I Had An Idea!

I was watching Glenn Beck a little while ago, I still check in on Glenn a couple of times a week, just for giggles. Sometimes I wonder, if Glenn didn't talk about god all the time, what would I think of him? Do I let his constant references to faith and the creator and values negatively color my whole view of him. If Glenn were an atheist, would I still call him crazy all the time? Of course I would! Glenn's really wandered round the bend lately, but he's still as good for a laugh as he ever was.

Alas, this isn't about Glenn. While I was checking in on Glenn today, he mentioned that members of Congress make $175,000 a year, which seems to be more or less correct (as usual, I refuse to put more than 47 seconds of research into this, but I quickly found that the base salary for Congress is $174,000, and the leadership makes more, so the average is probably right around $175,000. Glenn must have taken a trip to reality to get that number, I hope he enjoyed it).

I've heard this number, or a rough estimate around it, many times before. It never bothers me, I don't care how much other people make and I generally respect the right of a person to earn whatever someone else is willing to pay them. That argument is a little more convoluted with Congress, because they vote on their own salary, so it's more like they're earning whatever they can get away with paying themselves before we riot. Still, I don't begrudge them their six figures. But today, I had an idea.

I propose we tie Congress' salaries directly to the national average wage. If the average salary of a regular working person is, say, $40,000/yr, that's what we pay Congress. When the country is doing better, Congress does better. When something bad happens, like say, a Republican President, we'll call him Donald Deagan, starts off a 30 year period of setting the economy on fire and putting it out with peasant tears, then Congress suffers a little too.

Would this cut the deficit? Not really. All the money we'd save cutting Congressional salaries would probably be enough to buy us one extra F-35 fighter jet. But it would be a nice symbolic budget cut, and since symbolic budget cuts are probably all we're getting anyway, this would be as good as any.

Do I really think this would change Congress' behavior? I don't know, maybe not. I doubt we've got a lot of people in Congress who are in it for the money (not the legit money anyway). Plus, you could argue a policy like this would create a disincentive for the best and the brightest to get into Government. That's a perfectly reasonable argument, but the current Congress isn't exactly a brain trust. You'll have a pretty hard time getting me worried about damaging the intellectual quality of Congress.

On the plus side, I could see how this could happen. First of all, politicians get voters to vote against their own interests all the time, so obviously that's possible. Secondly, wouldn't this be awesome politics. Can't see you pundits on Fox and MSNBC lauding the courageous politicians willing to cut their own salaries in order to cut spending and send a message about fiscal responsibility and solidarity with the people? How could one party publicly oppose this?

Obviously, this isn't going to happen. Look, we're at a point in time when the fortunes of the people running the country have nothing to do with the fortunes of everyone else. Why not look for a way to tie them together, just a little. So, I had an idea, not the most actionable idea I've ever had, and I'm probably not the first person to think of it, but there it is. I thought I'd share.

Ps...after I posted this, I got a little curious and found out that this is in no way an original idea, many people have had it, including some crazy people. You know what, if I had a whole bunch of totally original ideas that nobody ever thought of before, I'd be rich and I wouldn't have to go to work anymore. You can still enjoy the jokes.

Pretty Heat Machine

Like everyone else, I'm apparently so fascinated by the marriage of two British people that I can barely concentrate on anything else. So, I'm sort of mailing this one in, but I'm going to do my best, because I'm a trooper. Ready...set...blog!

Who has two thumbs and decided not to make anymore NBA predictions after last year's debacle? This guy! It makes sense, I haven't really watched the NBA since Jordan retired (which happened after the 1998 finals, and anything you think you saw after 1998 never really happened). It isn't that I stopped liking basketball all at once, I just sort of slowly drifted away, like Glenn Beck slowly drifting away from reality.

I was really a victim of NBA circumstance. I grew up with Bird and Magic, then Jordan, then? Blah. The Spurs? You would have to give me the clockwork orange treatment to get me to watch a whole Spurs game. The Lakers? I grew up a Celtics fan. Plus, I lived in New York the whole decade, so my local action consisted of watching Isaiah Thomas' attempt to burn the Knicks down and collect the insurance money.

Bottom line, I don't know anything about the NBA anymore. So, no NBA predictions this year. But, as the proud owner of an internet blog that sometimes deals with sports, I'm required by federal mandate to have an opinion about the Miami Heat, so here goes.

