A Fish in the Percolator

On Voting

2011-03-09T08:56:00.001-08:00

Every once in a while, Mary Mancini and I get into a dialogue (of sorts) about voting, voting fraud, and the like, which usually results in frustration on both sides. So, here's a short list of my views on the matter:

1. Most voting fraud "activists" on either side only care about stopping or otherwise curtailing voting fraud if they feel like the "fraud" in question hurts their political side/helps the other side.

2. Most reported instances of voting machines issues/errors are some form of user error but because no one wants to offend voters it's easier to just blame the machines or the machine makers.

3. There is nothing inherently wrong with "low" voter turnout, or, for that matter, voter turnout at any level, so long as people who want to vote have a reasonable opportunity to do so.

4. There is no social good served by people who have no interest in voting going to the polls to vote. That's why the system generally works out quite well as is; these people sort themselves out of the process: they just don't vote.

5. Wanting "everyone" to vote necessarily means forcing people who have no interest in voting to vote. So, make fun of Paul Weyrich if you wish, but his position is more sound than the opposite position, unless you actually believe that forcing otherwise disinterested people to vote is a good thing.

A List

2011-02-22T07:11:00.000-08:00

1. "Employed" people who have jobs and go to their jobs. These people vote.

2. "Underemployed" people who have jobs that are beneath them but they go to them anyway because they have to. Also voters.

3. "Unemployed" people who who want to go to a job but cannot find one. A lot of these people vote, too.

These are the people who are watching public employees not working during the workday.

Good luck with that.

Congratulations to Beth Harwell

2010-11-18T12:14:00.000-08:00

Well, I'm glad she got the nod, both for her sake and that of the party.

Geez...Beth Harwell, Bill Haslam, an even-tempered Ron Ramsey...I don't think I'm going to have much to complain about...really not sure what I will do...

Well, I suppose I'll think of something.

I Think Kent Williams Is A Weasel And I Prefer Beth Harwell For Speaker

2010-11-17T07:04:00.001-08:00

First things first: I do not know Kent Williams personally. Perhaps on a personal level he's a swell guy. I have no idea. But I also don't care for present purposes, because here's what I do know: Kent Williams, regardless of whatever grand qualities he may otherwise have, is, politically speaking, a weasel.

Whatever his defenders may say about him, the fact remains that he took advantage of a situation to better his personal standing and sold his party colleagues out in the process. This label is overused, but there is no better metaphor for Williams than this guy.

Oh yes, I hear the folks who claim that he saved the House from rampant partisanship, the (largely imagined) terrors of a Speaker Jason Mumpower and so on. Well, look, if he's such a great guy who could do all of these things, he should have put himself out there earlier on making those arguments and let everyone have that debate within the party, you know, kind of like they're doing now. Or, at the very least, he should have tried to form a coalition early on with the Democrats, as John Wilder did. He didn't do any of those things.

Instead, he saw an opening and he took it. I'm sorry, but Kent Williams a weasel and that's that.

I will say that one good thing came out of the Williams interregnum. It was a nice bridge between Democratic dominance of the House and the soon-to-come Republican dominance of the House. Gradual change is often underrated. And, as I suspected might happen, it robbed Democrats (who, ironically, were cheering these events back in January 2009) of a useful unifying political target. Basically, all they ended up getting out of it was a two-year reprieve while the Republicans got ready to take the House outright. Hope they enjoyed it.

All of that said, even though I wish he would shut up about it, Williams' support of Beth Harwell for Speaker of the House does nothing to deter me from hoping she gets the post. She's smart, capable and very, very experienced. Republicans are going to need all of these things because--I don't know if you noticed--we've never done this before. And, yes, I did say "we"--I am a Republican.

We as Republicans and as Tennesseans need a person in the Speaker's Office who can hit the ground running with regard to managing the House. With her quarter-century of experience, I am very confident that Beth Harwell can do that. and, as David Oatney quite properly points out, you are going to have a very conservative House regardless.

Can Glen Casada rise to her level? I don't know. He is my representative, as it happens, but that's the extent of my relationship with him. He seems OK, but I will say that potential speakers of the House need to have more sense than to get themselves involved in garbage like this. That's the kind of thing that gives Republicans like me--and whether you realize it or not, there are many of us--the creeps.

So, I'm pulling for Beth. If Glen wins, well, that's OK too I guess. But he'll have a lot more to prove to people. Let's hope he'll be up to the task. Otherwise, you'll give the Democrats an big enough opening to run a Kent Williams-sized truck through.

On Voters

2010-10-28T10:32:00.001-07:00

OK, for some reason I'm itching to write on this topic, so some more of my unsolicited opinions on voting and elections:

Every time there's an election, certain folks will look at the turnout numbers and bemoan the lack of participation in the American political process.

"Heavens," they will say. "Only 46% of eligible voters came out to vote. That's terrible! What can we do to get more people voting?"

My answer: nothing. Short of holding a gun to their heads anyway, I guess.

And that's perfectly fine. That's right: it does not bother me a bit that a lot of people do not choose to vote. I'm actually glad that they do not. These folks are obviously uninterested in the political process, which means that if they did actually go to vote, they would have little to no idea what or whom they would be voting for. Why would we want these people voting? They have already self-selected themselves out of the process. Don't interfere!

You know what it means when a lot of people who don't ordinarily vote start coming out to vote? It doesn't mean they've seen the light regarding their duties and privileges as citizens of a free society. It usually just means they're pissed off. Wanting more people to vote basically means wanting a lot of discontented people. Be careful what you wish for!

Nowadays there are ample opportunities to vote for people who want to vote. Early voting, for instance, is extensive, and absentee ballots easy to come by. The people who want to vote are voting. As for the others...well, it's a free country, and they are free to do their own thing. Leave them alone. If they ever want to come to the polls, you'll be the first to know.

Voting 2010

2010-10-28T03:20:00.000-07:00

OK, so I voted a couple of days ago. Here's the tally:

Governor: I cast a write-in vote for Phil Bredesen. Three reasons for this:

1. The actual Governor's race is over. Has been over, in fact, for months. I cast my vote in the Republican Primary for Bill Haslam. Since this year the winner of the Republican Primary was going to be the next governor, my work here, so to speak, was already done.

2. I owe it to him. Seriously. I have always been a big Phil Bredesen fan, but I have yet to cast a vote for him for governor, even though each time I came very close.

1994 -- Come on...it was 1994! Plus I liked him as Nashville's mayor and wanted him to stay there. Selfish of me, I know.

2002 -- Oh God, this was hard. I even got in trouble with some of my Republican friends for saying nice things about Phil Bredesen in the newspaper. But the bottom line was that I was working against the state lottery that year (as I always have to clarify, I have no problem with allowing gambling, but I do have a problem with government-sponsored gambling, especially when the state has a monopoly on it) and it seemed hypocritical to vote for the person who supported the lottery.

2006 -- Second terms for governors in Tennessee tend to be state-income-tax festivals. I voted for Jim Bryson on that basis. I should have known better: there's been nary a peep about a state income tax over the last four years.

Highly principled stands or just lame rationalizations for preserving my GOP bona fides? You be the judge! I'll abstain.

3. He's done a bang-up job. Mark my words: We are going to miss him. Probably sooner rather than later.

Congress -- Marsha Blackburn

TN Senate -- Jack Johnson

TN House -- Glen Casada

That Weird Constitutional Amendment Preserving Hunting and Fishing Rights in Tennessee Even Though It Seems To Me Pretty Much Everyone In The State Goes Around Hunting And Fishing Without Any Real Interference From The Government -- Sure, why not? I'm not much of a hunter or a fisherman--I do my hunting and fishing in the grocery aisle--but I don't have anything against it either. Knock yourself out.

And, that's it. Bring on Tuesday!

On Election "Fraud"

2010-10-27T18:45:00.001-07:00

Color me skeptical about most claims of supposed election fraud, especially such "incidents" as the recent alleged ones in Nevada, where the machine somehow magically cast a vote for Harry Reid. Isn't it more likely the case that the voters or voters brushed over his name somehow and the little check mark (or whatever they have over there) then appeared? Yes it is, the same way people are constantly tapping the wrong letters on their iPhones or whatever by accident, resulting in text messages like these: "Mewt me atx 2pM thes afternone."

It's also the case that, as I have said elsewhere, a lot of voters have no idea what they are doing when they vote, especially with these newfangled machines. Frankly, they're kind of dumb about it. I'm not sure why that's such a controversial thing to say. I mean, it has been a standard joke in our world to say that people don't know how to program their VCRs (DVRs now). Why is it such a stretch to suppose that they don't know how to do this either? And, sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for it. For Christ's sake, join the rest of us in the 21st century and learn how to operate the damned voting machine.

This is what I mean when I say that most of these alleged "fraud" issues are really just user error, the election equivalent of calling tech support to find out why the computer isn't working, only to discover during the call that it isn't plugged in.

Bottom line: It's not the system's fault that you have no idea what you're doing. Figure it out. Or else stay home.

I Am On Twitter!

2010-09-15T12:17:00.001-07:00

Yes! I have decided to join the rest of you in 2007 and try this new Twitter thing.

My username is rogerabramson.

Will I "tweet" a lot? Time will tell.

Gah! A Mosque!

2010-08-30T07:53:00.002-07:00

I have been asked more than once, so here is my answer: It is appalling to me that certain of my fellow Tennesseans have an issue with Muslims who wish to build a church of their own in our state for no other reason that it will be a Muslim institution. (And, yes, that is the sole issue for many.)

This is America. People in America are free to worship whom (or, if you prefer, Whom) they wish, how they wish and where they wish, so long, of course as they did not violate any other person's rights to do the same, or any other personal rights for that matter. This isn't something new: this concept was endorsed by those "Founding Fathers" everyone likes to cite (at least when it's convenient for them).

