I was disappointed, but not surprised, that Democrat Mark Critz beat Republican Tim Burns in the PA-12 special election to fill Jack Murtha's seat. Burns faced an uphill battle to say the least — notwithstanding the media narrative that the Critz win was an unexpected setback for the GOP. Democrats have a 2-1 voter registration advantage in the district, and it elected the late Murtha (Critz's boss) 18 times, generally by margins like 60-40 or 70-30.

The Critz campaign's success actually provides a blueprint for Democrats running for Congress this fall to follow: 

• Critz opposed Obamacare and cap-and-tax.
• He emphasized economic growth and job creation.
• He favored budget cuts to reduce the deficit.
• He was pro-gun-rights and anti-abortion.
• He took a hawkish stand on illegal immigration.
• He kept the President at arms length and out of the district.

I suspect a Socialist Democrat embracing Obama and Pelosi would have lost. So the lesson for Dems is you can win by running as a bluer-than-blue Blue Dog, someone hard to distinguish from a mainstream conservative Republican.

That's actually the same formula that got a bunch of Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008. The difference is that then it was applied in mostly southern and western districts that were toss-ups or leaned Republican. This time it was applied in a northeastern district that, although socially conservative, is decidedly Democratic.

It'll be interesting to see where the Blue Dog strategy works this November. And whether it works at all for the Democrats elected in 2006 and/or 2008 as Blue Dogs who subsequently became Pelosi's lapdogs.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

This week's award for stupidest thing said on camera by a politician clearly goes to Rep. Hank Johnson (SD-GA). But Rep. Phil Hare (SD-IL) certainly tried to give him a run for his money. Hare dismissively told a group of constituents that he didn't care about the Constitution he has sworn to uphold. And he betrayed his ignorance of that document by claiming that "it says we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Here's the video:

[YouTube link]

The Chicagoist suggested that politicians like Hare need to get a clue, and predicted that Hare's opponent, Bobby Schilling, is going to benefit greatly from that little video gem: 

We can't believe we have to say it in this day and age, but take an ear, politicians – we're about to drop some science on your ass. When someone is shoving a camera in your face and pressing you about issues, they are drooling in anticipation that you're going to say something stupid. See, there's this thing called YouTube where people can take things that otherwise wouldn't make it past the walls of the community rec room you appear to be in, and put it in front of the whole world. When the guy behind the camera said "Jackpot, brother!" at :52 seconds in? Yeah, that's him acknowledging that he understands you're going to be all over the internets as soon as he uploads it.

This is exactly why media consultants get paid ridiculous amounts of money. Because they exist to tell politicians and CEOs to not say things like that they don't care about the Constitution. In addition to that, if you're in Congress and think you can cover by throwing out a handy "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" and assume that people won't know that that's from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution, well…you did know that, right Mr. Hare?

Say something like "the constitution is a living document" or something about the Commerce Clause, or "I believe that the constitutional questions will be settled by the court and I believe this legislation will stand up to the suits brought by the Attorneys General." Something less stupid than "it doesn't matter to me."

Hare's opponent, pizzeria owner Bobby Schilling, has just recieved the political equivalent of a slow pitch down the middle of the plate. He's already responded to the comments in the local press, but if ideas for campaign advertising aren't already formulating in his brain, then maybe he needs the help of Chicagoist Strategies Incorporated.

Schilling's campaign already is looking pretty strong, based on this poll. I'm going to learn more about him, and I may contribute to his campaign. Any congresscritter who without hesitation declares that the Constitution he's sworn to uphold doesn't matter to him ought to be removed from office, one way or another.

Since tar, feathers, and rails seem (unfortunately) to have fallen out of favor, and the next election isn't that far off, a resounding defeat at the polls seems like the appropriate fate for a contemptible scoundrel like Hare. 

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Nappy You Hear! 

May we all have a wonderful 2010 and close out this decade on a positive note.

What's that you say? It's the start of a new decade? No, no, no. You're wrong. Yes, I know — everyone's saying it's the start of a new decade. But they're innumerate — and wrong. 

Look, I'll walk you through this. It's not that complicated. Christian or not, we reckon time from the birth of Jesus, right? The year of his birth is 1 A.D. (Anno Domini — "The Year of Our Lord") (yeah, the strident secularists label it C.E. — Common Era — but it's the same starting point and they're not fooling anyone). So what was the year before that — 0 A.D.? No, it was 1 B.C. ("Before Christ"). There was no Year Zero. So you can't start counting with zero. 

The first decade (ten years) ran from the year 1 through the year 10 A.D. (or C.E. if you prefer), and the second decade began with the year 11 A.D. The first century (one hundred years) ran from 1 A.D. through 100 A.D., and the second century began with 101 A.D. The first millennium (one thousand years) ran from 1 A.D. through 1000 A.D., and the second millennium began with 1001 A.D. 

So, to bring us up to date, the last year of the second millennium was 2000 A.D., and the first year of the third millenium was 2001 A.D. Thus, the first decade of the third millennium runs from 2001 through 2010. The second decade starts on January 1, 2011 — one year from now. 

This brief lesson brought to you by Pedants 'R Us, insisting on mathematical accuracy even while inebriated, and wishing you and yours a most happy new year.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Today's blowout victory over the Cleveland Browns was pretty satisfying, maybe even a bit surprising, given the low expectations many of us had for this team. The defense looked impressive — and Elvis Dumervil looked superhuman — against a Browns offense that must be judged suspect.

The offense looked OK. Barely so for the first three quarters. They sputtered in the red zone way too often — four times, wasn't it? — against a Browns defense that must be judged suspect. But later in the game, about the time that visiting teams often start sucking wind at Mile High, they looked pretty damned good. They actually had a running game! The offensive line opened up running lanes like the ones we remember from the good old days, when anyone recruited off the street could gain a hundred yards. 

It will be interesting to see what they look like against a more potent opponent, like Dallas or New England. 

But the great Broncos moment didn't take place during the game. Some people think it was before the game. Shannon Sharpe, who was being inducted into the Broncos Ring of Fame at half-time, and who has always been the master of bravado and showmanship, parachuted onto the field. Pretty cool, I'll admit. 

But the moment that I'll long remember was at half-time, when they unveiled Sharpe's Ring of Fame entry. The always cool, always cocky Sharpe stood there with tears streaming down his cheeks. 

Shannon, I think it choked up a lot of us fans, too. Thanks for all those wonderful years! You were a class act, on and off the field, and you still are. 

UPDATE: It occurs to me that some readers (especially those in the east) may not be familiar with Shannon Sharpe — even though he's either the #1 or #2 tight end ever to play the game. The stats tell you what a player he was. Here's a clip to show you what a character he was: 

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Bob Costas was on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon Friday night and told a wonderful story. He was walking down the street in New York and stopped at a corner. A young (~25-26), well-dressed black man ran up to him, going "Bryant! Bryant!" Costas responded, "You know, this is getting so old. I'm Greg Gumble. I know my brother's more well-known than me, but can't I get a little respect too?" Without missing a bit, the man replied, "Greg, I love you too!"

You can't make up a story like that.

BTW, I still have fond memories of "Later with Bob Costas" in the late 80s and early 90s. It was a one-on-one interview show with no studio audience, and that's when I developed my admiration for Costas. This wasn't sports (his current gig) — this was interviews with people like Martin Scorsese, Jerry Lewis, Julian Bond, Sonny Bono, Dan Rather, Barry Goldwater, …

He was terrific at interviewing his guests, getting them to open up and be themselves, treating them with respect and admiration, but not fawning and not throwing softballs. Some of those shows are among the best interviews ever, and I hope they've been preserved somewhere. I suppose I should see if any of them are available online so I can prove my point.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

President Obama and the Democrats endlessly remind us that they inherited the current economic mess from the Bush administration. The only current political leader who's used the phrase "I inherited" more than Obama is Kim Jong Il.

I agree that the Bush administration shares in the blame for the out-of-control federal spending, the housing collapse, the financial meltdown, the job losses, and the steep decline in the economy. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continued and accelerated their irresponsible lending practices on Bush's watch, leading to the housing bubble that burst. The ill-conceived and ultimately harmful "stimulus packages" and "bailouts" began under the Bush administration. Throughout the Bush administration, domestic spending grew at an outrageous rate.

But the Democrats have a lot of nerve pointing a finger at the Republicans. The harmful policies of the latter are precisely what the Democrats clamored for them to do (and complained bitterly because the Republicans didn't do enough).

The Republicans are to blame entirely to the extent that they embraced Democratic ideas, accepted Democratic demands, compromised with Democrats on domestic policy, and bent over backwards to prove that they were "compassionate" (i.e., spendthrift, big-government) conservatives — with the emphasis decidedly on the "compassionate" part. 

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed