The Incredibles and Youth Baseball

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3553475

In many ways, the life of a columnist is fairly simple: find an issue that you think will interest readers, and complain about it. Conflict and disagreement is interesting, so columnists are often looking for things they find controversial or annoying. I enjoy the column format, but I find a more free-flowing analytical format more interesting.

This is less political, but there are clear political dimensions to it. The AP summarizes as follows:

Nine-year-old Jericho Scott is a good baseball player -- too good, it turns out. The right-hander has a fastball that tops out at about 40 mph. He throws so hard that the Youth Baseball League of New Haven told his coach that the boy could not pitch any more. When Jericho took the mound anyway last week, the opposing team forfeited the game, packed its gear and left, his coach said.

As far as I can tell, a youth baseball league, in the name of "fairness," is not allowing the best pitcher to pitch. The social dimensions of this are pretty stark, I think.

1. The 9-year old African American has a data point to support a belief in a white-run, deliberately oppressive society.

First off, I don't believe that racism is a force here. I think that human idiocy, a far more powerful force, is the driving factor.

But fast forward five to seven years into the future, when the nine-year old pitcher is an adolescent, opinionated young man (I was there once). He will remember this incident, I'm sure; I remember my own Little League stories from when I was even younger than this. (My first at bat in the Fall League as a cleanup hitter was a fielder's choice, 4-6.) He looks back and notices that he was singled out. As a black kid. By a white power structure.

In essence, a talented black child was restricted from using his talents, simply because he was too talented. If I were an African-American in his shoes, racism would certainly occur to me. And you certainly can't blame him if it does.

2. This is the worst of modern liberalism.

For good and important reasons, modern liberalism is all about fairness. This example is a negative application of a positive goal. In "Harrison Bergeron," Kurt Vonnegut paints a picture of a dystopian future where everyone is brought down to a level of base equality in the name of fairness. He starts out by writing, "The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal." I get the feeling that there's a little bit of that ethic going on here. "Harrison" is a short story about egalitarianism gone awry, and this is much the same.

3. What is the lesson to the other kids?

When the coaches say that they're not going to let their kids play, the message is quite obvious: if something is hard, and the odds seem stacked against you, don't bother. Just complain. Rather than learning that hard work is the righteous way to confront these situations, they learn about litigation, and politicking, and, more colloquially, "bitching."

4. There are other, more sane approaches to address the child's exceptional talent!

The main one, of course, is to limit the amount of pitching that EVERY kid can do in the league, simply in the name of arm health. Little Leagues across the world have been instituting pitch count limits and innings limits; if every pitcher is subjected to a 3 innings/week cap, it's certainly not unreasonable for the kids to try to hit him for those 3 innings. That, of course, would be a much more reasonable approach to creating some manner of "fairness."

The best popular statement of opposition to this gross application of egalitarianism was in the Pixar film The Incredibles, directed by the inimitable Brad Bird. Jericho is exceptional, and I hope that enough people see that to give him every chance to develop.

Inexperienced VP Candidates

It's not a particularly illustrious list, but here's a chronological list of some of the most inexperienced VP candidates in history:

Chester A. Arthur (1880)
Whitelaw Reid (1892)
Arthur Sewell (1896)
Garret Hobart (1896)
John W. Kern (1908)
Nicholas Butler (1912)
Frank Knox (1936)
Geraldine Ferraro (1984)
Sarah Palin (2008)

The Palin Decision...

Party lines have been drawn, and their soldiers have spoken. I think that the evaluation of the Palin decision, with few exceptions, correlates strongly with one's decision in the presidential election:



I made this graph up to visualize this dynamic. Really, with few exceptions, conservative-leaning pundits have praised the choice (Michelle Malkin, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes), and liberal-leaning pundits have ridiculed it (Paul Begala, the NPR anchors yesterday). I feel like this same pattern has occurred among people I know. I ran this by a lot of people. Many of my liberal friends were enraged by this. Some of them brought trenchant analysis into the picture. Others did not, and it was utterly preposterous to hear some of them railing against inexperience in a vice president when Palin's experience is at least comparable to Obama's experience... who wants to be president. It was akin to the pot calling the kettle black.

Likewise, conservatives who have railed against Obama's inexperience for the entire election have embraced this pick. It's a tad upsetting.

