Madison, Egypt / 2-21-11

Tunisia and Egypt threw off their Dictator-Presidents earlier this month. Hundreds of protesters perished last weekend in Libya; the carnage there continues today.

Why?

It's simple. They've been oppressed for decades. Centuries.

All they want is some freedom. Self-governance. Civil liberties. Economic freedoms. More guaranteed rights. Just like the ones a lot of other humans enjoy. Freedom engenders a righteous envy.

Most basically, they want more flavors of liberty.

It makes perfect sense: Freedom is delicious. Far from blaming Tunisians, Egyptians and now Libyans for causing trouble, we admire their efforts and wish them success.

Meanwhile, nobody has died in Wisconsin (U.S.A.) during the week of protests against Governor Scott Walker's plan to remove certain collective bargaining rights from nurses, firefighters, teachers and cops.

And Mr. Walker has only been in office eight weeks. He's not yet eligible for dictator status anyway.

Plus, he's not proposing to suspend religious freedom. Or curtail free speech. Or revoke the Second Amendment. He's just trying to break unions.

But this is where comfort might come from tonight: Human beings a continent and a half away are selflessly shedding their own blood, in pursuit of more rights. And thankfully, respecting their sacrifice, enough of us in this freest of nations continue to resist those who would nudge us (even if only a little) back toward the ugly place from which so many North Africans are trying to flee.

Carry on, Wisconsin protesters. And any lovers of liberty worldwide, you too.

144 Or Less, Vol. IX / 2-18-11

You know who's not dominating the airwaves right now?

Sarah P., that's who. (Isn't.)

We saw her a-plenty in 2010, endorsing candidates, writing "books" (that should help with future pesky gotcha-type questions!!), feuding with her son-in-and-out-of-almost-law, railing against the Ovalest Socialist, being lampooned, doing "reality" shows, and generally being the life of the (tea) party.

This year, not so much. Which is great. I mean, she has a large, needy family and all, so good for her.

She also has been printing money. Gobs of money.

I guessed last year that the main reason she quit that inconvenient day job of hers was to cash in while she could. And looky here: various news outlets estimate she made between $12 and $14 million in 2010.

Again, good for her. But what's her next move now?

Please run, Sarah. Pretty please.

(Word count: 144)

Before the Night is Through / 11-02-10

Six random and unrandom thoughts as the election progresses.

1. Democrats may well have won the expectations game. Everyone and their dog's fleas saw the GOP House takeover coming. But there were three main story lines for tonight: Will the R's take the House? And how about the Senate? How many Democratic statehouses would flip?

By conceding the first point, then winning point two and scoring a couple crucial victories in point three (CO, CA, MA), the Democrats salvaged something of a split decision. Not in true value of seats won or lost, but in the expectations department. Don't misquote me: tonight was a bad, bad, bad night for the left. Bad. (At least for left-leaning incumbents.) But they still control one and a half branches of government, while pulling off a couple high-profile gubernatorial wins.

In short, they avoided a repeat of 1994.

2. Colorado Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot. Less than 10 percent for their gubernatorial nominee (and it's going to be close) means they receive minor-party status on the 2012 ballot, and share space with the Greens and others. Not a disaster, for sure -- motivated conservatives will find the dude with the R next to his name no matter where they put him. But Floridians can tell you that ballot design has a knack of finding a way to matter.

3. Tea Party successes (Paul in KY, Rubio in FL) figure to nudge Sarah Palin closer to a 2012 run. Please. Do it Sarah. For all the "Real" Americans out there. Best way for the R's to lose their hard-earned House? Put the least respected candidate in recent memory at the top of the ballot. I used to fear she would win if nominated. Now I am fairly certain she will not. So bring it on, Grisly Mama.

4. Locally, 65 percent of Washingtonians are rejecting an income tax that would have been levied strictly on those earning more than $200k (or $400k per household). Great. Now we too can inch closer to bankruptcy, just like the people from two states south, whose example we love to emulate. Way to go.

5. Oh boy, Nevada and Alaska could be lots of fun tonight. And tomorrow. And into December.

6. This is our third straight "wave" election. This doesn't happen in American political history, uh, ever. Well, now the GOP has to help govern. They've been really good at saying "No" without voters asking them why they want the unemployed to lose their home, children to go without health insurance, and Wall Street to be able to run wild again.

Maybe now the voters will see what "ideas" the R's have, and we can start to build momentum for a fourth wave in 2012... but first, my conservative friends, enjoy your partial victory for a day or so.

Surprise! 11-01-10

Something in tomorrow night's election results will shock the world.

Actually, the way things are going in elections nowadays, the lack of a high-profile shocking result somewhere would probably be... shocking. (Gotta find me a thesaurus.)

But the real point here is that according to these historical poll numbers, the 2010 midterm congressional election is quite unlike its most recent sibling, the 2006 overthrow of the Republican House and Senate.

(Click on the link if you want to be confronted with 136 trillion numbers in pretty little tables, or if you're a nerdgeek like me. Keep reading if you trust me to share some interesting highlights.)

In 06, anti-Bush sentiment swept D's into control of Congress.

This year, almost as many voters say they're motivated to vote to support Obama as those who say they're excited to vote against him.

In 06, Democrats were winning the "Likely Voter" battle by 10-12 points.

This year, Republicans seem to hold a 4-6 point edge.

In 06, Iraq and the economy were the biggest issues, by far, on voters' minds. Terrorism came in a distant third.

This year, it's the economy, health care, and "D.C. is broken," in that order.

In 06, about 5 out of 7 voters wanted to see Congress change hands. About 60 percent of voters disapproved of the job Congress was doing

This year, it's 4 out of 7. And yet 75 percent disapprove of Congress.

There's more coming, but I want to pause for analysis.

A) There are more D's than R's in the electorate, but R's are more likely to turn out. So they say. And history bears this out, at least as far as midterms, whose voters tend to be older, more white, and -- shocking! -- more conservative than the population at large. And yet... President Obama enjoys much more midterm support than Bush did in '06, when Democrats won 30 seats. If R's win "only" 30 seats, they won't take the House. 40 are necessary.

B) Democrats turned out like crazy in 2006, and won 30 seats. Republicans will turn out like crazy this year.

C) People are pissed at Congress. Not just at the D's in Congress. At the R's too. Just look at how many moderate conservatives got primaried this year by far-right folks like O'Donnell and Angle and Rubio. To say that only Democratic seats are at risk is, well, a risky statement. Nobody is safe this time around.

Everyone has a So-and-So as their congressman. The Democrats have more So-and-So's. (Obviously.) And the electorate is very, very angry with all the So-and-So's. Therefore, many more Democrats will fall tomorrow night. But look for some incumbent Republicans to go down, too.

D) Polling is interesting now. You have to REALLY want to answer a poll to participate, what with cell phones and do-not-call lists and various call screening techniques. Roughly a quarter of American adults rely exclusively on their mobile phones for, uh, phone calls. (Some of the new phones still offer number-to-number dialing. You can use them for that purpose, according to their manuals. Who knew?) The chart ten paragraphs down in this story is useful information. All this to say, even the polls that claim to include cell phone respondents... can you take their results at face value? This seems like a very, very big thorn in pollsters' sides, and it's only going to get worse. For them.

E) That being said, anger is a powerful motivator, and if making conclusions based on only the information above, I'd have to say the R's will win on the order of 35-40 seats. We might not know until 2011 who controls the House.

Back to poll facts. So I can change my conclusion. (I waffle! I flip-flop! I'm ready for office!)

More than half this year's projected voters see a candidate's affiliation with the Tea Party as important to them. Yet more than half of those voters specifically cite Tea Party affiliation as a reason to vote AGAINST that candidate. Jab at the right wing!

