Let Them Eat Tax Cuts

I'm supposed to be surprised, right? 

Mitt Romney doesn't care about poor people who "think they're entitled to food".  Mitt Romney knows that if starving people are just too lazy to ask their butler to go downstairs and tell their personal chef to fix them some breakfast, it's not the government's job to bail them out.  Get an intercom, jerks!  Or even better, just have a standing breakfast order with your personal chef and then you don't have to tell him to make you breakfast every day, he'll just bring it to you.  If starving people weren't so lazy and stupid, they'd be less starving, like Mitt.

But why am I supposed to be surprised by this?  This Presidential election has been going on since 1914.  Can you tell me one time when Mitt said something that made you believe that he thinks anything other than what we now have video of him saying?  I honestly can't.  There's no magical time before today when I can remember thinking Mitt Romney had any compassion for poor or working people, or any plans or ideas for how to help them. 

It's been a tough couple of weeks for Mitt.  His opportunistic and unbelievably stupid reaction to stuff being on fire and people being dead was a catastrophe, even for him.  It wasn't so much that he jumped on a national security crisis to try to score political points before it was even over.  It wasn't so much that he did it on September 11th (after all, Barack Obama didn't take a day off from emailing me and asking me for money on September 11th, which I thought was pretty stupid).  It was really two things.

First of all, Mitt failed so miserably at capitalizing on a national security crisis.  Nothing he said even made sense.  Listening to Mitt Romney talk about foreign policy is like listening to a four year old tell you where babies come from.  It's just rambling and incoherent and makes you wonder why his parents would bother telling him anything.

More importantly, Mitt doesn't have anything valuable to say about foreign policy at all.  That's what makes his little adventures into stupidity so infuriating.  Anybody can say something stupid, but when you don't have positions to fall back on that people can look at and say "well, he wasn't on his game today, but he's clearly not an actual moron", people start to wonder about you. 

Take Mitt's other comments about how maybe there's no peaceful solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  If someone smart said that, my reaction would be "shit, maybe they're right".  But when Mitt says it I just think "Middle East peace is hard, huh?  Thanks for the update captain dumbass."

But, again, I'm not surprised.  At no time during the 600 Republican primary debates did Mitt say anything that suggested his interest in foreign policy went beyond talking tough and promising not to apologize for things that nobody ever suggested apologizing for.  I just don't think he cares about it that much.

The same is true for Mitt's comments about 47% of Americans.  It wasn't that Mitt was saying things that were condescending and arrogant.  Barack Obama says condescending and arrogant things all the time, it's one of my favorite things about him.  The problem is that Mitt's actual economic policies square up with what he was saying so perfectly.  If your economic situation can't be significantly helped by tax cuts, then Mitt Romney doesn't really understand why you're bothering him. 

But again, there's just nothing surprising about this.  Mitt believes in the magic power of tax cuts.  If you're struggling to feed your family, Mitt's going to cut your boss' boss' taxes.  If you don't have a boss because you don't have a job, then Mitt's going to cut the taxes of some guy in your town who owns a business, and maybe he'll hire you...probably not though.  If your house is on fire, Mitt's going to put it out with tax cuts. 

And if that doesn't work, well, Mitt's pretty much out of ideas, and so is the rest of his party.  Well, except maybe jesus can help out too, that's always Republican plan B.  But he can't really help out, because he still isn't real.  I don't know if Mitt's mormon god, or gods, or whatever it is he believes in, are the kind of gods that are supposed to help with stuff, but unless Mitt's willing to lend you his magic underpants, I wouldn't hold my breath.

This is what Republicans believe in now.  Magic and fantasy.  If it can't be fixed by tax cuts or praying, then it can't be fixed by Republicans.  People are always whining about how Mitt doesn't give any specifics.  He doesn't have any!  It's like asking a magician to give you specifics about how he made the elephant appear out of nowhere.  He can't give you specifics, because that shit didn't actually happen.

And the people left in the Republican party with working brains are starting to chirp about the amazing lack of substance, common sense and basic competence from the Romney campaign.  Some of them have a right to complain, but most of them deserve to be blamed.  They embraced Sarah Palin.  They embraced the tea party.  How exactly did they think this story was going to end?

Last week, Rick Santorum said at their little apple pie and gay bashing rally that the "smart people" will never be on their side.  You said it, Rick.  

Alchemy 2012!

So Mitt Romney finally has a running mate.  I can't wait to find out who Barack Obama decides to pick (what?  Is it still Biden?  Well, OK then).  Get ready for three months of soundbites from conservatives that basically boil down to "well, I mean, sure Mitt Romney sucks, but, but Paul Ryan!".  Conservatives are excited about Paul Ryan, like kids on Conservative Christmas.  Conservative Christmas, by the way, is a lot like regular Christmas, only instead of giving toys to all the good little girls and boys, Conservative Santa takes all the toys from the poor kids and gives them to the rich kids who really deserve them.  Those poor kids need to get a job, or an inheritance.

Personally, I like this pick for the Republicans.  Honestly, I do.  First, let's start by comparing him to the lowest possible running mate standard, which is obviously Sarah Palin.

Paul Ryan understands enough about the federal budget to, ya know, propose a budget.  Advantage Ryan.
Paul Ryan comes from a state where people actually live.  Advantage Ryan.
Paul Ryan possesses the ability to speak in full sentences.  Advantage Ryan.
Paul Ryan is, at least, vaguely familiar with reality.  Advantage Ryan.

Next, what's the worst thing about Mitt Romney as a candidate?  I know it's hard to choose, but I think you'd have to say it's the fact that nobody likes him.  He's just a really unlikable guy.  When he's talking, instead of listening to what he's actually saying, most people are just daydreaming about running up onto the stage and punching him in the face.

Paul Ryan, on the other hand, is genuinely likable.  He has an ability very few 2012 Republicans have, the ability to sound reasonable.  When you see Paul Ryan on TV, even as he's saying things you completely disagree with, he doesn't make you want to throw things at the TV, or, I don't know, spend an hour writing an entire blog post just making fun of the things he's saying http://somethingclever13.blogspot.com/2012/07/your-arguments-are-bad-and-you-should.html

Now, Democrats are pretty excited about Paul Ryan too, and I understand why.  Yes, Paul Ryan believes that the rights of women are less important than the rights of religious institutions to impose their values on everyone else.  Yes, Paul Ryan believes you can budget cut your way out of a recession. And yes, Paul Ryan is an economic alchemist.

All 2012 Republicans are economic alchemists.  They believe they can magically turn tax cuts for the wealthy into a thriving economy for everyone.  It's just like how you build a house starting with the roof.  The roof is the shelter creator.  Without the roof, your house is just a small park with high walls.  So you build the roof first and just wait for the roof parts to fall down and magically form the rest of the house.  That's how you build a house, right?  I don't know, I've never done it.

You can't blame Mitt Romney for choosing a Republican to run on the Republican ticket with him.  And, in 2012, you can't really ask Mitt Romney to find a Republican to run with him who doesn't believe things that are stupid.

I also think the Romney campaign deserves some credit for picking someone who really does seem interested in talking about policy.  We'll see if I'm right when he starts making campaign speeches, but I've always seen Paul Ryan as a guy who is much more interested in having an honest policy debate than he is in suggesting that Barack Obama is a secret Kenyan muslim terrorist.