And yet, I fall in the middle in this election (I lean McCain, though not strongly), and I'm tepidly supporting the Palin pick. So, there you go. The pattern holds strong.

I think that I'll end with the conclusion that if Sarah Palin had been a second-term governor, this pick would have been a no brainer. Take from that what you will.

More Palin...

It continues. This was a comment on a friend's blog, who finds the Palin pick to be politically clever but ultimately showing a lack of judgment for McCain:

I have been waffling on Palin all day. For what it's worth, I think she gave an excellent speech this afternoon.

A few questions I'll pose, then, mostly to help me clarify my own thoughts. Anyone is welcome to contribute, and I'll offer my own answers as well.

1. How many years as vice president will Sarah Palin need to be a viable president?

I think that one term as vice president would certainly be enough experience to be president, current levels of inexperience be damned. A term and a half governor would be qualified, I think, to run for the presidency without having to battle too many questions about inexperience.

So, throw a scenario out there: McCain becomes president for a term and a half and is forced to resign after an ethics scandal or a health issue. Palin, by that point, is quite clearly qualified to be president; the vice presidency is valid experience. Quayle's political disappearance following the '92 election was not for lack of experience, but for a perception of incompetence. My impressions of Palin indicate to me that she won't be incompetent.

I'm not sure what the experience threshold is, thinking about it. But for shits and giggles, I'll throw 3 years out there, as a number. By January 2012, Palin will pass an "experience threshold." Is it reasonable for McCain to trust Palin for on-the-job training for three years? I think that leads to my second question...

2. Is John McCain less concerned about his health than I am?

This'll be my first of two "West Wing" (TV) references in this discussion. When discussing removing his highly experience and qualified VP from the ticket in favor of more of a question mark, the relapsing-remitting MS-stricken president wrote four words on a piece of paper expressing his opposition to the plan: "Because I could die."

If McCain were concerned about his own health to any real degree, he absolutely would not have picked Palin. It does, I think, call into question his judgment.

With that said, perhaps McCain is quite confident in his belief that he can survive at least ONE term, maybe being forced into a resignation midway through his second term. By then, Palin would have passed some sort of experience threshold.

3. Does Palin actually bring something to the table, as far as governance goes?

I think she does. While the experience is limited, she brings a strong ethical background and an expertise on the oil issue. I doubt there are many politicians out there right now with a stronger background in energy politics, particularly after serving as Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

Her role in governance may be quite limited, but I wouldn't discount it entirely.

4. So, why Palin? Is it solely political/demographic?

Second West Wing reference of the post-- somewhere in the first season, the president's chief of staff came up with a new motto: "Let Bartlet be Bartlet." I think that there's a bit of "Let McCain Be McCain" in the pick. John McCain hates being conventional, I think, and relishes his role as a maverick (even if he has largely campaigned away from that image). He also likes to define himself as a strong opponent of pork, even when it's in his own party. The "Bridge to Nowhere" was the strongest example of excessive Republican pork barrel spending. Palin, as governor of Alaska, actually REJECTED the funding for the bridge. I would imagine it's rather rare to see state governors reject federal funding. My guess is that McCain first learned about Palin at this stage and found her intriguing.

And really, McCain was really in his element today. He was making a case that's awfully difficult to make, and he seemed to be relishing it.

5. The elephant in the room, as you addressed: if Palin is stunningly underqualified for the presidency at this stage (I agree with your terminlogy of "her lack of any substantive experience"), then how can Obama not be stunningly underqualified for the presidency himself? Where is Obama's substantive experience?

Obama's best experience right now is in campaigning for the presidency. He's a great speaker, but really, state legislative experience can't be worth much more than mayoral experience, and I don't buy the argument that his legislative district was bigger than Palin's town. And, while Obama has been in the Senate for longer than Palin has been governor, Obama has been campaigning for the presidency for almost half his term.

To me, the argument that McCain's judgment can be called into question for picking his running mate is valid. But I think that it highlights the poor judgment that Obama may well have exhibited in running for the presidency himself.

In the end, there's something of a Faustian bargain made here. A McCain-Pawlenty ticket would lose, I think. A McCain-Palin ticket is a gamble, but if she holds her own in the veep debate and makes a great speech next week, she may well be his best bet electorally. So, basically, to prevent an underqualified candidate from the post, he must work with an underqualified candidate, and potentially allow an underqualified candidate to get the post anyway. It's a tough call to make.

But I think it goes back to what I would speculate to be a cocksure attitude about his own health. The puzzle pieces fit if McCain thinks he'll be viable for at least a full term.

So, for me, I continue to have mixed feelings. I definitely think the pick was politically clever, even though I discounted it as too far fetched to be worth considering in any great detail a while ago. From the standpoint of governance, I don't find it quite as poor as you do, but I can see your arguments.

For the Democrats? I think that they are no longer the "actors" in a campaign against Palin. They can only react to Palin's own mistakes. If Palin does a great job and is relatively mistake-free, she's tough to attack, because of the relative corner that they've painted themselves into with the Obama nomination. Again, I find the debate critical. If Palin comes across as a novice, then the knives can come out. But until then, they have to wait and keep hammering McCain as a Bush clone... but McCain has done a solid job moving away from the Bush legacy with this pick.

In the end, it's fascinating. As I've said before, the political system would be more fun if it didn't matter quite so much. :P

Palin?

The pick: Sarah Palin.

I have been intrigued by Sarah Palin since I learned about her 90% approval rating in Alaska. But I didn't think she'd get picked. I even sent the guy who runs the Draft Palin blog an email way back in February:

Hey,

First off, I'd like to say that I enjoy your blog a lot. I am a little concerned about the "experience" angle on Palin being on the VP ticket, particularly with McCain. Because of his age, voters will be worried that McCain might have medical problems that would necessitate the VP assuming the presidency. Palin's experience is somewhat limited, and it might be an issue.

I do, however, find Palin to be an interesting candidate and politician. My suggestion would be: if Palin does not get a spot on the ticket, advocate strongly for a prime-time speaking spot at the convention. Obama delivered the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, and it's one of the reasons that he came to national prominence and emerged as a serious contender in '08. If Palin delivered a strong speech advocating limited government, markets, and ethics, I think that might be really positive for her future political career.

Thanks for your time!

- Dan

Little did I know.

I have mixed feelings on the pick:

1. How do you squelch a speech's media coverage? Make a gutsy, gutsy VP pick. All of a sudden, Palin is the story. Romney, Pawlenty, Kascish, whoever else, none would bring the buzz of the attractive mid-40s mother from Alaska with five kids.

2. This is a play for the disillusioned Hillary voters. Palin will set out to win them over.

3. Great job on the rollout by McCain. Kept it coming all week, but no hype, really.

4. This is a colossal risk for Palin herself, politically. If she runs a good campaign, Palin is the frontrunner for the 2012 or 2016 GOP nomination. If Barack Obama's national coming out party was his convention speech in 2004, Palin's ideally is her debate against Joe Biden.

5. What does Biden do, now? Can he really attack her in the debate? The imagery wouldn't look good, certainly.

6. Palin seems to me an awful lot like a process of elimination pick. The housing gaffe eliminated wealth, Hillary not being chosen made a woman a better pick than a man, Obama's big speech means that boredom won't cut it, etc.

7. Obvious statement, but it's worth saying: we are now assured a demographics milestone in the White House: either the first black president, or the first woman vice president. It's a lot like the groundbreaking Super Bowl XLI: a black coach (Dungy or Lovie Smith) was guaranteed to break down that barrier.

8. Pat Buchanan commented, "Biggest political gamble I believe just about in American political history...that is not hyberbole. I can think of no choice of VP that approaches this." I think that it's a huge gamble, indeed, but I also think that McCain knows that the odds are stacked against him anyway. When you don't have much to lose, gambling big isn't necessarily a bad play.

In the end, it'll come down to the speech on Wednesday, and the debate with Biden. If Palin does both well, she may well be a Republican staple for the next 2 decades. If not, well, she may be able to reinvent herself within this generation.

In either case, I remain utterly fascinated by this campaign.

Pandering...

Obama is pandering to, well, idiots.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/08/obama_condemns_russia.html

"The United States should call for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to condemn Russia's decision in coordination with our European allies. The U.S. should lead within the UN and other international forums to cast a clear and unrelenting light on the decision, and to further isolate Russia internationally because of its actions."

Goal: Emphasize Obama's preference for diplomacy and multilateralism over war and unilateralism.

Rationale: The popularity of both war and unilateralism are at a modern nadir, it seems. Painting the Security Council as the solution to these problems makes Obama look receptive to the public. It also highlights his judgment and measuredness, as opposed to President Bush's perceived recklessness.

Hope (with much audacity): Voters don't realize that Russia has a veto at the Security Council, thus making any Security Council deliberations on this cosmetic only.

Any Security Council resolution would be an utter waste of time. Russia would veto anything strongly worded, and anything that Russia wouldn't veto would be an inoffensive reaffirmation of rights of national sovereignty.

For a politician who often spoke of rising above traditional politics, Obama has run a conventional, well-disciplined campaign in the general election.

Shadow Strategizing: Picking McCain's VP

What should a vice presidential candidate be? In no particular order, VPs can do any and all of the following:

1. Serve as a boost in a critical state or two;
2. Balance a ticket geographically;
3. Signify a ticket's concern for a particular issue;
4. Heal the wounds of a bitter primary fight;
5. Serve as an attack dog for a less combative politician;
6. Signify the "progressiveness" of a campaign;
7. Move to balance a ticket's issue expertise;
8. Bring buzz to a campaign.
9. Please the base.

And, most importantly, a VP can:

10. Reassure voters that the country will be secure if something were to happen to POTUS.

All of these things are POSITIVES about a good pick. What about the negatives of a bad pick?

1. Prove that a presidential candidate is not a good decision-maker.
2. Dominate news cycles with bad news.
3. Signify a lack of excitement for a candidate.
4. Snubs a segment of base/party.

Even with only a few bad things, the bad things are far worse than the good things are beneficial. Thus the VP pick should have a bit of a "do no harm" feel to it.

Unless, of course, you're the underdog. Many people are risk-avoiding in these situations; McCain can't be, at this stage. Tightening polls aside, McCain is losing. It's a year where Republicans are demoralized, Democrats are energized, and moderates hate the Republican brand. So, the "do no harm" aspect will be minimized, a bit.

Most of all, McCain is still thought of as "old." "Old" has to become "grizzled" and "experienced" and "tough," more than old. Picking a young VP (like a Jindal) tends to run against the idea of being grizzled.

So, if I'm prioritizing, here's what I'm looking for:

- economic expertise;
- someone not obviously affiliated with the Bush administration (most Republican options, in some way, have some affiliation with Bush);
- political skill;
- someone who will intrigue the Republican base;

and, most critically,

- someone who can take over for McCain if something were to happen.

Those are the basics. What about more specific benefits?

- swing state, preferably an Ohio or PA guy;
- woman, to appeal to some disaffected Clinton supporters.

Sadly, no one fits all of these criteria. It leaves a classic trade-off. Here's what InTrade is saying (as of Tuesday, 8/26, at 7 PM EDT):

Mitt Romney - 66.1
Tim Pawlenty - 21.0
Tom Ridge - 11.0
Joe Lieberman - 10.0
Eric Cantor - 8.4
Charlie Crist - 7.0
Meg Whitman - 6.0
Sarah Palin - 5.0
Rudy Giuliani - 4.3
Carly Fiorina - 4.2

Well then! The investors have spoken. Romney has become the clear frontrunner for the spot. I made a bit of a matrix to deal with my "criteria." This is something akin to the Keltner List: there's no scoring system, but it's worth looking at to see how the candidates stack up:

	Critical State	Geo. Balance	Wounds	Issue Focus	Attack Dog
Mitt Romney	X	X	X		X
Tim Pawlenty		X			X
Tom Ridge	X	X		X
Joe Lieberman		X		X
Eric Cantor		X			X
Charlie Crist	X	X
Meg Whitman
Sarah Palin				X
Rudy Giuliani		X		X
Carly Fiorina

	Progressive?	Expertise	Buzz	Base	Reassure
Mitt Romney		X		X	X
Tim Pawlenty				X
Tom Ridge					X
Joe Lieberman			X		X
Eric Cantor
Charlie Crist
Meg Whitman	X	X	X
Sarah Palin	X		X
Rudy Giuliani
Carly Fiorina	X	X	X

Down the line, why did I mark who I marked?

- Critical State: Mitt Romney in Michigan, Charlie Crist in Florida, and Tom Ridge in Pennsylvania all help. With that said, I think that PA is pretty much out of the picture, and Florida looks strong for the GOP this year.
- Geographic Balance: None of these candidates are Southwesterners, really, but the corporate choices don't get picked b/c they're not really associated with particular states, and Sarah Palin in Alaska doesn't help anything geographically. (I think geography is overstated, for what it's worth.)
- Primary Wounds: Mitt Romney and John McCain seem to be on much better terms now, but there's the added benefit of accentuating Obama's snub of Hillary. "McCain was big enough to turn his rival into his running mate. Obama: not ready to lead." Mitt and McCain did have a pretty intense primary fight (remember when the GOP race was a mess?)
- Issue Focus: Tom Ridge and Rudy Giulinai both represent "homeland security": Giuliani was "America's mayor" before becoming a bit of a punch line, and Ridge was the first Director of Homeland Security. Palin would signify a firmer commitment to drilling. And Joe Lieberman would quite clearly signify that McCain was doubling down yet again on the Iraq War.
- Attack Dog: Romney was described by Chris Clizza as the "smiling assassin," for the effectiveness of his attacks. Pawlenty and Eric Cantor have both been attacking Obama during the Dog Days.
- Progressive: Any of the three women would count (Palin, Whitman, Fiorina). There are no minorities in this list.
- Expertise: The two CEOs bring obvious economic credibility to the ticket. Romney helps on the economy, too.
- Buzz: The women, again, bring buzz. Joe Lieberman brings buzz in his own way: a bipartisan ticket can feed the media's obsession with non-partisan things.
- Base: On this list, the only two candidates who really would please the base are Mitt Romney (circa primary season) and Tim Pawlenty, a prototypical "Sam's Club Republican," as he terms it.
- Reassure: On this list, Romney looks presidential, though I'm not sure if he will be thought to have a ton of experience. Ridge and Lieberman both have the experience necessary to placate voter fears.

My thoughts on this matrix:

1. Why is Pawlenty an option? He seems to bring very little to the ticket at all, and he has no name recognition outside of his pretty clearly blue state.
2. Mitt Romney looks pretty good, here.
3. Fiorina and Whitman would be better choices if someone could assure me that the Republican base would like them. Whitman is pro-choice, apparently.
4. Tom Ridge would have been a much, much better choice if he were in the public eye a bit more. I get the feeling that he's largely forgotten.
5. Palin is too inexperienced, I think. You can't run the "ready to lead" argument as forcefully with a really young VP. I would watch out for Palin in 2012.

And, my picks:

If my campaign is feeling cautious: Mitt Romney. He comes across as a bit fake sometimes, but he'll campaign his guts out to be the 2012 or 2016 odds-on favorite. He's a good attack dog, and he may help in Michigan, which is a critical battleground in this cycle (Michigan is 4th among Nate Silver's Tipping Point States).
If my campaign is feeling very audacious: Carly Fiorina. She's pro-life, so the base won't hate her, and she's a non-politician in an era where people seem to be opposed to politicians on principle.

So, the best bet would be someone in the middle of those two. A bit bold, but with the benefits of a Romney.... but that candidate doesn't exist, as far as I can tell. There's also been very little "rollout hype," and the Republicans don't have much time to introduce their veep and get the campaign going full-force for the fall.

This time, I think the conventional wisdom is acceptable. I'd go with Romney.

Biden's the Pick

I have mixed emotions about the Biden pick, as far as Obama goes. First off, I'll get the personal out of the way. This was me in an AIM conversation back on February 17, looking over the InTrade market.

4:02:15 PM: i REALLY like Biden at 7.5
4:02:26 PM: like, REALLY REALLY.
4:02:34 PM: there's an offer for 10 Biden at 7.5, which means, $7.50
4:04:31 PM: so i was going to offer to buy 10 contracts at 7.2 points
4:04:33 PM: which is $7.20
4:04:44 PM: the potential return, if i'm right, is $92.80
4:05:14 PM: i mean, i know it's like, "this is how gamblers get addicted" goes...
4:05:27 PM: but i mean, it's $7.20, and i think that those odds are REALLY soft

4:15:43 PM: Biden fits so well.
4:15:45 PM: like, SO well.
4:15:57 PM: biden is a FP expert and did well in debates this year
4:16:05 PM: there will be a VP debate
4:16:07 PM: in the fall
4:16:17 PM: and Biden could wipe the floor with whatever young governor or whoever McCain picks
4:16:50 PM: his only drawback is his home state
4:20:15 PM: like, Al Gore is considered more likely than Joe Biden.
4:20:18 PM: that's INSANE.
4:20:20 PM: INSANE!