64 percent of Obama voters claim they're "certain" to vote this year. 79 percent of McCain voters make the same claim. That's a blow to the head for Democrats. Factor in that the independents believe the country is on the wrong track. Another uppercut.

Then ask yourself which voters are most likely to have changed their minds since '08. The folks who voted for the R during an economic meltdown, or the folks who chose the new guy for a change of political scenery?

Independents favor Republicans handily. And the number of independents keeps growing. The good news for Democrats? Independents tend to change their minds. The bad news for Democrats? Independents have done their mind-changing for the cycle, and not in a leftward direction.

So let me amend my earlier conclusion. Republicans will take the House. 48 seats in all, a handful more than they need. But the 70-seat tsunami some conservative pundits are crowing about -- the numbers don't bear that out.

(P.S.: Bonus analysis, founded in feeling, not fact: Democrats will keep the Senate, probably 53-47. Patty Murray and Barbara Boxer aren't losing this year, and one of them has to be terminated for the Senate to flip. But again, I'm just some dude sitting at his computer, in the most beautiful state in the union, in the best-educated city in the nation, surrounded by a bunch of liberal hippies. So what do I know?)

144 or Less, Vol. IV / 10-23-10

An interesting thing has happened as the 2010 campaign winds down.

With Republicans offering several immoderate candidates (Miller, O'Donnell, Angle, Paladino, Toomey) for Senate, two familiar figures have emerged as leaders of their respective parties.

President Obama for the D's; Sarah Palin for the R's. The former has been crisscrossing the country to help liberals retain the Senate; the latter has encouraged voters to elect Tea Party-approved candidates and give conservatives control of the House.

Both will probably succeed at their tasks -- which is a result I love.

Not because it divides government. But because an emboldened Palin, flush with kingmaking success, then becomes THE face of the right. And 39 percent of Republicans think she'd make a good president. Not 39 percent of Americans -- only counting R's here.

Just 25 percent of Americans view her favorably.

So keep visiting Iowa, Sarah.

(Word count: 143)

Stupidiocy / 10-21-10

Today, 2010 Elections Class, we learned:

That Rand Paul and Jesus Christ are the same dude.

That fearing random Muslims is profitable.

That answering questions is an optional exercise for Senate candidates.

Let's do these in reverse order, because oh my, the Paul one is so juicy, I have to make it this post's dessert.

So the appetizer first: Joe Miller is running for Senate in Alaska. After beating the incumbent in the Republican primary over the summer, why should he have to deal with the press at all? Better to handcuff reporters when they get too frisky. Better to not honor interviews.

Yeah. When 40 fellow Alaska Republicans are asking you, in an open letter, to get your act together, and calling your campaign out for "unacceptable" behavior and "not a winning strategy," you should probably not say things like "We've drawn a line in the sand. You can ask me about background, you can ask me about personal issues -- I'm not going to answer." But what do I know? I'm not trying to lose a practically unlosable election.

Entree time. Juan Williams. Ahem.

Visiting with Bill O'Reilly recently, Williams, an NPR reporter, generously offered this up: "I mean look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

I totally believe Williams. He isn't a bigot. He's just a guy who gets irrationally afraid that because there are Muslims with different-looking outfits on his flight from Atlanta to Chicago, the plane might end up crashing into the Pentagon instead.

That sounds sarcastic. And it is, a little, but it also isn't. It's very, very difficult to begrudge someone for admitting that the Different makes them nervous. Lots of people struggle with that. When I'm walking down a dark alley at night (one of my favorite activities!), I don't want the three guys I cross to all be 6'6", 320 pounds, with prison tattoos across their knuckles. I just don't.

(Hey, did I mention Williams is black? Not that I have a great deal more to say on that count.)

At the same time, it's worth remembering a couple things.

1. The 9/11 hijackers were wearing jeans and T-shirts.

2. Women in burqas have successfully piloted zero planes into tall New York buildings.

So I can safely pencil Williams in for irrational behavior and poor timing when it comes to honesty... but probably not much more. NPR fired him, by the way, after hearing of the remarks. I'm supposing they felt he had seriously harmed his objectivity and/or his credibility.

