Packherd Blog

Of Twitter

2009-08-02T10:56:00.002-04:00

I don't tweet. I'm probably not going to. But it's clearly become a part of the political communication stream.

Twitter's part of a newer segment of communication, along with MySpace, Facebook, and email, where the audience initiates the relationship. It will never reach the same critical mass as TV and radio (and Internet?) ads, but the different quality of the audience is tantalizing for political communication.

Although it's easy to make fun of Chuck Grassley's and John McCain's exploits, the audience-initiated media should be more than just a dumping ground for press releases and talking points. This article from WaPo on NFL players, offers an alternative.

While athletes have used blogs the past couple of years, they say Twitter is quicker, more accessible and less likely to be filtered through agents, publicists or team officials before publication. From the perspective of both fan and athlete, that's a good thing. But the National Football League is an image-obsessed league, routinely beset by athletes' off-the-field antics. Twitter has already grown into a social media tool over which the league has little to no control.

It's dangerous, sure, but Twitter should be used to give the engaged political audience a window into the mundane side of politics. Maybe that mundacity has to be invented, but no one wants to read more of the same headlines on Twitter that they've seen on Facebook, TV, the newspaper, etc.

Those American Apparel ads are starting to irritate me

2009-07-29T11:37:00.014-04:00

I'm sorry to be so delinquent in my blogging lately. Last Saturday I had a big ol' post on political violence collapse in a heap. I haven't had the courage to look at it again and try to resuscitate it, or just put it out of its misery.

Today, I'd like to write about gay marriage, a political Gordian knot that has been especially vexing for me. Jim Daly of Focus on the Family wrote a short, compelling piece yesterday for the On Faith section of washingtonpost.com, and I'll get to that momentarily.

First some personal caveats. There are only a tiny handful of political issues I truly care about, as a person. Most of the time, I try to divorce myself individually from the debate, to prevent unhelpful, unmitigated bias in my thinking. And I can't think of another issue I have less of a stake in than gay marriage. I am not married. I don't have any kids. I am not a Christian. I am not gay.

Yet, I find myself aroused by the gay marriage debate - 'frustrated' is probably the better word. Every time I see a Prop. 8 sign with the statistically inaccurate family or one of those 'Legalize Gay' shirts, I just wanna slap somebody. I think this is the most asinine debate of my generation.

Nonetheless, we're having it. And I don't think Democrats and liberals are winning it.

Let's take a look at Daly's post. The first thing I noticed was his use of the term 'genderless marriage.' I haven't seen this one before and it's indicative of conservatives' superior use of language in their arguments. 'Marriage protection' is another one that was used frequently for the several State Constitutional amendments ratified in the the last ten years, but the term is inherently negative; it suggests a bunker mentality that implies ultimate defeat. 'Gender' or 'genderlessness' is a broader subject that will catch the attention of people who care about traditional gender roles rather than only marriage.

Of course the bigger point, the point marriage protection advocates have been making everywhere, and the point I don't think marriage equality advocates have fully engaged, is that marriage is fundamentally an institution of procreation and the continuance of civilization. Daly writes:

You see, a black woman and white man can contribute quite nicely to "our very existence and survival" by bringing forth the next generation of humanity which is what our civil Court said marriage is about.

And that is why marriage is universally and fundamentally about male and female. Examine how leading anthropologists over the last 80 years [have constantly made] references to male and female, procreation and off-spring legitimization as the universal and primary qualities of this sacred institution.

There is an instinctive ad hominem response to this about the hypocrisy of using miscegenation as a defense for marriage discrimination, but to use it would prevent us from seeing the 'no duh' aspect of Daly's argument.

To wit, the following is a plainly obvious statement: we are all the product of some sort of heterosexual procreation. All of us came about because male and female human DNA combined to create a person both wholly unique from and remarkably similar to everyone else on the planet. The procreation was assumed to be done thru lovemaking or at least sex-having, and ultimately this is what Daly is pointing towards. We are all here because our predecessors got freaky; our descendants depend on us continuing that tradition.

Over the last generation, some of us have been procreated in vitro, meaning that there was no hanky-panky but clearly there was love and desire. (Sadly, some of us have also been the children of rape, a crime defined by the absence of love.) Let's not forget that Christ's procreation is held to have occurred similarly and other divine and semi-devine figures were also conceived in supernatural ways, so it's not like test tube babies were the first immaculate conceptions.

Though that still is not the problem with Daly's argument. We can accept extraordinary exceptions to all-but-universal assumptions. Daly's not really interested in the means of childbearing, but the end of childbearing. In other words, for him the purpose of marriage and it's concomitant activity is to create children.

Thus, a marriage that does not result in children is a 'false' marriage, regardless if it is because of medical or social reasons. Also, a marriage whose children are not of their own procreation is 'false,' so adoption is unnatural. I'm sure most Americans realize the perverse inappropriateness of such feelings. After all, being a loving family to an orphan is one of the most good things any couple could do, right? That seems self-evident. And we shouldn't condemn people for being infertile (or primogeniturally infertile) , otherwise we're just Henry VIII.

What I mean is, there is a consesus among Americans that children are a possible, likely, appropriate outcome of marriage, but not its sole purpose. We're not barbarians. "Barefoot and pregnant" is a terrible way to see ourselves. Anyway, society does not have the right to compell individuals to do anything for its own benefit. If you wanna be a lifelong virgin, that's your prerogative.

Marriage equality advocates need to understand: this is not about love; this is not even really about civil rights. This debate is about sex. It is about whether dudes-kissing-dudes is icky or okay. It is about whether fucking is exceptional or pedestrian, sacred or vulgar. It is about how private our bedrooms really are, and whether social conservatives have the right to legislate our behavior in them. Marriage is a public concession to the one part of your life you share with the fewest people, if any.

Or is it? If marriage (and sex) is something else, equality advocates have to re-define it accordingly. They must not assume that everyone 30-years-old and under share their views, or ten years hence 40-year-olds are going to vote against gay marriage again.

A Weird Place to Be

2009-07-24T15:38:00.005-04:00

By now I'm sure you've heard the news about the big public corruption dragnet that went down in New Jersey. Any case of public corruption - when unelected appointees from one branch of government forcefully remove elected officials from another - is a political minefield. I'm sure DGA and RGA will weigh in. Some Dems are already trying to play it down:

"I'm angry," said [State Sen. Jim] Whelan. "There's a lot of us - most of us in public service - who do it the right way. And then there's this behavior: greedy and stupid and arrogant.
"There is nothing that leads me to believe that Jon Corzine or his office will be touched directly by this stuff," Whelan added. "I'm not sure him stepping down would make sense at this point."

BTW, why does the RGA still have Sarah Palin on their front page banner?

Sorry, I got off track. My purpose here is not to get into the inevitable roller derby of New Jersey politics. It is instead to wonder aloud about what must be a very weird situation to find oneself in.

One of the politicians picked up in the sting, Peter Cammarano, was elected Mayor of Hoboken just last fall. He'd only been in office for a few months. In fact, his campaign website is still up. Feel free to gawk.

The Times reports that the investigation took two years, although the public corruption component was incorporated later. Even assuming a huge once-in-a-lifetime break, a case of this magnitude would, I assume, require a lot of time to put together. More than a fews months I'd guess.

In other words, last November, somewhere in New Jersey a team of investigators must've been aware of Cammarano's corruptibility. Heck, it's even possible one of the investigators was one of his constituents. They had to watch the election, maybe receive campaign literature or solicitations for donations, knowing full well that the people of Hoboken were going to elect a guy who they had every intention to arrest for public crimes.

How surreal must that be? I'm not a lawyer or an investigator (though I did do asset protection at Sears way back when) so maybe such scenarios are common and I just don't realize it.

Think about that the next time you see some Dark Suits wandering around the FBI building (which is still super ugly).

'Landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth'

2009-07-19T12:16:00.010-04:00

My little brother is an astronaut.

I like to give him a hard time because, well, that's what big brothers are supposed to do, no? It's my duty to be his highest hurdle, so that he will not be condemned to mediocrity. And no brother of mine is mediocre!

The best I can do though is toss political bombs at him: "Spaceflight is too expensive, Little Brother. If you're designing a rocket that will send Gitmo terrorists to Mars, let me know. Otherwise, don't bother." And on the anniversary of mankind's first successful journey to the Moon, it would seem the world agrees with me.

Ted Anthony with AP writes:

The final Apollo mission came home before Nixon resigned. Skylab fell to Earth. Challenger disintegrated going up, Columbia coming down. Kennedy's New Frontier ethos - space as a kinder, gentler Manifest Destiny - slouched into the "Alien" catchphrase: "In space, no one can hear you scream."

Today, the reasons for Americans to pay attention to the ground, rather than the heavens, can be rattled off like a parody of a Billy Joel song. Terrorists. Global warming. Swine flu. Economic collapse. Nukes in North Korea and mass shootings in the heartland.

All of that is true. We lost sight of the Apollo Program in the angst over Vietnam. (And as a twist, the newsman most affiliated with both, Walter Cronkite, filed his last report this weekend.)

Tom Wolfe, who celebrated the heroes of the Mercury missions in The Right Stuff, paints an even more pessimistic picture. He correctly identifies the source of NASA's malaise as the militaristic raison d'être of its mission:

From the moment the Soviets launched Sputnik I into orbit around the Earth in 1957, everybody from Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson on down looked upon the so-called space race as just one thing: a military contest. At first there was alarm over the Soviets’ seizure of the “strategic high ground” of space. They were already up there — right above us! They could now hurl thunderbolts down whenever and wherever they wanted. And what could we do about it? Nothing. Ka-boom!

The Moon landing was always an act of geopolitical posturing. It was a callously Machiavellian act meant to keep the public enthralled with the regime and the enemy uncertain of the odds. It may not have been staged, but it was carefully and deliberately produced.

The scientists and engineers argue for their work by pulling on America's national memory. "We are a country of explorers and immigrants," they say. "We cannot stop pushing at the boundaries or our civilization, our raison d'état, will perish!"

NASA and the space program is either needed by politics or demanded by human nature, but not both. Did we instigate a war with Mexico to explore the West, or the other way round? Was Teddy Roosevelt just a conservationist, or was he guarding America's precious soul, which he found in the wilderness?

As a big brother, the answer is easy: we do what we must to achieve what we can. Politics is a vulgar, scatological account of a civilization. It has to be done perhaps, but it should never be done for its own purpose. If there is a higher cause for politics, it is to discover – conjure up if necessary! – that motivation which will make NASA indispensable again

We may have sent John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, Alan Shepard and all the rest up into space for our own craven reasons, but they came back to give us new reasons, better ones. That's what astronauts do. That's why they're heroes.

My little brother's not going to be an astronaut someday, he already is one.

The Obama Eight: CA-3

2009-07-15T12:44:00.000-04:00

Crossposted @ Calitics & DailyKos

GOP incumbent: Dan Lungren

Registration:
Dem : 38%
GOP : 40%
DTS : 18%

Obama's performance (margin / vote):
+0.5% / 49.3%

2008 results
Bill Durston : 44.0%
Lungren : 49.5%
Arthur Tuma : 2.3%
Dina Padilla : 4.2%

Do you hella like gerrymandering? Well then have I got the Congressional District for you: CA-3, in the heartland of NorCal! Below is a map for you to play with. The markers are major communities in the district, with their party registration noted.

Map Channels: free mapping tools

First, let me state for the record that I grew up in what is now the 3rd District in Elk Grove. My hometown today is one of the largest cities in California, a bedroom community in the larger Sacramento metropolitan region. It’s grown a lot since I was a kid and it may be the linchpin in the effort to oust one of the more onerous Obama Eight.

The Incumbent:

Dan Lungren’s a former AG of California, and before that he was a Congressman for Long Beach in the ‘80s. In 2004, he jumped on the 3rd District after getting creamed in his bid to be Governor – by Gray Davis. He remains unashamed of his anti-government positions, despite working for the government his whole life. He is sometimes uncertain which he dislikes more: taxes or Commies. He tried to unseat John Boehner from his leadership position for not being conservative enough. Oh, and if you're a Poizner fan, he endorsed Meg Whitman.

The 3rd District, stretching from the Milk Farm to Kirkwood, is a cross-section of Northern California and its demographics have changed since it was created. Once upon a time, the district encompassed all the solidly red parts of Sacramento’s suburbs, leaving the juicy blue bits to the Matsui Family. Between I-5 and Highway 99, however, Laguna Creek has sprung from nothing and become populated by families, many African American, who left the blight of South Sac for a big suburban home of their own. They brought their Democratic voter registration with them.

Although the 3rd may have a lot more Dems than it once did, like in CA-25 Obama’s performance was still not stellar. Citrus Heights, Folsom, and the foothills remain Republican strongholds. One of Dick Cheney's last campaign stops of 2004 was Wilton. The 3rd District is a conservative place. Laguna may tip the scales overall, but it hasn't changed the character of the rest of the district, which remains white and old.

The Dems:

For the last two cycles, Dr. Bill Durston was Lungren’s gadfly. His supporters tried to put him in the same category with Charlie Brown and Jerry McNerney, but he never performed as well as his co-partisans to the north and south. He did got a lot of support from activists around the region who wanted a true progressive to dethrone Lungren. It just wasn’t meant to be. Despite promising a third run immediately after his last defeat, Durston demurred, inviting a host of aspirants to try their luck in his stead.

Dr. Ami Bera is probably the heir apparent to Dr. Durston’s legacy as a candidate. Bera’s also a surgeon and committed to universal health care. He’ll probably also get the attention and adoration of the left. Oh yeah, he also raised $288,000 in the first quarter. If he keeps that up, he'll have plenty of money to shout his progressive credentials from the mountaintops.

The other Dem to have made a splash is Elk Grove Councilman Gary Davis. He’s committed to the hard work, although he has made occasional appearances on local comment-sections which is a no-no. His homoglyph was the last person to wallop Dan, so maybe that’s a good sign. Unfortunately, his first quarter receipts were dismal, coming in at less than $34,000. There is hope, of course, but that's a big hole to have to dig oneself out of.

And Davis' challenge is only made harder by the presence of Bill Slaton, a SMUD Board Member. He's well connected with the local Dem leadership and a source tells me not only that he'll post $227,000 for the first quarter but that he raised that amount in just three weeks with nothing but a phone and a rolodex.

This is shaping up to be the premier race of 2010. DCCC is watching hungrily, and they've already dropped ads and robo calls on Lungren. The Dem, however, who comes out ahead will need to plug into the establishment better than Durston did. Go to those fundraisers, shake every hand in the room, don't leave until you've burned your name into Steny Hoyer's subconscious!

And if you're wondering, Lungren lost Amador County...

The Outlook:

(If you really wanna know all the gory details of my strategy for the 3rd, email me.)

Dan Lungren will be tough to beat. Although I think Dr. Durston made many errors in his approach, his successors will be every bit as hindered by the nature of the district as was he. Unlike other Obama Eight districts, though, I don’t think the 3rd necessarily requires a moderate Democrat. It will require a crafty Democrat.

Agenda Item #1: Laguna Creek and the foothills. The voters of Laguna Creek plain didn't exist when the district was drawn and they're mostly blue so every vote here is a freebie. Because the African American population may need to be coaxed back to the ballot box, a thorough catalog of everything Lungren's done to stymie President Obama's agenda would be a good thing to have on hand.

Although no Dem is going to win Amador and Calaveras Counties, there really are pockets of supporters and, more important, Dem-sympathizers in the region. Since Lungren will need a landslide here to guarantee success, every win, no matter how small, will be a dent in his message and a blow to his confidence.

Agenda Item #2: A top-shelf media strategy. In my experience, the local outlets are tepid about covering politics, at least until after the election anyway. The district is big, but every part of it is in the Sacramento media market. Even radio covers almost every voter, and Sacramentans have long commutes. It's is a large, expensive market, so dedicated, disciplined communications personnel will be essential.

Agenda Item #3: Don't wait for the cavalry to come. DCCC is keeping a close eye on this race, but so is the NRCC. DCCC will be on defense as much as offense in 2010, so their support is not inevitable. Besides, they just provide the tender. The candidate has to bring the locomotive. The best defense against the national right-wing apparatus is good fundraising. Two of the three candidates seem, at this time, to be on the right track. Can they keep it up?

There are many reasons to be pessimistic about 2010, but there are just as many reasons to be bullish about CA-3. Stay tuned…

Important Links Candidates:
Ami Bera
Gary Davis
Bill Slaton

News:

There will probably be many, many more local outlets soon enough for district-specific details, but national and statewide outlets like Calitics will also likely have lots of coverage going forward.

Elk Grove Online
Elk Grove News.net
California Notes
RedCounty
(This was the premier website for the GOP's effort in CA-4. I'm sure they'll rally to Lungren's defense, too.)

