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.]

Domestic Terrorism / 8-9-11

When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Filibuster) says things like this,

"In the future, any president, this one or another one, when they request us to raise the debt ceiling, it will not be clean anymore,"

it's not hard to get at his meaning. The debt ceiling fight is far from over, y'all. Don't expect us to roll over next time. We take the long-term economic health of the country seriously, and we will fight to restrain spending every chance we get.

In a way, I like hearing him say that. Measures have to be taken to combat our mounting debt. The conversation needs to be had on a regular basis, so that we don't keep kicking the proverbial can down the proverbial road for as far as the proverbial eye can see. For sure, I don't believe him for a second when he implies that President Red Meat Republican would face a similar showdown. Yet he makes it sound like future debt increases will run into similar roadblocks as we saw this summer. And this in very plain language.

Now, when McConnell says things like this, in the same interview,

"I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn't think that. What we did learn is this: it's a hostage that's worth ransoming,"

you just have to first admire the man's candor, then shake your head in consternation, then begin to unpack the unsavory things you just read. You have to. It's required.

Unpacking:

"some of our members" = Tea Party wing.

"a hostage you might take a chance at shooting" = if they didn't get their way, they were ready to wreck the economy. Our economy, and by extension, the planet's. Be assured that as the U.S. economy goes, so does the world's. What else could "the hostage" be?

"Most of us" = People who actually make the decisions. (This is comforting. At least the Senate leader understands that the TP can not be trusted with serious adult policymaking.)

"it's a hostage worth ransoming." = We're still very excited, as a party, to continue to use the threat of economic meltdown to get our way. After all, we got most of what we wanted, because the President had the good sense to pay most of our demands. He saw default as an actual calamity. Not a tool to make policy. Given a totally awesome win-win choice between Dollarmageddon and partial capitulation, he chose the latter.

Don't be fooled: an actual default on our obligations would bring about serious calamity. Interest rates would immediately leap. Bankruptcies and foreclosures would skyrocket in number. And the end result would be a downgrade of the country's credit that would actually add trillions of dollars to the deficit by bumping up the amount of interest the government pays on its loans.

The interest, annually, on our debt is between $400 and $430 billion, depending on when and where you check. Yes, that's just the interest. Should the rate rise four percentage points (and here I'm getting my numbers from the Congressional Budget Office), that number would pass $500 billion in 2012 and $1 trillion in 2015.

Replay: interest rates up 4 percent. Government now faces a choice between gutting the military, the safety net, or raising taxes in the midst of the toughest economic times in 70 years.

Well, what if interest rates climb 6 points? Are we then done, as a nation, economically? We wouldn't be able to afford, oh, anything, or pay our debts, and the bottom half of the middle class would cease to exist. Eaten alive by interest. With no significant social programs to fall back on.

Then what?

So, that's the hostage situation McConnell and the rest of the Republicans in Congress are OPENLY admitting they will recreate. Hostage: their word. Not mine. But at least you get to BE the hostage.

Ladies and gentlemen, your 2011 Republican Party.

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)

Please Expalin / 11-04-10

I'm not succumbing to early-onset dyslexia.

No, I just need something expalined to me. What is it that makes a former Alaska governor so attractive? Not physically, of course. I mean politically, yeah, that's what I mean, uh huh.

It is, though. I'm no longer trying to be cute here (at least for a few paragraphs). I'm posing an honest question.

What is it that makes you believe Sarah Palin has anything to offer as a candidate for high political office?

I get that she's a symbol. She represents right-wing ideas. She stands for smaller, more efficient government. Although her track record belies such a statement, she subscribes to fiscal conservatism.

I get that she's a woman in what is largely a man's arena -- right-wing politics. If you're into identity politics, she brings a different perspective to male-dominated debates.

I get that she's clever and snappy and full of attitude, and she considers herself a maverick. Those can be fine qualities in a public figure.

I get that she's clearly one of the pre-eminent Tea Party personalities. And God knows we need a third party ASAP. (Sadly, even God can't break the stranglehold the R's and D's have on our country.)

But what makes her palatable as a potential executive or legislator? I've always figured a serious politician has to be more than a symbol -- that there has to be some substance underneath all that coiffed hair and all those perfect teeth. And finding something below her surface has been a challenge, for me, that is.

So what does she bring to the table that makes her a viable member of the executive branch of government, or even of Congress?

It's an honest question, and I'm honestly requesting an answer that will provide me with some closure.

Please expalin.

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?)

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.

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!