In any event, all's well that ends well for Williams. His friends came to his rescue.

Mike Huckabee: "It is time for the taxpayers to start making cuts to federal spending, and I encourage the new Congress to start with NPR."

Sarah Palin: "NPR defends 1st Amendment Right, but will fire u if u exercise it. Juan Williams: u got taste of Left's hypocrisy, they screwed up firing u." That might be one of her tweets, or that could also be how we're doing transcripts for her nowadays.

And then, just found out that Fox News has offered him something marginally better than an unemployment check: a 3-year, $2 million contract to join them. Good for him. Now we all know what the reward/punishment is for misunderstanding other religions (and I'm being charitable). Glad to have that out in the open.

Hope you left room for the grand finale.

KY Senate candidate Rand Paul, earlier today: "In my entire life, I've written and said a lot of things. I've never said or written anything un-Christian in my life."

Now after months and months and months talking constantly in the public spotlight, under the constant stress a campaign like Paul's surely brings, people are apt to say things, that upon further reflection, they wish they could take back. Either they misspeak, they take an analogy too far, they forget which group they're speaking to, they make up facts, they stretch the truth, they say too much, or they outright lie. (Politicians do this? Whoa.)

But I pay pretty close attention to politics, and most of those instances are explainable. The candidate thought he could get away with a falsehood. The candidate embellished a story. The candidate was on the spot, and made up some numbers. The candidate said she can't tell Latinos and Asians apart. (Go ahead, click the link. I couldn't make stuff this good up if I tried.)

Oh yeah, what Paul said. Let's get back to that. It's hard to even give him credit for what he could have and should have said, which, naturally, is "I am a Christian and always have been. I've made lots of statements, oral and written, and I've always wanted to be Christlike in everything I say and write. For my opponent to imply otherwise is tasteless and vile." He missed that perfect response by a light-year or two.

Instead of crafting a sensible retort, he claimed perfection. Not recent perfection. No no. A lifetime achievement award. Not a single word against Christian principles. In his life. In other words, godlike flawlessness.

(I guess the lie he told by making that statement, that lie must have been his first. Bummer to ruin a good streak like that, on a technicality no less.)

To be fair, Paul was baited. His opponent, Democrat Jack Conway, just put out an ad exposing a college escapade Paul took part in during his days as a member of an anti-Christian club. (The story came out in a recent issue of GQ. Take that for what it's worth.) In the ad, Paul and a buddy stand accused of tying up a woman and forcing her to worship something called the Aquabuddha.

The ad's in terribly poor taste. It's inconsquential to the issues at hand, and irrelevant at best. It's nasty and full of innuendo. It misleads. But Paul's response tells so much more than Conway's sleazy move. It tells us that when the full-court pressure is on, in the heat of the closing weeks of a contentious campaign, the Republitarian political newbie folds.

Man, election season makes people do stupidiotic things.

144 Or Less, Vol. II / 10-14-10

A federal judge just declared DADT unconstitutional. Naturally, the Democrats running the Justice Department will appeal.

Huh?

Saying they want to proceed with already-laid plans to phase out DADT, administration officials will fight the ruling.

Yeah. See. There exists no bad time to end discrimination, no bad way to restore dignity to soldiers who volunteered their very life to their country. Take the gift, Barack. Run with it.

Appealing makes zero sense, politically. Obama's choice to deliver the death-blow to DADT himself dampens left-wing enthusiasm and costs the D's precious midterm votes. Not a single rabid anti-gummint whiner will read today's headlines and find his mind changed or his passion to defeat the Black Socialist Secret Muslim abated.

So -- pardon my French -- BHO had better make damn well sure DADT is toast very, very soon, or he can start perusing want ads.

(Word count: 144)

144 Or Less / 10-8-10

(This category of post has a 144-word limit. Political snark exclusively here. And prefacorial parenthetical statements don't count against the count. So don't count them. Also, don't ask about the 144 thing.)

In my Congressional district, Washington's 1st, Democrat Jay Inslee is the incumbent.

Alongside his ubiquitous green-on-blue campaign placards, other signs have surfaced among the weeds -- ones not planted by his people. (The weeds OR the new signs, hopefully. Although he IS the incumbent, therefore by nature evil, and thus inclined to have a soft spot for weeds.)

The signs read:

"Jay Inslee

Bankrupting America Since 1992"

He's been in office 18 years. True story.

But funny thing, he's only been bankrupting America since 2000. Before that, he was helping Bill Clinton craft roughly balanced budgets, as the country's public debt FELL in nominal dollars (wikistats here) during Inslee's first eight years in D.C.

I wonder what in 2000 prompted Inslee to begin writing federal budgets that sent us closer to bankruptcy? What a turd. Throw him out indeed!

(Words used: 142.)

Revolution or Insurrection? / 9-15-10

Electoral Threat flags. I'm passing them out. Get yours now!

1. A yellow one to fellow Democrats everywhere rejoicing that extremists (it's unfair to call them Republicans - these Tea Partiers are something else altogether) are on the ballot anywhere. You/We aren't very popular at this time, so there's no telling who can and can't beat you/us. Just because it looks like the wild-eyed revolutionary on the other side will lose doesn't mean he or she will, in fact, lose. American political history is (WARNING: please select your own cliche) sprinkled/littered/dotted/peppered with events that once seemed improbable.

2. A red one to Republicans everywhere. Your party is in grave danger of being overrun by people who have no business holding office on the local urban planning committee, much less in the United States Senate or the House Judiciary Committee or Appropriations Committee or Armed Forced Committee or anything rhyming with Blummittee.

There are three types of R's these days. Segment One: Those folks who have left the GOP and now call themselves independents, though they'll vote for an R 98 percent of the time. Segment Two: Social Conservatives, i.e. Christian fundamentalists. Segment Three: Tea Partiers and Libertarians, with views that don't fit into the mainstream and cannot win electorally absent a miracle.

This is a losing coalition, if you can call it that. It is fated for doom. Maybe not right away, but it cannot last. It's like a meal of potato chips, french fries and mashed potatoes. They all make really good sides, but where's the beef?

3. A green one to folks who would seize this moment to launch a new populist party. Voter anger is at an all-time high. Few non-Republicans want the GOP back in power after Bush/Cheney/Rove ransacked the nation for eight years. Few non-Democrats want the current crop of liberals to remain in power. Usually, swing voters swing in a swinging way from one side of the political spectrum to the other, helping to keep the parties honest and the blood relatively fresh in D.C.

This time, the swingers are looking for another target of their affection. I'd just as soon have it be a real party with real ideas, as opposed to the TP's fantasy world in which we can eliminate Social Security and balance the budget by cutting off aid to Israel and letting the Middle East blow itself up.

A as-of-now fictitious Liberty Party, built on responsible levels of taxation, spending and involvement overseas while maintaining budgetary prudence and respecting civil liberties... that party would clean house this cycle. If only it existed. Right now. Yesterday now. (We Democrats are supposed to be that party, by the way. We really should let more people know.)

Anyway. The flags mean whatever I want them to mean. Like the terror threat levels, I use them at my convenience to accomplish my own ends.

Oh yeah, and 4. A rastafarian-looking one to me. Equal amounts of red, yellow and green. I am tempted to interpret the Tea Party's ascendancy as bad for the GOP, therefore as good for the country, but if these people get in office, God help us all. Also, I would be one of the folks easily wooed by a new party that promises new solutions to our looming budgetary problems, when in actuality, I just need to continue to support the D's, who are the party which seeks to champion the middle class, after all. Get a grip, John!

