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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Iowa Caucuses - Who cares?

Tonight a bunch of people representing a minority of whatever political party in which they claim membership will join with others in a state of absolutely no political importance whatsoever and "vote" for who they believe their party should nominate for president.



And my interest in their opinions is far less than the length of the above sentence. In a state that reflects absolutely nothing about any part of America I am familiar with, in a state with only seven electoral votes, the major political parties will decide which candidates are worthy of continued support.



Why is this so ridiculous? Aside from the fact that, seriously, does anybody outside of Iowa care what people in Iowa think?, wouldn't it make more sense to ensure that the candidates being supported are capable of winning the states that actually matter come general election time?



A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to become president. That total is reached with just the 11 following states: California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (15), North Carolina (15), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and any one of the remaining 39 states.



Yes, that's right - to become president a candidate must win a grand total of 12 of the 50 states. So why, I ask, does anybody give a crap about the other 38? Seriously, wouldn't the wise candidate focus on the states that matter and win those primaries? If you can carry the states that would get you elected in the general election, then it would seem that your party would have a pretty good incentive to fund your campaign.

Instead, over the next few weeks we'll hear about Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina - states that account for a mere 19 electoral votes. States of absolutely no individual political relevance.

Why not simply run a six week primary system where you start at the top of the list and hold primaries in two states per week, with the remaining 38 states holding their primary on the last week - allowing each candidate to pick whatever camel-back-breaking-state they choose (since they only need one, it doesn't really matter). Then, based on those results, decide what two candidates you'll send to the convention and let the remaining states battle it out on the convention floor - the way it used to be.

UPDATE:

Iowa caucuses are over, and, best I can tell, Kansas pulled it out over Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl. In a game full of turnovers and big plays, it became more and more clear that if Oregon had remained healthy, they would truly have been a juggernaut. Nobody in the country could have laid a hand on them.

Oh, and I think Barak Obama and Mike Huckabee won something tonight too.