I don't know if Ryan helps the Romney campaign win any states, but I don't think that's the point.  Selecting Ryan represents a decision to make this an election about base and turnout, and I think that's the right move for Romney.  The Republicans don't have policies that appeal to truly independent or moderate people, they just don't.  They need to win this election with base energy and turn-out.  Paul Ryan helps with that as much as anyone, and he does it with much less negative baggage than you'd get with someone like Santorum or Palin or Gingrich.

For Ryan, this is obviously great.  I don't think Romney wins, he's just too unlikable (I know it wasn't that long ago that I said I thought Romney had a better than 50% chance, but have you seen how they're running his campaign?  Right now, I think Romney would do better if he spent the next three months traveling around the world and avoiding the media).

So Ryan gets national campaign experience and he gets to blame the loss on Romney.  After the election, he'll be in the same position Sarah Palin was in four years ago.  Palin had the opportunity to go away for a while, learn stuff, and come back as the clear favorite for the 2012 nomination.  Now, Palin possesses neither the ability to go away nor the ability to learn stuff, so that didn't really work out for her, but she had the opportunity, and Paul Ryan will have the same opportunity.  And he doesn't have to go all the way away, he just has to stop himself from chasing every TV camera he sees for a couple of years.

In 2016, Paul Ryan can be the clear favorite for the Republican nomination for an election that's wide open on both sides.  Additionally, since this country is really too stupid to stick to a budget, our debt is only going to be worse four years from now, which only makes Ryan (who, whether you like his ideas or not, is one of the few people to at least suggest something) more attractive in four years.

I'd be really interested in a debate between Barack Obama and Paul Ryan.  I think it would be fascinating.  Unfortunately, unless Romney goes back to his planet soon, we're still stuck with three horrible Romney/Obama debates and one semi-fascinating Biden/Ryan debate (people forget how smart Biden is because he's so goofy, but he's a bright guy).  So, I'm not sure this choice makes the election any more watchable, or tolerable, but it does bait an interesting trap for the Democrats.

I've said before that Republicans are stupid for making constant personal attacks against Barack Obama because he's so likable.  I think the same is true for Ryan.  Democrats seem to be getting ready to tell you that Paul Ryan eats babies for fun (and, since he's from Wisconsin, he fries them and covers them in a thick, cheese-based sauce, which is even more cruel and delicious), but when you meet him, he'll seem like a good guy, and the Democrats will just look mean and stupid.

I probably would have preferred Tim Pawlenty, just because I kind of like Pawlenty, he seems like a nice guy, but Paul Ryan was probably the right choice.  Don't worry, I'm sure the Romney campaign has already fired whoever it was that actually did something right.

What Mitt Should Do

After watching Mitt Romney campaign for a few months, I'm forced to ask, is Mitt's campaign being run by a brain trust of infants and angry chimpanzees?  Honestly, with the President as vulnerable as he is, I'm baffled by the Romney campaign's inability to ever do anything right.  Campaigns for student council president in high schools have been better run.  

Now, I'm not rooting for Mitt, but there's always a part of me that roots for the trainwreckiest outcome possible, which is obviously a Romney victory.  If Mitt wins, I predict we'll lose an entire state by 2016.  We'll have no idea where it went.  Mitt might know, but he won't tell us.  I hope it's Texas.

Doesn't that sound fun?  Not even a little?  Well I think it does, so here's what I think Mitt needs to do to win.

1) Release His Tax Returns

How stupid can Mitt Romney possibly be?  He's at least smart enough to send his money on permanent tropical vacations.  It's unbelievable to me that Mitt doesn't understand how poorly he's handling this thing with the tax returns.  Here are some things everybody already knows about Mitt:

1) He's super duper rich.

2) His money lives in far away places.

3) Because he doesn't work anymore, and mostly just makes money from investments, he pays a frustratingly low tax rate.

Mitt's tax returns will tell us all of these things, not that we need them to.  Unless Mitt's tax returns will also somehow reveal a 7 figure "hooker disposal" budget, there's no way releasing his returns could possibly be more damaging than four months of stories about how he won't release them.  You know what nobody will give a shit about once Mitt releases his tax returns?  Mitt's tax returns.

Also, even though the current Republican theory of economics is demonstrably nonsense, doesn't the fact that Mitt has to hide his money off-shore sort of play right into their whole argument about how we need a Republican President to create an environment that's conducive to business and investment?  What am I missing?

2) Shut Up About Health Care

Anybody stupid enough to fall for the Republican talking points about the Affordable Care Act is already voting for Romney because they think Barack Obama is a secret muslim communist socialist. 

And it isn't just that arguing against, ya know, insuring more people, makes you looks stupid.  It also makes you looks like kind of a dick.  When Republicans say health care reform will lead to "rationing", what they're really saying is "hey look, if we let more people get insurance, then more people will be going to the doctor, and we might have to wait longer, and we'd rather just let some poor people die than figure out a better system." 

If Mitt wants to make the argument that the Affordable Care Act is just a big government give away to big insurance companies, I'm cool with that.  But if he wants to make the argument that it's a socialist government take-over of health care, than he's an idiot. 

Lost my train of thought there a little, this health care debate still makes me crazy, moving on...  

3) Pick a Normal Running Mate

Remember what John McCain did when he picked a running mate?  Mitt should do exactly not that.  McCain picked a clown to run with him and it turned his campaign into a circus.  Romney should pick Tim Pawlenty.  He's the vanilla pudding of politicians.  He'll sit quietly and not say anything stupid, which already gives him an advantage over Biden.  If you ask for anything else from a running mate, you're just setting yourself up for failure.

Also, I like Tim Pawlenty.  The fact that he got knocked out of the Republican primaries almost immediately only proves my point that he might actually not be an idiot.  And, for all the those evangelicals who are worried about how mormon-y Romney is, I hear T-Paw is super jesus-y.

4) Talk About Results

Don't let the Obama campaign dismiss the still struggling economy by blaming everything on Congress. Is it true that Barack Obama hasn't really been able to do anything about jobs because Congressional Republicans have spent the last two years "governing" like fussy six-year-olds?  Yes, but who cares?  How does that help anyone?  Do you think, if the President gets re-elected, Republicans will suddenly grow up and realize they need to work with him?  

Romney needs to make the point that he's not blaming the President for the current state of the economy, he's just saying the President isn't the guy to fix it.  It may not be fair, but it's probably true.

(sidenote: there's zero evidence Romney is the guy to fix it, and a decent amount of evidence that the policies Mitt wants to implement are what broke the economy in the first place, but voters really aren't that bright.  You have to have like three consecutive intelligent thoughts to get to where I just went, most swing voters can barely string together three polysyllabic words).  

Barack Obama's only defense against the unemployment rate is that it's not his fault.  If Mitt makes the point that it doesn't matter whose fault it is, the Obama campaign will be mostly defenseless on the economy, which is the only thing anybody really cares about right now.

5) Lower Expectations

Barack Obama is going to murder Mitt Romney in three debates.  It isn't really Mitt's fault.  How is he supposed to compete with an actual smart person after a year of debating mouth-breathers like Santorum and Gingrich.  The only intelligent counter points Mitt ever heard during the primaries came from Ron Paul, and he never had to respond to those because the crowd was always booing Ron ("Boooooooooo! what you said is logical and I hate it! Boooooooo!")

Do you remember the Palin/Biden debates from four years ago?  Everything we knew about Palin suggested she wouldn't be able to get through the debate without setting her podium on fire.  So, when she managed to make it to the stage without getting lost, half of the media immediately declared her the winner.  Sure, her points were mostly incoherent nonsense, but she smiled a lot and seemed to have a decent grasp of the English language, and that was really more than we were expecting.

Mitt needs to pull the same trick.  By the time we get to the debates, people should be saying that Mitt wins as long as his battery doesn't run out on national TV.  I think he's well on his way.

6) Pretend He's Never Met Congress

Mitt should run as far away from Congressional Republicans as possible.  Obama should do the same thing with Congressional Democrats, but this isn't about the President right now.  You know who people hate?  Congress.  You know how Mitt could lock up about a million swing votes in about 10 seconds?  Walk up to a microphone somewhere and say "you know, I'm a Republican and all, but Michele Bachmann really is a fucking idiot.  I just felt like I needed to share."  Wait, are mormons allowed to say that word?  He may have to re-write it a little.  Can he say gosh darn?

And that's pretty much it.  You have a sitting President with a somewhat disappointed base and an unemployment rate over 8%.  If Mitt Romney can spend the next four months not being a moron and staying out of his own way, I give him about a 75% chance of winning.  Terrifying?  Yes.  But also true.  Luckily for everyone, the chances of him spending four months not being a moron are not quite so high, so there's still hope.  

State Of The Republican Race

It's been almost a year already since I took my first shot at summing up the race for the Republican nomination http://somethingclever13.blogspot.com/2010/11/start-game.html.  I nailed some things (hello Rick Perry) and whiffed on others (oh, Haley Barbour, why have you forsaken me?).  The aftermath of the first sort of important debate is a good time to reset the field and see where we are.  I'll break the remaining candidates into four groups. 

Still Pretending:  People who can't possibly win the nomination, but are still plugging away like champs.
Still Contending:  People who I think still have a shot
Wild Cards:  People I still can't totally figure out
Front Runner:  The guy on top, for now.

But first...
Hasta La Vista Timmy
First off, a fond farewell to Tim Pawlenty.  He showed up at the Iowa debate, hammered away at Michele Bachmann for a little while, finished a distant third in the straw poll and then he bailed.  Well done, buddy.  Tim was the little engine that couldn't, because nobody wanted him to.  After the debate Thursday, I was thinking Pawlenty had a great performance and, in going after the two front runners, did exactly what he needed to do.  I just didn't know if it was enough.  Now I know.  It wasn't.

Still Pretending

Newt Gingrich

Newt easily had the worst performance in Thursday's debate.  Look, I understand conservative politicians can score points by blaming the media every time they say something stupid.  But Newt, who WORKED AT FOX, went to the FOX DEBATE Thursday and complained that the FOX ANCHORS were nailing him with gotcha questions.  Gotcha questions like, "Why did your whole staff quit?" and "Can you explain words that you said?". 

Newt then proceeded to finish 8th in a 10 man race, behind a guy who announced he wasn't participating in the straw poll two months ago and a guy who wasn't officially in the race yet when the poll started.  I'll enjoy the comedy of Newt's campaign until whenever he drops out. 

By the way, I wish Republicans would stop trying to tell me that Newt is some kind of super genius.  He's a small time political hack who can't cut it on the national stage.  End of story.

Herman Cain

Speaking of hacks.  I don't really know what to make of Herman's Cain's debate performance.  Policy wise, he's in pretty far over his head at this point.  His calling card is that old story about how if you ran a business then you know how to run a government.  Of course, that's nonsense, but politicians have been saying it for as long as I can remember and people are still falling for it.  I can see Cain doing surprisingly well in one of the early primaries, but one third place finish in Iowa doesn't get you the nomination.

Rick Santorum

The knuckle-dragging bible-thumping on social issues.  The know-nothing, war-mongering nonsense on foreign policy.  The blind loyalty to the cult of tax cuts.  Rick Santorum is everything that's wrong with the Republican party all rolled up into one ignorant package.  I do not like him.  Luckily, he isn't winning. 

By the way, for anyone who read my recap of Thursday's debate, I want to quickly re-visit one point.  When I said Rick Santorum promised to come to each state and be homophobic in person, I wasn't being hyperbolic or making that up.  Rick, if he wins the Presidency, will apparently spend the majority of his term flying around the country and fighting the evil gays face to face.  That landed him almost 10% of the straw poll votes.  Iowa must be feeling very proud today.

Ron Paul

I love Ron Paul.  If Ron Paul was an atheist, I'd quit my job to go volunteer for his campaign.  Ron did his thing in Thursday's debate.  He talked about monetary policy, which I think he only does to prove that he's smarter than the other candidates, Bachmann can't even spell monetary.  He talked about his different (and better) vision for what Republican foreign policy can be.  He talked about the Constitution, which he was doing back when the rest of the Republican party was cheering George W. Bush on as he urinated all over the Constitution.  He almost won the straw poll, finishing a very close second.  And, as usual, nobody cares.

I think my favorite thing about Congressman Paul is his clear disdain for almost everyone else in his party.  You could tell during the debate, it seems like he hates those people he was sharing the stage with almost as much as they hate Barack Obama.  When asked about Rick Perry, Paul immediately dismissed him as another establishment political hack.   Like I said, I love Ron Paul.

Still Contending

Jon Hunstman

I know, Huntsman probably isn't a real contender and may drop out before I finish typing this sentence.  I think this is me just trying to stay hopeful that maybe, just maybe, the Republicans can turn this thing around and nominate someone with a working brain.  Sadly, my hope is most likely misguided. 

What makes me say that?  Well, Huntsman just sort of blended in at the debate and then finished 10th in the straw poll, including getting less votes (69) then the "other" category (162).  Why I am still a little hopeful?  Hunstman was never going to win Iowa and everyone knew it.  He needs to focus on New Hampshire, work on his delivery (he has a really odd speaking style) and hope for the best.  He still has a good amount of money behind him.

Michele Bachmann

Bachmann's debate performance was awful.  She clung to her talking points the way her husband clings to his (insert latent homosexuality joke here).  However, this one awful performance in this one very early debate is a good sign going forward.  Congresswoman Bachmann is working hard on her ability to stay on message, stick to her talking points and limit her trips to Imagination Land.  It makes her look stiff and over-rehearsed now, but it'll pay off later.  Frankly, I'm a little worried she's taking this more seriously than I thought she could.  I'm impressed with her growth over the last few months, and terrified to say that she might actually be able to win this nomination if she keeps it up.

The Wild Cards

Sarah Palin

Still lurking around the perimeter of the campaign like a shark circling a school of trout, the former half-term Governor continues to cast a shadow over the nomination process.  The fun thing about Palin is you really don't know what she'll do next.  She could run, she could endorse somebody, she could try host her own primary somewhere, she could challenge the other candidates to a bus race.  Palin's unique combination of insanity, irrational self-confidence and delusions of grandeur make almost anything possible.  It's probably already a little late for her to get into the race and win, but you can bet she'll do something in the next six months to seriously influence the race.

Rick Perry

Perry just got in, but I've been convinced he was running since last November.  I don't know what people see in him.  They say he created jobs in Texas.  First of all, I thought government doesn't create jobs, so I'm a little confused.  Secondly, he created jobs in Texas by undercutting surrounding states on taxes, wages and regulation.  That trick doesn't work when you're in charge of the whole country. 

For fans of the West Wing, you may remember the guy President Bartlet ran against for re-election, a know-nothing conservative Governor from Florida named Rob Ritchie, played by James Brolin.  At the time, Ritchie seemed like an approximation of George W. Bush, but now he looks like a mirror image of Perry.  As you may recall, Bartlet wiped the floor with Ritchie in the one debate they had, and I'm pretty sure President Obama would do the same with Perry.