Party:
Amador County Dems
Calaveras County Dems
Rio Vista Dem Club

Sacramento County Dems
(Their website looks recently re-launched, but there are numerous clubs covering the area.
The "neighborhood leaders" position sounds promising.)

~~~

And of course, email me any hot tips or vicious ad hominem attacks you'd like to share. This one is just too damn important so don't be shy about it!

Update: CA-24

2009-07-11T12:53:00.013-04:00

Cross posted @ Calitics & DailyKos
Original post here

Lots happening down in Ventura County. Brian Dennert has several scoops. First, Elton Gallegly's anemic fundraising:

What's on his agenda? He doesn't appear on television much, he doesn't hold town hall forums, and he isn't going to be passing much legislation being in the minority party. In the last quarter he raised: $42,057.75

Should Democrats and Republicans interested in running get encouragement from those numbers that he might be retiring? He does have more than $800,000 in his warchest which should prove effective at protecting him if he does run again. But is a slow fundraising period a sign that he is retiring?

Eight-hundred large is a good warchest - when you're not being targeted. If Gallegly is going to retire, he should do it sooner rather than later. His successor will need time to warm up their own fundraising machine and it's not like the Dem field is going to get thinner.

I am able to confirm that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has talked to Simi Valley political consultant Jim Dantona about running to represent the 24th congressional district.

Add his name to a growing list of potential challengers that include Shawn Stern, Tim Allison , Marie Panec, Mary Pallant, Jill Martinez, and Marta Jorgenson.

Dantona had a good fight for County Supervisor and DCCC will want the strongest campaigner in CA-24. You don't beat a registration advantage with good intentions, you do it with shoe leather.

Allison and Panec still don't have any web presence or an FEC ID. If they're making the rounds, nobody's talking about it. Time's running short for dark horses to get into this.

Jill Martinez has a long list of endorsements, including Lt. Gov. Garamendi, Santa Barbara Mayor Marty Blum, and Das Williams who is running for the 35th Assembly district. Although she has experience managing and teaching business efficiency, her platform makes no mention of spending policy, earmarks, or other fiscal matters. Maybe Democratic primary voters don't want to hear about those things, but the successful Dem who wins CA-24 must have a strong stance in this area.

Mary Pallant has run for the Democratic nomination previously and recently got an endorsement for 2008. This post from 2006 by Brett Wagner, one of Pallant's opponents at the time, implies that the local Democratic establishment was out to get them at the time:

Mary was apparently also an innocent victim of the same types of vicious attacks from the same "darker corners" of our local party. [...]

Mary has decided to withdraw from the congressional race because of the traumatizing effects those attacks were having on her family, including her two young daughters.

So... I'm not really sure where this leaves us. The field is full. The DCCC is involved. And friendly fire could be an issue. Given Gallegly's poor fundraising, I think my original outlook remains valid. If two of the candidates show reasonable fundraising success, then maybe this could be one of those good primaries that gets the base enthusiastic and hungry for a win in November 2009.

Taking Care of the Paperwork

2009-07-11T11:19:00.005-04:00

When the Rules for the 111th Congress came out, it was clear that Pelosi and her leadership team were serious about speeding up the legislative process and successfully getting President Obama's agenda through the House. The big change was the elimination of the "promptly" loop-hole on Motions to Recommit.

The loophole let the Minority gobble up time on bills that were likely to pass. Since that strategy would be unavailable to them in the 111th, what new tactic would they unveil?

After the Bank Bailout, the Recovery Act, and the recently passed Climate Change Bill, I think we can say with confidence that the Minority will use the size of bills, and the time available to read them, as their tactical cudgel of choice.

Is this tactic effective and how does it affects the legislative process?

'Doing Enough to Cooperate'

When the Minority uses its options to try to kill a bill outright, they are really trying to influence the public discourse about the Majority's agenda. They can't actually stop the bills from passing, but they can make the Majority look reckless.

The tactic does depress the Majority's opinion polling, as CNN found, but it also has significant blowback:

The poll also indicates that 62 percent of those questioned think President Obama is doing enough to cooperate with Republicans. That's down eight points from February, but it's 25 points higher than the 37 percent who feel the Republicans in Congress are doing enough to reach out to Democrats and the president.

The real question is whether this tactic affects public opinion of the President and his agenda. His approval remains historically high, but low by his own performance. So the Minority's intransigence does seem to weigh on the President and the Majority, but as long as the President remains popular overall, the negative effects will outweigh the positive.

Legislating with the Cane

In a perfect world perhaps the Congress would always work cordially and reach conclusions supported by a large consensus. But such a Congress would not do very many things in a large, heterogeneous country. At best, it can only be a space where fights over irreconcilable matters can happen with minimal risk to the social order. Like the barrier around a demolition derby, the goal is not to limit the carnage, but limit the risk of it hurting spectators.

It's frustrating to watch good ideas get run into the ground by dilatory tactics, but that is what Congress is for. Better in the chamber than in the streets. Remember also: the Congress is much nicer and calmer than ever before. No one gets caned anymore.

So for the Dems, they seem to be on a good course - until Americans sour on Obama. If in the next twelve months everyone can go to the doctor without any financial considerations, that may make up for the albatrosses of the bailout and the stimulus.

Sen. DeMint's mistaken statements about Hitler's Germany

2009-07-09T22:32:00.010-04:00

Dear Jim DeMint:

The following is a recent quote you made regarding German history:

Part of what we’re trying to do in “Saving Freedom” is just show that where we are, we’re about where Germany was before World War II where they became a social democracy.

Given your interest in the subject, I'm sure you'll appreciate this brief lesson.

In 1933, after the parliamentary building burned down under suspicious circumstances, the German Reichstag formalized Adolf Hitler's totalitarian rule as the Führer by passing the Ermächtigungsgesetz, or Enabling Act. The law was an amazing relinquishment of authority by an elected body and it has since become the foremost example of failed democracy.

What was most disturbing was that Hitler's party, the national socialists or "Nazis," held only 45% of the Reichstag's seats. The rest of the seats were held by a collection of smaller parties with varying political views. Nonetheless, every single party voted to abandon their mandates to Hitler's tyranny, with the exception of just one.

Who were these brave souls, who stood firm in their defense of democratic legitimacy and whose leader, Otto Wels, used his last speech in a free Germany to welcome people being "repressed and oppressed" by the nascent regime?

The Social Democrats.

I don't mean to be nitpicky, Senator, but it's just that history is a stubborn thing...

Signed,
Packherd

P.s.: No Communists voted against the Enabling Act because all the Communists had already been imprisoned or murdered by the Nazis.

The Obama Eight: CA-48

2009-07-05T08:06:00.011-04:00

Cross posted @ DailyKos

Special thanks to Laine for putting this post together. (This is the second time he's helped me get the job done.) Hat tip to you, sir!

Let's take a drive down that ol' 405...

GOP incumbent: John Campbell

Registration:
Dem : 29%
GOP : 45%
DTS : 22%

Obama's performance (margin / vote):
+0.75% / 49.3%

2008 results
Steve Young : 40.6%
Campbell : 55.7%
Patterson : 3.7%

The CD's "flipability" rating is -16, which measures the disparity between voters' actual voting behavior in 2008 at the top of the ticket versus their party identity. (This puts CA-48 at the far bottom of the Obama Eight in terms of flipability, contrasting, for example, CA-26 and its flipability of +4.) Now let's dig deeper.

The Congressman

The Representative for CA-48 is John Bayard Taylor Campbell III. This guy is Mr. Los Angeles and Mr. corporate conservative credentials. He went to the LA-area prep school Harvard Westlake, UCLA for a BA in Economics, USC for a Masters in Business Taxation, went to work for the accounting firm Ernst & Young, and then ran Saturn, Saab and other dealers in OC.

Campbell's political career got started in 2000, when he ran for an open State Assembly seat and won. In 2004, he moved over to run for an open State Senate seat and again won. In 2005, the CA-48 seat opened up when Chris Cox resigned to become Chairman of the SEC under George Bush. (Apparently, CA-48 has a penchant for sending business / econ wonks to Congress.) In the special election, Campbell took 45.5% of the vote, the highest total, but short of the 50% plus one needed to avoid a runoff. He won with 44.4% in the December 6, 2005 runoff election, beating out Democrat Steve Young's 28% showing, and American Independent Party candidate Jim Gilchrist's 25.1% showing.

In 2006, Campbell ran for reelection to his first full term.He again faced Democratic challenger Steve Young, beating him by 23 points. In 2008, with Obama taking the District, Campbell faced Steve Young for a third time, and beating him resoundingly for a third time. Campbell's numbers slipped just a bit, and Young's numbers increased slightly, but it was still a decisive win for Campbell at 55.7% to 40.6%.

Wikipedia advises:

Congressman Campbell hosts an annual fundraiser named Mai-Tai’s and Mark-Ups on the Wednesday after Memorial Day at Crystal Cove State Park. It is unknown how the party came to be named but it is believed to be indicative of the congressman's legislative process.

But don't think for a second Campbell is your feel-good type of Republican. He's a die hard liberal economic Repub, famous (apparently) for giving out copies of Ayn Rand to departing interns:

Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), who gives his departing interns copies of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, told me today that the response to President Obama's economic policies reminded him of what happened in the 51-year-old novel. "People are starting to feel like we're living through the scenario that happened in Atlas Shrugged, said Campbell. "The achievers, the people who create all the things that benefit rest of us, are going on strike. I'm seeing, at a small level, a kind of protest from the people who create jobs, the people who create wealth, who are pulling back from their ambitions because they see how they'll be punished for them."

The Dems:

It's certainly possible that Steve Young will choose to face Campbell for a fourth time. Young has been increasing his share of the vote with each election, edging up to 40.6% with the Obama coattails in 2008. But the big news of the last several months was the entry into the Democratic field by Beth Krom, Mayor of Irvine, with a population of over 200,000 and by far the largest city in CA-48. Blogs up and down California have been thrilled at the prospect of running a hardened candidate against Campbell, with real campaigning experience and a fundraising base. The local blog OC Progressive praised Krom:

She can win elections. Beth Krom has won five campaigns, In 2006, she garnered 60% of the vote in her re-election as Mayor and in 2008, won her current City Council seat with 8000 votes more than the next candidate.

And there's data to back up the enthusiasm:

Krom outraised Campbell in the first quarter of the year, and is telling fellow Democrats she wants to have $250,000 by midyear and $1 million by the year's end.... In the first quarter of this year, Krom raised $63,370 to Campbell's $54,500. However, Krom was just starting her campaign account, while Campbell already has $297,000 on hand including money raised before 2009.

The calculus changed, however, just a few weeks ago when tragedy struck the Krom family. On June 8th, Krom's son, Noah, died after an apparent fall from a cliff. He was just a week shy of graduating from UC Santa Barbara. She released the following statement in mid June:

IRVINE, CA, June 18, 2009 — In response to inquiries regarding the impact of her son’s death on her Congressional race, Beth Krom has confirmed that she is fully committed to continuing her campaign to represent the 48th Congressional district.

Beth and Solly remain grief-stricken over the tragic death of their 22 year old son, Noah, on June 6, 2009 in Santa Barbara, California. In recognition of his academic achievements, Krom was posthumously awarded a diploma in Business Economics which was presented to his sister and brother at Commencement by UCSB President Henry Yang.

So Krom is in it to win it - but it's unclear whether this will change the race dynamic over the next year plus leading up to November 2010 and to what extent. Will other contenders throw their hat in?

The Outlook:

We've seen that Campbell racks up big percentages in this district, winning against Democratic candidate Steve Young three times now by 15 or more points. CA-48 has been going pretty red at the top of the ticket, too. Bush took the district in 2000 and 2004 with 60.4% and 58.3%, respectively. In 2008, Obama eeked out a win – still flipping the district by a heck of a swing (John Kerry and Al Gore each only got 40%). On the other hand, the district still has an enormous flipability handicap.

The question remains: Can a Congressional challenger duplicate whatever it is Obama did in 2008? Consider the Dem candidate's flipability gap, or how well that challenger measured up against the flipability and Obama. Steve Young's was almost null.

In other words, the Dem challenger performed about as expected. So we know CA-48's got horrible registration numbers (16% GOP advantage), Obama remarkably overcame those numbers to win it (by a razor thin margin), and John Campbell still won by 15.1% – pretty close to the registration advantage. On the other hand, the Cook Political Report's 2009 update moved CA-48 from R+8 to R+6. So how does this bode for 2010?

Important Links
Candidates:
Steve Young for Congress
(website still up from 2008)

Beth Krom for Congress

News:
OC Register
OC Progressive
The Liberal OC

Party:
Democratic Party of Orange County

~~~

Three down, five to go! Stay in touch and keep us abreast of the latest!

Not running in 2012

2009-07-03T17:27:00.004-04:00

I'm making this prediction: John Ensign, Mark Sanford, and Sarah Palin are not running for the Republican nomination in 2012.

AnonGuy gets it right,

Considering she is bailing on her one and only term as Governor, I suspect Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, etc., are drooling at the chance to paint her as someone who can't finish the job. Or, in these tough economic times, can't stand the heat. I can see the 30-second spots attack spots already, "She couldn't even finish one term as governor of a small state ... now she wants to run our country?"

But of course, somewhere on the Tubes, someone is trying to spin this as a convoluted plan to position for 2012. Blogs for Victory provides the first hit,

Fabulously popular, a certainty for re-election in 2010…and now she leaves?
Perhaps she’s just sick of the nastiness? If so, then we’re to blame, as a country, for failure to sustain someone as good as she is…

Perhaps her family just wants a year off prior to a Presidential run? Remember, if she ran for re-election she’d be busy in 2010 and then in 2011 its off to the races…

But leave it to Politico to go the extra mile, going so far as to tell Palin there are 7 things she must do,

Those who underestimate her do so at their own risk. She projects a tough but warm personality. Her most famous line — “You know what they say the difference is between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick!” — reflects that. She is a conservative in an increasingly conservative party.

True, the GOP's gotten a lot more conservative, but they'll figure out after 2010 that extremism won't beat Obama. Competence will.

Yeah, Pawlenty's declining re-election too, to focus on 2012, but Pawlenty's not running away from an ethics probe. There's a difference between taking a break in preparation for a run and bailing out of your career mid-term like it's a doomed airplane.

It's still Mitt Romney's to lose.

Hooray, Artomatic! Boo, venue!

2009-07-03T14:43:00.012-04:00

I finally went to Artomatic today and saw floors 3 and 4. I also walked around the work-in-progress Waterfront area around Nationals Park. I'm not a really a baseball fan, so it's not a neighborhood I would go to, but art puts me in an ambitious and introspective mood, so now I want to write about what I saw.

The first thing I walked away thinking was, unfortunately, how much I disliked the area's new architecture. And this is especially troubling for me, because I normally love contemporary architecture.

55M, home of Artomatic 2009. Note the exposed diagonal supports and the
asymmetrical but still right-angle dominated façade.

I'm not a trained architect, tho I did present failed a bid for a Fulbright scholarship on postmodern monumentalization in Germany. So I feel especially well-qualified to write about this.

Much of what's built these days is given the moniker of postmodernism. This is not the place for a philological deconstruction of the term or it's nauseating overpresence in today's commentary, so I will only say that I think the term is somewhere between troublesome and abhorrent.

Bank Center, Houston. The shape suggests urban architecture in
the Netherlands, recalling Dutch financial dominance.
Postermodern architecture often references preexisting concepts
rather than copying them outright as is done in revivalism.

Postmodernism is our generation's rejection of 20th Century functionalism and it tries, sometimes desperately, to relocate the importance of ornamentation. It draws from the Brutalism that almost took over DC in the seventies, the high-tech exposure which still seems to frighten Americans, and the old standby international style that defines many American skylines.

Every underground Metro station features Brutalist style in the ceiling pattern.
Brutalism does not fail on it's theory – leaving artifacts of the form's construction is not
inherently bad – but in practice it seems to dominate entire structures, and it certainly
dominated Washington's last urban renewal after the riots. (The fearsomely ugly FBI
building is another prominent example).

Although that pedigree is clear at the Waterfront, there is no revivalism and no homage on display in this development. (That's not a judgment, just a statement.) The materials are cutting edge and the form reflects this. The capabilities of the material allow for hints of the underlying structure and process of the building to show thru, suggesting a sort of neo-Brutalism or neo-high-tech. However, unlike Brutalism and high-tech, these styles are not the focus of the building, but only possibilities. The brackets that hold the windows are capped with stainless steel. The elevator is visible, but its machinery is tucked away.

Postmodern additions add contemporary functionality to history structures.
Left: New DC Court of Appeals at Judiciary Square. The postmodern atrium obviously alters the form from its original. It defaces the historic building but does not offend it.
Right: Nevada State Museum, Carson City. I haven't seen this in person yet, tho I'm excited to get the chance. It's one of the coolest museums anywhere (not being ironic!) and I want to feel how it works.

So all we have left to describe what we see is postmodernism. And it feels so... unsatisfying. Why do I like this style at Judiciary Square, and why am I excited about it at the Nevada State Museum, but it feels so sickly and sterile at the Waterfront? Part of my frustration, I think, is that the style has no inherent life – a fact made clear when you walk thru the empty lobby of 55M. Flat light seeps thru the glass or plastic walls of the room, ensuring no corner is hidden in shadow. Marble, wood and brass, materials prevalent in the decadent neo-classical government buildings, is non-existent here. In theory, this should create a sense of egalitarianism in the space, where the people are foremost, but I suspect that in practice this forces the people to architecturalize themselves. The seams of their pants, the cut of their décolletage, the tattoos on their skin must provide the context.

Sadly, this is not the Rotunda of the Capitol, where Americans of every type gather to observe and interpret their collective self. In its attempt to move beyond the nostalgia of repeatniks and conservatives, it has created a lifeless fashion runway that only waits for models and designers to fight over their individuality. It creates competition, not community.

The art inside the building, however, is great and I'm excited to head back tonight and tomorrow!

I'm tired of these posers!

2009-06-25T11:56:00.011-04:00

There's been a lot of talk about Republicans and infidelity lately, like John Ensign and Mark Sanford invented the horny conservative genre.

Bullshit!

I do respect the Silver Fox's attempt to take the crown from California's reigning champ, Gavin Newsom. There are few things scumbaggier than gettin' it on with your friend's wife. Such drama, however, is so pedestrian it's featured in Greek plays. Way to be original, Senator.

And as for poor Governor Sanford, I think he's just livin' his life like its a Barry White song. It's going to be a long time before another pol of either party brings that kind of sexuality and emotion to a press conference. He may yet send Danielle Steel into early retirement, but he is not big pimpin'.

The most gangsta Republican of our generation remains the one-of-a-kind Nevadan, Jim "LuvGuv" Gibbons (with a big thank you to Dullard Mush for the tip):

Anyway, a friend of ours was recently at a new south Reno Mexican restaurant when Governor Jim Gibbons and an entourage arrived. The bartender there apparently was quite familiar with Nevada's Guv as she ran up and gave him a big 'ol lusty hug. Not only did Gibbons heartily return the favor, but his paws quickly headed south -- the deep south. So while my friend was getting an eyeful, our Governor was getting a handful. It obviously wasn't the first time, and probably not the last either.

Well, at least this tail-grabbing incident was consensual.

