Stop the Crazy Talk

The rhetoric coming from both sides is unbelievable. I’ve got an incredulous friend on one side who can’t believe that I could even suggest that Obama will be anything other than the most glorious thing to ever grace the Oval Office. I’ve got another alarmist friend on the other side who seems to think that Democratic rule will turn us into 1917 Russia, or at least 2002 France. And everyone else seems to be generally lining up in some varying degree in one camp or the other.

People, please. Obama is neither the second coming of Jesus nor the Antichrist. He does not possess the keys to the land of Utopia, nor does he have an inside track into the 7th circle of hell. We will not be forced into a One World Order, and he probably won’t re-establish the U.S. as the Most Powerful Country In the World. He is not going to fall under Nancy Pelosi’s power, nor will he be eaten for dinner by Putin and Medvedev.

Here’s the reality: the Obama administration is being left something of a scorched earth. You know this already, but it might be good to see it all laid out again –

-a recession that could spiral into a depression
-banks unwilling or unable to lend money as they try to save themselves
-manufacturing industries screaming for help lest they go belly up and take large segments of the economy with them
-state and city governments that have been trying to ‘make do’ for years seeing visions of bankruptcy
-unemployment threatening to hit levels last seen in the late 70s
-a health care system that can charitably be called inadequate and dysfunctional
-an unpopular war in Iraq that he’s pledged to end, but that we can’t just run away from
-a possibly unwinnable war in Afghanistan that is seen as something we can’t turn our backs on
-an international reputation where allies no longer trust America as a financial symbol or as a beacon of goodness
-a national debt that is threatening to top $13 trillion, much of which is borrowed from a country that is looking to unseat us as the pre-eminent world power
-an economy that relies heavily on a natural resource that largely comes from countries that are either hostile politically or in danger of a power shift to more unfriendly regimes, and we have no backup plan
-mortgage defaults that do not seem to be slowing down
-a national infrastructure that has been neglected for years and is now starting to crumble

And this doesn’t even take into account the extra monies already committed by the Bush administration in the form of “stimulus packages,” the increased size of the federal government, the oncoming retirement of the baby boomers and the strain on the Social Security system, Israel, Russia, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah/Hamas/Islamic Jihad, immigration reform, gay rights, abortion, potential Supreme Court nominees, the airline industry….need I go on?

Anyone that can look at that list and predict a rousingly successful presidency is so optimistic that Pollyana is calling you a nutcase to your face.

But make no mistake: Obama has shown himself to have the temperament, the vision, the organizational ability, a great ability to spot and attract talent, and the leadership skills to be someone who can make sense out of the mess we’re in and at least point the country in the direction out of the morass. It’s not about what he’s “accomplished” with respect to governmental legislation. All you have to do is look at what he accomplished and the way that he did so with his assault on the presidency, with all the odds stacked against him, to know that he has more than a fighting chance to see his way through.

Malcolm Forbes wrote a commentary about Ronald Reagan after he was elected but before he took office that struck me in 1980 and still resonates now. “He will neither be the savior that his followers believe him to be, nor the demon that his detractors expect him to be. In a way, he will disappoint them both.” That seems to be sage advice when one views the Obama presidency from this vantage point.

Election Night Projections

At the risk of either being overconfident, arrogant, impudent, or some other word ending in ‘nt’, I’ll make a prediction about tomorrow’s results.

The closest it gets is Obama 274, McCain 264, but that really seems unlikely. That would mean McCain picks off every realistic swing state, plus holds on to Virginia. Likewise, it is conceivable but improbable that Obama gets as many as 394 electoral votes. I predict Obama 349, McCain 189, which is enough of a spanking to force the GOP to re-examine itself and start becoming relevant again.

Despite whatever your favorite news coverage implies to keep you glued to your TV, the outcome will likely be telegraphed early. If Obama wins Virginia, the rout is on; the only discussion will be ‘how big.’ If McCain holds Virginia and Ohio, then it will be a close Obama victory. The only way McCain wins is if he takes those two states and Pennsylvania, in which case you can say that an upset is about to occur.

That being said, I’ll probably still be irrationally glued to my TV until way past my bedtime.

Fear vs. Inspiration

I’ve finally figured it out: after months of trying to get any McCain supporters to tell me why they are voting for them without simply telling me everything wrong with Obama, it is time to state the obvious. We have a large segment of people who are so afraid of a change, no matter how dire the economic and political realities appear, that they will desperately believe all the fear-mongering and hate-spewing being thrown out. They are not the only ones voting for McCain, but they make up the largest bloc along with the Christian Conservatives.

As Joe Biden might say, Ladies and Gentlemen, is this what we have become? Are we really a nation of people who so swallow fear as a motivator that we’ll believe anything, even outright lies and slanderous accusations, if only we can believe that the other person will make our fear go away?