Part of living in a free society is that you have to tolerate a lot of things that you don't like, in return which you get to do things that other people don't like. If you don't like it, well, as I'm sure you may have aid more than once in your life to someone else when they had some kind of complaint about the way we do things in the good ol' USA: find a better country and move. We won't miss you.

2010-08-30T07:53:00.001-07:00

Everything You've Ever Needed To Know About Vanderbilt Football In One Short Headline

2010-08-19T05:21:00.000-07:00

"Vandy needs punter to deliver."

George W. Bush Suddenly An OK Guy Again

2010-08-18T09:07:00.000-07:00

"The war against the terrorists is not a war against Islam. In fact, you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.

George W. Bush understood this. And it is odd to see Barack Obama less clear about this matter than his predecessor. It’s time for W. to weigh in.

This — along with immigration reform and AIDS in Africa — was one of his points of light. As the man who twice went to war in the Muslim world, he has something of an obligation to add his anti-Islamophobia to this mosque madness. W. needs to get his bullhorn back out."

Gosh, and after all the New York Times did for him during his tenure. Yes, I'm sure he'll get right on that.

Now and Then

2010-07-15T10:00:00.000-07:00

Me, in April 2004:

"At this stage, only a blind Bush partisan would have absolutely no reservations about our military action in Iraq. I certainly do not align myself with those who insist that America has mired itself in a Vietnam-style "quagmire." (Let's see how things are in another five years before making that particular comparison.) But I do harbor some uneasiness. I am quite disappointed with the Bush administration's seeming reluctance to realize that the failure (thus far) to find weapons of mass destruction is something that gives even hawks like me the willies. Is our intelligence really that faulty? If so, what are we going to do about it? If, on the other hand, there really were WMDs over there at some point (a safe bet in my book), then where are they now? It would be nice if the president would just talk to Americans one evening from the Oval Office and address this issue head-on, but that's apparently too much to ask. Too bad, because silence from the White House on this issue fosters skepticism among the public at large, and I fear that the burden of proof we will have to meet when the next Saddam comes along will be simply unattainable." (Emphasis added.)

Karl Rove, today:

At the time, we in the Bush White House discussed responding but decided not to relitigate the past. That was wrong and my mistake: I should have insisted to the president that this was a dagger aimed at his administration's heart. What Democrats started seven years ago left us less united as a nation to confront foreign challenges and overcome America's enemies.

"I'm shocked...shocked..."

2010-06-07T09:26:00.000-07:00

Watching the Washington types act all flustered about Helen Thomas is pretty funny since it's been pretty obvious to most of us out here in Flyover Country that someone needed to stick a fork into her many moons ago. Note to DC-ers: she was embarrassing even before this little incident.

But no, they gave her a "special front-row seat" and treated her with the utmost respect for no better reason--from what I can tell--than that she's still hanging around, kind of like an ancient half-nutty relative who everyone expects to die in short order but who nevertheless manages to show up on the doorstep every Christmas Eve to embarrass everyone within earshot.

Well, maybe this will bring an end to the charade the White House press corps has been putting on for all of us. That would be a plus.

UPDATE: Drudge: "Helen Sent To Poland." I love it--headline of the month.

Mud Mask

2010-06-03T17:06:00.000-07:00

Vote For Me. I'm Rich But I'm Real.

2010-06-02T15:18:00.000-07:00

OK, wait a second...this ad may be the first time many potential Tennessee voters are introduced to your candidate and the first thing you tell them about him is that he is a rich guy? Who thought that was a good idea?

Look, I could see this if his last name was Rockefeller, Kennedy or something like that, but the fact is that most Tennesseans don't know Bill Haslam from Joe Torre. And this is how he's introduced to them?

For the first time, I think Haslam can lose this thing...

Note to Republicans

2010-03-23T14:59:00.000-07:00

When it comes to racial issues (and particularly accusations of racism), you are never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never going to win a holier-than-thou contest with Democrats. Ever. Don't even try. It's not entirely fair, I agree. But it's fair in the sort of way the fact that the New York Yankees are usually pretty good is fair: it's a fact of life you have to deal with. So deal with it.

The Trials and Tribulations of an Upstart Challenger

2010-03-23T14:35:00.000-07:00

"If I'm going to run against Barbara Boxer, I really need to get a keyboard with an "x" that works."

Presented Without Comment

2010-03-22T05:20:00.000-07:00

The question arises: What next? How will the health-care landscape evolve on the heels of Obamacare’s passage? Economic forces provide some clues.

The insurance market will begin to shake up almost immediately, as health-care plans jockey for advantage in advance of the legislation’s full implementation. Insurers will begin pulling out of the individual market, and they will aggressively hike premiums in the small-group market. These consequences are the market’s response to the bill’s new regulations, which effectively prevent insurers from underwriting risk. Insurers are forced to take all comers and, in many cases, they will decide that certain business lines are no longer profitable.

The net result is that two years from now we will likely be looking at an insurance market that has become worse, not better, with premiums higher and more Americans joining the rolls of the uninsured.

Longer term, insurers will begin to consolidate into a handful of very large national carriers backed up by small, state-based plans that try to attract consumers using regional appeal. Health insurance will become a commodity product, one that offers little consumer choice and with benefits that are mostly defined by regulations issued in Washington. Doctors will begin to consolidate their practices into larger groups, or sell their offices to hospitals or large medical chains. That is how physicians will gain leverage on health-insurance plans and take advantage of new reimbursement rules created under the legislation’s Medicare reform.

In the end, there will be only two places for consumers to get health coverage — through a large employer (most likely a union plan) or through the new state-based exchanges. Many large employers with a preponderance of middle-wage employees will move their workers into the exchanges, since the subsidies are richer than the tax exclusion they get through worker-provided coverage. Only employers with sticky union contracts, or those that employ a lot of high-wage workers (e.g., Goldman Sachs) will continue to offer workplace coverage.

Eventually, the federally regulated exchanges will be the only game in town. That was the idea behind Obamacare from the start.

— Scott Gottlieb, a practicing physician, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Being Stupid Is Not a Crime

2010-03-21T11:43:00.000-07:00

Or, at least, it shouldn't be. But in New Jersey, apparently, it is.

Good thing New Jersey's got everything well in hand!

Murray State Over Vanderbilt

2010-03-18T17:00:00.000-07:00

The president called it!

The Internet Is Truly Amazing

2010-03-10T09:02:00.001-08:00

Everyone Can Probably Stop Picking On Walt Baker Now

2010-03-09T07:06:00.000-08:00

I think we've got it: Public Figure + Government Contract + Email Comparing a Black Woman to a Chimpanzee = Job Loss + Public Opprobrium.

A few things:

1. I've seen some commenters making assumptions about Baker--whom, incidentally, I've never met--that seem to me far beyond what this email alone would indicate. These are things like (paraphrasing here) "he's a terrible person," "he's a really evil guy" and so forth. Well, I don't think this email necessarily indicates any of those things. Perfectly nice people can have colossal brain farts. Happens all the time. Also, as they say, there really is no accounting for taste.

2. This doesn't mean that the Job Loss + Public Opprobrium is undeserved. You can't be in that particular position and do something like that without having this happen. It was a perfectly and proper outcome given the circumstances. Everyone is prone to brain farts, yes, but everyone is obligated to suppress them when they are acting in positions of responsibility. I'm sure that brain surgeons are prone to brain farts, too. It's part of their job to make sure that they don't happen during surgery.

3. The moral equivalency I'm seeing from some folks--many of whom I very much like--bugs me. Again, the only connection between the George Bush/chimp stuff and the Michelle Obama/chimp stuff is the chimp. It's the (quite obvious) racism that's the difference.

4. Just so we're clear, I'm one of the (apparently few) people who found nothing particularly racially offensive about the Harold Ford/Playboy ad. I thought it was tacky (and, in fact, I believe that this is what really bothered Bob Corker when he criticized it), but not racially offensive. I am also not really prone to finding a racist or racism under every bed. Stuff like this, for instance, strikes me as just plain silly.

5. Another defense I'm seeing is that this email was "political satire." There is no justification to this. The mere inclusion of the wife of the President of the United States does not make it political. In fact, if you really read the email, there's no political statement at all. The message is just this: black woman + chimpanzee = separated at birth.

Which is, of course, the whole point.

George W. Bush Is Not Black

2010-03-08T08:36:00.000-08:00

It's true. He really isn't. He's a white guy. That's why comparing him to a chimpanzee is not the same as comparing First Lady Michelle Obama to a chimpanzee. As lame and uncreative as the chimp/Bush references were and are (and, really, if you are someone who ever thought those were in the least bit funny or clever, you should really reconsider), there was nothing racially tinged about them. There couldn't have been: he's a white guy.

But this...this is as racially tinged--to put it mildly--as you can get. It's not even a close call: it is a direct slur against a prominent black person's appearance by comparing it with that of a monkey (well, a chimpanzee, technially, but not many peopel know that there's a difference). You think the term "porch monkey" just came out of thin air?

The Bush/chimp comparisons were not offenseve--they were just ignorant. This, though...this one hits far, far below the belt.

True, No?

2010-02-19T08:17:00.001-08:00

"Intellectually honest conservatives are homeless."

Agreed. Of course, it is also true, I think, that the more intellectually honest a polictal movement is, the less poltically successful it tends to be. I don't meanthat as an argument against intellectual honesty in politics necessarily, just as an observation of a reality of democracy: most voters don't care nearly as much for honesty as they claim to.

We Really, Really, Really Love Peyton Manning in Tennessee

2010-02-08T11:05:00.000-08:00

The Super Bowl got higher ratings in Nashville than it did in Indianapolis.