That's how it's done.

~~~

Special Note to AnonGuy: I understand your hesitation to dogpile on the Party, but don't think of it as a cheap shot against the GOP. Think of it as doing a solid for Mike Montandon. (Whose logo makes excellent bling, btw.)

I hope RedState didn't notice this

2009-06-22T19:58:00.004-04:00

I think I just saw the Human Rights Campaign logo in an Orbitz commercial.

Four guys are are golfing and the refund guy shows up in his hovercraft. It looks like the logo at right is embroidered on one of the guys' polo shirts.

Any confirmation?

Update: Holy smokes, I was right!

BLOGGERFIGHT!!!

2009-06-21T12:53:00.005-04:00

I have very few personal views on the California budget crisis. I'm bad with numbers. But I couldn't resist writing about the online slapfight between David Dayen of Calitics and Phil and Jerry at Calbuzz.

It all started when the Commission on the 21st Century Economy (a.k.a. the Parsky Commission) started putting forward some proposals that would include a flat(ish) tax and replace the corporate tax with a net revenues tax. Calbuzz provided an analysis that pointed out the difficulty of getting consensus on such thorny issues.

Calitics, however, called the proposals crazy right-wing insanity,

the real shock doctrine is happening behind the curtain, with a proposal engineered with bipartisan support, that will really permanently turn the state into an experiment in Chicago Boys free-market fundamentalism, not unlike the conservative "paradises" created in developing nations, all of which are crashing, by the way.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is NOT Pinochet, but I get the Chicago Boys metaphor nonetheless. Taking advantage of political expediency, he is importing minions to enact extreme economic experiments that could overthrow the established liberal order.

But they raised Calbuzz's ire by calling them "useful idiots" who enable such extremism by advocating the moderate path.

Calbuzz responded by lampooning Calitics' hyperbole with some of their own,

As regular readers of Calitics, we admire your passion, if not your common sense. But let’s be clear that our mission at Calbuzz is quite different than the ideological ranting that is your stock in trade: it’s called “journalism.”
Let’s be blunt: You knew bupkus about the maneuvering and politics unfolding behind-the-scenes at the tax commission until we started covering it. To attack us for digging out the story is to mistake the map for the territory, using the same kind of tiresome, rigid, WATB ideological projections as you decry in the Yacht Party.

I don't think Calitics was behaving like a "whiney ass titty-baby," but they were certainly reacting from one end of the political spectrum. It could've stopped there, with Calbuzz claiming the moderate position against Calitics' unapologetic progressivism. But it didn't. Calitics re-reacted to Calbuzz's critique-of-their-critique with a classic ad hominem attack,

Unlike you, I don't pretend to hide my opinions on the very clear economic and tax policy implications of the Commission's report behind some false veil of objectivity. Most of my comments were directed at the report itself, and the way in which a flat tax would quite obviously shift the burden of taxation to the middle class and the poor; but I couldn't help but notice clear language like...
the impending bankruptcy of state government should be sufficient to show players at every point of the political spectrum not only that sweeping change is needed, but also that everyone will have to compromise to keep California from sinking into the 9th Circle of Hell

...which certainly allows people, in my view, a window into how you determine the best policy, defined as the midpoint between whatever pleases those hateful hippies and the ranters on the right. That may be a nice and quick methodology, but it's anything but rigorous, and I'm pretty sure it's an apt description. After all, wasn't one of you the communications director for Gray Davis, who was not above bold expressions of centrism and a fear of the spectre of "The Left"?
(How did pumping out that daily message for ol' Gray turn out, by the way? What did that guy do after his two successful terms were up? Just curious.)

Wow. David Dayen does not like Gray Davis, I guess.

This exchange highlights the upcoming war within the Democratic establishment over how to respond to the voters' rejection of the budget compromise. Moderates will argue that the disaster at the ballot box shows Democrats need to be open to a fundamental change in California's revenue system. Progressives will argue that the result shows Californians are fed up with revenue neutral solutions and they want a real change.

To put this simply, California is majority Democratic, but not majority liberal. While some well-meaning activists on the left see this as an opportunity to install a social democratic economic system in the biggest state in the U.S., there remains an aggressive and electorally viable plurality that does not believe the conservative revolution is over yet.

There are technocratic debates that need to be had, of course, but they won't happen here (or on any other blog). Rather than seeing progressive Democrats and moderate Democrats go at one another's throats, I would like to see them rally behind what I believe is their unifying value which generates California's Democratic majority.

Namely, the political system should put the preferences of the welfare state before the preferences of the tax structure. What I mean is, the purpose of democracy should be to measure the types and levels of government service demanded by the people, then it is the responsibility of elected officials to extract the revenue necessary to meet those demands. To reverse that model as conservatives do - measure the people's tax preferences then design the government structure that is affordable under that preference - devalues democratic government.

Government of the people is more than a cost-benefit analysis or a necessary evil, it is an open-source forum, the first, final, and only arena where the differences among individuals and communities can be resolved through passionate discourse instead of political violence.* It is the closest we have to a society-wide family, and like your family it is more than the sum of its economic parts.

*The space between those two is often narrow but it always exists, it must exist.

Ensign

2009-06-19T10:25:00.007-04:00

I wasn't planning on writing this post, but the window of opportunity to do so is closing fast.

You already know the details: Senator Ensign admitted to having an affair with a staffer while separated from his wife, who worked for Ensign's campaign and the NRSC and whose husband was a close adviser. As Washington sex scandals go, this one rates a *yawn*.

I am confused by the presidential talk, though. I've never heard it mentioned as anything more than cocktail party speculation. The evidence for such a scenario is

Ensign gave a speech in Iowa.
Ensign's been burnishing his conservative credentials.
This confession will clear the air for 2012.

The day after the revelation, Ensign resigned his leadership posts. Maybe that gives him more latitude to position himself - it's hard running for President when you've got leadership responsibilities. But my theory was that he was working his way up Senate leadership, not a presidential run.

There may be more to come from this story but this is pure speculation on my part. I don't want to add any more salaciousness to the already oversexed Series of Tubes.

For Nevada, nothing really has changed. Ensign is not the new LuvGuv. In the Governor's case, his escapades are a metaphor for more serious bipartisan frustration with his performance. I don't think that is the case with Ensign.

Perhaps this opens up the possibility for a more serious primary challenge, and I would watch the GOP gubernatorial primary in case it provides strong 'leftover' candidates who need another white whale to hunt. But if the Reid re-election and the Governor's race don't bring out the hungry young lions of the GOP, I don't know what will.

I'm sure that Dina Titus, however, is watching this all unfold with interest.

Europe won't stop being socially progressive

2009-06-15T11:31:00.010-04:00

I don't want it to sound like I think I'm smarter than Robert Kuttner at The American Prospect but in his column on Huffington Post today Kuttner makes many of the same damn errors in analyzing European political trends that so many in this country make. Primarily, he's trying to make Europe be a prop for the American left.

Here's the gist of his argument: the European left co-opted the market liberalizations of the last 25 years and have thus lost their ability to serve as a viable opposition to nationalist and conservative parties, thus endangering Europe's sweet sweet welfare state.

In Kuttner's own words,

For a generation, the European center-left has embraced essentially the same version of global laissez-faire and liberated finance as the center-right parties, tempered by only a marginally better version of the welfare state. The common formula is: liberalized capital markets; freer global trade; reduced protections for workers; flatter taxes. The very phrase, "center-left" is an emblem of the capitulation to global finance. Thus, leading moderately left parties have scant alternatives to offer voters at a time when free market capitalism has thoroughly disgraced itself.

First, free market capitalism hasn't throughly disgraced itself, unregulated speculative financial schemes have disgraced themselves, as they do from time to time.

Otherwise, Kuttner's got it about right, with a few caveats. The liberalization of capital markets, at least within Europe, has been an offshoot of the Eurozone and is an expression of Europe's greater social unity, not a corruption of it. Similarly, Europe's position supports free movement of goods but, because it is the largest trading entity in the world, the rules of trade are often set by Europe, so again this isn't tearing Europe apart, it's building it up. Although corporate taxes in post-war Europe have dropped a lot, income taxes remain highly progressive, and labor reforms, like Germany's Hartz IV, remain the toughest political knots to cut. Although it's not classical socialism, it's also not the 1960's anymore. The goal is solidarity now, and Europe's doing quite well at that.

Kuttner's concern for Europe's degrading social systems is unfounded. He further demonstrates unfamiliarity with Europe's political structures when he says,

The EU, once a possible instrument of social democracy on one continent, itself has become something of a Trojan Horse. Its basic document, the Maastricht Treaty, makes free movement of capital, goods, services, and persons a core constitutional doctrine. Social protections are secondary.

Again, fundamental error: the Maastricht Treaty is not the EU's basic document, although it is the document containing several of the institutions we associate with Europe, such as the Euro currency and the European Parlament. Social protections were certainly left out of Maastricht, largely at the insistence of the United Kingdom, to ensure that members at the periphery would not be weighed down by the heavy social systems of the 'engine' of Europe's economy, Germany.

The reason this was acceptable, and preferable to many members in retrospect, is because the social contract of every European country is radically different from America's in one important aspect. The European central state is obligated to maintain the welfare of the citizen. The level of welfare and the means of maintenance vary from one state to the next, but the equation is homogeneous. The state keeps people out of abject poverty and the people stop overthrowing the state. To protect that way of life, Europe has focused on establishing solidarity among the Members, keeping each from meddling in or undermining the others' welfare arrangements.

Kuttner should be thrilled that, in the face of globalization, Europe has found a way to nurture the cherished welfare states of its Members. Instead, he wrings his hands over the left's shoddy performance at the polls. It is true that the right has gained considerable control of the EP and that center-right parties have been successful across the continent. But here again he is conflating European political behavior with America's. Like in the U.S., there are numerous local representative bodies and one central body. They remain independent and assume different responsibilities. In Europe, however, the roles are reversed, with the central body representing local interests.

Case in point, Strasbourg has been the scene of a new strain of European politics, euroskepticism, representing voters' dissatisfaction with Europe's highhanded attempts to co-opt the prerogatives of their countries. Initially it may seem ironic, like sending a states-rightist to Congress, but where else would you want your anti-centralization representative to be? Indeed, the Council and the Commission have been the strongest proponents for greater harmonization among the Members, even in social matters, regardless of whether the constituents of the Council are largely from the right. It's only natural that opposition to this process would find refuge in the Parliament.

Another phenomenon Kuttner doesn't pick up on is the sad state of European liberalism, or what we in the U.S. call libertarianism. The liberals, such as Germany's FDP, were the kingmakers of Europe's post-war political systems. They kept governments of the left from sliding into socialist inefficiency and they kept governments of the right socially conscientious. While the liberal parties are not dead, they've lost much of their ability to influence government, so their ideas have been sold off like outdated furniture at a flea market. The remnants of liberalism have not been fully absorbed into the other party institutions, or they were co-opted by the 'wrong' half, leading to socially liberal nationalists like the Jacques Chirac and free marketeer socialists like Gerhard Schröder.

Other, weirder combinations are possible and likely in the future. Europe's political dynamics have undergone tectonic changes since the fall of the Wall, with longstanding constellations evolving, radically changing their character, or disappearing altogether. The EP's conservative trend is part of this continent-wide process. It's difficult to predict where it will end up or even if the change is going to stop; change could be the new European constant. In the short run, it's a safe guess that euroskepticism (encompassing whatever that signifies) will play a dominate role in European politics, but the end of the contitent's unrivaled social systems is definitely not nigh.

UPDATE: CA-25

2009-06-14T11:06:00.003-04:00

Crossposted @ DailyKos

Spoke too soon.

Jackie Conaway has declared for CA-25 again. She is focusing on Veterans issues, which is good. But, when asked to explain why she's running,

“There’s a lot of reasons,” she said. “Between the gas and the food and the health care, there’s a lot of people that just aren’t taken care of.”

Well, okay. Besides the use of unnecessary definite articles, I'll let you judge that statement for yourself.

Jeff, at SCVTalk, tho is more candid,

In 2008 she ran just about the least impressive campaign I can think of. She raised about $10,000 in her effort to defeat McKeon (compare that to the plucky 2006 Dem challenger Robert Rodriguez, who raised about $207,000 before losing to McKeon).I only saw her once, during the 4th of July parade, and come November 4th, I was so unimpressed even I voted for McKeon.

Shameless Self-promotion

2009-06-13T15:25:00.004-04:00

A hearty thanks to the blogs that promoted my corner of the Internet recently. Give 'em a look!

Brian Dennert at the Ventura County Star keeps a close watch on the area's politics and he's been encouraging Gallegly's constituents to inquire about the Congressman's in-district schedule, so that they can ask him questions. I think, of course, that this is a capital idea!

Eric over at PulPit Bulls also kindly gave me a shout out. His writing is tight and clean, something I admire in writers, and which makes for an enjoyable read.

Auf Deutsch

2009-06-13T14:41:00.004-04:00

Capitol Alert: Think about it: Vierundzwanzig Milliarden US-Dollar
Posted using ShareThis

Just wanted to share this one. A reporter in San Diego asked Gov. Schwarzenegger if he thinks in German or English. Schwarzenegger said he does math in his head in German, but everything else he does in English.

I don't know why, but doing math in a non-native language seems tough. Ironically, one of the lessons of the study of language is that, to truly begin mastering one, you must think in it. You can't effectively communicate when 'translating' everything in your head on the go. The first time a dreamed in German was really cool.

But numbers are tricky. For example, trying doing algebra in Roman numerals. Can anyone offer an explanation why this is so?

On another note, kudos to Capitol Alert for using correct German!

Gotta do this before I forget

2009-06-11T19:37:00.004-04:00

FiveThirtyEight is one of my favorite blogs. It is, in my opinion, one of the few online spaces where political moderation and pragmatism get top billing. Also, they're supersmart. They explain polls and statistical analysis in a way that even I can access. Usually, they say exactly what I want to say here, only better.

So I was thrilled that they dedicated a whole post to the Obama Eight. They look at it a little differently than me, tho:

Looking at the split-ticket voting effects here, there are essentially four subgroups of two districts each. You have districts where:

(a) despite Obama's slight margin and presumed coattails, the Republican incumbent is pretty safe anyway (Gallegly, Bono);
(b) Obama's margin and presumed coattails likely brought an otherwise safe winner into some electoral jeopardy (Dreier, Bilbray);
(c) Obama and McCain basically split the district, but the Republican outperformed McCain anyway (McKeon, Campbell); and
(d) Obama and McCain basically split the district, and the Republican House candidate barely got to 50 percent (Lungren, Calvert).

Because the first two groups could not be taken down even with a strong Obama coattail, and in the third the GOP incumbent outperformed McCain despite Obama's strength in the district, the last group offers the most logical targets for 2010.

In other words, they have Bono Mack as one of the safest and Calvert as one of the most vulnerable, while I have it the other way round. Although we differ, I think this analysis does a better job than mine at teasing out Obama's coattails.

District	Incumbent	Flipability	DTS Registration	Dem Registration	GOP Registration	2008 Presidential
26th	Dreier	4	20%	35%	41%	51% Obama 41% McCain
45th	Bono Mack	1	16%	38%	42%	52% Obama 47% McCain
25th	McKeon	0	18%	38%	39%	49% Obama 48% McCain
3rd	Lungren	-2	18%	38%	40%	49% Obama 49% McCain
24th	Gallegly	-3	18%	36%	42%	51% Obama 48% McCain
50th	Bilbray	-5	24%	31%	40%	51% Obama 47% McCain
44th	Calvert	-6	18%	35%	42%	51% Obama 47% McCain
48th	Campbell	-16	22%	29%	45%	49% Obama 49% McCain

I'm skeptical about the idea of coattails, generally, and in this case, I believe they were all but non-existent. Dissatisfied Republicans and Republican-sympathetic DTSers were only willing to cross the line once on the ballot: they took a shot on Obama or their local Democratic candidate for Congress, but not both.

Group B is the most interesting to me, where it looks like coattails actually did exist and almost yanked voters out from under the incumbents. We'll take a closer look at that soon.

The Obama Eight: CA-25

2009-06-07T20:06:00.019-04:00

Cross posted @ DailyKos.
Updated: July 14

Moving along...

GOP incumbent: Buck McKeon

Registration:
Dem : 38%
GOP : 39%
DTS : 18%

Obama's performance (margin / vote):
+1.1% / 49.5%

2008 results
Jackie Conaway : 42.2%
McKeon : 57.8%

The Congressman:

I can't really freak out about Buck McKeon. He doesn't jump to mind when I think of GOP Congressmen who give me the willies. Nonetheless, he is staunchly conservative. He's a member of the Republican Study Committee, he's LDS, and he stands by the obnoxious drilling-for-more-oil-is-an-alternative energy policy. That last one's especially curious since the district he represents has some of the country's best solar and wind resources, but zero oil and natural gas.

Oh well. I'm sure he has his reasons.

CA-25 is one of California's big weird districts where a conservative suburban area is attached to a vast rural region. Rural voters are all conservative, right? Whatever, I'm not driving all the way to Bridgeport to find out. But for CA-25 that grueling six hour excursion could make the difference.

View Larger Map

Unlike the other Obama Eight districts, CA-25 is not a red district. The registration margin has halved since just last November (Swing State Project has the raw numbers). The GOP's advantage is now only a little more than one percent, so let me repeat myself:

CA-25 is not a red district.

In CA-25, the northernmost edge of the SoCal megalopolis is combined with its winter hinterland, Mammoth Lakes. Obama's mediocre showing and McKeon's strong win make this look like a safe seat. Obama did okay in the Santa Clarita Valley, or SCV, and only narrowly lost in the High Desert, but he took a 10 pt. thumping in Inyo County, pulling down his margin. When the Dem registration actually catches up next summer, however, that will be the local meme. Every time Buck McKeon or his prospective challengers get mentioned in the news, it will be along side some boilerplate about how the district recently became purple.

The Dems:

This is where it gets heavy. Bob and Jackie Conaway are a husband and wife team from Barstow who have been going after Buck McKeon for over a decade. In 2008, it was Jackie's turn to take a shot and she raised $5,800 for her campaign. The online record of her effort is basically non-existent. At this time no one, not even the Conaways, have declared for 2010.

The bright spot is that there seems to be a good base of Democratic organization all across the district. That organization was working hard to get Obama elected and I suppose they deserve credit for making CA-25 one of the Obama Eight. There are several groups in the SCV and CSU Northridge is in the next district over. The Mojave Desert Dems in Barstow have recently gotten onto Facebook – good for them.

And up Highway 395 is the Owens River Democratic Club. They are a consolidation of the Inyo and Mono Counties' Dem communities, and their website is well put together. I recommend their blog, which will give you a good sense of the rebellious temperament of liberal mountain folk. For example, there's this prescient post from way back in October:

Dems Badly Misreading Public Mood on Bailout

The Democratic leadership, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, are badly misreading the public mood on the bailout. Never have I seen the American people so united in outrage over a proposal. This is sadly reminiscent of the vote on the Iraq war and Kerry's spineless defense that he would have done "everything differently".

This is a phenomenal opportunity to show real leadership, limit the power of investment banks and put forward a real progressive agenda. Obama is playing not to lose and has left a huge opening for the republicans to put forward a populist bill.

Those who love wildlife will note that the Full-Throated Eastern Sierra Democrat shares its territory with the bighorn sheep, and like the bighorn, it is a stubborn, unique specimen.

The Outlook:

The situation in CA-25 is curious and frustrating. It's only 2,000 Democrats away from being a purple, 36% Hispanic district represented by an arch-conservative. How is that not a recipe for victory? I'm tempted to berate the Dems of L.A. County and for not sending assistance up I-5, but in this case, the locals need to do it themselves. It seems that they know each other and they hold regular meetings but they need to move on from the Obamamania. Coordination across such a vast district is tough so candidate recruitment is likely tepid if it exists at all. A smart web presence can fix that. Still, from the outside looking in, it's hard to determine what's going on.

Oh, and $5,800 dollars is barely more than two max donations for a Congressional campaign. Just two! That is not acceptable.

Some mix of Dem registration drives, party apparatus development, and improved performance in the suburban areas could put a candidate over the top. David Dayen sums up the challenge:

There is certainly a profile of a Democratic candidate that could attract serious votes out here. But that person does not yet exist.

Important Links
Candidates:
Jackie Conaway

News:
SCVTalk
I Heart SCV

Party:
SCV Dem Club
Democratic Alliance for Action

Mojave Desert Dem Club
(website / Facebook)

Owens River Dem Club

~~~

Remember, this is an on-going project, so leave a comment or email with any suggestions or tips!

I don't want to harp on the earmarks thing but, like Gallegly, Buck McKeon is a conservative Republican who ♥ earmarks. Why isn't this being used more? This is the perfect wedge issue; they made it. It's like a murder mystery where the victim is a swordsmith killed by his own masterpiece.

"Eastern California is too Republican."

2009-06-06T13:12:00.005-04:00

I'd like to draw you a picture.