It is on this premise that John McCain and the GOP are emptying the ammunition clips. Obama is a Marxist. He’s for reparations. He’s going to take your guns. Don’t let the Democrats control everything. They’ll change the Supreme Court so that activist judges will destroy your independence. In short, we’re all doomed.

If you actually believe all of this, you might wish to re-read the accusations above and ask yourself if there is any realistic shred or historical precedent that would suggest that this has any inkling of occurring. The answer is emphatically no. So if that’s not going to happen one has to ask what’s really going on here?

McCain and the GOP are bereft of ideas. Having sold their souls to the Christian Conservatives (pun noted) and their only true guiding economic philosophy being “the market will take care of everything, so take the shackles off and watch it go” we have arrived here. And make no mistake: it is the GOP who is to blame. They controlled the House from 1994 until 2006; they controlled the Senate from 1998 to 2006, and the Presidency from 2000 until the present. Read that again if you have not digested it.

Now tell me why we are supposed to fear the Democrats again? Tell me what they are going to do to exacerbate our difficulties? Because the other solution we have as a choice is to continue down that same path. And anyone who believes that McCain is not going to be beholden to the Christian Right and the same financial wizards that got us into this mess don’t understand politics.

So if you’re going to vote for John McCain and you really believe that he is the decisive, insightful leader to lead us through a time when the U.S.’s position as the world’s economic and political leader is at a crossroads, then by all means that’s how you should vote. But if you are voting for McCain out of fear of Obama, maybe you should reconsider why.

Now go vote.

The Destruction of Sarah Palin

There is increasing evidence that the United States has absolutely had it with the social conservatives in this country, but none more compelling than the fervent, almost mob-like mentality that is passionately committed to destroying Sarah Palin. And, they are succeeding.


There is plenty of ammunition to work with. Palin is clearly not intellectually curious. She has no in-depth knowledge of global issues, or even a clear sense of why she believes many of the ideological things she does. She is inarticulate in a way that makes GWB look like a grand orator. But her biggest sin is her far-right social leanings; the Republican right calls her “one of us.” And for that, she is going to be made an example.


To some degree, critics are correct when they say that she is under scrutiny like no candidate in a long, long time. But they are incorrect when they suggest sexism. If this was a good-looking and rugged candidate named Sam Palin acting and saying the exact same things, the scrutiny would be also be the same. (To that end, if she was plain-looking, male or female, nothing would change.) It has nothing to do with her gender or appearance, although those become convenient excuses. This country has become collectively tired and even angry at the social conservatives driving every agenda in this country. Even many Republicans are finally understanding that part of the reason that the party has left its fiscally responsible roots is because fiscal policy no longer drives the GOP: it’s repealing Roe v. Wade; it’s electing “conservative” judges (also strictly a Roe v. Wade issue); it’s “good Christian values”; it’s cleaning up the airwaves; it’s protecting marriage from gays.


Reality check: the Christian Conservatives have worn out their welcome just as labor unions did back in the 70s. You could almost hear millions of people cheer as one when Reagan disbanded the PATCO workers in 1981. That single act arguably solidified his hold on the presidency from that point forward and doomed unions to the also-ran status from which they are just now emerging. In that same way, you can hear millions holding their breath and getting ready to cheer Palin’s hoped-for debacle in the VP debates tonight.


Whether that comes to fruition or not remains to be seen. But even if it doesn’t, social conservatives everywhere should be taking note of the country’s reaction to their poster child. Like the labor unions in the 80s, if they don’t use it to constructively criticize and reinvent themselves, it’s going to be a long time before they have any influence again.


For that matter, it may already be too late. You can bet the Republican Party is already taking notes on what's happening and will take a hard look at who's influence they'll listen to if they get routed in November.

The problem with Hail Marys

Woody Hayes, legendary and fiery coach of the Ohio State Buckeyes in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, once said about passing plays: "If you pass the ball, three things can happen and two of them aren't good." Since McCain's personality somewhat resembles Woody's, but his "playbook" is anything but 3 yards and a cloud of dust, it's ironic that tonight's debate has the same spectre. There are reasonably three things that can happen:

1) McCain out-debates Obama and keeps the entire conversation alive. That's probably the best he can hope for, because with the events of the past two weeks it is unlikely he locks up the undecideds.

2) Obama out-debates McCain, causing a majority of "undecideds" to make their decision and McCain effectively losing the election (barring some game-changing mistake by Obama or his campaign). This seems like the most likely outcome.

3) McCain does lose his temper or directly confront Obama or Jim Lehrer in a somewhat out-of-control manner. This is not out of the realm of possibilities. If this happens, you will see a mad rush away from him like you've not seen since all the people supporting Ross Perot fleed after his "space aliens and dirty Republican tricks" comments followed by James Stockdale's deer-in-the-headlights performance.

Unfortunately for McCain, Sarah Palin's already provided half of the 3rd scenario.

By now, anyone that honestly thinks that Palin isn't scarily out of her league hasn't been paying attention. She can't deal with softballers like Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson. She couldn't even deal with a totally friendly audience when she was "interviewed" by Sean Hannity. She can't answer reporter's questions. For the love of God: this woman is a complete incompetent. This isn't the media being unfair, and this isn’t sexism. This is a person who has no grasp of national issues.

So the pressure is almost entirely on McCain, and there isn't enough time to hand the ball off any longer. He is now forced to open the game up. Oh wait....that's already what he's been doing.

It isn’t often you have the opportunity to watch something implode before your eyes. I’m not saying it’s gonna happen. After all, Door #2 above seems the most likely. But America should tune in tonight, because there is at least the possibility of a “where-were-you-when” moment.

Blocs of Non-Critical Thinkers

If people think that John McCain:

-won’t raise taxes,
-can pander to the religious right without being beholden to them,
-has any big picture idea of where to take this country,
-will have the guts to cut government spending in any significant way,
-will protect women’s rights, and not just with respect to choice,
-won’t make at least one or two reckless decisions based on his gut,

then it says something about either their intellect or their ability to engage in critical thinking.

The reason I say this is not to bash John McCain, even though that’s probably how it comes off. I say it because I don’t hear anyone voting FOR John McCain. I only hear reasons to vote against Barack Obama. And the stated presumptions for those reasons are:

-he’s going to raise my taxes,
-he’s too liberal,
-he’s all about platitudes with no detail,
-he’s going to grow government,
-he’s elitist,
-he has too many advisors.

Hmmm…see any comparisons between the two that could be problematic?

Having a problem voting for any candidate is perfectly reasonable. But there’s something else going on in this country with respect to Obama, and no matter what the answer is, it’s not a pretty one. The only choices that make sense:

Reason #1 -- People have been listening to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Fox News for so long that they’ve forgotten that these pundits all have agendas that are stronger and less beholden to the truth than the “liberal mainstream media,” which at least tries to keep up the fight for objectivity. The aforementioned conservative “news” sources do not strive for objectivity, never have, and never will. If they’re your only news source, you might as well be listening to GOP Radio. Long time listeners connect early and then close off other sources of information. After a while, they forget that there are other credible sides to most issues and stories; they lose objectivity and the ability to think critically and question the messenger. Therefore, labels such as ‘liberal,’ ‘elitist,’ and ‘patriotism’ become charged with connotations that energize a subset of Americans without the usual filters to question whether those labels even apply.

Reason #2 -- Many people are uncomfortable with Obama’s intellect and it makes them feel stupid. That’s the only explanation how a mixed race child with no familial money who grew up being raised by grandparents and a single mom could ever be labeled as “elitist.” John McCain is not only the son of a U.S.N. Admiral, he’s 3rd generation; he married a woman who has a net worth that allows her to donate over $1MM in charitable contributions annually in the Phoenix ADI. George Bush is a 3rd generation legacy politician who also graduated from Yale. Throwing a black man from his circumstances who didn’t have actual wealth until recently in with those two and calling him the “elitist?”

Reason #3 -- Racism is a bigger undercurrent than anyone wants to publicly acknowledge. Lots of people know urban blacks who rub them the wrong way. They are seen as obnoxious and defiant, a group who intimidates and seems to expect something for nothing. Let’s just get it out there: that is a subculture that does indeed exist. But they don’t speak for African-Americans any more than poor rural racist whites speak for Caucasians. But if all people allow themselves to see is the stereotypical angry urban black man then they’re not going to want to give any quarter to what is seen as an ungrateful race. Or understand how someone like Obama could change the mindset of African-Americans permanently.

Reason #4 -- Religious beliefs make some people one-issue voters, or at least one-group voters. Otherwise, Sarah Palin, who is way out of her league, wouldn’t have energized so many people. They’re obviously not looking at her as a real leader: she’s a prom queen who happens to believe in a specific set of religious tenets. Perhaps there is this fanatical fantasy about turning the U.S. into some sort of idealistic Christian wet dream…never mind that this country was founded largely on religious tolerance and separation of church and state. The Republicans have pandered to the social right-wing of the party, which is as out-of-touch with the country at large as the social left-wing was in the late 70s and early 80s. The pendulum has swung, but a quarter of the country hasn't noticed and instead is frothing at the mouth at the possibility of fundamental Christianity as the law of the land.

Reason #5 – There is an outmoded (and wholly inaccurate) belief among a segment of the population that all taxes are bad and lowering taxes is always good. In a void or some idealistic capitalist video game, I agree. My votes for Republicans in the past has everything to do with fiscal responsibility. But in the last 8 years (including 4 where the Republicans had control of every house and arguably the Supreme court) the GOP hasn’t met a spending bill it hasn’t inked, AND they’ve cut taxes, reduced regulations and essentially have moved us all to a laissez-faire economic society. There’s a reason that we have antitrust laws. There are good reasons for regulation. (How much would common sense regulation of health insurance companies have done to stop the wreckage of our health care system of the last 25 years?) Not to mention that when you have a household that is spending more money than it takes in, and doesn’t have the good sense to eliminate any of the outgo, then you have no choice but to increase the income. The Republicans have been downright irresponsible with our money. Look at where we sit: if you think John McCain won’t raise your taxes or believe that they shouldn't be raised, then put me down for a big chunk of whatever you’re smoking.