A Bloodbath of Epic Proportions / 7-23-10

There's a regular poster on my favorite political blog, fivethirtyeight.com, and this conservative dude likes to make predictions. That's fine. I like to make predictions. I made some last fall, and I need to revisit them, amend them, and own up to the completely inane ones. Unlike people on TV ever do. Will anyone except for Jon Stewart ever hold pundits accountable?

So this guy on 538 (and yeah, he's clearly a guy, I trust my Guydar) regularly informs us that the left is about to experience, electorally, a "bloodbath of epic proportions." It's his stock phrase. He's been using it since, oh, mid-2008. It's kind of like a tradition now.

That fall turned out OK for the Democrats, most observers agree. Still, Bloodbath Man kept coming back for more, week after week, reminding us that McCain was going to wipe the floor with Obama, that conservatives were going to sweep 2009 elections and take back Congress in 2010.

And several things went well for the GOP in '09, although plenty went wrong for them too. Not a bloodbath for any one side, by any stretch of the imagination.

Then 2010 came around, Teddy Kennedy's old seat went to a Republican, the stock market's tremendous rally fizzled a little, unemployment stubbornly stayed in the high nines, the public had to watch health insurance reform finish winding its ugly way through Congress, poll numbers started to suggest this could be the year of the GOP comeback, especially since midterm elections are historically unkind to the party in power... and everyone wondered if batsh!t crazy ultraconservative poster man was, gulp, re-gulp, right this time.

I mean, the White House press secretary acknowledged the Republicans might even take back the House. He probably didn't use the terms "BLOODBATH OF EPIC PROPORTIONS," but he acknowledged that the outlook is far less than desirable for Democrats.

So with my head planted firmly as ever in the sand, I say, Pffthhththbdt.

(John 1, Spell-check 0.)

This fall isn't going to be that bad for us lefties. We're going to lose some seats in the House, and some in the Senate. But it'll be the typical amount. 16 is the average. There are 70 more D's than R's in the House. It'll be manageable.

Why? Because the Republicans have been the Party of No for too long, and their No-shouting has surfaced in too many places now.

They opposed health care reform, which will only gain in popularity as its features are made known.

They opposed new financial regulation, which is popular across all swaths of America. I love America. Very swathy population.

They opposed, in a very public manner, the extension of unemployment benefits at a time of high unemployment.

They trashed both of Obama's Supreme Court nominees - qualified, intelligent women on a Court that was embarrassingly short on female representation.

They opposed new regulations for credit card companies - new rules that are consumer-friendly, mind you. You can see the new laws on your statements and in the letters from your card issuers, letters that say things like "We are no longer able to raise rates as much as we want, whenever we want" or "Here is exactly how much interest you will pay if you make only the minimum payment each month" or even "We will stop setting your minimum payment so low that your debt grows faster than you can repay it." Good things. Thank the Democrats. The Republicans fought all of that tooth-and-nail and filibuster and all.

They fought the gradual repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," the policy that keeps gays from serving openly in the military, and whose repeal is highly popular, according to many polls.

They have no legislative victories since 2008, which is to be expected, as they control no branch of government, but still, they have only their opposition of the above and of President Obama in general to run on.

It's flimsy. The people who don't like the president already voted against him in '08. The people who like him and most the policies enacted in the past 18 months are unlikely to rebuke him for doing stuff they like.

Yes, the right has enthusiasm on its side. But I'm not sold on the electoral power of the Tea Party, especially when its favored candidates actually appear on the ballot... hey look, that's like a series of 12 posts for this fall. Cool.

Rand Um Chance? / 5-23-10

Pun geeks get the hottest girls. Didn't you know?

But on to the meat of this post. (Although to be honest, it's more of a tofu dish. Stir-fried, with veggies. Mushrooms and peppers and those baby corn thingies. Smothered in hot chili lime sauce. With sesame seeds. Free advice to self: eat well FIRST. THEN write blog.)

