Oregon 42 - Okie State 31

Well, I missed that one.  I expected Oregon to dominate OSU for an entire game, rather than just a half.  At least it was during the second half, when it counted.

Over on the OSU boards, they're whining about the officials (who apparently scored 42 points on them, while beating the snot out of their quarterback and holding them to 31 points) and claiming (and I'm not making this up) that "the better team lost."  Seriously.  Blaming the officials is the last refuge of the genuine loser.  You're not good enough to win.  You're not good enough to even be on the same field.  So it must be the refs' fault.

This game wasn't even close.  Okie State lacked the athletes to compete with Oregon for four quarters.  They lacked the coaching to overcome the absence of their one playmaker.  They lacked the conditioning to stand up to a brand of speed and physicallity that is virtually unknown in the big-12 (little "b" intentional).

I have said it all year long - the only team that can stop Oregon is Oregon.  The first half was evidence of this as Oregon was unable to capitalize on big plays - not because of OSU's defense, but because of misfires on offense.  OSU's defense didn't change in the second half.  Rather, Oregon's execution simply improved.  Truly (and I know it's politically incorrect to say this about any opponent, but ...) OSU did not belong on the same field as Oregon.

I would have so preferred to see Oregon v. Oklahoma, and Florida v. Texas.  Oh well.

Good win by Oregon.  Nice to see Masoli lower the boom on defenders who think they're gonna make an easy pop on a QB.  I always get worried when Blount hurdles somebody - he's gonna break his ankle doing that someday - but damn it makes for good highlights.  Next year looks promising.  (And to think, we've all been whining about how un-good Oregon's been this year.  We suck).

Go Ducks!!

Oregon v. Oklahoma State

Today's the day, finally, for the Pac-10 to demonstrate to the Big-12 what real football is all about.  Or, today is the day that the Big-10 punches the Pac-10 square in the mouth.  My hunch is that it will be the former.

Oregon faces off against Okalahoma State in the Pacific Life Holiday Bowl tonight at 5:00 PM (PST) (ESPN).  Almost universally the prognosticators are calling for a shootout, apparently believing that neither team will bother to field a defense.

After some lame and probably ill-informed analysis, I have determined that Oregon will win this going away.  It will won't be a shootout - it'll be a turkey shoot.  But only IF Oregon's defense shows up.  When it does (see, first half of the Arizona game), it's like the Terminator, getting the opposing offense in its sights and then brutally, methodically, dismembering it.  The Oregon defense is faster and stronger than the Oklahoma State D.  Oregon D-lineman Nick Reed alone has more sacks than the entire Okalahoma State defense for the season.

On the other hand, if the Oregon D does NOT show up, (see, most of the second half of the Arizona game), then Okie State will run wild through the air.  Oregon's weakness is, as always, its secondary, which plays a good two yards off every receiver.  Oregon has a defensive philosophy that it's okay for the opposing team to catch the ball, it's just not okay for the receiver to gain yards after the catch.  Thus, a smart offense can move on Oregon by playing toss-and-catch for 4-6 yards all day.  You never need to run another play.

Fortunately, even if the Oregon secondary stinks, OK State will make the mistake that other offenses make by feeling an inexplicable need to "balance" the offense.  In fact, the one "rave" I hear about the Cowboys' offense is how "balanced" it is.  OSU will not run the ball against Oregon with any success, and that will put pressure on its passing game - unless they go for 4-6 yard short gains every play.  Oregon gives those up like it was passing out Halloween candy.

My money is on the Oregon D, and in particular the secondary, showing up - they have a lot to atone for this season and with great seniors like Reed and Patrick Chung playing their last game, expect some bloodied-up Cowboy parts lying on the field by game's end.

On the other side of the ball, OSU can't stop Oregon's offense.  It's just that simple.

I know OSU fans like to mention how their team's only losses came to teams ranked, at the time, #1, #2, and #3.  But the rankings had those teams (except maybe Texas) ranked way, way too high.  As if there was any question about that, see Missouri's need for overtime to beat Northwestern - yes, Northwestern, one of the Big-10's perennial doormats.  I was unaware they even still played football at Northwestern.

Of course, Oklahoma is going to get butchered by Florida, while Texas manhandles an Ohio State team whose great accomplishment is to be a pretty good team in a very bad conference.  (I would have preferred to see a Texas-Florida matchup - now THAT would be some football).

Anyhow, OSU, in those hideous orange-and-black Great Pumpkin costumes, is about to be brought back to reality. (Reality = Pac-10 > Big-12, even in a supposed "down" year).

Prediction: Oregon 62, OSU 27.

Because just losing the election was not enough.

In an attempt to secure the final and complete alienation of the Republican party from mainstream American politics for at least a generation, Chip Saltzman, the former bumble-fuck of a campaign manager for Mike Huckabee, is now running for chairmanship of the RNC and trying to woo supporters by sending them a CD with the song "Barack the Magic Negro."

Apparently, Mr. Saltzman, who's sole credential seems to be that he comes from a rich Tennessee family, thought it would be funny, and that Republicans would get the joke.

It's precisely that insularity, that belief that GOP insiders think racism is funny and that the rest of the world simply hasn't caught on yet, that is responsible for its drubbing in the past two national elections.  If the GOP fails to understand that the basis for its failure is not the lack of conservatism on the part of its candidates, but rather its dogged adherence to failed and rejected conservative principles, it will not only fail to regain the power it's lost, but may relegate itself to the margins of American politics for a generation.

Those who doubt the truth of this need only look to the Oregon Republican Party, and its failure to mount a credible major-office candidate state-wide in 20 years.  The Oregon GOP went far right in the 80s, and has never recovered, deciding that it would rather field candiates that would remain true to far-right dogma and lose, than move to the governable center and win.

Clinton's Emolument (Non) Problem

God help the internet but it creates such fodder for crazy people.  The latest cyber-craze is the argument that Sen. Hillary Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State. 

Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time[.]"

An "emolument" is basically the compensation paid to a public official.  Thus, the argument goes, because Clinton voted on budgets that included pay increases for the office of the Secretary of State, she cannot now serve in that office.

CNN ran a little segment on this story, but even their legal analyst, Jeffery Toobin, misses the more fundamental point:



The clause in question applies to Senators and Representatives.  If the drafters had intended the clause to apply to former Senators and Representatives, they would have said so.  They did not.  Consequently, the clause does nothing more than bar a sitting Senator or Representative from moving directly into an appointed office for which they have previously voted a pay increase, and then only during the current term.

There is a line of arguments being made online (here, for example) that the "during the time for which he was elected" means that the ban extends to a Senator or Representative who retires before the expiration of his or her term.  The argument then goes, in order for those words to mean something, they have to mean that it extends the ban for the duration of a current-term retirement.

The rules of constitutional/statutory construction do not permit such a simplistic analysis.  The goal of interpreting the constitution is to give full effect to the entire clause, without parsing, whenver possible.  It is also to not insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted.

Applying the clause to former members of congress necessarily inserts words that were not included by the drafters.  Moreover, the "during the time" clause does not require an expansion of the ban to post-resignation periods.  Rather, it recognizes the fact that members of congress are re-elected.  Consequently, if during a Senator's first term he or she votes for a pay raise for the Secretary of State, then during the remainder of his or her term that Senator cannot move directly into that office.  However, if that Senator is re-elected, then immediately upon the beginning of the new term of office, that Senator can then move into the Secretary of State office, because they have not voted for a pay raise during that term.   Thus, the clause can be harmonized without expanding its scope by inserting new words.

