Sometimes I'm just astonished at the inability of political campaigns to do a simple web search. Case in point: the story about Mitt Romney's dog Seamus.

That's a good Irish name (pronounced: "shay-muss"), but I already wrote my St. Patrick's Day column yesterday, so I'm going to just skip right over that aspect of the situation.

Instead, what flabbergasts me is that in the whole Seamus-as-political-football fracas, nobody has yet bothered to dig out the Pink Floyd song of the same name.

This is an incredible oversight, due to the song itself. It's experimental, as many Pink Floyd songs, but not in the way that you'd think. For them, it was a rare venture into the realm of the blues. That's right -- the blues. Or maybe even bluegrass. The only way you'd know it was Pink Floyd is actually the synthesized dog howls in the background of the song. It's a short song, and the lyrics are close enough to the "Mitt tying his dog on the roof of the car" story for someone to use against him:

Continue Reading »

I realize I'm a wee bit early for a Saint Patrick's Day column, but tomorrow is our regularly-scheduled Friday Talking Points, and Saturday I will be hoisting a pint of Sir Arthur Guinness' fine product, so we'll just have to make do with today.

Being pressed for time, I thought I'd just re-run my explanation of what "Saint Patrick banishing the snakes from Ireland" actually means, as it is an entertaining story to tell down at your local pub this weekend, full of rich Irish history that will amaze your sozzled friends. If you can remember the story, at the time, of course.

But that was before I had read the story of Nike putting "its foot in it" (as the Irish Times summed it up) with a mis-branding faux pas for the ages. We'll get to that in a moment.

Before we do, I have a piece of advice for all American tourists who ever find themselves in Ireland. Be it on Paddy's Day, or be it any other day of the year, the advice I have to give will still be sound. Because you'll arrive in Ireland starry-eyed with the magic of the Emerald Isle, and will immediately want to explore the nearest quaint pub and drink deep of the... ahem... flavor of the local life, not to put to fine a point on it.

Continue Reading »

Both houses of Congress are currently considering a bill which, in my humble estimation, would be wildly popular with the public -- if they knew about it, that is. This is a truly non-partisan issue, one that pits every taxpayer in the country against the 535 members of Congress themselves -- regardless of their party affiliation. The idea is a simple one, as evidenced by the bill's official title: the "No Budget, No Pay Act."

That's it in a nutshell. The title is so good, it barely needs explaining. If Congress doesn't pass a completed budget on time -- both the budget blueprint and the 12 appropriations bills necessary -- then when the new federal fiscal year dawns on the first of October, they stop getting paid. Their paychecks halt until the budget is complete, and they are not allowed to (later on, under the cover of night) award themselves retroactive pay for this period.

Quick survey: how many of you, upon reading that last paragraph, thought that sounds like a dandy idea? Passing a budget is one of the most important duties which Congress has. Yet, year after year, they fail to perform their duties on time. Some years there are "continuing resolutions" which allow the government to keep spending money, essentially on autopilot, and some years there are gigantic budget battles -- but, either way, Congress normally fails to meet the deadline. No matter which party happens to be in charge, I should point out.

I personally am a big fan of the idea. In fact, I've written three columns over the years with almost exactly the same title as the bill. The first I wrote in 2007, when Democrats controlled both houses (as I said, this is a non-partisan issue). I concluded this article with:

Continue Reading »

Today, the mainstream media informs me, could be an absolute game-changer in the Republican primary race. Of course, that is what they have told me every other primary night so far this year, so you'll have to forgive me if I sound a little jaded at this point by such talk.

This time they may actually be right, though, if the results cause Newt Gingrich to finally admit he's never going to be president and give up his quixotic run. That would indeed classify as a major change in the game. Then again, even if Newt loses he can still soldier on as long as the money flows in from his Las Vegas Sugar Daddy, so even that's not a foregone conclusion.

There are actually four contests today, although you certainly wouldn't know this if you only relied on the mainstream media for your information. Good thing you have dropped by here to read this article, eh?

Continue Reading »

The TelePrompTer seems to be in the news again, due to Rick Santorum desperately trying to make it an issue in the Republican primary race. He apparently wants to make it illegal for presidential candidates to use these new-fangled machines when speaking to the public. This is an old slam against President Obama, but Santorum has a new twist: Mitt Romney apparently also uses one of these devices when speaking.

Sigh. You know, just the other day I was thinking: "Gosh, I sure do miss Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain." No, seriously. I mean, Bachmann and Cain could be counted upon to say something outrageously crazy, just about every time they were interviewed. Rick Santorum is a pale imitation of such wild and wooly candidate quips. Even when he tries to sound crazy, he mostly just comes off as stern and finger-wagging. Not quite the same thing.

I suppose it's kind of ironic. I loved watching Bachmann and Cain for precisely the point Santorum is making: when a politician goes "off script," sometimes unintentional (and amusing) things happen.

Continue Reading »

OK, quite obviously, I had to put that subtitle in quote marks, since I do not actually possess a uterus. The quote marks indicate I'm just suggesting it as a slogan for others (those of the female persuasion, of course) to utilize. Just to clear that up, in case you were wondering. But we'll get to all of that in a moment, because first we must attend to our primary chores.

