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.

New Political Math

Much like the Democratic primary itself, the bizarre death-spiral of the Clinton campaign continues unabated. Clinton and her cadre of hanger-oners continue to press the "we are winning the popular vote" claim.

Oddly, Clinton makes that argument using the primary vote from Puerto Rico. Apparently nobody has told Clinton that Puerto Rico doesn't count. The island gets to vote in the primary solely because the DNC wanted to throw a bone to various U.S. protectorates and territories (there's a primary in Guam, too). However, at the end of the day, in the only election that matters - the general election in November - Puerto Ricans can't vote. Consequently, nobody cares how they voted in a non-binding and irrelevant advisory vote. Counting those votes is sort of like a basketball team counting its pre-game warm-up shots toward the final score of the actual game.

Clinton should be happy that she managed to neuter the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC (and by extension, the DNC itself) by badgering it into giving her delegates that should never have been awarded to anybody. Apparently destroying her party's ability to run its own show is not enough. Seriously, her scorched-earth policy would do Stalin proud.

Primary confusion

On Saturday, the rules committee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is going to meet to discuss the "Florigan" problem - namely what to do with the votes of primary voters in Florida and Michigan.

As you may (and should) know, Florida and Michigan decided to hold their primaries early, in contravention of DNC rules. The DNC told those states that if they went forward with the early primaries, their delegates would not be seated at the convention in August, meaning their primaries would be meaningless.

All of the Democratic contenders (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) agreed to those rules. Nobody campaigned in Florida, and Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot in Michigan. Not surpisingly, Clinton won both states, but didn't make any noise about the votes not counting until it became apparent that her coronation was going to be challenged. Suddenly she had a change of heart, and demanded a rule change mid-game, picking up the rallying cry of "count every vote."

Coming to her defense are political hacks and wannabe hacks who are crying foul, alleging that the failure to count those states' primary votes somehow runs afoul of, if not the Constitution, at least Constitutional principles.

But they are wrong.

You see, there is no right to vote for a party nominee. The DNC and RNC can both simply send approved slates to the convention. Of course, others can appear at the convention as well. Then, the delegates at the conventions get to debate and argue and, ultimately, vote for a candidate.

In fact, that's how it used to work. There were no primaries. But somewhere along the line, the parties decided that rather than have drawn-out, war-like conventions full of back-room deals and viscious party-infighting, they'd let the people select the nominee. Thus, the primary system.

Thus, the primary system is simply a creature created by the political parties solely for the purpose of ensuring nominees who have shown an ability to garner popular support outside of the party headquarters. Because it is a process they created, it is a process that they can control in any manner they chose. The creation of superdelegates is one example - they exist solely to serve as a counter balance to the popular vote in order to prevent voters from selecting a total loser.

Note also that pledged delegates don't have to vote the way they are pledged. Truly, your vote counts for nothing more than a suggestion.

But what this means is that you have no "right" to participate in a primary because you have no "right" to a primary to begin with. In other words, the primary is nothing more than the DNC asking for your advice on who should be its nominee. The DNC doesn't have to follow your advice, or even pay it any heed. It can create and modify its rules as it sees fit.

By not counting the votes of states who didn't follow party rules, the DNC is not dis-enfranchising anybody. It's simply enforcing its rules, and tomorrow it could change its rules to do away with the primary system all together. And there is NOTHING you or anybody else could do about it.

Saturday will see the DNC face the most serious challenge to its authority, and perhaps its very existence as a viable political party. For if a political party cannot establish and enforce its own rules, then it serves no purpose other than to bend to the will of whoever makes the most noise. If the DNC cannot enforce its sanctions against Michigan and Florida and seats those delegates, that will send the signal to every other state that, they too can ignore the DNC and schedule their primaries however and whenever they want, knowing full well that at the end of the day, the DNC rules have no teeth. Hopefully, the DNC will show some backbone on Saturday.

The Death and Re-Birth of Conservatism

Conservatism is dead, long live Conservatism.