Sometimes in California, everything beyond the fog is written off as "too Republican" to be contested by Dems. I would like to refute this. Certainly, Republicans do well in the Sierra, where they enjoy a large registration advantage, but the real picture is more complex. There are opportunities in them thar hills.

As you can see, eastern California is not a crimson wasteland. Obama did well for himself across the region (and, just across the border, he won Reno, too). In CA-4, Charlie Brown did even better!

Placer County is a great example: in a county that is 50% Republican, Obama did quite well from Auburn up. That pattern repeats itself elsewhere in the Sierra, creating 'pockets' of Dem sympathy in otherwise hostile territory.

I wanted to create this map before getting to the CA-3 and CA-25 posts for two reasons. First, as mentioned above, this is not an incontestable region. Second, I believe a sense of momentum is necessary to have any success in these and other Obama Eight districts. Building momentum requires starting from a base and working outward, and even in unfriendly terrain there are places from which momentum can be built.

Unfortunately, the Sierra is just the low-population rural area attached to several districts. 80% of CA-3's voters are in Sacramento County and most of the voters of CA-25 are all the way down in L.A. County. In close elections, though, marginal areas can't be neglected. Certainly not those that show promise...

The Quest for Individualism

2009-06-01T23:32:00.013-04:00

A blogger named arvan has written an interesting outline, promoted on DailyKos, of the ever-perilous society vs. individual debate within the context of gender and sexuality identity.

You may not agree with everything written there – I know I don't – but please do go read the full post. (Read 'thru' or 'over' the obvious vitriol, if you can.) There's a lot to process here, but we'll divide it into its two constituent debates:

the role of social constructs in demarcating identity
the emergence of individualism under liberal democracy

Sex, Gender, Sexuality: The Snipe Hunt of Identity

This post is on a website, sexgenderbody, dedicated to sexual identity, so it should be excused for its narrow focus. We, however, should not be. Sex, gender, and sexuality are profoundly important frames we use to categorize different identities, but they are not the only ones and, dependent on circumstances, not the most important. Ethnicity, race, age, nationality, and class are all frequently used. Ideologies, whether political, theological, ethical, or economic in nature, can also be used.

One aspect of identity that greatly intrigues me is the problem of geographic identity and its apparent scaleability. For example, when asked, "Where are you from?" my answer changes dependent on my current geographic location and my perception of the interlocutor's own geographic identity. For example, in Europe I might answer "the United States," but in California I might answer, "Sacramento." And if the answer elicits a knowing response, like widened eyes, I might follow up with, "Are you from NorCal?" If the interlocutor is, I might scale my answer down even further and answer, "I'm from Elk Grove." I predict that this dynamic is universal among humans but very unique between them. No two people have exactly the same geographic identity.

Do any of those other forms of identity cited above also exhibit such scaleability? That we cannot answer here yet, but I wanted to demonstrate the vast, almost incomprehensible complexity of identity problems, and sex, gender, and sexuality identity problems are especially vexing.

For something that seems so fundamental to ourselves and the societies we inhabit, it's actually a very young area of study. Sex, or the biologically motivated identity, is of course the earliest identified. The oldest known piece of artwork is a venus, a representation of the female form, provocatively simple in design. But our biology is determined by our genes, hormones, and proteins, chemical components we've only been scientifically aware of for a century. Our understanding of how they work is incomplete.

Gender, meanwhile, is a newer concept that engages the social and psychological parameters where sex leaves off. Transsexuality, when a person's gender and sex expressions don't match, is a common topic, but fashion and costume are really where it's at. In most cultures, including our own, we express our gender largely through our clothing. Our gender may, in turn, be influenced by clothing in a sort of chicken-and-egg dilemma (i.e. Which came first, the tomboy or the clothes she wears?).

And, of course, sexuality is the most talked about identity today, particularly among liberal and progressive audiences. While our sex and gender may have some interaction with other people, sexuality is actually determined by our relations to (or with?) other people. Being gay, straight, or bi all require someone else, who comes with their own sex and gender identity dynamics, exponentially complicating the mechanism described above. Asexuality, abstinence, and virginity are determined oppositionally to those other identities by the absence of another person. They are often left out of identity discussions. (Note that the site's poll, which asks visitors to describe their current relationship, features the option "Other," but not 'None.')

Here's the thrust of arvan's thesis regarding such matters,

Most of us employ a mixture of group identity terms as self identity. We use language, which we did not invent, to describe who we are. Often, we did not even choose the words we use (i.e. fat, skinny, smart, gay, man, woman, tall...and so on). Labels, judgments, names, terms - all consisting of language.

It is society, in this model, that decides how 'best' or fully to recognize someone and define them.

And I find this model to be accurate and compelling. I agree that we, as self-actualized independent persons, primarily build our identities using ready-made building blocks provided by society. All the better to fit in. arvan, however, goes a little further,

The words we speak and print are substitutes for things that we use to communicate. The words 'gay' or 'straight' are not people. Each of us is our own self, made up of different atomic mass, independently operating, existing and thinking. We don't even look or sound the same from one person to the next, based on differing values and sensory perceptions. 'Gay' or 'straight' mean different things to different people and they mean different things simply if the label is applied after or before two people meet for the first time.

Okay, I'm not going wade into a Derridean debate about the obfuscatory nature of language. I will, however, offer this point of contention: if the socially constructed labels people use to create their own identities are "substitutes," then there is no such thing as individuality, at least not after the act of identification. That is, individuality is an inexpressible paradox.

Enlightened Individuals and Benighted Asses: Democracy Leading to Self-determination

Here's where arvan lets loose with the political invectives, peppering the conversation with "bush/cheney," "swelling the ranks of poverty," and a helpful headshot of that lovable Nazi doofus, Sgt. Schultz,

The dynamic between self identity and group identity is mirrored in the competition between self-determination and herd/mob behavior. This struggle has been in the mainstrstream conversation for over 200 years, because it played out in the struggle for democracy and liberty in the United States.

A bit U.S.-centric perhaps, but not necessarily incorrect. arvan continues,

For [their] time, the [Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights] were revolutionary. Everyone's frame of mind was in the collective...parish, village, family, clan, tribe, kingdom and so on. They took group definitions 'out onto the skinny branches' where they were dangerously close to being more about the individual than the group - by asserting that in some ways the group must recognize the individual.

As arvan showed above, group-created factors permit individuals to self-identify, and they then do so with gusto. In this case, society wrote documents permitting the process to begin. arvan wants this to continue and apparently for good reason,

The hive-mind or herd-mind can be inefficient, dishonest and manipulative. The herd-mind behavior is assumed to be a coordinate effort by many to achieve a common goal. Even if the coordination is merely a reliance on tradition and allegedly proven ways of success and the common good. The messaging of herd-mind labels and definitions of who people are and what they should be doing, comes from religion, government, advertising, entertainment and corporate culture settings. Dress this way, speak this way, think this way...and so on.

[...]

The model of an individual naming one's own self in one's own terms is not a common one - until now. What has been needed is for individuals to stop defining themselves on the group's terms.

(Emphasis is mine.)

To be fair to arvan, I am making the argument seem more extreme than it is. In truth arvan's calling for dialogue and moderation between society and the individual. I can't ignore, however, that the argument requires a rather rude juxtaposition. The danger of socially motivated action is described as the "herd-mind" or the "hive-mind," terms equating the behavior to that of beasts, and lowly beasts at that like wildebeest and bumblebees. The behavior is also described as a mob mentality, aligning it with the self-evident evil of the Bush Administration, the indeterminate crises of "Somalia, Ethiopia, India, Burma, China, Darfur" (One of those is not a sovereign nation-state!), and the absurd stupidity of the aforementioned comedic foil from Hogan's Heroes.

arvan tho sees hope on the horizon,

Social media is a playground for creating new identities on the fly. People are practicing the craft, the thought process, the experience, the creativity and the rewards of creating themselves in their own image - for their own reasons. Web presences in various formats abound with new ones being created daily, from pictures, email addresses, names, avatars, moving characters, sounds and operational / functional creations each serving as a new identity.

Bonus points to the first reader who correctly guesses the origin of my blogging alias, Packherd!

Now, arvan's got a point. Online activity has indeed given us a lot of leeway in our self-identification, although that freedom of movement is a bit illusory. It mostly comes about due to perceived anonymity, and when that anonymity is violated or limited, the self-identification goes with it. The Internet White Knight, for example, is a phenomenon of one anonymous person coming to the defense of other anonymous persons being antagonized in an online forum, like the commenter who chastises other commenters for being too harsh. The moniker implies that the person could or would never be so brazen or chauvanistic IRL. Besides, the Internet White Knight may be of no-account anyway: can a person be attacked or injured when they're anonymous?

Conclusion: the Resiliency of Groups

The question remains: what are the consequences for our democratic society? The authors of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were all male, all White, all educated, and mostly slaveholding. As individuals, they shared little in common with us today. Their handiwork was nonetheless engrossed under the pretense of comprehensive, democratic legitimacy. (The signers of the Declaration were duly appointed by their colonies' constituent assemblies; the Bill of Rights were amended to the Constitution by the States' legislatures.) They were creationed by society, not a gathering of individuals.

That society has been having this debate since before it declared its independence. (And the current 'independence' of the United States predates the current 'self-identity' of the United States by more than a century.) In fact, the original debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had nothing to do with individuality. They were debating the proper size of the society; its propriety was not questioned.

Nevertheless, the inherent equality of men, rather than nations, is affirmed in the Declaration, and the Bill of Rights enumerates mostly individual rights. American federalism has never been a hierarchical debate only about the relative strengths of the central and state governments. It is a duel between the Federal and State authorities over which has precedence in securing the liberty of individuals. Consider the Civil Rights movement which set the Federal government's task of protecting the liberty of minorities against the Southern States' resistance against their counterparts' interference in local matters.

Still, its all groups against groups.

arvan's ultimate synthesis of the two debates about identity and self-determination is wobbly:

Neither a society of only individuals or only the group can be viable. There needs to exist a middle ground, where the health of the group and the individual are both supported. Throughout history, the balance of power was tilted toward the group.

[...]

Sex-positive groups, blogs and other social meeting points are a place for individuals to practice this new craft of individuals existing in their own terms as a healthy group that can sustain itself and its members. It is a very exciting time that we live in. We are watching the birth of a society built upon the strength of individual identity.

That such institutions will provide the "balance of power" arvan seeks is doubtful. Considering the fragility and complexities of self-identification it is unlikely that it could become so effective as to alter democracy's agenda of social defense. Even the venerable clause "all men are created equal" is a universalization of the colonists' collective thirst for liberty, subsuming the individual into the biggest group of all: Everybody.

The Curious Case of Jerry Brown

2009-05-31T17:15:00.006-04:00

Here's a weird little chart showing the number of times each of the prospective California Democratic nominees got mentioned in a blog over the last six months.

That darker blue line hovering over everyone else's is Jerry Brown's. Except for the Newsomania of the convo, Moonbeam has consistently dominated the conversation in the blogosphere. I remain puzzled by this popularity, but I still probably wouldn't give him odds against the coming Newsomite hordes...

The Obama Eight: CA-24

2009-05-31T13:45:00.003-04:00

Updated July 11

Alright, 'nuff stalling. Let's git this sucker started!

Introducing the first of the "Obama Eight" series, California's 24th.

GOP incumbent: Elton Gallegly

Registration:
Dem : 36%
GOP : 42%
DTS : 18%

Obama's performance (margin / vote):
+2.8% / 50.5%

2008 results
Marta Jorgensen : 41.8%
Gallegly : 58.2%

The Congressman:

Elton Gallegly's been in Congress for over two decades and, if you're like me, you probably wouldn't know him from Adam. He's solidly conservative, to the point that he's actively sought to thwart California's medicinal marijuana laws. He does support earmarks, however, as he's got a button on the front of his official page for "appropriations requests." He also tried to retire in 2006, but was apparently coaxed back.

The 24th, of course, is pretty dang red. The district covers the interiors of Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, making it the gerrymandered sister district to the 23rd, which covers the more liberal coastal areas. CA-24 has been inching ever closer to even since it was drawn. The population centers on the urban area around Oxnard.

Gallegly's a successful incumbent because for most of his career he was bringing home nearly two thirds of the electorate, including 2006. (He's also got a really cute dog.) That changed in 2008 when Obama got a clean win on Gallegly's turf, just barely breaking the fifty percent barrier. Gallegly's performance slipped accordingly. Fifty-eight percent of the vote, however, under any other circumstances would be called a commanding victory.

The Dems:

Marta Jorgensen, the 2008 Dem nominee, is a perennial candidate in the 24th, but she raised barely more $10,000. Observers therefore consider her 42% a "floor" for future Dems. With proper funding and organization, how much higher could that have gone?

A little bit, but probably not by eight points. You would basically have to contact every single voter in the district at a cost of $3 million plus. Nonetheless, DCCC saw enough potential to drop some radio ads this year, so it's being watched.

2010's Dem primary will feature one new face, Shawn Stern. He's a younger guy and an environmental consultant by day. His company's website, Green Footprint, LLC, features a Union of Concerned Scientists warning letter regarding environmental issues. It's safe to say that green activism will be a big plank in Stern's platform. The question is whether it is his starting block or his finish line.

Marie Panec, an educator in the area, and Tim Allison, a Realtor, are other names mentioned.

Outlook:

Scenario A – If Gallegly drops out, this open seat could be very competitive. If a Dem looks to be pushing on $100,000 per quarter in fundraising, it deserves serious attention from the CDP and DCCC.
Scenario B – If Gallegly sticks it out and doesn't go totally broke in his own primary, then this probably becomes a four-year race for the Dem. If the Dem can improve considerably on the so-called floor of 42%, (let's say, narrowing the margin to single digits, a >3% improvement) then he or she could make up the difference on the 2012 Obama Express. That justifies creating a competitive district for the region.

And in either case, I'd advise the Dem to very seriously consider a No Earmarks pledge or something like that. Going out on a limb, I'll suggest that the 24th's DTSers did not leave the GOP because of their bellicose rhetoric on spending, but in spite of it. A socially liberal, fiscally conservative Dem can win CA-24.