Clinton has no emolument problem.

Newsflash: Sean Hannity Lies!

Here's a surprise - Sean Hannity lies.

One of the most difficult things about listening to Sean Hannity is that he lies, fairly often.  I have never blogged about it before because I usually hear the lie in the car or when I'm not near a computer, so I can't "prove" it happened.

Tonight, I am happy to say I can.

On tonight's Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity wanted to talk about comments made by Barack Obama back in January regarding energy policy and, in particular, coal.  In the interview, Obama says: "If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

What Sean Hannity says, over, and over, and over tonight, is that Barack Obama said "if somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that we will bankrupt them." (Emphasis added).

In a bizarre display of audacity (or desperation), Hannity repeated his knowing lie immediately after playing the clip of Obama's comment.  What, does he think nobody listened to the Obama clip?  Earlier in the program, Hannity kept holding up a copy of what he claimed was the Obama quote - "I've got it right here!" he yells.  Except he doesn't, because certainly if he did, he would be able to differentiate betweent he words "it" and "we."


So I guess there is a potential second option from calling Hannity a liar.  I guess you could blame it on illiteracy.

Democratic Carpetbagging in Oregon

Thank You, Come Again.

Years ago, the people entering Oregon from California were greeted with the following sign: "Welcome to Oregon.  Thank you for Visiting."  The message was clear - we don't want you here (but we'll take your tourist dollars).

Oregonians have an almost pathalogical dislike of non-Oregonians, and if we could, we'd likely post the National Guard at the borders to keep people from moving here.  And in the spirit of full disclosure, I am, by and large, one of those people.  I like that Oregon is small, weird, and independent (relative to the national stage).

My dislike of foreigners (i.e. non-Oregonians) is only further magnified during election season, when out-of-state political action committees decide that they can contaminate my state's airwaves with their mindless drivel, which drivel is so distant from the realities of Oregon life and politics that my knee-jerk reaction is to dislike whatever and/or whomever they support, without regard to merit.

Oregon's senate race between Republican incumbent Gordon Smith and Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley has been the focal point of the bulk of the carpetbagging advertising this year.  And although I have been generally equally off-put by ads in support (or more often against) both candidates, none has sufficiently pissed me off (and thus encouraged a blog entry) than this insult to my intelligence from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC):

DSCC Ad Calls Smith A "Hypocrite," Relies On Hack Journalism.


I don't even know where to begin with this.  But let me start with a basic word of advice for any future carpetbaggers - calling somebody a "hypocrite" is an automtic turn-off, and automatically costs you my vote.  This, regardless of the truth of the allegation or my prior support of your candidate.  Feel free to point out hypocrisy, but leave the decision to label someone a hypocrite to me.

Second, if you're going to be misleading, at least do so in a manner that would require me to do some research in order to catch you.  Saying that Smith Frozen Foods has been investigated by "newspapers" in Oregon, be prepared to cite more than one newspaper.  Generally, the letter "s" at the end of a word indicates a plural of something (i.e. more than one, like, say, two).

Willamette Week - Yellow Journalism At Its Best.

Third, and perhaps most important, have some awareness of the local reputation of the "newspaper" you cite for support.  Now, I like Willamette Week.  It's fun to read and is chock full of good info regarding what's going on in Portland each week (entertainment wise).  But never, in even my most blue-jaded moment, would I consider WW a reliable, accurate, or honest source of news.  At the very most, I would consider it a gateway source of information, from which I might look to real media for honest information.  But WW is a typical extreme-left alternative weekly tabloid, the likes of which exist in virtually every metropolitan city of any consequence. 

The WW stories, which are in four parts, can be found here: Senor Smith; Senor Smith, Part Dos; Tres Strikes; and "Four" The Record.

Thus, for the DSCC to base an ad on such an "investigation," much less to call Senator Smith a "hypocrite" based on that "investigation," reflects the grossest ineptitude and utter ignorance of Oregon media.  Nobody but blind partisans believe WW is in any fashion a reliable source of information, meaning nobody outside of blind partisans will give any credence to the ad.  As a result, the DSCC has lost not only its marginal credibility, but probably any undecided and independent voters.

In a column in the East Oregonian newspaper, the newspaper of record for eastern Oregon (where Smith's peas are packed), Phil Wright notes that the WW story relied entirely on uncorroborated anonymous sources.  Wright calls is "questionable journalism at best."  I think that's too generous.  I call it baseless rumour mongering.  In essence, it's a made-up story, and should be viewed as such unless and until WW adds to it with corroborated, on-the-record sources.

Don't F*ck With My Ducks.

Lastly, and perhaps most insulting, is that the DSCC has labeled its ad "Pick."  All real Oregonians know that the capitalized word "Pick" is reserved exclusive for use in labeling "The Pick," which you can see here:



So, to the DSCC, remember this - we don't like outsiders, we don't like ignorant outsiders, and Kenny Wheaton's Gonna Score!.

Thank you for visiting.

Because, at the end of the day, it's really about the football

Headlines from today's news:

Demonstrations Prompt Closure of U.S. Embassy in Syria.

U.S. Expected To Unveil Effort to Help Homeowners.

McCain Slams LA Times for Double Standard in Withholding Obama-Khalidi Tape.

Stocks Succumb to Bleak Fed Outlook.

US Dollar Posts Biggest Daily Fall in 23 Years.

Senators Want More NFL on TV.

Fed Trims Key ....

Wait a minute, what was that last one?

Oh.  Apparently, in a bid to get the nation's economy moving again (for what else would they be working on?), 13 United States Senators have taken the time to draft a letter to the National Football League asking that more free games be shown on the NFL Network.

Thank God.

I already feel better.

Further proof that Fox News is not a real news organization.

In this story, Fox News wonders aloud why the L.A. Times is refusing to release a video that was the basis for an April 2008 story regarding a 2003 videotaped event at which Obama was spoke highly of a guy who is a former "press secretary" (for lack of a better description) for the PLO while in exile in Syria.

It is a rule among the press that unpublished materials are NEVER made available.  That sports photo you saw in the paper?  The photographer took hundreds of shots, and chose to print one.  You can't get copies of the other pictures - ever.  You can order the one that was published.

TV news organizations will shoot an hour of footage, publish 20 seconds, and never, ever, ever release the balance.

This is true even in the face of a subpoena.  Reporters will go to jail first (at least good ones will).

So it is astonishing that a purported news organization like Fox News would bat an eye at another news organizations' continuing to uphold that most basic of principles.  No legitimate news organzation would ever consider producing unpublished material, and Fox knows this.

In reality, this is Fox News picking up the newest McCain talking point - Obama is a threat to the security of Israel, so Jews should vote for McCain.  Sad, but not unexpected.  But there is no question (as if there could have been) that Fox is "in the tank" (to borrow a phrase) for McCain.

I voted. Why isn't the election over?

Like the title says.  I dropped off my ballot today.  Tonight I turn on CNN and they still act like the election isn't over.  I don't understand.  I voted.  Why isn't the election over?

Just wondering.

Sometimes, even Factcheck.org gets it wrong (sort of)

By and large, I tend to rely on the non-partisan website Factcheck.org to verify or debunk the various claims raised by both sides in the presidential election.  And they tend to do a pretty good job of backing up their analyses.

However, in a recent posting analyzing the candidates' statements regarding the other's health insurance plan, Factcheck seems to miss the forest for the trees.

In its article, Factcheck tries to debunk the Obama campaign's assertion that the McCain health insurance plan will lead to the largest middle-class tax hike in history.  Frankly, I have no idea (and Factcheck makes no effort to explain) what would constitute the largest middle-class tax hike in history.

In order to go further, a brief primer is required.  John McCain's health insurance plan has two principal tax-related components.  First, if your employer provides health insurance, you will be taxed on that amount.  Currently, such employer-provided insurance is not considered taxable income.  Under McCain, you will suddenly be hit with a higher tax withholding from your paycheck.

Second, McCain will provide a tax credit of $2,500 for individuals, and $5,000 for families (regardless of size or needs).  Supposedly, you will be able to direct the government to send the credit directly to the insurer.  How, exactly, that might work in the context of tax credit remains a mystery, since tax credits are offset by tax liabilities on your return.  It seems possible that you could end up losing the benefit of the tax credit in the maw of other taxes, in which case you're SOL.

But in any event, follow this likely scenario:  Health insurance costs, on average, about $12,000 per year for a family (and I've rounded down - it's actually a bit higher).  Under McCain, you'll have to pay taxes on that.  Assuming a low tax bracket of 25%, you'll owe $3,000 in taxes that you would not otherwise owe.  Over 12 months, that $3,000 translates into taking home $250 less each month.  Pause, and ask yourself, can you afford to reduce your monthly pay by $250 a month?

The tax credit, meanwhile, goes directly to the insurer.  However, Factcheck does a calculation that would result in your having $2,000 left over to invest in a health savings plan or to spend on other health care.  Of course, that's impossible, because the tax credit goes directly to the insurer. You will never see it, and thus will never be able to otherwise use the funds.  (Presumably, Factcheck assumes that you will be entitled to a full refund and that the leftover credits will come to you on April 15). 

However, if you end up owing taxes at year end, your owed taxes will be offset against the tax credit, resulting in a reduced (or potentially eliminated) tax credit.  So at the end of the day, what are you left with?  Less money, higher taxes, and the same health coverage you already have.

Even if you do get a full refund, you are still left with less money each month, higher taxes, and the same health coverage you already have, with the added bonus of having given the government a $2,000 interest-free loan for a year.

Lastly, bear in mind that this all assumes an employer does not discontinue providing health insurance.  Because of the alterations the McCain proposal would cause to risk-pool insurance, experts note that within a handful of years after the plan is implemented, employers would begin dropping employee health coverage altogether.

What that would mean is you have to go into the market to buy your own insurance.  At $12,000 a year, you will have to pay $1,000 per month out of pocket.  Even deducting the $5,000 credit, you still pay $583 per month out of pocket.  Again, do you have an extra $1,000 per month?  How about an extra $583 per month?

What Factcheck then overlooks in its analysis is that, while the direct tax increase may not be the largest in history, the drain on middle-class disposable income may very well be, and may result in an economic disaster the likes of which (even today) we have never seen.

For another good take on the two health insurance plans being proposed by the candidates, this article at the Health Business Blog is a good read..

Seriously, where does Fox News find these people?

I'm sitting here, right now, watching Bill O'Reilly.  He has on this ignorant hack, Mary Katherine Ham, who is discussing Obama and his ties to "unreprentent domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers."  In defending the guilt-by-association attacks, she says this:

"Anyone raise their hand if they think, uh, a Republican connected to a, an unreprentent abortion clinic bomber would be getting away with that association and not [be] questioned about it.  It's insane! People are arguing for a different set of rules for Obama because going after these associations might cause people to have, you know, bad thoughts and be bad citizens."

 Well, Ms. Ham, I guess you are insane.  In 1993, John McCain attended a meeting of the Oregon Citizens Alliance (OCA).  For non-Oregonians, the OCA represents one of the darkest chapters in modern Oregon history.  The group was a virulent anti-gay, anti-choice, hate group that pretended to uphold conservative ideals while its leaders bilked scads of money from the group and its ignorant supporters (who, frankly, deserved to get ripped off).  Eventually, the law caught up to the OCA, and it is no more.

At the meeting, Marilyn Shannon, who is simply an embarrasment to Oregonians, as well as all humans, offered her support for Shelley Shannon.  McCain reportedly sat idly while this "abortion clinic bomber" was praised right in front of him, by a group from whom McCain was seeking support and money.

Here is Shelley Shannon (from "Double Lives" - CBS News):

In August 1993, Rachelle "Shelley" Shannon of Grants Pass, Ore., was arrested for shooting a doctor outside a women's clinic in Wichita, Kan. Shannon shot physician George Tiller in both arms as he left his Wichita office.

Investigations revealed that Shannon had led a double life. In 1992, without the knowledge of her husband and children, she traveled throughout the west firebombing abortion clinics. Friends and family back in Oregon were shocked. Shannon was viewed as a deeply religious woman and peaceful protestor. No one believed that she could be capable of such vicious terrorist acts.

She was sentenced to 11 years in prison for the 1993 shooting and another 20 years for the firebomb attacks. Shannon remains in prison.

Here are the Oregonian's stories from 1993 on the McCain visit:

ARIZONA SENATOR SPEAKS ON TOLERANCE AT OCA DINNER
By Jeff Mapes
of the Oregonian Staff <
Source: THE OREGONIAN
Tuesday,August 31, 1993
Arizona Sen. John McCain walked a fine political line Monday when he appeared at a fund-raising dinner for the Oregon Citizens Alliance.

He gently admonished the group to observe the ``essence of tolerance.''

The Republican senator, under fire from gay activists back home for aiding the OCA, never directly addressed the group's sponsorship of several anti-gay-rights ballot measures.

But McCain made it clear that, while he is a conservative, he has a different perspective on the issue.
`
`We must be careful to prevent the false perception that Republicans have constituted themselves as the private advocacy group of only some Americans,'' McCain said, ``be they of one economic class, one race, one religion or of one particular character.''

About 30 gay-rights activists picketed McCain's appearance at the Portland Airport Holiday Inn.

``For a Republican like McCain to help an organization that is the most divisive in the state and the most divisive in the Republican Party is a real slap in the face,'' said protestor Lee Coleman, a member of Log Cabin Oregon, a group of gay Republicans.

McCain, who spoke to about 350 OCA activists at the $30-a-person dinner, turned aside any such criticism in brief interviews with reporters.

``I don't think I need to respond to that stupid question,'' McCain said to one reporter who asked if he feared he would be labeled as anti-gay by his appearance.

McCain told another reporter that the Republican Party should be open to anyone -- including homosexuals -- ``who share the principles and philosophy of Abraham Lincoln.''

McCain stuck to the text of a carefully written speech that seemed designed to avoid offending his hosts while answering critics who say the senator was aligning himself with the OCA's agenda.

``Tolerance does not require us to approve or adopt or support all the various forms which the pursuit of happiness will take in a diverse population,'' McCain said.

The senator was recently active in crafting the ``don't ask-don't tell'' policy in regard to gays in the military but has otherwise largely stayed away from the issue during his political career.

McCain also noted that he was in the opposition when the Arizona Republican Party several years ago endorsed a resolution declaring the United States to be a Christian nation.

``I am a Christian,'' McCain said, ``and devotion to my faith is integral to my own pursuit of happiness. But we are not only a Christian nation.''