Andrew Sullivan, Speechwriter

2010-01-26T12:00:00.000-08:00

Here's Andrew Sullivan's advice to President Obama with regard to the SOTU speech:

What he needs to do is remind Americans of the reason they elected him: to get hard things done.

Good advice, I suppose, except for one problem: there aren't any actual examples of this the president can point to as evidence. What "hard thing" has he actually gotten done? And when his party had a filibuster-proof Congress, no less. What's he going to do if and when there are more Republicans in the House and Senate? Harder things?

Seriously

2010-01-24T17:29:00.000-08:00

How can Gail Kerr write this column with a straight face? A woman who played Lester to Nashville business' Willie Tyler, in a newspaper whose corporate overlords contributed to the same local business interests?

Of course, the column itself is such drivel, that I guess it doesn't matter. Check this passage:

A well-funded trade union could make a million-dollar television ad buy, saturating the airwaves with lies about a candidate it opposes at the last moment. And candidates would have no control. What if Mr. Green Jeans were running for mayor, promising door-to-door recycling? Here comes the Exxon Co.: "We believe Mr. Green Jeans will be the best environmental steward possible. We endorse him wholeheartedly." Ouch.

"Mr. Green Jeans"? Really? And we're supposed to be saddened that newspapers are dying? Geez...and to think that there are actual journalists out there hurting for employment....

Glenn Beck is a Fruit Loop...

2010-01-20T11:23:00.000-08:00

...and so is anyone else who finds Scott Brown's "available" comment regarding his daughters anything worse than mildly awkward.

Everybody knows that it is the God-given right of every father to innocently mortify his daughter at any given opportunity. Either that or it is a congenital affliction. Anyway, anybody who was somehow scandalized by that comment has apparently never been to a wedding. Fathers of daughters do dopey stuff like this all of the time. It;s how they cope with their daughters growing up. Get over it.

Headline: Southern Baptist Convention Comes to Town

2010-01-20T03:38:00.000-08:00

Dateline: July 8, 2017

NASHVILLE -- As it has for so many years, the Southern Baptist Convention came to Nashville to do whatever it is that giant Protestant organizations do when they convene. Usually there's a lot of fuss about rules, by-laws and so forth and, well, let's face it, unless you are yourself a Southern Baptist, you probably don't really care about that sort of thing.

The real news here is the city's unbelievable foresight seven years ago when it approved the beautiful, gorgeous and just plain kick-ass "Music City Center," without which the Southern Baptist Convention would have stopped gathering in Nashville and would have instead gathered in...well...it's a little difficult to say really. Atlanta? Possibly. New Orleans? No, that doesn't seem right. Miami? Er, doubtful. Well, never mind. Suffice it to say that they would have gone somewhere else and that would not have been a good thing, especially for our local restaurateurs.

"We are of course very excited to have the Southern Baptist Convention back in town," said Mayor Randy Rayburn, elected to office in 2015 because people in Green Hills think he's just the swellest sort of chap, plus the $25,000 contribution from the powers-that-be at then-Gannett-owned-but-now-SouthComm-subsidiaryTennessean didn't hurt either. "I can speak from my own vast professional experience as a restaurant owner when I say that local bartenders relish the arrival of thousands of complete teetotalers to our fair city. Nothing says 'big fat tip' for a bartender like a round of Diet Cokes for everyone."

The convention will be a week-long affair, after which Music City Center staffers face a quick turnaround to host the National Athletic Shoelace Association (NASS) meeting, which begins next Monday and will feature 2008 Republican Vice-Presdential candidate Sarah Palin as its keynote speaker.

"We're pretty excited about coming to Nashville," said NASS chairman William Johnston. "I'll have to say, were it not for the Music City Center, I don't think we would have ever landed someone like Sarah Palin for our keynote address. It goes without saying that our members are very excited."

Despite this excitement, sources say that this may be the last-ever convention NASS will have, inasmuch as it has started to occur to many people in the industry that big national conventions are basically a colossal waste of time and money in this technological day and age.

"Yeah, this will probably be the last one for me, even if they do continue with it in the future," said Ronald Thomas, a shoelace salesman based in Denver, Colorado. "I don't really need to see any of these people. I talk to them all of the time, everyday. What am I going to do? Hand-deliver a crate of shoelaces to them or something? I'm just not sure it's worth it anymore. I mean, I guess I do get some swag--my five-year old will love the Lacey Lion stuffed toy they put in our goodie bags--but beyond that, who cares?"

In other related news, the lawsuit between the city and the various contractors hired to build the Music City Center continues apace, as the contractors refuse to take responsibility for cost overruns, instead blaming "Metro bureaucratic sloth" for the problems.

"When we approved this thing, it was clear to everyone that these contractors would be 'on the hook' for any cost overruns with the project," said Mayor Rayburn. "I mean, it was in writing and everything. Seriously, who could have predicted that a major government project would result in a problem like this? Well, we're doing the very best we can under the circumstances."

-30-

Massachusetts Fun

2010-01-19T15:34:00.000-08:00

5:33 PM -- They don't have any exit polls? Why? Did this election just sneak up on everyone?

5:58 PM -- Oh, of course, it's all about the "angry white guy" vote. Right. Because that group makes a majority.

6:04 PM -- Everybody's ripping on Coakley for coasting early on, but if you were the Democratic nominee in Massachusetts, wouldn't you have coasted too?

6:06 PM -- Look! A map:

6:43 PM -- Everything is officially perfect again in Grayson County, Kentucky now that the Ten Commandments are back up.

6:47 PM -- Unemployment rate in Grayson County: 15.8%.

7:23 PM -- Barack Obama was inaugurated a year ago tomorrow. Just saying.

7:29 PM -- "You know what's going to happen."

7:48 PM -- This is over, seems to me anyway. Seriously, if I were a Democrat I'd be pissed. How have they managed to screw this up? Virginia, sure. New Jersey, well, you can kind of see that, too. Too expensive and Corzine was a slimeball. But Massachusetts? This would be like Republicans losing a Senate seat in Utah. Pathetic. But, hey, there's always those four Nobel Peace Prizes!

Both Sides of Chris Johnson

2010-01-14T09:01:00.000-08:00

Here.

Clay Risen Slanders Nashville

2010-01-06T06:51:00.000-08:00

So The Atlantic's Clay Risen makes his "annual trek home" to Nashville, which is, by his lights anyway, "a surprisingly cool town."

He writes about something called Bacon Bourbon, which I have no opinion about. What did catch my eye was his derogatory mention of the first "tea party" convention that will be held in Nashville and this final passage:

Assuming the fad for all things bacon continues, expect to see more bars offering their own meat-infused potables in 2010. And then for once, maybe Nashville can be at the head of the pack for something other than right-wing loonies.

You know what bugs me about this? It's not the fact that he takes a cheap (and trite) shot at "tea party" people. I don't care about that. The problem for me is that here is someone who is apparently a Nashville native (or close to it) offering up an inaccurate impression of Nashville to his national (and generally--since we're talking about The Atlantic here--urbanite, cosmopolitan, politically center-left) audience. Politically speaking, Nashville is not Tennessee. It's much more like Austin, Texas: a very blue island in the middle of a giant red sea.

Take a look.

But you wouldn't know this from reading Risen's post. The takeaway from that for the average Atlantic reader is that Nashville is some bastion of right-wingerism (i.e., like the south overall), just because it's hosting some dippy convention. And I don't think that's fair. To Nashville or Atlantic readers.

Why I'm A Big Fan Of Sean Braisted

2009-12-24T06:46:00.000-08:00

The man has perspective.

Doodles In Our Schools!

2009-12-15T14:55:00.000-08:00

Superintendent Julie Hackett said she could not discuss an individual student and did not address the drawing specifically or the teacher's reaction to it, but did say the school has safety protocols in place that were followed

.

"Safety protocols"? that's perfect. Well, good thing: I'm sure there was a clear and present danger of this child erecting giant crosses everywhere and hoisting his teachers and peers on them.

Sorry, I Don't Buy It

2009-12-13T14:12:00.000-08:00

AndrewSullivan.com is ostensibly written by one fellow: Andrew Sullivan. Indeed, one of the appeals of the site is that is is the (ostensible) opinion of one person. If someone else authors a post on the site, then his or her name needs to be on the post to differentiate the post from those actually written by Sullivan. Honestly, I'm very disappointed.

It Is Possible That I am the King of Sweden

2009-12-11T11:56:00.000-08:00

I commented over here in what I suppose is a sort-of defense of Bill Hobbs. I should clarify that I have no idea what happened and that my main issue is with everyone acting like agreeing to a plea bargain (or something similar like this) necessarily means anything more than your taking the least worst of a bunch of bad options. The "King of Sweden" business was just based upon my personal interactions with Bill and his family. I figure that since others were allowing their personal feelings color their opinions of this situation, that I would as well. That's really all that was about. Probably won;t do much to counter accusations of being an apologist for spouse abusers, but there it is just the same.

Just Asking...

2009-12-02T08:25:00.000-08:00

...not to be a pain in the butt but because at this point I honestly don't know:

Somebody define "victory in Afghanistan" for me.

UPDATE: Re-reading this, I suppose it could be construed as some kind of knock at the president. It's not meant to be. While President Obama certainly should have an answer to this, so too should those who criticize him for his Afghanistan policy. It's basically a question for anyone.

If They Ever Make a Movie About Bob Corker.

2009-11-23T19:17:00.001-08:00

...there's a guy who should play him:

Not All That Impressive

2009-11-13T06:07:00.000-08:00

Salon presents this essay as an example of conservative apostasy, which I suppose conservatives are supposed to read as some kind of deep criticism.

But this guy is no conservative apostate. He's just a recovering jackass. If you read the whole thing, you see that Mr. Big Time Conservative here really just had a brief--three or four years or so--flirtation with right-wing political activism before reverting to the left-of-center fellow he was before 9/11. Furthermore, this dalliance with political goofiness mostly occurred during--surprise!!--his college years. Big deal. And shame on Andrew Sullivan for treating this navel-gazing tripe as some kind of deep, introspective thought.

First Rule of Politics

2009-11-04T09:25:00.001-08:00

The more likable person usually wins.

Slate Tackles the Big Issues of the Day

2009-10-26T11:02:00.000-07:00

Wow, that Timothy Noah is a real hero. Years after the few people who would have even cared about the Great "Baby Einstein" Scandal have stopped caring, there he has been keeping continuous tabs on the nefarious Julie Aigner-Clark, whose offenses against mankind are beyond number.

Thank you, Timothy, for not letting this one go. My children thank you, too.

P.S. Nice "zinger" there at the end. No "refund" on the Bush presidency, indeed. You are such a card!

"Humbled"

2009-10-09T05:34:00.000-07:00

Well, he should be.

This is just embarrassing all around. I will say this, if the theory is that having Barack Obama as president is in itself worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize (a ridiculous proposition, in my opinion, but just for the sake of argument...) then shouldn't the award go to the people who put him in office? They're the ones who actually did something.

P.S. One theory: maybe the European intelligentsia thinks that this was a clever way of tying his hands. "I can't take any action against Iran now, I won the Nobel Peace Prize!" Methinks that Barack Obama wouldn't actually think that. He won the prize, now on to other things. You feed the ego...

P.P.S. Over at "Southern Beale's" (originality-free since 2003), the author seems to think that Republicans are just mad that more Democrats (four) have won the award than Republicans (one). Yes, that's the beef: after all, everyone knows how much Republicans crave the approval of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. They're just jealous!

She'll Never Work In This Town Again

2009-10-08T07:26:00.000-07:00

Now that she actually has to deal with it, a Democratic speechwriter urges caution on "health care reform."

Art, of a Sort

2009-10-06T11:22:00.000-07:00

The only thing that could have made this better is if, upon scrolling over Samuel Adams, that caption read simply: "Brewer, Patriot."

Does this guy not realize that a few people on here weren't exactly the most devout folks in the world?

(Via Sullivan)

The Bible Is the Inerrant Word of God!

2009-10-05T05:23:00.000-07:00

Except, you know, when it's not.

Terry Frank: Comically Wrong Again!

2009-09-28T05:51:00.000-07:00

The human cartoon scores another whiff.

Let's Talk About Drugs, Shall We?

2009-09-22T07:04:00.000-07:00

WHAT: A forum. The topic? “Drug Legalization and Emerging Economic Opportunities”

The goal of the talk is to discuss emerging economic opportunities and policies (laws) that may affect businesses and people operating legally under state law (also what changes in the law would be needed to protect business people engaged in this trade).

WHERE: Vanderbilt University. Specifically, the law school.

WHEN: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 from 5:15 PM to 6:15 PM.

WHO: David Boaz, Executive Vice-President of the CATO Institute, Paul Kuhn, board member of NORML and Robert Mikos, Vanderbilt law professor.

I will be the moderator. Why me? Dunno exactly. I guess they figured someone who once wrote this would be a good person to have moderating a forum on drug legalization. Or maybe everyone else they asked said no. Who knows? Anyway, I'm honored to do it.

The event is open to the public, so come on out if you get the notion. No drugs allowed at the event. As far as I know, anyway.

Democracy In Action

2009-09-21T14:27:00.000-07:00

This man is a duly elected state representative. I have no further comment.

Best Part About This Video

2009-09-18T08:47:00.001-07:00

The "Call me!" near the end. (around 1:17) Remind you of anything?

Maybe We Should Be Kind Of Worried About Violence

2009-09-18T04:40:00.000-07:00

I'm (mostly) with Kaus here.

I mean, put aside your political prejudices here, if you can, and think objectively: don't you find some of these folks--meaning "folks who seem overly obsessed about the offenses (real and imagined) levied against them or society by politicians"--a little scary?

Just to be clear here, I'm talking about folks of all political stripes. There are screwballs on the political left, too. I will say this though: if you hate Barack Obama on a personal level, or as close to a personal level as you can get given that he is the President of the United States, there's probably something wrong with you. Seriously: you may need professional help. And I don't mean that rhetorically.

The guy is by any reasonable measure the most personally likable president we've had since Ronald Reagan. Bush I was generally likable, but in that WASP-y patrician sort of way that told you he would give you the time of day only out of a sense of duty to do so. Bill Clinton was Mr. Warm-and-Fuzzy, but you always got the feeling that it was only because he got something out of it. Bush II was likable on a superficial level, but it's hard to really like a guy whose main qualification for the high station he attained was having the same first and last name of the guy who held that station just eight years before him.

Barack Obama, though...this is a guy you really have to work at to hate, and I'm speaking as a person who could potentially lose his job tomorrow if some of the things he wants to happen with health care come to pass. If you hate Barack Obama on a personal level, the problem is not him. It's you.

A Very Gay Day Indeed

2009-09-16T12:44:00.000-07:00

Six years ago—almost to the day—I lost a Metro Council district runoff election by a mere 25 votes. Just having gotten to the runoff was rather impressive, if I do say so myself, because the eventual winner, Parker Toler, had the backing of both the labor and the business folks as well as pretty much anyone in the district over the age of 50, who make up a disproportionate number of voters in Metro elections. He also had over $25,000 in campaign donations.

I had about a fifth of that in my miniscule war chest. Other than that, I just had me. My family pitched in a bit, but 98% of the campaign was me and me alone. I designed my own signs, my own literature, my own everything. I also—with some family help—did all of the mailings. I had no phone bank, no campaign staff, no nothing. Just me. Basically, my campaign was me going door-to-door before and after work on weekdays and all day on weekends, often with my then one-year old in tow.

The media liked me, which I’ll grant can be a double-edged sword. I received endorsements from every paper, including The Tennessean, which I found mildly surprising, because they knew my general political inclinations, but, evidently saw fit to overlook them in favor of the overall impression they had of me. The Nashville Scene endorsed me, which, given that I had been—and would return to be—a staff writer for them, was kind of a slam-dunk.

And..Nashville Out & About endorsed me. They did this—presumably—because of the answer I had given them to their question about laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which was, in effect, that I would not support the imposition of these laws on the private sector but would support such a law for the public sector. In other words, businesses and private citizens could discriminate on this basis but the government could not. If you’re wondering why that paper would endorse me with that “halfway” position, the answer is because the others in the race wouldn’t even go that far.

As George Will might say, “Well.”

This position, once it was made public, caused great consternation among a number of folks inside and outside of my district and I would usually make it a point to go talk to any person who inquired about face-to-face to explain where the position and how I had gotten there. Most people, happily, respected the fact that I had come to talk with them and were to live with it, although I can’t say for sure how they may have eventually voted. I suspect I batted about .333 with them.

There were a few, though, who, frankly, I saw no reason to waste my time bothering about. These were the people—and you’ve seen the type—who give Christians, or religious folks of any flavor for that matter, a bad name. There is actually a special label for them, developed over the years by authors, sociologists, anthropologists and other keen observers of the human condition. That label is, of course, “Complete Asshole.”

My personal favorite of this subspecies was a person I’ll call “John,” because John was indeed his actual name but since it’s so common it doesn’t matter if I use his actual name. My position on this issue—as opposed to, say, my position on schools, roads or taxes—inspired John to become my his special email pen pal, assaulting me with Bible quotes and other writings giving the usual patter regarding the allegedly highly unfavorable view God has of homosexuals. I eventually wrote him that I appreciated his opinion, but that we would just to agree to disagree on this one.

That set him off. John sent back this long, blistering email that concluded with the following:

“Mr. Abramson, I see from your campaign mailings that you have a young son. I don’t think someone who holds your views is fit to be a parent and I might have to do something about that.”

And that was it. To this day, I have no idea what he was talking about. What would he do, exactly? Talk to my son? To me? Assault me with a tire iron in the Kroger parking lot? Kidnap my son? What? Beats me. All I know is that it was extraordinarily creepy. Definitely the biggest “WTF” moment of my foray into local politics.

I have no idea what happened to John. Don’t really care, for that matter. But I do know that if John is still living in Nashville, he had to wake up this morning to read this story.

And that just completely makes my day.

If The President of the United States Wishes to Talk to My Son in School...

2009-09-04T11:39:00.001-07:00

...I'm cool with it. He's the president. Having the president talking about how important school is seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable thing for the president to do.

But, seriously, all of you folks who are getting all bent out of shape about conservative types getting all bent out of shape about President Obama doing this, I'm sure you would have been perfectly fine with President Bush (the second one, or, heck, even the first one) doing the same thing, right?

Doubtful.

Back to the Future

2009-09-02T07:56:00.000-07:00

This would mean a lot to me, I suppose, if it were, say, 1993 or so.

Because I think that's the last time I ever sat down to watch the nightly news.

For what it's worth, sometime in 2001 was the last time I bought a Tennessean.

Wow, Such Astonishing Power the Republicans Apparently Have

2009-08-21T10:11:00.000-07:00

President Obama is blaming the Republicans for killing the Democrats' attempt at health care reform.

Huh. Well, here's the current scorecard:

1) The Democrats control the White House.

2) The Democrats control the House of Representatives by a wide margin.

3) The Democrats have a filibuster-proof super-majority in the Senate.

Try all they wish to pin blame on Republicans, but, if they do indeed screw this up, Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. And it's pathetic for them to pretend otherwise. Indeed, they could pass anything they want without a single Republican vote. So, what's stopping them?

Two Great Quotes for the Day

2009-07-01T10:07:00.000-07:00

“I became a Conservative by being around Liberals and I became a Libertarian by being around Conservatives.”

"I’m glad they’re doing this instead of something."

Just Saying

2009-07-01T06:50:00.001-07:00

One last word about Sherri Goforth, before that story disappears into the ether altogether:

I've run across some lefty folks complaining about the fact that the employment policy in place at the legislature resulted in her getting only a warning/reprimand in her file/slap on the wrist for her first offense rather than getting fired outright. After all, in the private sector, she would have been fired outright, more likely than not, right?

Right. It is a bit annoying that government employees often aren't subject to the same strictures as those in the private sector, isn't it?

(NOTE: Yes, I know that there are some good arguments for having these sorts of rules in place for government employees. Doesn't make them any less irritating when there's someone you really want to see run out on a rail.)

Goodbye, Tim Chavez

2009-06-19T11:01:00.000-07:00

Tim Chavez used to drive me crazy way back when. I remember reading his Tennessean columns in the mid-1990s and thinking about them the way I now think (on the rare occasions I even read The Tennessean) of Saritha Prabhu's dreck: knee-jerk conventional wisdom-style liberalism (although Tim was a much better writer).

But then this weird thing happened: Tim started questioning some of the shibboleths of those on his political "side of the fence." It wasn't that he had turned on them, really, (though, certainly, some thought that): it was that he had come to the realization that--sometimes--folks on his side sometimes let ideology get in the way of reality (which happens all over the political map, by the way).

I got to know him pretty well after that, and while he never went into too much detail with me, something happened when he was volunteering (or something) with Metro public schools. He got a wake-up call of some sort, and he came to believe that conventional "liberal" solutions or prescriptions for public education weren't working, at least not for those on the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. He wanted to look at other ideas--even those proposed by conservatives--but became disillusioned when his usual compatriots--Democrats, unions, etc.--didn't want to go along, vested as they very much were in the status quo.

This realization made him more open to conservative types generally, but while some conservatives started to think of Tim as one of their own, he really wasn't. Tim's passion was bettering the lives of the poor and underprivileged, walking--as he saw it--in the footsteps of Jesus. And when he thought that conservative types had better ideas than liberal types in that regard, he said so.

If you want to honor Tim's memory, here's one way to do it: don't always assume that someone who takes a position is doing so because they are a Republican or a Democrat, or a man or a woman, or a conservative or a liberal, or a white person or a black person, or a rich person or a poor person, or married or single, or a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or an atheist, and that therefore they hold that position because of what they are.

To be sure, the opinions of many people (perhaps even most people) are largely determined by these things. But there a few people who have a real passion beyond their own identities. They are few and far between, but they are out there, and are usually the ones most worth reading and listening to. And now, alas, we just lost one of the best.

It's Not Racism! It's, Um, Something Else, and as Soon As I Figure Out What It Is I'll Tell You

2009-06-18T12:42:00.000-07:00

"I think all along, Steve Cohen has known that's his vulnerability," said political scientist Marcus Pohlmann at Rhodes College of Memphis. "It's not so much that he's disliked because he's white, but he's running in a district that was created to elect an African-American."

...which means--does it not?--that any person who is not an African-American may be resented--dare we even say "disliked"?--for occupying the seat, for no other reason than that he or she is not an African-American.

Just once I'd like one of these people to just come out and say this simple, undeniable fact: Steve Cohen will pretty much always be vulnerable because the majority of his congressional district is black and he is not. Stop trying to spin it into something else. It is what it is: a race-based opinion.

Well, What Did You Think Was Going to Happen?

2009-06-17T08:08:00.000-07:00

And, like clockwork, here it comes: the appeals to refrain from terminating Sherri Goforth, coming from some of the very folks who pushed this issue to the point where such an outcome is now the most likely possibility.

We've been here before. Remember Bill Hobbs back in 2006? A big deal was made in the press about that goofy Muslim cartoon he put on the Internet, his employer (Belmont University) was mentioned in the articles (even though Belmont had nothing to do with that cartoon), putting Belmont in a position where it really had no choice but to save face publicly by giving Hobbs the heave-ho. I remember talking to some folks in the local press back then and getting this general reaction: "Well, that's silly. They shouldn't fire him." As though the press accounts somehow had nothing to do with it; as though Belmont was just sitting around and just up and arbitrarily decided to can him. It's like someone shooting a guy in the head and being surprised that they fall over dead. "Well, I'll be damned. He died just like that. Huh. Never saw that coming."

The probable outcome of this episode will be the termination (one way or the other) of Sherri Goforth. So, don't act surprised. And don't act like you had nothing to do with it. Own it. Hell, be proud of it, the "greater good" and all of that. I honestly doubt this will result in "some good com[ing] out of this incident" with "lessons...learned so our state won’t be lambasted again nationally." But, hey maybe it will. I just hope that this one woman's job and professional reputation (seriously, who would hire her for the near future?) is worth all of that. Color me skeptical. And, again, be careful, because you could be the next one in someone's sights.

For more on this general concept, Google "reasonably foreseeable" and see what you come up with.

Insert "Goforth" Pun Here

2009-06-16T12:24:00.000-07:00

Like most local conservative types, I spend a lot of time worrying about what Mike Byrd thinks of me, so let me just say for the record that there is no defense for that email. That said, a few quick things:

1. There are political staffers on the Hill and there are clerical/constituent service staffers on the Hill, the latter far outnumbering the former. Goforth was not a political staffer, like, say Lance Frizzell or someone like that. She was in the second, apolitical category, Doesn't make what she did right, and, yes, I believe it's a potentially terminable offense, but let's get a little perspective here: Sherri Goforth is no Bill Hobbs.

2. Her biggest offense, from a professional perspective, was embarrassing her legislative member, Diana Black (speaking of punnable surnames...), who will have this following her around for approximately the rest of her political career.

3. Tennessee Republicans continue to have a PR problem. And it's completely self-inflicted. Don't blame people like Jeff Woods for shooting you. Blame yourself for giving him the guns and bullets. And--you know--stop doing that.

What Goes Up...

2009-06-05T08:25:00.000-07:00

Well, this was inevitable, but it took four-and-a-half months to get there. Not a bad run, really.

Remember, no matter who we have as president, at least half of the country is pretty much always going to have some kind of beef with him (or her).

You Might Need a Life If...

2009-06-02T07:20:00.000-07:00

...you've ever gone into a place of business and demanded that the proprietor change the television channel because it gets your political panties in a wad.

Here's a crazy thought: if it means that much to you, frequent another place of business. Just for the record, political prudes are no better than the moral sort. Find something else to worry about.

Richard Posner

2009-05-13T03:00:00.000-07:00

My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising. The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.

Just In Case You Thought the President Was Busy...

2009-03-18T09:48:00.001-07:00

...he apparently isn't.

P.S. Gosh, being the ones in charge sucks doesn't it?

Pens and Swords

2009-03-09T14:15:00.000-07:00

“I appreciate that,” Christopher said. “But I would have done it anyway. One must take a stand. One simply must.”

Tough Question On The Stimulus

2009-02-10T04:06:00.000-08:00

Wow, that Washington press corps is really getting to the bottom of things:

President Obama: Michael Fletcher from the Washington Post?

Question: Yes, thank you, sir. What is your reaction to Alex Rodriguez's admission that he used steroids as a member of the Texas Rangers?

Obama: You know, I think it's depressing news on top of what's been a flurry of depressing items when it comes to Major League Baseball. And if you're a fan of Major League Baseball, I think it -- it tarnishes an entire era, to some degree. And it's unfortunate, because I think there are a lot of ballplayers who played it straight.

And, you know, the thing I'm probably most concerned about is the message it sends to our kids. What I'm pleased about is Major League Baseball seems to finally be taking this seriously, to recognize how big a problem this is for the sport, and that our kids hopefully are watching and saying, "You know what? There are no shortcuts, that when you try to take shortcuts, you may end up tarnishing your entire career, and that your integrity's not worth it." That's the message I hope is communicated.

This was followed up by a foreign policy question by Helen Thomas, who should have been put out to pasture years ago. They preempted House for this?

Take Five

2009-02-10T03:03:00.000-08:00

1. Our quasi-Republican governor (that's meant as a compliment) fights back publicly.

2. If it were possible for the federal government to fix the national economy by pumping more money into it on a constant and indiscriminate basis, don't you think that someone would have figured that out by now? If that were possible, the first political party to do it would be in power forever. Who could oppose it?

3. My hunch--and that's all it is--is that President Obama's (by the way, this blog has an editorial policy of always referring to the President of the United States as "President " upon first reference) stratagem was to sort of let the Democratic leadership in Congress gets its jollies out with the stimulus bill and then take the reins legislatively afterward. But I wonder if he thinks it's now gotten out of hand. Seriously, how could they have screwed this up? when you focus so much on the failings of the other party you tend to forget about those of your own.

4. In full agreement.

5. Over here too.

Take Five

2009-01-27T06:35:00.000-08:00

1. It's only January and I think we already have a winner for Unctuous Blowhard Post of the Year. Apparently, an anxious electorate breathlessly awaits the endorsement of Rob Huddleston. (Psssst, Rob, you have their phone numbers too, right? Who died and made you Ted Welch?)

2. Yes.

3. 24.

4. From Heather McDonald:

Noonan warns Obama that “radical movement on abortion” would rouse the “sleeping giant that is American conservatism.” Maybe so. But many conservatives are just as worried that a Democratic Congress is about to give government an all but permanent role in the economy, thus impairing the dynamism and entrepreneurship that is America’s greatest economic asset.

5. Heh: "Juicebox Mafia."

Take Five--Titty Ho Edition

2009-01-23T02:32:00.000-08:00

1. For your inner 12-year old.

2. Special elections. Can't trust 'em.

3. Darn. No Senator Caroline Kennedy. And she had so much to offer. Like, er, her last name. And, well, other stuff that I can't think of right offhand.

4. Black: the new black.

5. Big Hollywood.

English Primarily

2009-01-22T07:55:00.000-08:00

I am no longer a Nashvillian, but if I were I would vote against the "English Only" amendment, or whatever those crazy kids are calling it these days. I have a lot of reasons, but here are a few off the top of my head:

1. It is unnecessary. I don't about you, but every time I go into Nashville, everyone still seems to be speaking English, just as they they were when I lived there. Not the King's English, necessarily, but English just the same.

2. It's a waste of time and money. We already had to waste time and money having a special election to fill Ronnie Steine's seat way back when. This is equally appalling. Actually, it's more appalling, because at least then you got the psychic thrill of watching Steine, never one to shy away from turning up his nose at people he considers inferior beings, get whacked around a bit.

3. Even Buck Dozier thinks this is a stupid idea. Buck Dozier.

4. Telling people they have to do something is often the least effective way to get them to do it. Immigrants will learn English for the same reason they always have, because they have to function on a day-to-day basis. They're not going to learn it because there's some law written somewhere saying so. There are a lot of speed limit signs on the roadways, too. How are those working out?

5. It smacks of the worst kind of political fetishism that has infected segments of the right over the past few years. It's small, narrow-minded and with no big picture perspective. And ultimately pointless.

But what do I care? I'm a Williamson Countian now. Maybe over lunch I'll head over to Nissan headquarters and ask them their opinions on passing similar "English Only" mandate over here. I'm sure they'd really appreciate it. After all, they need us more than we need them, right?

Take Five - One Week's Pay Edition

2009-01-21T06:44:00.000-08:00

1. I knew all about this, really I did, because I know everything that's going on at the state legislature, unlike you mere mortals who are completely out of touch, but I chose not to say anything until right now, because, well, um, I'll think of something...really I will...

2. Question: this incident was apparently well-known (and, apparently, just one of many such "notorious" incidents in the legislative cesspool), so, er, where was the Capitol Hill media on this (not to mention the other incidents?

3. Female Democratic Rep. Janis Sontany was privy to one of the more lurid occurrences reported in the memorandum. Democratic Rep. Janis Sontany voted for Kent Williams to be Speaker of the House. Discuss.

4. Democratic Speaker Jimmy Naifeh knew about all of these allegations, yet pulled all of the strings to make Kent Williams his personal Mini-Me. Discuss.

5. "Discuss" somewhere else of course. FITP remains a one-man show.

Yup II

2009-01-20T14:35:00.000-08:00

"But may I add a small sigh of relief at once again having a president who can actually, you know, speak in public? It has been SO painful for the last eight years."

-- Charles Murray

Yup

2009-01-20T12:40:00.000-08:00

Mickey Kaus reporting from Washington:

Conservatives I've met in D.C. so far have been near-ebullient, not downcast or bitter. Why? a) They know how unhappy they'd be now if McCain had won; b) Obama has not fulfilled their worst fears, or even second-to-worst fears; c) now they can be an honest, straight-up opposition.

Wow, This Is Indeed Truly Creepy

2009-01-20T09:30:00.000-08:00

I guess it took having a new President to get these people to do things are nice.

Question: what were they doing before? And how pathetic is it that you allow the vagaries of presidential elections to dictate how you operate?

Here it is:

Historical Question

2009-01-20T09:20:00.000-08:00

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers."

Has a president ever publicly acknowledged (in a neutral fashion) the existence of atheist Americans? Just wondering. Seems like a pretty major thing to me, historically speaking.

Attention Lame Democratic Partisan Types In Washington

2009-01-20T08:45:00.000-08:00

When even Keith Olbermann thinks you're being disrespectful, you're probably being disrespectful. Just saying. You won. Act like it.

Judging From The Election Results in Tennessee, Their Parents Didn't Vote For the Guy Anyway

2009-01-20T08:34:00.000-08:00

Katie Allison Granju apparently thinks the purpose of school is to sit around watching television news.

P.S. One wonders if she would have written this post if John McCain has been elected instead of Barack Obama. I somehow doubt it. And note this laughable comment from one of her readers:

"We were planning to keep ours home today in order to ensure a complete, uninterrupted viewing. The middle school announced they would not be viewing it, and the elementary school announced it was up to individual teachers".

"Complete, uninterrupted viewing." Uh-huh. No parental propagandizing there!

Bloody Idiots

2009-01-20T06:25:00.001-08:00

Take Five -- Inaugural Edition

2009-01-20T05:06:00.000-08:00

1. Most interesting and exciting inauguration since Reagan's first in 1981. I may actually watch this one (I think the last one I watched was Bush I in 1989). And for my fellow Republicans who are bent out of shape, get over it. Face it: we're just jealous we don't have a guy with his particular skill set right now. Same way the Democrats were a little jealous of Ronald Reagan way back then. And if your problem is that the mainstream media's ridiculous heavy-handed fawning over the new president makes you physically ill, well, that's what Fox News is for. Avoid Chris Matthews like the plague. And most of the others as well.

2. I decided back in February of last year or so that it would make no significant difference in my life of either John McCain or Barack Obama were elected president. I liked them both then. I still feel that way now.

3. Wow, I thought President Bush was just like Adolf Hitler. You know, megalomanical, power-mad and so forth. And yet everyone seems to be saying how well his transition team is working with the incoming folks. In fact, this is quite possibly the most seamless presidential transition we've had in decades. sure, Obama's an all right chap. But it takes two to make a transition. Bush deserves some credit here, right? He's certainly doing a much better job than the sainted Jimmy Carter did in his last days.

4. Our Savior. (Not really.)

5. Presidential approval ratings.

Indeed

2009-01-16T12:53:00.000-08:00

Wisdom from the Economist:

The most effective repudiation of the Bush years would be a successful Obama presidency. John Conyers, Paul Krugman and the rest should recognise that.

Forget This Judas Stuff

2009-01-15T09:09:00.001-08:00

Yeah, yeah Kent Williams is "Judas," Benedict Arnold," whatever. Come on, those are cliches. This is all you need to see. The first minute tells the entire story.

Take Five

2009-01-14T06:48:00.000-08:00

1. Meet the Vichy Speaker.

2. No, I'm sticking by this. As I said to a Tennessee lefty friend of mine yesterday, progressive cheering of yesterday's debacle is akin to the Allies cheering for the Soviets overrunning the Nazis in 1944-45. Sure, seems great while it's happening. But now what are you going to do? What exactly is your next move? The Republican takeover the House was the very thing that was going to encourage the old farts to leave office, making room for people a little more like you. So, now what?

3. Bob Krumm wasn't surprised. I confess to being surprised. I would have thought any cracks in the coalition would have broken well before yesterday.

4. I can't completely resist being a pain in the butt here: could we now please stop pretending that Stacy Campfield, David Oatney, Rob Huddleston, et al have any idea what the hell's really going on on the Hill. I mean, where was all the inside scoop we're always supposedly getting? Let's face it: it's really just a handful of like-minded folks talking to each other, a conservative activist blogger echo chamber Why, here's Oatney just yesterday, right before the collapse: "Jason Mumpower still says he's "on top" of the Williams situation, and Williams was notably cheery when I saw him in the hall today."

Wow. Evans and Novak this isn't.

5. Well, I wouldn't worry about trusting the man's "word" anyway. He's not the one running the show anyway.

Attention Progressive Tennessee Democrats UPDATED

2009-01-13T11:58:00.000-08:00

Yes, yes, get it out of your system. Have a good ol' hardy-har-har at the expense of those wacky hapless Tennessee House Republicans, the Charlie Brown to the Democrats' Lucy Van Pelt.

And then, stop. Be careful what you're applauding here. Just because these people have "D"s next to their names and just because they pulled a fast one on the "R"s doesn't mean they're on your side. Not even close. In fact, you probably would have been better off with the Mumpower Republicans in charge, because at least then you have known what you were getting: your enemy--and the battle lines--would have been clear. Now, you've just got the same bunch--a somewhat corrupt bunch no less--who had no use for you before back in charge of things, while you have no avenue for political recourse. After all, what power vacuum is there now for progressivism to fill? The Democrats are back in charge. What do they need you for?

Yep, like you, the Naifeh gang is laughing their asses off at the Republicans. But what you don't seem to understand is that they've nailed you to the wall as well. And there you are, enjoying yourselves.

UPDATE: Some seem to believe my inner Republican is showing. This post is supposedly all sour grapes. Nah. Don't really care all that much. In all, I'm actually pretty amused by the whole thing.

Two Words: Christopher Hitchens

2008-12-31T10:39:00.000-08:00

Take Five

2008-12-30T00:55:00.001-08:00

1. B. knocks me around a bit for yesterday's post in which I suggest that Tennessee's lack of a state income tax may have something to do with the state's economic strength relative to other states:

Roger says:

the lack of a state income tax is indeed a major reason for Tennessee’s relative economic strength. By the way, why is it that some of the most highly taxed states in the nation are the ones with their hands out? Check the lineup: New York, New Jersey, California…I don’t get it. They have “progressive” tax systems with income taxes. Everybody’s paying their “fair share.” Everything should be hunky-dory. What could possibly be the problem? More to the point, why is it supposedly somehow our (”our”= people who do live in those states) problem?

And I have just two points.

1. You’re lucky Rachel isn’t here, buddy, or I’d totally have her tracking down those studies that show that places like New York put more into the federal coffers than they take out, unlike us.

2. Relative economic strength? Ha, ha, ha. Check this out. When you’re trying to build a hill “Our hole is smaller than yours” is kind of beside the point.

Well, first of all, a minor quibble: I doubt this was done in bad faith, but B. left my opening hedge out of my statement, which was "It's not the only reason, but..." which I think makes my statement a little less strong than it may have seemed from her end.

But, in any case, I'll try to address her general points:

I think we have a little bit of an apples-to-oranges problem here. B. seems to be focused on the fiscal health of state governments only, while Matt Kisber--and, by extension, me--focused on general economic health. The two aren't the same, anymore than, say, the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the national economy are the same (though one of the unfortunate effects of the Crash of 1929 has been to equate these two things in the American zeitgeist). There is a relationship there, certainly, but, again, they are not the same. Out-of-whack government budgets and vibrant economies are not necessarily mutually exclusive things. Nor does an in-the-black government budget always necessarily ago hand-in-hand with a healthy economy.

With regard to the oft-discussed issue of dollars-into-the-federal-budget-versus-dollars-out, I'll send the reader back to the last paragraph, but also add that a lot of that largely depends in the first place on what dollars you're counting, in the second place on the efficiency of the use of those dollars, and in the third place on how you measure the actual economic effect of those dollars. There's probably a fourth and fifth place, too, but we'll stop there for now.

Also, the numbers in those studies are often skewed by relative costs of living differences. For example, New Yorkers, say, may pay more federal income tax dollars per capita than Tennesseans (I'm just guessing here, but I suspect it's a pretty safe bet), but how much of that is due to the fact that per capita income is higher in New York, which is itself driven in part by the higher cost of living in New York?

As for the argument against my use of the phrase "relative economic strength," because almost 44 states are in the same hole, well, again, state budgets are not equivalent to state economies, but, even if they were, we need to remember that one of the central arguments made by pro-state income taxers seven to nine years ago was the this very "relative" argument. That is, that states with income taxes experienced relatively less volatility than those without. Well, I don't have the volatility numbers in front of me, but from that map B. links to, seems to me that having a state income tax doesn't seem to be doing a lot for the vast majority of the 44 states facing shortfalls.

2. Thanks, Mike! That was helpful. You know, a lot of Religious Right types love to call other folks in Camp Republican "squishes." This is apparently considered clever in some circles. May I just say that you couldn't name a bigger "squish" than Mike Huckabee? I know, I know, he talks about God a lot, so that must make him solid, right?

3. Shocker: Ex-hippie offended by Barack the Magic Negro parody of song he wrote. Actual quote: "It is almost unimaginable to me that Chip Saltsman who sent the CD, would seriously be considered for the top post of the Republican National Committee. Puff, himself, if asked, would certainly agree." Emphasis mine. You can't make this stuff up.

4. By the way, no, I'm not a huge fan of Chip Saltsman. Don't dislike him, necessarily, but I do think he's overrated.

5. Quote of the Day:

One of the main points which my liberal friends have a hard time grasping is the conservative anger at George W. Bush for not being a conservative. Faith and hope are important human traits, and pure rationality leads to a sterile and indecisive existence (as evidenced in António Damásio’s work). But all things in modest measures. One can not know the mind of a man, but on many an occasion I have wondered as to the similarity between the cosmic visions of liberal audacity and George W. Bush’s belief that if he believes it is so, it is so.

Take Five

2008-12-29T07:30:00.000-08:00

1. From The Economist:

A fairly mundane argument posed by a black liberal about a black candidate has become, somehow, evidence of Mr Saltsman's racial insensitivity. It's not that anymore than his old boss's joke about shooting Mr Obama was racist, or Inspector Clouseau's falling down a flight of stars is a protest of their architecture. Present the opportunity for stupidity, and they grab it.

2. Didn't even bother to watch it.

3. I'm neither atheist nor agnostic but this has become of my favorite blogs. I prefer my conservatism served up without the heaping helpings of religious fervor.

4. Kisber's right. It's certainly not the only reason, but the lack of a state income tax is indeed a major reason for Tennessee's relative economic strength. By the way, why is it that some of the most highly taxed states in the nation are the ones with their hands out? Check the lineup: New York, New Jersey, California...I don't get it. They have "progressive" tax systems with income taxes. Everybody's paying their "fair share." Everything should be hunky-dory. What could possibly be the problem? More to the point, why is it supposedly somehow our ("our"= people who do live in those states) problem?

5. He'll be back. Someday.

Take Five

2008-12-03T05:25:00.000-08:00

1. Saxby Chambliss wins. Does this mean the GOP is still alive? Of course. The GOP was never dead. But let's temper our enthusiasm a bit, shall we? This is Georgia. The fact that there was a runoff at all is the bad sign.

2. Aunt B. sets someone straight. And, seriously, that was one creepy post.

3. "Well, we didn't do too well there." No, you didn't. But again, the four-decade long GOP wave across the south was going to overtake Tennessee eventually.

4. We're now polling people regarding how a person is performing a job that doesn't even really exist.

5. I don't think they should hire anyone dumb enough to want such a terrible job in the first place. But that's just me.

Take Five

2008-12-01T07:55:00.000-08:00

1. Again, so far anyway, this isn't Change. It's a Restoration.

2. But what it does do is help to confirm the "Two Tribes" theory of American politics, the one that says (more or less) that for all of the infighting that goes one, in the end most everyone with a political bent basically falls into one or the other of the two major parties ("tribes") and that power ultimately devolves to--again--one or the other groupings.

3. By the way, back in 2000 and early 2001 a lot of media types were criticizing George Bush's selection of people from previous Republican administrations. Well.

4. B. makes a good point.

5. "Didn't community-based organizations push for exactly this sort of reverse-redlining? I think they did. It's one thing to argue that they maybe weren't the major cause of the subprime meltdown. It's another for them to pose as victims wronged by the very system they worked hard to set up (including the securitization that enabled banks to keep up 'reverse redlining')" -- Mickey Kaus

Take Five

2008-11-26T04:30:00.000-08:00

1. Gregg Easterbrook:

...[T]he mainstream media always present all economic news as bad. Higher interest rates? Bad for borrowers. Lower interest rates? Might cause inflation. Normally, the media's penchant for spinning all economic news as bad doesn't matter -- but right now it does, as pessimism more than logic seems to be driving the weak economy. Speaking as someone who pulled the election lever for Barack Obama (and whose daughter worked for the Obama campaign round the clock for months), I agree with John McCain's statement, "The fundamentals of the economy are strong." They are. McCain was right! Innovation is high. Labor productivity is high. There are no shortages of any resource or commodity. Pessimism is driving the downturn, and that pessimism is advanced by relentless media negativism.

2. "Welcomes" them to do what, exactly? I mean, what could they really do? Hang out?

3. Kaus on arguments for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State:

Sorry, I'm not buying it. It seems simple to me: She can't do him much damage from the Senate, where she doesn't rank. She can do him a lot of damage through self-interested leaking from the State Department. (Here's Exhibit Z, if you needed it, from Elizabeth Drew.) If he fires her she can then run against him and make more trouble. Even smart, well-advised people make mistakes. I think it's a mistake. Or else there is some other factor at work that we don't know about (e.g., Hillary has the real birth certificate! Joking!)...

Agreed. For this and other reasons, I think this is a bad move. I don't understand what it gets him.

4. What, you mean he's not actually the president yet? You don't say.

5. Sorry I've been away for a bit. It's been all I can do to get my head around all of this Change^TM. A Clinton in a top Cabinet position. Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff. Bill Richardson back in the Cabinet. Gates staying at the Pentagon. If I didn't know any better I'd think the only real change
we're getting is at the top. Which may be enough for most people.

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

2008-11-20T08:44:00.000-08:00

The gays are coming to your town to, um, do gay things and stuff, like, I don't know, make crafts or something.

Anyway, be prepared! Get the DVD now! For a "suggested donation" of just $49.95, you too can "order a 5 pack and put this vital information in the hands of your local officials, pastors and other community leaders." Hop to it!

Take Five

2008-11-20T05:55:00.000-08:00

1. So I finally get around to checking out this supposedly terrible blog post by Bill Hobbs, which has normally sober liberals (well, Christian Grantham probably doesn't quite qualify for the "sober" label; let's go for "liberal with a good buzz") all up in arms and, well, I guess I don't see what all the fuss is all about. Yes, it's pretty obvious to me from the post that Hobbs is skeptical of the proposed "Big Three" bailout, but it's not some fire-breathing to-hell-with-all-the-workers post. It is indeed, as he states, an "analysis."He even talks about how there are some Republicans who support the bailout concept.

2. I also find it odd that the folks who are calling Hobbs out seem to be equating "bailout" with "workers not losing their jobs." Well, a bailout alone probably isn't going to change anything. It will just delay the inevitable for a short while unless major changes are implemented as part of the package, some of which Hobbs alludes to in his analysis.

3. Having said all of this, I still think it's a really bad idea to allow your communications director to continue his own "independent" politically-oriented blog while he is in your employ. He can say his opinions are "his own" all he wants to, and the party can say the same thing, but in reality those are just academic points. From the point of view of most people, the person who is your communications director is making statements on public matters that, it is reasonable to surmise, are also the opinions of the party itself. Seems to me that creates more problems than it's worth, but I guess that's just me.

4. Right, it's all about union busting. Maybe for some people, but for most of us it's about avoiding the possibility of throwing any more money down a black hole. And, pray tell, why do you think the Democrats are so gung-ho about doing this anyway? You think the union influence in the national Democratic party has nothing to do with that? If you want to make the broad-storke assertion that Republican opposition to a bailout is all about "union busting," well, fine, suit yourself. But you can't then deny that institutional Democratic support by and for unions isn't playing a major role in this debate.

5. Barack Obama and the future of country music.

Take Five

2008-11-18T04:56:00.000-08:00

1. Change.

2. Hope.

3. Noted local economist Mike Byrd doesn't seem to understand the difference between automobile manufacturers and financial institutions. Here's a better comparison. Bonus: It's from NPR! I therefore assume it will appeal to his refined urbanite sensibilities.

4. What am I supposed to be seeing here? Is it the color scheme?Tthe layout at the top? I guess it's the color scheme and the layout. OK.

5. Conservative identity politics.

Take Five--Tennessee Titan Analogy Edition

2008-11-17T02:12:00.000-08:00

1. From Tom Humphrey:

The current chairman of the budget subcommittee is Democratic Rep. Harry Tindell of Knoxville, who, by the way, does not like the panel's "black hole" nickname. When [Rep. Stacey] Campfield was suggested as a possible successor conversationally the other day, he shrugged his shoulders in rather philosophical fashion.

"I think people rise to the occasion when they are placed in a position of responsibility," he said. "Things have a way of falling into place."

I am no fan of Campfield's, but--and this is something I was hoping to get around to last week but didn't, in no small part because he reminded me (yet again) what a dunderhead he can be--I say most definitely make him chairman of something. Campfield is not a guy with a lot of grey area, so you've got to figure one of just two things are going to happen when he's actually given real responsibilty for governing:

Possibility 1: He completely flames out. Spectacularly so.

Possibility 2: He actually rises to the occasion and does a bang-up job.

Don't dismiss Possibility 2! When Campfield gets mind focused on something, he can be quite effective. (Whether you might want him to be effective at what he's trying to do may be another story.) Having him take the reins of some underperforming committee or subcommittee may be exactly what's needed to whip it into shape. He also appears to have no real life whatsoever outside of (as Humphrey calls it) Legislatorland, so he'll have all the time and energy in the world to do some good if he is so inclined. Added benefit: with actual repsonsibility on his plate, he won't have as much time to annoy the leadership from the backbenches. Sometimes, like, say, Kerry Collins, you just need to be put in the right situation to finally grow up and and act like an adult.

But what about Possibility 1? Couldn't he screw up royally? Yes. But so what? It's just a committee chairmanship. The fate of the free world does not hinge on much of anything the Tennessee House of Representatives does. And, anyway, the power of the Speaker's office can effectuate any mop-up work that may be needed if things go horribly awry. Plus, if Campfield does indeed screw up, Speaker Mumpower can say to Campfield's ~~enablers~~ fan club something along the lines of "Hey, I gave him a shot. He blew it. Can't blame me." And move on.

Tennessee survived Brenda Turner as a legislative chairperson. It can survive a Chairman Campfield, too.

2. You know, while the current Tennessee Republican Party leadership most certainly deserves its share of the credit for getting the party to majority status, there were a lot of people before them working to get things to this point. There was a time, for instance, when only one person--the terrific Bill Dunn--was the only Republican House member with the guts to publicly vote against Jimmy Naifeh as speaker while everyone else--including Jason Mumpower--timidly hit their little green "Yes" buttons. And many others have done yeoman's work at the party offices over the last two decades, toiling in obscurity, but also slowly and surely making very real progress.

The current party leadership is like LenDale White: it gets the credit for punching the ball over the goal line. But it was the Chris Johnsons of the party that got the ball all the way down the field in the first place. The current folks would be wise to remember that.

3. Goofy Tennesseean headline of the day: "Bankruptcies snuff out Tenn. small businesses." Well, yes, bankruptcies often have a way of doing that.

4. Why did Barack Obama win? When a mere 12% of the population "strongly approves" of the imcumbent president, and that incumbent president is a member of the other party, that can grease the skids pretty well. One thing to watch for: what happens when W. leaves the scene?

5. Good review for the Obamas on 60 Minutes.

Yup, That's About Right

2008-11-14T11:07:00.000-08:00

McCain's and Davis's and Schmidt's decision to pick Palin was a huge political gamble. But that's the thing about gambles: you don't know beforehand how they're going to turn out. If Palin had proven during the course of the campaign that she was up to the job of being veep and maybe even president, it's a gamble McCain may well have won. But because she clearly demonstrated that she wasn't up to the job, the gamble backfired and the move wound up actually costing McCain votes. It's sort of pointless for pundits/journalists/whatever to hold McCain et al accountable for the Palin pick at this point, since the voters already did.

-- Jason Zengerle

Take Five

2008-11-14T04:00:00.001-08:00

1. "Boy, was I wrong." That pretty much sums up Wes Comer's entire blog, doesn't it? He should just leave that up there.

2. I'm pretty sure it's spelled "vulture." Geez...could you at least pretend to care? It's called a dictionary. Get one.

3. Well, he's consistent anyway, inasmuch as he applies the same standards to the employment of random gossip that he does to that of the English language. Regardless of whether he is ever found to be actually legally liable for anything at all in this particular matter, anyone who continues to defend this man-child of a state legislator has a long road back toward any measure of credibility.

4.All right, enough of that. Haven't heard from Bob Krumm an a couple of days. That's why I've had to go slumming for a bit (see numbers one, two and three). Bob, please come back.

5. Card check. BOHICA.

Take Five

2008-11-12T06:16:00.000-08:00

1. This guy was Sarah Palin before there was a Sarah Palin. It's just that he was is populist-style Democrat so folks didn't take as much umbrage.

2. Gregg Easterbrook:

Reader Barbara Grunwald of Clovis, Calif., reports, "I watched the ESPN interviews with the presidential candidates during halftime on 'Monday Night Football' the night before the election and loved Barack Obama's answer to the question of what one thing he would change about sports if he could. Obama said he wanted a college football playoff; John McCain, asked the same question, gave a serious reply about steroids. Obama had it right -- and I'm a Republican who voted for McCain. He understood that sports is entertainment, not serious. The whole point of sports is to create an alternate universe in which we care, passionately and loudly, about things that don't matter at all. We hate having real life intrude on the sports page: we don't like hearing about steroids or real-life matters, those are for the news pages. Obama gets that sports is about relief from reality. As soon as I heard their answers, I knew Obama would win."

3. Does anyone even bother to read The Tennessean anymore? Why?

4. Trey Parker on the election episode.

5. Gosh, it's really hard to understand why some people might have thought that folks wanting to preserve same-sex marriage in California might have had a bit of an anti-religious bias. Really, really hard to figure.

Priorities

2008-11-11T11:17:00.000-08:00

Here's the tally from the Daily Dish as of 1:16 PM CST:

Number of posts on Sarah Palin, a person with zero chance of being president at any point in the next four years: Five.

Number of posts today about Barack Obama, a person with a near-100% chance of being president as of January 20, 2009: Six. And that's being extremely charitable, since two of these posts are simply links to other pundits giving their advice to Obama and one is he mere mention of the possibility of the Obama children being guest stars on Hannah Montana.

Take Five

2008-11-11T06:56:00.000-08:00

1. Phil Donahue and Bruce Bent: separated at birth?

2. A week later and we're still talking about Sarah Palin. I understand why people on the right are still talking about her, but why are people on the left still talking about her? It's over. Her side lost. This may be difficult for you to do, but the time is going to come when you will have to start actually covering the Obama presidency beyond its mere level of historicity. He may actually be doing things that are important. Give it a try!

3. Barack Obama doesn't concern me. Never really has, not too much anyway. It's everyone else I'm concerned about, especially the mainstream media, which is known for its bowing to the politically correct altar. Seriously, if you were a reporter at a mainstream media outlet, and you were watching as layoffs and cutbacks were going on all around you day after day, would you want to be the first one of the bunch to go out on a limb and knock the nation's first black president down a few notches, even if he really deserves it? Hell, especially if he deserves it? Yeah, me neither. Are you among those who think Republicans had an Emperor's New Clothes problem with Sarah Palin? You may not have seen anything yet.

4. Not exactly a shock.

5. No winners.

Take Five

2008-11-10T10:46:00.000-08:00

1. Dear Andrew, your guy won. Please get over this. It's pathetic. Also a little creepy.

2. Lileks:

The lesson, as always, is that things change. Things will change again. And I expect that the GOP leadership will conclude that since things do change, they can sit back and wait for it to happen again. Which is a recipe for ensuring that the next such map has a thin red line like the one you used to use to open a Band-Aid.

3. Media Obasm headline at The Tennessean.

4. George Will:

Some of the Republicans' afflictions are self-inflicted. Some conservatives who are gluttons for punishment are getting a head start on ensuring a 2012 drubbing by prescribing peculiar medication for a misdiagnosed illness. They are monomaniacal about media bias, which is real but rarely decisive, and unhinged by their anger about the loathing of Sarah Palin by similarly deranged liberals. These conservatives, confusing pugnacity with a political philosophy, are hot to anoint Palin, an emblem of rural and small-town sensibilities, as the party's presumptive 2012 nominee.

These conservatives preen as especially respectful of regular — or as Palin says, "real" — Americans, whose tribune Palin purports to be. But note the argument that the manipulation of Americans by "the mainstream media" explains the fact that the more Palin campaigned, the less Americans thought of her qualifications. This argument portrays Americans as a bovine herd — or as inert clay in the hands of wily media, which only Palin's conservative celebrators can decipher and resist.

These conservatives, smitten by a vice presidential choice based on chromosomes, seem eager to compete on the Democrats' terrain of identity politics, entering the "diversity" sweepstakes they have hitherto rightly deplored. We have seen this movie before. Immediately after the 1972 election, some conservatives laid down the law — the 1976 Republican nominee must be Vice President Spiro Agnew.

5. Religious Right, R.I.P.