First of all, I'm not a big fan of this whole thing happening in Miami. I've never liked the Heat. Stupid name, ugly uniforms, by-product of the needless expansion period in all sports that stretched the NBA's talent pool a little too thin (and murdered the NHL, but that's another story). I don't blame the big two and a half for doing this in Miami. If you and two of your buddies decided to go work together somewhere, and you could choose pretty much anywhere you wanted, and you worked winter jobs (let's say you're a team of all-star Santa Claus'), you might pick Miami. I'm just saying, wouldn't this be more fun if it were happening in a city with more basketball history? Maybe a city that hadn't seen a title in a while (or ever)? Somewhere like Philadelphia, or New York or...Cleveland(ouch).

More importantly, I'm not a fan of the way the team is constructed. The big three in Boston fit so well together because they do different things. Pierce needs the ball a lot, he gets to the hoop and to the line. Ray Allen is a spot up shooter who can be happy just hanging out around the three point line and waiting for guys to penetrate and kick. Garnett plays defense and rebounds, he can score inside, but he's not the kind of big man who needs the ball to go through him every possession.

In contrast, Lebron, Wade and Bosh all do basically the same thing. Bosh isn't really a big man, he's just a very tall swing man who likes to play around the perimeter and shoot jumpshots. Lebron and Wade do almost exactly the same thing, except Lebron is a better passer. The problem is, there's only one ball. If you're running the "I dribble dribble dribble and then shoot while you guys watch" offense, it doesn't really matter if one of the watchers is also a superstar, because his watching isn't really helping that much.

And don't say multiple stars makes them much harder to defend. Since none of them are great shooters, it doesn't matter if Lebron draws three defenders and then kicks to Wade, because Wade wants to go right back to the hoop, where Lebron and his three defenders are still standing. And the guy on your team who would guard Lebron isn't the same guy who would guard Wade. The guy who would guard Wade isn't big enough to guard Lebron, and the guy who would guard Lebron isn't quick enough to guard Wade. The result is basically the same thing you had in Cleveland since Lebron got there, or in Miami since Shaq passed 400 pounds and then left. One dribbler, four watchers, lots of jumpshots.

To be fair, there are some benefits. Last year in Cleveland, if Lebron had an off night, if he just didn't have it, they were done unless they were playing a really awful team. Same thing in Miami with Wade. This year, the Heat have both of those guys, and only one of them really needs to have a good game. Either one of those guys can carry the Heat to a win on any given night. They essentially have one more bullet than everyone else, and that's something.

I don't hate the Heat. I don't blame the players for wanting to play together and I don't blame the team for signing the best players they could. I'll root against them because I like it when so-called experts are wrong, but I don't hate the Heat. I'm not fascinated by them either. They're just another team, above average, title contenders, but just another team.

Start Game

You might say that it's ridiculous to start talking about the 2012 election already, but you'd be wrong. First of all, a Republican controlled House working with a slim Democrat majority in the Senate and a Democrat President is already a perfect recipe for total gridlock. That's even more true now because so many Republicans have some sort of hatred derangement syndrome with this particular President. It's entirely possible that our government will just spend the next two years yelling at each other. The 2012 election may be the next thing that actually happens.

We already know who will be running for the Democrats. It's not possible to be crazy enough to mount a serious primary challenge against a sitting President while also being mainstream and sane enough for people to actually take you seriously. I'm sure we'll see a few people run for a while and take pot shots at the President from the left, but it won't amount to anything. That leaves us with the $64,000 question. Who runs for the Republicans?

Sidenote: Nothing here should be taken as me endorsing anyone. I'm just sorting out who I think will run and who I think will win.

I'm breaking the Republican field into three groups. First, the pretenders. Pretenders are people who I think are more likely than not to run, but who have about as much of a chance at the nomination as I do.

Mike Huckabee
I'm actually starting to wonder if Huckleberry will run again. He seems to really like his gig at Fox. Having said that, he's still probably running. Personally, I've always kind of liked Huckabee. He seems like an honest guy with good intentions. If he would just shut up about Jesus I might even be willing to vote for him.

Unfortunately, last time was really Mike's window. The Christians never liked McCain for some reason and Romney's a Mormon. On top of that, Huckabee was the only real southerner in the race. With the Christians and the South up for grabs, Huckabee still got his ass kicked by McCain. This time around, as you'll see if you keep reading, I think the Christians and the South will have better options. The good news is we can all continue enjoying the Huckleberry Hour every weekend on Fox.

Ron Paul
I like Ron Paul. I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary two years ago when I was still a Republican. Ron Paul might also be the only person who can keep his idiot son in line. Still, you know the deal with Congressman Paul. He'll have a small army of loyal followers, he'll annoy the serious candidates in debates, he'll get Fathead Hannity all riled up (because in Hannity's world, being a real conservative means being eager to make things explode in other countries), he'll raise millions here on the interwebs and he'll finish fifth.

Newt Gingrich
I think some people may consider Newt a real contender, not me. Newt spends way too much time on TV. If you want to make a big comeback in politics, you do it by disappearing for a while and shutting up, not running your mouth on Fox five nights a week. Also, Newt seems to have the need to say something completely crazy every six months or so, that's not really a plus during a campaign. The former Speaker is popular with hardcore conservatives, and I think he can be a kingmaker, but not the king.

Other pretenders receiving votes...
Jeb Bush - He's going to have a hard time convincing voters that he's never met his brother.
Bobby Jindal - Just because the rest of the Republican party thinks he's black doesn't make it so.
Mike Pence - BOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave Petraeus - Do I have to remind you people of what happened when Wes Clark tried to run?
Rudy Guiliani - Not even Rudy is crazy enough to run again, right? Right??
Mitch Daniels - See Bush, Jeb.
Jim Demint - double BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
Any Republican Member of Congress - I'm like 99.9999% sure you can't win from the Senate or the House this time around. Congress' job approval sits somewhere around 20%. That's the same as the percentage of dentists who don't recommend sugarless gum. How do you get that Washington stink off of you? You don't, especially with the other candidates constantly reminding voters where you work. I've even heard people suggest guys like Marco Rubio and Scott Brown could run. Seriously? Are we even sure Scott Brown isn't a fictional character.

Next, the contenders. Contenders are people who are definitely running unless something crazy happens (crazy being an incredibly relative term in the context of politics). I think everyone below could win under the right circumstances.

Mitt Romney
Cons: Mitt Romney is so boring his secret service code name would be "Ambien". Mitt Romney is so boring he makes John Kerry look like Denis Leary. President Romney's first State of the Union address would be cancelled halfway through. On top of that, I'm not sure Mitt Romney really knows anything. He might be really smart, but sometimes he strikes me as a guy who got into politics because his dad was a politician and because he kinda looks like a politician.

Pros: Romney has a ton of money and lock on the New Hampshire primary. He also has magic underwear. He knows the campaign trail and Republican primary voters know who he is. I don't think he wins the nomination, but he certainly could.

Sarah Palin
Cons: At some point, Palin still has to convince voters that she won't just quit the Presidency when she gets bored with it, like she did with her job as Governor. She'll also have to convince voters that she's not a total moron. On top of that, she may score some points from time to time by badmouthing the media, but nobody ever actually wins a fight with the media, she'll have to make nice eventually.

Pros: The Christians really like Sarah Palin. Seriously, if they had to choose between Palin and Jesus, they'd have to think about it for a minute. On top of that, she's by far the best known person on the possible contenders list. Most importantly, Palin's loyal base of supporters isn't phased by things like facts and reality. I think enough Republicans are smart enough to nominate someone better, but I could easily be wrong about that.

Tim Pawlenty
Pros: As the Governor of Minnesota, Pawlenty walks in the proud footsteps of guys like John Pillsbury (who may or may not have been made of dough), Jesse Ventura and, I believe, the Ultimate Warrior. Pawlenty is relatively well known nationally and very well known in Iowa. Conservatives seem to like him (I saw him on Hannity's show recently and Hannity wasn't yelling at him or anything) and I think moderates will find him, at the very least, tolerable.

Cons: If this primary fight ever came down to Pawlenty vs. Romney, the resulting debate would be so boring it would break television. Not my television, all television. Also, Pawlenty disappeared a little since 2008. That's not entirely bad, but it's not great either. If Pawlenty can win Iowa over Palin and Huckabee (and possibly Gingrich), he could make a serious run at the nomination. In the end, I think he probably winds up as the VP candidate, like he should have last time.

Rick Perry
Pros: The Governor of Texas went from pretender to contender in my book when he seemed oddly reasonable during his recent Daily Show interview. It was jarring. It was like seeing Sarah Palin go on are you smarter than a 5th grader and actually seem smarter than the 5th graders. Perry comes from the biggest Republican state, he can win in the south and, as always, you don't mess with Texas.

Cons: Perry still might be crazy, and he sounds exactly like George W. Bush. If he can prove he's sane and if voters can get past the accent, Perry could be a real dark horse.

Then, there's the favorite, my pick to win the Republican nomination (if you've read my past predictions about, well, anything, you know this means this person will NOT be winning the Republican nomination).

Haley Barbour
Cons: Barbour probably can't win Iowa, New Hampshire or Nevada. If someone else can roll all three of those states, he could get buried before he gets started. Also, Barbour is a former lobbyist (uh oh) and a career politician (double uh oh). Luckily, voters are stupid and will most likely ignore the fact that Barbour is exactly the kind of person they claim to hate so much.