OCA Chairman Lon Mabon said he didn't see any criticism -- veiled or otherwise -- in McCain's remarks.
``I took his comments as basic comments most American citizens would agree with,'' Mabon said.

Mabon, who said he hoped to raise at least $3,000 from the event, announced that the money would go toward strengthening the group's legal expertise so it can ``take on the ACLU whenever they attack our values.''

Mabon said the OCA would also focus next year on trying to elect more like-minded candidates to office.

``We are going to be prepared for the primaries in 1994,'' he said.

McCain's appearance came a year after he and other Senate Republican leaders met with OCA officials to discourage them from running a third-party candidate against Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Ore.

Mabon said no deal was struck but the senators agreed to ``work with'' the OCA.

Mabon said McCain had told him during Monday's visit that Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, had sent ``his best wishes to the OCA'' and would be coming out at a future time to address the group.

* * *

MCCAIN MET OBLIGATION, LEFT QUICKLY
By Jeff Mapes
of The Oregonian staff
Source: THE OREGONIAN
Sunday,September 5, 1993

You know the old moral about what a tangled web you weave when you practice to deceive. The same is true in politics when you deliver on a deal that isn't supposed to be a deal.

Well, that's what Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., must be thinking after his speech to the Oregon Citizens Alliance last week in Portland. From start to go, the whole thing wasn't any fun for for McCain. Privately, some of his staffers took to calling it the ``invitation from hell,'' according to one well-placed source. Of course, a lot of Republican politicians in Oregon have found that out when they've tried to accommodate the OCA.

McCain first met OCA Chairman Lon Mabon and one of his sidekicks, former gubernatorial candidate Al Mobley, a year ago in Washington.

Mabon and Mobley were given an audience with several GOP senators to talk about the OCA's threat to run a third-party candidate against Oregon Sen. Bob Packwood.

Who knows how serious Mabon was about a third-party race, but he managed to use his threat to wangle some serious face-time with a bevy of Republican senators.

Afterward, Mabon said the OCA would stay in the Republican Party but that no deal was cut. Of course, no signed-in-blood deal needed to be made. You can be more subtle than that in politics.

For their part, the senators promised that, sure, they'd be willing to help out after the election, come out to speak to your group. Heck, that's what politicians do, go around speaking to groups.

Of course, this meeting was before the OCA got its national reputation for last fall's anti-gay ballot measure. All of a sudden, the OCA was being demonized in no less than the pages of The New York Times.

According to one source who talked to McCain, the Arizona senator didn't realize the notoriety the OCA has attracted in the gay-rights community when he accepted the speaking invitation this spring.

Sen. Mark Hatfield, R-Ore., who is himself an open critic of the OCA, tried to talk McCain out of it, but McCain said he couldn't back out of it. Clearly, McCain felt bound by the signals the Republican senators sent Mabon and Mobley in their D.C. meeting.

When the pending speech hit the Arizona news media, McCain was pilloried by gay-rights activists. A McCain relative's business was threatened with a boycott and one Arizona Republic column on the affair was headlined: ``Hate group finds friend in McCain.''

The senator himself met with Arizona leaders of the NAACP and the American Jewish Committee to smooth things over and put out the word he would talk to the OCA about ``tolerance.''

Thus, we find McCain taking a 1,200-mile detour to Portland last Monday instead of going home to Phoenix after he had been with a U.S. delegation that met with Mexico's president over the weekend.

In Portland, McCain was greeted by protesters at the airport and at the front of the Airport Holiday Inn. When he reached the entrance, a reporter shoved a tape recorder at him and asked if he was concerned about speaking to a group with the OCA's reputation.

``No, are you?'' growled McCain as he race-walked into the drab ballroom ahead of OCA Chairman Lon Mabon.

From the head table, McCain grudgingly took a few more questions from reporters, although he clearly didn't want to say much directly about the gay-rights issue that has made the OCA's national reputation.

McCain quickly got a first-hand flavor for the OCA. Marylin Shannon, the vice chairwoman of the Oregon GOP, had a spot on the program to give an opening prayer. In short order, she praised the Grants Pass woman accused of shooting an abortion doctor in Wichita and thanked the Lord ``for Lon Mabon and the vision you put in his heart.''

Once McCain got into his speech, he stuck to the text like a Talmudic scholar. He told the OCA that Republicans have to be careful to not be seen as the ``private advocacy group of only some Americans'' and that they should observe the ``essence of tolerance.''

You could read it as a message that the OCA should change its focus and be more tolerant of gays. Or maybe not. Mabon was able to say plausibly he didn't see anything critical in McCain's remarks.

Instead, Mabon seemed as ebullient with reporters as McCain was testy. He used the evening to issue a stream of new marching orders for the OCA. He said the group would be a player in next year's legislative races and promised that if Hatfield ran again in 1996, ``I don't think he'll have a free and easy primary like he has had in the past.''

Maybe McCain can take that message back to Mark and his other Senate colleagues.

Of course, McCain didn't seem to want to learn too much about the OCA's varied projects.

While Mabon and McCain sat together at the head table, Mabon said they never did discuss the OCA's initiatives on homosexuality. They also apparently didn't talk about the OCA's attempts to recall several Republican legislators.

McCain himself wasn't available afterward. He rushed out of the banquet at the end -- stiffing reporters' questions -- to get the next flight out. It must have felt good to slip between the sheets of his own bed when he finally made it back to Phoenix that night.

A current story (that includes the above) can be found here.

Keith Olberman had a great video segment here (and think what you want about Olberman as a shameless left-wing hack, this piece should bother you):


So Ms. Ham, perhaps before you go on national pretend TV and run your ignorant mouth, you bone up on a fact or two.  McCain has received a pass for his association with murders and domestic terrorists.  One last observation - Bill Ayers was never even indicted.  Shelly Shannon is in prison.  Whose associations should pose the biggest worries?

The vocal minority

"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I believe I have ended up where I needed to be." - Douglas Adams.

In 1991, I moved to Eugene to attend the University of Oregon.  At the time, all I knew about Eugene and UO was that it was the pot-smoking, tie-dye wearing, hippie Mothership.  Notably, that is the impression enjoyed by virtually everybody who purports to know anything about Eugene but doesn't live there.

During my time at UO, I worked as an editorial page editor and columnist for the student newspaper, the Oregon Daily Emerald.  Much of what I wrote was, in my opinion, basically common sense.  I didn't have a particularly strong Pavlovian attraction to any partisan ideology, although I had always been a registered republican.

While there, I discovered some fascinating things about perceptions and human nature.  For starters, I can't make anybody happy.  I received equal response to my editorials and columns from both liberal and conservative readers, and within that response was myself equally labeled a liberal and a conservative.  During the 1992 presidential election season, I wrote an editorial critical of Democratic Senate candidate Les Aucoin (can't recall why), and immediately we were deluged with calls and letters wondering why we didn't simply endorse his Republican opponent.  Democratic student leaders came to our office - how could we do this?  (In fact, we ultimately endorsed AuCoin, as I recall).

Later, I wrote an editorial critical of Bill Clinton's visit to UO, noting that his campaign squandered an opportunity to talk to actual voters when it instead bused in thousands of school children who couldn't vote (and didn't care).  At the time, Clinton was not certain to win, and every vote counted.  Immediately, we were blasted for our hidden bias, and why didn't we just come out and support George H. W. Bush. (Again, we ultimately endorsed Bill Clinton).