In this day of highly polarized politics, no one philosophy has garnered more attention and acquired more influence than what is most commonly referred to as "right-wing extremism." Fueled in part by evangelical Christians 30-year conversion to the Republican party, and in part by talk radio hosts who appeal to the lowest common denominator (and by extension the least thoughtful/intelligent members of the electorate), this particular brand of social (as opposed to fiscal) conservatism has taken hold at every level of government, including most recently the White House.

The social conservative movement really hit its stride after September 11, providing a galvanizing call to arms in defense of a "new" and overt culture war. The American Christian Nation (ACN), the spearhead of Western European Christian Civilization, came into the light in order to defend against the Radical Fascist Islamic Fundamentalist movement that was sweeping the Middle East and the sub-Asian continent.

For years the ACN had been rallying against domestic moral failings - abortion, homosexuality, rock and rap music, and whatever else they didn't understand or like. They were (and are) intolerant, because tolerance equals acceptance, acceptance equals surrender, and surrender equals damnation. The issues were divisive and the ACN could do no more than preach to the choir - it was a total failure at converting the majority of Americans. 9-11 however gave them a cause that all Americans could get behind, or at least could not publically decry. And as a result, they believe they had crossed that last hurdle and had wrested control of America from the heathen majority.

Then came John McCain.

Conventional wisdom has long held that to win a party's nomination, a presidential candidate must carry the South, and in the case of Republicans, must carry the ACN (which is fairly headquartered in the South). In order to carry that vote, a Republican candidate must campaign on issues that make the ACN happy - anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, God in the classroom, and lip service to tax/spending control.

McCain is not a member of the ACN, and is not a true believer in the ACN movement. Rather, he is a pragmatist who holds his own opinions and rejects extremism is any form. And while his beliefs may not line up with yours or mine or the guy down the street, he does a pretty good job of keeping the pandering to a minimum.

With his pending nomination as the Republican presidential nominee, the ACN is going through a series of spasmodic seizures, trying to figure out what happened and how their party's nominee doesn't share their values. In particular, the ACN radio-show talking heads, i.e. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and the nameless ass-clown who got dissed by McCain earlier in the week, are all spitting mad that they have failed to sway the vote as they have in the past. (In fact, their vehement denials of such frustration only reinforces the fact of its presence - they doth protest too much).

It is pretty clear to anyone who has been paying attention for the past three years - America is fed up with the ACN and is about to re-assert its status as the majority. If Conservatism is not dead, it is at least Terri Schivo (or at least the ACN's opionion of Terri Schivo). A McCain victory in November would effectively pull the plug. Yes, McCain has campaigned on a platform of maintaining some elements of Bush's policies - that can hardly be a surprise. And yet it does not make him a Bush clone, as much as some might like to suggest. McCain is a moderate pragmatist - the antithesis of and an anathema to the ACN.

On the other hand, if McCain loses, the ACN will be able to rally and point out "see, without us the GOP cannot win." The result will be a shift in the GOP so far to the right that it might even rival the Oregon GOP. The ACN will gain not just control, but absolute control of the GOP for decades to come.

If you know anything about the Oregon GOP, you know that it is controlled by a cabal of ACN fanatics what have for decades proven incapable of winning a statewide general election for any office. Why? Because they field candidates who are true-blue ACN followers, while Oregon generally is about 160-degrees the opposite (the ACN does have some minor local traction throughout Oregon, but not much). The Oregon GOP would rather field candidates who will rigidly adhere to their ACN principles than candidates who can win. And if McCain loses, it is likely the national GOP will go the same route. Conservatism will thus be re-born, but will find itself flailing against the current for many years to come (or until the Democrats screw things up so badly that once again voters will chose change for the sake of change, consequences be damned).

McCain's nomination has dealt a near-fatal blow to Conservatism. His election will kill it entirely. His defeat will revive it and give rise to a Frankenstein's-monster version of the GOP.

Either way, it'll be a hell of a show.

Bush's economic genius on display

Sometimes I can only scratch my head and wonder. I mean, it's easy to make snide remarks about George W. Bush's stupidity in regard to virtually any subject. But sometimes the depth of that stupidity just goes beyond description. For example:

Today in a press conference Bush indicated that he was unaware that gasoline was projected to reach $4.00-per-gallon by the spring. Set aside for a moment the potential diatribe about how that's possible, and move on to the next comment.