Rand Paul, the son of extreme left-wing presidential candidate Ron Paul, dipped his toe into national politics this month by winning the Republican primary in the race to succeed outgoing Senator Jim Bunning, who has been seniling his way right out of office for some time now.

Rand, who I'll hopelessly hope is not named for Ayn, falls neatly within political parameters set by Tea Party activists. (I think they should officially go with the slogan, "Give me libertarianism or give me death," but they so seldom listen to me these days.)

Whatever. You get the idea. Rand is reflexively anti-tax, anti-deficit and opposes basically any federal governmental power not expressly outlined in the Constitution. And that sounds great. In theory. Until you get into actual governance, and the feds decide that maybe it's not a good idea to keep discriminating against nonwhites or the disabled. So we get legislation like the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act, designed to tell people with the power to act bigoted, "No, we really mean it when we say you should treat folks with dignity and equality. Now shape up."

Only Rand opposes and/or criticizes these laws.

Can you see how this might pose a problem in a general election? Sure, Rand can excite the conservative base in a primary. He's a fresh face with a pedigree. He's brilliant in certain ways -- I mean, the man's an ophthalmologist who has a degree from the Duke School of Medicine, for Hippocrates' sake.

But statewide elections don't favor extremists. Even in Kentucky, which went for McCain by 16 points (!), Libertarians poll between 0 and 6 percent, depending on the epoch. That being said, had Rand run for U.S. Congress in a friendly district, I believe he could have waltzed into office. He is technically a Republican. I guess. (I should rephrase. This is Kentucky; he's more likely to do-si-do into a congressional seat, to a backdrop of an absolutely bitchin' bluegrass band.) Oh, and Rand's opponent, Jack Conway, is well-known as the state's Attorney General.

That being said part deux, I don't think it's outside the realm that Rand could win anyway. Midterms are all about enthusiasm, and the TPers are nothing if not energetic. Enough Kentuckians (Kentuckers?) are eager to put the brakes on the Ovalest Socialist (I just made that up and I am frakking proud of it, thank you very much) that they might just go for anyone with an R next to his (not her) name.

(Three asides in one sentence? Rrho boy.)

Additionally, Democrats outnumber Republicans in KY by 600,000, although I confess that's a bit of a misleading statistic. Still, that's a lot of moderately moderate Dempublicrats Rand would have to attract. At least he's going it about it the right way so far: his election website is splashed with Obama blue.

Oh yeah, but those unfortunate statements about how we don't really need to step in and stop injustice, it'll just stop itself, like it always has. The free market will take care of it. No, in that department, help is flooding in. Sarah Palin weighed in for Rand, that's got to be good for something. "You know, they're looking for that 'gotcha' moment, and that's what it evidently appears to be that they did with Rand Paul," Palin said over the weekend. Sarah is a helpful lady, if you're trying to win an election. Great track record. Stayed away from Scott Brown so he could win; campaigned for that stooge in New York last year who lost. Also, that 2008 thing. Mmm hmm. Dispatch her immediately.

Rand is also pro-life. This seems like a plus in Kentucky. He's so pro-life, in fact, that he even opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest. This is ideologically pure. After all, if life begins at conception, abortion is murder no matter how the conception came about. But try selling that opinion on a large scale. Not a lot of buyers.

It's not all bad, though. Rand, like his famouser dad, is smartly in favor of legalizing marijuana. That ought to shore up Kentucky's substantial evangelical vote just fine. You tell 'em, Rand!

Massacrechusetts / 1-23-10

No, I didn't work for Martha Coakley's campaign - I KNOW how to spell the state I live in, and even a few of the other ones. (What's that now you say about Tennesee?)

After Massachusetts voters replaced Teddy Kennedy this week with some dude who vowed to help tear down what Kennedy spent a lifetime trying to achieve, some despondency may be allowed among Democrats, or people who could use health care but can't get it, or people with kids, or people with compassion, or people who think the Republicans deserve more than one year in the wilderness for trying to bankrupt the country, or people with souls.