What this told me was that partisans can't, or won't, listen to criticism of their candidates.  It doesn't matter what the criticism is, whether it's directed at the candidate, a position, or in at least in one case, the decision to exclude thousands of voters from a rally while trying to garner those excluded-voters' votes.  From this, I concluded that partisans are, by and large, unthinking and generally none-to-bright.  (Sixteen years later, my opinion has been, I believe, validated).

However, while in the heart of the proverbial beast at UO, I discovered that the loud, liberal voice that was generally attributed to Eugene, was in fact limited to the UO and its immediate surroundings.  Go a mile in any direction, and the political winds shifted dramatically to the right.  (Maybe "dramatically" is too strong a term unless understood relative to the left-blowing Santa Ana-like winds on campus).  However, those people outside of the campus are not remotely as loud as those near/on campus.  Truly, a vocal minority conveyed the false impression that the entire community shared a view.

I go through this lengthy preamble to set up the topic here - the new vocal minority of the right.  Subsequent to the 2000 election, there has been a belief that right-wing, conservative ideology is the majority ideology in the United States.  That belief is based on the election and reelection of George W. Bush, and has been fueled by right-wing talk radio (coupled with the near abject failure of left-wing talk radio - see "Air America.").

The belief is misguided but, as I have explained above, it is also invulnerable to honest consideration and evaluation by right-wing partisans.  They cannot, or will not, engage in rational evaluation of their positions.

Nonetheless, it cannot escape observation that Bush did not win the presidency by a landslide (if he won it at all).  At a minimum, he lost the popular vote.  That, coupled with an embarrassing and aimless campaign by Algore, resulted in Bush stumbling into a victory.  In 2004, John Kerry also ran a ridiculous and aimless campaign that, again coupled with an aggressive and fear-mongering Rovian attack, again allowed Bush to literally squeak by and win reelection.  The idea that Bush won because he represents a majority of Americans and their values is laughable, and simply counter to reality.

Worse, the rise of right-wing talk radio has enhanced that bogus opinion.  Right-wingers listen to right-wing radio and call in to right-wing radio for one simple reason - they have the time.  Either they're unemployed, retired, or have lots of down time at work.  A lot of these people are simply mad at the government, believe their situation is the result of or worsened by government action, and suffer from delusions of government designs on their guns, on their God, or on their childrens' sexuality.  It is probably unfair to label these people with generalizations, but such broad-stroke attacks seem to be the only thing they understand.  Thus, I would label them as older, less educated, less informed, less literate, lower income.  Basically, the poor and stupid. (Note: not all poor people are stupid, and not all stupid people are poor).

Meanwhile, left-wing radio is far less successful.  I ascribe a handful of reasons to this.  First, the left-wing is already the master of alternative media, leaving little appetite for mainstream media.  Second, those folks who tend to lean left but are far from partisan have jobs that do not leave time for listening and/or calling into talk radio.  Also, left-leaning people tend to socialize with other left-leaning people, and so they believe everybody already thinks like they do.  (It is noteworthy that, in my observations, left-wing people tend to be far less tolerant of the company of right-wingers, whereas right-wingers will gladly socialize with left-wingers and not feel the need to preach.  That tolerance, however, does not spill over into the voting booth or policy positions).

Nonetheless, it is this misguided perception of majority that is causing many right-wingers to come unglued at the prospect of a Democratic victory this fall.  They truly cannot understand what is happening, and they are stunned that the talk-show crazies (i.e. Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck) are not having more of an impact.  It is beyond their abilities to realize that those talk shows are focused on narrowly-targeted hyper-partisans and that the larger public neither listens nor cares.

What has changed as of late is that these crazies have moved from calling radio shows to attending John McCain rallies.  What is surprising is not the level of hate and insanity, but that McCain is dumb enough to hand microphones to these people.  And although this is not where I intended to go, where I have ended up is here - John McCain continues to exercise not just questionable, but incredibly poor judgment.

(Thanks Dean, for inspiring me to waste part of my day writing this).

Politico.com Errs With Inflammatory Headline (Updated)

In reporting on a John McCain rally in Minnesota, Politico.com used the following headline: "Crowd boos after McCain says Obama not 'an Arab.'"

The story reports the crowd booing after various attempts by McCain to quell the rage building at the rally.  However, in regard to the "Arab" comment, the story does not indicate any boos.

The specific exchange went like this:

Crazy Old Lady: "I can't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's not, he's no,t uh, he's an Arab. He's not ..."

McCain:  "No Ma'am.  He's a decent family man [and] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign's all about. He's not [an Arab]."

And with that, the audience broke into applause.  You can see the exchange here:



The editors at Politico.com need to do a better job of ensuring their headlines fairly reflect the content of their stories.  It's little things like this that cause people to distrust political websites and the media generally.

UPDATE:  Politico.com has changed the headline, which now reads: "McCain: Obama not an Arab, crowd boos."  Technically accurate, albeit inartful.

Bad Movie Done In By Vast Left-Wing Theater Conspiracy

This past weekend two movies opened that, I thought, might provide an early indicator of the public split between liberal and conservative.  In particular, I thought it would shed a light on the idea, so often asserted on right-wing talk radio, that "conservatives" are the majority in this country.

Two movies - David Zucker's "An American Carol" and Bill Maher's "Religulous" undertake to preach to their respective choirs about the inherent insanity of the other choir.  In short, "An American Carol" is an effort to mock left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore and his (real or imagined) disdain for America, while "Religulous" is an attempt to mock organized religion and its adherents.

I'm not particularly a fan of either movie (based on style, not substance - I haven't seen either).  But I don't like movies that have as an agenda the mockery of people for their beliefs.  Just because I might disagree with someone's beliefs doesn't give me the right to mock them.  Challenge and question them, yes.  But outright mockery?  I just think that's in poor taste.  But to each his own.

That said, there are a lot of people who will find these movies funny and entertaining, for no other reason than each respective movie supports and reflects the world views of those who like each movie.  And with that in mind, I figure that you can identify the general compass of the nation by which movie does better at the box office.

Fortunately, both movies opened the same weekend, so neither movie could attribute a poor performance to an event that took place on its opening weekend that did not take place on the opening weekend of the other movie. 

Reviews were not mixed.  "Religulous" gained a 68% Fresh Rating at RottenTomatoes.  Erstwhile, "An American Carol" received only a 13% Fresh Rating.  Translated to normal English - reviewers liked "Religulous" and did not like "An American Carol."  In fact, in my observations, I don't think I have seen more than a couple movies ever rate worse than "An American Carol" on RottenTomatoes.

When the opening week box-office numbers came out, "An American Carol" opened at number 9, while "Religulous" opened at number 10.  Gross numbers reflected "An American Carol" earned $4,354,000, while "Religulous" earned $4,202,216.  (You can see the week's charts here in Variety.  Be sure to look at the week ending Oct. 9, 2008).

On its face, it appeared that "An American Carol" won out, albeit by a slim margin.  But that's not the whole picture.  "An American Carol" opened on 1,639 screens, averaging $2,656 per screen.  "Religulous" opened on only 502 screens, but averaged $8,371 per screen.  Thus, on a per screen basis, "Religulous" won the week by an overwhelming margin.  What that translates into is "Religulous" played to packed houses, while "An American Carol" played to roughly 25% filled seats.

Apparently, the abysmal per-screen showing of "An American Carol" has inspired tales of a vast theater conspiracy to skew the ticket sales.  Stories abound that theaters took money for "An American Carol" and then printed out tickets for something else.