What I sense are entire subsets of people looking for reasons as to why Obama shouldn’t be President, because they don’t want to come out and say that the real issue is clinging to one or more of the above 5 reasons. Therefore, anything that sounds remotely plausible is latched onto with a fervor, lest one have to admit that they’re racist, unintelligent, fearful, irrational or has suspended critical thinking.

I’m not saying that there aren’t reasons not to vote for Obama. But no one is talking about why we should be voting FOR John McCain. We have a large swath of people in this country who have suspended critical thinking in favor of dogma and sketchy beliefs. And that might be the scariest thought of all.

Tired But Dangerous Ideology

Peggy Noonan, thinking she’s off-microphone, laments the “bullshit” selection and stunt of choosing Sarah Palin. Charles Krauthammer, a week after Palin is chosen, writes quite candidly of how Palin undermines McCain’s argument against Obama. David Gergen continues to be stunned at why McCain would choose someone who ignites the base but doesn’t seem to reach a significant number of people in the middle.

What these 3 people have in common is that they are all Reagan Republicans, people who either worked for the Reagan presidency or who’s views were forged and sculpted in the early 80s. They are not of the current era of the bitter political landscape and the rhetoric of social conservative dogma, which is why they see this for what it is: a dumb move.

McCain has completely pulled out the underpinnings of an argument that not only had a great deal of resonance, but one that he's spent lots of time and money pursuing: that Obama is too young, too idealistic, and too inexperienced to lead. Now, one can argue that Obama is at the top of the ticket and Palin is not, or which one actually has more experience. From the point-of-view of political strategy, it's still mystifying. McCain may have charged up the base, but they were going to vote for him (or against Obama) anyway. Whether they're voting for him with a 51% conviction or a 100% conviction, it still just counts as one vote per person.

Additionally, McCain runs a grave risk and high probability of energizing some large centrist voter swaths…to vote AGAINST him. Does anyone really think that, if they know what Palin’s stance is on abortion, women’s rights and sex education that Hillary voters will vote for Palin just because she’s female? She’ll get the 27% that are die-hard social conservatives, plus around 10% who will actually vote for any woman, leaving just under 65% who will be energized to make sure she doesn’t come within sniffing distance of any influence on the next Supreme Court justices. Anyone who has felt a little uncomfortable about the fervent organization of family-values-or-die Republicans over the past several years is likely to get very nervous when those same types are foaming at the mouth in droves. People who were hoping for a civil election can now blame Palin as the person who is driving the negative rhetoric.

Let’s presume she doesn’t mobilize women and the middle against her, that she just energizes the Republican base. (And when did the “base” actually become so one-issue, that of social conservativism?) Other than perhaps raising more money, which, by the way, can no longer be spent since McCain is taking public funds, then her net effect is close to zero. So McCain has to figure that she energizes the base, and he plays for the center. Risky at best, dumb at worst, since it’s awfully tough to separate yourself from your running mate. And if he does, this again bespeaks to his judgment.

It's not fashionable right now to suggest that exposing this strategy is a huge opening for Obama because everyone sees this as a razor-close election, and it could turn out to be just that. But I still stand by my thoughts that ran through my head as I was hearing the announcement at 11am Friday the 29th: this move by McCain has more than a decent chance of destroying his candidacy and being one of the biggest political gaffes in my lifetime. That's not meant to be an indictment of Palin as a person or as a politician, but as the choice of the running mate for this candidate at this time.

Palin is a gifted speaker, at least in front of a teleprompter with several days to rehearse. But for all of the glow and for all of the publicity you’re seeing now, she has to be near-perfect between now and November. She has to be at least able to stand up to Joe Biden politically. Because while she may be forgiven for any failings, any mistakes or questionable comments and remarks she makes will all stick to McCain and speak to his judgement, or lack of it.

Obama’s campaign has made very few missteps to this point, and I’m guessing that they won’t start screwing up now. They can't panic because McCain has gotten a bounce; it's likely to be very temporary. If they stay on message and don’t let McCain remake himself as some sort of maverick above the fray while his minions deal in innuendo and labels, Obama should have opened up a decent lead in key battleground states within the next 30 days.

Dem convention - Day 1

7:15 Will someone please teach Nancy Pelosi how to speak in public? No wait…don’t. Just tell her to go away. How ironic is it that she’s Speaker of the House? She’s the anti-Obama.

7:22 Pelosi actually made me utter “I wonder what Bill O’Reilly is talking about now.” Even worse, I turn it to Fox for comedic relief. And it is funny. Bill O’Reilly and some dough-faced boy are trying to prove that Barack Obama is the person who is more vulnerable on charges of personal corruption than John McCain. Fair and balanced.

7:27 The Jimmy Carter video about New Orleans. This is what he does well. But he has really hurt his image with his perceived criticism of Israel. Is that why they did the video but he wasn’t allowed to speak?

7:40 Jesse Jackson Jr. He looks nothing like his father, but he sure sounds like him without the mushmouth. But he strikes a slightly different tone. He’s a better speaker at this point in time. He doesn’t come off as what a lot of people identify as a stereotypical African-American; like Obama he strikes me simply as American.

7:55 Back to Jimmy Carter, Gloria Borger on CNN (I’m bouncing around a lot) is suggesting that Carter wasn’t allowed to speak because of the Jewish vote that is supporting Obama and that Carter runs the risk of alienating them. Interesting factoid: Joe Biden’s net worth is about $200K. Yep, $200K, not $200M. Guess that’s what happens from a lifetime of public service. If the Democrats don’t exploit that, they’re dumb asses. Now you’ve got someone that people can believe when he talks about real Americans and fiscal worries.

8pm They’re now announcing that Ted Kennedy will speak. I have had so many fundamental disagreements with him, but he has certainly become a statesman in the past 10 years, and it’s virtually impossible to question his patriotism, even when his policies have been at odds with much of the country.
David Gergen is making the very good point that things are going stupidly slowly and the Dems are missing a golden opportunity to grab the audience with a serious message instead of “letting the hours slip away.”

8:13 Ted Kennedy momentum is building. The man has been given a death sentence; it won’t shock me if he says something really profound and maybe something that no one else could get away with. Like: “Hillary supporters, get over your bad selves.”
Caroline Kennedy…Maria Shriver. I never realized they looked alike until they switched from one to the other.

8:21 I’m not sure how she’s keeping it together with what she’s saying about Ted. Maria’s not.

8:30 Ted does indeed take the stage. I get the feeling this will be the last time we see him speak publicly. Listening to his speech, I can hear the Rush Limbaughs tomorrow, who can’t see past the human element of a dying man making a stand and will make disparaging comments about him. If my supposition turns out to be correct, that speaks volumes about him as a human being, doesn’t it?

8:37 Teddy didn’t actually say anything profound. Too bad; he had carte blanche.

8:50 Chris Dodd is being interviewed on MSNBC about Ted Kennedy. I want to like him; for some reason I just don’t. Or maybe it’s more appropriate to say that I don’t trust him, and he struck me the same way in the Democratic debates last year. But I’ll also admit that I don’t know much about him.

9:00 Tom Harkin is introducing former Republican Jim Leach. Jim Leach’s problem is with our standing in the world and the lack of political ethics. Hence, he’s crossing party lines. That’s great and that needs to be the story, because Jim Leach could make a caffeinated insomniac on crack sleep for days.

9:08 Has anyone else noticed that Brit Hume is actually a basset hound? Fox News has Juan Williams from NPR, and then Bill Kristol, a reporter from Fortune, and a reporter from The Weekly Standard. So much for fair and balanced: 2 conservatives and a reporter for a publication targeted at the wealthy. Thanks for putting the black liberal NPR guy on the panel. Are you sure his name isn’t Token?

9:14 James Carville is speaking on CNN. I am suddenly ill. David Gergen is rightly criticizing the structure of the “show” as not understanding how to grab the audience. He’s rightfully critical about Jim Leach’s speech as being boring and losing the audience signing on at the top of the hour.

9:20 Chris Wallace & Brit Hume are debating about Ted Kennedy and both waxing poetic about him even with their disagreements with his policy. Thank you for being human instead of partisan.

9:24 The video of Michelle Obama begins. I switch to CNN to watch in HD.

9:35 I listen to Michelle’s brother Craig. This is not a “black” family, this is an American family. How much can Michelle Obama do, just by her mere presence in the White House? What a role model for the all-too-frequent African-American family with no father, just by default.

9:45 This is an amazing speech that Michelle is giving. If you’re not moved, you don’t have a heart. You don’t have to agree with her, but you have to believe that she’s sincere. And if you don’t, please leave.

9:55 Barack Obama speaks via video. He missed what city he was in initially (St. Louis instead of Kansas City), but they put his daughters on, and Sasha said “Daddy, what city are you in?” That was classic.

10:06 I am amazed at the analysis on Fox. They are trying to spin Michelle Obama’s speech as a wasted opportunity. Chris Wallace is proving to be just another partisan ass. He’s questioning the decision to have Michelle Obama leave her “stump speech” to give a background on their family, suggesting that people are more interested in the future. Chris, you dumb ass: these are people that are BLACK in case you haven’t noticed, who need to convince the WHITE people of this country that they’re like them and ok to vote for. I’m sure that his father would like to disown him, or at least disown his intellectual grasp. NOTE: All of you people who are watching/listening to Fox as a “news” source, just get over your bad selves.

I'm playing poker on Day 2, but I'll likely DVR at least Hillary's speech so I can watch/listen without the talking heads' spin.

Which Is It?

Barack Obama is The Most Liberal Member of the Senate.

Barack Obama is a Blank Slate. How do WE know what he is really thinking?

Surely the mutual exclusivity of these two statements is patently obvious....isn't it? Is the electorate stupid enough to not see that you can't be both of these things? Maybe if you're an outfielder who comes to the majors from Tripe A and goes 6-10 in his first two games of the new season. ("He's batting .600 & leading the majors in hitting, but do we really know what he's got?") Outside of something that ridiculous, both of these statements cannot be true.

No, what we have here is the Republicans using the same tactics they've been using for several cycles: give the people multiple negative soundbites about the opposing candidate and let people pick up on whichever one scares or disgusts them enough to vote against the object d'insult. This is less offensive and more effective if it's coupled with "and here's what our candidate will do for you."

Uh...are you seeing the second half of this? Because I'm not.

McCain has become a weak candidate in the blink of an eye. Not so long ago we all believed we knew where he stood: strong defense, fiscal responsibility, a free trader who supports NAFTA, and a man who makes his decisions based on a strong inner moral compass. While the first points haven't necessarily changed, the last couple certainly have. Add to the fact that he has courted the conservative Christian right, which was NOT part of his M.O., and you have disappointed centrists such as myself -- not because we disagree with his views, mind you. Centrists probably are as divided as the rest of the country on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, violence in video games, etc. Our disappointment stems from the obvious pandering to a segment of the base that it's fairly obvious McCain doesn't belong to.

This might be ok from a political point of view if it were effective. It is, in fact, ineffective for the same reasons: the Christian right sees McCain as disingenuous, perhaps because he is.

So now you have a candidate that isn't going to energize the base (a la, GWB) and isn't going to grab the centrists, which is what the winning candidate must have to win this election. The Republicans, sensing disaster, do what they do better than the Democrats: smear. Only this time, there's no "and here's what our candidate will do that's better" to follow the mudslinging.

So just remember: the next time you hear catch-phrase A or catch-phrase B and it gets you worked up, consider the simple little fact that it might not be wholly accurate.

Economic Myths Abound

So I bring up the housing crisis to Conservative Cali Dude, who then proceeds to climb up on a 2-story soapbox and pontificate on the unfairness of the presumed bailout that's coming. Fact is, though, he's right. 5 or 6 years ago, when we were both still in Indianapolis, we talked about how utterly ridiculous the housing market was becoming and that there would be a serious correction coming. It wasn't if, it was when. And we were both right.

So now what do we do? Well, since both Democrats are in favor of some sort of a bailout, the reality is that there will likely be one. John McCain can't afford to be seen as insensitive, even if that's not the case. So we are all going to share the brunt of propping up a fair share of people who made bad decisions.

Here's the problem: we are panicking as a nation. The sky is falling. This is the worst recession since The Great Depression. Someone please help us.

Here's the reality: we are experiencing a market correction with respect to housing prices in much of the country. It needed to happen. Perhaps it could have/should have happened sooner, but it didn't. But that's all that's happening. Yes, it's going to affect a large number of people, but before everyone goes off their rocker about the problems with Predatory Lenders and Bad People...don't you think that this was telegraphed a long time ago? Are the CCD and me so omniscient that we could see this coming before the rest of the 300 million people in the U.S.? Somehow, I doubt that.

Housing prices have been out of line in certain markets (L.A., Vegas, Phoenix, south Florida) for a long time. C'mon; if you're paying $1MM for a 1000 square foot home on a zero lot and think that you're making a good investment, you're an idiot. Add in that you entered into that mortgage with no money down and took an ARM loan that states pretty clearly that your interest rate could rise as much as 2% per year...you're now just gambling. It didn't matter when this correction happened, you were going to have a significant number of same said idiots that were going to get burned.

So the question becomes, how much do they actually burn the economy back, and how much obligation do we have to bail them out? Personally, I don't think we have much obligation to these people or the institutions that lent them the money. The only reason to jump in with taxpayer money is if the hole left by this segment of the population will destroy the economy.

The new argument goes that unscrupulous lenders are somehow to blame, that they took advantage of people by not disclosing the actual loan terms, which has now caused this crisis to careen out of control. Couple this with investment banks and other lending institutions who traded the paper these loans were written, under the assumption that mortgages were relatively safe gambles, and look at where we’re at. In other words, no one’s at fault except for these crooks that wrote the loans in the first place. The argument then gets taken further to say that if we don’t rescue these poor people, the economy is going to collapse on itself.

People, are you all still in first grade? Do you really believe this?

Why is it not patently obvious that this is just a salve? An easy excuse so that those that got themselves into this fix can feel that they bear little to or even no blame? And the sad fact of the matter is, we’re all buying it! To the point where we’re doing the economic equivalent of overreacting and buying all of the stores out of bread, batteries and water before a snowstorm hits, like that’s really going to make a difference.

Some people are going to say that the true problem is that credit is tightening up to the point where it’s going to destroy the economy. While there is some veracity to that argument, don’t you think that’s masking another problem, that perhaps credit has been a little too easy? If you want to look for predatory lenders, how about credit card companies? Why have they been allowed to get away with the interest rates and practices that they have been utilizing for over 20 years?

What needs to happen right now is for everyone to take a deep breath and examine this a little more thoroughly. Unfortunately, we have our government rushing in to throw money at the problem….your money, I might add…to what end? And once the government gets control of an economic sector it becomes permanent.

That might be ok if they had a history of good management.

LET'S BLOW OFF A TOE

What is it with this large faction of the Democratic Party that are at best blinded by ideology and at worst are complete morons? This is the 3rd election in the row that the Democrats not only can win, but will win...if only they put up a candidate who a) has vision, b) isn't tied to a previous administration, and c) can pull the independents and centrist voters in.

Lo and behold, Hillary Clinton is actually in a position where she gets enough votes to steal the nomination (yes, steal) away from Barack Obama. Looking at the list above, she fails on all three points.

Are you people really that stupid?

Oh, so you think I'm being harsh or perhaps I just simply don’t see the magic or the significance of HRC. Ok, try this on for size: let's forget for a moment that the Republican in this race is John McCain. Let's pretend for a moment that it's Jeb Bush.

Tell me, Democrats, how that very idea turns your stomach. Tell me how determined you are to make sure that he doesn't get within sniffing distance of the White House. Tell me how much money you are willing to contribute to make sure that he loses, even more determined than you are to make sure that whatever Democrat is running wins.

Do you get the idea? Jeb might actually be the best politician and the most centric of the 3 Bushes. It doesn't matter; his name alone is polarizing and renders him unelectable. And yet, there are a large number of you out there who don't seem to understand just how much the name "Clinton" produces venom-laced saliva in this country. And no, they're not all right-wing wacko Republicans. Those of us in the center have absolutely NO desire to see anyone named Bush or Clinton hit the White House again. Ever. Not now, not in four years, not in eight years.

If Hillary is the nominee, you will in effect be electing a Republican yet again. Oh, I know you don’t think so. “She’s a fighter. She’s tough. The Republicans really don’t like John McCain, and the country is ready for a change.”

Don’t kid yourself. Because if you do, you’ll be shooting yourself in the foot yet again. The only control you might have is which foot and how many toes you can blow off.

And quit any comments about the idiocy of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. You need to look in the mirror.

Not So Random Musings

WHY IS HRC TOUTING EXPERIENCE?
It’s interesting noting that Hillary touts her “experience” and Obama’s lack thereof as reasons she is more prepared. In a speech on Monday excerpted in the Chicago Tribune: "We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security. We can't let that happen again. America has already taken that chance one time too many."
So how does that jibe with Bill Clinton in 1992? And why does this argument supposedly work against Bush? Clinton was wet behind the ears when it came to national governance. GWB had the advantage of a close family member having been in the White House 8 years earlier. So, who does Hillary’s resume most resemble of the two? Call me silly, but I fail to see Hillary’s argument in any positive light, and I’m betting most of America that has more than an 10th grade education does too.

SPEAKING OF WHICH
We have 3 Senators left in the race. No governors or big-city mayors; only McCain spent time as a congressional representative, serving two terms. None have run a business, though again McCain spent time as VP-Public Relations of an Anheuser-Busch distributorship (due to his current wife Cindy’s familial ownership). Both Obama and Clinton majored in Political Science. McCain attended the Naval Academy. There is a clear winner in the “experience” game, and it’s not Clinton.

TRULY LIBERAL?
Obama is now being touted as an extreme liberal. And I do see some policies that raise my eyebrows. (Raising the cap on FICA taxes, for instance, which could put a serious chill on small businesses.) But when compared to Clinton, the gap between them seems larger than the media is touting. Clinton has this idealistic and naïve zeal, a la Lyndon Johnson, towards a society where the government takes care of everything. Obama seems to recognize the reality of the issues. Hence, if you don’t want to pay in to the federal health care system, in Barack’s world you don’t have to (unless you have children). And don’t come crying when you’re sick and can’t afford to pay, either.

Obama asks for two years of service back to the country in exchange for college subsidies. Yes, he wants out of Iraq immediately (which I also question) but then wants to redouble efforts in Afghanistan and go after Al Qaeda. This isn’t your typical tax-and-spend Democrat peacenik. After 8 years of a Republican who never met a spending bill he couldn’t get behind, I’m not sure we’re going to be committing more federal funds.