Of course, I didn't have the balls to sign up for Intrade, make the bet, and add $92 to my bank account.

My positives hold. Biden shores up the "inexperience" problem, and he helps Obama with elderly voters a bit. He's a foreign policy expert, and he became a great "debater" for the primary/caucus season.

Moreover, McCain's options are limited by the VP debate. He can't pick Sarah Palin at this stage, or Bobby Jindal; he almost has to pick someone with more gravitas and debate credentials, and the two of them are a tad "green," as the term used to go.

The only negative, I think, is the anti-climactic nature of the pick. Honestly, I think the right pick, based on the rollout, would be a "celebrity" (in McCain parlance), someone worth the wait. Biden is no celebrity. He's just a senator from Delaware. Based on the rollout, I feel like the Hillary bomb might have been best. It would have lived up to the hype and flew in the face of the stories that were floating around. Biden's been the "frontrunner" for a good week, and I was actually moving AWAY from my Biden position because I thought that the Obama campaign was hoping for some misdirection at the end.

I like Biden, though, on the whole. I think an Obama from the general campaign - Biden ticket is actually one worth considering a vote for, even from a conservative like myself.

The Punditry Speaks!

Funny how pundits work. The following are two different pieces of analysis of the "Saddleback" town hall meeting, moderated by Rick Warren, a non-partisan Evangelical (who led the charge in favor of Bush in '04).

First, the curmudgeonly Jack Cafferty:

"Throughout the evening, McCain chose to recite portions of his stump speech as answers to the questions he was being asked. Why? He has lived 71 years. Surely he has some thoughts on what it all means that go beyond canned answers culled from the same speech he delivers every day. ...

"One after another, McCain's answers were shallow, simplistic, and trite. He showed the same intellectual curiosity that George Bush has -- virtually none."

Here's the take from a columnist from the conservative Boston Herald:

"Leaders don’t pass tough questions to the next 'pay grade.' They don’t need five minutes to answer yes-or-no questions about the surge or Russia’s invasion of a democratic neighbor."

Cafferty, essentially sides with Obama: a forum like Saddleback is a place for contemplation and intellect. Over at the Boston Herald, Michael Graham sides with McCain: Saddleback is an opportunity to communicate one's message to voters.

Of course, neither portrayed it this way. Both went on the attack. Cafferty insulted McCain's intelligence. Graham is, essentially, emasculating Obama.

I find this to be a silly subject to comment on, perhaps going with the so-called "silly season" that is the pre-Labor Day, non-convention campaign. McCain and Obama adopted different strategies. In presenting his contemplative side, Obama is trying to draw a contrast with George Bush. There's simply no way that President Bush would ever say something like, "that question is above my pay grade."

McCain, on the other hand, is trying to cultivate his "straight-talking" persona by getting right to the point. So he used his prepared talking points at a debate. And he looked pretty good for it, I thought; he seemed earnest and genuine.

Cafferty is reaching, I think. I don't doubt that Obama is smarter than McCain, but to think that McCain is not smart enough to be president is awfully presumptuous, no?

If there's an issue with McCain's intelligence, I think that it should be tied to his age. It's really quite difficult to discern whether or not a presidential candidate's intelligence or brain function is slipping because of old age, but I can accept the argument that McCain might be too old to be president. Cafferty's simply arguing that, because McCain hasn't written anything deep and philosophical, he's not qualified to be president. Obama, for all of his perceived intellect as a top notch professor, has never published anything except a pair of autobiographies. It's possible that McCain was too busy representing his constituents as a senator to sit down and write a long tome on his beliefs about the role of the welfare state.

Really, though, I find Graham's comments downright offensive. Obama answered a question honestly. He admitted that he cannot know when a baby gets "human rights," because he cannot pinpoint when life begins. He's a constitutional law scholar, not a scientist or theologian. I found it refreshing to hear this from a politician.

Obama seemed out of practice. He became much better in the lousy excuses for debates that punctuated the primary season, but he stammered a bit more than you'd hope at Saddleback, if you're an Obama supporter. Obama needs to be able to speak extemporaneously, but intelligently at the same time. The "ums" and "uhs" detract from that.

But Graham belittles contemplation. You see, a "leader" just knows. He rules from the heart, and his gut, which is usually right. He immediately solves all crises by surging into danger, carrying his sword into battle with guns blazing (combining metaphors here, but the point holds). God forbid that someone stops to think about the question or the problem at hand. It was almost like an absurd discussion of "masculinity," which seemed to be the subtext to the piece.

There is nothing wrong with examining all possibilities, admitting one's limitations, even for an American president. If we stopped treating presidents as gods, we might see more effective government. (It's tough, of course, for Obama to make this argument, as he has spent a great deal of his campaign wrapped up in his own hype.)

Anyway, failures of the pundits, yet again. Contemplation is no sin. Neither, for that matter, is choice of style.
--------------
One brief addendum: as far as negative campaigning goes, I feel like the McCain camp has veered between what would be "valid" and what's not valid. I wanted to point out something that I found valid. This is McCain clarifying his critique of Obama. If the McCain camp stays on this line, I find it tough to criticize.

"Yesterday, Senator Obama got a little testy on this issue. He said that I am questioning his patriotism. Let me be clear: I am not questioning his patriotism; I am questioning his judgment. Senator Obama has made it clear that he values withdrawal from Iraq above victory in Iraq, even today with victory in sight. Over and over again, he has advocated unconditional withdrawal, regardless of the facts on the ground. And he voted against funding for troops in combat, after saying it would be wrong to do so. He has made these decisions not because he doesn't love America, but because he doesn't seem to understand the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq, how it would risk a wider war and threaten the security of American families. I am going to end this war, but when I bring our troops home, they will come home with honor and victory, leaving Iraq secured as a democratic ally in the Arab heartland."

Some of the other things, I find much less valid. I think the celebrity thing is a bit beneath the kind of campaign McCain claimed to want to run.

Progressive Era Excesses

Americans (and their opportunistic political candidates) like to complain about "politics as usual" quite a bit, particularly with regards to the US Congress. Usually, it can refer to one of two things: obvious cases of political pandering, or the blatant serving of the dreaded "lobbyists" or "special interests."

But really, is there any way to argue that "politics as usual" is not a byproduct of elections? Elections create "politics as usual" because of the hidden quid pro quo arrangements that accompany issues of low salience. Without strong public scrutiny, representatives and Senators feel no qualms voting the way that their biggest donors and supporters prefer. Political scientists would refer to these as "issues of low salience."

Elections also force politicians to pander to voters. "Wiser" voters criticize politicians for failing to look towards solving long-term problems in favor of short-term electoral gains. Their pompous attitude aside, these people are right. Direct democracy often neglects the issues of the future for the issues of the present.

The founders, of course, knew this, and they built in a pretty creative mechanism to work against it. They created a bicameral legislature in order to inhibit the legislative process a bit; brief explosions of public opinion could not effect too great a change on the system. They also made the two branches philosophically different. The House of Representatives would be elected directly for two-year terms, and it would focus on the issues of the people. The Senate would be elected by the state legislature for six-year terms, and, without "politics as usual" to battle, would focus on the broader issues.

The switch to direct elections of senators was made in the name of democracy. Presently, the effect of directly elected senators has been to reduce practical democracy in the US. As of 2000, my Congressional district in New Jersey has approximately 647,000 people. One representative in Congress is responsible for 647,000 people. When the US Constitution was written, the US had roughly 30,000 people per representative. That has increased twenty-one fold. Among democracies, the US now has the second highest ratio of people per elected representative in the world. (Stay with me; I know that a Representative is not in the Senate).

Yet this is the most significant legislator in my life. The most significant legislator in my life should be Caroline Casagrande, my state legislator. She was elected with 24,000 votes or so in 2007.

Casagrande should have the responsibility of electing a person to the United States Senate. If that were the case, state legislators would be given far, far more clout. At this point, to be quite honest, I did not know who my state legislator was, because it never seemed particularly important to know him/her. Having stripped this critical responsibility from the state legislature, the state legislature's federal role has been decapitated. It thus gets no coverage in national media, and scant coverage in local media. The state legislature has been marginalized dramatically in the last century of massive federal government expansion.

What is the result? Senatorial campaigns are huge financial deals, even moreso than House campaigns, because of the significance of a senator's position. (Based on the structure of the two houses, an individual senator has far more power than an individual representative.) Big monied interests (corporations, labor) pour money into the campaigns, and the senators are committed to those interests, at least in part. They are also committed to campaigning for reelection, which prevents them from focusing on broader, national issues, as had been intended by the founders.

The progressive era saw three other amendments passed. One was simply bad (Prohibition). One was mixed (income tax). One was good (women's right to vote). Is it so wrong to think that the progressives might have been wrong on this one?

Bad Movies and New England Sensibilities (Or, Dan Tries to Write a Column)

You ever see a movie that was so bad, it sticks with you for a while?

This was me with Radio Cape Cod, a movie I had the distinct displeasure to view at a small, independent movie theatre in Brookline, Massachusetts a few weeks ago.

Radio Cape Cod's plot is innocuous and acceptable enough: it traces four parallel love stories and the trials and tribulations that these people underwent. The cinematography was excellent, in a technical sense--we are treated to lush views of beautiful Cape Cod and the waves therein. Tamzin Outhwaite played the part of radio host quite well, too.

The rest of the characters just infuriated me. Tamzin's daughter is insufferably annoying, as is the burgeoning Bridezilla character (I hate the term, but better ones escape me). Julian Silver's character is perfectly awful: he plays the part of the existentialist teenager to utterly nettlesome heights, at one point waxing philosophical to a prospective girlfriend on how the newly-minted romantic love in her mother's life was merely the product of a gonad-driven phenomenon (the mother, of course, had lost her husband recently beforehand). Truthful or not, the remarks are just irritating.

Really, though, what stuck with me was the picturesque liberal fantasy that the film depicted. The movie starts out with an ode to "slow food," fast food's antithesis, based on healthy ingredients and time bonding with other people. Sunday's character, a progressive/liberal graduate student in marine biology, is first seen wearing... you guessed it, a stereotypical Che Guevara t-shirt! He delivers an Al Gore-ian soliloquoy about our responsibility towards microbiological life forms--to a captive audience in Tamzin Outhwaite. The smart kid (Virgil, played by Julian Silver) is a devotee of a barren and bleak philosophical system. Cooperation is taken to new heights, while any form of competition is belittled as immature.

The tone, then, came across as somewhat wistful throughout. If only the rest of the country were as progressive and refined as we are. Most of the sparse audience ate it up.

All of this comes across as the warped fantasy of a film student, and that was the impression I got watching the film. This was the final product of a film student's four years immersed in the liberal wasteland that is Boston, carried along by some irritating friends and overly earnest faculty. A favor or two got the film into Coolidge Corner's smallest screening room (17 seats), and it was passed off as something particularly brilliant and visionary.

In reality, this was the work of an older director, a Boston-resident and real estate salesman named Andrew Silver. Silver is one of those types who has limitless energy and intelligence, it seems; he studied oceanography in graduate school and then got a doctorate in business administration--but he's first come to my attention as a filmmaker.

Some with more patience will probably like the movie a bit, appreciating it for its slow pace and beautiful film work. Still, the sensibilities of the film are undoubtedly New England, with the focus on "slow food" and Che and environmental consciousness. Perhaps this is why the movie was so warmly reviewed in Boston. They are watching their movie in an echo chamber of these sensibilities, far detached from the concerns of everyday life elsewhere. There is much about Boston to love, but a conservative can only be bothered by this liberal worldview that resonates so strongly amongst the city's "elites." Visiting Boston, it hits you in multiple directions. Living in Boston, I can only imagine. One is left wondering what went wrong over the past 240 years.

"Flip-Flop"

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/46174.html

Full disclosure: I am not an Obama supporter.

I would RATHER my politicians change their minds based on circumstances than cling to a point that is no longer valid. Good for Obama; he's showing a willingness to be practical and compromising in order to achieve his larger aims.

I hate the way McClatchy did the headline here.