On NewsBusters, commentator Warner Todd Huston suggests that it "wouldn't surprise [him] if it turned out that certain people were trying to doom this film," in regard to the ticket sales issue.  Huston's post also contains a link to the movie's website where people can report fraudulent ticket sales.  As of this posting, no such link exists.  Huston himself notes the absence of the link in a subsequent posting (wherein he also denies alleging the existence of a conspiracy - I'll let you interpret his above quote however you choose).

Notably, few on the right want to acknowledge that, just maybe, "An American Carol" isn't very good, got poor reviews, and nobody went to see it.

Country First? Not for John McCain.

This seems to have slipped by people, but in the second presidential debate, John McCain made an extraordinary claim.  He knows how to capture Osama bin Laden.  Specifically, McCain said "I'll get Osama bin Laden, my friends.  I'll get him no matter what, and I know how to do it."  (Click here to read and watch.  On the left side, scroll down to "Policy on Pakistan" and go to about 7:14 into the video.  The text will follow on the right side).

However, it appears that Senator McCain isn't going to tell us how to get bin Laden unless he's elected president.  Clearly, John McCain has put country first.

Sadly, the ridiculous nature of the last debate precluded the obvious follow up questions: "How?" and "What do you know that nobody else seems to know?"

Either McCain is lying, or he's a hypocrite who is more concerned about winning an election than helping his country.  In either case, there can no longer be any question but that John McCain is not fit to be commander in chief of anything, much less the United States military.  A true CIC would subordinate his interest to that of the country's.  John McCain is clearly concerned with nothing other than John McCain and winning the White House, national security be damned.

Rush Limbaugh Concedes Obama Victory!

So I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh this morning just to hear the pre-debate spin, and lo-and-behold, he declares Barack Obama is going to win the election.

Sort of.

Actually, Limbaugh went on about how the Zogby poll had Obama with a not-quite 3-percent lead over John McCain.  Limbaugh then noted that he pays special attention to Zogby because that poll has been accurate in predicting past presidential elections.

As you may recall, yesterday I posted my belief that Obama would win in a landslide, and that part of that opinion comes from John Zogby, who is predicting a Reagan v. Carter, 1980 style landslide victory for Obama.

My hunch is that Limbaugh was unaware that Zogby has preliminarily called the election for Obama, but certainly if Limbaugh believes Zogby gets it right, then he must believe that Obama will win in a landslide.

Of course, I base this entire statement on the old tried-and-true mathematical theorem - if A=B and B=C, then A=C.  So it must be true.  Limbaugh concedes victory to Obama.

An Obama Landslide?

I said it first (so far as I know believe claim) on October 3rd.  But my self-aggrandized genius is probably somewhat overrated, as I clearly am not alone in my belief that this presidential election will end in a landslide victory for Barack Obama.

John Zogby, of the Zogby poll, predicts that this election may be akin to Ronald Reagan's crushing defeat of Jimmy Carter.  Likewise, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Time Magazine's national political correspondent Karen Tumulty claimed "this is Ronald Reagan, Walter Mondale landslide territory." (Go to about 7:43 into the video).

Noting that I am in no way a fan of or believer in polling (particularly with the rise in the number of people whose only phone is an unlisted cell phone), I guess it gives people something to talk about.  So, if you care about polling, this is a pretty cool website - FiveThirtyEight.com.  It's like the CNBC of polling data.

John McCain's New Drinking Game

In a recent comment to a prior post comparing the pre-presidential experience of Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln, an anonymous commentator began a non-related rant about Obama's voting record. Specifically, the person railed against Obama voting with the Democratic party 90-percent of the time and, therefore, cannot bring the "change" he touts in his campaign.

In truth, Obama votes with his party 96-percent of the time. (Scroll down to "Voting With Party" on left side).

However, John McCain, a self-described "maverick" and reformer, has voted with his party 88.1-percent of the time.  Not exactly an agent of "change" either.  In fact, a review of this complete list of voting records reflects that there are 31 GOP Senators who have voted against their party more often than John McCain.  There are 49 Republican senators.  That translates to 63-percent of the GOP Senators whose voting records deviate from party-lines, and thus are greater "mavericks" than McCain.

Two things to bear in mind when considering these figures: (1) Voting "with" your party does not inherently mean you voted "against" the other party, or the administration.  For example, the recent financial "rescue" bill was the baby of the GOP White House, and a majority of Senate Democrats and a majority of Senate Republicans voted for it.  That would translate in a "voting with party" mark for any candidate that voted in favor.; (2) This does not identify the differences between Obama and McCain - i.e. where did they vote different and where did they vote the same.

John McCain's "maverick" label borders on the ridiculous, but is clearly misleading (at least when engaging in an "apples-to-apples" generalized comparison of McCain's and Obama's voting records). Certainly, McCain has taken some positions well outside his party's agenda (e.g. Gang of 14; McCain-Feingold, to name a few).  But cherry-picking doesn't undo the overall record.

On the funny side, during the Vice-Presidential debate, both my wife and I mentioned that we should play a drinking game where we drink every time Sarah Palin said "maverick."  Turns out we weren't the only ones with that thought:

Palin's "Experience" Exposed

As you may have heard by now, while Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, the town charged rape victims for the cost of their rape kits.  A rape kit is the forensic/medical exam and testing done to deterimine the identity of the rapist - sort of like dusting for fingerprints, but more invasive and unpleasant.

When the town's police chief refused to end the practice, the Alaska legislature debated and passed a bill to forbid it, and specifically targeted Wasilla.

The debate over the practice has focused on whether Palin knew about and, by implication, condoned the practice.  The general consensus is that there is no evidence Palin had direct knowledge of the practice. 

That seems to miss the point.  The significance of the story is not whether Palin condoned such an abhorent practice.  Rather, it is that such a thing could occur in her town while she was mayor, and apparently she knew nothing about it.  What kind of leadership is that?

And isn't it difficult to believe that the mayor of a town being targeted by the state legislature doesn't know that her town is so targeted?  Again, what kind of leadership is that?  Did she live in a bubble?

Palin criticized Barack Obama's stint as a community organizer by noting that one of the key differences between that job and being a small-town mayor was that the may had "actual responsibilities."  If that is true, then when will we hear Palin take "actual responsibility" for the actions of her town's police chief, the actions of her mayoral staff in (presumably) keeping her in the dark, and her own actions in reviewing and approving budgets that reflected the practice without, it would seem, actually reading those budgets?  And what kind of leader doesn't know this is going on?

Clearly, not all "experience" is created equal.

More Fox News Just Making Stuff Up.

Came across this today from Fox News' John Gibson, in a piece about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

"Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn't afford them."

Really?  Maybe Mr. Gibson should try fact-checking his commentary.  On the other hand, if he was relegated to speaking the truth, he wouldn't have much to say (as would be the case with most of Fox News).

In fact, Fannie Mae was created in 1938, as part of FDR's "New Deal."  Bill Clinton was born in 1946.  I'm hard pressed to grasp how Fannie was a creation of the Clinton White House, when it was created 8 years before Clinton was even born.

Freddie Mac was created in 1970, during Richard Nixon's presidency.  For those of you from Mars, Nixon was a Republican. 

Gibson was right in that both entities were created by Democrat-controlled congresses.  So, even a blind pig occasionally finds a truffle.

The subtle genius of SNL's Palin incest skit

On Saturday, September 20, 2008, Saturday Night Live ran a skit in which reporters from the New York Times were discussing being assigned to go to Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin.  The relevant dialogue went as follows:

Reporter: Uh, what about the husband?  You know he's doing those daughters.  I mean, come on, it's Alaska!

Editor: He very well could be. Admittedly there is no evidence of that, but, on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary.  And these are just some of the lingering questions about Governor Palin.

The skit ends with a shot of a NYT mockup with a banner headline reading: "In Small Alaska Town, Doubts Still Linger."  Halfway down the page is another headline, two columns wide, that reads: "While No Direct Evidence of Incest in Palin Family Emerges, Counter Evidence Remains Agonizongly Elusive."

On its surface, the skit was designed to poke fun at the NYT and other liberal media efforts to discredit Palin, while seriously failing to understand the world outside their cloistered Manhatten existence.  Although you would think conservatives would enjoy watching the NYT be skewered, instead they are up in arms over how inappropriate it was to suggest Palin's husband and daughter was engaged in an incestuous relationship.

Fox News is on the story of course.  In this somewhat rambling "report" about the controversy, the non-news network somehow tries to tie the fabricated incest story with the all-to-real story of Sarah Palin's Downs-Syndrome baby, and perhaps suggest the skit was intended to give voice to some bizarre conspiracy theories that the baby is actually that of the Palin's eldest daughter Bristol.

The beauty of the skit was saved for the final headlines though.  First the paper creates a "what if" rumor based on nothing but ignorance of Alaska and Alaskans, then reports as news the fact that its phony story has not yet been disproven.  That, in a nutshell, is what Fox News does every day - except they don't use a live audience or a laugh track.

Sadly, I don't keep a journal of all the examples I see of this on Fox News, which I confess to watching for the entertainment value - I am often on the edge of my seat waiting to see how they'll distort reality this time.  Here are some examples.

First, on June 6, E.D. Hill, on her show "America's Pulse" characterized the Michelle and Barack Obama "fist bump" as "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently."

Following that lede, after a commercial break Hill returned with an interview with body language "expert" Janine Driver and never again mentions the "terrorist fist jab" interpretation, and certainly Driver says nothing remotely similar.  (Hill and her show were cancelled within days, so credit to Fox where it's due).

Watch it here:

 Another great example comes from Megan Kelly, whose apparent qualification to work on TV is she's blonde and kinda hot. (Note - Megan Kelly is also a graduate of Albany Law School and worked for a brief period for Jones Day, one of the world's largest law firms).

In her speech to the Democratic National Conventinon, Michelle Obama said "the world as it is just won't do." She then went on to discuss how people have to fight for a better world.

In her subsequent "analysis," Kelly says this:

Megan Kelly:  If you replace "world" with "country," you're back to the same debate, arguably, you've been having about Michelle Obama's feelings about this country.

Really?  If I replace someone's words with other words, then I can ask whether there are issues surrounding the story I just made up?  And then, perhaps, I can continue to note that, although there is no evidence to prove my fabricated story, there is no evidence to disprove it, either.

Watch Stephen Colbert illustrate the point better than I:

In this broadcast, former journalist Britt Hume reads a story that begins by restating that Barack Obama and his campaign have gone out of their way to remind people that Obama is a christian, not a muslim.  Then, Hume notes that the Jerusalem Post reported an interview with Obama's half brother Malik.  The Post story, as reported by Hume and Fox, said "if elected his brother will be a good president for the Jewish people, despite his Muslim background." 

Notably, Hume doesn't try to say Obama is a Muslim.  Rather, he engages in the "if we put it out there and nobody disproves it, maybe it is true" practice that is the hallmark of what passes for reporting on Fox News.  Worse for Hume, turns out it's not true anyway.  The last half of the sentence is a fabrication, and you can listen to the actual interview here.  You'll note that Malik Obama never says what Hume and Fox said he did.

So kudos to SNL for its sly (even if unintended) slap at Fox News and its mindless followers.  Lies, and in particular outrageous lies, are no less wrong and immoral when they are couched in the false pretense of "just wondering" and then left to grow on their own, like a noxious weed.  Sucks to be on the receiving end of that tactic for once, huh. (And a thumbs down to NBC for cowardly removing the clip from YouTube and failing to post it on its own website).

Busting the Palin Bubble

It was fun ride, to be sure, but the Sarah Palin bubble of excitement that came with her unexpected (by anybody) nomination for the Republican vice-presidential slot appears to be bursting right before our eyes.

Palin has been on the stump for a good couple weeks now, and has yet to give a new speech.  She continues to lie about the Bridge to Nowhere, she continues to lie about her opposition to earmarks, she continues to lie about being a fiscally responsible governor/mayor.  Worse, she continues to make these lies after they have been universally debunked.  However, Palin, John McCain and the rest of the GOP machine have apparently bought into the time-tested truth espoused by Vladimir Lenin - "A lie told often enough becomes truth."

The GOP has borrowed from Lenin's playbook before, leaking the "Obama is a muslim" or "Obama is not a citizen" or similar falsehoods through their proxies, and then disavowing responsibility while coyly responding "That's for Senator Obama to address," thereby tacitly re-asking the question and giving it an air of authenticity.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a campaign for any office at any level delve to the depths of the McCain camp.  And I am very troubled.  I have always had a high opinion of John McCain.  I believe his record of running against the Beltway Insiders is, by and large, pretty admirable.  Sure he's had his failings - even significant ones (i.e. the Keating Five), but I believed he learned from that and become a better senator because of it.  I disagreed with McCain during this campaign on the important issues - the economy, taxes, health care.  I disagree with his assessment of the war in Iraq, with the "success" of the surge (which I still consider dubious at best), and his non-strategy for exit.

But now, McCain has turned his campaign over to a group of hacks who, in any other election, would be salivating at the chance to light up McCain for being too liberal, too much of an insider, or just plain too old.  They, in turn, have taken the campaign into an area that even Karl Rove has decried as beyond the pale.  That's something.  When even the devil himself says you've crossed the line, what do you do?

Apparently, if you are John McCain, you go on "The View" and expose the fact that you have no idea what your campaign is saying or doing.  And now I don't know what to think of John McCain.  Either he has, as one Obama staffer said, decided he'd rather lose his integrity than lose an election, or he is now exposed for the weak, bumbling old man being led by the nose that I sort of thought he was at the outset.

In either case, the magnitude of his and Palin's lies are beginning to unravel the whole aura of excitement and remove their stolen mantra of "change."  Worse for McCain, Palin's handlers won't let her talk to the media until the media is nice to her (which is clear evidence of her ability to lead), won't let her cooperate with the "Troopergate" prove in Alaska (just like a real reformer), won't release her tax records, and won't let her go off script, even if that script has grown tired and has been rejected as an outright lie.

McCain should have picked Mitt Romney.  There would have been a short run of ads showing Romney and McCain tearing each other up at debates and on the stump, but that would have passed and things would have settled down, allowing McCain-Romney to run on their records and issues.  They would have posed a formidable challenge to Obama-Biden.  But McCain-Palin is quickly turning into a punchline the magnitude of which I don't recall having ever seen.

Kissing Pigs

Not that this is any big deal, but I sometimes wonder if the media, and perhaps most of America (or at least, America as it appears in the media) lives in a cave (or a small box).

