't make a difference. While it's true that your vote probably won't alter the way your state's electors vote—particularly if you live in a state that has a chronically lopsided outcome like Massachusetts, New York, Texas or Idaho—all votes still count for something. The electors are the ones who officially make the decision, yes, but the voices of the 130,000,000 or so voters do count. After all, while a president can lose the popular vote and still win the presidency, it sure doesn't look good when that president gets into office that way.

Say we Obama supporters were to lose the electoral college but win the popular vote. That would put a dent in McCain's claim on a "mandate." Bush still went crazy in that situation when he lost the popular vote but got the electoral vote awarded to him by the Supreme Court, but it still affects popular opinion.

If there's an electoral college tie then it's settled by a vote in the House of Representatives. They will probably settle it for Obama, since the Democrats control more state delegations than the Republicans do, and that's probably not going to change with this year's elections. But if McCain wins the popular vote in that situation, it'd be a harder sell for the House to vote for Obama.

Of course, if we win both the popular vote and the electoral vote, the greater our popular vote is, the better Obama looks. The fact is that while most Americans know the rules of the Electoral College, on some level it doesn't feel fair that the candidate who got the most votes doesn't get to be president. That's the rule for every election in this country except for the presidential one, so there's a certain visceral resentment toward the notion that the number-two candidate can snag job number one.

So you see, there's always a reason to vote, even if your state (like mine) isn't likely to be anywhere near close. And it goes without saying that we all have a duty as citizens to participate in this process which is the backbone of our system of government. Maybe it's just the civics nerd inside me talking, but I maintain that that's important.

Deregulation fever wrecked the American economy

2008-09-20T10:12:00.001-04:00

I've been saying for years that the deregulation fever that broke out during the Reagan administration would eat this country alive one day, and here those chickens are coming home to roost. Deregulation was blunted by a Democratic-controlled Congress in the 1980s, but when the Republicans took over in 1994, things got way out of control.

Is it really fair to blame President Clinton in part for all this mess? Sure is. Congressional Republicans pushed for excessive deregulation, and President Clinton was morally obliged to veto those bad bills. Things got bad in the 1990s. Of course, when President Bush took over, things got worse. And when President Bush got a Republican House and Senate to play with in 2003, things got far, far worse.

We've had a string of conservative presidents: Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. They all pushed for more deregulation. I watched it from inside the financial industry, where I used to work, but jumped that ship when it became all too apparent it was taking on water. I don't enjoy saying that I told you so, since the wreck of the markets and our economy has hurt us all and will continue to do so, but there it is.

What we're seeing is the fallout of conservative economic philosophy. Blame can largely be placed at the foot of the Republicans, but the conservative Democrats who played ball with the Reaganites and their disciples are just as guilty.

Lady Forester de Rothschild on... elitism?

2008-09-18T12:00:00.003-04:00

Okay, so we've heard charges from millionaire Republicans like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity that Democrats are elitists. It's a favorite canard of theirs, and they've gotten a lot of phony-populist mileage out of it. You have to wonder how far this kind of chutzpah can stretch.

Frankly, I still have to wonder, because they seem to be stretching it pretty far already. Recently, none other than Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, wife of the multibillionaire international banker Sir Evelyn Rothschild, whom she was introduced to by none other than Henry Kissinger, is disparaging Senator Barack Obama as... an elitist. No, really! I have video! Check it out:

As Lady de Rothschild explains in the video, she was a supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton's White House bid, and was even a member of the Democratic National Committee until very recently. (Obviously, she felt compelled to step down when she decided to endorse Senator John McCain for president.)

I suppose that's all well and good. As an Obama supporter, there's something nice about watching the McCain campaign squirm at a member of the elite hypocritically referring to the child of a single mother who worked his way up in life as an "elitist." But what's Lady de Rothschild's complaint all about? Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's policy views aren't that different, while both are very different from John McCain's. In the interview with Campbell Brown earlier this week, Lady de Rothschild doesn't seem to have a clear explanation as to what this is all about. So what's going on?

At the risk of adding just one more Rothschild-related conspiracy theory to the towering heap already out there, I offer mine. Lady de Rothschild supported Hillary Clinton for the nomination as a strategic move to put the weaker Democrat in power, making it easier for the Republicans to retain the White House this year. Having failed at that, she's moving toward the next-best strategy, which is to support John McCain outright, with money and everything. But that's where my theory falls apart. If Lady de Rothschild really supported John McCain, would she actually go on TV, demonstrating herself to be an out-of-touch, vapid denizen of the upper-upper-crust, giving no solid reason to support John McCain in the first place, and making McCain look like an elitist by merit of her jumping on board his ship?

It could be that there's no conspiracy, and that Lady de Rothschild is as myopic as she comes across. This just leaves one question unanswered: is Lady de Rothschild a millstone for McCain, or an albatross?

Drill, baby, drill!

2008-09-15T09:55:00.001-04:00

Japan is counting on us!

And there you have it: the Bush administration and the McCain/Palin campaign are insisting that we need to drill more in order to get us out of our energy crunch, because the stuff is so scarce. So what do they do? They let Alaska sell 98.1 billion cubic feet of natural gas to Japan, even though the price of natural gas is supposed to rise by 22% this winter. Of course, the Governor of Alaska approved the sale. I guess this is what's known as "taking on big oil companies," huh?

Can we all finally agree that drilling for more oil and gas won't end the energy crisis? That it will only serve to put more oil and gas on the international market, doing nothing to affect the price of the stuff one whit? Or are we just going to see more lying about it on the part of the McCain campaign and other Republicans in Congress?

Lies, you say? Well, if that's what you want to do, okay. But it won't help, just so you know.

McCain: Mayors and governors lack experience

2008-09-12T12:54:00.002-04:00

I guess John McCain was against insufficient experience before he was for it:

The above clip is 32 seconds long—the perfect length for a Barack Obama campaign commercial...

Liddy Dole: an untested campaigner

2008-09-12T10:24:00.002-04:00

Elizabeth Dole is up against Kay Hagan, fighting for her second term. It's not going to be the easiest race for the Democrats this year, but it's one that's in striking range. Elizabeth Dole does carry a certain amount of gravitas, but that's more due to her more famous husband, the 1996 Republican presidential nominee, than her own record. She did run the Red Cross adequately, and did some pro-seatbelt commercials back in the early 1980s. I remember those commercials, and they're probably responsible for my having adopted the seatbelt habit at age twelve or so, which saved my life in a car crash when I was fifteen. However, Elizabeth Dole, for all the good she did back in the 1980s, has had a lackluster career since, and could very well be unemployed early next year. Seeing how she's roughly John McCain's age, that sounds like a desirable course for her to take.

Her presidential campaign in 2000 failed early and hard. In 2002 she went after Jesse Helms' seat, which Helms was vacating. She was challenged by Bill Clinton's former chief of staff, Erskine Bowles. A couple of factors worked against Bowles: 1) 2002 was a bad year for Democrats and 2) North Carolina and Utah spent that year fighting over who was going to pick up another seat in Congress because of population changes in the last census. North Carolina eventually won that fight, but the result was that the North Carolina primaries had to be delayed. Dole had only token opposition while Bowles was up against state Democratic Leader Dan Blue, and the prolonged primary contest allowed Dole to get it together while Bowles and Blue tore each other apart. I wouldn't say that Bowles would necessarily have won that election in better conditions, but it sure didn't test Dole very well.

Now Dole's a one-term incumbent, facing a tough challenger in a year that's not as good for Republicans as 2002 was. She's still leading Hagan in the polls, but this thing ain't over. Dole's crashing failure as the lead recruiter of Republican candidates during the 2006 elections, when the Republicans lost six Senate seats and picked up exactly zero, hasn't earned her a lot of good will from her Republican colleagues. They aren't willing to come 'round and try to put lipstick on *that* pig.

Obama vs. McCain: a quick glance

2008-09-10T09:42:00.002-04:00

While John McCain has been rising in the polls due to his recent pick of a running mate, the state-by-state numbers tell a different story. After all, for all the benefit that Sarah Palin brings to John McCain in Alabama, it doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference, since that's not a state that Barack Obama was terribly likely to win anyway. Since the Electoral College remains winner-take-all, John McCain winning Alabama by 20% is the same result as if he won Alabama by 5%.

MSNBC's Chuck Todd figures that Obama's got 260 electoral votes more or less safely in his column. I figure Obama has 264 reliable electoral votes. The only difference between what Chuck Todd and I think is that I don't see New Hampshire as that vulnerable.

The way I get 264 is that I figure Obama's going to win all the states John Kerry won (252 electoral votes) plus Iowa (7 electoral votes) and New Mexico (5 electoral votes.) Since I figure Obama's got New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes fairly secure, there are only five more to go.

Obama will need to win one more state in addition to what I predict in order to pull off a squeaker. That would be most likely one of the following:

Ohio (20)
Indiana (11)
Virginia (13)
Florida (27)
Colorado (9)

There are other Bush 2004 states that could go Republican again but also might flip Democratic. Those are states like North Carolina, Missouri, Nevada, Montana, and North Dakota. However, I don't see those states flipping Democratic without one of the five states I listed above also going Democratic, so those states are gravy, though definitely worth campaigning in. (The Obama campaign was once hopeful of winning Georgia but recently pulled up stakes there. I suspect this is the Sarah Palin effect, but I don't know. Before Palin was selected, I would have also added Alaska to this maybe list, but not anymore.)

The only Kerry state that I see McCain having a real shot at peeling away is Michigan. At 17 electoral votes, that would be a big prize, and would leave the Democrats scrambling to make up the difference. For my part, I'm keeping an eye on Michigan as a true bellwether in this campaign. I figure that it McCain is winning in Michigan, that means he'll most likely take Ohio, as well. But if Obama is winning in Michigan, that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing for him. Sure, Obama could very well win Ohio and Michigan both, but Ohio without Michigan, too? Not at all likely.

State by state, it's a better picture for Obama, but I wouldn't say this thing's over yet.

Sarah Palin, petty crook

2008-09-10T09:20:00.004-04:00

So apparently John McCain's poorly-vetted running mate Sarah Palin has been charging Alaska taxpayers a per diem for nights she spent at home. The state allows for travel expenses to be billed to the taxpayer, but this is not what the framers of the Alaska constitution had in mind.

If you're traveling on state business, sure, you should be allowed to bill the taxpayers. That part of your job. But there's a term for the money they give you for when you stay home and don't travel. That kind of money is called "salary." Since Palin was already drawing a salary, this per diem for ferrying her family between Juneau and Wasilla is what we call "stealing."

Sarah Palin is a petty crook. If I charged my employer for family trips to my original hometown (which, as it happens, is also 600 miles away from where I live now,) I'd be fired, and rightfully so.

More of that famous conservative "fiscal discipline" we hear so much about. Who but a Republican could charge the American people $60 a night to spend the night in her own bed and still manage to get to sleep?

Who's Sarah Palin?

2008-09-09T12:00:00.004-04:00

Sarah Palin? Who is this Sarah Palin? Well, as a Democrat, I've got mixed feelings about this choice. I thought McCain was going to choose a lousy candidate like Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, but he actually found a worse one.

What's so bad about her? Well, a few things. For one, with the McCain camp hitting Obama on experience issues, it doesn't look too good for them to have the vice president be someone who's only been governor of a small state for about a year and a half. Probably worse is the trouble Palin is in. The short story is that she pressured Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner to fire a state trooper who happened to be her ex-brother-in-law. The trooper hadn't done anything wrong except get into a messy divorce case with Sarah Palin's sister. The Public Safety Commissioner refused to fire the guy--so Palin got a new Public Safety Commissioner who fired the trooper for her. This has recently come to light in Alaska, which caused Governor Palin's approval rating to drop. Granted, her approval was already in the high 80s, so she's still pretty popular in Alaska, but does John McCain really want a running mate who's under a serious ethics investigation? It's bizarre.

The only thing I can think of is that he chose Palin in order to peel away disaffected Clinton supporters. His reasoning is that there are enough women out there who'd vote for a ticket just because it has a female vice president on it, abandoning Barack Obama. This is, frankly, lousy reasoning. It already has a number of conservatives freaking out, throwing their arms up in the air, bellowing, "What the hell is McCain doing? What the hell is he doing?"

So maybe this is a Hail Mary pass. Considering McCain's other choices, he didn't have a lot going for him. McCain could have chosen:

Former Governor Mitt Romney (MA)--A Mormon who would alienate Evangelicals.
Former Governor Mike Huckabee (AR)--An Evangelical who would alienate moderates and Catholics in the Northeast.
Former Congressman Rob Portman (OH)--Who?
Governor Tim Pawlenty (MN)--Again: who?
Former Governor Tom Ridge (PA)--A Catholic who supports abortion rights, who would alienate Evangelicals everywhere, though he'd help among moderates.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA)--A dream running mate for McCain, but ineligible, since he was born in Austria. He'd probably alienate conservatives, too, though he'd stand a chance of attracting enough Democrats to the ticket, if only he could run.
Senator Joe Lieberman (CT)--Lieberman's an old friend of McCain and the best thing to happen to conservatives since Benedict Arnold joined them. However, Lieberman's voting record is still fairly moderate, which would have pleased the evangelicals not at all. And Lieberman's Jewish, which is also a turn-off for evangelicals, who largely don't even view Roman Catholics as Christians. Sure, Ben Stein believes in intelligent design, but I don't think Joe Lieberman follows suit.

Could McCain be thinking that there are enough Hillary Clinton supporters who'd be drawn to a ticket like this? Maybe. But that theory seems too obvious to be correct. Still, why else would he pick such a risky candidate?

Rachel Maddow's new show.

2008-09-09T11:47:00.004-04:00

I recommend that you check out Rachel Maddow's new show on MSNBC. She's got a good take on politics and issues. She doesn't skimp on the important stuff, but she's a spoonful of sugar to make the hard issues easier to take. She makes no bones about her liberal viewpoint, but at the same time, she's fair. We all have biases, but it's still important to be fair. It premiered last night, and I really enjoyed it.

Oddly, my favorite segment of the inaugural show was toward the end, when she talked with Pat Buchanan (announcing with a witty little note on the bottom of the screen, "It's Pat!") I've long been aware of Pat Buchanan, and I find his politics galling, and I tend to feel a little dispeptic whenever I know he's about to speak. And I felt no different when he came on Rachel's show.

See, for the past couple of decades I've been listening to political commentators. I started in the late 1980s, when Rush Limbaugh was still a hot property and new on the scene. I of course never liked him and still don't. But Rush's show was a smash hit, where his brash, thuggish style would frequently stomp all over liberals and moderates, claiming to be part of a balanced debate where no such thing was going on.

Through the 1990s, liberals got sucker-punched all the time. This kept happening in the media until Keith Olbermann came along. Sure, old liberal war horses like Phil Donahue were still around, and while I like Donahue's measured, thoughtful manner, the fact is that Donahue was a harp seal at a time when the waters were filling up with sharks. The tougher, scrappier liberals like Dick Cavett and Gore Vidal were either old or dead, and not able to command audiences on the national scene anymore.

So whenever it happens that a conservative or a wing nut is getting ready to make a vicious and outlandish claim, I figure we liberals are going to feel the beatdown again, so I might as well brace myself. Whenever I see Pat Buchanan talking, I seem to find myself screaming, "You! Mika! Eugene! Whoever! Hit that rat bastard back! Don't take this crap!" I felt that same old feeling tonight on Rachel's show, but with one major difference: when Pat made the ridiculous statements, I clenched up, but Rachel punched back deftly, poised like a martial artist ballerina with a pouch full of throwing stars in reserve. She made it clear that she was up for a conversation, but also that she was not up for taking any crap from Pat Buchanan without properly vetting it, and that she'd likely treat any other frothy-mouthed culture warrior the same way.

God bless you, Rachel Maddow. If Pat declares that there have to be culture wars, I'm glad you and I are in the same corner—and I'm gladder still that you can throw a punch a hell of a lot better than I can.

Where have you been, Kurt?

2008-09-09T11:43:00.002-04:00

I've been getting questions as to why I stopped blogging. I'll spare you the gorey details, but I went through a rough time brought on by a family tragedy earlier this year, and the fallout from it finally hit me, and has interfered with my writing. So has my boring job, which demands a lot of my time.

But no more! Things are perfect again! Well, okay, they're not perfect, but they're better. Or, at least, I'm going to start writing again. So thanks to all of you who wrote, asking about why the blog is down. It's live again, and I intend to keep you updated through this election season, which is getting pretty damned intense.

Gas Tax Holiday: the $30 bribe

2008-05-08T09:11:00.002-04:00

Okay, so you've been hearing the plans from Senators Clinton and McCain about how they want to suspend federal gas taxes during the summer, because that's when gas prices tend to go up. This is supposed to help Americans who are hard-hit by rising gas prices, which are approaching $4.00 a gallon right now. This is supposed to ease our lives. Barack Obama has called this a gimmick, and rightly so. There are many reasons as to why this "Gas Tax Holiday" should immediately appear to be only so much gas, and you don't even need a degree in macroeconomics to understand them (but I'm sure it wouldn't hurt.) —It's a small slice of pie. The federal portion of the gas tax in the United States is 18¢ per gallon. Assuming you drive the same distance that the average American drives in a summer, this should net you about $30.00 by August. Wow! That's almost one whole free tank of gas! Why doesn't the government just write all of us $30.00 checks every three months and get the economy humming again? —Upkeep. The gas tax nets the government about $10 billion a year, and this money is earmarked for road and bridge maintenance. If the roads are in lousier shape, this will be harder on our cars. Collapsing bridges will be harder still. —Supply and demand. A lower price increases demand, which means that if gas is cheaper, people will use more of it, thus shrinking supplies and driving the price up. 18¢ isn't enough to make that much of a difference, admittedly, but it pulls the essential Jenga block out from the bottom of this already flimsy argument. —What the market will bear. Petroleum companies, understanding what markets do, will just raise the price by 18¢, eliminating any benefit that this "Gas Tax Holiday" might bring about. That will just mean bigger profits for petroleum companies. And Hillary Clinton's "windfall profits" tax on petroleum companies, while a good idea by itself, wouldn't make up the difference here. Remember that something like much more than half of all petroleum is pumped out of the ground by government-owned petroleum companies—foreign governments. This would punish American companies while rewarding foreign governments—all while starving America's infrastructure! Brilliant! It's all too rare to hear a politician speak plainly and rationally in the face of feel-good proposals that only serve the would-be elected official who proposes them. It does my heart good to see Barack Obama shouting this one down. The government can keep my thirty bucks this summer and go fix a bridge.

Indiana and North Carolina results

2008-05-07T06:32:00.003-04:00

Okay, so the results are in:

North Carolina: Obama 56 (45 delegates), Clinton 42 (37 delegates) Indiana: Clinton 51 (32 delegates), Obama 49 (29 delegates)

It looked for a little bit like Obama might pull it off in Indiana, but in the end he fell about 20,000 votes short. Still, he came a lot closer in Indiana than a lot of people (including myself) thought he would. North Carolina was a clear win.

So where does this leave us in the pledged delegate count? Well, Obama has a net gain of... five. Five more pledged delegates than before, and a gain in the popular vote of about 211,000. If any superdelegates are going to switch after tonight, I haven't heard yet. But I'd be damned surprised if we didn't see a number of them declare for Obama after last night's primaries.

Currently, including superdelegates, Obama has 1,841.5 delegates, while Clinton has 1,700. That means Obama still needs 183 delegates in order to lock this thing up, while Clinton needs 324.5. 404 pledged delegates remain, 270.5 superdelegates remain.

It's over, Hillary. Accept it. Resign resign resign

Clinton's Götterdämmerung

2008-05-07T00:20:00.001-04:00

The media talking heads are saying Clinton is more or less over. This chirade of her primary campaign might be over now, and the real campaign might start soon. But there's still something nagging me that this thing's going to go on until May 20. Of course, if Clinton backs out tonight or tomorrow, I think the result would be about the same. Both candidates could save face, and the general campaign would get off the ground two weeks earlier, which would help a lot.

Indiana still too close to call

2008-05-06T23:41:00.002-04:00

Nearly all of the remaining votes are in Lake County—the area including and surrounding Gary. Some 220,000 votes are yet to be counted, with Clinton leading currently by about 40,000. Since Gary is the Chicago area, Obama is expected to have an advantage there. If Clinton wins, it'll likely be by less than the 4% lead she currently has.

This is the beginning of the end, hopefully. Clinton, I suspect, might just want to go out on a high note. She's expected to win West Virginia big next Tuesday, and then win Kentucky big on May 20. Obama is expected to win Oregon big on May 20, so that might be the best time for Clinton to announce her concession. Of course, she also might continue to rend the party in two by prolonging the primaries unnecessarily, flogging Jeremiah Wright against Barack Obama the way Al Gore flogged Willie Horton against Michael Dukakis in 1988. (Remember that? Maybe you thought it was the George H.W. Bush campaign that dug up the Willie Horton garbage, but it was actually the Democratic presidential contender, Senator Al Gore Jr. of Tennessee. But we'll never learn, will we?)

Indiana could go either way, but effectively it's a flop for Hillary Clinton.

Out for a couple days

2008-05-03T12:42:00.003-04:00

Okay, folks, I'm not going to be around until Monday night. My wife and I are taking a weekend trip up the coast to a small inn. The Kennebunkport Inn, in fact, which looks really nice. I realize the irony of me of all people vising the town where the Bush family has had its family compound for decades, but it's really nice up there, so I guess a few bad apples don't really spoil the whole bunch.

As of this writing, they're still counting the votes from the Guam caucuses. Barack Obama is leading by 6%, I believe, so we'll see where its eight delegates wind up going. Go Barack!

Another DNC chair backs Obama

2008-05-02T09:19:00.003-04:00

Former Democratic National Committe Chairman (and superdelegate) Paul Kirk is endorsing Barack Obama for president today. This news comes on the heels of former DNC Chairman Joe Andrew shifting his allegence from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama just yesterday, in the interest of bringing the Democrats' internecene fracas to a close sooner than later.

It's significant that these former DNC chairs have endorsed Obama. They represent the Democrats' old guard. They would naturally back Senator Clinton, who's pretty old-guardy herself, being the wife of the president who gave a lot of these people their jobs. It would be understandable, then, that the superdelegates who hail from the corridors of Democratic power would be reluctant to turn their backs on their old boss by supporting anyone but the establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton.

The scorecard of DNC chiefs' endorsements still slightly favors Clinton, but you'd think she could have closed the deal among party elites by now. Many of the DNC chiefs endorsed Clinton a long time ago, when they apparently figured Clinton had this thing wrapped up. Observe:

DNC chairs endorsing Clinton
Debra DeLee (2/13/2008)
Donald Fowler (12/19/2007)
Steve Grossman (6/11/2007)
Terry McAuliffe (1/20/2007)
Charles Manatt (12/7/2007)
Ed Rendell (1/24/2008)

DNC chairs endorsing Obama
David Wilhelm (2/13/2008)
Christopher Dodd (2/26/2008)
Joe Andrew (5/1/2008)
Paul Kirk (5/2/2008)

DNC chairs still uncommitted
Roy Romer
Howard Dean

Of course it makes sense that Howard Dean hasn't endorsed anyone yet, since he's the current chairman of the DNC. He has an obligation to try to stay above the fray, and likely won't endorse anyone until Clinton drops out or the Denver convention is held—whichever happens first.

Paul Kirk's endorsement does send a signal to superdelegates that it's okay to endorse Obama without upsetting the party establishment, and Joe Andrew's quitting the Clinton camp to endorse Obama sends a still stronger such signal. The enduring concern is that since Hillary Clinton can't possibly win the nomination this year (barring any unforeseen tragedy,) her persistent campaign is only serves to turn people off the Democratic ticket, thus setting Barack Obama up for a loss in November—and perhaps setting Clinton up for another presidential run in 2012. It's encouraging that the Democratic establishment is finally starting to recognize that one of its own is doing major damage to the party right now. Hopefully they'll be able to take enough action before it's too late.

Ralph Reed's demeaning political thriller

2008-04-25T15:24:00.002-04:00

So Christian Coalition honcho Ralph Reed has a book coming out. It's a political thriller about presidential politics, set in a world that could only be concocted by (and that really has been concocted by) Republicans. Dark Horse is a novel about sleazy high-level Democrats who are locked in a procedural squabble over their presidential nominee, while the Republcian incumbent vice president is assassinated by terrorists (of course) and is succeeded by a weak, controversial black Republican replacement who is promptly attacked by the religious right.

Enter Bob Long, the moderate governor of California (of which party, the review doesn't say,) who is a true independent and, better still, newly come to Christ. Governor Long launches a third-party campaign for the White House and stands a good chance of winning. Will Long become the Christ-loving independent president? You'll have to read the book when it comes out on June 3. (Hint: he's newly come to Christ.)

Publisher's Weekly has this to say about Reed's first novel:

"Women characters are either wives with drinking problems, tarts who use sex to get ahead professionally (but not that far) or VP candidates chosen purely for show, who are belittled behind the scenes for lack of experience and 'lightweight' intelligence. Democrats are drunks who play dirty and bloody each other’s noses."

I don't know if I'm going to bother reading it. If I do, it'll only be if I can get it at my local library. There's no way I'm giving this yutz any money.

After Pennsylvania, Obama's still winning

2008-04-23T11:03:00.000-04:00

So anyone who watched MSNBC (or any other news outlet) last night saw Hillary Clinton giving a triumphant speech to her jazzed supporters in Philadelphia and an optimistic Barack Obama giving a passionate speech to his supporters in Evansville, Indiana. Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary by 8.5%, according to the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, though the returns were incomplete at the time of Clinton’s victory speech last night, so she claimed at 10% victory. She also claimed that it looks like it’s curtains for Obama, or at least that she’s catching up to him in the primary race. But the fact is that there are still reasons for Democrats to be hopeful that Obama will come out on top, no matter what Clinton says.

1. Barack Obama cut Clinton’s approval in Pennsylvania by more than half. After the March 4 primaries in Texas and Ohio, Hillary Clinton enjoyed a 26% lead over Barack Obama among Pennsylvania Democrats. Over the past seven weeks, Senator Obama erased that number by 17½%—testimony to his strength as a candidate and his ability to campaign.

2. Obama’s trending up, Clinton’s trending down. If you look at the numbers in Pennsylvania and nationwide, Barack Obama’s approval has been going up over the past two months, while Hillary Clinton’s has been going down. While Hillary’s national approval led Barack Obama’s by nearly 10% back in February, that lead has flipped to a 50%-40% lead in Obama’s favor as of this week. He’s gaining among almost all demographics—his numbers increasing among blue-collar voters, the uneducated, Catholics, women—all groups that Clinton had previously led in.

3. Clinton’s negatives are on the rise. With every negative ad that Clinton runs, Obama is knocked down a peg or two, but that results in Clinton getting knocked down a couple pegs more. While this will no doubt help McCain in the fall, it’s keeping Clinton from advancing in the primaries, and earning her resentment among voters and superdelegates.

4. Superdelegates continue to break for Obama. Since March 4, Hillary Clinton has picked up twelve superdelegates, but Barack Obama has picked up 84 of them, many of which actually switched from supporting Clinton to Obama. Obama’s latest superdelegate gain is Governor Brad Henry of Oklahoma, who had previously stated that he intended to stay out of the contest until the convention in Denver this August. Clinton still leads in overall superdelegates, but the trend is that any superdelegate who decides to break his or her neutrality is more likely to break for Obama and not for Clinton. There’s no reason to think this will change.

5. Clinton can’t catch Obama in pledged delegates. Even though Clinton won Pennsylvania by 8.5% last night, this single-digit victory still only netted her 9 delegates (give or take a couple—her actual number will be computed later, but it won’t be much more or less than 9.) Clinton would have to win all the remaining primary contests by more than 70%, and no reasonable person would suppose that either Clinton or Obama could pull that feat off.

All this is not to say that Clinton’s continued vicious attacks on Obama won’t just hand ammunition to the McCain campaign and turn voters off of the Democratic Party at a time when the Democrats are poised to win with strong margins not seen since 1964, but the fact remains that Obama is still the most likely Democratic nominee—even if Hillary Clinton destroys him and effectively hands the presidency to John McCain.

The question that I’m sure is on everyone’s minds is this: considering that Hillary Clinton is the wife of the most popular Democratic president of the past forty years, and considering that she’s had years to line up support for her presidential run, and considering that she’s long had greater name recognition than any of the candidates, why can’t she close the deal?

Good weather for Pennsylvania primary

2008-04-22T09:27:00.003-04:00

They're calling for mild weather across Pennsylvania today, from Erie to Philadelphia, from Stroudsburg to Pittsburgh. This usually translates to high turnout. Like in 2004, when Arlen Specter faced a primary challenge, his reëlection bid was saved at the last minute when the predicted rain failed to materialize, thus boosting turnout and helping him swamp Pat Toomey, his Republican challenger.

Heavy numbers of new voters probably will help Obama, but we'll see. Lord, I hope it does. I just want this thing to be over, so Obama can start landing punches on McCain.

I have bowled in Pennsylvania. I know that neither Obama nor Clinton would be anything but risible if they turned up in the Thorton Hall bowling alley in Sharon or Buzzy's in Hermitage. And I don't care. My best game ever was something like 180, which was unusually good for me. I usually land in the 120s or so. Bowling, whisky and beer are a lifestyle near and dear to we Pennsylvania natives. So's Polish sausage and rye bread. But considering that the last decent bowler we had in the White House was Richard Nixon, well... maybe that's not such a good metric to base your vote for president on.

Still, one thing I'm nervous about is how 160,000 Republicans switched their registrations to Democratic last month. As much as I'd like to read that as a groundswell of movement from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party, I'm sure that's not the case. Much of this is no doubt voters who just wanted to have a say in the primary, and since the Republican nomination was already wrapped up, they're voting to choose their favorite Democrat, too, thus giving themselves more of a real choice in November. But how many of these are mischief voters, registering as Democrats just to vote for the weakest Democratic candidate? Comedian Rush Limbaugh has encouraged voters to do this very thing through his "Operation Chaos" campaign of messing with Democratic elections, and this tactic did wind up influencing the primaries in Mississippi, Texas and Ohio last month. Of course, that also wound up denying many of these Republicans to vote in other primary elections, which wound up giving more support to the weaker Republican candidate in Mississippi's conservative First District, and might result in electing a Democrat there this year.

Hopefully "Operation Chaos," in all its undemocratic glory, won't screw up the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania this time, or any of the other nine primaries yet to come. But think about it: if Rush Limbaugh of all people is telling you to vote for Hillary Clinton, shouldn't that alone give you pause for whatever reason?

Pittsburgh Tribune endorses Hillary Clinton

2008-04-21T07:14:00.003-04:00

So Richard Mellon-Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune Review endorsed Hillary Clinton for president today.

Well, that's not exactly true. The Tribune endorsed Clinton in the Democratic primary—as to the presidential contest, dollars to doughnuts they'll be endorsing McCain. But that's to come later. For now, the Tribune is endorsing the wife of the president they accused of murdering Vince Foster back in the 1990s, a woman they have spent well over a decade slinging mud at, demeaning, attacking, demonizing. In fact, the Pittsburgh Tribune does the same thing to all Democrats, and to Democratic presidential candidates in particular. It's no wonder they'd want to boost the candidate who has the least chance of winning, if nominated.

Of course, the "endorsement" spends a lot of time knocking down Barack Obama, which is obviously the whole point of "endorsing" Clinton in the first place. It dredges up the Reverend Wright business, of course, and tries to hang on Obama his observation that Pennsylvanians might be bitter for having been told to vote for candidates who in turn deregulated industry in ways that cost them their very jobs. Mellon-Scaife pretends that Obama has less experience than Clinton, even though his "endorsement" points out that Obama spent eight years in the Illinois State Senate before his three years in the U.S. Senate—as opposed to Hillary Clinton's mere seven years in the U.S. Senate.

Perhaps the grossest smear that Mellon-Scaife makes against Obama is the link he tries to create between the senator and Mayor Richard Daley's "old-line political machine." What's glaringly wrong about this is that when Barack Obama first came to Chicago to work as a community organizer in the early 1980s, he threw in with Chicago's newly-elected mayor, Harold Washington. Mayor Washington got elected by challenging the Daley machine, which by definition puts Obama on the other side of the Daley machine. But this is why Hillary Clinton coined the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" with Mellon-Scaife himself in mind: he works to smear all Democrats as identical, and insists on blurring all Chicago Democrats with the corrupt politics of forty years ago with any modern reformers there might be out there today. It's harmless for them, too, since no Republican is going to win any kind of election that depends on his winning Chicago in the first place.

Finally, did you notice the headline? Referring to the "Democrat primary"? It's Democratic. The Democratic primary. To say "Democrat" when you mean "Democratic" is to talk like Senator Joe McCarthy (R-WI), who did that to make the point that he felt that Democrats aren't Democratic. To abandon the word "Democratic" is to throw in with that right-wing piece of scum. Or with Mellon-Scaife. Whatever.

So Hillary Clinton scored an endorsement no Democrat should want. This isn't a sign of political courage. It's a sign of political desperation.

Disastrous Democratic debate last night

2008-04-17T07:18:00.002-04:00

Since I had to work late, I had to miss it. Apparently the 21st debate between the Democratic candidates was peppered with all kinds of tabloid questions about Obama's minister and his, um, "connection" to a member of the 1960s radical Weather Underground group, whom Obama met in 1968—at the age of eight. There were lots of commercials, too.

All reviews have been to the tune of this being a wreck, of ABC News having disgraced itself. Keith Olbermann and Chuck Todd discuss the ABC debate at the link below. It's about eight and a half minutes, and Keith is as insightful as ever.

I wish I'd caught this train wreck. I hoped this crap wouldn't start this soon, but it has. I figured more of this would come from the McCain campaign than the media, but apparently the media have decided to do McCain's dirty work for him. Does it matter that George Stephanopoulos used to work in the Clinton White House? I'm thinking that maybe it does.

Pope Benedict visits Indiana, Confederate States of America

2008-04-16T11:17:00.002-04:00

At least, that's what it looks like. Behind the pope are the flags of Indiana and the Confederate States. Next to His Holiness is some idiot in a suit. What's with the Confederate flag?

Joe Lieberman Zells out

2008-04-16T10:37:00.003-04:00

Senator Joe Lieberman (CfL—CT) might be speaking at the 2008 Republican convention. Lieberman, a former Democrat, endorsed John McCain for president earlier this year. Lieberman is being chosen to show that McCain has the ability to reach across the aisle. Which is really stupid, since Lieberman isn't exactly on the other side of the aisle anymore, is he?

In similar news:
—Pope Benedict is expected to speak in a Catholic Church
—Reverend Hagee is expected to speak at an anti-Catholic church
—Ted Nugent is expected to bring his gun into a church

Pennsylvania looms large

2008-04-15T06:25:00.003-04:00

It seems that Chris Matthews and every other Pennsylvania-born pundit is touting his or her birthplace as an indicator of a birthright to comment intimately on what’s going on with the looming Pennsylvania primary. So, since I was born and raised in Pennsylvania, I might as well weigh in, since I'm not sure my opinion will ever matter more.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been crisscrossing the Keystone State ever since the last primaries ended in Mississippi on March 11. Conventional wisdom has it that Clinton’s going to win big in Pennsylvania, and that Obama might as well give up. This might have been true a couple of weeks ago, but the fact that the Obama campaign has been spending more time in the state indicates that they might know something that the media aren’t hep to. It seems that Obama is making a play for Pennsylvania, a state he previously seemed more inclined to give up on.

The first myth that needs to be cleared up is that Pennsylvania is a state. That’s not true: it’s actually three states—East, West and Center—or, as I like to call them, Greater Philadelphia, Greater Pittsburgh, and Alabamastan, respectively. Let’s take a closer look.

Greater Philadelphia is obviously the city of Philadelphia, its surrounding counties, and the outer reaches of the state all the way up to Scranton and Stroudsburg, maybe reaching as far west as Hershey. This part of Pennsylvania is essentially an East Coast state, and if it were a state by itself, it would be as reliably Democratic as neighboring New Jersey or Maryland. Philadelphia County, which comprises most of the urban population, is a regular city, with a large, Democratic-voting black population. Its suburbs are more moderate, and are more prone to compliment Philadelphia's direction that oppose it.

Greater Pittsburgh is the western part of the state, roughly west of Altoona and north to Erie. It's less populous than Greater Philadelphia, but since its population tends to swing Democratic or Republican, it can pull the state into the red in any given election, though Pennsylvania hasn't gone Republican in a presidential election since 1988. It's always close, though. Greater Pittsburgh is the eastern edge of the old Rust Belt, which once relied on heavy industry, manufacturing steel and cars and mining coal. It's socially conservative and economically liberal, like West Virginia to the south, which makes this region especially tricky.

Alabamastan is the vast, sparsely-populated section in the middle, which is as reliably Republican as Alabama. Heavy turnout in Alabamastan would be good for the Republican candidate, but he'd still have to rely on pulling some votes closer to either of the cities. That's Arlen Specter's magic formula for getting reëlected year after year in this state. That and maintaining an image that he's much more moderate than his Bush-fueled voting record would indicate.

A month ago, all the polls were saying that Pennsylvania was Clinton's, that her 20-point lead in the Keystone State was insurmountable. Over the past month, that lead dropped steeply in most polls, so now the polls are all over the map. Some have Clinton at a 20-point lead again, while some put her at as little as a 5-point lead. Clinton is being hurt, no doubt, by the fact that the insurmountable math behind her winning is, well, insurmountable.

The idea that much of Pennsylvania is really Clinton country is nuts. A big difference between Pennsylvania and other primary states is that its primary is closed—you must be a registered Democrat in order to vote in its primary. Obama, who culls much more support from independents and Republicans than Clinton does, is at a disadvantage. Obama would win an open primary in Pennsylvania, and his chances at winning the state in the general election against John McCain are much better than Clinton's would be.

That said, the Obama campaign seems to be focusing on about ten of Pennsylvania's 67 counties: Pittsburgh's Allegheny County, Penn State University's Centre County, the Scranton area, and the counties surrounding Philadelphia. The rest of the state, which probably wouldn't even think of voting for Clinton in the general, is being ceded to her in the primary. I'm sure Obama could make a difference if he'd take a swing up the west, putting in appearances in Sharon and Erie, and maybe some across the central part of the state, buzzing Harrisburg, Williamsburg and York. That would cause real electricity across swaths of the state that usually feel (and usually are) ignored by presidential candidates.

In the final accounting, it looks like Clinton will win Pennsylvania. But the Democratic system is proportional, not winner-take-all, which is designed to winnow things down to the strongest candidate for the general, as opposed to the Republican system which effectively awards the nomination to the candidate who's strongest with the party's elites. If the Democrats had a winner-take-all system, Clinton would probably be the nominee by now, but Obama's incremental victories, winning widely in some places and narrowly in others while losing big in only a couple of states, proves his viability for the general, and that he'd be a better candidate than Clinton. If Clinton doesn't win Pennsylvania by the 20-point margin she'd been able to claim there for much of this year, she's effectively lost. Of course, if Obama actually wins Pennsylvania, we'll see Clinton dropping out not soon after. But that, while not impossible, is not especially likely.

The end is right around the corner, folks. Give this until May 3, when Indiana and North Carolina hold their primaries. I predict that Clinton will have a surprisingly poor showing in Indiana and will drop out then. Hopefully I'm wrong and she's out right after Pennsylvania, allowing the party to get ready for the general election and start beating up on McCain rather than on other Democrats. After all, isn't hope a big part of what this election's about, anyway?

Obama and the "bitter" flap

2008-04-14T08:50:00.003-04:00

Can someone help me parse the "bitter" flap over Barack Obama? Specifically, I want to understand what the problem is with this statement:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

—Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), April 2008

The Clinton campaign is saying that this statement offends small-town Pennsylvania voters somehow, and offends small-town voters everywhere. Now I realize that Senator Clinton is kitchen-sinking Senator Obama, throwing everything at him and hoping that something, anything, does damage, but this is ridiculous.

Maybe it's because I was born and raised in a small town in western Pennsylvania, but I don't think that anything Obama said in that statement is offensive. Jobs really are drying up out there; these communities have little to hope for anymore. Ronald Reagan came in and basically broke the back of American industry, throwing the entire Rust Belt out of work. It's been 27 years since Reagan was elected, and things haven't gotten better in Pennsylvania or anywhere in small-town America. President Clinton pushed for NAFTA which didn't help anyone but the owners of those corporations who wanted to see their share prices go up while they were cutting jobs and lowering production—a formula that doesn't make a lick of sense no matter how you look at it. If your economy and your way of life has been getting destroyed for almost three decades by both Republicans and Democrats, why wouldn't you be bitter?

Please go, Senator Clinton. You can't win the nomination, and you won't. You're only hurting our nominee and guaranteeing a third Republican term. We don't need that. Give it up and go back to New York already. You're adding absolutely nothing to the debate.

Obama v. Clinton: what happens next?

2008-02-15T06:58:00.004-05:00

By all accounts, February has been a very good month for Barack Obama. He needed to at least tie Hillary Clinton on Super Tuesday, which he did. For her part, Clinton, as the effective incumbent and frontrunner, needed to outperform Obama considerably, which she didn't.

This is bad news for Clinton. It didn't help her the following weekend, when primaries and caucuses were held in Washington state, Nebraska, Louisiana, the Virgin Islands and Maine, all of which were won by Obama handily. The vaunted "Potomac Primaries" on February 12 netted solid wins by Obama in Maryland, Virginia and Washington DC—outperforming even the Obama campaign's expectations. February 19 sees contests in Wisconsin and Hawaii, which Obama is expected to win. Some say that Clinton has a shot in Wisconsin, if she bothered to campaign there, but she isn't bothering.

Clinton isn't bothering with Wisconsin because she's focusing on the March 4 contests. And really, this could be where it's all decided. In all four March 4 states—Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island—Clinton is doing much better than Obama. This makes sense, because her strategy all along has been to focus on the big states (and New Hampshire) while more or less ignoring the small ones. Texas and Ohio are two of the biggest states out there, so Obama's got his work cut out for him.

The psychological effect of winning in Texas and Ohio could bolster the Clinton campaign to keep on fighting until the next big contest—and that might be smart. After the March 4 contests we see the Wyoming caucuses on March 8 and the Mississippi primary on March 11, then there's nothing until the Pennsylvania primary on April 22. That would mean that in those six weeks between March 4 and April 22, Clinton and the media will be talking about who won the last big contests, and if it's her, then that's plenty of free media for a long time.

The primaries, of course, are all about racking up delegates, and that's where Clinton has a problem. Considering how well Obama's been doing, she's going to need to win 57% of the delegates in all the contests going forward in order to blunt his momentum and overtake him in pledged delegates. Even Barack Obama hasn't been doing that well (in most contests, anyway.)

Clinton's leads in Texas and Ohio have been shrinking lately, but she still leads. Obama probably won't get much of a boost from winning Wisconsin and Hawaii; the story that he's cleaning up in relatively smaller states isn't fresh enough to turn many voters' heads. They need to know he can win big states, too. So far, the only big state that he's won has been Illinois, which shouldn't surprise anyone. If Obama wins Texas or Ohio (or both,) then it's a whole new ballgame, and we're going to see the Clinton campaign in panic mode. Running in Texas is no picnic, either: it takes money. Houston, Dallas and San Antonio are three of the most expensive media markets in the country; no other state has more than one of the most expensive media markets in it. And Texas has a total of 23 media markets, from El Paso to Corpus Cristi to Texarkana—that takes cash. Ohio's 11 media markets (none of which make the top ten most expensive list) aren't cheap, either, but they call for time and money, too. Rhode Island and Vermont are relatively cheap to run in and favor Clinton. Neither candidate is even campaigning in these two states, but I wouldn't be surprised if one or both candidates takes a break from Texas and Ohio to drop for a visit to Providence or Burlington.

At two and a half weeks out, I'm not going to dare predict what's going to happen on March 4. I will say that what happens on March 4 is going to predict how the rest of the presidential campaign goes. If Obama wins at least one of the two big states outright, the Clinton campaign will start hemorrhaging staff and losing money. If Obama comes close but doesn't win either Texas or Ohio, it's still on, with Obama looming large in the background, and six more weeks of campaigning until Pennsylvania. (What do you think of that, Punxsutawney Phil?) But if Clinton wins Texas and Ohio by, say, over 10%, she'll have bragging rights and a lot of time to exercise them, possibly getting her campaign back on its feet and winning the nomination for her.

I'll say that Clinton never expected things to turn out this way. Her campaign was predicated on the idea that no other Democrat would last as long or do as well as Obama's been doing. Her focus on the big states could wind up hurting her, which she never saw coming. Clearly that's the case: Clinton campaign manager Mark Penn has dismissed the smaller states that Obama has won, saying that Clinton has won "all the states that matter." I find it hard to believe that Democrats in Washington state, Colorado, Minnesota and Virginia, among others, are okay with being told that they "don't matter." The Clinton campaign has been working on rectifying this misjudgement, though, beefing up staff in post-March 4 places, like Wyoming (March 8) and Puerto Rico (June 7.)

If the election were held today, Clinton would win all four of the March 4 states, those ones on the map up there in yellow. However, the election isn't for over two weeks, and in politics, two weeks is practically an eternity. Either candidate has a decent crack at this, so hold onto your hats.

February 5 predictions

2008-02-05T14:17:00.000-05:00

Take all this with a large grain of salt. The primaries can wind up turning out all kinds of ways. We could well see a candidate emerge on the Republican side tomorrow, and that winner could well be Senator John McCain (R-Arizona). Since most Republican primaries and caucuses are winner-take-all, winning a state gets you all the delegates, which creates a particular dynamic in this race that doesn't favor underdogs.

On the Democratic side, allocation of delegates is proportional, so if you don't win a state but you come in a comfortable second place (or even third,) you still win delegates. So strictly speaking, even in the unlikely event of Obama or Clinton coming in first in every single contest, each would still rack up a number of delegates, keeping the primary contest relevent. However, despite the fact that the number of delegates is what's supposed to count, there's a psychological element to coming in first place, which seems to give a candidate a kind of momentum. One candidate's going to do better than the other tomorrow, and that's going to mean bragging rights and all the glories that come with them. After Super Tuesday, there's a number of primaries occurring throughout the months of February and March that favor Obama:

Feb. 9: Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Virgin Islands
Feb. 10: Maine
Feb. 12: Virginia, Maryland, Washington DC
Feb. 19: Hawaii, Wisconsin
Mar. 4: Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont
Mar. 8: Wyoming
Mar. 10: American Samoa
Mar. 11: Mississippi

Then there's nothing until the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. If Clinton doesn't do well on Super Tuesday, March 4 is probably her last chance to turn things around. However, I don't think she's going to go down in flames tomorrow, but we'll see.

The rest of the Democratic calendar:

May 3: Guam
May 6: Indiana, North Carolina
May 13: West Virginia
May 20: Kentucky, Oregon
June 3: Montana, South Dakota
June 7: Puerto Rico

Sure, there are more Republican primaries and caucuses scheduled, but I don't think they're going to matter. I'd like to see McCain and Romney and Huckabee continue to bloody each other for as long as possible, but I don't think that's going to happen. But we'll see.

The numbers below are the amounts of delegates each state is worth. The Democrats' numbers are higher because they use a system that calls for more delegates than the Republicans do. For both parties, the total numbers of delegates aren't going to be decided tomorrow, but enough of them will to settle quite a bit for the Democrats and maybe to settle everything for the Republicans. We'll see.

THE DEMOCRATS

Alabama (60)—Obama likely.

Alaska (18)—Most likely Obama, but I can’t find any polling here.

Arizona (67)—Clinton favored; she still leads among Hispanics nationally.

Arkansas (47)—Clinton, the former First Lady of this state, is heavily favored.

California (441)—Obama has pulled ahead in recent polls. Since independents can vote in the Democratic primary in California but not in the Republican primary, they’ll gravitate toward Obama, helping him pull ahead. It’ll still be pretty close, so Clinton and Obama will split the delegates in California anyway.

Colorado (71)—Close, but Obama favored.

Connecticut (60)—Too close to call. Obama’s gained ground here lately, but Connecticut could still go either way.

Delaware (23)—Very little polling here. Delaware’s been getting more attention from Barack and Michelle Obama, so I’d give him the edge here over Clinton.

Georgia (103)—Strong lead for Obama.

Idaho (23)—Deep in the heart of Clinton-hating country, Idaho favors Obama.

Illinois (185)—No one’s even bothering to poll Obama’s home state. He’s heavily favored here.

Kansas (41)—Likely Obama. All the state’s Democratic bigwigs have endorsed him.

Massachusetts (121)—Despite endorsements from Ted Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy and Deval Patrick, Obama still trails Clinton here.

Minnesota (88)—Evenly split. I don’t get a sense for recent movement on the part of either Clinton or Obama here. Minnesota will be a surprise. Conventional wisdom says that Obama will do better in the urban caucuses, while Clinton will do better in the suburban caucuses. Iron Country up north is the wild card here; if they weren’t voting, Clinton might have a safe lead. I’d give Clinton a slight edge in Minnesota.

Missouri (88)—Obama has opened up a lead in Missouri lately. Missouri’s newly elected Senator Claire McCaskill has endorsed him, which probably gives Obama an edge over Clinton.

New Mexico (38)—An endorsement from Governor Bill Richardson could give a boost to either candidate, but he’s not endorsing, so New Mexico’s a mystery. My gut says it’s going for Clinton, but that’s all I got.

New Jersey (127)—A natural Clinton state, it’s surprising that she’s been running dead even with Obama in recent days. I think New Jersey voters will come home, though, and Clinton will win the Garden State. Of course, some polls show a slight Obama lead, while others show a huge Clinton lead. Makes you wonder if there really is a contest in New Jersey in the first place.

New York (281)—No one’s even bothered to poll New York Democrats. Clinton’s got a safe lead here in her home state.

North Dakota (21)—Another part of Clinton-hating country will likely go for Obama. Endorsements from Senator Byron Dorgan and Representative Earl Pomeroy also help.

Oklahoma (47)—Obama’s been improving here, but it still looks better for Clinton.

Tennessee (85)—A very strong preference for Clinton here.

Utah (29)—A very strong preference for Obama here.

Democrats abroad (11)—I have no idea how they’ll vote. I don’t even know how anyone could go about finding out.

THE REPUBLICANS

Alabama (48)—Huckabee and McCain are running close here. Huckabee might win it.

Alaska (29)—Probably McCain, but if there’s going to be a Ron Paul surprise anywhere, this is it.

Arizona (53)—McCain’s a strong favorite in his home state.

Arkansas (34)—Huckabee’s a strong favorite in his home state.

California (173)—Slight edge to Romney here, but I wouldn’t write McCain off. McCain and Romney will probably wind up splitting the California delegates, since California is one of the few states where the delegates can be split in Republican primaries.

Colorado (46)—Edge to Romney here, if only because of a larger Mormon population and more active social conservatives.

Connecticut (30)—Solid McCain lead.

Delaware (18)—Looks like McCain.

Georgia (72)—Slight edge to Romney.

Illinois (70)—Strong McCain.

Massachusetts (43)—Romney can probably count on his “home” state, but McCain’s been surging here, and has actually been campaigning in Massachusetts. It’s probably just an attempt to make people think McCain can win Massachusetts, thus getting people to think that Romney’s vulnerable in a state he should win. The Bush campaign pulled the same trick by campaigning in California during the general election in 2000, but the Gore campaign didn’t take the bait.

Minnesota (41)—Looks like McCain has a pretty solid lead over Huckabee, with Romney trailing.

Missouri (58)—Very tight race; one of the states where Huckabee still has a shot. I think Missouri will go for Romney, though any outcome wouldn’t surprise me.

Montana (25)—I can’t find any good polling. My hunch says Romney, so take that with a large grain of salt.

New Jersey (52)—Strong for McCain.

New York (101)—Also strong for McCain. McCain was already leading Rudy Giuliani here before the mayor dropped out of the race, and Giuliani’s endorsement of McCain only solidified that lead in New York and New Jersey.

North Dakota (26)—Probably Romney.

Oklahoma (41)—Massive lead for McCain.

Tennessee (55)—Huckabee does okay here, but McCain’s leading. However, Romney’s been closing on him, and he might pull off a win. McCain’s favored, though.

Utah (36)—Romney leads solidly in the Mormon center of the universe. McCain and Huckabee aren’t even factors here.

West Virginia (30)—No one’s been polling West Virginia or even talking about it. This one could go to anyone. I’ll call it for McCain, but really, who knows?

Poll failure: a boon to Clinton AND Obama?

2008-01-09T15:13:00.000-05:00

What's weird about New Hampshire is that Clinton was safely the leader there for months, and by double digits, until right after the Iowa caucuses. Then Obama went from a fourteen point deficit in the New Hampshire polls to something like a four to ten point lead—completely unprecedented. Every major poll had Obama ahead, and even all the campaigns' internal polls—Clinton's included—showed the same thing.

I don't know enough about how polls are taken to explain why this happened. No one seems to know enough, it appears. But from the looks of things, it would appear that Obama got an eleven-point bounce in New Hampshire after Iowa—which is pretty typical. It was probably the sharply increased turnout that made people think that there'd be a colossal break for Obama, but in the end, he got a pretty typical bump there.

I don't know what this means for the next campaigns, but the poll failure gives the impression that Clinton outperformed what's normal instead of seeing a very average dip in her New Hampshire numbers. It's great for Senator Clinton, but only the craziest conspiracy theorist could possibly conclude that her campaign or the media or some entity manufactured this. But it's a fantastic piece of luck for her.

Now Obama needs to move on to Nevada and South Carolina and do well. This hit in New Hampshire might actually help him to manage expectations; after all, if you're seen as inevitable, one or two mistakes could seriously crush you.

Anecdotal bit about today's poll failure

2008-01-09T01:35:00.000-05:00

I remember listening to the NPR commentary leading up to the Iowa caucuses. The Iowans tended to say who their candidates were, or who they were leaning toward, if they were undecided. Then while listening to the New Hampshire coverage this morning, with voter-on-the-street interviews at polling places, the voters would clam up. Sure, some said which candidates they liked, but it was more common to hear them say things like, "I know who my candidate is," or "Oh, I'm deciding between two right now."

For whatever reason, New Hampshire voters seem to prefer to keep such information to themselves, at least on these programs. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that does seem like at least a partial explanation of what could have happened.

All those irregular primary voters probably threw off polling, too. I'd imagine polling works better if you've got a more predictable sample to work with. Regular voters are predictable, but the kind that don't usually bother are probably more difficult to figure out.

Obama leads delegate count in New Hampshire?

2008-01-09T00:27:00.000-05:00

Okay, I'll pull no punches and I'll come right out and make it clear that I am not nor ever have been a Hillary Clinton supporter, fancier or even much of a tolerater of her. However, the TV told me that tonight she won the New Hampshire primary by 3%, more or less, and I believe it, in spite of what all the polls—even Clinton's internals—said. Well done, and I'll see you and your supporters at the next contest.

But apparently Barack Obama has scored 12 delegates from New Hampshire, while Hillary Clinton has 11 (and John Edwards has 4,) according to CNN's Delegate Scorecard. Now sure, a victory's a victory, and I'd rather see Obama have more delegates, but what's the deal here?

It looks like it's a matter of superdelegates, that unknown quantity who float around and attach to whomever they want. That's why although Obama and Clinton each won 9 delegates in today's New Hampshire primary, Obama leads Clinton by one delegate in the state. That does figure, but how many other superdelegates are out there? And can they stay uncommitted until the convention, free to play kingmaker (or queenmaker, as the case may be)? CNN's Delegate Scorecard shows that Clinton is leading in delegates, currently, with 183 to Barack Obama's 78, who's the nearest runner-up. Surely there are more superdelegates out there in the remaining 46 states, so another question is: how many are there, and under what conditions—if any—do they get to make up their minds? Due to the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, Obama has 25 pledged delegates and Clinton has 24, so what are the rules concerning their holding onto those delegates? I mean, when a candidate drops out of the race, what happens to his or her delegates? Do they have to vote for their candidate at the convention? Or do they then become superdelegates themselves?

These things really aren't that simple, as my research is showing me. Nevada's caucuses are coming up and they've got 33 delegates at stake, but winning isn't everything. Eight of those delegates are appointed by party leaders, while the remaining delegates will be uncommitted, and will get to vote at the state party caucus in April, where they have to pledge for somebody.

South Carolina is a little simpler—but not by much. Its 54 delegates are chosen in the primary later this month, except for eight of them, which are determined at the party's May convention. So again winning isn't everything—but it's most of it.

If this proves to be a crazy year where the accumulation of delegates does turn out to matter, then there's going to be a lot of state election rules and regulations we're going to have to keep on top of. Plus we're going to have to keep an eye on those superdelegates, and see where they're leaning. Hillary Clinton's lead in superdelegates is certainly surmountable, much like Howard Dean's lead in superdelegates prior to the 2004 primary season, so it's nothing to sweat over yet. But I'd like to find a superdelegate tracker of some kind. Here's a pretty good list of superdelegates, but it doesn't say if there are any who haven't committed yet.

Winning delegates is very different from winning states, apparently. Winning a state's primary can give you mojo, sure, but some years the number of delegates must actually matter. This could well be one of those years.

The results are in from Dixville Notch

2008-01-08T15:38:00.000-05:00

Every election the national media makes a big fuss about it. Their polls open at midnight, all the citizens vote before they go to bed, and there's a national story about this remote mountain hamlet the next morning. I think this started back in the 1950s. Nearby Hart's Location, New Hampshire, with a similar population, also grabs headlines.

These two towns are, as you might well expect, rather conservative, as many small hamlets in the middle of nowhere are. That's why it's a bit surprising that while Obama got 7 votes in Dixville Notch, the Republican candidates got 7 votes *combined*. (2 votes went to John Edwards and one to Bill Richardson.) Conservative Hart's Location saw 16 Republican votes (McCain 6, Huckabee 5, Paul 4, Romney 1) and 13 Democratic votes (Obama 9, Clinton 3, Edwards 1.) Democrats don't normally do so well in these towns. Militant California xenophobe Duncan Hunter put in an appearance in Dixville Notch in the wee small hours, but no one actually voted for him. That's gotta hurt.

Predictions? Well, it looks like Obama's a cinch to win the Democratic nod in New Hampshire. Independents can vote in one primary or another in New Hampshire, and they're flocking to him. Clinton will probably pull a distant second, maybe beating Edwards this time. Richardson might pull double digits, but might not.

The Republicans are trickier to predict this time around. McCain leads the polls right now, but will suffer due to independents breaking for Obama instead of him. Romney will probably narrowly win this over McCain. Ron Paul will pull a surprise third, Huckabee fourth. Giuliani, Thompson, Hunter and Keyes will divide the scraps among themselves, which won't amount to much. A couple of Republicans might drop out at this point, and maybe Richardson, if he doesn't do well.

We'll then see the Republicans fly off to storm Michigan starting Wednesday morning, while the Democrats proceed to divide their time between South Carolina and Nevada.

Romney dominates Wyoming caucuses

2008-01-05T21:18:00.000-05:00

Not a big deal. No Republican has campaigned in Wyoming since early December, and only twelve delegates were at stake, anyway.

Willard "Mitt" Romney won eight. Freddie Thompson won three. And the remaining delegate was won by—good lord—Duncan Hunter. He actually won one. What kind of place is this? It's times like these that, as much as I don't like it that Iowa and New Hampshire get too much say in choosing our president, it could be much, much worse.

Wyoming Democrats have their caucus on March 8, I believe.

The importance of Iowa

2008-01-04T11:47:00.000-05:00

Strictly speaking, maybe Iowa isn't so important—it yields up a mere 48 (or thereabouts) convention delegates and a paltry seven electoral votes. But once the nomination is secured, it's still a swing state, a place where Republicans and Democrats are competitive. Between 1988 and 2004, Iowa has gone Republican only once—in 2004—but it was close during all those contests. In the general election, whether a state is large in population or small, candidates will fight to win there if the vote is close. No one who wants to be president will sneer even at a trifling three electoral votes if he can win them.

Hillary Clinton has definite woes with the Iowa caucuses. The mere fact that she hadn't been way out ahead in the polls all along has tarnished her inevitability some, but the fact that she came in third in Iowa finally gives some solid evidence to those who want to make the case that she's not inevitable. She can still win, but she can hardly be called inevitable. And given that she's run her whole campaign as if she were the incumbent, now that she's losing, supporters have to wonder what the reason for her campaign is anymore. She could win in New Hampshire, but if she doesn't, she's in big trouble. She'll still play well enough in New York and New Jersey and maybe Massachusetts and Connecticut—strong Democratic states that are among the 22 holding their primaries on February 5—but that same day we'll also see primaries in Georgia, Tennessee, Missouri, Oklahoma, Colorado, Arizona and Alaska, among others. If she can't show that she can win in different regions of the country, her national viability will really be exposed. I expect California to be a real contest, the single state which has the largest number of delegates and a winner-take-all primary. She could win there, too—but so could Obama. Unless Clinton melts down some time this month, I see a real dogfight in the Golden State.

Perhaps the most unbeatable ticket that could come out of either party right now would be Edwards/Obama, but it doesn't look like Edwards is going to pull it off (and I doubt that Edwards would want to accept another running mate position.) He probably won't do well in New Hampshire (on January 8,) and if he doesn't do well in South Carolina (on January 26,) he's probably cooked. Edwards might be able to eke some support out of the Nevada caucuses (January 19,) where he's got a lot of union support, but Clinton's held a firm lead there for a while, and no one's really bothered to campaign in the Silver State yet. The Democratic Party moved its caucuses to January 19 in order to give the early contests more regional variety, but for some reason, Nevada's been ignored. Maybe it's just habit: people have been thinking of the linear Iowa-New Hampshire-South Carolina train for years. Too bad for Nevada.

Edwards is a native of South Carolina, and it's his native North Carolina's more conservative neighbor, so if he doesn't do well there, it hurts him all the more. Clinton held a lead in South Carolina for a long time, but Obama has eaten into it recently. South Carolina's large population of black Democrats have been moving toward Obama in recent weeks, and yesterday's win in Iowa will probably boost him in the Palmetto State. Edwards will probably stick it out through February 5, when he might do okay in the Oklahoma primary like he did in 2004, but after that, he'll probably drop out. If Hillary Clinton can win enough large states on February 5, she'll stay in. States with primaries after February 5 include Maine, Maryland, Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana, Virginia, Hawaii and the District of Columbia. If someone can maintain a lead in those states, then the March 4 primaries (in Rhode Island, Vermont, Ohio and Texas) won't matter. My hunch is that it'll be over before then, but if it goes to March 4, it probably won't go past March 4.

As to the Republicans: Huckabee would be squashed in the general election, if nominated. He won't play well in the Northeast. Romney won't play well in the South. McCain won't play well among social conservatives and a certain kind of fiscal conservative. Worse for McCain, Obama's rise will siphon independents who would otherwise pull the lever for McCain in the primary states where you can vote for whoever you want despite party affiliation. This is the fruit of the Republicans' pandering to the Christian right for the past thirty years: it's nearly impossible to find a viable candidate who appeals both to the religious conservatives and the starve-the-government libertarians in the Republican Party. This has always been an awkward coalition, and without Ronald Reagan or his two inheritors—the George Bushes—it's awfully hard to hold together. Just ask Bob Dole.

The Ron Paulist cult has been exposed, but it won't make much difference. The Paulists will continue on in their way, and everyone else will continue to be indifferent toward them. Some of the liberals who have been embracing Ron Paul strictly on his anti-war vote might move back to the Democrats and back Obama. There's a lot to be said for being the kind of politician who's interested in reaching out to everyone, as Dr. Paul shows.

CNN's excellent news coverage

2008-01-04T11:40:00.000-05:00

This morning I made some obnoxious crack about CNN preëmpting election coverage because a white woman had gone missing. Then what happens? Someone who happens to be watching CNN at that moment tells me that is reporting on a missing white woman. I certainly don't wish this missing white woman ill—I mean, my mother was a white woman—but man, aren't there more important things to focus on? Like the Iowa caucus results? Pakistan? China? Surely something is going on out there that a citizen would want to keep him or herself informed about. Not to hear CNN tell it, though. Nowadays the most serious thing on that channel is James Earl Jones' voiceover.

If you want to keep in step with the world, you might do better to keep your TV tuned to a different channel. Try Nickelodeon.

Barack Obama wins the Iowa caucuses

2008-01-04T11:38:00.000-05:00

The results are:
Obama 38%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 29%

Obama gave a fine speech after winning, too. Edwards isn't giving up, but I doubt he'll recover. Clinton is in trouble, but I won't count her out quite yet. Dodd, Gravel and Biden have dropped out, so five remain: Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson and Kucinich. God damn, I'm happy to see Obama winning, and happier still to see Clinton in third place.

In the Republican straw poll, Huckabee won. The results:

Huckabee 34%
Romney 25%
Thompson 13%
McCain 13%
Paul 10%
Giuliani 3%

And I forget the rest. Anyway, Evangelicals put the Huckster over the top. Romney will struggle after this. I can't see McCain winning, but this will help him. I still think Romney will win the nomination, but it'll be ugly.

With any luck the Republicans will go to a brokered convention. Newt Gingrich himself promised that if the Republicans had a brokered convention and if they decided to nominate him there, he'd accept the nomination. Ain't he generous?

Clinton in third place. We can all sleep better—for tonight. But this thing ain't over yet.

Polls agree and disagree: Edwards is looking good.

2007-12-29T13:08:00.000-05:00

There's no end of polls being offered up these days, and there's a seemingly endless number of conclusions they're offering. My gut feeling is that Edwards is leading on the Democratic side, while Barack Obama is going to wind up melting down. Obama's big problem is that he's relying on younger voters to caucus for him, which never works out—just ask President McGovern. I suspect Obama's not going to be able to recover from a third-place finish in Iowa, with Senator Clinton coming in second and Senator Edwards taking a handy first. For a long time I thought winning Iowa wouldn't matter to results in New Hampshire, but now I'm thinking differently.

There's an old chestnut that says that "New Hampshire is a county in Iowa," which means that Edwards will be looking at a New Hampshire bounce if he wins in Iowa. I think his New Hampshire bounce will be stronger than usual for Iowa winners because Edwards will win over many Obama supporters if he does well in Iowa and Obama does not. Of course, if it turns out that Obama does well in Iowa and Edwards does not, then Edwards' supporters will shift to Obama. It's not likely that Clinton would mop up many supporters from either of these candidates.

If Edwards can come in first in Iowa and New Hampshire—which seems very plausible—he'll be looking good for the general. Clinton will resort to making much hay out of Michigan and Florida, while putting much effort into keeping her strong lead in much-ignored Nevada and into winning South Carolina (which she could very well do.) However, Edwards would have the momentum at this point, and while you certainly couldn't count Clinton out at this point, Edwards would be the favorite à la John Kerry in 2004.

At least, that's how the tarot cards read this time. There'll be attempts at jockeying for position over the next five days, and then it's over. But I'll tell you: I've made up my mind about how this nomination's going to play out so many times, and I have yet to reach the same conclusion twice. We'll just have to keep an eye on Iowa and hope that things turn out the way we want them to.

As to the Republicans: I think Mike Huckabee has peaked, and that Mitt Romney will wind up winning the state—if any Republicans bother to show up to caucus. Don't expect John McCain to do well here. He'll have trouble making up ground in New Hampshire, too, suffice it to say. Iowa and New Hampshire Republicans are unusually unexcited this year, according to reports I've been hearing, and according to these persistent gut feelings I've been getting. (If I turn out to be wrong, though, then I'd better get to a doctor, because these feelings clearly mean something else!)

CNN: Space Shuttle traveled 18 times the speed of light

2007-12-26T11:47:00.000-05:00

The CNN headline is not necessarily inaccurate because what we accept as the standard speed of light, 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second, is more of an average of the speeds of faster and slower lights.

Ordinary light, like what we typically get from the sun, typically sticks to the average speed of light. However, here in Boston it's overcast, so when the light hits the clouds it has to slow down considerably. When the light gets through the clouds it's slowed down, which is why things look grayer right now. On bright days, when there are no clouds to impede the light, it can come rushing right at the earth, and its speed makes it seem brighter. Brightness is relative to the speed of light, which is what the Theory of Relativity is all about. The Space Shuttle, flying on a cloudy day and over a part of the country without a lot of artificial light emanating from it, was flying relatively faster than the light in that area at that time. Since the light was that much slower, it rubbed against the panels on the side of the shuttle, causing it to break up, which is why seatbelts are important, but that's a discussion for another time.