Important links
Candidates:
Jorgensen for Congress
Shawn Stern for Congress

News:
Brian Dennert, Ventury County Star

Party:
Ventura Co. Dems
There are a few Dem Clubs around the area, including in Lompoc, but the Santa Barbara Co. Dems' website was down at the time of this posting.

~~~

This is an on-going process, so if you have tips, corrections, or grievances to share, please leave 'em in the comments section or shoot me an email.

Metanote & Shameless Self-Promotion: Last month, David Dayen at Calitics also expressed his pessimism about the Obama Eight, despite the DCCC's commitment, and for basically the same reasons as me. As he put it,

"Some would argue that, properly resourced, these seats would suddenly become very winnable. I give you CA-50, [however,] where Nick Leibham consistently beat Brian Bilbray in fundraising and maxed out at the 45% ceiling on Democrats in that district."

Although Dayen's looking at this from a different ideological perspective than I am I think our pessimism is not political but institutional. Regardless where you sit, the Democratic establishment does not seem ready to take on this challenge.

I hope DCCC proves us wrong.

Excessive Caution

2009-05-31T11:00:00.006-04:00

Last night, I had a conversation with an acquaintance about caution in politics, and perhaps that it can be excessive. I'm not cautious, I'm paranoid, but her point was well-made. And this morning, Senator Leahy offered a nice example.

On Meet the Press, he and Senator Sessions were asked about the schedule and timing of the Sotomayor hearing and confirmation. Leahy interjected at the end of the discussion to give the Standard Senate Response, or SSR:

The Senate operates by its own procedures and I will make a determination in accordance with Senate process and in consultation with the Ranking Member.

The SSR works as an answer to almost any question, including "You want to do Mexican or sushi for lunch, Senator Leahy?"

Unfortunately, about thirty seconds earlier, Leahy had lost his noggin, necessitating the SSR. When asked if he would keep to President Obama's preferred schedule for the confirmation, he answered defensively,

"I'll keep to MY schedule!"

This got a knowing smirk from Sessions, who was probably nudging Leahy off camera and muttering, "WTF, dude? Much respect, but you gotta clean that up!" And so he did.

Trying using the SSR in your own daily life!

The Battle Royale over Harry Reid

2009-05-25T21:06:00.012-04:00

I have remained shrewdly aloof of the whole Harry Reid re-election thing. It's gonna be bloody, and you don't need me to tell you that. However, when Senator Reid gets his own headline button on the front page of RGJ.com, well, that sets off alarms. (Especially when that headline is sandwiched between stories about Memorial Day and sunless tanning.)

The story is about Our Country Deserves Better, a conservative group that just released a $100,000 ad blitz to oppose Senator Reid's re-election. They hope to spend "in excess of $1 million" by November 2010. For now we'll ignore the $7.5 million already raised for Reid's cause.

There is no viable Republican candidate yet declared for the race and even Senator John Ensign acknowledges that that needs to happen "in the next few months." Why groups would be spending money on a race that doesn't yet exist seems... curious.

So let's cut to the chase: Senator Reid's 2010 campaign has so far been not a battle between the parties, but an arena for two simmering internecine fights, and it will likely remain so until nearly the end.

Our Country Deserves Better is closely tied to Move America Forward, a soft-money outfit run by pro-war California conservatives. Our good friend Deborah Johns is a regular collaborator. Y'know, that lady who attacks people's patriotism in front of incorrectly flown American flags.

What is telling is who attended the group's presser: Assemblyman Don Gustavson, who primaried long-serving Republican Assemblyman, John Marvel, and Sharon Angle, a possible challenger to Reid who tried (and failed) to ouster Nevada Senate Republican Leader Bill Raggio. These are two of the foot soldiers in the guerrilla war against the Nevada GOP.

In the article, Angle brought up California's budget catastrophe. That's a bit tactless, considering her latest patrons are the very people who precipitated the catastrophe. Not satisfied to sink their own state, they're now exporting their services to Nevada, whose lawmakers, faced with similar procedural hurdles, actually do their jobs.

Meanwhile on the left, Mother Jones has led the insurgency against Reid with much sniping and a glorious hit piece trying to slander him as a friend of the mining industry. (In other news, the Pope is Catholic.) You can bet there's more to come. Reid is not popular among die hard liberals who think he's feckless on a number of counts.

Anyway, Sharon Angle is not a viable candidate. No candidate is viable who can't win as a Nevadan first and nothing ticks off Nevadans more than sanctimonious Californians. I can think of at least one Nevada GOPer who could lick Senator Reid, but they've yet to make much noise.

Until that viable Nevadan shows up, this will continue to be just a primary-by-proxy.

The Obama Eight: The '08 Gang

2009-05-25T12:57:00.012-04:00

On the suggestion of faithful reader, Laine, I'm going to add one more element to the analysis of the Obama Eight. Then, we'll get to work looking at each of these races in greater detail.

In my previous posts I did not factor in the performance of the Dems in 2008. My thesis is, essentially, that those Dems did not ride Obama's coattails as far as they could have. We'll test that by adding my flipability factor on to each Dem's actual performance. The lower the number, the better they did.

[(Obama% - McCain%) - (GOP Reg% - Dem Reg%) + 2008 margin of defeat]

(Thus, the flipability of the district will act as a handicap to judge the Dems against one another.)

Metanote: For the time being, let's set aside debates about the nature of Obama's coattails and the tactics of using such in an actual campaign. Each of these districts maintains a registration advantage for the Republicans, so the on-the-ground reality was not in favor of anyone.

District	Incumbent	Challenger	Flipability	Margin of Defeat	Flipability Gap
44th	Calvert	Bill Hedrick	-6	2.4%	-3.6
50th	Bilbray	Nick Leibham	-5	5.1%	0.1
48th	Campbell	Steve Young	-16	15.1%	0.9
3rd	Lungren	Bill Durston	-2	5.5%	3.5
24th	Gallegly	Marta Ann Jorgensen	-3	16.4%	13.4
25th	McKeon	Jackie Conaway	0	15.6%	15.6
26th	Dreier	Russ Warner	4	13.1%	17.1
45th	Bono Mack	Julie Bornstein	1	16.6%	17.6

It is really important to qualify these numbers. Two important factors not included are money and experience. Each candidate's fundraising matters, but so too does the incumbent's. Also, some of these candidates were running for the second time, while others were first timers.

I was hesitant to publish this because I don't want to be seen as disparaging the Dems and their campaigns. Despite my ranting, I could not have won any of these races either. My purpose is to attract institutional attention, showing where opportunities were in 2008, with the hope of building even better campaigns for 2010.

With all that said, if you were on one of these campaigns (or are one of these candidates!) please share you experiences. What did you do that got you ahead? What would you do differently?

Editing Pessimism

2009-05-23T08:52:00.001-04:00

If you know me personally, then you know that depression plays a big role in my personality. I can quickly fall into bouts of melancholy.

One of the greatest realizations I came to in my adolescence was that being depressed is not wrong. That is, my melancholic personality was not a condemnation of my moral being.

From there, the next step was learning that it is a mark of maturity to control my emotions. Certainly, spontaneous grief and joy are what makes life meaningful, but day-to-day functioning requires some ability to express emotions by choice rather than by habit.

Finally, the toughest step is figuring out how to modify my own emotions. I keep looking for new tools every day, and I want to share one with you that seems to pay dividends.

This speech about optimism has an interesting strategy. The topic is programming, but the theme is overcoming pessimism. Special thanks to DivaLion for sharing this on her blog.

The basic gist is that we consider a given circumstance along three axes, namely

personal vs. impersonal
general vs. specific
permanent vs. temporary

Pessimists like myself instinctively apply personal, general and permanent attributes to negative events. For example, after being rebuked for a mistake at work I might think to myself, "I'll never get the hang of this job." Mapped out, that sentence looks like this:

I'll (personal) never (permanent) get the hang of this job (general).

An alternative thought could be

My boss (impersonal) criticized one of the things I did (specific) yesterday (temporary).

The difference keeps negative thoughts in the realm of constructive criticism rather than condemnation, and pessimists tend to do the opposite with positive events.

The trick is that this requires cognitive therapy, that is, thought training. It means catching when I find myself thinking the former and reformulating my private ideas into the latter.

Editing is the biggest challenge in writing. Self-editing seems even harder but even more vital. So far, this maneuver's helped on several occasions.

Two Men

2009-05-20T14:16:00.007-04:00

Political philosophy time!

Here are two quotes from two men:

A man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil. For if everything is considered carefully, it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity.
- Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

The means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail"

Before going out into the tall grass, some background assumptions: Machiavelli and Dr. King are both writing at very different times for very different reasons.

The Prince is Machiavelli's attempt to convince Lorenzo de' Medici to take up the task of Italian patriotism, and give him the political tools to do so successfully. This quote is what usually gets boiled down to the maxim 'the end justifies the means,' although Machiavelli himself never used that phrase. For him, the greatest evil of his time was Italy's perpetual submission to foreign invaders, and the peninsula's hapless rulers were to blame. Thousands of Italians died in every war, and thousands more lived in perpetual meanness under siege and misrule. These evils, according to Machiavelli, were allowed to occur because Italy's leaders were feckless and refused to shoulder the burden of dirty, sinful work, so their subjects could live in peace and faith. As John Adams formulated it, "I must study politics and war, that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy."

Dr. King's Birmingham letter is also directed at a specific audience and a wider readership, simultaneously. He is answering a letter from Christian and Jewish leaders in Birmingham while incarcerated in the city's jail for "parading without a permit." Quite forcefully and stubbornly, Dr. King is justifying his nonviolent direct action methods by demonstrating that unjust laws must be justly broken, and that nonviolence does so appropriately. This particular passage chastises the leaders for their commendation of the Birmingham police, who restrained their public actions in order to maintain the injustice of segregation and racism. Indeed, siccing dogs on the protesters, denying them food, and mistreating them in custody can hardly be called 'restraint.' Those actions are, Dr. King says, the charlatanry of bigots and the city's religious leaders are their oblivious patrons.

So, I guess Machiavelli and Dr. King are not writing about very different things at all.

Clearly, though, Machiavelli is ready to sacrifice morality before the altar of happiness (or Christianity before the nation-state), while Dr. King defines morality as the struggle towards happiness (or Christianity's contribution to the nation-state). In practice, the two men's philosophies are identical: if the end is just, the means will necessarily be also just.

But Dr. King's admonition of "immoral means to attain moral ends" seems so diametrically opposed to Machiavelli's 'ruinous virtue.' Can they be squared? Another factor to consider is Dr. King's reproach of black nationalists' methods and his certainty that their strategy would result in bloodshed across the South. Just as the Birmingham police seem to act morally, the black nationalists' ends only seem moral. In reality, they would be a nightmare.

The operation that is central for both men is the determination of the justness of the end. Both are quite certain of the justness of their particular end and go to great lengths to prove such.

Machiavelli's work, as well as his other works such as The Discourses on Livy, details all the failures of Italy's rulers and implies the loss of life, liberty, and wealth (i.e. happiness) they hasten. Dr. King, for his part, explains that the first step of nonviolence is to determine that injustice does somewhere exist, and in Birmingham he cites the city's brutal record of mistreatment and several bombings of homes and churches.

Thus, just as Machiavelli would say that being a good Christian ruler is without true virtue if it results in the suffering of people, Dr. King would argue that no act is Christian in nature which precipitates injustice.

I doubt the two men would see eye to eye, though they share one more thing in common: a profound dissatisfaction with the church. Both men criticize so-called Christians for oppressing themselves and their neighbors with mealy-mouthed religious rhetoric. Dr. King, of course, was a minister, though he was frustrated by his White co-religionists' unwillingness to answer the call to justice. Machiavelli, however, was no man of the cloth, but was also a contemporary to the most notorious of the 'secular Popes' such as the syphilitic Alexander VI. Both men were raconteurs of similar men in different robes.

It is without a doubt difficult to find common ground between Machiavelli and Dr. King - probably a fool's errand. But it is equally hard to deny both men's insight into the nature of justice, and impossible to ignore their contributions to the art of politics, insofar as it seeks to secure human happiness.

Perhaps for us, their lessons can only be this: never let what appears righteous deter us from what is righteous.

Newspapers v. the Internet

2009-05-20T11:33:00.002-04:00

Here's a spoofy video from... Slate. *groan* Oh, well, it's still funny.

The punchline's at about 0:58 and it's a little tricky to catch, so listen closely...

And of course, no Internet post on this blog is complete without a reference to former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens.

Why is 2010 gonna suck?

2009-05-19T17:25:00.004-04:00

Because of comments from anonymous facebookers like this:

"Why 2010? It seems we waste money all the time on 'special' elections."

2010 is not a special election!!!

The Obama Eight: Playing w/Numbers, redux

2009-05-19T11:10:00.005-04:00

Californians are voting today. Well, maybe 1-in-3 of them are voting. At best.

On the advice of readers, I've put all the data from the previous Obama Eight posts into one chart. This, I think, better illustrates my central thesis; namely, that there is little correlation among the measures of DTS registration, Dem registration, Obama's performance, and my own "flipability" metric.

District	Incumbent	Flipability	DTS Registration	Dem Registration	GOP Registration	2008 Presidential
26th	Dreier	4	20%	35%	41%	51% Obama 41% McCain
45th	Bono Mack	1	16%	38%	42%	52% Obama 47% McCain
25th	McKeon	0	18%	38%	39%	49% Obama 48% McCain
3rd	Lungren	-2	18%	38%	40%	49% Obama 49% McCain
24th	Gallegly	-3	18%	36%	42%	51% Obama 48% McCain
50th	Bilbray	-5	24%	31%	40%	51% Obama 47% McCain
44th	Calvert	-6	18%	35%	42%	51% Obama 47% McCain
48th	Campbell	-16	22%	29%	45%	49% Obama 49% McCain

Commenter fnpople also hooked us up with a list of declared candidates, which I hope to do a little research on later this week.

CA03- Elk Grove Mayor Gary Davis
CA24- green businessman Shawn Stern
CA45- Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet
CA48- Irvine City Councilwoman Beth Krom
CA50- 2006 Dem nominee Francine Busby

There is, of course, a gaping hole there in the 25th, which is odd. Of the Obama Eight, it has the closest Dem/GOP registration numbers. LA County Dems, where ya at?

...oh yeah, CA32.

The Obama Eight: Playing w/Numbers

2009-05-18T10:50:00.006-04:00

Tomorrow, Californians will probably screw everything up by voting down all the budget resolutions. So let's take a look at something a bit more meaningful: the fates of the Obama Eight.

I blogged earlier about my pessimism regarding these seats, but I want this to be a creative pessimism - my unique, useful form of paranoia, as a friend of mine might call it.

The list is usually displayed as it was in that post, with Dan Lungren's 3rd district at the top (although Buck McKeon's 25th is the closest in registration numbers). Registration is, of course, a key indicator - voters tend to support the candidates representing their party - but I don't think party registration is the best predictor of future voting behavior, comprehensively. It's also useless in predicting independents' behavior.

Independents, or "Declines to State" as they're called in California, are therefore a good place to start. Statewide, 20% of Californians are DTSers.

District	Incumbent	DTSers	Dem Registration
50th	Bilbray	24%	31%
48th	Campbell	22%	29%
26th	Dreier	20%	35%
44th	Calvert	18%	35%
25th	McKeon	18%	38%
24th	Gallegly	18%	36%
3rd	Lungren	18%	38%
45th	Bono Mack	16%	38%

Not surprisingly, more DTSers means fewer Democrats, generally. Unfortunately, this is still not very helpful. The Obama Eight's districts go from Mary Bono Mack's partisan 45th - which delivered the highest vote percentage for Obama (52%) - to Brian Bilbray's fence-sitting 50th.

Let's take a look at the actual preference of the voters and compare it to the voters' party identities (as measured by their registration numbers). The formula is simply the difference between Obama's win percentage and the GOP's registration advantage.

(Obama% - McCain%) - (GOP Reg% - Dem Reg%)

The result represents the disparity between the voters' identities and their actual behavior. The higher numbers represent districts with close registration numbers and a considerable preference for Obama. I'll call this "flipability."

District	Incumbent	Flipability	Dem Registration
26th	Dreier	4	35%
45th	Bono Mack	1	38%
25th	McKeon	0	38%
3rd	Lungren	-2	38%
24th	Gallegly	-3	36%
50th	Bilbray	-5	31%
44th	Calvert	-6	35%
48th	Campbell	-16	29%

According to this, David Dreier's got the most to lose, where his voters are frequently Democrats and they voted for Obama in a big way. Compare this to John Campbell's situation, whose voters only barely picked Obama, and remain overwhelmingly Republican anyway.

(This could also serve as a political guide for Dem candidates in these districts; the lower the number, the more conservative the voters and, thus, the more conservative must be the candidate.)

The next task will be identifying and recruiting viable candidates for these districts. If you know of someone who's declared - or should declare - please let us know!

Coincidence... or conspiracy!?

2009-05-17T20:26:00.006-04:00

Note: If you don't care about Nevada politics, you can probably skip this one. But if you're a marriage equality advocate, you may want to read on.

That domestic partnership bill passed the Assembly last week. No word if Gibbons will sign it. (Although I can see him taking that bait...)

I commented on the bill's torturous path through the Senate and, at the time, paid little attention to the two Republicans who voted for it, Randolph Townsend and Mike McGinness.

Townsend really didn't shock me. He's a known moderate who represents Incline Village, the most affluent place in Nevada. That's not a recipe for social conservatism.

McGinness, meanwhile, represents a decidedly rural and conservative district. Like most of Nevada's conservatives, he's not outspoken on social issues, but I had no reason to think he'd support domestic partnerships when the rest of his caucus opposed them.

In the Assembly, the bill passed with the support of one Republican, Ed Goedhart. He, too, is a solid Nevada conservative and, before Friday, I would not have pegged him as a supporter of domestic partnerships.

What's the connection? I have no idea. Senator McGinness's and Assemblyman Goedhart's districts are, however, nearly identical.

⇐ Goedhart's Assembly district

McGinness's Senate district ⇒

Is there some grassroots clamoring for domestic partnerships in Hawthorne or Pahrump? Perhaps the old ranching dynasties need a better legal tool to keep their property in the family - or, more likely, to consolidate their water rights. I'm just stumped.

So if you have some special insight, please drop a comment below. Help a brotha out.

RedState pisses me off! ... I guess that's why I read it

2009-05-14T11:56:00.005-04:00

I'm sorry to keep beating this dead horse, but the "Obama denigrates America!" meme circulating among conservatives is getting under my skin.

Today, RedState helpfully pointed out U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice's statement that our human rights record has "not been perfect."

The occasion was the U.S. admission to the Human Rights Council, and RedState's general point is valid: the Council includes egregious violators of human rights, including China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia, making it a huge farce. This, I agree with.

RedState also believes the U.S. should not "grovel at the feet of these abusers of their own people and apologize for the United States of America." In wholly diplomatic terms, RedState is correct. We should not let China off the hook for its offenses in a self-serving attempt to prostrate ourselves. Unfortunately, I doubt RedState's interest is really in refining our diplomatic repetroire, but rather to demonize anyone who opens up a converstion about America's human rights record.

They say "Obama’s 'We Suck' tour of the world continues," but Bush's "We're Totally Awesome!" tour wasn't a diplomatic winner either. It is outright insulting to the intelligence of the worlds' citizens for us to claim the path righteousness when we imprisoned our own people in shacks, evicted entire nations, and ENSLAVED HUMANS.

*deep breath*

Again, RedState demonstrates conservative punditry's appalling inability to perceive the level of analysis in matters of foreign policy. The Obama administration's new tone is not directed at China and Cuba, but at China and Cuba's people. You see, humility is a strength, not a weakness, that can inspire people everywhere.

Nothing, however, is less inspiring than a jingoistic bully.

The Obama Eight

2009-05-12T12:45:00.019-04:00

Pic unrelated. But oh how I wish it wasn't.

2008 was a pretty good year for the Dems, wasn't it? They won the White House and also secured a commanding majority in both houses of Congress - expanding daily!

During and immediately following the campaigns, my discussions with Dems followed one of two broad formats:

a) "♥Yay! Democrats foeva!!!♥"
b) "Shit. We're screwed in 2010."

You may place my pessimistic tuchas squarely in group B, because of this:

District	Incumbent	Dem Registration	GOP Registration	2008 Presidential Results
3rd	Dan Lungren	38%	40%	49% Obama 49% McCain
24th	Elton Gallegly	36%	42%	51% Obama 48% McCain
25th	Buck McKeon	38%	39%	49% Obama 48% McCain
26th	David Dreier	35%	41%	51% Obama 41% McCain
44th	Ken Calvert	35%	42%	50% Obama 49% McCain
45th	Mary Bono Mack	38%	42%	52% Obama 47% McCain
48th	John Campbell	29%	45%	49% Obama 49% McCain
50th	Brian Bilbray	31%	40%	51% Obama 47% McCain

These are the Obama Eight, the California Republicans whose districts were all won by the Democratic presidential candidate. Oh, and every one of these Republicans was re-elected.

2008 was, in my opinion, a huge missed opportunity for the Dems. In 2010 they will have an uphill battle trying to unseat the Obama Eight Republicans.

Fortunately though, not everyone in California is salivating over Ellen Tauscher's seat.

Sorta NSFW!

2009-05-08T07:38:00.002-04:00

Who wants some pr0n‽

And a special thanks to Wonkette for delivering the win.

A photography post that's been a while coming

2009-05-02T14:45:00.005-04:00

This is my picture-of-the-Metro that it seems every DC photog is required to include in their portfolio. I'm perturbed by our apparent fascination with the Metro since all the stations look the same. I don't write the rules, tho, so there's my contribution.

Now, the Roosevelt Memorial, that's another problem.

Waterfalls at the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, originally uploaded by kimberlyfaye.

This image is not mine, of course. The Roosevelt is my favorite contemporary memorial on the Mall, tho I have yet to get a picture of it that has truly satisfied me. Technical limitations may be the root of the problem. Without a proper camera, I can't effectively slow the shutter speed or narrow the aperture. Even in the image above, however, the two-dimensional nature of the low-profile architecture is not really overcome.

I have yet to really overcome DC's phallocentric skyline. So the quest continues...

More Tubes greatness

2009-05-02T10:40:00.003-04:00

In my ongoing effort to direct you to the most fantastic corners of Ted Stevens' gift to humanity, I draw your attention to Fuck You, Penguin.

FUP is a blog that tells "cute animals what's what." And they don't let them off easy. Here is what they have to say to the adorable Porcupinefish:

YOU ARE SO FUCKING CUTE I WANT TO HUG YOU AND NAME YOU GARY. But I know better, Porcupinefish. You may me be smiling and having a great time now in your little undersea neon world, but next thing I know I'll come too close and you'll push me away.

The truth is, Porcupinefish, I don't know if you could ever really get close to anyone. Before you love someone, you have to love yourself, and I'm worried about the time you're putting in. You drift from place to place with no purpose in life, and you couldn't even spend enough effort giving yourself a name, you just picked something with spines and added "fish" to the name.

And so on, and so on.

My attraction to this blog is rooted in my firm and zealous faith that penguins are trying to take over the world. Trust no one!

Update: Seriously, people! Don't you remember Batman Returns‽

Orwellianism

2009-05-01T16:50:00.003-04:00

In the course of the job hunt, I come across a LOT of different federal agencies, position titles, associations, and firms with deceptively innocuous-sounding names. But this one takes the cake:

Policy Analyst, Office of Economic Adjustment - Department Of Defense

What the heck is "economic adjustment" and what is it doing at the Pentagon?

For the record, they help communities that get shafted when DoD changes plans. I guess that's a good thing. Like an employment development office for military towns.

Still, couldn't they come up with something that doesn't sound like the Ministry of Love?

Look out Vermont...

2009-04-26T19:36:00.010-04:00

Kinda big but not really news last week in Carson City: the Nevada Senate - the grooviest Senate - approved the Domestic Partnership Act, placing similar responsibilities on and granting similar rights to domestic partners as spouses.

(Wow. Run-on sentence.)

It is kinda big because, as Vermont demonstrated recently, gay marriage will have to be resolved by elected legislatures rather than by courts. I could've told you this years ago, but nobody listens to me.

It is not really big because it is clearly just a work-around of Nevada's Constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Whatever. None of that really interests me. What does interest me, tho, are the vote patterns. First, a quick overview: the Act, (SB 283, currently) creates the civil contract of domestic partnership and extends to it almost all the same legal status as marriage. The one exception - and it is a big one - is that public employers are not required to extend health care benefits to domestic partners. Likely, this was key to getting the bill thru the Senate, where two of its key supporters would have blanched at the possibility of people forming partnerships to bilk the State out of millions in health care coverage.

Those two supporters were Republicans Mike McGuiness and Randolph Townsend. Two Dems also voted against the bill, John Lee and Terry Care. None of that is shocking.

Before the bill passed, though, Senator Bill Raggio gave a shot at torpedoing it with an amendment. This time honored parliamentary tactic is used with special gusto in Nevada, where creative legislators choose not to write poison pills, so much as potentially-interesting pills. They're like ecstasy dealers at a club, challenging the limits of their colleagues' self-control.

Raggio's amendment was pretty ingenious. It didn't gut the bill, it reworked its tone from the embrace of domestic partnership to to the tolerance of it. For example, the bill states that

"domestic partners have the same rights, protections and benefits, and are subject to the same responsibilities, [...] as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

Raggio proposed changing this to,

"Parties to a contract of the type described in subsection 1 of section 6 of this act have substantially the same rights, protections and benefits, and are subject to the same responsibilities, [...] as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

Sneaky.

And if you're wondering, those "substantially similar" rights were

Inheritance
The planning of funerals
The right to make medical decisions

All of which, I assume, can be easily established in a will. So Raggio's amendment would've been the emptiest of gestures.

How did it fare on the floor? It lost, 11 - 10. But since the final bill passed 12 - 9, somebody took Raggio's bait and almost derailed the whole thing. That person was Senator Maggie Carlton, who voted both for Raggio's amendment and the final bill.

That might've been an oversight by Senator Carlton, but every Republican - including the two who ultimately allowed the bill to pass - also voted for Raggio's not-quite-poison pill. Moreover, both Democrats who voted against the bill also voted against the amendment. To me, this suggests that it was a coordinated strategy to lure Democratic supporters, like flies happily meandering into a venus fly trap. Raggio damn near pulled it off.

Now the bill has to go to the Assembly, where Nevada's greatest public servant will, I'm sure, have something nice to say.

Egoism as foreign policy

2009-04-20T07:17:00.007-04:00

On Morning Joe it seems that Scarborough and Buchanan are really offended by Obama's behavior at the Summit of the Americas. (He shook Hugo Chavez's hand and accepted a token gift.)

The question put before them both was, "How does this weaken America?" Joe answered, I dunno, it just sucks they say means things about us. Pat, naturally, suggested that the Chinese and Russians would perceive it as an opportunity to push us around.

Look, a more open, progressive, liberal foreign engagement may or may not make us 'safer.' Frankly, no rhetorical stance will really alter national security. What it does do is weaken hawkish positions at home. Why we would demand respect from Nicaragua, I have no idea.

We don't act like such jerks to Canada or Mexico, and I don't think we significantly harm our relations with them when we decline to respond to their insults to our honor. In fact, we reveal our nation to be what it is: a confident people leading the world.

It also makes the hawks look like whiny little bullies.

So much win!!!

2009-04-19T12:28:00.003-04:00

Please visit Men Who Look Like Old Lesbians, a benchmark work of cultural criticism. For example, consider this post:

Sen. Mitch McConnell. Kentucky's slightly less goofy Republican senator whose credentials on financial crisis include modeling his appearance on actress who played asst. to bank president on "Beverly Hillbillies."

The Tubes have blessed us this day. Let us show thanks!

Disney templates

2009-04-19T12:15:00.000-04:00

I totally stole this from Lifeku, but... yeah.

Hella awesome

2009-04-16T14:31:00.003-04:00

Today, I honor and embrace my NorCal heritage by donning my people's traditional costume:

Jeans and flip-flops!

Support the Black Rock!

2009-04-15T21:28:00.003-04:00

Pointing your attention over to the membership drive at Friends of Black Rock / High Rock!

Please show them some mulah for a very good cause. The guys who run this are working hard to make it into a top notch Friends organization. They lead tours, promote safety, and demonstrate a lot of passion for the playa.

The Black Rock Desert has served as the setting of the classic Marilyn Monroe film The Misfits as well as the very first episode of MythBusters.

Of course, it is also home to the annual Burning Man Festival. So if you support extracurricular activities for hippies, or just like getting them all to leave the Bay Area for one weekend every year, do pony up!

Mother Nature thanks you.

Great légume, or GREATEST légume?

2009-04-15T21:23:00.004-04:00

The housemate just introduced me to arugula today. I think it may be the best vegetable I've ever eaten.

Move over Vidalia onions, there's a new kid in town!

An epiphany, I has it!

2009-04-15T18:23:00.004-04:00

I'm kinda just having a moment here, so pardon any oddness or discontinuity in this post. We're gettin' our stream-of-consciousness on.

(Pic related... read further.*)

My epiphany is about my reading material. I'm always in the middle of something, but only one book at a time. Instead, I should be reading two books at a time! It goes like this... bear with me...

I'm checkin' out this classic LiveJournal on Nice Guys by DivaLion. It is good biscuits. It also references the Five Geek Social Fallacies theory.

To wit:

There are a lot of Nice Guys out there, and they are incredibly insidious, because on the surface they SEEM so sweet, so misunderstood, so very different from the boorish asshole who cheated on you or told you that those pants do, indeed, make your ass look fat. But in the end, they turn out to be using their "niceness" as an excuse to hide behind, much like medieval aristocracy used cloying perfumes to cover up the ass-stank of their unwashed bodies.

Myself, I have had to learn to manage my pathogenic niceguyism, developed during my high school years. One of the things I have figured out is that depression (or my depression, anyway) is described with inaccurate metaphors. Depression is not 'darkness' and 'isolation' but quite the opposite: it's hypersensitivity to social situations. I once wrote that my adolescence felt like walking down a hallway that's too crowded, or a light so bright it forces me to turn my head down and squint.

Nevertheless, a decade after puberty finished up, I do occasionally find myself backsliding into Nice Guy behavior and Nice Guy thoughts. (Tho it says alot that I am finally aware of my own psychology.) My life now revolves around finding tools to manage my niceguyism and identifying the triggers. Knowledge is good, but it's only a first step.

Returning to DivaLion:

Here is a classic example of a Nice Guy experience that I had in high school[...] I was friends with a circle of about four guys who were all very tight with each other, all to varying degrees both nice guys and Nice Guys. [...] The most recent addition to the group who was very quiet and who I probably knew the least [...] decided he had a huge crush on me. This did not prompt him to, say, talk to me more or anything, so I remained blissfully ignorant until I slowly began to piece together the cryptic comments, weird behavior, and snickers of those guy friends whenever I was around.

"Holy crap." That's what I muttered to myself when I read the passage. It's unsettling to fall so neatly into a stranger's social categorization, but that's the Tubes for ya.

Coping with my behavior has been tricky. Which brings me back to my epiphany about reading material. It can take me a long time to get through a book, not because I'm a slow reader, but because I am not always in the mood to read what I've assigned myself.

For example, right now I'm reading The Shadow Factory by James Bamford. I'm enjoying the read, and learning a lot of new things about the NSA and the U.S. intelligence systems. Emotionally, it meets a specific need by directing my libido onto my greatest fixation, politics. Other recent titles that met this need were Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin and The Discourses by Niccolò Machiavelli.

At the moment, that's the direction I want my libido pointing. Occasionally, however, I like letting it roam free, finding its own course and discovering new and amazing passions for me to pursue. Like a new puppy, it's never easy but often rewarding. For that, I have read George Burns' inimitable biography of his wife, Gracie, a Love Story. I've also used My Name is Red, by Orhan Pamuk as well as the poetry of Rumi.

What I need is to have something from both stacks sitting on my nightstand at any given moment. To put it succinctly, sometimes I want to turn myself on. Other times, I want to forget about that altogether. Can anyone recommend some new material for my 'passionate' reading stack?

*I am a supervillian. My superpowers are giving directions and the ability to put many things into a confined space (like loading luggage into a car trunk). Stay out of my way, do-gooders!

Gotta love interns

2009-04-14T08:54:00.003-04:00

This is the horoscope for Taurus from about a month ago. He's not a Taurus, but this one goes out to my brother, nonetheless.

Taurus Apr 20 - May 20

NASA officials will once again select you for a very important mission.
Though, to be fair, going out and getting them coffee isn't as exciting as it used to be.

Peeps Show

2009-04-12T15:18:00.004-04:00

It's Peeps Show III from the Post! Make with the clicking and vote for your fave. And enjoy this classic Peeps Show diorama.

Happy Easter, everybody!

Freudian blogging

2009-04-11T16:26:00.003-04:00

It seems that recent activity on this blog has been... libidinous. So, in keeping with the theme, I thought I'd discuss one of my great lost romances: former Nevada Senator Bob Beers. Scandalmonger thinks the R-J has picked Mike Montandon as his replacement.

I feel compelled to remind the world, once again, that Bob Beers cannot be replaced. He will forever have a special place in my heart. Perhaps, I may one day learn to love again... but until then, Review-Journal, do not toy with my emotions!

That last post was me drunk...

2009-04-11T12:02:00.004-04:00

...this post is me hungover. (Pic unrelated)

I found a blog dedicated to the six-word story. There are 150 pages of submissions to read thru (!!!), but this is my fave so far.

Daniel Flores says:

forgetful at names, unlucky in love

:'(

Two Women

2009-04-11T02:02:00.004-04:00

I tend to see everything as a composition - including women. Subject then secondary subject. Compositional elements such as line, texture, or shape move my eyes from one subject to the next.

There is one woman, who, when I look at her, the first thing I see is her hemline, then her bust, then her eyes.

It is like a rationalization. As if I feel compelled to take the path I do.

Then, there is another woman. I look at her eyes first, then her bust, then... I get lost. I don't know what to look at next.

That is why I flirt with her. I want to finish the composition.

Some new pictures

2009-04-09T14:13:00.001-04:00

Blossoms #1, originally uploaded by Packherd.

Check 'em out down in the photostream, d00dz!

Fighting Illegal Aliens

2009-04-09T11:03:00.001-04:00

If only Gov. Schwarzenegger's accent were really this awesome.

Tom McClintock supports big government!

2009-04-06T18:45:00.006-04:00

Good news, everybody! Tom McClintock, Congressman from Ventura County, has once again put pen to paper for our entertainment. HE'S THE CONSERVATIVE JON STEWART.

Says Tom in an editorial in the Bee:

Earmarking is the process by which individual congressmen direct federal money to favored recipients without competitive bidding or open debate, bypassing the normal appropriations process that requires projects to be impartially evaluated on their merits and competitively bid.
It should be no wonder that virtually all of the political corruption cases affecting Congress – including the infamous Jack Abramoff scandal – involve congressional earmarks.

As well as, we should point out, Republican luminaries such as 'Duke' Cunningham, Bob Ney, and the King of the Gnomes.

So how, you may be asking yourself, does Travelin' Tom's principled stance against the unfairness of earmarking make him a shameless big government liberal?

You see, absent congressional procedures to affect spending, the decisions are made by UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS ensconced in their sprawling FEDERAL AGENCIES. These people use complicated formulae, with limited public input, to allocate tax dollars. Is your highway in desperate need of expansion since your town recently attracted a big new employer? Tough cookies. It's going to Nowheresville. The pencil pusher says so.

Why, thanks to Tom McClintock's unequivocal support for Executive prerogative, the Obama Administration can finally get to work undoing years of Bush-era pro-growth policies. Obama appointees at EPA will have all the money they need to enforce punitive environmental regulations, such as the Clean Water Act and the Roadless Rule, thereby tying the hands of private investors for decades.

I suppose Tom McClintock could've rolled up his sleeves and gotten to work finding funds for forest fire prevention, or to aid the restoration of Lake Tahoe. He could've put his ideology to the side for once to fight in the interest of his constituents.

But that would be unfair.

The most boring parlor game in CA politics

2009-04-06T16:17:00.005-04:00

Will DiFi run for Governor? It's the question that's on everyone's mind. Well, my mind anyway. Her decision would set off a domino-effect that could determine who California's next governor is. Or isn't.

Here's two recent takes on the matter.

First, calbuzz gives us the skinny on why DiFi will not run.

As reporters who covered Feinstein over several decades as a mayor, statewide candidate (including her losing 1990 race for governor against Pete Wilson) and U.S. senator, we recognize the signs of her obsessive flirtation with the political spotlight, and offer three words you can take to the bank:

She won’t run.

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and of the Subcommittee on Interior and Environment of Appropriations, Feinstein is better positioned, not only to pursue her passion for national security and foreign policy, but also her concern over big environmental issues such as water policy.

As a politician, Feinstein is risk-averse; as a campaigner she is often a cranky warrior, for whom the delights of having breakfast with local ministers at the Barstow Holiday Inn are well-eclipsed by the cozy bonhomie of Georgetown dinner parties. Feinstein despises primary fights and at least some Democrats positioning themselves for 2010 — Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Lt. Gov. John Garamendi come to mind — are unlikely to step aside for her, guaranteeing an expensive and exhausting battle.

All good points. But what does Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight have to say?

And what is there for Feinstein to gain by [her opposition to EFCA]? Well, money. Winning a race in a state as large and diverse as California is exceptionally expensive. Moreover, campaign finance laws are much laxer in California. Individuals and PACs can contribute up to $24,100 (.pdf) in California in both the primary and the general election, much higher than the $2,300 federal limit. By hedging her bets on EFCA, Feinstein stands to make herself more attractive to corporate contributors. She might also differentiate herself as the moderate candidate in a field of liberals, which is not a bad strategy since California's primaries are open to independent and Republican voters.

So the upshot of her lukewarmness on EFCA is this, I think: Dianne Feinstein is running for governor.

I like that Nate calls it an "upshot" that DiFi would run for Governor. While I appreciate Nate's analysis and willingness to connect policy to politics, callbuzz has the history. DiFi certainly is a powerful figure in the Senate and she could have a lot of influence over the Obama Administration. It's tough giving that up, at her age, for the chance to try your hand at running the state.

But that is exactly what she, and most California politicians, dream of doing. One doesn't go into politics for the ease and comfort, and no one goes into California politics to chase some measly Beltway gig. Sacramento is the prize.

She probably shouldn't run, because it would be expensive and bloody and hard. She can do so much for California from Washington. I'd like her to run, for my own centrist sensibilities. If she does run, it will be because she believes that any other Dem nominee is doomed to defeat by the prospective GOP nominee.

And that analysis - Brown, Newsom, or Villaraigosa vs. Poizner or Whitman - is the analysis I have yet to see...

Boxer v. Fiorina?

2009-03-31T23:25:00.003-04:00

Have you heard? Carly Fiorina is "seriously considering" trying to unseat Barbara Boxer. Although Boxer seems pretty safe, this one sets off my spider sense. Stay tuned...

***

In other news, the Bee's editorial tomorrow will call for an end to term limits. I am totally down with that. Here's why:

In a truly free democratic process, the people should have the right to elect whosoever they deem fit to govern. If it is their will to put an 8-year-old in office, so be it. Legislation that inhibits the will of the people is always iffy. Placing constraints on their electoral will is outright disenfranchisement.

There's a truism that goes, "Everyone hates Congress and loves their Congressman." That's because approval polls ask voters what they think about a body in which they have only a marginal bit of say. Obviously, everyone dislikes a body that forces their man in the Capitol to compromise.

People deserve the elected officials they (don't) vote for. Today, the practical barriers to voter participation are primarily socio-economic, such as work hours or transit limitations. The real barriers to participation, however, are cultural - folks just don't feel the need to vote - and not voting is acquiescence to the eventual winner's mandate. It is the people's responsibility to remove lousy officials. If they fail to do so, that's their fault.

Sadly, voters sometimes vote against their own interests. It is frustrating to be in an electoral minority, especially in our winner-takes-all system and when you are committed to the propriety of what or who you vote for. Nevertheless, if we truly believe in the correctness of our positions, we should be unafraid to debate openly and vigorously with other citizens who disagree.