Apparently, the solution to $4.00-per-gallon gasoline is to make his tax cut permanent. Again, set aside the potential diatribe about the merits of the tax cut and who it benefits, etc.

No, instead focus on this - the solution to $4.00-per-gallon gas is to maintain the status quo vis-a-vis taxes, during which status quo gas will hit $4.00-per-gallon. In other words, do nothing. Gas will hit $4.00 while the tax cut is in place. How, then, does continuing the tax cut help? Bush's theory is that it would be worse if taxes went up in a couple years, then, boy-howdy, wouldn't $4.00-per-gallon gas suck.

Newsflash Mr. President, $4.00 is unacceptable and unaffordable now, with the tax cut in place. Making the tax cut permanent will not alleviate the suffering caused by $4.00 gas. And I don't think anyone is worried that, gee, taxes might go up in a couple of years (which, by the way, they will - but that inevitability is a topic for another day). No, in a couple years we'll be worried about $6.00-$7.00 gas.

I seriously wonder whether we can even survive another 10 months of this clown.

No rebate for GOP, either

This is classic. One of the Republican Party's arguments in its favor is that it believes in running government like a business. Apparently, that is a truer statement than I ever gave them credit for.

It seems that the Oregon GOP decided to stop paying its payroll taxes and is now under a federal tax lien. This from the Oregonian:

According to filings with the Federal Election Commission, the party had $35,850 in cash on hand in its federal political action committee as of the first of the year and $263,930 in debt. The state PAC had about $42,000 in cash on hand, according to a report filed with the state Elections Division.

* * *

The party, which favors lower taxes, came under federal scrutiny when it stopped paying payroll taxes for about a year and a half, starting in the last three months of 2006. Last fall, the Internal Revenue Service placed a lien on the organization, which is now on a repayment plan for the approximately $33,500 it owes.

The party blames an errant employee. However, isn't another GOP call to arms something about personal responsibility? It is not the employee's fault for failing to do the job - it is the GOP's fault for failing to make sure its business was being taken care of.

Tax rebate - not really.

By now you've heard that the feds are going to be giving out a "tax rebate" as part of a poorly-conceived economic stimulus plan designed to jump-start the failing economy. Ignoring for a moment the stupidy of the rebate program generally, it turns out that it's not what the gov't and media have made it out to be.

Media reports all state that taxpayers will receive $600 rebates ($1,200 for couples who filed jointly) and $300 for people who didn't have any tax liability. Sounds pretty sweet, right?

Not so fast. First, in order to get your rebate you must file your 2007 tax return. So much for just sending a check. But that's not really such a big deal - you have to file your return anyway, so no big deal.

However, in order to get your rebate check, you have to either owe nothing or get a refund on your 2007 taxes. So, if you file single and end up owing $100, then your rebate check will be $500. If you owe $1,000, then you'll simply get a credit of $600 and still owe $400. And of course is you have an outstanding prior tax liability, it will be reduced by $600.

Now, there is an certain logic to the idea that the government should not hand out money to people who owe it money. However, the purported purpose of the plan is to stimulate the economy by giving people cash to inject into the pipeline - in other words, to go shopping. Not to give taxpayers a bonus, but to move products, increase spending and hopefully kick start the economy overall. It's a stupid idea and won't work, but if program's instigators truly believed in the goal, wouldn't they have made sure that the gov't kept its hands off the money in order to ensure a maximum economic bump? How does paying the IRS stimulate the economy?

There is nothing worse than a bad idea poorly executed. And while I would love to lay this on top of the stack of other poorly-executed bad ideas by Bush, this is truly a bi-partisian effort. Everybody is guilty. Worse, the media have utterly failed to investigate these details, and I assure you that you will not read or hear a news story about the IRS intercepting rebates until the checks start going out and people start bitching about not getting their's. Way to be on top of the news, guys.

Dolts for Hillary?

Fascinating factoid - in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, it turns out that Hillary Clinton's base is made up of lower-income white people with primarily high-school educations. In other words, poor dumb people.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama is attracting higher-income college-educated voters. In other words, wealthy elitist snobs.

Interesting.