Scientists have pointed out that faster-than-light travel is not possible, but if a craft is surrounded by fast light, it doesn't need to be. Light can be made faster artificially. You've no doubt seen strobe lights, haven't you? That's very fast light. If the Space Shuttle were surrounded by strobe lights, this risk would be averted, but there's a certain controversy about doing this because such flashing light would drive the astronauts nuts. Currently NASA is working on a new Space Shuttle with faster strobe lights on the outside but with slower mood lighting on the inside, which should cancel out the fast-light effect on the inside of the Space Shuttle, making things much more pleasant for the astronauts.

Current strobe light technology can get light moving at as much as six times the speed of ordinary light, and much, much faster than the slow, overcast light of that day of the tragic Space Shuttle accident, so many think this is the solution. However, a faction of NASA scientists who were homeschooled in Intelligent Astrophysics are quick to point out that Relativity is only a theory, and are working on a rival faith-powered version of the shuttle equipped with Gideon Bibles and festooned with St. Christopher statues.

Competing intelligent design theories in Florida: both lose

2007-12-26T11:14:00.000-05:00

It's becoming more and more well known that there is more than one version of intelligent design theory out there. Both could be used with equal efficacity to replace our current notions of science, and both are equally valid. And both recently went to war with each other to wield influence in the Polk County, Florida school board.

The more widely known version of intelligent design holds that life is so miraculously complex that only a supremely intelligent, omniscient and divine mind could have designed it, which is why and how we have all the life there is today. It doesn't specifically state that a particular deity (or deities) created all life, but intelligent design does jibe pretty well with the story of the god of Abraham, who, as the story goes, created all things and all life in just six days, and is the god around whom all sects of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based. This version of intelligent design was gaining traction in Polk County, where school board members were preparing to vote for it and against the teaching of evolution. Evolution is science and not religion. It makes no reference to any kind of god whatsoever; it just talks about how life came (and comes) to be.

Now this is America, where we respect free worship. And since we obviously will accept substitutes for science that are fueled by the god of Abraham, we need also consider substitutes for science that are fueled by, well, pasta. That's to say, when the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster piped up and insisted that *its* version of intelligent design also be taught in Polk County schools, the school board reacted in a peculiar way: it denied everyone the right to have science taught alongside a particular theology's divine notions and just went with evolution. The ascent of man and the simultaneous descent of the god of Abraham and the descent of pasta. Is it really right that schools should expose children to the notion that the god of Abraham basically *thought* the world into existence in less than a week, while not offering them the equally plausible (if not *more* plausible) explanation that the Flying Spaghetti Monster intelligently designed the entire universe with his noodly appendage? This is easier to believe. After all, if you walk down the aisles of your local supermarket, you'll see spaghetti, but will you see God? Try this some time and find out. Your tired religious convictions might do well to have something of a fresh perspective. One of the school board members who had been pushing for the teaching of the (god of Abraham-style) intelligent design said that when she originally proposed it, she didn't realize she'd be "on the front page of the [Lakeland, Florida] Ledger indicating that I opposed evolution."

So god of Abraham-style intelligent design has gone down to defeat, and so has Flying Spaghetti Monster-style intelligent design. I suppose this is fair, though I'm disappointed in the way children are denied the opportunity to learn about both of these equally valid theories. It's also a bit impractical at the moment to do this. Consider that the revelations of the Flying Spaghetti Monster happened only in 2005. Consider also that they have spread faster and more widely than any of the Abrahamic faiths ever did this early on—this is solid testament to these revelations' intrinsic truths. But the literature about the Flying Spaghetti Monster is pretty sparse. There's the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, available at Amazon.com for thirteen bucks, but there's no textbook out there that teaches both Darwinian evolution and Flying Spaghetti Monsterist intelligent design, much less a text book that also includes that bit from Genesis. Some publisher could no doubt whip one up that teaches all three, should the need arise, but unfortunately this case in Florida ended with the kids being stuck with nothing but science.

I've never seen the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage, but I know it's there and is just as real as the hand of God. Let us pray with all the power of the spiciest meatball that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism gets its fair shake in our shaky education system that is closed-minded enough to consider only two possibilities.

Hostages taken at Clinton campaign office.

2007-11-30T13:42:00.000-05:00

An armed gunman has taken hostages at a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office in New Hampshire. Apparently there's a bomb threat involved. Details are still breaking on this one. The story just broke maybe twenty minutes ago, or so.

Here's the story.

I'm no Clinton supporter, but this is horrible.

News from the future: troops to stay in Iraq past Nov. 1, 2057.

2007-11-02T15:52:00.000-04:00

PITTSBURGH (Nov. 1, 2057) — General Roscoe Plunkett announced today that American troops would not be pulling out of Iraq, though one of his predecessors, General John Abazaid, set today as the Iraq pullout deadline in 2007. "If General Abazaid were alive today, he'd agree with me," Plunkett said. "We need to stay in Iraq until the mission is finished."

In a prepared statement, President George T. Bush announced that although he had promised to reconsider keeping troops in Iraq while campaigning last year to succeed President Chelsea Clinton-Biden, "The mission is not through. I will leave this in the hands of the generals." President Bush denied that this is just a continuation of President Clinton-Biden's policy, declaring "Chelsea advocated Kurdish statehood. I don't. Kurdish troops must leave Iraq now." President Bush reiterated that he would not permit administration of Iraq by the Arab Republic or the Arab Caliphate. "The governments in Cairo and Mecca need to butt out. We're fighting to win. We're fighting for freedom. We're fighting for as long as it takes."

With crude oil prices topping €700 per barrel last month, the American economy looks unlikely to pull out of the thirty-year depression which has been worsening since it began during the presidency of Jenna Bush-Putnam. Even if crude prices fall after the Iraq War is over, it's still expected that petroleum income will cover the costs of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure during peacetime, particularly if Secretary of Energy Lenny Rove's plan to convert the solar oxygen generators in the EU's Martian colony of New New Amsterdam is adopted by Europe's government. "Europe has not been pulling its weight in Iraq," Rove said. "Helping to increase the price of oil is the least they can do." This plan has met with some criticism from Americans, particularly in light of this summer's story of a Denver man who mortgaged his house for two full tanks of gasoline.

"Once we win in Iraq," President Bush said, "petroleum from that country will meet our needs, provided we also start drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Swim Beach." Oil drilling in the ANSB is still protected, due to the continued obstructionism by both liberals in Congress.

I've met one person in Massachusetts who supports Hillary Clinton.

2007-11-02T15:33:00.000-04:00

I'm sure there are others, but I've met only one, and she's not a likely primary voter, but rather the sort who may or may not make it to the polls on Election Day, y'know, depending...

Hillary Clinton is awful. She supports Bush's Middle East policy, holding only that it's mismanaged (which it is) but not that it's wrong. She's never apologized for her vote to authorize America's attack on Iraq in 2002 because, well, she believed it was right to attack that country with no real evidence then, and she still believes it was right now. Sure, she's being consistent, but consistently wrong does not a president make.

Senator Clinton yesterday spoke at Wellesley College, the all-women's college that she herself once attended. She made a big deal about how these six guys ganged up on her for no real reason. Hey, Hil: those six guys had a real reason: they were at a debate, and they wanted to discuss, y'know, ideas. Something you weren't doing. Why were you there, again?

What I resent most about Clinton playing the gender card is that she supposes that people will like her more and hate her opponents more because they'd be attacking a "poor, defenseless woman." This is a crock. Remember: we're talking about electing the next leader of the free world here. We need for the candidates to challenge each other. If a man takes a shot at a woman in a debate, it's not necessarily malicious. It's just something that a man would do to another man, if it were another man who were the frontrunner. Wasn't the point of feminism the recognition that women could compete with men as equals? Isn't Hillary Clinton supposed to be an equal, and not some poor, defenseless female? When losing an argument, it only hurts women to try to prop her up as a "poor, defenseless female" under attack instead of trying to defend her actual positions. I've seen this tactic used by immature Baby Boomers in internet squabbles, which is bad enough. To see it in a presidential debate is alarming.

Who turns up to the primaries is crucial. Hopefully Clinton's support will be dwarfed due to fewer of those answering these polls turning out to vote for her than those turning out to vote for the better candidates. The only way to make sure this happens is to work hard for better candidates. I'm working for Edwards, but frankly, if there are enough who turn up for Obama and Dodd (and others) and not as many who turn up for Clinton, there's still hope.

I'm unable to believe that that many Democrats would actually vote for her in the primaries. Most voters aren't like internet political junkies, and are not really aware yet that there's an election going on. Still, she could win and she could lose. I'm hoping she loses, and I hope Edwards wins, but I'll settle for Obama.

Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO!

2007-10-31T09:09:00.000-04:00

So he said in last night's Democratic debate. To be fair, I've seen things flying in the sky that I counldn't identify, but they looked normal enough. No one identified them for me, but then, I never asked. Still, they were probably planes. Or experimental secret government military jets. Or Krelmaxian battle cruisers on a recon mission, trying to figure out just where to shoot in order to destroy Earth.

Kucinich did get off a good zinger, though: "More people in this country have seen UFOs than I think approve of George Bush's presidency." Good line, but Tim Russert was just a little too quick with the statistic that only 14% of all Americans claim to have seen UFOs, don't you think? Russert is clearly part of the cover-up. I read—I think it was in the Weekly World News—that Russert's car has Area 51 license plates on it, so there's probably a conspiracy of some kind going on here...

Russert also joined a more credible cover-up. He claimed that Bush's approval ratings are in the mid-thirties, where most polls recently put Bush in the mid-twenties. Looks like Dennis Kucinich is well on his way to being right!

Remembering September 11: the first two years.

2007-09-11T13:51:00.000-04:00

I'm growing a little tired of the marking of the anniversary of September 11, 2001, every year. I was in New York that day, starting a regular day at work, on my first day after returning from a long vacation. No, I don't bear any scars from that day, but I do wish we'd tone it all down a bit. It's time, isn't it? Let me show you what I mean.

I was in the World Trade Center's underground plaza half an hour before the first plane hit. My train came in from New Jersey at that stop. I was in the office fifteen minutes before the first plane hit.

We evacuated the building after the second one hit. No one seemed to think anything of it until the second one; it was just a curious one-off. I was stranded in Manhattan until about 4:00, when I finally caught a ferry back across the Hudson River and walked three miles home to the west side of Jersey City.

I was in the World Trade Center's underground plaza half an hour before the first plane hit. My train came in from New Jersey at that stop. I was in the office fifteen minutes before the first plane hit.

We evacuated the building after the second one hit. No one seemed to think anything of it until the second one; it was just a curious one-off. I was stranded in Manhattan until about 4:00, when I finally caught a ferry back across the Hudson River and walked three miles home to the west side of Jersey City.

For the next couple of weeks, the day was referred to as "Tuesday," because it was a Tuesday. Then we started saying "the eleventh." Then as time went on it became "September eleventh." About the middle of October a coworker said "9/11," and I said, "What's that?" and she said, "'9/11.' That's what they're calling the attacks now." I didn't like it. I still don't. I still say "September 11." I won't use the term "9/11." It sounds too much like marketing, and if anything, this incident doesn't need any more marketing.

We breathed the dust from the smoldering heaps ten blocks to the south for months. It smoldered from burning office building parts. The ash was also burning human parts, but no one talked about that. I sure didn't. That was too much to talk about, especially if you're going to inhale it every day.

Flags appeared everywhere. By Veteran's Day, which was exactly two months later, I decided I couldn't take it anymore. I half hoped that after Veteran's Day, everyone would think that since this was the end of a legitimate patriotic holiday, it was time to take down all the flags, and on November 12 we'd be back to normal. That didn't happen. Someone wanted to change our lives with those attacks, and they did it. Everyone was waving flags well into 2002, posting threatening messages for all would-be terrorists. They were supposed to be lurking everywhere, eager to strike at any moment, but that didn't happen. The White House wouldn't shut up about them, though, and wouldn't stop bellowing about how we're going to fight terrorism by waving flags and shopping. The recession was underway as sales of Chinese-made American flags soared. "9/11" had changed everything, including the federal marketing strategy.

I went to my native western Pennsylvania on the first weekend of February, 2002. I wanted to go to Punxsutawney on Groundhog Day to see Punxsutawney Phil forecast the weather. I'd never seen this. I headed to Gobbler's Knob with a record number of participants and waited for dawn in the bitter cold under a clear Appalachian sky. The nineteenth century-style pomp carried on and this over-the-top celebration of America's favorite oversized rodent advanced as more or less usual. But the officiants, while announcing Phil's imminent appearance, lauded the groundhog's patriotism, which pissed me off. Groundhogs can't vote. Okay, I recognize that groundhogs can't forecast the weather, either, so what's the big deal, right? I still didn't appreciate the taint, though. There's something innocent about the absurdity of Groundhog Day, and these people were wrecking it. Maybe I was being too sensitive, but can you blame me? After being beaten with the White House's "9/11" club for four and a half months, I think I had a legitimate complaint. At Punxsutawney's Groundhog Day festivities, someone had drawn a cartoon groundhog in army fatigues with the caption "Sgt. Phil huntin' for terrorists." What the hell? The September 11 attackers had demanded that we give up our way of life, and the White House was helping them to get us to give it up. The terrorists had terrified us, and the Bush administration made sure we stayed scared.

I still remember walking around New York after the World Trade Center had fallen. They talked about how "everything had changed" on TV, but I didn't feel it. It took weeks for that feeling to actually start to become apparent, fed by Republican politicians and conservative talking heads who were always ready for something else to beat up the Democrats about. America didn't have to change, and it didn't actually change until the efforts on the part of America's insecure conservatives started to change it.

