Further Nonsense (political and otherwise)

Some random links...

Two youngish upwardly mobile political figures compared here.

Is Biden a gift?

Four days in Denver summarized in about 97 seconds.

And, finally, for Palindrome fans, here's Bob.

Keystones

One has to wonder if the Biden selection has more to do with Pennsylvania than Delaware. The Obama camp may be hoping to secure the Keystone State on the electoral map, even though PA isn't really that much competitive than Michigan and certainly less so than Virginia. Last carried by a Republican in 1988, the Bush campaign poured substantial resources into PA in both 2000 and 2004 (particularly 2004) without success; however, the strategy did force the Democratic nominee to respond in kind, devoting resources to a state that otherwise would not have been competitive.

Of course, if Obama needs Biden to win PA, he's in bigger trouble that his media surrogates are allowing to be portrayed...especially if he gives more speeches like this (sorry, I had to post this again...)

Pennsylvania's Third Senator

This is almost unspeakably bad.


I mean, you can almost see his messiah-ness cringing, most likely wondering if he still has Tim Kaine's number on speed-dial.


The video quality is rather poor, so my first thought was that it was a Saturday Night Live skit. But no -- that's really Joe Biden. If he's drunk, I'd be worried. If he's sober, I'd be panicking...

The comments are worth a look, also.

Thanks alot, United Steel Workers.

Palin-drome

In 1984, knowing that there was nothing short of global thermonuclear meltdown that could stop Ronald Reagan, Democratic nominee Walter Mondale selected a little-known Representative from New York as his Vice Presidential nominee -- Geraldine Ferraro. Forty-nine (and nearly 50) states later, we know how that turned out.

Although she had her share of baggage, one can't exactly say the Ferraro pick "backfired" because there was no way Mondale was going to win anyway. Nonetheless, she failed to deliver her home state, capture any "Reagan Democrats," or turn over a disproportionate share of the female vote. Not likely that Gary Hart would have done any better from the bottom of the ticket (although he apparently had some influential contacts in Florida).

Twenty-four years later we had a former first lady come within a few caucii of being the first female presidential nominee of a major party. This reporter could never determine which of the final two Democratic candidates was preferred, being as their views on everythin were basically identical, but my objections (and, most likely, those of many other voters and prospective voters) to Hillary had more to do with her connections to the Clintonista regime and its heavy-handed disregard for any type of accountability, not the fact that she possessed two X chromosomes.

In response to the energy produced by this year's Clinton campaign, the Democratic nominee selected as his running mate perhaps the least original member of the US Senate (Neil Kinnock, secure your filing cabinet), whose lengthy tenure qualifies him for depiction alongside Webster's definition of "Washington Insider" despite now representing a campaign built on ephemeral "change."

The Biden selection brought the typical responses from both ends of the political spectrum (the left considers it "inspired" and ideally complementary to the junior senator from Illinois; the right thinks . . . well, if you read the last paragraph, you can pretty much figure that out).

Enter Sarah Palin, a surprising choice for the Republican ticket, but perhaps the best that John McCain could have made -- she won't offend VRWC members like this reporter; she doesn't own homes in multiple states; she's never been on Meet the Press (an asset, not a liability); and she has experience as an executive, something nobody else on either ticket could offer.

What surprises me most over the past 24 hours is how the while the right is rejuvenated, energized, and producing emotional outbursts and fainting spells previously only seen at Obama campaign rallies, the opposing campaign has produced . . . well, not very much. The best they could do --

Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 [way to further offend the majority of Americans, guys -- you're not elitist, are you?] with zero foreign policy experience [unlike the top of your ticket, of course] a heartbeat away from the presidency [enter next cliche --here--]. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade [also known as protecting unborn human life], the agenda of Big Oil [also known as capitalism] and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies [also known as tax cuts, and let someone else determinf if they've "failed" or not] — that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same [and the change you're proposing is...?]

The "former mayor of a town of 9,000" is particularly galling -- if his messiah-ness was referrred to as a "former community organizer affiliated with a corrupt political machine," the left and its media acolytes would be apoplectic. It was noted to me that unlike legislators, who can pick and choose their favorite issues (or, more likely, delegate their staff accordingly), executives have no such luxury of ducking unpopular matters and must pass judgement on everything.

Getting back to 1984, given that McCain has a reasonable chance of victory this year, the parallels with the Ferraro selection are rather limited, except that McCain does face an uphill battle and realized that the Palin selection gives him the best chance of victory with (hopefully, in his vetting) minimal liabilities. If the best his opponents can do is in the paragraph above, and I doubt it is, this election may be over before the Republican convention.

Back to College

FoxNews has their variation of the Electoral map, dividing the states into three categories -- solidly McCain, solidly Obama or toss-ups (ie no "leaning" here). I can't really dispute their projections -- both candidates have about 180 Electoral votes "in the bag," and need to come up with the other 90 among the 160 or so up for grabs.

Heartbreak Ridge

Having feasted earlier this year on conservative disenchantment with McCain, the media is now salivating over conservative immolation if McCain picks a pro-abortion running mate. Two of the names being bandied about are depicted herewith.

This reporter tends to feel that the selection of either, or their ilk, would basically spell the end of the campaign and the coronation of King Obama XIII. Not even John McCain can be that stubborn . . . can he?

Furthermore, I'm not sure either would add much to the ticket. Neither can be counted on to deliver his home state. Lieberman had a national platform eight years ago, but Ridge is virtually unknown outside PA. Ridge was elected Governor in the Republican Tsunami of 1994 (after his primary opponents spontaneously combusted) and re-elected four years later against someone I don't even remember. An adequate executive who did a few good things (charter schools, fixing the speed limit), but hardly a landmark figure and certainly a little shy on the charisma front. If McCain's going to win PA -- which he doesn't need to -- he could do it without Tom Ridge.

Primary Wrap-Up

A few (very few) have asked my thoughts on the presidential campaign. As of this writing, we have the primaries behind us and the nominees known, but we're prior to the VP selections and the conventions themselves. So perhaps it's a good time to get some thoughts down --

Looking around at the macro signs, you have to think that there's no way a Democrat can lose (an unpopular incumbent, two unpopular wars, high(er) gas prices, an economy perceived as struggling, etc.)

Looking at the Electoral map, however, and you have to belief that a Republican would have a fairly good chance.

Pollster.com shows the numbers that really matter (although I'm not entirely sure of their sources or research), and while they currently depict a 260-191 Democratic edge, that doesn't include 87 Electoral votes in "toss-up" states, all of which (except NH) were won by the Republican in 2004.

Several other states shown as "leaning" Democrat (MI, NM, MN & IA) are at least viable targets for the Republicans, whereas the Democrats are unlikely to pick up any of the Republican states with the possible exception of MO. Nonetheless, the Democratic lock on CA, NY & IL ensure that it will be a close election (at least for a Republican to win).

William Kristol (via Jay Cost, via The Corner), has some interesting thoughts here.

Olym-Pinks II

Michelle Malkin has a column on ChiCom gymnasts with missing teeth that's definitely worth your time. If you don't have the time (which I doubt), here's the most memorable line -- "There’s no such thing as a bureaucratic error in an authoritarian regime."

More from Kathleen Parker can be found here.

Olym-Pinks

The 1980 US Olympic Hockey triumph remains one of the defining sporting moments in the lives of those of us who remember the doldrums of the 1970's. In the 1980's, however, it seemed that the Olympics became more of a forum for political protest than athletic competition. Attempting to follow it then, and wondering which countries were going to boycott, or conversely be excommunicated, has made it difficult for me to follow it since. Never mind the amateur vs. professional debate, illegal substances, and an overwhelming number of events that rely on capricious judging techniques.

The purist will say that we should watch simply to appreciate the skill and preparation of the participants; others will say that it's completely right and proper for politics to have a role, in that some nations deserve citation in one form or another. In previous years, one might have been able to strike a balance between the two and find at least a level of enjoyment in the Olympics. However, to see them being hosted by the Communist Party of China is simply too much for this reporter.

Think back 25 years -- it was unthinkable for the rest of the world to include South Africa in the Olympics, let alone allow them to host the games. Is China's record on human rights that much better that the IOC has seen fit to reward them with this stage in 2008? Has there ever been a full accounting for Tianamen Square, let alone the government's persecution of millions of its own citizens on religious and ethnic grounds? Granted, there have been ripples of protest in the upper levels of international politics and the media, so I'm certainly not alone in finding this at least suspicious. But I do have to wonder how it even was allowed to get to this point.

Needless to say, I won't be watching too much of NBC for the next two weeks...

Toss of the Coin

A recent Boston Globe article brought my attention to the modification of the NFL coin toss rule, where the team that wins the toss gets to defer receiving (ie possession) until the start of the second half.

In the mid-1980's, I had a simple, DOS-based, text-only football program on my Apple IIe, that I would actually rig to lose the coin toss in order to ensure I got possession to start the second half. The advantages, to me, were obvious -- if you were ahead after two quarters, it allowed you to extend your lead, or at a minimum take some time off the clock. If you were behind, obviously you'd like to have the ball first and maybe squeeze out an extra possession or two in the second half.

The logic was so obvious that I was surprised NFL coaches didn't practice it more frequently. However, I didn't understand the rule (and I'm guessing I'm not alone in this) -- under the old rule as I understand it, if the coin toss winner elected to kick off, the opposing team would have the choice at the start of the second half, and would naturally elect to receive (there's that logic again). The new rule is thus in line with what I thought originally. So it only took the NFL about 20 years to figure this out...

Of course, the larger question may be why do they have to toss the coin before each game anyway? Why not just have the home team decide?

Where's Bill Cosby when you need him?