The Front Runner

Mitt Romney

Still at the head of the field, for now.  Here's the thing about Mitt Romney.  His message in the debate was an anti-Obama message.  He's trying to prove he can be the guy Republicans want, the guy to go after the President hard and relentlessly.  That's fine for now, but if he wants to beat the President, he needs more.  No matter how low the President's job approval sinks, he's personal popularity remains high.  People like Barack Obama, and Romney can't beat him by bashing him.  If Mitt wins the nomination, he needs to run a positive general election campaign, centered around his own ideas for what he would do as President. 

Romney's religion could still be a problem in the primary, but only if the other candidates work together.  Michele Bachmann can't just come out and talk about Romney being a mormon, it would drag her down too.  What she needs is a third person, say Herman Cain, to start reminding Republican primary voters that Romney isn't really a christian like they are.  Cain would doom his own campaign by overtly making religion an issue, but he isn't going to win anyway.  Evangelical voters would start to get more nervous about Romney then they already are, and Bachmann would reap the windfall while being able to give the ol' "this campaign isn't about Mitt Romney's faith, it's about the American people" soundbite. 

But before that strategy can work, Bachmann and Perry have to figure out who gets the crazy idiot vote.  If they split that half of the party while Romney manages to avoid splitting the slightly more reasonable and somewhat rational half of the party with someone else, Hunstman maybe, then Romney walks to the nomination while the tea people and the evangelicals are arguing over Bachmann and Perry. 

The bottom line for me is this.  Whichever half of the Republican party can decide who they're behind quicker wins.  Right now, Romney has the lead because nobody can cut into his support with the establishment side of the party while the other side of the party is still getting their act together.  When the primaries start, Bachmann will win Iowa, Romney will win New Hampshire and Perry should win South Carolina assuming he runs a halfway decent campaign.  That puts everyone on even footing coming out of the early states and Romney's money and name recognition should be able to carry him from there. 

This only changes if the tea people and evangelicals can get together and pick one person to win Iowa and South Carolina. Then that person starts the rest of the primary process with an advantage and some momentum.  Do I think this will happen?  Probably not.  Can it happen?  Sure.  Does the idea of President Bachmann or President Perry terrify me?  You bet. 

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.

Mosques and Marriage

I haven't been writing a lot lately. It's possible I've just run out of new ways to call people stupid. It's also possible that the summer heat has melted some of the outer parts of my brain and left me less creative. I've decided that the second possibility is more likely. First of all, I'll never run out of ways to call people stupid. Second of all, it's been a little cooler this week and, voila! Here I am.

I've seen two seemingly unrelated stories in the news lately to which I've had, essentially, the same reaction. The first is this thing about the mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site. Before I get into this, here are a couple of disclaimers:

Disclaimer #1: I'm from New York. If you're also from New York (or at least long island), then whatever opinion you have about this, no matter how much I might disagree with it, is perfectly valid in my eyes. On the other hand, if you're not from New York, if you've never called The Only Real City In The World home, then I couldn't possibly be less interested in what you think about this. Be quiet Sarah Palin, worry about your own town's problems (I don't what problems they have in Alaska, bears? too much snow? ice road trucker camera crews eating all the moose jerky?)

Disclaimer #2: We've got some religion involved in this issue, so anyone who talks about it winds up being labeled anti-muslim or pro-muslim. I assure you that I feel the same way about islam that I feel about all other invisible friends and space gods.

Anyway, I agree with what the President said about the ground zero adjacent mosque on Friday. Not only do I agree with what he said, but I love how he said it. He used his condescending, "why are you people so stupid sometimes" tone that is absolutely my favorite thing about him. Of course private citizens have the right to build a mosque on privately owned land. At the same time, other private citizens have the right to argue and protest about what they do and do not want built in their neighborhood.

Now, if I were a guy looking to build a mosque, would I build it two blocks from the World Trade Center? Probably not. This sounds like a poorly thought out plan, right? I mean, did these people honestly think this would go off without a hitch? I don't know if they've noticed, but people in New York are still pretty touchy about the whole 9/11 thing, and even though we know (well, most of us know) terrorist groups don't represent all muslims, building a mosque two blocks from the giant whole in the ground left by muslim terrorists really does strike me as a dumbass idea. If your goal is building a community center focused on fostering interfaith relations and understanding, this really isn't a good start.

I think, if you live in New York, and this thing stirs up old negative feelings and opens up an old wound for you, or maybe pours salt on a wound that hasn't even healed yet, and you feel like it shouldn't happen, that's a perfectly valid concern, and I think you should voice it. Just don't get mad when elected officials don't have your back. They took an oath to protect the Constitution, not our feelings.

If it seems like my personal opinion on this near ground zero mosque thing is a little hard to nail down, that's because it's one of those things I don't really have a strong opinion about. I sort of don't care. I know I'm supposed to, I don't though.

The second story was the overturning of proposition 8 in California, clearing the way for legal same-sex marriage in the state, ya know, at least until the next court rules, and then the next one. This story is different from the first in that there are no valid opinions on the other side. Of course homosexuals have the right to marry each other and it is the job of the courts to protect the rights of minorities from the opinions of the majority. Even the Republicans seem to mostly get it at this point, they've been pretty quiet since this court decision happened.

Still, some people have expressed their usual outrage about the dangerous gays and their fabulous marriages, and that brings me to how these two stories go together in my head. Some people just don't like homosexuals. They say same-sex marriage threatens opposite-sex marriage, but even the lawyers for Prop. 8 couldn't come up with a story for how that might actually work. They claim they're just looking out for children, but when you take an argument like that into a courtroom, judges generally want to see some of that evidence stuff. Tough break. Really, they just don't like homosexuals.

Similarly, some of the people who are arguing against the almost at ground zero mosque just don't like muslims. I've acknowledged that others arguing against the mosque have valid opinions, but some of them just don't like muslims (when I say "some of them", I'm talking about the outsiders from Alaska and Texas and everywhere else other than New York who suddenly give a crap about all the New York elites they usually hate so much).

My point is, if you don't like muslims or homosexuals, just say that. I wouldn't call it a valid opinion, but it's your opinion and you're stuck with it. And, if you're truthful with us about why you're against these things, then we can have an honest debate with your ignorant ass.

PS...this was a pretty heavy topic, so I felt like throwing in some mostly unrelated comic relief at the end. The title for this post reminded me of the theme song for Married With Children. On Thursday, a guy I work with was talking about cool new shoes he wanted to buy and my other co-workers seemed to be split on the idea. I took a look at the shoes he was talking about and, as it turned out, he was getting ready to by the shoes that Al Bundy invented after seeing god wearing them, only without the built in socks. This may not be comic relief for everyone, but if you were a big Married With Children fan, like my dad, you will laugh your ass off if you haven't seen these before. Enjoy http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/

50,000 Airplanes

I couldn't be less impressed with the Presidential address I watched last night. It was a very informative speech if you happen to have just come out of a 57 day coma. Otherwise, it was ten minutes of whining about whose fault the BP oil spill is followed by a brief discussion of the road forward, which basically amounted to "we're going to be energy independent one day, although I have no earthly idea how".

I'm a fan of the President, I think I've been pretty clear about that. And, to be fair, maybe the President is, once again, being the grown-up in the room. Everyone wants him to do something, everyone wants some knee-jerk reaction. Maybe the subtext last night was something like "we can start arguing about the future of energy again once we get the damn leak stopped". If so, that's a fair point and maybe he's right.