Infringing your opponents' rights is an immoral act of tyranny against yourself.

Nevada is Terrible

2009-03-26T11:34:00.005-04:00

I know this is really a gag, so I don't want to make hay out of it. However, Kansas State geographers mapped the seven deadly sins in Nevada, and seem to have gone to great lengths to do so.

It's noteworthy that I got this article from the top of the Las Vegas Sun Website. Outsiders (usually Midwesterners) occasionally try to elucidate the terribleness of the Silver State, and it often just amuses Nevadans. I have yet to successfully explain to a non-Westerner why it is not weird to live in a state with legal prostitution, or 24-hour drinking, or cocktail waitresses in swimsuits.

An explanation of the AIG clusterf**k

2009-03-18T11:46:00.003-04:00

Some guy on MSNBC offered this take on the AIG crisis:

Sometime last fall a terrible virus killed every public relations professional in the financial sector.

That seems like the only reasonable explanation to me.

Lost & Found: one LuvGuv

2009-03-15T15:37:00.004-04:00

(How did I only read about this on Sunday afternoon‽
This is what happens when you don't keep up with the assigned reading, people!)

Sometime Friday or maybe Saturday, the LuvGuv went missing.

You read that correctly: America's Worst Governor (not that johnny-come-lately Blagojevich) went AWOL this weekend. Anjeanette, as usual, has the scoop.

Gov. Jim Gibbons is out of state, although both his spokesman Dan Burns and deputy chief of staff Mendy Elliott said they don't know where he is.

But don't worry. An hour later, Anjeanette assures us that everything's under control.

Gov. Jim Gibbons' chief of staff Josh Hicks said the governor is in California on "personal business" and will be back sometime over the weekend.

Whew! Dodged a bullet there, America.

If this were a different Western state with a trustworthy and competent governor, y'know, like Utah, then maybe this wouldn't be so... unsettling? Whatever his reasons, the LuvGuv had better get back to Carson City soon; he has a primary challenger.

Meet Mike Montandon, Republican mayor of North Las Vegas. He has a Flash Website and a bitchin' logo.

***

To summarize: The governor of Nevada skipped town without telling anyone, including his own staff. He's going to get primaried by the Mayor of Nor'Town. Nevada is totally awesome. The end.

Steele and the progressive GOP

2009-03-14T00:13:00.002-04:00

Tent op kamp, originally uploaded by florisla.

Thanks to the Man of Steele's off-the-cuff comment to GQ, we now know that he is what one acquaintance called a PCR – pro-choice Republican. This has resulted in the expected backlash.

But also folks are talking about how this may be the first skirmish in a battle to re-establish the GOP's progressive tradition. (The Republican Party, after all, was formed in part by abolitionists.)

It's in the interest of better understanding that possible return-to-progressivism that I draw your attention to former Republican Congressman Jim Leach's comments on Politico,

Yes, this is all about the most overused metaphor in Republican politics – the tent. At issue is not only how big it is but how many doors it has.
The pillars of Goldwater’s tent were decidedly of an individual rights, individual initiative nature. They were not considered strong or compassionate enough to hold a majority of the American people, at least at the time. The tent therefore got broadened [...]
[H]owever, as these new entrants came in the front door, traditional “country club” Republicans who had been comfortable with Taft, Eisenhower, Goldwater, Ford, and the gentler sides of Reagan and G.H.W. Bush began walking out the back of the tent. They – doctors, lawyers, business leaders – found their values and their leadership challenged.

To adapt a phrase from another Titan of the GOP,

"The Republican Party is not a big tent. You don't just dump stuff in it.
It's a series of doors!"

In all seriousness, my reason for bringing this up is to warn the earnest liberals out there. I'm still not certain that they are aware that 2010 will be a tough year. I'm even less certain that they are prepared to take on Republican opponents who have re-discovered their progressive heritage. It could get messy.

It seems to me that the primary difference between progressive Democrats and progressive Republicans is the unions vs. corporations debate. Maybe that deserves its own post, but I don't think it's a debate Dems automatically win...

Listen to the bear

2009-03-13T01:40:00.006-04:00

While you're at it, please go check out the rest of what's on offer at Dewey Defeats Tarzan. You won't regret it!

Of Inappropriate Nicknames

2009-03-13T00:41:00.006-04:00

Look over here everyone! My friend and yours, known Reagan fetishist Tom McClintock is just plain hatin' on Charlie Brown. Not to worry. Neil Pople's representin' like a gangsta should.

Tom, meanwhile, is frontin'. There are torrid rumors flying around Washington that this guy is what's known as a "Congress-man." I have yet to see any evidence to support this claim, but you know how tongues get to wagging.

What really matters is the question of a proper nickname for Tom. I'm partial to "McClinty," because I like pretending that public officials are 19th-century Irish immigrant hoodlums. "Squinty" falls in that category as well, and has the added effect of poking fun at his physical appearance.

Please leave your preference or suggestions in the comments. Don't be shy.

NV/DC connections!

2009-03-05T17:13:00.003-05:00

Whoa, hey there Senator Ensign! You're the one puttin' gun amendments on the D.C. Voting Rights bill? DCist has the skinny.

Best comment, though comes from brookieDC:

Why doesn't someone attach an amendment to this bill that would outlaw gambling in Nevada? It would seem only fair.

ZING!

Like reading my own thoughts

2009-03-05T15:36:00.002-05:00

As an appropriate follow-up to the previous post, FiveThirtyEight published this short manifesto on Republicans' use of the word "Democrat" when "Democratic" is grammatically correct. Please read it; it's good.

This is an issue that's been tumbling around in my head for some time and, as usual, FiveThirtyEight expresses my own opinions better than I ever could. Damn you, Sean Quinn!

(As a technical aside, I think the genesis of the problem is that republican is both an adjective and a noun, while democrat is only a noun. The morphologies don't jive – so we force them. In the words of my German professor, "Das ist Unsinn.")

A quick note to all the fightin' liberals out there

2009-02-23T21:39:00.003-05:00

Please stop forcefully defacing the word "Republican" in blog posts and comments. "Repugnantlican." "Repiglican." "Repukelican." They are all stoopid.

Sure, "Demrats" is nothing inspired either, but lets just concede this skirmish and move on to more favorable rhetorical terrain.* Okay? Okay.

*"Health rights" instead of "pro-choice"; any takers?

The Irresistible Lure of the Tubes

2009-02-23T10:57:00.002-05:00

I'm not sayin' anything. I'm just sayin'...

Next time you feel the need to bash Reid...

2009-02-22T16:54:00.003-05:00

...please read this blog comment from FiveThirtyEight before you do so.

Thanks.

I'd like to offer a contrasting view to [most of] the comments above and Nate's original post. I am a former GOP Senate staffer and thus have a somewhat different perspective on how filibuster situations tend to function.

With respect to Nate's data on filibuster trends, the existence of divided government has a lot to do with the number of filibusters per year. The graph Nate included perfectly correlated with this hypothesis, at least in relative terms. Any time one party controlled the WH and another the Senate, the number of filibusters increased from the preceding year. Further, under divided government, the number of filibusters tends to increase in presidential election years as the parties seek to sharpen their differences and (1) embarrass the other party or (2) highlight to important interest groups that they are working hard on those groups' favored issues. There's some pretty good political science literature out there by Keith Krehbiel on this issue, if you're interested in further reading. I think these are all important background issues to keep in mind when considering the 110th Congress and the question of whether Harry Reid has been an effective majority leader.

Focusing on the 110th Congress, I don't see much evidence that Sen. Reid is to blame for any perceived lack of effectiveness. With only 51 votes in the Senate, Reid's options were severely limited -- yet Nate's post seems to make no allowance for this fact (relative, for instance, to the 55 seat majorities in the 109th, 106th and 105th Congresses where both the total number of filibusters and the number of failed filibusters was markedly lower). Whereas the offering of carrots and threatening with sticks may be effective when the majority party need only pick up four or five votes to attain cloture, that same approach intuitively seems much less useful when the majority needs nine or ten votes to cross the Rule XXII threshold. More than that, I can attest from firsthand experience that holding out is much easier if you aren't the last one needed for cloture. As evidence, look up Sen. Stevens' tirade after the failed ANWR vote in the 109th Congress. Stevens lost by one vote I think (Coleman promised to support Stevens but switched), and Stevens promised intense retribution on the Senate floor. My understanding is that Stevens followed through on his promise via DoD Approps.

Going beyond the numbers and to the substance of this idea that the majority leader can force Senators to read the phone book for hours on end, my suggestion is that people advocating this view fundamentally misunderstand the actual dynamics of the Senate floor. Bill Frist did absolutely everything he could to please the evangelical right during the judicial nomination wars, and only on one or two occasions did Frist actually employ this tactic (in both cases Frist ordered cots brought in, and had Fox News cover the event). On a third instance that I can think of Sen. Reid initiated a sort of counter-filibuster sua sponte, speaking for hours at length about his home town of Searchlight, NV. There's a great exchange in there between Reid and Sen. Roberts ("rock on!"), by the way. In none of these cases did the floor theatrics produce any meaningful change in cloture voting patterns -- though they may have caused southern Dems such as Pryor, Landrieu, Lincoln, and co. to hew a little closer to their states' conservative line.

When a majority leader decides to try and require a filibustering minority to speak at length, here's what actually happens procedurally. First, the leader makes a motion to proceed to the bill in question. The minority objects. So now the pending question is the motion to proceed, and debate on that question begins. Unless the majority leader files for cloture and gets 60 votes, or unless s/he convinces the minority to withdraw their objection, the leader is stuck. So the leader, embracing the strategy Nate now endorses (and which during my time on the Hill was embraced by the hard evangelical right), dispatches a deputy to the floor to continuously make the motion to proceed. As long as there is one R on the floor each time to object, the game is a stalemate. The R's DO NOT have to talk during this stalemate, they don't have to be on the Senate floor, and in fact, the Senate could spend most of the time in a quorum call. The only thing that matters under Rule XXII is that someone be there to object whenever the motion to proceed is made by the majority.

Assuming through some miracle the majority manages to win on the motion to proceed, then the same problem plays out on the actual merits of the bill, on naming conferees, and on the conference report if the bill gets that far. As long as the minority cares more about playing defense than enacting legislation, no amount of carrots or sticks can change this rock-solid reality. Since the 111th Congress GOP, like that in the 110th, seems fixated on this do nothing/re-brand/draw contrasts approach, I'd say Sen. Reid has little in the way of actual leverage through use of theatrics such as those described above.

All of the above is not to say there is no advantage to be had from anti-filibuster theatrics. Certainly the majority can score some press points and interest group points by doing what Nate seems to be suggesting be done. But in terms of actual vote outcomes, my argument is that such tactics will not produce any substantial dividends. I know this because I saw the same story unfold myself under Sen. Frist's tenure.

As Frist, Daschle, Lott, and Dole all found out in good time, the job of Senate majority leader is a very tough one, and one that is almost certain to earn one alienation from both the opposite party and one's own partisan base. The enormous gulf between public perception and reality with respect to floor mechanics/Rule XXII is a big part of that.

'FOIA' is a verb

2009-02-20T12:27:00.008-05:00

In light of the problems the Obama White House has been having with vetting its appointees, here's an interesting article from the WaPo about the legendary Hollywood lobbyist, Jack Valenti, and the FBI's investigation into his sexuality.

The story's not really about Valenti – the conclusion was that he had a friend who was gay. Instead, it's about the on-going study of J. Edgar Hoover's tenure at the FBI and mid-century America's obsession with homosexuality. Thanks to FOIA, there will be more stories like this about other legendary figures in the years to come. We may be shocked to learn not just who was gay, but how aggressive was the effort to uncover the sexuality of public officials. Then there's this little gem from the article:

[I]n October 1964, a man whose name has been redacted from the records called an FBI official in New York. The caller encouraged the FBI to investigate Valenti "as a sex pervert," files show. "He based this request on the fact that he had read in the newspapers that Valenti swims in the nude in the White House pool."

Is it really that easy to initiate an FBI action‽ I wonder what sort of investigations are going on these days which will in a few decades be seen as asinine.

Meta-note: Sorry to be so quiet lately. I will (hopefully) go back into radio silence soon. Some of what I've written here already may have crossed a line. Nevertheless, if you share my interest in Assemblyman Ty Cobb's ambitions, I do still want to hear from you.

2nd meta-note: Hey, Apple/Google/Mozilla/etc., add "Obama" to your spellcheck dictionaries already!

Stay and Defend

2009-02-13T17:08:00.003-05:00

Here's an interesting connection. Officials in the U.S., including Washoe County, are revisiting stay and defend policies that allow folks to defend their homes against wildfires because of the estimated 200 deaths in Australia's firestorm.

This is a really tricky subject. Humans are usually faster than wildfires but it's difficult for individuals to judge when they are not. When it seems that there are not enough firefighters to keep property safe, a person may be compelled to stay and defend it. As we've learned recently, that can be a fatal mistake.

But to protect someone from that mistake means forcefully evicting them from their property and their right to safeguard it. That is not something many Westerners look kindly upon.

Oops! Mixed metaphor

2009-02-07T11:25:00.004-05:00

"Picking up a steam" is usually a positive metaphor for progress and increase. Neither of those adjectives apply to the U.S. economy, currently.

(Nice thing about front page headlines, tho, it'll probably get fixed within the hour.)

"Senator" Ty Cobb? Yipes!

2009-02-06T13:53:00.005-05:00

So here's this Ty Cobb guy again. Yay.

Now Anjeanette's reporting on Cobb's supposed $80,000 in leftover cash to run for the Nevada Senate in 2010.

It's not all that cut-and-dry, though.

The contribution and expense forms make it near impossible to get a true gauge on how much a candidate has left over in a campaign bank account because they require only current fundraising by period. An optional line exists to report unspent contributions. In prior years, Cobb has refused to fill in that line. It's a bit difficult to see how he still has $80,000 left. Adding up all of his reported contributions and expenses from when he first started fundraising in late 2005 indicates he should only have about $61,000 in the bank.

Sixty grand, eighty grand, whatever.

I've previously established my disappointment with Cobb's style of conservative politics. Bob Beers was ousted last year and the Senate does not need him back. Besides, Ty Cobb is no Bob Beers. That man was special.

But if the guy sees fit to keep climbin' the pole, by all means, I am in no position to dissuade him. I cruised on over to his website, just to see what he's got to offer. I was a little startled to see this gem on the lower right corner:
The Sun is Vegas's liberal alternative to the right-wing Review-Journal. It is not a friend to the LuvGuv or his enablers in state politics, but it is a paper of record. If the Sun saw fit to give Assemblyman Cobb an atta-boy, perhaps I needed to re-evaluate my assumptions about the guy.

Unfortunately, I've yet find the June 10, 2007 article cited.

The Sun offers its archives online free of charge, so go ahead an take a look yourself. By my reckoning, there are four post-session wrap-ups from June 10, 2007. Two of them, the editorial and a column from Jon Ralston, go after the LuvGuv for being a blockhead. (The full details of his escapades had not yet surfaced, so they can be excused for rather dull hit pieces.) One is a blog post giving Speaker Barbara Buckley the unofficial title of Best Legislator conferred by the lobbyists of Carson City.

"You could probably re-phrase the first question to ask who is the second-best legislator since Barbara Buckley is clearly the best," wrote one respondent. And that about the Democratic speaker from a business lobbyist! Another wrote that it was "not even a question." Her agenda, her caucus control, her brains, her toughness – those and other qualities were roundly invoked. Congrats, Madame Speaker.

So that leaves a winners-losers sketch by Patrick Coolican. The kudos are numerous and they ignore policy preferences, so the LuvGuv got a high-five for successfully avoiding a tax increase, as he promised. What was there to say about my favorite Assemblyman?

Although widely derided by establishment types for casting the only "nay" vote in the election of Buckley to become speaker, Cobb drew a significant following among conservative Republicans...
Look for Cobb to lead efforts by Assembly Republicans to make some gains in 2008 to narrow the Democrats' 27-15 majority. In 2010 nearly 40 percent of Democrats will face term limits, which will lead to a wide-open election, and, who knows? Speaker Cobb? Probably not, but surely he's fantasized.
(I'll overlook being called an "establishment type." This time.)

That's not a scathing rebuke but also I'm not sure it can be accurately paraphrased as "Thumbs up!" At least not with quotation marks.

The questionable endorsement is part of a campaign mailer put out to sell Cobb's legislative accomplishments in 2007. It's a decent piece. It is odd that a politician from Reno would quote a liberal paper from Las Vegas, but you take what you can get. Still, the RGJ, Review-Journal, Appeal or *shudder* North Lake Tahoe Bonanza didn't have anything more substantive or positive to say about Nevada's latest conservative star?

Anyway, there's the evidence. Ty Cobb is considering running for Townsend's seat in 2010. Now, there has gotta be a Dem in the South Meadows that can keep him out of the Senate. Bonnie Parnell? Sheila Leslie? Anybody...?

"Historic" preservation

2009-02-06T08:23:00.003-05:00

Here's an interesting article in the New York Times about a town in Mississippi that is turning their nondescript water tower into a landmark. It dates from the 20s, but really its value is as a piece of vernacular.

Vernacular is a concept that gets a lot of play sometimes. It really just means 'everyday' and its the opposite of post-modern.

The pic above is the oldest building in my hometown, Elk Grove, and the town's own water tower. Elk Grove, like a lot of places around the West, can really only trace its history so far back. Most of it original structures were built quickly, cheaply and ultimately they were temporary. To get an idea of what Elk Grove was – and where it may go – means following its journey into modernity.

Clearly, we need to protect the most amazing of the 20th Century's structures, such as DC's Third Church of Christ Scientist. The complete story, though, requires preservation of the banal as well.

Facebook Ads

2009-02-03T20:52:00.002-05:00

Which of the options is most appropriate for this ad?

I abstain, because "dumb" is not on the list.

Abstinence Only Education

2009-02-03T15:22:00.005-05:00

Are you bored going out in the evenings, meeting interesting and attractive people? Then try the RiskQuiz, brought to you via Cartophilia.com!

Yours truly got 100% with 3:10 remaining. Post your results in the comments! If you can beat my time I'll, um, swear fealty to you.

So that's why I'm sick!

2009-02-01T22:42:00.002-05:00

Flu Season Building in Va.
State is first in nation to report widespread outbreak;
CDC says illness might spread rapidly.

Thanks, WashingtonPost.com!

The Return of Moonbeam

2009-02-01T16:43:00.010-05:00

This headline from Capitol Alert is a few days old, but it's been sitting in my in box, intriguing me...

Brown sits atop Democratic money primary

Attorney General Jerry Brown announced Friday that he raised $3.4 million in 2008 in advance of an expected bid for governor in 2010. That sum leaves Brown, a Democrat, perched above his two declared Democratic rivals, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, who each reported raising on the order of $1.1 million last year.

It's WAY too early to get speculative, but this does startle me a bit. It also does not include Mayor Villaraigosa, a likely candidate, nor DiFi, whose candidacy is still in question but who would obviously stomp everyone in fundraising.

I've expressed my concerns about Newsom as the nominee, but I'm also worried about Brown. If I had to choose between the two, I have no idea who I'd pick. I do hope, cautiously, that DiFi would intervene in that situation...

Battle of the Potomac

2009-02-01T15:55:00.002-05:00

The new respective leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties, Tim Kaine and Michael Steele, are both from the DC metro area. And the President is a former Senator, when most of his modern predecessors were Governors. Though both Kaine and Steele are going to spend a lot of time and money making things play in Peoria, "beyond the Beltway" politics seem to be out of fashion.

DCist picked up on this, too.

In recent years, Virginia has served as evidence of how the Democratic Party may retain hope in otherwise conservative states -- Kaine, former Governor and current Senator Mark Warner, and Senator Jim Webb have proven that the Commonwealth is no more red than it is a rich shade of purple. And while Maryland has been a relatively consistent Democratic state, Steele's choice represents the gravity which many Republicans lend to the need to attract the diversity of voters in the D.C. suburbs, exurbs, and beyond. For two parties that are increasingly looking to amplify their national message and appeal, they've chosen a regional battleground to do so.

This doesn't mean that local matters will be elevated to national status, but it does suggest that both parties see their future in expansion. The question remains whether this is demographic expansion or ideological expansion. That is, although Dems are getting better at talking with conservatives around the country, they are probably winning in Virginia because the northern Virginia suburbs are becoming more diverse rather than because of a renewed progressive ethos in the hollers of Appalachia.

In any event, 2010 should be an awesome battle.

Do yr taxez!!1!

2009-01-31T09:49:00.006-05:00

Just a special note to all the eager young things in and around the Nation's Capital:

DO YOUR TAXES CORRECTLY!!!

Tom Daschle, America's Gayest Heterosexual and President Obama's pick to lead us down the Path of Socialism, mistakenly failed to pay $128,000 in taxes. That means no one gives a shit anymore about Tim Geithner's paltry thirty-something-thousand dollar tax screw up.

When discussing this with a friend the other day, she pointed out that you have to make a LOT of money to owe $30,000 in taxes. Owing $128,000 is eye-watering, especially since it was all taxes owed on one fringe benefit: a chauffeur. ~~In one year~~ Over three years.

Anyway, if you're like me, on the bottom half of the greasy pole, don't worry so much about the occasional coke party or tranny hooker. Hire an accountant!

The numbers game

2009-01-29T17:15:00.004-05:00

$800 billion is the number being floated around Washington these days. That's the size (rounded down – way down) of the latest stimulus package passed yesterday in the House and being considered this evening in the Senate).

Here are some other numbers to think about.

On Inauguration Day, Metro carried more people than on any other day in its 33-year-history: 1,120,000 train trips, 423,000 Metrobus trips, and 1,721 MetroAccess paratransit rides, for a total of 1,544,721 trips. The agency ran an unprecedented 17 hours of rush-hour service on Inauguration Day, operating 974 rail cars during the busiest period that afternoon, compared with about 830 rail cars during the typical weekday rush period.

Metro spent $5 million providing this service on Inauguration Day and the days leading up to it.

To put this in perspective, imagine every single person in Sacramento County deciding that today is the day they're going to go hang out at the American River. Yikes.

The longhairs are at it again

2009-01-28T12:40:00.005-05:00

Image credit: Lisa J. Tolda

ASUN organized a couple hundred UNR students to protest higher ed budget cuts, according to the RGJ. The budget crisis is serious and the German program I received my degreee from may already be gone. (Fyi, I'm Chris Bayer. I don't know how they messed that up. Everyone knows that what's left of my German is badly Swabian.)

It's good to see such a staid campus get up and fight for something, especially something as unsexy as a state budget. I am glad ASUN is focusing its efforts at state lawmakers, whom it can certainly influence, rather than at larger or more global issues that would attract a wider audience but have zero impact. Assemblywoman Debbie Smith (D-Reno) said as much.

“When I see people take time out of their day to do something like this, you bet it influences me,” Smith said. “I think the energy we saw from the youth in our state during the presidential election is carrying forward. You know, they may be students but they’re taxpayers. They have a voice and they have a say.”

Smith, however, probably opposes the LuvGuv's higher ed cuts anyway and the other lawmakers present, David Bobzien and Senator Bernice Matthews, are Dems who were never going to support such cuts either. The trick is whether a protest like this will catch the attention of moderate Republicans like Senators Townsend or Raggio. Hopefully, ASUN is lobbying those and other legislators behind the scenes.

Amazingly, it took 10 paragraphs to get to the 60s reference.

The demonstration resembled student protests on campuses nationally in the 1960s during the war in Vietnam. But while at times as loud, it was much more peaceful.

Note to babyboomer conservatives: Almost nothing references Vietnam anymore. The Kids These Days are not hippies. Certainly not the kids at UNR.

(The article also helpfully revealed the $1,665 ASUN spent busing protesters in. I mean, we wouldn't want anyone getting the impression that these hippies had self-initiative here...)

Happy Birthday, Me!

2009-01-26T16:07:00.002-05:00

In honor of my 29th year, here's TPM's Day in 100 Seconds for January 23, 2009.

I ♥ Blago!

"Daddy's already crying"

2009-01-21T20:20:00.005-05:00

This blog is written to reflect my IRL persona, that is, cynical, skeptical and political. I always hurt the ones I love. For this post, all snark aside, I want to share one brief moment from the Inauguration of President Barack Obama.

Watching the ceremonies at the Washington Monument, a great swarm of humanity huddled around the rhetorical warmth of the Jumbotron display. From a physical distance of less than a mile, the people that day were nonetheless watching the same televised feed as were happy Democrats as far away as Seattle - so close and yet so far. Their proximity clearly was an emotional closeness. The National Mall was dusty and frozen. There was no rational motivation to be there on January 20th. Still, there they were, like penguins in Antarctica, braving a chosen wilderness in pursuit a fleeting, immaterial reward. I know their mindset; I was with them.

The mood of the proletariat oozed out onto the ground, like the detritus they tossed thoughtlessly onto America's Front Yard. They whooped and hollered for William Jefferson Clinton, and hissed with real menace at the hobbled Dick Cheney. For the outgoing President, George Walker Bush, their vitriol was vicarious. Catcalls before the final curtain, it was an ugly scene.

For Barack Hussein Obama, the mass let forth a cry like none they had before, except perhaps for their respective sport franchises of choice. Fittingly, the man they cheered had built a "brand" the likes of which has never been seen in American politics. Their candidate was a benevolent demagogue and his partisans granted him all the love they could muster. It was all anticipation, this field of human longing, an anticipation most had not experienced since their first amorous touch - or perhaps their last.

Quite gingerly he rose from his seat (same as the others for the dignitaries, collapsible) and the president-to-be placed his hand on a borrowed Bible. To my right a boy, maybe seven years old, had been croaking and clucking along with our joyous ululations, providing his own unique vocabulary to an epic poem. His father had held him at his side during the invocation and had chided him for letting his belongings get soiled in the dust. But before the Chief Justice could even begin the ritual, the boy shouted, "Daddy's already crying!"

The anticipation was just too much. The man was crying, openly. His candidate was not yet anointed, but he let his son see him weep. Was it a showing of courage before his boy or a gratuitous act of indulgence? I can't say. I think he'll never know a prayer as sweet.

That's what I saw at the inauguration. In spite of myself, I cried, too.

"Some domestic groups... not previously engaged."

2009-01-18T08:50:00.004-05:00

Discussing the unparalleled level of security around President-elect Obama, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff said

I think what will be different perhaps for the new president is [he] may excite the attention of some domestic groups that maybe were not that engaged previously. And so that's an issue we're going to have to be looking at.

Oh, America, and your veiled references to racism!

Get your inauguration on!

2009-01-17T15:34:00.005-05:00

Sorry about not posting this last week. I'm dropping the ball on you guys.

Here's some important inaugural info for those of you who are (blessedly) not in DC for the festivities.

Sunday, January 18
Opening Ceremony and We Are One concert at Lincoln Memorial
This will be shown free on HBO and HBO.com at 11:30am pacific (with an encore at 11:30pm). The list of performers is pretty long.

Monday, January 19
Martin Luther King Jr. Day and National Day of Service
This is a damned good idea: MLK Jr. Day will be recognized as a day of service. You can go to USAService.org to find activities near you. With luck, this could turn into our first national Internet tradition. (In the meantime, please don't be discouraged by some of the... peculiar... offerings you may find. These are good people. They're just very excited so humor their leftiness for one day.)

Bipartisan dinners
These are by invitation only, but noteworthy. They'll honor three Americans: Colin Powell, Joe Biden and John McCain. Yup, you read that right. I hope it becomes a tradition for Presidents-elect to honor their erstwhile political opponents. It's quirky traditions like this, I think, that keep our democracy healthy and stable.

Kids' inaugural concert: We Are the Future
Keep the hopetacular goin', kids!
Alright, for my friends who do have little ones ('Ticia), I'm sorry for the snark. But really, how can anyone buy into this without thinking of Micheal Jackson's retrospectively creepy Super Bowl performace? Kids are great, I suppose. I'm this close, though, to putting them in the Things-People-Assume-Are-Universally-Consequential-But-Really-Aren't category along with the marriage debate and Tibet. Anyway, Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers on Disney Channel free at 5:00pm pacific.

Tuesday, January 20
Swearing in ceremony
The big day! Watch it just about anywhere you want. I'll be watching them shift uncomfortably in their seats on FOX News. Unless Rick Sanchez is covering it on CNN because Mom was right - that dude kicks ass.

Commander-in-Chief Ball

4:00pm pacific on the Pentagon Channel. This is a tradition started by President Bush to honor servicemen and women.

Neighborhood Ball
8:00pm pacific on ABC. Supporters are encouraged to host Neighborhood Ball parties, kinda like the house parties from the campaign.
WaPo had a decent article on one town in Arkansas having misgivings about the Obama Administration and its apparent emphasis on urban concerns. Let's keep in mind that "urban" is still code for "colored folk" in this country.

Youth Ball
10:00pm pacific on MTV. Rock the Vote! Vote or Die! Be the Change! Please, PLEASE vote in the mid-terms, 18-25 year olds!

That's about it. Hope you get a chance to watch something of this big smorgasbord of CHANGE. Especially if you didn't vote for Obama or, like many of us, had your enthusiasm a bit smothered under the edifice of Obamamania, its good to participate in these kinds of national pageantry. Power changes hands in this country frequently. We should remember that before we head back to our respective political trenches.

Out with the old, in with the new

2009-01-17T14:58:00.002-05:00

We are currently living in a state of benign anarchy. Team Bush has literally exited the building and Team Obama will not officially move in until Tuesday. For the next three days, you can do whatever the hell you want – no one will notice!

Seriously, no one will notice.

Much like the New Year, moments of artificial transition demand reflection and introspection from the intelligentsia. WaPo has its transition editorial bundled up on one page. Here, you can lament “Bush’s Greatest Failing” with David Broder, then get a little chastised by Peter Beinart’s take on “Bush’s Finest Hour.”

“Some cite failures ranging from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo to Hurricane Katrina and the neglect of the environment and the working class,” Broder says. “But for all the outrages in those areas, I thought the most damaging to the American people -- both those living now and those yet unborn -- was placing the entire cost of Bush's ambitious, if not misguided, national security policy on the tiny fraction of American families with loved ones in the armed services.”

President Bush did not ask us to bear the burdens of war with our fighting men and women, according to Broder. Indeed, Bush told us to “go shopping” and gave us the tax cuts to do so, that we may not even be aware we were in a war. Broder does not, however, question whether Bush should have called our situation a war in the first place. Perhaps that’s too big of a question at this early juncture.

Beinart is calling on Dems to be less cynical on Iraq, specifically on the success of the surge. He’s not a booster for the Bush Doctrine, he’s just trying to inoculate the new liberal nobility.

Watching the Bush administration flit from disaster to disaster, they have grown increasingly dismissive of conservatives in the process. [Younger liberals] consume partisan media, where Republican malevolence is taken for granted. They laugh along with the "Colbert Report," the whole premise of which is that conservatives are bombastic, chauvinistic and dumb. They have never had the ideologically humbling experience of watching the people whose politics they loathe be proven right.

Posterity should (though probably won’t) remember that the surge was not Bush’s idea – it was John McCain’s. He and others, including Democrats, had warned early on that Rumsfeld’s cockamamie shock and awe strategy would be neither without shocking and awesome numbers of troops.

The point is, again, Bush tried to have his cake and eat it, too: wartime patriotism with peacetime prosperity. WaPo’s accompanying editorial tries to edify Bush’s other well-recorded personality trait, his certitude. After 9/11, it unified us as a country, but it also blinded Bush to the reasonable criticism of concerned outsiders (like McCain).

I think the editorial board missed the point which Broder and Beinart make obliquely. That is, Bush’s legacy will probably be written as one of courage in the face of challenges when it ought to be one of cowardice. It isn’t brave to stand on the rubble with a bullhorn or on the deck of a carrier in a flight suit. It isn’t brave to fear the electoral backlash of honest economic choices. It is cunning to do those things and it is appropriate for a man who’s successfully faced down a number of personal demons to adopt their tactics. They did prove useful at avoiding Bush’s last great personal demon:

The possibility of another one-term Bush presidency.

HuffPo finally gets it right!

2009-01-16T19:09:00.003-05:00

Sam Stein at HuffPo writes:

As he prepares to take the oath of office, Barack Obama's biggest political roadblock may end up being institutional hurdles rather than a united Republican opposition.

Yes! Yes! Finally, someone is paying attention. Paul Begala shares a little wisdom from John Sununu:

"I happened to have a long conversation with John Sununu [George H. W. Bush's Chief of Staff]. Sununu said you will find that the institutional difference between the legislative and executive branches are harder to bridge than the partisan difference between Republicans and Democrats. It was a remarkable statement. I don't think he is right. But I do believe the institutional differences are hugely important."

I do think Sununu is correct (and fun to say). While I agree that President-elect Obama's been working hard to lay the foundations for a successful opening, and that his recent legislative experience will serve him well in that process, the main obstacle to his agenda is the looming fear of the 2010 midterms.

2008 was a good year for Democrats; repeating that feat in 2010 will not be easy. Many Dems in Congress will see independence from the Administration as their key to victory. In the Senate, 15 Dem seats will be up for re-election and as many as six of those could be weak, as opposed to the one endangered seat of 2008, Landrieu's, who pulled away in the end.

Of Dead Batteries and Homelessness

2009-01-09T15:23:00.005-05:00

Last night's photography excursion was aborted because my camera battery won't hold a charge. Until the situation is rectified, I'll just show you a picture from last summer.

That's a bench in Lincoln Park, down the street from my house.

There are certain markers of homelessness one expects: litter, the jangle of change and, of course, the obligatory "God bless" when you walk by. Seeing evidence of homelessness, though, without the homeless, strikes a deeper chord.

Commonly there are sleeping bags and empty bottles of whiskey scattered in doorways, reinforcing stereotypes. When it's neatly organized belongings, like above, it reveals that homelessness means a lack of privacy. Imagine having no dresser, no closet, no laundry hamper. We rightly worry about the homeless during the winter, when they are in danger of freezing to death, but I don't often think about what it is like to live with no personal space at all.

I got published!

2009-01-05T15:33:00.003-05:00

No, for realz! Some online guidebook thingy called Schmap used this pic of mine from Flickr.

This will go down in my photographic portfolio along with the picture I took of a basketball game for the Elk Grove Citizen and the picture that got shown at the Crocker.

Nevada GOP is falling apart!

2009-01-05T08:53:00.005-05:00

Well, maybe it's not DOA.

After a long absence I checked in with Inside Nevada Politics (the only serious politics blog in the state, imho) where I found that our own Ty Cobb, Republican Assemblyman from Incline Village, was acting up again.

Backstory: Last session, Cobb took it upon himself to cast the only 'no' vote against Speaker Barbara Buckley. Traditionally, leadership positions in the Nevada legislature (and a lot of legislation, too) are passed unanimously. At the time, Incline's special little rag, the Bonanza (where'd they get that name...?) called the legislative tradition "hypocritical hooey!"

Once upon a time, conservatism was about preserving longstanding traditions, not redefining them... Oh, nevermind.

During the last special session in December, Cobb was joined by a cadre of enablers in remaining silent during the vote for Buckley's speakership. Perhaps it was a step down from last year's defiant behavior, but I think it was just better co-ordination. A tag search of 'Cobb' on Chuck Muth's blog reveals an awareness that subtlety is effective.

Nevada's Republican establishment has been factionalizing. Reagan Democrats and Goldwater conservatives are kicking the bucket, leaving in the wake an unseemly mixture of passive, moderate business Republicans and right-wing fundamentalists. The two do not go together. The fundies have organized around a strategy of ideological cleansing: any Republican who isn't one of their sort of conservatives is a RINO.

By Muth's standards, Nixon was a RINO, fer goodness sakes.

Anyway, Cobb handily won re-election last November, netting himself a solid mandate to continue being a jerk.

In other news, because I was totally not paying attention, Joe Heck and Bob Beers both lost. Heck seemed harmless, but watching Beers bite the dust pleases me greatly. As mortals are wont, however, I did not foresee the consequences of my choices. Senator Beers has closed down his wonderful blog, leaving only this touching and humble mea culpa

Note: State Senator Bob Beers failed to promise enough free stuff from the government to enough people (he apparently missed the memo on 2008's winning campaign theme), and was defeated for re-election in fall of 2008 by someone who did.

:'(

CB's performance in CA-04

2009-01-04T18:17:00.009-05:00

Above is a graphical representation of how well Charlie Brown did at pulling in conservative voters in each of the 4th District's counties. The width of the columns approximate the relative population of each county.

The graph does not represent Charlie's vote results in each county. Those were wafer thin and alone do little to show how well Charlie did at achieving his primary objective: getting conservatives to vote for him.

To show that, I've measured the percentage of the vote Charlie won beyond what would be expected from his base. We'll call this Charlie's "performance." Charlie's base is defined as registered Democrats and declined-to-states who are expected to vote Democratic.

We can see that Charlie achieved his goal in each county, but to disparate degrees. So, in Nevada County, Charlie did an excellent job of pulling in conservative voters, while in Modoc County he did not pull in as many. The raw numbers are below.

The biggest surprise is how well Charlie did in Placer County. Only Nevada County outperformed Placer (which was expected). In the deepest of red counties, he did a better job of pulling in conservatives than in El Dorado, Plumas or Sierra Counties.

Placer County - Vote

Charlie	48.95%
McClintock	51.05%

Charlie's Performance - 14.14%

Nevada County - Vote

Charlie	57.68%
McClintock	42.32%

Charlie's Performance - 17.51%

El Dorado County - Vote

Charlie	49.31%
McClintock	50.69%

Charlie's Performance - 12.60%

Sacramento County - Vote

Charlie	46.83%
McClintock	53.17%

Charlie's Performance - 10.45%

Butte County - Vote

Charlie	47.46%
McClintock	52.54%

Charlie's Performance - 6.43%

Sierra County - Vote

Charlie	50.23%
McClintock	49.77%

Charlie's Performance - 13.09%

Plumas County - Vote

Charlie	52.13%
McClintock	47.87%

Charlie's Performance - 12.39%

Lassen County - Vote

Charlie	36.70%
McClintock	63.30%

Charlie's Performance - 2.46%

Modoc County - Vote

Charlie	37.26%
McClintock	62.74%

Charlie's Performance - 3.32%

District Total - Vote
Charlie 49.76%
McClintock 50.24%

Charlie's Performance - 13.20%

(It's worth pointing out that Democrats in other red districts in California weren't able to pull this stunt. Across California, Democrats actually lost their own base to their Republican opponents.)

The LuvGuv makes his move...

2009-01-04T13:42:00.009-05:00

Oh noes! The LuvGuv has gone off the reservation again.

He's attacking Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki - who is statutorily also the head of the Nevada Tourism Commission - for jetsetting around Communist China on the taxpayers' tab.

“Governor Gibbons has learned that during a state-sponsored trip to China, (Krolicki) spent his time on pursuits unrelated to promoting tourism in Nevada, such as sightseeing and shopping, and did not attend scheduled meetings,” said a statement issued after business hours Friday by Dan Burns, Gibbons’ spokesman.

It's good to see the LuvGuv making an effort to re-take his Worst Governor title from that upstart Blago. He knows that intraparty hitjobs are always done in Friday newsdumps. Show Blago how it's done, homie!

While I must admit that Blago's kneecapping of Sen. Reid and the Democrats is legion, the LuvGuv's just got a better style. I don't care that Nevada's politics are a little bush league and I don't care how amazing Blago's hair is...

That's a Playboy Playmate our Governor's huggin' up on. Suck it, Illinois!

National Museum of Evolution

2009-01-04T12:27:00.001-05:00

Museum of Natural History_02, originally uploaded by bbmcder94.

I finally bothered to go to the National Museum of Natural History the other day. The mammals section is fairly new and it serves as a great contrast with the older sections of the museum. Curatorial design has improved a lot and there is hope for the depressingly outdated National Air and Space Museum.

Also, the museum is basically our national museum of evolution. I like imagining the homeschooling groups coming to the nation's capital and discovering that their tax dollars are spent "promoting" evolution. Hilarious!