In a campaign speech the other day, Barack Obama said, in regard to the GOP's questionable usurpation of the "change" theme, that if you put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig.  Now, I don't know how many times in my life I've heard that phrase.  My favorite variation is that a pig in a dress is still a pig, but whatever.

Apparently some ignorant folk believe the remark was intended to call GOP Veep Wannabe Sarah Palin a "pig."  This, because in her rousing yet hollow convention speech, she mentioned that the difference between a hockey-mom and a pit bull was lipstick.  It was a stupid line then, and it remains a stupid line now.

But in order to believe the Obama comment was somehow formulated to respond to Palin's stupid line, you have to have lived in a cave (or a small box) for basically your entire life.  Otherwise, you would know that the lipsticked pig remark is an old-school, tried-and-true, time-tested and pundit-approved colliquialism that is shorthand for you can't make a substantively bad thing good by applying cosmetic changes. 

In this case, the Obama comment was meant to say that you can't change the tired, hackneyed, tried-and-failed ideas of the GOP by adding an exciting and energizing personality into the mix.  (Or, maybe he was saying that you can make John McCain look like a maverick by propping him up next to a sexy librarian - I don't know).

But seriously, to those who are currently foaming at the mouth over this, stop being stupid.

And eat some bacon.

Who Ya Gonna Tax? BIG OIL!

A funny thing happened on the way to the gas station today - Big Oil made more money. I'd sure like some that.

As it turns out, I'm likely to get my wish regardless of who is elected President.

Barack Obama wants to institute a "windfall profits tax" on the oil companies. I don't know what constitutes a "windfall" profit as opposed to a regular, or even large, profit. But he wants to send me a check with the money he takes from the oil companies, who I am sure won't miss it.

But, like with almost everything Obama discusses so far, it's pretty words and happy talk - good speech, no action - at least not yet.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin, the GOP's veep nominee, has already played the roll of Robin Hood. In Alaska, Palin seriously jacked taxes for the oil companies doing business in her state, then distributed the money to the people in the form of $1,200.00 rebate checks. Presumably, that also made it easier to manage the state's budget.

So I guess Obama and Palin aren't so different after all. Because I am certain that Palin's Great Alaskan Handout was not overt political pandering, but rather epitomizes her strongly-held conviction that it is her role to ensure government takes what it needs from big oil (or big business for that matter) and redistribute some to the masses while keeping the rest for itself.

Balanced budgets are just around the corner!

Obama "least experienced candidate"?

Wow - it's been three months since I've posted anything. Not for lack of interest, just lack of time.

Anyhow, among the many things churning in my turbid little brain is the questioning of Barack Obama's experience and whether is qualified to be President.

Last night, I heard this line from presidential wannabe and former Senate washout Fred Thompson (R-TN), who apparently took time away from his nap to speak at the Republican National Convention. In his speech, Thompson said that Obama was "the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President."

Fred, you're a good actor. But you're also an idiot.

Here's a little comparison for you Fred, using one of your honored own (unless you're from the South, then maybe not so honored).

Barack Obama
8 years in Illinois Senate (1996-2004)
3.5 years in U.S. Senate (2005-2008)
Democratic nominee for President (2008)

Abraham Lincoln
8 years in Illinois House (1834-1842)
2 years in U.S. House (1846-1848)
Republican nominee for President (1860)

Note Lincoln's 12-year absence from elected office. No way he could get elected today.

Obama the "most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President"? Other than Abraham Lincoln, perhaps. But I don't think Lincoln turned out so bad, and he was a decent war-time Commander-in-Chief (at least he won his war).

I note, Fred, that you ran for President with only 9 years experience in any elected office (U.S. Senate). That's less elected-office experience than either Obama or Lincoln. Something about people living in glass houses not throwing stones comes to mind.

Lastly, Fred, please -- I know you didn't write the speech (unless you did), but people who speak English as a first language would not say "most inexperienced." The correct term is "least experienced." Ignorant stupidity is one thing. Illiterate ignorant stupidity is simply intolerable.

McCain: Bring Back Prohibition

Further distancing himself from his Democratic opponent, Woodrow Wilson, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has declared that, if elected president, he will bring back Prohibition.

Or, he was signaling his intent to bring on Mitt Romney as a vice-presidential running mate.

Or, he was channeling Homer Simpson.

You decide:




I want to know whether he intends to use earmarks to veto the beers, or if he will only veto beers that contain earmarks, but not other beers. If he intends to use earmarks to veto the beers, will he dip his ear in ink, or will it be dabbed on by an ATF agent? If the latter, will it be okay if my beer contains one earmark, but not two? And why would I be putting my beer up to my ear anyway?

Cool Workout Playlist

Now that Tina bought me a new iPod Touch for my birthday (Thank You Tina!), I came up with a 30-minute playlist for running. Songs are designed for a 5-minute warm-up, about 6:30 in fast jog / slow run, about 10-minutes of faster running (about 6 on my treadmill), followed by 9-minutes of warm down.

Playlist is:

Hells Bells - AC/DC (warm up)


Crawling In The Dark - Hoobastank (fast jog)


Paralyzer - Finger Eleven (faster jog / slow run)


Inside The Fire - Disturbed (run)


Afterlife - Avenged Sevenfold (run faster - sprint the solos if you can)


Children of the Sea - Black Sabbath (catch your breath with some Dio)


Over You - Daughtry (relax, walk it out)


The whole thing is like 30.4 minutes, which is the minimum cardio you're supposed to get each day (not that I do). The nice thing about keeping a fixed playlist for running, rather than mixing it up each time, is you soon get to know exactly where you are the run and how much longer you have to go. And at least for me, it's all about the light at the end of the tunnel.

It's All Up To Missouri

USA Today has a really cool electoral college tracker where you can assign states to Obama and McCain and see where each has to win in order to reach 270 electoral votes and win the general election.

I assigned states based primarily on history voting patterns, which resulted in several Bush states from 2004 swinging back to their historical Democratic-leaning trends.

My result? It all comes down to Missouri.

I gave Obama the following states: Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, New Mexico, Nevada, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and the entire Northeast (from Maryland north, including D.C.). The result is 269 electoral votes.

Everything else I gave to McCain, including Missouri. The result - 269 electoral votes. A dead tie.

(I have no idea what happens in the event of a tie, and don't recall seeing that covered in the Constitution).

In 1992 and 1996, Missouri went for Bill Clinton. In 2000 and 2004, it went for Bush.

Now, I'm going to borrow a oft-cited (but substantively sophmoric) argument used by Clinton - that she has won the states Dems need to win the general election. On my map, the only legitimate battleground state is Missouri - a state that Obama won by a mere 10,000 votes (1% difference). Thus, Obama wins the only state that matters - the only state in contest. Giving Missouri to Obama results in a 280-258 win for Obama. Notably, it also results in the complete political marginalization of the South, which for years has been considered "must-win" territory for either party to win the White House.

Some states, like Michigan (which isn't really included in the primary results), California, Pennsylvania and New York all went for Clinton. But those states are unshakable Democratic locks, and have all gone that way for the past four presidential elections. Obama will win those without breaking a sweat.

Clinton's argument loses more luster when you view my map and realize that I have given McCain Ohio and Florida, both of which were obviously pivotal in the past two elections. Those are two of the big states that Clinton says she can win, and that Dems have to win. 'cept they don't have to win them (at least not on my map).

This year, as goes Missouri, goes the White House. And Missouri goes to Obama.