The moral of the story: If someone punches you in order to make you do something, you only lose if you do what they say. We were morally obliged to not be intimidated by al Qaeda, and we failed. Calling our conterterrorism efforts a "war" was our first major mistake. Continuing to call it a "war" only makes things worse.

Every year I feel more bitter about the manipulation of this day. Every year it's worse. I don't feel that I was more affected than most people by it—sure, I lived in New York at the time, but I didn't actually lose anyone in those towers. But isn't it strange that right wingers from all around the country are the ones waving the bloody shirt about New York City, while New Yorkers (apart from their former mayor) are not so quick to do so? Think about it.

Bobby Jindal hates... Protestants?

2007-08-21T13:25:00.000-04:00

Representative Bobby Jindal (R-Louisiana) has had his anti-Protestant writings brought to light again, just like they were during his 2003 gubernatorial campaign. The article containing his anti-Protestant screed is linked here, but it requires that you pay for the privilege of reading it, but the word is (and the word that Jindal is denying vociferously) that Jindal called Protestant "religions" as "scandalous, depraved, selfish and heretical."

Rep. Jindal has written quite a bit about religion, as the site below (sponsored by the Louisiana Democratic Party) demonstrates. Jindal's attacks on "atheism's gods" is your standard gruel for conservatives, and probably won't matter one whit where his standing with the Republican Party and America's conservatives are concerned. This bit about his going after Protestants, though, is a big deal.

Jindal is running for Governor of Louisiana this year, and is one of the most popular Republicans in the state of Louisiana. He's far ahead in the polls, and Louisiana is pretty conservative, so I'm reluctant to say yet whether this will hurt him. However, Louisiana is largely Catholic in the south and largely Protestant in the north, so these ads, which are unsurprisingly running mostly in northern Louisiana, might have some effect. At any rate, they've been forcing Jindal to publicly explain himself, which is something no politician wants to have to do.

With a name like Jindal, you might expect him to be Hindu, and indeed, he was raised as one, and converted to Catholicism on his own. His last name has also been converted—it's pronounced "jindle," for the record.

Karl Rove to resign by August 31.

2007-08-13T09:24:00.000-04:00

The Bush administration's brilliant and amoral political advisor Karl Rove will resign his post at the White House on August 31. A latter-day incarnation of President McKinley's brilliant and amoral political strategist "Dollar Mark" Hanna, Rove gives the old saw that he wants to "spend more time with his family," and to prove it he's moving to a town not far from where his son goes to college. Whatever.

I think it's more that if Rove didn't resign by the end of August, he'd have to stick with the Bush administration until January 2009, and he doesn't want to do that, for whatever reason. Perhaps he wants out because Congress keeps demanding he turn up in court to answer questions about his role in the Valerie Plame sabotage scandal, and his continued refusals to reply to these subpoenas will only serve to further damage the White House.

I don't see why Congress wouldn't continue to subpoena Rove after this, nor do I see why the White House wouldn't continue with their groundless claim of "executive privilege" to cover his oily ass. Regardless, Rove is out, officially, but he'll no doubt remain in some kind of unofficial advisory capacity to the Bush administration, just like Karen Hughes did.

Rove is out, but this thing ain't over. Just because Rove walks out doesn't mean there's any reason to stop investigating the crimes that he and his boss committed.

Who won last night's AFL-CIO debate?

2007-08-08T12:48:00.000-04:00

Seriously, I think it was Chris Dodd. He didn't win it by a huge margin—John Edwards was a very close second, and then Dennis Kucinich pulled a respectable third—but Dodd was on fire. So was Edwards, but Dodd was maybe half a degree hotter. My support has been leaning toward Edwards lately, and it still is, but I think I like Dodd more than I used to. I never disliked Dodd, but his stock rose with me tonight.

I thought Clinton was subpar, and I thought Obama was a disaster last night. Both surprised me.

Joe "Loose Cannon" Biden characteristically made good points and made weirdly crazy points sometimes.

Bill Richardson pulled a fair performance, maybe sub-fair at times. He could have done better.

Where's Mike Gravel? I read that his campaign apparently forgot to return the questionnaire for the debate before its deadline. Somehow, I have a hunch that if it were the Clinton, Obama or Edwards campaigns, they would have gotten a little more leeway on the deadline. However, I also think there's a reason those "big three" campaigns managed to get their forms in on time: bigger campaign, bigger staff. Simple enough.

What throttles my mind is the way the talking heads on MSNBC declared victory for Clinton and Obama, said it was a disaster for Edwards, and ignored the other four candidates who were there that night. Were they watching the same debate? Who didn't see Obama's jittery, meek responses to every question except the one about sending troops into Pakistan? Who didn't hear Clinton's evasive, vague answers or notice the boos she got from the audience? The media is clueless. They have no idea what they're talking about. Too often talking heads are afraid to offer opinions that differ too much from what the national polls would predict. Clinton is still leading in national polls, but hell, who couldn't miss the fact that her performance at last night's debate was at best bland and, more accurately, disappointing?

...And the senators who voted our rights away

2007-08-07T15:41:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Kos again for the list of Democratic senators who voted against this curbing of our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights:

Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Tom Carper (Delaware)
Bob Casey (Pennsylvania)
Kent Conrad (North Dakota)
Dianne Feinstein (California)
Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)
Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota)
Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)
Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Barbara Mikulski (Maryland)
Bill Nelson (Florida)
Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
Mark Pryor (Arkansas)
Ken Salazar (Colorado)
Jim Webb (Virginia)

Keep those letters coming, especially to your own senators and congresspeople...

Kansas Republicans demand loyalty oaths.

2007-08-07T13:34:00.000-04:00

Wow. The Kansas Republican Party has really plunged off the deep end here. Upset over the many defections of prominent elected Republicans in recent years, they're trying to force Kansas Republicans to sign loyalty oaths, where they promise to endose only other Republicans for any office.

This kind of looks like a party in a state of rapid meltdown, but really: can parties melt down that quickly?

I was watching C-SPAN yesterday morning and Senator Leahy asked a Bush administration official at a hearing if that official had ever read Joseph Heller's novel Catch-22. The official hadn't, so Leahy's point about the Bush official's circular logic ("I can't answer that question because it's classified, but you can read the same answer in the reports already made public by our department.") The Kansas Sacred Loyalty Oaths are even more Catch-22-y, though. This is eerie. Yet still, I must confess a little bit of schadenfreude here. (In case you don't know what that word is, look it up. It describes perfectly the emotion that opponents to the Republican Party must be feeling across the board these days.)

Blue Dogs versus blue states

2007-08-07T12:01:00.000-04:00

It's cold comfort that I believe that Bush's "Protect America" bill will be overturned in the future. Colder still that that probably won't happen before 2009, at least.

Most of the offending Democrats were "Blue Dog" Democrats, who are basically Republicans. True, there were eleven Democrats who aren't Blue Dogs but who voted for this abomination, but those are merely spineless sell-outs who'd trade their grandmother for a half-point leap in their polling data.

America's best hope is still the Democratic Party. It's inexcusable that they sold us out on this bill. I'm having trouble calling myself a Democrat right now. We could stand for a better hope, but who would that be? Some say Ron Paul, but he's just a Republican who happens to disagree with the president now and again (a quality that is much rarer these days than it should be, but still doesn't qualify you to be president.) Ralph Nader is just a washed-up spoiler who makes no real points except that neither political party will give you exactly what you want. (Whaddya want? That's life.)

I'm going to continue to condemn the sell-outs who voted for this travesty. That would be not only the 183 Republicans in the House who voted for it, but also the 30 Blue Dog Democrats and the 11 generic spineless Democrats who voted for it, as well. And the same goes for all the Republican senators and the 16 Democratic senators who voted for it, as well.

Regardless, I'm less than thrilled with my party right now, to say the least. Please: write your congresspeople. Let them know how you feel, whether it's positive or negative, and whether you think they'll listen or not. This is important.

Courtesy of the DailyKos, I'll provide you with a list of the 41 Democratic House memebers who voted for this horrible legislation. I'll try to dig up the list of violating senators later. Also useful is the way the Blue Dogs are identified. Where it doesn't say "Blue Dog," you can read "spineless."

Jason Altmire (4th Pennsylvania)
John Barrow (12th Georgia) Blue Dog
Melissa Bean (8th Illinois) Blue Dog
Dan Boren (2nd Oklahoma) Blue Dog
Leonard Boswell (3rd Iowa)
Allen Boyd (2nd Florida) Blue Dog
Christopher Carney (10th Pennsylvania) Blue Dog
Ben Chandler (6th Kentucky) Blue Dog
Rep. Jim Cooper (5th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Jim Costa (20th California) Blue Dog
Bud Cramer (5th Alabama) Blue Dog
Henry Cuellar (28th Texas)
Artur Davis (7th Alabama)
Lincoln Davis (4th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Joe Donnelly (2nd Indiana) Blue Dog
Chet Edwards (17th Texas)
Brad Ellsworth (8th Indiana) Blue Dog
Bob Etheridge (North Carolina)
Bart Gordon (6th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota) Blue Dog
Brian Higgins (27th New York)
Baron Hill (9th Indiana) Blue Dog
Nick Lampson (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Daniel Lipinski (3rd Illinois)
Jim Marshall (8th Georgia) Blue Dog
Jim Matheson (2nd Utah) Blue Dog
Mike McIntyre (7th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Charlie Melancon (3rd Louisiana) Blue Dog
Harry Mitchell (5th Arizona)
Colin Peterson (7th Minnesota) Blue Dog
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota) Blue Dog
Ciro Rodriguez (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Mike Ross (4th Arkansas) Blue Dog
John Salazar (3rd Colorado) Blue Dog
Heath Shuler (11th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Vic Snyder (2nd Arkansas)
Zachary Space (18th Ohio) Blue Dog
John Tanner (8th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Gene Taylor (4th Mississippi) Blue Dog
Timothy Walz (1st Minnesota)
Charles A. Wilson (6th Ohio) Blue Dog

There's the list. Now get writing.

Open letter to Rep. Jason Altmire (R-PA)

2007-08-06T22:44:00.000-04:00

Below is a letter I sent to Representative Jason Altmire, a freshman congressman from Pennsylvania's Fourth District, and a Democrat. He unseated the terrible Republican Bush rubber stamper Melissa Hart last year. I was excited, and I donated to Mr. Altmire's campaign. Mr. Altmire's August 3 vote for President Bush's Orwellianly-named Protect America Act has led me to realize that the cash I sent to Mr. Altmire was wasted, and that Rep. Altmire has no respect for the Constitution he claims to uphold. The Protect America Act allows for tapping phone conversations without a warrant, whether the subject of surveillance is in the borders of the United States or not, whether the subject of surveillance is an American citizen or not, whether the subject of surveillance is being monitored for any probable cause or not.

Voting for this bill was irresponsible and runs contrary to everything the United States stands for. As I said to Mr. Altmire: he doesn't deserve to be in Congress, and neither do the other 40 Democrats who voted for this abomination (not to mention the 199 Republicans who voted for it, as well.)

Mr. Altmire,

I will keep this brief. I am a native of western Pennsylvania, from Hermitage. I spent a good deal of my youth in neighboring Farrell, in the Fourth District, where my grandparents lived. Though I moved out of the area long ago, I still feel connected to the area. My concern for western Pennsylvania led me to send you a contribution for your campaign for the House last year.

I see your name appears on the list of representatives who voted for President Bush's "Protect America Act," a bill that does the exact opposite of what its name suggests it does. It causes me pain to know that someone I backed has voted to effectively overturn the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

I will not make the mistake of supporting you again. You do not deserve to serve in Congress--if what you are doing can be realistically called "serving." I was glad to see you push Bush's bootlick Melissa Hart out of the Fourth District, but I can see it didn't make a dime's worth of difference.

You have disappointed your country, Mr. Altmire, and you have contributed to the disgrace of the austere institution you purport to serve. If you are replaced by a Republican next year, I won't care. Considering how loosely you handle our civil liberties, it won't matter at all.

I understand that you will not reply to people outside your district, so I don't expect to hear back from you. However, in the hopes that this letter won't vanish into the ether, I'm posting it on my blog as an open letter to you, for the benefit of all others to read.

Best of luck in your future job search. I hope you won't find it as depressing as I found this very important vote in Congress.

Kurt Kaletka
Watertown, Massachusetts

Why Republicans fear YouTube debates

2007-08-01T09:23:00.000-04:00

Last week, CNN and YouTube hosted a debate for the Democratic presidential candidates. It featured questions recorded on film by citizens and played live before the candidates, to which they responded. Some of the questions were ridiculous, and the most ridiculous were weeded out beforehand, but overall the result was interesting and received warmly by the candidates and the media. I was on vacation when it aired so I couldn't catch it, but because it was on YouTube, all the footage was made available later online, allowing me to catch up. The wonders of the age!

Of course CNN and YouTube want to hold another debate in September, inviting questions for Republican candidates and, of course, inviting all the Republican candidates themselves. But instead of all the Republican candidates leaping at the chance, only two have agreed thus far—Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Moreover, two have already publicly balked at the debate. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has said he has some vague, unspecified scheduling conflict in the future that will probably preclude his participation. Former Massachusetts Governor Willard "Mitt" Romney has publicly stated that he questions the seriousness of the debate format, and also has cast aspersion on CNN for bias, providing evidence that Governor Romney has never actually watched CNN.

I think the real squeamishness about the CNN/YouTube debate stems from the fact that it demands candor, and that Romney and Giuliani are not at their best when unscripted. Their images are very precisely managed; none of them wants to speak off the cuff, out of fear of having to address controversial questions or to defend their beliefs by speaking to actual citizens. This is the George W. Bush model of getting into office to enact a radical agenda by refusing to address any controversy at all. To put it bluntly, Giuliani and Romney know their carefully-managed images will come undone if scrutinized.

McCain and Paul, on the other hand, are very different. They handle extemporaneous speaking very well; it's their strong suit. They have no problem talking about what they believe in, so the CNN/YouTube debate would be a great boost for their campaigns. Yes, it's refreshing to see candidates speak their minds and opinions, and Paul and McCain will do this. Their campaigns are suffering right now, arguably because they don't manage their opinions and images as carefully as Giuliani and Romney: what you see is what you get. Paul's hard-core libertarian point of view (except where gay rights and abortion rights are concerned) will probably never appeal to mainstream Republicans. McCain's straight talk has appealed to mainstream Republicans in the past, but after selling out to the Bush administration, he's having trouble un-selling out and gaining the veneer of the devoted reformer that he used to have back in 2000 and 2001. Neither Paul nor McCain will likely win the nomination next year, but these debates would help them a lot in gaining traction.

In fact, Ron Paul would probably benefit the most. The most thoughtful questions would be directed toward him, since Paul has the strongest online base of all the Republican candidates—and probably of all the Democratic candidates, as well. Zealous YouTube regulars would ask him the lion's share of the questions, and the plain-speaking Paul would no doubt be in his glory. Sure, the editors would probably arrange things so that each candidate gets his fair share of questions, but since the quantity of questions for Paul would be greater, no doubt the quality would be, too.

What it all comes down to is this: the Republicans know they're starting out for the 2008 election with a built-in disadvantage due to the performance of their party over the past six years, so they realize they have to go negative. The Republican nominee will most likely be Romney or Giuliani, and they're trying to protect their carefully cultivated images by exposing them to as little candor as possible. On the other hand, the Democrats, no matter who their nominee turns out to be, will benefit from candor and exposure, so an open forum and debate would only serve their campaigns.

The only successful Republican candidates in the past twenty years have been ones who ran more on style than substance. That didn't stop George Bush Sr. from losing the 1992 election or George Bush Jr. from losing the 2000 election, but still, their empty strategies were what they relied on all along. Note that when Bob Dole tried to run his issue-oriented campaign that he was crushed utterly, just as were all the other Republican candidates who ran on substance over style in other elections: Phil Gramm, Pete DuPont, Jack Kemp, Pat Robertson, Donald Rumsfeld, Steve Forbes, Bob Smith, Orrin Hatch, Gary Bauer... and, of course, John McCain. After watching Bush père and Bush fils win while Bob Dole lost, Giuilani and Romney seem to be thinking, "Why mess with success?" Sure, it cheapens politics, but hell, that's never stopped anyone before, has it? (The Bushes each won one and lost one, but theirs is currently the best formula a right-wing Republican has going.)

This just drives home just how depressingly hollow the Republican Party has become (as if its radical lurches rightward weren't already bad enough.) I'm sure I wouldn't consider voting for Giuliani or Romney even if they were candid about their beliefs—which is probably how a lot of other people feel, too. So, at the end of it all, who can really blame them for not standing for anything?

Florida appeals court rules that media can legally lie

2007-07-31T10:30:00.000-04:00

In a judgement evocatively and incredibly titled “Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie,” Fox News has beaten a plaintiff suing them for demanding that they insert distortive information provided by the Monsanto Corporation in a story the plaintiff wrote about the Monsanto Corporation. The plaintiff reported Fox's demand to the FCC and was fired by Fox in 1997, but won a wrongful termination suit in a Florida court in 2000.

Incredibly enough, the appeals court overturned the verdict, but even more incredibly, this happened in 2003. This didn't make news at the time, and this is disturbing. Why didn't it make news? Maybe the clue lies in the fact that no fewer than five major media companies—Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc.—filed friend of the court briefs in favor of Fox's position. This seems to imply that other major media outlets, though they didn't directly involve themselves in this case, want to protect their right to lie to the public. In the true spirit of capitalism, they apparently wish to reserve the right to make a crappy product and have the market decide what the best product is. But in the true spirit of good government, we need to legislate either standards or labels, letting consumers (or, more to the point, citizens,) make an informed choice in the face of hucksters. Just as I want to know that the food I buy isn't poisonous without having to find out the hard way, I also want to be sure about my media. Lies can be legal, I agree, but they should also be labeled, or else that's libel.

Fox is big on their "fair and balanced" idea. They lead the public to think that that means a balance between the two extremes of the political spectrum. We've always known that that's not accurate at all. Apparently Fox really means a balance between lies and facts, both presented to you for you to make up your mind. Tainted meat, tainted news: what's the difference?

Click here for the whole story, thoroughly laid out for you. I can't say I'm surprised, but that doesn't make me any less appalled.

Chief Justice Roberts suffers benign seizure

2007-07-31T06:50:00.000-04:00

While vacationing in Maine yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts suffered what doctors are calling a benign seizure, fell about ten feet onto the deck of his boat, and was hospitalized. He's still in the hospital, as of this writing.

This is apparently similar to a seizure that Roberts had in 1993. Roberts is the most recent addition to the Supreme Court and, at age 52, the youngest. Here's a link to the story.

What could this health problem of Roberts' mean? If this affects his tenure on the Supreme Court, it could mean that Bush's partisan court won't turn out to be the reliable tool of the conservative movement that many had anticipated. I'll admit that I wish Roberts were off the Court, but I'm not wishing for his debilitation or death, perish the thought. Still, with a Senate narrowly controlled by Democrats, Bush wouldn't have the same leeway when it comes to ramming through partisan nominees. As head of the Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) may have allowed partisans like Roberts and Alito to win appointment with only token, ineffective scrutiny, but the current head of the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), would be far less prone to let Bush's appointees glide through.

So let's all pray that Roberts has a speedy recovery, and that he elects to take care of his health by opting for early retirement.

Ron Paul gets it right: US overthrew Iran in 1953

2007-07-27T15:56:00.000-04:00

I admit I find Rep. Ron Paul's (R-Texas) campaign for president interesting, and I think the guy's more sincere than most people who are running for, and who have ever run for, that office. While I don't support him as a candidate, I do respect a lot of what he says.

At the Republican presidential debate, Rep. Paul stated that the United States suffered the blowback from a US-sponsored 1953 coup of the Iranian government which deposed the legitimately elected leader of Iran and reïnstalled the vicious tyrant, Shah Reza Pehlavi, whom we Americans backed. We ousted, with our CIA, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadek, because he believed Iran should control Iranian oil fields, not British and American companies. See the clip below, which splices Rep. Paul's 2007 debate performance with a 1987 PBS documentary:

Rep. Paul is right: we ignore our excesses at our own peril. Instead of the simplistic "Why do they hate us?" question, or the ultra-simplistic "Axis of Evil" sentiment, we need to recognize that our actions have consequences, and if the United States insists on treating foreign nations and nationalities like pawns and property, we're going to suffer blowback. The Bush administration pays no mind to this reality with its foreign policy, which is why every day Bush continues to run the country is another day our foreign policy gets mired deeper in an intractable, ever-bloodier quagmire.

Ron Paul is the only Republican running for president who actually talks sense regarding foreign policy, who actually bothers to look at real issues, searching for real solutions. Mind, since I don't approve of Paul's domestic ideas or of libertarian politics in general, I won't support Paul, either; I instead prefer to back either Barack Obama or John Edwards. But Ron Paul is certainly the best Republican running this year (though, admittedly, that's not saying much.)

True or Better on hiatus

2007-07-23T11:40:00.000-04:00

Due to my being completely engrossed in the new Harry Potter book, as well as my leaving for Cape Cod for a few days, I won't be able to write until it's over, which will be Thursday, July 26, when I return. See you then.

Pennsylvania high school student wins case against school district

2007-07-18T00:30:00.000-04:00

Looks like my old alma mater has lost a case against one of its students. Apparently this kid made a fake MySpace page making fun of his principal and basically got kicked out of school for it.

Well, what's there to say? Hickory High School overstepped its reach, violating Justin Layshock's Eighth Amendment rights, which protect him from cruel and unusual punishment. The ACLU stepped in and did what they do best, which is to defend people's rights from being abused. Bully for them. Now Justin's vindicated. He's also spending the summer in Togo, volunteering at an orphanage. Just the sort of behavior you'd expect from a bad seed who's corrupt beyond correction, isn't it?

I'm a Hickory High graduate, myself. Class of 1987, so I don't think Justin was even born yet when I graduated. Regardless, I remember making fun of Principal "Dopey" Anderson back then. Kids make fun of their authority figures; it's what they do. That probably was inappropriate, too, and if MySpace was around back then, I wouldn't have been surprised if someone made a page about him. Sure, it's juvenile behavior, and he shouldn't have done it. However, Principal Trosch shouldn't be able to ruin some kid's life over a dumb mistake. Where's the message there? What's the kid supposed to learn—any mistake you make will earn you irreversible, inescapable punishment? Wrong message, Mr. Principal!

Kids make mistakes. If Justin had, say, killed someone, that would be different. But this is something he can learn from, and I hope he does. If Principal Trosch thinks that Justin is too rotten a kid to live or deserve a decent and fulfilling life, then he shouldn't resort to petty revenge like expelling him from school, banning him from graduation and blocking college applications and the like. He should send the kid to juvenile hall. (When I lived in the area, the local Juvie Hall was called George Junior. Is it still there? Oi, my age is showing...)

However, a kid with a 3.3 grade point average and who tutors French for middle school students is probably salvageable, though petty, spiteful principals might disagree. Despite the fact that Justin's fake MySpace page played on the fact that Mr. Trosch is a large man, this behavior demonstrates that he is in fact quite small. Thankfully the ACLU is there to balance this man's pettiness.

As an aside, the fact that Hickory students are good enough at French to tutor middle school students testifies to what are obviously the superior talents of Mrs. Leeds, whom I believe still teaches French at my alma mater. Good to see she's still at it; these pleasant results do not surprise me. It's partly because of her that I'm fluent in French today.

A word to conservatives about candidate Hillary Clinton

2007-07-17T23:34:00.001-04:00

Hillary Clinton, in a word, leaves me clammy. If she's the nominee, I'll vote for her, but hell, I won't be able to fake enthusiasm that could convince others around me to vote for her, too. I think this is a very common attitude toward her, and it runs counter to the conservative "We just gotta stop Hillary!" meme. She's a likely presidential nominee, sure, but she's hardly the biggest threat to conservatives today. In fact, considering how her nomination would likely throw cold water on downticket Democratic races, I'd think that Republicans are daydreaming about her becoming the Democratic nominee. In fact, I'm sure they are.

I do feel the Republicans don't have any good candidates this time around. Fred Thompson will show to have no clothes soon enough. I liked McCain in 2000, but nowadays, I think most people agree that he'd be an awful president. McCain wouldn't have lost all appeal as a candidate these days if he hadn't challenged the Reagan legacy candidate in the 2000 primaries, but I'll admit, that was part of his appeal for me. If I were old enough, I might be able to call myself a Rockefeller Republican, but I'm not a Republican at all, since the Goldwater/Nixon/Reagan/Bush dominance has soured me on your party beyond reconciliation in the near future. I realize you don't care what I think, but you've really lost me.

What your party's doing to the courts scares the hell out of me, frankly. Until the Republican party is moderated more, I'm not going to be able to vote for a single Republican candidate, no matter how moderate. It makes me sad to see the way things have turned out, but there it is. I'm very disturbed by the way conservative judges are so high on overturning legislatures from the bench. An activist judiciary is a menace to any republic. These are the stakes.

David Vitter denies prostitution allegations.

2007-07-16T22:41:00.000-04:00

After a week of reclusion, Senator David Vitter has come out, his wife at his side, and admitted the culpability lay with... "political enemies." And the media, of course.

Dolchstoss! Some unseen, unnamed enemy clearly made up allegations that Senator Vitter was seeing prostitutes again. So Vitter can pretend he's a victim and can smear potentially anyone who opposes him as part of this nefarious plot to humiliate him. He's not even coming right out and saying the madams in New Orleans and DC are liars (though he's implying it.)

Senator Vitter, who campaigned as the anti-Clinton-getting-blow-jobs candidate, is now weaseling out of this by simultaneously blaming others and apologizing for it. You owe me no apologies, Senator—just own up to your predilections. You know, the predilections that you said made Bill Clinton unfit for office. I don't care who you sleep with; hypocrisy is the issue here, you sleazebag.

Why Republicans are wrong on Iraq.

2007-07-15T12:14:00.000-04:00

Remember this little attack by Rudolph W. Giuliani during the Republican debates on Fox News?

When Rep. Ron Paul dared to suggest that we try to figure out why the Iraqis resent our presence in our country, and that we also try to figure out what the September 11 terrorist attacks were about. Giuliani then not only disagrees with Paul, but he attacks Paul for daring to think differently about the issue than he does. Then Giuliani comes out and says that because he lived through the September 11 attacks, he's got a better perspective on things. This is a crock. I lived through the September 11 attacks, myself. I was in the World Trade Center half an hour before the first plane hit, and I evacuated the city that day. Regardless, I don't look at having been around on that day as a boost to my foreign policy credentials. (And I'll eat my shoes the day the Republican Party listens to the foreign policy opinions of the majority of New Yorkers.)

Many have argued (as have I) that the Republican Party screwed up on Iraq. A significant problem for them is also that they don't know how to debate on Iraq, or on any other topic, for that matter. They believe in hewing to a singular vision of what's right and good and never straying from it, then brow-beating anyone who does. There's no active debate in the Republican Party these days. This will work as a political strategy for a non-incumbent party or for a country in a (real or perceived) crisis. The Republicans are doomed in the near future unless they can keep up the illusion that we're all in imminent danger of being killed by some dirty foreigners and that the only way to save ourselves is to somehow find and kill them all (whoever "they" are,) the Republicans are in trouble... so it looks like they might be all right, after all...

Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) corrects Sara Taylor's job description

2007-07-15T11:13:00.000-04:00

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) had former White House Political Director on the stand the other day, where she said, "I took an oath to the president." Senator Leahy reminded her emphatically that her oath is to uphold the Constitution. It's beautiful:

Just one more example of the dangerous thought flying around the Bush administration these days, as well as among its supporters and apologists.