To begin our prognostication of the upcoming Saturday primaries and caucuses, I'd like to aim a quick broadside at the mainstream media, just to get warmed up. During Republican primary season this year, the media has bizarrely continued their Orwellian "some states are more equal than others" philosophy when it comes to paying attention to things. Tomorrow, for instance, the great state of Kansas holds a primary election. It will award 40 delegates -- coincidentally, the exact number of delegates in Iowa and New Hampshire combined. Kansas has more delegates than South Carolina, Nevada, Colorado, Maine, Arizona, Michigan, and four of the ten Super Tuesday states. Kansas has exactly the same number of delegates as Mississippi, a state which votes next Tuesday. Kansas has three fewer delegates than the state of Washington, which was similarly ignored by the media (and pollsters) at large.

I have no idea why some states are worthy of the media's attention, and some states are not. Perhaps it is the New York City/Washington D.C. media bubble. Kansas (and Washington, and Maine, and a few others) simply do not make the cut, for some strange reason. Now, it's easy to see why the very first states in line get an overwhelming amount of attention, but the media focus is inexplicable even once you discount the early excitement. For example, here's a quick quiz: which state had the most delegates on Super Tuesday? It may surprise you to find out that the answer to that question is not "Ohio," but actually "Georgia." Maybe in that case it was anti-Newt bias, who knows? The ways of the mainstream media are too arcane and Byzantine for mere mortals to understand, at times.

Continue Reading »

As it looks like more and more of a certainty that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for president this year, the world of political punditry has begun flailing around for some sort of storyline which keeps the excitement alive, because they just love a good horserace (even when anyone with eyes can see the race has already been won). Sooner or later, they're going to discover what could be the biggest curveball of the election season, though: a group calling itself Americans Elect.

Americans Elect was the brainchild of some New York moneymen, who are touting it as the ultimate centrist third-party White House bid. Their plan, in a nutshell, is to spend the money and effort up front getting their "party" on the ballot in all 50 states. Later this year, they will hold an online "convention" where anyone who registers with the site can vote for the ideal centrist candidate. Then the candidate will be able to waltz into the presidential race with all the crucial groundwork already done for them.

So far, not a whole lot of people have paid attention to this effort. But my guess is that once it becomes painfully obvious that Mitt Romney has wrapped up the Republican bid, the third party story is going to become irresistible to the media.

Continue Reading »

The factional infighting in the Republican Party certainly shows no signs of abating. That's the only clear message the party's electorate sent last night, on what was supposed to be the biggest primary night of the year. This fight began a few years back, when the ultra-purists in the party (the radical wing) began calling their faction the "Tea Party," and then began making lots of noise out in the street. After the 2010 elections, Tea Partiers gained an actual foothold in the House of Representatives, and have flummoxed John Boehner ever since. This tug-of-war for party control continued apace last night, and such internecine struggles will continue into the foreseeable future. Neither the radicals nor the establishmentarians in the Republican Party have truly gained full control of the party itself. The voters are divided, and the divisions are on full display in Washington as well.

Rather than micro-examine Super Tuesday's results or predict what will happen in any of the upcoming primary contests this month (you're probably already maxed out on such analysis by now, right?), instead I'd like to take a longer view, and contemplate where the Republican Party will be headed after the 2012 election. There are three major scenarios as to how this could play out, if you'll join with me in what is admittedly some way-way-too-early speculation.

Republicans win back the White House

In the first of these scenarios, either Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum wins the Republican nomination, and then goes on to beat Barack Obama in November. Assumably, the Republicans would keep their majority in the House, and might even take the Senate -- guaranteeing them the driver's seat on Capitol Hill as well as in the Oval Office for at least the next two years.

Continue Reading »

It's finally Super Tuesday! This year is less "super," and a month later, than Super Tuesday 2008, when 24 states voted at once. But it remains the biggest day in the primary calendar, and we've got a lot to cover.

Before we begin, let's take a quick look at where the candidates currently are. The state win count stands at:

7 -- Mitt Romney
4 -- Rick Santorum
1 -- Newt Gingrich
0 -- Ron Paul

My own personal record for predicting outcomes fell slightly over the weekend, as I came close to calling Washington state perfectly, but Ron Paul edged out Rick Santorum for second place by a few hundred votes, so I only went 1-for-3 when the counting was done. This leaves me at:

Total correct 2012 primary picks so far: 21 for 36 -- 58%.

A few technical notes before I start throwing metaphorical darts at the Super Tuesday wall. First, what the heck is going on in Wyoming? They seemingly held some sort of straw-poll vote last week, without bothering to alert the media. Today, they are apparently holding some sort of gathering which will go on for days. Some mainstream media are saying there are ten states voting today, and some are including Wyoming and putting the number at eleven. Do they have a primary? A caucus? A "primacaucus"? Or perhaps a "caucamary"... OK, the whole thing is getting pretty downright cockamamie, so I've decided I'm just going to ignore Wyoming. If the state really wanted me to make a prediction, it would have settled on some sort of normal voting process, so better luck next time is all I can say.

Continue Reading »

Obama Above Water

President Barack Obama's job approval numbers are back "above water" (where his approval rate is higher than his disapproval number), continuing an impressive rise in the polls which began in November of last year. This is the longest run of improved public job approval Obama has managed since he got elected. Obama posted a gain of almost two full percentage points in his approval rate in February, the third-best month he's ever had in this respect (and one of the two months he posted bigger gains in was the bounce he got from Osama Bin Laden's death). He wound up the month with his approval rating a full percent better than his disapproval rating, the best numbers he's seen since last June. But this trend could be flattening out, as he ended the month of February by slipping back a bit. So in the midst of plenty of good news on the polling front for Obama, there is reason for caution as well. Call it the dark lining to a very silver cloud, if you will.

Let's begin with a quick look at the newly-updated chart:

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

February, 2012

Continue Reading »