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It is a rule among the press that unpublished materials are NEVER made available.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  No legitimate news organzation would ever consider producing unpublished material, and Fox knows this.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: