Marshmallows! / 4-1-12

You know what's cool? Marshmallows. The smaller, the tastier, in my opinion. Mini marshmallows are basically cute puffy adorable clouds of heavenly sweetness. Now if you have a campfire handy, if you have one going nearby as you read these very words, then heck, any kind of mallow will do.

Sans fire, the itty bitty ones, even the generic off-brand ones, those are the best. Yum.

Excuse me while I reach for another handful of mini marshmallows. Seriously, these are like the Fred Meyer brand, and they run $1.49 for a one-pound bag, and now it's time for another handful. Dude, there's totally more than half the bag left on the couch next to me. That is so cool! (Pace yourself, me.)

You might say that marshmallows are filling a void in my life. You might say that this divine snack is just what I need right now. You might deduce I was jonesing for some sugar, and that anything sweet could have done the trick. Well, if you're going to say that, I will respectfully reply that ten minutes ago, the chocolate chips looked meh, the ice cream was very untempting, and the cereal got no second looks.

You might then, if you happen to be the exaggerating type, suggest that I had a marshmallow-shaped hole in my gut tonight. Or a marshmallow-shaped hole in my heart. A space in my appetite that could only be filled by miniature sugar clouds.

Truth is -- and we're getting somewhere, I promise, just wait for it -- I didn't know what I wanted before I sat down to dispense the first phood4thot post of the spring. But when I saw these little guys in the cupboard, they felt right. Like they were exactly what I'd been looking for when I entered the kitchen. I just didn't know it yet.

So. If that's the way I've been thinking about God, then here's hoping I wise up pretty fast.

(This post was prompted by another sighting of the phrase common in many Christian circles: "A God-shaped hole in my heart." Philosopher Blaise Pascal coined the phrase in the 17th century, actually using the terms "God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man.")

Long ago, I came to the realization that negative definitions of God are especially significant to me. I may not know what God is like, but I feel pretty confident that God is not the world's manager, nor a slave to human emotions like jealousy and relief, is not a hateful being, and is just plain not knowable -- at least not in such a way as we could adequately express. Mostly because God is inhuman. Ever tried to maintain a relationship with a river? Or a comet? Or the color blue? (That last option sounds intriguing.)

Trying to define God is challenging. But by closing off a handful of doors here and there, I've gained a certain spiritual equilibrium. I've managed to broker a cease-fire between the forces of doubt and faith. So if I can add another helpful sign along the road that is my spiritual journey, you bet your bag of marshmallows I'm going to seize the opportunity.

So here's what that sign reads: God can't be a need we fill. Or an answer to a need we allow God to fill. (Full meta will be achieved in one more clause, so here's a change of tack.)

God can't be the answer to "Why is my life incomplete?" Because then, it's just too easy to shape God into what I decide I need at that moment, or that phase in life. And while I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that a deep devotion to God can make people happier, more driven, more peaceful, I'd like to suggest that's because we want to be more happy, more successful and closer to peace. So of course, when we find that avenue to what we wanted all along, and we travel down it, of course we get excited about nearing the destination for which we were aiming.

God isn't a means to happiness.

More tritely put, God is not a late-night mini marshmallow. No, that would be an insult to either God or marshmallows. An insult for which I deeply apologize. To both of you. I'm sorry. Whichever one of you I should be sorry toward, I am. Sorry. Please, let's move on.

Did I mention these things are delicious?

Forgiveness for the Uninformed, Rage Against the News Machine / 2-6-12

Not forgiveness for the "Uniformed." That would be a very condescending post.

I kid, because defensive mechanism. In all honesty, I'm not sure what the point of this little essay is, yet. I'm going to start with a list, follow it with between one and a dozen observations, leading to a semblance of a point, perhaps gracing it all with a counterpoint, if you're lucky. I plan to offer a conclusiony item near the endy part.

(Not sure how it's all going to turn out. This is just how they teach you to operate in school. Begin to write, then think.)

Pre-thinking stage: engage.

a) Israel is thinking of starting a little war with Iran.

b) A riot killed 79 people in Egypt last week, and injured hundreds. The aftershock riot, a couple days later, killed 10 more.

c) Syria continues to knock off its citizens, day by day. Russia and China are vetoing any U.N. action.

d) Oh yeah, speaking of Russia, as hundreds of its citizens continue to die of cold, hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets in protest and support for apparent King Vladimir Putin.

e) The Republicans are choosing a presidential candidate, one state at a time. One guy seems to have taken charge, but it's been a pretty topsy-turvy ride so far.

f) Facebook is readying for what could be the largest IPO of all time. Hell, throw moderation out the window. This WILL be the largest one of all time.

g) Unemployment is dipping quickly.

h) Same-sex marriage is being considered/approved in three more states (WA, NJ, MN).

i) A Super Bowl was played yesterday. A good one, too. Record viewership for the game and the halftime show.

j) Outrage at the Susan B. Komen For the Cure's plan to defund Planned Parenthood caused the board to reverse its decision.

k) Citizens United is now two years old. The court case that paved the way for unlimited (unlimited!) donations from a single entity to a political campaign. It's being challenged everywhere, because most people are against bribery. (Unlimited donations! Pause for a second and think that one over.)

Those are just the top stories I can recite off the top of my head. A bit of shallow research reveals that a few other significant things are also ongoing.

l) Russian scientists are about to finish drilling through two miles of Antarctic ice and reach a pressurized underground lake that has not been explored for 100 million years. What's that again about the Mayan prophecy?

m) More European countries' debt ratings are in danger of being downgraded as they begin to deal with the consequences of unfunded spending programs. Like France and stuff. Big financial problems ahead, probably, with worldwide ramifications.

n) Fidel Castro was seen in public, touting a memoir. Remember him?

o) Hey, guess what: this little thing called "Occupy" is still happening, with peaceful protesters being mistreated by police every day, First Amendment be damned.

Thinking stage: engage.

First pointlet, then is that all that stuff listed above happened or continued to happen last week. How can a person possibly stay informed? Reading enough on each of these topics, just enough to rise above mal-informed to semi-informed, would take a person's entire trove of free time. No matter how much that person had! 168 hours might be sufficient, on a weekly basis, provided the person were a very fast reader. And possessed a time machine.

One could read headlines only. I have lots of days when that's all I can do. The experience is very unsatisfying, like a daily diet composed of fourteen snacks instead of three and a half meals.

I didn't even include any of the gossip "news" that bubbles at the surface -- Justin Bieber this, Kim Kardashian that, Brad Pitt this, MIA that. Best leave those "stories" to the professionals.

No sense in trying to stay up on the local stuff, either. Sticking strictly with national and international stories above, and just the big ones at that. Property taxes going up or serial killer strikes again in your town? You could hardly know that, unless it was your job to know so many things. So very many things.

That's why, today, pointlet two: I'm asking for and granting forgiveness to all uninformed parties everywhere. I am extending, right now, a blanket -- nay, a veritable quilt of mercy to all planetary inhabitants. You didn't know the city of Berkeley voted to pull out $300 million in assets from a large bank, so it could place the money in a more socially conscious place? Peace be with you. You didn't catch the headlines about the quake in the Philippines? Shalom anyway, Allahu Akbar and all that jazz. You holding on to something earth-shattering I didn't know about? I humbly beg your forgiveness.

There's too much information. It's too easy to disseminate. It's getting harder and harder to sort through it all, let alone keep up with a story for more than a day or two.

I'm not sure how this will turn out, still, but it appears a major point has stumbled into this post: We, as a nation, are bombarded with news. We've become are too adept at reporting stories. I submit that we have left the land of diminishing returns, news-wise, and have bravely set foot on a new patch of terra firma, where the amount of information available now places too much power in the hands of the aggregators and the opinion makers.

An amateur news-gatherer, or a semi-interested news reader, who has literally millions of informative blogs to choose from, is ironically more at the mercy now of news aggregators than ever before.

I can't stress enough how ironic the situation has become. There are hundreds of major news outlets slanted this way or that, and hundreds more trying so very hard to be unslanted. Old media and new media have merged -- you tell me how we should tell them apart. How do you find enough to make up your mind on any issue of importance? How do you find a reliable source, who will give you facts and analysis you can trust, and I don't mean based on ideology, but on sound thought processes and verifiable events?

For so very many of us, you don't. You stop by Daily Kos and the Huffington Post on your lunch hour if you're a liberal, catch some Rush Limbaugh on talk radio in the car and log on at redstate for a few minutes in the evening if you're a conservative. Why? Because you're not going to spend half your day researching a major issue or story, unless it's your job.

The junkiest of new junkies among us will always devour enough material to satisfy their appetites, and if they do it right, they'll turn that information into knowledge. The rest of us? Good freakin luck.

I don't think the current state of news presentation is healthy for our republic. But I also don't have a solution. Feel free to suggest one.

Vouch Across America / 01-28-12

Starting in 2014, as per the health care legislation enacted in 2010, help with insurance costs is coming your way.

Yep, in two years, the government will assist you financially, if necessary, through tax credits, in obtaining health insurance. If you make less than four times the federal poverty level (presently $22,350 for a family of four), that is. Cash money, direct from the evil, wasteful, God-hating federal government; cash money to help you not die.

Joking is fun. So is seriousness: I'm genuinely excited for the program to start. The uninsured are a serious financial drain on our health care system; too many bankruptcies are caused by escalating health care bills; people ought to be able to get medical care no matter their financial situation, just as a matter of principle, otherwise, what kind of society are we trying to run?

But once the government gets involved in keeping us healthy, where do we go from there? I'd like to dream, just for an evening, of a land where even more basic needs are guaranteed.

I'd like to dream of a similar voucher program that ensures every citizen has a roof over his or her head and enough to eat every night. Yes, every American, housed and fed, with a significant helping hand from the United States Treasury.

After all, if we're going to require everyone to participate in the pool of doctor's patients, doesn't it make even more sense to require everyone to have housing? Or food? Those needs are more basic than paying for pills and prevention.

Imagine with me, John Lennon-style, a nation where the poor receive a monthly government check for x dollars to defray housing costs, another check for x dollars to cover food expenses, and a third one to help purchase health insurance.

Imagine that the check for housing can only be used for housing, and so forth. Imagine that the smaller your AGI, the bigger the check. Imagine that these vouchers extend all the way to households making $100,000 annually, and that they're adjusted for the county in which you live. (Two grand's not going as far in San Jose as it is in Tuscaloosa.)

Imagine a middle-class family of four that makes $80,000 and receives, each year, $1,500 for housing, $500 for food and $4,000 for health insurance assistance.

Guess what happens when $6,000 of that family's basic needs are met in advance of all other costs? It's not hard to see that such a family avoids debt better, invests more, saves more, spends more.

And yes, there would be guidelines on how the assistance would be spent. It wouldn't be possible for a degenerate gambler to cash the housing check at a MoneyTree and blow it all on Powerball tickets. The food check would apply fully toward purchases at grocery stores but only count halfway at fast "food" joints. Fraud would be prosecuted. It could work.

I dream.

Well, maybe you're of the opinion that the rich don't deserve the "punishment" of paying for the poor and the middle class's basic needs. OK, I can respect that. I just don't agree with it. The way I see it, everyone benefits from a strong middle class, a decrease in homelessness, a more just health care system. And even if it costs the ultra-rich some extra disposable income every year, I'm prepared to defend this version of Robin Hoodness as extremely moral... on a national scale.

No, some poor dude should not be allowed to break into some rich dude's home and help himself to a few thousand dollars. But when we're talking about making sure that our poorest citizens -- those who are stuck in dead-end minimum-wage jobs, or (heaven forbid) choose to teach for a living -- have enough to feed their kids without maxing out their credit cards, then yes, I fully support an aggressive redistribution of cash money. (I like saying "cash money." Cash money. MONEY MONEY MONEY)

I will make no apologies for my fervent desire to implement a truly progressive tax system, my waking dream to see us return to the rates we had in the 1950s, with a top tax bracket at 90 percent, the upper middle class paying half their income in taxes, and Americans everywhere being helped by their government, not hindered by it.

Or, Mitt Romney can continue to pay less than me in taxes, that's fine too. Whatever. That's sustainable, ethical and desirable. Let's keep doing it that way. Yeah.

144 Or Less, Vol. XII / 01-25-12

The more people hear Mitt Romney speak, the less they like him. Results since the actual voting phase of the campaign began bear this out.

The more people discover about his past, the less they like him. And why not? There's so very much to dislike. The putrescent tax records, the silver spoon, the Seamus rooftop story, the inability to hold a political position longer than is convenient.

Not a winning combination when trying to secure your party's presidential nomination.

So it won't be Mitt who headlines the hideous 2012 bumper stickers. I've said this before, but I was only somewhat believing myself then. Now Me has convinced I of my rectitude, and would wager serious amounts of pretend money on his non-nomination (his nonimation?), assured of my future victory.

After all, anagram of Willard Romney: Mr. Winey Dollar. Coincidence? Pffff.

(Word count: 143)

If Not These Guys, Then Who? Glad You Asked / 01-21-12

Three states have voted. Three men have won.

And still, not one of them will be the Republican nominee. Spoiler: The nominee will come from the list three paragraphs ahead.

Quick summary of my rationale: There's too much flip and way too much flop in Mitt Romney, and a quarter of his base thinks he's in a cult. There's too much baggage in Newt Gingrich; really, there's too much Newt in Newt Gingrich. Or not enough room in Newt for all the Newt in Newt's head. Something. Meanwhile, Ron Paul's in for the long haul, but he's not going to get more than 20 percent of the delegates -- which is enough to make him a serious player, but not nearly enough to win the prize. And Santorum, as will have been discussed in a future post sometime in the future, is distasteful to anyone whose political ideology falls left of Jerry Falwell. He can't win the general, and thus can't win the nomination. Republican primary voters and party bigwigs are far, far, far too pragmatic to allow an unelectable standard-bearer, especially when the incumbent president is less than popular and the economy is less than vibrant.

Well, those are the only four guys officially running. And yet, the nominee has to be someone else, someone who hasn't won a primary or a caucus, someone who has not been mortally wounded in the campaign thus far. So, also out are Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Jon Hunstman and Herman Cain.

A moment of silence seems appropriate. But screw that. The spoiler alert is expiring. Ready? Potential nominees include, in mostly alphabetical order: Chris Christie. Mitch Daniels. Elizabeth Dole. Mike Huckabee. Tim Pawlenty. Marco Rubio. Jeb Bush, too. (Yes, Jeb. I know. I know. I KNOW. You know I know. Everyone knows. Still.) And, uh, yeah, Sarah Palin.

If I had to rank them, from most to least likely to leave the 2012 Republican Convention (Official Motto: "Made You Look!") as the nominee, I'd have to go with:

1. Pawlenty

2. Huckabee

3. Dole

4. Rubio

5. Christie

6. Daniels

7. Bush

8. Palin

9. Someone Else

I reserve the right to alter these percentages after a few more primaries and caucuses. With every passing day, Someone Else rises in the polls anyway. But let's start from the bottom of the barrel.

Palin: Unelectable, yet also immortal. No human device can slay her. So should you ever cross her off the list? No matter the list? Yeah no. Learn your lesson already. Verdict: LESS THAN 1 PERCENT.

Bush: From Florida and still immensely popular there. That's all I have to say on that topic. The other things I would say have already been thought by you. Verdict: 5 PERCENT.

Daniels: Moderate from Indiana. Appealing to all wings of the party. Probably saving himself for 2016, but lust can broadside even the best intentions. Verdict: 5 PERCENT.

Christie: Same boat as Daniels. Well, no, different boat. A sturdier boat, I'd say. (Yes, that's a fat joke. I am not a proud man.) Verdict: 5 PERCENT.

Rubio: Here's where things start to get interesting. The Rubio Resume: two years in the Senate, young rising star, fresh face, likeable, great backstory, especially appealing to an important demographic group, chance to make some electoral history. Sound familiar? He'd have to overcome all the experience-based criticisms lobbed at that Obama dude four years ago, only from the other side. Entertainment value sizeably increased by watching his defenders turn into actual pretzels, fending off the same attacks they used in '08. Verdict: 10 PERCENT.

Dole: Just a gut feeling here. Total hunch. Don't have much to base it on, except having seen her name in the news from time to time in the last few weeks. She ran briefly in 2000, dropped out before the primaries, and her wikipedia page is a fascinating read. Problem is, she'd be 76 at the convention. Patriotic age, but advanced age, and that plays poorly. Verdict: 20 PERCENT.

Huckabee: Basically tied Romney in the '08 Contest To Earn The Right To Get Destroyed By The Democrat. Populist social conservative. Why is he not running again? Oh yeah, Fox "News" money. That only goes so far. Verdict: 25 PERCENT.

And, finally, Pawlenty: Undamaged goods. Dropped out before Iowa, so has not been numerically rejected by the voters. Yes, he had trouble in polling throughout 2011, and yes, he had trouble fund-raising, but at a hung convention where the party elites are just trying to avoid disaster, he's an ex-governor of a blue state, a man with few skeletons, if any, in the closet, an electable guy, not unattractive to independents, a guy whose worst fault is blandness. In short, Pawlenty's the exact opposite of disaster. Verdict: 30 PERCENT.

Pressed for an answer right now, I'd say the nominee will be either Pawlenty or Huckabee. But this election season has been quite instructive in that it's taught me to expect the unexpected... sigh. Swell. Just swell. Now what can I find to put in the "unexpected" box?

Oops, Mitigated / 1-3-12

Earlier today, when I could still claim youth and inexperience, I forecast a photo finish between Paul, Santorum and Romney -- in that order -- at the Iowa Caucuses.

So, yeah, oops. That prediction was meant for entertainment purposes only, and I hope you took it that way. Turns out Romney and Santorum tied at 24.6 percent, with Paul behind at 21.5 percent. (The men at the top each scored six delegates in the nomination race; Paul nabbed four as a consolation prize.)

Now let me mitigate my giant oops a little. In the second half of the early post, I explained why a Paul-Santorum-Romney-everyone else finish creates problems for Republicans who want to win in November. It divides the party into about one fifth libertarian, two fifths TP/Evangelical, and one fifth moderate/establishment.

Well, although the top three didn't finish in the order I anticipated, look at these aggregated results:

Paul: 21.5 percent. About one fifth.

Santorum/Perry/Bachmann: 40.0 percent. About exactly precisely two fifths.

Romney/Gingrich/Hunstman: 38.5 percent. Yeah, you found the last two fifths.

The first group doesn't want to vote for the other two in the fall. The second and third groups are equal in representation but their agendas don't match. Whoever the nominee is will have some decrepit bridges to mend, because the other wing of the party will make its reservations known. And these won't be Obama-Clinton-2008-style reservations -- those two Democrats showed little to no policy differences throughout the primary season. No, the chasm is huge in the GOP. Santorum and Romney might easily belong to altogether different parties, from the stark difference in their political records.

At this point, final Iowa numbers are pretty to look at, but also pretty insignificant. The Republicans still have a faction problem even if Romney pulls out a 20-vote win (out of more than 120,000 votes) or Santorum edges the Massachusetts Silver Spooner by an fetus's fingernail.

And Paul's 21 percent aren't closing shop anytime soon.

The voting also confirmed a fun trend that polling suggested throughout 2011: Romney has a 25 percent glass ceiling outside of the Northeast. Interesting to see if that changes after a couple decorative candidates drop out. (Yes, Rick, yes, Michele, I'm talking directly to you, and thanks for reading.)

All in all, good entertainment tonight. Which reminds me, I still owe you guys an answer to "If not Romney, then who?" and "If not Gingrich, then who?" and "If not Paul, then who?" That's coming soon too. Spoiler (I love spoilers): It ends with "If not Santorum, then who?"

[UPDATE, 11:58 p.m. PDT: Romney 30,015, Santorum 30,007 is tonight's "final score." Wow. The top three finishers all get seven delegates apiece. Which is splendid.]

Drive-By Iowa Prediction / 1-3-12

Little-known fact: Iowans vote tonight!

(Well-known fact: Never resist a sarcasm-based joke! Ever never)

I like to predict events. Sometimes, when I'm really on my game, I can even foresee things before they happen. Like tonight, for example. Spoiler: The guy to the left is going to grin even wider after they count the votes.

At the Iowa Republican caucus-thingy taking place this evening, here is the order of finish I'd like to predict:
1. Ron Paul, 24 percent
2. Rick Santorum, 23 percent
3. Mitt Romney, 21 percent
4. Newt Gingrich, 13 percent
5. Rick Perry, 9 percent
6. Michele Bachmann, 8 percent
7. Jon Hunstman, 2 percent

Taking those numbers one step further, that would mean 24 percent for the outsider, 36 percent for the establishment and 40 percent for the evangelical/TP crowd. It's also the recipe for a serious fracture down the road, and if not in 2012, then some other year. The sooner the better!

My job as a clairvoyant pundit is done here. Next post: some analysis of the actual results, but only if an accident of fate causes them to turn out any different.

144 Or Less / 12-17-11

If you mean to sign a pledge defending marriage, but instead you end up offending it, you might be Newt Gingrich.

First of all, I'm sorry -- really sorry. Secondly, you should rethink your decision to sign this.

This is, in short, the latest Republican-sponsored quixotic battle against same-sex marriage.

Given that you cheated on your first two wives, once while you were impeaching Clinton for lying about sexual indiscretions, then also while another was fighting off cancer (successfully!), you're better off signing an overt declaration of war on marriage rather than a laughable oath to "protect" it from committed people who would like their children to grow up in a stable home where two loving parents don't have to explain to their children why the government disallows their union.

Long sentence there. Shorter ones now.

Now go win the nomination, you double-talking sleazebag. Please.

(Word count: 144)

And Now It's Ron Paul's Turn / 12-17-11

Not his turn to win, mind you. Don't get your man-panties in a bunch. Or even your lady panties. Which is somewhat redundant, come to think of it, and why wouldn't you think of it?

(I'm glad I don't have to be as serious for this one as for the Romney one.)

My last two full posts have laid out why Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich won't win the 2012 Republican nomination. Since those guys account for about two-thirds of Republican voters, that means Ron Paul, who generally places third in national and state-by-state polls, is the new favorite to oppose Obama next year... right?

Yeah no. Not happening. Whatever the opposite of "right" is. Is there even a word for that?

It's not going to be Paul either. (Waiting for your objection. Noted. Waiting for your next question.) Then who? (There we go. Thanks for participating.)

To be totally honest, I haven't figured that one out yet. Possible future post, yay! No, for now, I'm just excluding people one at a time. In much the same way that I've been methodically honing my impressions of God by excluding traits -- God is not male, is not the world's manager, is not Santa Claus, is not summoned by our prayers to magically heal and protect us, is not fighting a proxy war through us against some red dude with horns and a pitchfork -- I also have been trimming the Republican field of candidates.

Which doesn't necessarily mean I'll finish this journey with a good answer. Why should it?

Redirecting. Ron Paul will not be the nominee for a variety of reasons, none of which is convincing enough on its own, but when combined with its buddies, gains extra power. Yes, just like the Constructicons. I was thinking that too.

1. Paul is 76 years old. I'm not being ageist. I'm being realistic. Everyone else is being ageist. The oldest presidential candidate to ever win a first term was Ronald Reagan, who was 69 years old in 1980. (Modern technology has permitted Reagan to age only six years since then!) Paul is in good health. He's a doctor. He's a spry 76. But he'd be 77 and five months on Inauguration Day, and people don't put people in office when 80 is right around their corner. Not in this country, anyway.

2. Paul isn't a Republican. (This is probably a good 1. reason, but I wrote 1. first, so this is 2.) He wears the R label, but only because he's not a Democrat either. He's a Libertarian Lite. A Conservative Constitutionalist. (A con-con, if you will. I will. I already did.) Here is his list of positions. You put him in a box, if you can find one the right shape. He voted against the 2011 Republican budget as drafted by Paul Ryan. Good for him. But you could say that loyalty to the party brand is not his forte.

You know, that's practically a disqualifying offense on its own. Practically.

3. Paul is ignored/laughed at/derided/choose your term/mocked by the mainstream media. Hoping for this to change is pointless. Should Paul win three early states (Iowa, NH and Nevada are certainly fertile ground for him, and the February calendar is caucus-heavy, which bodes well for him too), Paul's most unpopular traits will certainly get highlighted. Mind you, this will not deter his most hard-core supporters, but it will help empty the bandwagon pretty quickly.

4. He doesn't look the part. Voters like their candidates to look presidential, and Paul's rumpled suits, 5'10''-or-so height, and semi-grouchy mannerisms are a turn-off for too many people. It's shallow. It's also hard to deny. Although if denial is one of your specialties, go right ahead.

5. He's a sure loser in the general election. Paul's right on the national pulse when it comes to certain things (lower taxes, against wars of choice, pro-civil-liberties, slashing foreign aid) but is so very extreme in his proposed budget cuts, his contempt of labor unions, and his plans to scrap the Federal Reserve would make for so very many effective negative ads it's not even funny. (If the inevitable ads were funny, like Jack-in-the-Box-meets-Old-Spice funny, then it's all worth it, he should totally score the nomination.)

The above reasons don't preclude a major role for Paul in the process. I can see a scenario where he finishes with the second-most delegates, and another where he is offered the vice-presidential slot on the ticket. But in only the most far-fetched parallel universe is he the Republican nominee.

In conclusion? Sorry Noah S., Matt L. and Mike G.

But if not Ron Paul, who?

The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas / 12-14-11

My last post ended with "If not Romney, who?"

Glad you asked. Turns out Newt Gingrich enjoys a double-digit lead in national polling for the 2012 Republican nomination. He leads in Iowa, where they'll be voting in three weeks. He leads nationally. He leads in Florida and South Carolina, states which hold the other January primaries, by an average of 19 points. Real Clear Politics does a poll of polls every day, and here's their latest one, showing Gingrich with a 12-point cushion. The predictive model at Fivethirtyeight.com, which rose to prominence in 2008 with its statistically rigorous look at the election, predicts he'll win the first caucus.

Newt Gingrich has stolen Christmas from Mitt Romney and is now the undisputed front-runner.

Yes, that Newt Gingrich. Yes, him. It's almost too easy to write the post about how the man will not be the Republican nominee.

Oh, I'm going to write the post anyway. Not doing so would be a wasted opportunity. It would be borderline irresponsible. Besides, I have to write this tonight, so I can give the same treatment to Ron Paul tomorrow. After that, eh, who knows. Because if it's not going to be one of the three front-runners... wow. If it's not one of those three guys, and I really don't think it'll be, then we're in for a doozy of a primary season, and a Republican convention actually worth paying attention to.

Seriously, my political lobe is all tingly. *shivers*

So. Newt will not win the nomination for a variety of reasons. Let's give these reasons some sequential numbers.

1. He says stuff. So much stuff. Even for a Republican, it's seriously crazy stuff. For example, last week, he warmed up by stating in a debate that our child labor laws are "truly stupid," then stood by his remarks. Just read the first few quotes here, remembering that this is Newt defending his stance that children should in part replace adult janitors who, according to him, make too much money. Oh, and calling Palestinians an "invented" people is just the sort of thing a president ought to do, too. (And that was just last week! Both statemenst! Days apart!)

2. He has more enemies than friends in the GOP power corridors. More on why this matters this two reasons later.

3. He's not going to win Iowa or New Hampshire, and that will take the sails out of his campaign. According to multiple reports, he's massively disorganized compared to Paul, Perry and Bachmann -- even compared to Romney. One of those four is winning the Hawkeye State. (My money's on Paul.) Meanwhile, Romney will at least eke out a win in New Hampshire. Fundraising will dry up and supporters will voice their doubts more openly after the perceived front-runner fails to take either of the first two contests.

4. His personal life is too much of a liability. And because of 2., 4. is amplified. Any campaign manager who wants to destroy Newt can make it happen. It's not hard. You just remind people that the guy led the drive to impeach Clinton... while he was having an affair of his own. You remind them that at the height of the mortgage crisis, he took $1.6 million in pay from Freddie Mac... then claimed, straight-faced, he was being paid for his services as a historian. You remind them he cheated on his first wife, then divorced his second one while she was dying of cancer so he could marry his current spouse... before Wife Number Two had the decency to die. Those are the broad strokes, but after that who cares about the details: There's three women, lots of cheating, and massive douchebaggery, all rolled into one guy.

And I haven't even yet mentioned the time Newt admitted that he shut down the government in part so he could exact revenge on the President for making him sit in the back of Air Force One.

I'm all for politicians making mistakes and learning from them, you know, like regular people, but the baggage above is too much for Newt to overcome. And we're just talking, so far, about the luggage he checked at the counter. There's plenty more: carry-ons, backpacks, rolling suitcases, laptops, and fanny packs full of additional icky Newtrivia, just waiting to be unpacked on the national scene.

5. My favorite. He made a well-intentioned video to help raise awareness of climate change. In the video, he sits on the couch with fellow former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or as she's known to Republican voters, Harpy McLucifer (D-San Frangaysco). Newt might as well have shot a commercial for an abortion clinic and solicited funds for Planned Parenthood, standing in front of a juicy Robert Mapplethorpe painting. That would have gone over way better.

Newt will win some delegates along the way. Just not the nomination.

But if not Newt, who?

[Respoiler: Ron Paul's up next. Guess how the post ends!]

Mitt Romney, The LDS Question, and Flipfloppery / 12-13-11

Going to tread lightly here, because this is a sensitive topic. Don't expect a lot of biting wit.

Mitt Romney has two problems.

First, he's a Mormon.

Important clarification: He doesn't have a problem with me. I would vote for a Democrat who's a Mormon. If Harry Reid (you know, the Senate Majority Leader) were running for office in my state, I would choose him over the right-wing alternative. His policy squares with mine. He could be an atheist, a Baptist, a Buddhist, whatever, I really couldn't possibly care less. I want left-wingers in office enacting left-wing policies, thwarting right-wing initiatives.

Yeah, well, as luck would have it, Mitt Romney isn't running for my vote, for the Senate in a reliably blue state, or for governor again, as a moderate Republican.

He's running for the chance to represent the Republicans in an election for President of the United States. And to get there, he needs to win over the people who vote in primaries.

And yeah. Between 40 and 60 percent of the R primary electorate, depending on the state, is made up of evangelical Christians. About half of those of those believe Mormonism is a cult. Trust my numbers, or just do the math: roughly, a quarter of R primary voters gladly place Romney in the Cult Box.

Important fact: Christians classify their Mormon brethren in that uncomplimentary way for multiple reasons. But chief among those is that in LDS circles, the Book of Mormon is viewed as equal to the Bible.

Understatement: fair or unfair, when the LDS church went that route, it was practically asking for the "cult" label. Denying the divinity of Christ is the biggest massive breach of orthodoxy I can imagine, and right behind that, in second place, lies messing with the ultimate authority of the Word of God.

Like I said, that's neither here nor there for me. I have my own tenuous relationship with so-called orthodox dogma. (Really? A virgin birth? Are you serious?)

But again, I'm not voting in the Republican primaries. It's most definitely here and there for a large swath of the people Romney needs to reach.

When combined with his propensity to, um, how to say this -- his propensity to let his views on certain issues "evolve," and his extremely moderate past during his governorship of Massachusetts, Romney has a big problem. He's not appealing to the people who decide if he's appealing.

So he keeps polling between 20 and 30 percent, time and again, week after week, state after state. Forgive me, but duh.

I'll be shocked if Romney garners more than a third of the Republican vote in any primary outside of New England and the Mountain West. And that's no path to the nomination.

But if not Mitt, who?

Tomorrow, I'll give newt Gingrich the same treatment. (Spoiler: The post ends with "But if not Newt, who?")

Ho, Ho, Ho Say Can You See / 11-28-11

With Thanks being all safely Given and out of our public consciousness for eleven months and three weeks, another holiday takes center stage, which it has already taken, because it could.

I'm talking about Christmas! No, really! (ed. note: strike two previous sentences)

Christmas, the superpower of holidays.

At its core, Christmas is good. It grew out of a fantastic idea, a revolutionary idea -- God born as a human! God as a child? What! God as a finite, mortal being. What an idea. If you haven't considered it in a while, do so again. Boggle your mind.

Christmas is brimming with exuberance, optimism, gregariousness, charity. Christmas time moves people. Siblings spend their precious funds on siblings; strangers feed strangers in soup kitchens; poor kids receive gifts from anonymous donors who drop them off at suddenly altruistic places of business. The Christmas spirit is uplifting and real. Just look at the results.

If you're a certain brand of person, you would put your life on the line for Christmas. An edict barring the celebration of Christmas, under penalty of death, would not stop people from celebrating the holiday.

What I'm trying to say is that good people, given the right circumstances, would give their lives for Christmas. Because Christmas is capable of bringing out the best in us.

And Christmas can also be rude, or even ugly. It pokes its head where it doesn't belong, like November 3rd. Uninvited, and all. It can even make quite a mess, in spite of its good intentions: have you seen shoppers assault each other for bits of branded plastic or fur-covered batteries? If not, you've not been paying very good attention.

For the last two months of the year, the marketplace pleads for your money, with no limits on its cravenness. My God, ads on the radio urge us to buy CARS for our loved ones. There is no room for restraint at the inn.

There are not too many ways to say it: Christmas gets used. The Starbucks in which I sit does not serve a $4.75 eggnog latte to spread holiday cheer. (Hint: It's more for the crazy profit margin.) The big-box electronics store doesn't hawk its $799 TV (marked down $200!) just so you can share quality family time watching "Elf" every weekend.

And Christmas is part legend, a malleable one which gathers all kinds of mythology along the way. You think Abraham Lincoln is amazing? All he did was hold together a nation by sheer force of will. Santa delivers presents to every (deserving) kid faster than the speed of sound. And time. And light. You think it was cool when American ingenuity put a man on the moon 42 years ago? Mary's water broke at the end of a hundreds-of-miles-long donkeyback ride, then she birthed a deity in a feeding trough.

Christmas' ideals exhort us to be better. We often rise to the challenge.

Christmas is also covered in warts. If you take the time to look.

Boiling it down even further: Each year, when the calendar completes its circle, here we stand, ready to celebrate the greatest holiday on earth, because it's who we are, and without Christmas, many of us would feel a little empty, a little less significant, a little littler.

Holy Santa, America is Christmas.

The Complete Works of the 2012 GOP Nomination Campaign (abridged) / 11-8-11

[The curtain comes up. A bare stage, save for a television set and a dozen people, milling about.]

GUY IN CORNER: Not Mitt

PERSON WITH CHURRO: We love you Saaarah, oh yes we do

GUY IN CORNER: Not Mitt

QUIET PERSON (lip synching): /huntsman/

GIRL (skipping across stage): Christie, Christie, Christie

PERSON WITH CHURRO: And you too Michele

BOY (marching, carrying sign across stage, chanting): Ron Paul, that is all... Ron Paul, that is all...

GUY IN CORNER: Not Mitt

PERSON WITH BIBLE: I <3 Huckabee

PERSON BACKSTAGE (yelling): Santorum!

QUIET PERSON: /huntsman/

PERSON WITH CHURRO: Saaaaraaaaah Palin (clap clap clapclapclap)

TWO GUYS IN CORNER: Not Mitt

CRAZY PERSON (dancing, chanting): Obamacare Obamacare Obamanation Obamacare

THREE GUYS IN CORNER: Not Mitt

CRAZY PERSON (still dancing): Birth Certificate!

PERSON WITH CHURRO: Obamacare

PERSON WITH BIBLE: Obamanation

TWO GUYS IN CORNER: Not Mitt

CRAZY PERSON: (unintelligible yelling)

NOW JUST ONE GUY IN CORNER: Not Mitt

HERMAN CAIN: Me

BOY: Ron Paul, that is all...

RICK PERRY: I'm not George Bush

GIRL (skipping, not running): Christie, Christie, Christie

OLD GUY: Newwwwwt

THREE GUYS IN CORNER: Not Mitt

FOX NEWS: Cain Is Able

EVERYONE (running to TV): oooooooooooo

FOX NEWS: Not Mitt

FOX NEWS: Cain Is Able

EVERYONE (droning): Cain Is Able Cain Is Able

BOY (oblivious): Ron Paul, that is all... Ron Paul, that is all...

PERSON WITH CHURRO (weeping): I dropped my churro

PERSON BACKSTAGE: Santor-- (loud banging noise) -- owww hey owww

HERMAN CAIN: Nineninenine

FOX NEWS: Not Mitt

EVERYONE: Not Mitt

CAIN: Nineninenine

CAIN: NinenineNIIINE

PERSON WITH BIBLE: I still <3 Huckabee

FOX NEWS: Shut up

CAIN: Nineninenine

FOUR WOMEN: Nein! Nein! Nein!

FOX NEWS: Shut up

FOX NEWS: Cain is Able

EVERYONE: Wait a second

RICK PERRY: I'm not Rick Perry

EVERYONE: Not Mitt

MITT ROMNEY: I'm not Mitt Romney

BOY: Ron Paul, that is all...

GIRL (slowing down): Christie, Christie, Chris --

OLD GUY: Newwwwwt

CRAZY PERSON (sitting): Sad

PERSON WITH CHURRO (hanging head): Sad

GIRL (walking off stage): Sad

HERMAN CAIN: Hey baby

FOX NEWS:

RICK PERRY: I'm not Mitt Romney

GUY IN CORNER: Not Mitt... ?

EVERYONE: Mitt?

FOX NEWS:

FOX NEWS:

FOX NEWS: Aw nuts

QUIET PERSON: /i told you/

[Curtain descends.]

BOY (still marching with sign, still chanting): Ron Paul, that is all... Ron Paul, that is all...

You Heard Me / 10-29-11

Not that you were paying attention to a World Series that lacked the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, and all teams from Chicago or L.A. (plus nobody invited the Mariners! Again!), but yeah, there was a fair amount of drama in the Fall Classic this past week.

The Cardinals, twice a mere strike from defeat, won it all Friday night. They came back from a two-run deficit in the bottom of the ninth AND tenth innings to wrest Game 6 from the Texas Rangers, then cruised to a 6-2 Game 7 victory to claim the trophy.

This series had it all. Individual heroics, eye-popping errors (confession: "eye-pooping" was the first thing my fingers typed, and that's not so far off), outstanding pitching performances, epic at-bats, game-saving hits and catches, meltdowns, questionable decisions; oh, there was more than enough drama.

And God. There was some God, too. Well, according to Texas slugger Josh Hamilton, who says God dropped by for a nice little mid-game chat.

In the heat of the moment Thursday night, Cardinals manager Tony LaRussa couldn't place a call to the bullpen to get the right pitcher in the game. But in the opposing dugout, minutes later, Hamilton had a direct line to the Deity Formerly Known As Bruce.

"I was walking to the plate. And it happened as I was brushing dirt in the batter's box. Very cool. Y'all ought to try it sometime," said Hamilton, a self-avowed born-again Christian who turned to Jesus after years of substance abuse and all the lovely things that come with a destructive lifestyle.

I won't leave you hanging, like a lousy curveball, any longer. Here's the Transcript:

"He said, 'You haven't hit one in a while and this is the time you're going to,' '' Hamilton said. "But there was a period at the end of that. He didn't say, 'You're going to hit it and you're going to win.' "

Hamilton hit a home run that trip to the plate.

(Now to his credit, Hamilton didn't ask God to give away the game's final outcome. That would have sucked. Not for God. Strictly for Josh. Who lost the game, and the series.)

You've probably noticed that I don't take this kind of chatter very seriously, so then here are some assorted conclusions one might draw from the Hamilton-Yahweh pep talk:

1. God dislikes the Rangers. (Chalk one up for divine good taste. What whaat!)

2. Or... God was just popping in to deliver some free information about the near future. You know, between checking in on the earthquake in Turkey earlier that day that killed at least 500 people, the developing floods in Bangkok, and scattered famines and wars.

(Everyone needs some R&R, right? Letting the world's countless tragedies take their collective toll is demanding work. Not that I'd know. God doesn't talk to me. Too busy, you know, whispering some athletics-based fortunetelling in a dude's ear.)

3. Athletes really are more special than the rest of us. (We should totally pay the best ones five figures, daily. Eh, what's this now? Oh.)

4. It was actually Satan, messin' with Texas. (Ol' Luce is probably the only one who can get away with it!)

5. It was actually God. (empty parentheses, for sure)

6. Some combination of Hamilton being wrong/deceitful/confused. (Rats. The answers are losing their snark! Quick! Be all clever-like!)

7. God did speak to Hamilton, but told him he was going to ground out to shortstop. Josh is just covering for a giant Oops. (There you go, me.)

7. Something else happened. Not God speaking to Hamilton, but also not God not speaking to Hamilton. (It's very mystical. "Well, that's not very snarky." "Shut up, inner dialogue!" "Don't talk to me like that, please." "Excuse me. Who are you to say how I may and may not--")

144 Or Less, Vol. XI / 10-29-11

Recently in this space I detailed Ron Paul's fantastical path to the 2012 Republican nomination (ed. note: "fantastical" does not share a meaning with "fantastic"), plus a list of things I genuinely like about the Herminator.

Well, each time I burrow into deeper examination of a flawed GOP field, I'm left to conclude that Mitt Romney eventually wins the nomination.

Which is how I happened upon this, from Steve Benen, in Washington Monthly:

"As hard as it is to believe, it’s very likely the Republican presidential nomination will go to a French-​​speaking Mormon vulture capitalist named Willard, who used to support abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, 'amnesty' for undocumented immigrants, and combating climate change, and who distanced himself from Reagan, attended Planned Parenthood fundraisers, and helped create the blueprint for the Affordable Care Act."

This can't happen, right? Right?

(Word count: 144)

Nine-Nine-Nine Things I Like About Herman Cain / 10-21-11

You're going to assume that I made the following list in jest.

You're going to wait, and wait, and wait for the sarcastic kicker.

Well, it ain't comin. Read ahead. See?

Ha. Joke's on you. These are nine things I legitimately like about Herman Cain and his presidential campaign. What that's now? Yes, I know he's a Republican, shut up already.

1. He offers a solution to our taxation quagmire. His 9-9-9 plan isn't just an inspiration for this babblefest I call "blogging." It's an actual alternative to the mess in which we find ourselves today, wherein:

One party won't raise taxes or cut benefits;

The other wants to cut taxes but not the benefits;

Meanwhile, the deficit continues to mount, health care costs continue to rise and the safety net gets more and more expensive.

Say what you want about 9-9-9. It's gimmicky. It's too simple. It's regressive. Fine, whatever. But at least Cain is contributing to the discussion in a positive way, detailing a plan of attack, rather than delivering the same empty promises I like to call "lies."

2. He is not easily ruffled by white people calling him "brother." He's not even ruffled by white people with questionable race-related incidents in their past calling him "brother," over and over, on a national stage. In fact, if one of his rivals for the GOP nomination had once leased a hunting ranch called "N*ggerhead" for a decade, using it with his family, and that same rival had called Cain "brother," over and over, in a kinda douchey condescending sort of way, and this had all happened on October 19, 2011 during a debate in Las Vegas, Cain would have remained unruffled throughout.

That was a purely hypothetical exercise, of course, right.

3. He is pro-choice. Not personally, no -- he's on record as being strongly opposed to abortion, but he also adamantly made the case this week, in an interview on CNN, that abortion is a choice best left up to the woman, not the government.

His actual words: "It's not the government's role or anybody else's role to make that decision."

After clarifying that he considers himself pro-life, he followed up: "I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn't be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make."

Asked if a woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term after being raped, he answered, "That's her choice. That is not government's choice. I support life from conception."

(He backtracked the next day on his website. That's kind of what politicians do, though.)

4. Although I just called him a politician, he's really an outsider, which is good. Politics needs these guys. Like a '92 Perot or a Ralph Nader of any vintage, non-career politicians serve an extremely important function: they tether the lifelong insiders to the real world. Sometimes they use graphs. I like it when they use graphs.

5. Cain is black. (I know, you're colorblind, you hadn't even noticed.) Your political correctness notwithstanding, the man's race is somewhat of a coup for the Republicans, whose base, according to the latest official numbers, is:

--->103.7 percent white

--->.00002 percent Latino (that's counting W's Spanish-speaking skills and Marco Rubio, who's Cuban anyway)

--->That rich Asian-American guy

--->Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and a 99-year-old former actor in a nursing home somewhere who's still wearing blackface.

If the Republican Party is going to survive at all, and outgrow its current rift with minorities, it needs, well, nonwhite faces. And it would be good for the country, somehow, if the right-wing party was still in existence a generation from now. So, yeah.

6. He's a successful businessman. Wildly successful. He's a multi-millionaire! He was president and CEO of Godfather's, a chain he saved from extinction in the 1980's and 90's. When Cain talks money, you have to at least listen. And money troubles are kinda exactly what the nation's going through right now.

7. He legitimately thinks he has something to offer the nation, so he's following through with that notion. He didn't have to run for President. He's not on his third campaign for the Oval Office. I get the feeling he's not necessarily chasing power for power's sake, although to run for this office in the first place, it does take a certain amount of self-esteem.

8. His family story is compelling. He was raised in a lower-middle-class home, in which hard work, education and faith were paramount. Check his wiki page. And then, imagine this: his childhood values seem to have stuck. He's been married to the same woman for 43 years, he owns a master's degree in computer science from Purdue and is an associate minister at his church.

(Lots more money in the Cain household this time around, though. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

9. He beat cancer. Stage Four cancer, in his colon and liver, five years ago. He was given a 30 percent chance of survival; now he says he's in remission. You have to respect someone who takes on death, and wins. (My advisers just whispered that beating cancer constitutes merely a temporary victory. Screw that. Any effort that forestalls death is a win in my book.)

Done. Nine items, no sarcastic kickers. Granted, there is no chance I would ever cast a vote for Herman Cain, and I could just as easily make a list twice this long about things that turn me off about him. Maybe some other time.

(P.S.: I found this after finishing the post, so call it 9a. In 2009, Cain founded something called "Hermanator's Intelligent Thinkers Movement," an activist program that fights for conservative causes. Forget the agenda. The acronym spells Hit 'em, and you get to use the term "Hermanator"? Legen. Dary.)

The Ron Paul Scenario / 10-20-11

Ron Paul is, by all mainstream media accounts, the longest of long shots to win the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

And yet.

And yet.

There exists a scenario by which Paul could nab the nomination. I'd like to explore it today. Won't you ride with me? Please ride with me. And remember to keep your eyeballs inside the car at all times.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Part of the reason the MSM is so quick to discount Paul is that he doesn't fit into a neat little box like Rick Perry (gunslingin' conservative), Mitt Romney (establishment moderate), Herman Cain (outsider businessman) or even Sarah Palin (populist freakshow).

Some highlights and lowlights of Paul's career:

He voted against the Iraq war. The money quote: he found himself "annoyed by the evangelicals being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything That I was taught as a Christian." He voted against the so-called Patriot Act and calls gay marriage a states' issue, not to be trifled with by the federal government.

At the same time, Paul says hospitals should not have to treat illegal aliens in emergency rooms. He would eliminate FEMA, the IRS and the Department of Education. (Say what you will, the country is better for having all three of those entities.) He voted against legislation aimed at catching online child predators.

The eccentricities: He's opposed to all foreign aid, he favors decriminalizing marijuana, he opposes the trade embargo on Cuba, and he habitually votes against legislation not expressly authorized by the Constitution. He'd scrap the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard abandoned under Nixon. Also, he's 76. I'm told that's considered ancient.

(All information gleaned from his extremely informative wiki page.)

Summarizing, if Ron Paul were an ice cream, he'd be the anti-vanilla. He'd be Rocky Road, except with chili peppers instead of marshmallows.

And yet.

And yet.

Paul won the Value Voters straw poll last month. He polls at around 10 percent, give or take. He lost by less than a percentage point to Michele Bachmann in Iowa over the summer. He's tantalizing in his potential to win, or get crushed like a bug.

So how on God's greenish earth does this guy snake his way to the nomination?

Well, Rick Perry and Herman Cain have some pretty serious flaws. Perry reminds everyone of Bush, and not of W's theoretically good parts. The guy leased a ranch called "N*ggerhead," and not by accident, nope, for a whole decade. He invested in porn; he volunteered for Al Gore. His oft-touted "Texas Miracle" boils down to finding a few minimum-wage jobs without health insurance for his poorest citizens, of which there are many, all while watching the state's unemployment rate rise faster than the nation as a whole. Look it up. He calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme. "Vote for me! I'll dismantle the safety net!" Interesting strategy.

Cain? Turns out he's pro-choice. Or maybe not. His evolving stances and awkward dances on the abortion issue make Romney look like a poster child of consistency. (In case you're not following the race too closely yet, that's a jab at both men. In case you don't know anything about American politics, conservative primary voters care a great deal about abortion.)

And the pizza magnate's gimmicky 9-9-9 tax plan got destroyed by his competitors in a debate last week. It wasn't pretty, from a Hermanesque standpoint.

So what about Mitt? Good ol' Mittens, the guy who stays put with a 28 percent share of primary voters, no matter what. Doesn't go up, doesn't go down. Does his ceiling even stretch to 50 percent, ever? Or is he this year's version of what Hillary was in 2008, when she fell victim to a vehement ABC -- Anybody But Clinton -- swath of the Democratic electorate?

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum (Google him, it's worth it), Jon Huntsman and Bachmann are either dead in the water or losing traction quickly. Chris Christie isn't running, neither is Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee's obviously lying facedown in a ditch somewhere, and in case you forgot, Tim Pawlenty dropped out over the summer.

The nominee will be Cain, Perry, Romney or Paul. Except it won't be Cain, not after this week's multiple meltdowns. He is not ready for prime time, all the time.

Really, it'll be Perry, Romney or Paul. Except it won't be Perry. He debates poorly, he looks unpresidential, he turns too many folks off, he won't play well in the general election, and every intangible in the book seems to be working against him. In another election cycle, maybe.

So it'll be Romney or Paul.

But say something happens to Romney. Already, he's treated us to "Corporations are people, my friend" and "I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals!" That's just in the last eight weeks, with 54 more of those to go before Election Day. Oh, and there's the little matter of how he set up Obamacare in Massachusetts. Say he compounds gaffe with gaffe, loses his cool a couple times, flips or flops on this or that issue, again, and who knows?

Better yet, say the Republican primary voters who actually show up are:

* Conservative Christians who believe Mormonism is a cult

* Social conservatives who dislike his record

* Wary of insiders this election cycle

* Folks concerned about his flipfloppiness

* Still upset about health care legislation

and those voters go ahead and choose an alternative. What happens then? Does Romney crest past 30 percent anywhere besides New Hampshire?

If Romney, Cain and Perry are somehow out of the picture, your nominee stands to be one of the also-rans from six paragraphs ago, or Paul. The latter has an organization that puts his remaining opponents to shame. He has name recognition. By all accounts, he's a smart man, if quirky, and he projects an image of responsibility and honesty. He has a devoted following. (You could call them disciples! Or discipauls!)

Let's go to the calendar, then, and play this thing out chronologically.

It's January 15, and Ron's just finished winning Iowa and Nevada, nicely sandwiching his second-place finish to Romney -- by five percentage points! -- in New Hampshire. Paul is blowing expectations out of the water. He starts to raise funds like Obama 2008. Or, to be more precise, like Ron Paul 2007.

He loses to Perry in South Carolina on the 21st, but the four social conservatives split the far-right vote in Florida ten days later. Romney wins there, by default, with 26 percent. Nobody is impressed, especially because he just finished fifth in SC. Fifth!

Following a string of unimpressive results in the caucuses of CO, MN and ME on February 7, Perry's funds dry up at last and he drops out. Bachmann leaves the race a week later, but only after hanging on to barely take the Minnesota caucuses, where Paul finishes second.

Eight states have voted. Romney leads Paul by one delegate.

The two split Michigan and Arizona. Massachusetts selects Romney on March 6, but that's the same day Texas goes big for native son Paul. In fact, the other 11 states voting that day swing 7-2 to Paul, with him winning all five caucuses plus Vermont and Ohio. Cain nets the two leftovers, Oklahoma and Georgia, but having won just those two contests, and polling at 10 percent nationally, he calls it a campaign.

So do Santorum and Huntsman, who've won nothing; neither man has even placed second thus far.

With the pool of candidates thinning, Romney experiences a small uptick in poll numbers, but faced with essentially a choice between a libertarian and a moderate, many primary voters stay home. The ones who don't are, you guessed it, the Discipauls, who are emboldened by their man's now sizeable lead in delegates.