Still, this felt like one of those leadership moments. A time when the President got a good pitch to hit and needed to knock it out of the park. Instead, he let it sail right on by. In his own address last night, the President referenced FDR's address to Congress on May 16, 1940. In the spring of 1940 the Nazis were just steamrolling Europe. Roosevelt knew we needed to get ready for war and set a goal for the production of 50,000 combat planes for the air force in the next year. In the same address, he referenced the current production capacity at the time, about 12,000. As the story goes, we didn't produce 50,000 airplanes, we produced 100,000 airplanes.

I'm the first one to say the President can't really do a whole lot about an oil spill. He's not Aquaman. But leadership on the path forward sort of falls under his job description, especially if he wants to be remembered as a great President, as all Presidents do. No leadership here though. The bold rhetoric of the Obama campaign has given way to timidly measured incrementalism. A logical, but often maddening pragmatism aimed at doing what is possible without alienating anyone. We accept that from a lot of politicians, but this President can do better.

Where's our bold energy goal for the next decade? 1 million solar collectors in the deserts of the southwest by 2020. Is that possible? I have no idea. Do you think FDR knew if 50,000 airplanes was really possible? Do you think Kennedy was sure we could really get to the moon? I think some people still believed the moon was made of cheese in 1960.

Don't like solar power? What about nuclear power? Safe, clean nuclear power would be a nice goal. Don't think nuclear power can ever really be totally safe and totally clean? OK, promise me a Dyson sphere by 2020. I don't care, just say something. We need a tangible energy goal, something for which the nation's best minds and most talented scientists and engineers can shoot.

The people who supported this President are waiting for him to do something real, something big that matches the promise of his campaign (and no, that half-assed health care bill doesn't count). The President spends all of his time trying not to bother the people who already don't like him and never will. Meanwhile, the rest of us wait.

There's another one of those election things coming up in 2012. I won't vote for Sarah Palin or Mitt Romnezxygr (sorry, I can't type Mitt's whole name without falling asleep). But if the Republicans nominate someone interesting, my vote's up for grabs. I'm tired of waiting.

Revelation 6:8

"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him"

So why I am quoting the bible today? It's not really my thing, right? Well, I did go to 12 years of Catholic school, so at one time or another, I've read or heard pretty much every word in that book. And while I don't, ya know, believe most of it, I happily concede that a lot of it is very well written; and this verse from the book of revelation is my favorite. I think of it whenever I see something that makes me wonder if we're all going to die soon.

That explains why I'm quoting the bible, but why my favorite quote, and why today? Well, it seems Sean Hannity's white power book tour (err...conservative victory tour) has landed in Minnesota this evening. First of all, I'm selling Minnesota to Canada the first chance I get, they were already on thin ice, I warned them. More importantly, while he was in town, Hannity decided to interview Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. That was bound to happen eventually, but it just so happened that former almost one term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was in Minnesota today campaigning for Bachmann, and she joined them too.

Do you understand what I'm describing? Hannity and Palin and Bachmann. It's an apocalyptic vortex of fantasy and insanity. Combined IQ: 39ish. Combined crazy quotient: eleventy billion. I didn't even know it was happening. I just flipped through the news channels during a commercial break in the Yankee game and there it was, like a mushroom cloud of stupidity.

I wanted to document the whole hour, but every time I tried to listen for more than 3 minutes straight, blood started coming out of my ears. I've been told spontaneous ear bleeding is bad, so I'll have to jump in and out and just give you the highlights.

(by the way, I jumped to the Yankee game and saw Chan Ho Park...pitching for the Yankees...in a tie game...against Boston. Is there anything on TV that won't make my ears bleed?)

First of all, at least Palin and Hannity are dressed like grown-ups. Bachmann is wearing what I would describe as a taxi cab hood that she stole and fashioned into a jacket. This reminded me of the 2008 campaign when everyone made fun of Hillary Clinton's ridiculous pantsuits and her friends in the media called it sexist because no one makes fun of the male politicians' clothes. Well, I don't see a lot of male politicians in bright yellow jackets.

Palin (right off the bat): "we're not gonna retreat, we're gonna reload". Nothing like a gun metaphor in a time of amped up rhetoric and high emotion. Yes, everyone with a brain understands she's not actually suggesting people reload and go shoot someone. But this is the Hannity show, plenty of people without brains are watching (two people without brains are sitting right next to her).

Bachmann: "people are recognizing we're losing something really valuable". Was she talking about her mind? Was she talking about our sacred right to die young because we couldn't get health care? Oh, she was talking about freedom. Well then.

Six minutes in, we get a "socialism" from Palin and another one right back at her from Hannity. Glad to see they haven't forgotten their talking points. Barack Obama is a radical. You know how I know that? Because Sean Hannity says it every 17 seconds.

Hannity just took a minute to compliment Palin's facebook popularity. It's true, she's like the most popular girl in Hannity's high school. I wonder if they're going steady yet. Meanwhile, Bachmann seems to have picked up Palin's ability to speak without punctuation. When you add Bachmann's crazy eyes and subtract Palin's cool Alaska accent, it really doesn't work as well.

Bachmann (on the health care bill): "we need to tell the truth about the bill". I don't even know where to start. Sometimes I have to wonder if other people can hear themselves talk. I suddenly have a headache.

Palin: "the lamestream media...they'll call us fear mongers"
Bachmann (around 7 minutes later): "we need to be on red hot alert, five alarm alert"

The three of them are all kinds of worked up about Obama's new nuclear weapons policy, which is essentially that we won't use our nuclear weapons against nations who attack us with non-nuclear weapons. I don't know, that seems sort of reasonable to me. Bachmann said "it's an insane policy, and ridiculous, and morally reprehensible" and suggested that anything short of using nuclear weapons is equivalent to saying that it's "OK" to attack us.

Listen, I actually agree with the general notion that it's not a great idea to take options off the table before a hypothetical attack even happens. Furthermore, taking options off the table in advance like that is something I'm pretty sure President Obama, while campaigning, specifically said he wouldn't do. However, in the 65 years since we last used nuclear weapons, we've come up with plenty of other good ways to make things explode. I'm not that worried.

Bachmann: "Our policy for the last 50 years of being ready to defend western Europe against the Soviets has worked." Yes, that's true, it's been especially effective for the last 20 or so years. Those Soviets aren't even looking at Poland now! Be warned Soviets, don't you dare try and take West Germany, Congresswoman Bachmann has her eye on you.

Bachmann (about Obama): "he's engaged in fantasy politics...something crazy...something crazy...fantasy national security". Michele Bachmann just accused someone of living in a fantasy world. MICHELE BACHMANN! I feel like John McEnroe arguing with an umpire..."WHAT?!? YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!" Michele Bachmann's whole life is a fantasy.

Hannity is a talking points machine. You can't get that guy off message. I think even Palin is a little annoyed by it. By the way, I've been to Minnesota, I'm positive I saw black people there. None in the arena tonight though. Odd.

Bachmann: "the American people have been had by the politicians they elected". I'm sorry Michele, what is it you do again? Some kind of government job, you say? Hmmmm.

The last thing I heard before I passed out was Hannity asking the crowd if they'd like to see a Palin/Bachmann Presidential ticket in 2012. Did the crowd respond with stunned silence? No. Did they gasp in horror? Nope. They cheered...loudly...and they were totally serious. So yeah, it's entirely possible that we're all going to die soon. You've been warned.