Pros: Lots to like about the Governor of Mississippi...
1) He's a great fundraiser
2) If he can beat Rick Perry, he'll dominate the south in the primaries
3) He'll take Republican leaning general election states like Georgia and North Carolina (and possibly even Virginia) off the table.
4) Swing state Governors are important in primaries and the general, and Haley Barbour just helped get shiny new Republican Governors elected in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.
5) When I look at all the Republican names I just listed, Haley Barbour is the only one I think could actually win in 2012.

Would I vote for Haley Barbour if he were running against Barack Obama? Probably not, but I'd be willing to listen to him at least, which is more than I can say for most of these other people.

I Was Wrong

Even though I'm super smart and totally awesome, sometimes I'm still wrong. Around this time last year, I said the Washington Wizards would surprise everyone and get to the second round of the playoffs. As you may have heard, later that season, Gilbert Arenas brought a gun to work and the Wizards traded their entire team. They wound up with the first pick in the draft.

Similarly, last spring I picked the Seattle Mariners to win the AL west. I did a few paragraphs for every team, so I didn't expect to be right about everything, but man did I get that one wrong. I stopped watching after a while because I couldn't take it, but it's possible Seattle lost all 162 of their games last year. I think they may have also managed to go a whole season without scoring any runs. Swing and a miss for me (and the Mariners, many many times).

Why bring these things up now? I wanted to have some take on the midterm election results, but with the three cable networks hosting a combined 174 analysts for eight hours each, I really doubt there's an angle they missed. I can't imagine I have anything to say that wasn't shouted over 10 other people on cable TV at some point. So, I'm left searching for something that's specific to me, and that brings me to what I was most recently wrong about. Charlie Crist.

A little over two months ago, I boldly predicted that Charlie Crist would win the Florida Senate race convincingly, and his win would usher in a wave of successful independent candidates. I still stand behind the logic I used to draw that conclusion, which was basically this:
1) Polls consistently show people are angry with both parties.
2) Independent candidates can do well if they already have strong name recognition, which the current Governor of the state certainly does.
3) Crist honestly seemed like the best candidate.
4) I also thought the Democrat would drop out and endorse Crist at some point. Swing and a miss there too.

That was my logic, and I would have looked pretty good if my prediction had panned out. Instead, Crist lost by 20 points to tea party favorite and department store mannequin Marco Rubio. Whoops. I tried to figure out where I went wrong and came up with the following:

First of all, Crist was an awful candidate. I don't know what his deal really is, but it seems clear that Florida voters see him as a slimy politician who would do anything to win and has no loyalties other than to himself. I don't know how Florida voters think this makes him any different from every other politician, but one way or the other, they didn't vote for him.

Secondly, Marco Rubio turned out to be probably the most reasonable of all the tea people. To be fair, it didn't take much. Being the most reasonable tea person is like being the coolest kid at bible camp. Still, Senator Elect Rubio looked like a rocket scientist Tuesday night compared to the likes of Carl Paladino and Christine O'Donnell, and that was a pretty good reflection of how the whole campaign season looked.

Most importantly, I ignored the fact that this election was happening in Florida. The Florida that gave us George W. Bush because they couldn't figure out how to vote correctly. The Florida that sent Katherine Harris to the House of Representatives...twice. The Florida that has three sports teams based in Tampa Bay even though Tampa Bay isn't an actual city.

Obviously, Florida shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore. I honestly don't know what we're waiting for. More importantly, I'm never making a prediction for a Senate or House race again, because I'm from New York, and all the other states are crazy.

As for the rest of the midterm results, I have one thought for each party. Humble advice for the road forward.

Democrats
Try growing a collective spine. If it doesn't feel good after a few months, you can always go back to your natural state of cowardly compromise. But, just for a little while, why not try deciding on some principles and then not voting for anything that doesn't match up with those principles. The Republicans did that for two years and do you know what happened next? They mopped the floor with you.

This obviously starts with the President, who's been especially timid since Tuesday. I'm never happier with the President then when he's doing his "why are you people so stupid?" tone of voice while calmly explaining why he's right and everyone else is wrong. I want more of that. Republicans are going to call him arrogant anyway, he might as well just come out swinging.

Republicans
You have to do stuff. I know you don't want to, but you're going to have to. The Democrats still control the Senate and the White House. If you want a shot at winning those in 2012, you have to pass some legislation through the House that people like. Then, you can go to the voters and tell them how the big mean Democrats killed all your awesome legislation and if they just hand the rest of the government over to you, they can have their candy.

Also, you have to find a decent candidate for 2012, and I'll get to that next week.