Well, I'd like to offer the mature response to losing that race. Right after I offer the juvenile one. (Notice I've already started with the juvenile name-calling portion. But on with it.)

I hate you Scott Brown! I hate you Massachusetteritianites! I hate you Martha Coakley! I hate you MA legislature for messing with the process! I hate you George W. Bush! (Just for old times' sake.)

Rage levels back to normal. Mature response in 3, 2, 1...

I. Brown will not last as a MA Senator with a hard-right agenda. He'll get booted. Ben Nelson survives in Nebraska only because he's a very, very, very centrist Democrat. Bluer-than-the-sky Rhode Island kept Republican Lincoln Chafee around for a long time because he liked to split the difference between the parties, and voters will respect that. Heck, Maine has two GOP Senators, somewow. (That last word was supposed to be "somehow," but I like the typo better.) So if Brown lasts for two-plus years - his term ends in 2012 - then it's not precisely the end of the entire whole wide wide world. He can't be a filibuster machine and keep his seat.

II. Democrats had better start fielding some decent candidates. Coakley failed to campaign after winning the primary, failed to connect with voters, took them for granted, and screwed up important stuff like Red Sox history. I'm completely serious, that's not OK in New England. Despite the fact she got herself elected AG not too long ago, she self-destructed, managing to lose a state Obama won 62-36 and where he still enjoyed a 15-point positive approval rating AMONG VOTERS WHO CAST BALLOTS ON TUESDAY.

III. This comes on the heels of Democrats losing two governor's races in November; one of those they had no business winning, that being Virginia, and the other one they had no business losing, that being New Jersey. But both times, the candidates were deeply flawed. In NJ, Jon Corzine's entire campaign seemed to be "My Opponent Is A Fat Slob," which might have been factually accurate, but was only serving the purpose of concealing Corzine's own past as CEO of Goldman Sachs... and in the throes of the financial meltdown and its aftershocks, he might as well have worn swastikas while happily sodomizing a statue of Lenin.

Over in Virginia, Craigh Deeds sucked. I don't want to elaborate. Seething might resume.

The last three Democrats to seek high-profile elected office have been complete stooges. It's really, really, really past time for that crap to come to an end. Really, Democrats? Really? Really??

IV. Some have called Brown's victory a referendum on health care. Balderdash. For one, Massachutypes already have universal health care, as set up by their Republican governor, once upon a time. Furthermore, if the President is viewed favorably by a strong majority of voters there, choosing a guy who'd clearly pledged to poke his finger in Obama's eye, that choice can't be about health care as much as everyone says. No, this was about the two candidates in the race, in large part. Of course, that's easy to say for the anti-Brown crowd.

V. Special elections are weird. Sh!t happens. The Republican dropped out and endorsed the Democrat in a congressional race in upstate NY last year. If one thinks one knows what's going to happen in one of these hastily arranged shindigs, one should rethink one's presuppositions. Just saying.

VI. It's not a good time to be an incumbent. Coakley was viewed, fairly or not, as the incumbent, due to party affiliation. Timing sucks sometime. She might have managed to eke out a win, warts and idiocy and all, this coming November. Or the previous one. Hard to say.

VII. The health-care bill was nothing special, from a traditionally liberal viewpoint. No public option, not even a public option with an opt-out or opt-in mechanism for states. No employer mandate. Lots of help for the poor and uninsured, but kind of a bummer for folks who don't want coverage. Granted, forcing insurers to insure everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, that would have been a step in the right direction, and a journey of a thousand miles begins with blah blah blah cliche blah blah blah (I'm such a piss-poor bad Taoist right now), but the bill was extremely incremental. To lose it sucks, but we're not dismantling Medicaid or anything drastic along those lines.

Wish I could say I felt better. At least I feel more grown up.

(I apologize profusely for the total lack of links in this post. I'm trusty. You can believe me when I say there are no glaring factual errors here; I saved them all for my other posts.)