Just Tell Us How

I was watching some footage from Sarah Palin's tea time speech over the weekend, and it struck me that she was doing something that's one of my major beefs with the Republican party right now. She kept talking about things she wanted, and things we should do, and things that should happen, and a lot of them sounded just fine with me. But Sarah, like a lot of politicians, seemed to keep leaving out one key point in all of her proposed ideas. How? How does she propose we get to where she wants to be?

My favorite example was her take on fighting terrorism; "we win, they lose". I'm not making that up, I actually saw it on tape. Awesome! Why didn't the rest of us think of that? Unfortunately, I can only remember her mentioning two actual strategies she might employ. I don't expect her to lay out her whole secret plan for defeating the terrorists, but I'm going to need more than this.

First, divine intervention (once again, I'm not making that up). Let's try something. You start praying and I'll start shooting at you (and let me be clear, I'm not shooting at you because you're praying, you're praying because I'm about to start shooting at you, which I already decided to do for some unrelated reason). Let's see who comes out on top. I don't mind a President who prays a little about how to deal with enemies, really, I don't. Even with my not believing and all, I can accept prayer as a way many people clear their minds and focus. I'm just not willing to accept it as a key part of the strategy.

Second, not giving Miranda rights to terrorists. I honestly don't care what we do with terror suspects. I feel the same way about this as I do about the death penalty. I have an opinion, but if the government is doing something different, I'm not going to get all worked up about it. But I have a question. Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, people like them, they always tell us how our rights are inalienable, given to us not by the government, but by the man in the sky. If that's the case, don't those rights apply to everyone? Isn't Sarah and Glenn's god in charge of everything? Inalienable, god-given rights don't really sound like the kind of thing you have to be American to get.

Also, isn't this whole terror thing about us defending our way of life? And doesn't our way of life involve, ya know, rights and stuff? Look, I'm not in charge of what we do with terror suspects, and I don't know enough about it to say I think we should do one thing or another, and I'm perfectly happy with us not giving people rights if the experts think that's best. But things you say have to be congruent with other things you say. Rights can't be endowed to us be an omnipotent creator but also only apply to certain people. We can defend ourselves against terror by stepping outside of our usual rule of law, but don't tell me we're defending our values and our way of life by not adhering to them.

I'm wandering a bit. Seriously, I DON'T CARE what we do with terror suspects, send them home, kill them, shoot them into space, whatever. I just want to know what the plan is. How does Sarah think we can get from here to "we win, they lose"? Can we even win? Do you see terrorists ever surrendering and signing a peace treaty? Me neither. Can we convert or kill every terrorist? I don't think so. I don't think this is winnable. This is the new world order, it's how things are from now on. We'll be in this fight for decades or centuries until there's no more America. And then the new America will have to deal with it. That's what I think. Sarah thinks there's a way to win. That's much better than what I think, but I need to hear how.

Federal spending is another one of these things. Both parties do basically the same thing on this, but I have more of a beef with Republicans. Democrats are supposed to be stupid with money, they're Democrats. Republicans are supposed to know better. Everyone wants to cut federal spending, balance the federal budget, make the government live the same way American families live. On the other hand, both parties can't wait to tell me how they're not going to cut defense, social security, medicare, medicaid or national security spending. Why? Because cutting any of those things would be terrible politics.

Hmmmm. Social security, national security and defense, medicare and medicaid and interest on the federal debt made up somewhere around 65% of last year's federal budget (I refuse to do research for anything I'm not getting paid for, but I'm pretty sure I'm within a few percent one way or the other). If we spent on just those things, and completely cut everything else, we might break even. So, how do we balance the federal budget without cutting any of the areas where we spend real money?

Am I suggesting we cut these areas? Well, I'm 30. I've already spent 13 years paying into social security. Good luck getting me to vote for you if you're telling me I can't get a check when I retire (by the way, I don't see me living to 65, or whatever the retirement age will be when I get older, 91 maybe? I'm just saying, ya know, when I hypothetically retire). And good luck getting anyone to vote for you if you're suggesting cutting defense. Everyone wants to cut taxes too, don't even get me started on that. Balancing the federal budget is a great idea. I just don't see it being possible anytime soon. Some politicians talk like it's possible. That's much better than what I think, but please tell the rest of us how.

I see a lot of issues like this. Republicans keep saying they want health care reform too. They want tort reform. I'm OK with that as long as it restricts frivolous malpractice suits and not people's ability to sue insurance companies for screwing them. They want interstate portability. Speaking of asking how, someone tell me how letting insurance companies sell insurance across state lines without any federal regulations on them doesn't result in every insurance company being headquartered out of a P.O. Box in Delaware or whichever other state is willing to regulate and tax them least, or not at all. More importantly, Republicans say they have a plan to reform health care too. Fine, great, I can't wait to hear it.

Here's my point. People will say I'm wrong about everything. Maybe. I don't know a whole lot about terrorism or balancing the federal budget or health care. I'm not saying I know the right way to handle any of this. Here's what I'm saying. For either political party to campaign and speak as if they will win the war on terror, or balance the budget, or solve one of our other seemingly unsolvable problems, but not actually have a plan to do so. That's criminal. Have a plan. Be ready to do something when you get elected. Otherwise, go away, because you're not helping.

PS...there's been a lot of talk about ending the don't ask, don't tell policy since the President mentioned it in the State of the Union Address. I'd like to write about this, but there's not really a whole blog here. It's a bigoted and incredibly stupid policy that makes some people more equal than others AND prevents us from having the best possible military at a time when we're fighting two wars. Anyone with a working brain should be all for ending it, and that's really all I have to say about that.

Mixed Bag

First of all, if anyone reading this hasn't donated to the Haitian relief effort yet, what exactly are you waiting for? Here are some links (I know some people get nervous about credit cards over the internet, I can tell you I've never had any security problems with the red cross website):
American Red Cross: http://www.redcross.org/
Yele Haiti: http://www.yele.org/
MSNBC has a good bunch of links: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34835478/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake/
OK, on to less important things...

I've noticed that many of my favorite ESPN.com writers sometimes do mailbags, where they answer questions sent by readers. Just now, I'm figuring out exactly why. Sometimes you sit down to write, but you don't really have anything to write about. Bummer. That's where the mailbag comes in. Unfortunately, I don't know if I have any readers, and I know they don't e-mail me. I'll have to improvise. So, here are some fake e-mails from made up readers.

Q: "I just watched Mark McGwire admit to Bob Costas that he used steroids. This is a two part question. First, is this even remotely news? Second, did you see him crying? Did you know that Mark McGwire was secretly a ten year old girl this whole time?" - Zack, Bayside High School
A: Excellent question! Of course it's news. And someone should tip Bob Costas off to some other breaking news stories. I have it on good authority that the sun might rise again tomorrow. Also, I took the ice out of my freezer a couple of hours ago, and it melted, all I have left is a bunch of water. I feel like I need to give a tearful interview about it. Seriously, I've never been less surprised by anything. I'll be more surprised tomorrow when I wake up and find that there isn't a monkey in my bathroom than I was when I found out Mark McGwire used steroids. As for the crying, if you're going to come out and try to cover your old lies with barely more believable lies, at least keep your dignity.

Q: "I read your NBA preview blog. Were you high when you predicted that the Washington Wizards would make the playoffs and Gilbert Arenas would have a great year and not do anything crazy? Did you have a serious concussion or some other kind of traumatic brain injury?" - Balki, Chicago/Mypos
A: No. Sadly, my brain was fully functional when I wrote that. I'm 30 years old and it's possible I've never been more wrong about anything in my life. I'll give Gilbert this, not many people could pull off doing something that hits a 10 on the what the f*ck meter and still have it not be that surprising. Well done sir.

Q: "I have a friend who innocently brought four guns to work, only because he didn't want to leave them home with the kids. Now, out of nowhere, he's suspended from work and being charged with a felony. I guess I should also mention that my friend has a reputation for being somewhat unstable, and any rational person would be terrified by the idea of him having even one gun. But come on, shouldn't everyone just give my friend a break?" - Philbert, Washington D.C.
A: Sorry "Philbert", I'm going to have to disagree. I don't think your "friend" is a bad guy. In fact, if I knew who you were talking about, I'd probably say he's someone I've always liked and rooted for. But, if I brought a gun to my office, I'd probably lose my job immediately, and nobody would give a crap. So I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy for your buddy.

Q: "What do you think about Charles Woodson winning Defensive Player of the Year?" - Jean Luc, um...Space, in the future
A: Let me just say this. If you offered the Packers Darrelle Revis straight up for Charles Woodson, even if Woodson was still young, they'd take that deal so fast you'd see a big Packer shaped dust cloud in the room where they were standing. Not only should Darrelle Revis have been the Defensive Player of the Year, he may also be some kind of Roman god. Did the Romans have a god of pass coverage? I feel like they should have.

Q: "Did you think it was weird for the NFL to have the Packers-Cardinals playoff game officiated by a group of blind chimps?" - A.C., Bayside High School
A: Lots of questions from Bayside today, they're huge fans of mine. I actually got 200-300 almost identical e-mails. I know it seemed that way, but I went back and watched the game footage in slow motion. The game was officiated by actual human referees, who, at times, appeared to have the full power of sight. Is it possible the NFL adapted my Umpire Idol idea and used it? I don't think so, my idea involved making sure the winners knew the rules of the sport. It's more likely a bunch of drunk tailgaters from the parking lot beat up the actual refs and took their uniforms. The NFL should beef up ref security for this weekend. By the way, what does the A.C. stand for?

Q: "What do you think of this whole Leno-Conan thing?" - Tyler, Paper Street
A: First, I think what I've always thought. Jay Leno sucks and I don't understand why anyone watches his show. I don't understand why NBC can't just let Jay and his 95 and over demographic go to ABC. Carson was the best, Conan is awesome. Leno is like the lettuce in my patented BLMB(bacon, lettuce and more bacon) sandwich. I'd say I'm boycotting Leno from now on, but I literally couldn't watch him less than I already do.

Q: "You picked the Cowboys and Chargers in the superbowl. You still feeling pretty good about that?" - Ron, San Diego
A: I feel awesome about my picks right about now. The Cowboys destroyed the Eagles and the Jets have their fans set up perfectly for the annual huge disappointment that no one saw coming. Plus, I think this is the week the football gods punish the Colts for quitting, which means if the Chargers can get by the Jets, they get a home game next week against Jets lite. Of course, if you read back to my Wizards/Arenas pick, you'll see that Jets and Vikings fans should be very happy I'm picking against them this week.

Q: "Speaking of your NBA preview, when you tagged the Nets as the most boring team in the NBA, did you fail to account for how interesting a team can be when it's that bad, or are you not the kind of person who finds 10 car pile-ups interesting?"- Hawkeye, fictional Korea
A: First of all, how did you know someone else also asked a question about my NBA preview? That's a little creepy. The answer is a little bit of both. I'm not surprised at how bad the Nets are. I also wrote that if you combined the rosters of the Knicks and the Nets, you still wouldn't have a playoff team. Even with the Knicks overachieving, the Nets are still bad enough to make that true. If you added all of the Nets to the Knicks, it might actually make the Knicks worse. At the same time, I probably underestimated how interesting this colossal failure would be. I have to admit to turning to Nets games a few times this year, just to see how bad it really is. I have yet to be disappointed.

Q: "Do you regret dumping the Islanders for the Edmonton Oilers now that the Oilers might be the worst team in hockey and the Islanders are not actually terrible and kind of fun to watch?" - ALF, Melmac
A: Not at all. This was a long term decision and I'm very happy with it. Have I seen an Oilers game all year? Absolutely not. Is it possible I may never see an Oilers game? Entirely possible, since only the Cup finals get televised on a real TV network. Are the Islanders' throwback blue uniforms on Saturday nights incredibly awesome? You're damn right they are. Having said all that, Edmonton is still the best hockey city I could find and I'm still moving there if I ever get rich and decide to move out of the U.S., so I'm fine with my choice.

Q: "Any thoughts on Pete Carroll going to Seattle?" - Al, Chicago
A: This is really a two part question. First, how do I feel about him leaving USC? I don't know yet. I get the sense USC football may get some nice NCAA sanctions for Valentine's Day. If that's the case, Pete's sudden exit gets a solid 8.5 on the douchebag meter. Otherwise, he had to leave sometime. Second, how do I feel about Seattle being the NFL job he finally took? That's the part I don't get, and the part that makes me think he had other reasons for leaving. Maybe he just got tired of waiting for Norv Turner to finally get himself run out of San Diego. Maybe he just really likes rain. I don't know, but the Seahawks were awful this year, and possibly the first team to quit on the season. Why is Pete Carroll taking over a team that quit before the Redskins? Before the Raiders? Before the Rams? I honestly can't figure it out.

Q: "Did you see the Sarah Palin-Glenn Beck interview?" - Jim, Scranton
A: I wouldn't have missed it for the world. It was like the black hole at the center of the galaxy of stupidity. You know what's really starting to strike me about Sarah Palin? Her incredibly high ratio of condescension to knowledge. I don't know if we've ever seen anyone who knows so little acting as if she knows so much. Everything she says, even the total nonsense, has this air of absolute certainty about it. It's really something. I still say she should have her own TV network. I also still say I'm moving to Finland if she gets elected President (which I also still say is impossible unless her campaign strategy includes some sort of military coup involving the Alaska National Guard).

Q: "Can you believe someone other than Mr. T is playing B.A. Baracus in the new A-Team movie?" - Danny, San Francisco
A: I absolutely cannot believe that. "Mr. T is dead" is the only acceptable excuse for that, and Mr. T is clearly not dead, I just saw him in a commercial. I don't know a whole lot about this Rampage Jackson dude, but I pity the fool who takes Mr. T's role.

Q: "I'm getting excited to watch the Olympics in February and I'm wondering if you can point me toward some of the best competitions to see?" - Mike, Long Island
A: This is obviously a trick question, no one is excited to watch the Olympics.

Q: "Everyone knows you don't care about soccer, and you're right not to, soccer sucks. But are you going to try to get interested in the World Cup?" - Rose, Miami
A: I think I might. Originally, I had decided to double boycott the World Cup on account of it being soccer and the Irish team not even being involved. Recently, I'm having a change of heart. I remember that I always enjoy the World Cup, even if I go back to making fun of soccer as soon as it's over. It's the best possible soccer you can see. Since the Irish are out, I'm rooting for England. I know Ireland and England haven't always gotten along but, as always, I'm a puzzle.

Understanding Sarah Palin's Appeal

Sometimes, I encounter something I just don't completely understand. Something I can't totally get my head around. For example, I know a lot of people watch "So You Think You Can Dance" and "Dancing With the Stars". Why? I have no idea. I can't possibly imagine why anyone would want to watch either of those shows, but there they are every week, someone must be watching (and don't tell me it's dancers or people who used to dance. I used to play basketball, it doesn't make me want to watch Tom Delay play basketball). Another example, I don't like onions. I know people who love onions, on a burger, in onion rings, my little sister is a huge fan of the awesome blossom. Every time I accidentally bite into an onion, I wonder how anyone could possibly enjoy that flavor (sometimes i hear people say onions are sweet, I've never tasted a sweet onion in my life, maybe my taste buds are broken).

Usually, I don't care about these little things, people enjoy what they enjoy, and I don't, and that's fine. But sometimes this happens with relatively important things. I'm fairly convinced Sarah Palin is going to run for president in three years, that's important, and yet I can't understand what anyone sees in her. Not that she's unlikeable personally, but I feel like, based on what we currently know about her, the number of people who want her to be the president should be zero. And yet, the actual number of people who want her to be the president is considerably higher than zero. So, I feel like I need to understand this. Why are people so excited about the almost one-term Governor of Alaska as a national candidate?

I've heard people suggest that conservatives (in particular, social conservatives) are excited about her level of ideological purity. I don't buy this. For one thing, there are plenty of conservatives who are at least as ideologically pure as Sarah Palin. How do I know this? Because I see them on TV every night agreeing with every word she says. Why don't millions of conservatives want Bill Kristol or Ann Coulter to be the next president? Also, am I the only one who gets uncomfortable when a leading political party starts talking so much about any kind of purity? I hope not, I actually heard a Republican on TV the other day use the word "purge". Not good. So no, I'm not really buying the purity argument.

Is it just because she's relatively attractive? This one has some merit at first glance. Attractiveness is always relative, and when you compare Sarah Palin to other prominent women in politics, let's just say her stock doesn't go down. Also, I think a lot of people, when they picture Sarah Palin, actually picture Tina Fey, who is way cuter than her TV character is supposed to be. But this argument falls apart pretty quickly too. I'll go to the Ann Coulter well again. I'm sure some people think Ann's as attractive as other people think Sarah Palin is (I don't know any of them, but I'm sure they're out there somewhere). No one is pushing Coulter in 2012, at least I hope not. I've heard people suggest that Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is attractive, and nobody wants her to be the president (if you don't know who she is yet, you're just going to have to trust me, you don't want her in charge of anything, if you made a list of the craziest people in the U.S., she'd absolutely be in the top 10).

Also, I know attractiveness is always a positive accessory for politicians of both genders (look at John Edwards, apparently, he was a total sleazeball, but people thought he was a really good guy and I'd say it's because he kind of reminded them of Alex P. Keaton). Still, I'd like to think it's nothing more than that, just an accessory, something we appreciate in an otherwise good candidate, but not something that gets us behind otherwise meritless candidates. Am I giving America too much credit here? Maybe, but that doesn't really sound like something I'd do.

Maybe it's just because she's young and new and exciting. Like a shiny new ball of political energy. Umm, no. You've met the Republican party, right? This is the party that has recently given us Bob Dole and John McCain. Do any of the adjectives in that first sentence sound like anything Republicans generally get behind? No, no they don't.

I was lost on this issue, ready to give up. Then, last night, I heard something that pointed me in a new direction. Chris Matthews, who may be loud and obnoxious, but who's also right on target with political analysis more often then not, pointed out that he sees a lot of George W. Bush in Sarah Palin. At first, this may sound a little silly. He's an old guy from Texas, she's a relatively young woman from Alaska. He's from one of the most powerful families in America, she grew up in a pretty regular home. But actually, Matthews is dead on with this, here's how.

Both parties, when it suits them, have a certain anti-intellectual streak. It's one of the easiest ways to get votes. People always like candidates who they believe are like them in some way. Look around you for a second, go ahead, take a look. Do you see some stupid people? You bet you do. There's quite a bit of political advantage in convincing people that you're not some smarty-pants egghead who's better then them. George W. Bush did a great job at this in his first campaign. He was plain spoken, he didn't seem to know a lot of details about important things, but he seemed confident he had the gist of it. People really saw him as a regular guy.

The problem, usually, is that we know these politicians aren't really as dumb as they sometimes pretend to be. Take George W. Bush. He gets made fun of a lot for being stupid, acting stupid, using words that aren't actually words (this, by the way, was one of my favorite things about the former President, I say he was the Commander in Chief, and if he said it was a word, then it was a word). The truth is, he may not be as smart as we want a president to be, but there's a lot of room between smart enough to be the president and stupid. The guy has two Ivy League diplomas. He may not be a rocket scientist, but he's no backwoods yokel either, and he's smarter then most people. I think people generally understand this about most politicians, so there's always sort of an uneasy following of guys who go along with the anti-intellectualism, as if we're giving them credit for at least pretending to be like everyone else, but we know they aren't really.

This brings us back to Sarah Palin. I obviously don't know her personally, and I have no idea what she may really be like. She could be some kind of secret genius like Lauren Conrad in that Family Guy episode. But, from everything I've seen of her on TV and read about her, I've come to this conclusion. Sarah Palin might be an actual moron. Would a smart person think you could quit your job as Governor for no particular reason and still successfully run for president? (even Dick Morris said this was a bad idea, Dick Morris!) Would a smart person pick a fight with David Letterman, a guy with a nightly megaphone from which he can shout back at you and nothing to lose? Would a smart person, in the middle of a presidential campaign, do multiple interviews for which she wasn't prepared on basic issues?

My point is, there's politically useful dumb and there's actual dumb. While most politicians are the former, it's possible that Sarah Palin is the latter. Is dumb too mean? Fine, for those of you who are sensitive, you can use intellectually unremarkable. Either way, I think that's why some people are so excited about her. I was excited about Barack Obama because after years of trying to get excited about politicians who were pretending to be what I'm looking for in a candidate, I saw a guy who might actually be many of those things. I think some people feel the same way about Sarah Palin. After years of trying to get excited about politicians who pretend to just be regular, average, unremarkable folks, they see someone who might actually be one.

I'd wrap up by saying Democrats should be careful what they wish for if they're wishing for the Republicans to nominate Palin in 2012, but I just can't get myself there. I can't see her having to debate Barack Obama three times and still being able to win anything. When the last campaign ended, I thought maybe if she went back to Alaska for a couple of years, really got knowledgeable on some issues and came back with her charisma and charm coupled with some surprising policy chops, she'd be a real contender. Instead, she quit her job, wrote a book and went on Oprah. I don't get the sense she's spending a lot of time reading up on world issues or domestic policy proposals.

So, instead of telling Democrats to be careful, I'll tell Republicans to be careful. Because, if my theory is right, the two years of campaigning that starts in January of 2011 will get her base of supporters even more excited about her, but it'll give everyone else a chance to see what she really is. If Republicans don't find another candidate the rest of the party can rally around, they'll wind up with a nominee that can't possibly win. Look, I said at the beginning, I like Sarah Palin personally. During the VP debate last year, I remember commenting to a friend that Sarah Palin should get her own TV show, which I then quickly upgraded to her own TV network, she's incredibly entertaining. But if she wins the Republican nomination, the rest of the Republicans should probably find a better party to join. And if she somehow wins the presidency (let's say Barack Obama randomly decides to sell the Rocky Mountains to China, which they then immediately re-name the Rocky Maotains, that might do it) then we should all move to Norway. I may finally have a good theory to explain Sarah Palin's appeal, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.