Gingrich stays in, gets a bump in the polls, and annoys the hell out of Mitt.

Desperate, Romney goes negative. He makes a disturbing campaign ad that is generally reviled, he loses his temper, he says something stupid, again.

To the great chagrin of the Republican establishment, Paul wraps up the nomination in April and coasts into the convention with a backroom deal-proof lead in delegates.

Granted, the scenario described above is... farfetched. But so very much NOT out of the realm of possibility. Here's the primary calendar. It's front-loaded with Western states, Southern states and caucuses.

It could happen. It won't. But it could.

What's Wrong With This Picture? / 10-13-11

A lot, is what's wrong.

Because I'm out of practice, I'm not going to organize my thoughts at first; just going to respond, in sequence, to each of the statements on the sheet.

"About to graduate debt-free." That's actually admirable. College ain't cheap.

"working 30+ hours a week making barely above minimum wage." That's why you're going to college, after all, so you don't have to work a crap job, so you can get one that allows you to make a living. That's almost full time... huh. I am honestly impressed with your dedication. No snark.

"in-state public university." Yeah, that's one way to make it affordable. Not everyone can -- nor should they -- go to Stanford. (My kids should.)

"started saving at age 17." Smart.

"I received two scholarships which cover 90 percent of my tuition." Again, that's pretty cool. Basically, you only owe 10 percent of your class costs, plus books, and living expenses. The crap job should be able to cover most of that. Makes sense.

"I have a 3.8 GPA." More on that in a few moments.

The "I live frugally" paragraphs. Kudos. More people should do that, to avoid accumulating debt before entering the real world, where debt can eat you up.

"If I did have debt, I would not blame, etc..." Not sure what this paragraph is doing here, unless the person is more interested in making a self-righteous point or a political statement. Both of which are cool. I do that all the time! You're reading that kind of thing right now.

"and will continue to work my @$$ of for everything I have." Just say ass. Otherwise, you look and sound 13 years old.

"I am NOT the 99%." Well, by definition, you are, since the other 1 percent refers to the richest 1 percent of Americans. I don't think you are part of the 1 percent. Maybe that 3.8 GPA is being dragged down by a poor math score? (That was mean, yes, but I won't take it back.)

So let me get this straight.

That sheet describes the kind of effort it takes to graduate debt-free

-- from an in-state university

-- with 90 percent of the tuition eliminated

-- forgoing all luxuries

-- working nearly full time.

Damn. I'm not encouraged. I'm depressed. Our higher education system is financially broken, and we need immediate reform. This is not a picture worth celebrating. It's one we ought to never have to see in the first place.

Ten Years. Now What? / 9-11-11

Happy September 11 to you.

I know, right? What do you say? How do you, well, celebrate? Celebrate? Remember? What. Gah.

Me? I slept in. I helped my brother move. I picked blackberries with my boys. We had a family dinner. I watched football, and agonized over the waning minutes of the fourth quarter of a Cowboys-Jets game (yep) that would mean fantasy league victory or defeat. (Thanks, Tony Romo, for your late-game ADHD moments!)

The most altruistic things I did, I would have done any other day. Packed a few boxes, moved some cabinets, made desserts for the neighbor kids, spent time being a good dad. It could have been Octemberpril 34th, for all the attention I paid the calendar today. I could have freakin' mowed the lawn, it was that kind of day.

That means something. For sure, some folks made today a day of service, or they did something significant to better the nation. Or they laid a flower somewhere, or they lit a candle, or they flew their flag.

Aw crap. The flag. Totally meant to do that. Our family loves displaying the flag. We take great pride in this nation's ideals, as symbolized by the Stars and Stripes. We flew it on Memorial Day 2011, Flag Day 2011, July Fourth 2011, and it'll probably make its way out there at Veterans Day 2011 too. Missed it today, though.

That means something.

Hm. There are no universally accepted 9/11 customs. It's only been ten years, after all. I didn't expect we'd all be exchanging gifts or sending family picture postcards or dressing up in red, white and blue, or anything like that on such short notice. But the event that was meant to unite us -- the event that did unite us, if ever so briefly -- has instead served mainly as a politicized flash point that separates Americans... often along party lines.

How you feel about the response to Sept. 11 -- a bungled war in Afghanistan, a couple trillion dollars and thousands of lives spent to messily redo Iraq, a ten-year manhunt for bin Laden that ended in a somewhat less than satisfying way -- how you feel about our last decade as a nation is bound to color how you commemorate it. And for half of us, we look at the last decade as an embarrassment, a missed opportunity, a stretch of history we'd rather forget quickly than relive annually. And then, for the other half of us, our military achievements of the last ten years have been giant foreign policy victories that have strengthened American hegemony, made us safer here at home, and crushed Al Qaeda like an unwanted insect.

Yeah, that's not the makings of a national holiday. Not even close.

OK, fine, maybe we can all agree on honoring first responders, firefighters, police officers, and ordinary heroes among us. I still get emotional thinking about what those folks accomplished that day. The bravery exhibited still floors me. When I put myself in their shoes...

But, like half the nation, I am shamed by the unconscionable actions we took between Sept. 12, 2001 and today. Such a colossal waste of life, money and such a wasted opportunity.

I'm not going to say that means the terrorists win. As comedian John Oliver likes to say, the terrorists are morons.

(Thank goodness, that means something too.)

But I think that in a way, America loses, until we figure out how to disassociate the date itself from the tragic, obscene, shameful acts of terrorism we perpetrated on innocent civilians, using that near-holy day of September 11, 2001 as a pretext.

So, no, not Happy September 11. Maybe someday. Or someday, Solemn September 11. Or Selfless September 11.

Can't wait until we get there, but like so many others these days, I am not hopeful.

Libya vs. Iraq: Return on Investment / 9-8-11

After seven months of fighting: the outcome is certain: Libyan rebels, assisted by coalition forces, have executed a successful coup against one of the most despotic despots of the last century.

Only four towns, shown here in green, are controlled by forces loyal to Dictator-For-Life-But-Not-Too-Much-Longer Muammar Gaddafi. That's as of today. Feel free to check back in next week.

As you might have noticed, a certain anniversary is coming up. Sunday will mark ten years. Like a marriage, sometimes the past decade has felt like an entire lifetime, and sometimes it's felt like only weeks have passed.

With that on my mind, that's probably why I started comparing outcomes between what happened in Iraq since Sept. 11, 2001 and what has transpired in Libya this year.

U.S. military casualties in Iraq: 4,474.

In Libya: Zero.

Cost of military operations in Iraq, 2002-2011: between $2 and $3 trillion (estimate)

In Libya: about $1 billion (estimate)

(That's "billion," with a "b." Do the math -- no, let me do it, you're lazy: Libya's running about 0.04 percent of Iraq's cost so far. Or 0.08 percent. Or 0.01 percent. Somewhere in there, way after the decimal point.)

Oil in Iraq: Lots. It's the 12th-highest oil-producing country.

Oil in Libya: Hell yes. Libyans are 18th highest on the list.

(The U.S. is third. Huh. You learn something new every day.)

Apples and oranges, you're free to say. You should say! The objectives and methods employed by our forces in Iraq and Libya were dissimilar, to say the least. In Libya, the NATO-led coalition performed airstrikes to achieve its military goals; in Iraq, there was that ground invasion the media mentioned once or twice. In Iraq, no rebel force rose up against Saddam; in Libya, that's how the whole war started.

Yes, but let's compare results in the last two wars of choice initiated by our leaders.

Iraq: Saddam gone, fledgling democracy in gear, $2,500,000,000,000 invested.

Libya: Gaddafi gone, fledgling democracy awaits, $1,000,000,000 invested.

Look at those zeroes. Again, I say, Huh.