AN ELECTION OF ISSUES
McCain offers sharp differences in what he proposes. The problem with Clinton is that she seems to be operating without an apparent logic behind them other than a push towards a much larger welfare state. Obama, on the other hand, seems to have more of an agenda than to have the government taking care of everything. So if it’s Obama-McCain this election might actually be a referendum on the direction we wish to go as Americans. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

Findings from Friends & Acquaintances

I’ve endeavored to join as many political discussions with as many different people as possible over the past month or so. My intent has not been to offer my opinion, but rather to ask just enough questions to get the other person or people to open up about what they see with the current landscape. Here are a few of my (admittedly unscientific) findings:

1) The depth of hatred for Hillary Clinton inside the Democratic Party. This one really surprises me. Even though I’ve long held (and still do) that she’s unelectable, I figured that Democrats would largely have a neutral or resigned position about her, if not a positive one. Wrong, at least among the people I’ve been able to engage. They’re using words like “evil,” “Satan,” “power-hungry” and other less pleasant and…ahem…descriptive terms. In fact, I have yet to find more than a single person who rallies around her. (And that person is a female in New England who has traditionally been a Republican.) Now that may say a great deal about the people I can and do rub elbows with, but wouldn’t you think I could find at least one supporter, especially in a place like Austin?

2) Republican support for Mitt Romney. This one’s also a bit of a surprise to me. I’ve heard a lot of this, too: “If (the candidate I support) doesn’t win, Romney would be ok.” Does this mean he’s the actual leader to get the nomination, as he’s the one guy the party can agree on across the board?

3) And the virtual winners are Obama and Giuliani. Centrist Democrats like Giuliani. Centrist Republicans like Obama. Since neither one’s actual history or views jibe with the opposite party’s, I have to believe there are other factors that lead to their current popularity with would-be enemies. In Giuliani’s case, my guess is that it’s his name recognition, plus his perceived legacies of turning around NYC and his handling of 9/11. Obama? Must be because he’s likeable as a person and not being Hillary, because his political stances really don’t align with Republicans one iota. Once the majority of the party faithful actually see where each one stands, their support will waiver. (To me, this is supported by the lack of support for Giuliani among northeastern Democrats, who know him a bit more than the rest of the country.) Nonetheless, will we see some people voting outside of their party’s primary to help nominate these two? And if so, will it be in significant enough numbers to help?

4) Bill who? Fred who? John who? John who again? Again, I have to qualify: there is a limited number of people I’m able to come in contact with, no matter how many I perceive it to be. But since I do converse with people from all over the country and of virtually every political stripe, I find it interesting that everyone not named Romney, Obama, Clinton, or Giuliani has been virtually written off. Does this mean that someone’s campaign could be revived by an early win or two? Sure. But don’t hold your breath.

NOT SO FAST

Beware the easy prognostications of "here come the Democrats" because one can look to Kentucky, Virginia, and Indianapolis and see a trend. And it’s not necessarily the trend that the Dems think they see, nor the trend the GOPers think they see.

The trend in all probability is “throw the bums out, regardless of affiliation.”

See, it doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you hail from. If an incumbent's constituents are the least bit unsettled the signs are saying that the bar is much lower than normal to bounce them from office. What I don't see is a mandate for Democrats to re-take power, nor an “all-clear” signal for Republicans that a significant slice of the electorate is still in their camp. The electorate as a whole is very dissatisfied, and if you appear to be part of the problem, regardless of party, you are in deep doo-doo.

Indianapolis is a great case study. Marion County has been becoming increasingly Democratic for the past 15 years to the point where it was the only county in Indiana to vote for Kerry in 2004. But a relative unknown and underfunded Republican upset Bart Peterson, 2-term Democratic mayor, the City-County Council turned majority Republican, and the large suburb of Lawrence ousted its Democratic mayor.

I don’t mean to suggest that this possible groundswell doesn’t favor Democrats, but that's only in places where they don't currently hold office AND there is an incumbent. All bets are off in races where the incumbent isn't running. This feels like the same simmering disappointment that turned into voter anger in both 1976 and 1980. And its roots are not just Iraq or worries about the economy. The general sense is that the country is foundering and people are wanting a clear direction.

In other words, don’t be so sure that any one of us knows the outcome of any race, especially the presidency. And don’t rule out a third party candidate suddenly coming on full force after the Dem & GOP candidates are known.

WHY SPORTSMANSHIP IS STILL IMPORTANT

There has been a lot of talk about the New England Patriots this season, to say the least. I think they're providing a great metaphor. Let's start with just the football aspect:

Right now, there seem to be two camps on the Patriots running up the score: those that think they are and see it as a very bad thing, and those that either don't think they are (ahem) or that because it's pro football, there need be no mercy. No surprise, Group 2 is comprised almost entirely of Patriots fans.

We all want an excuse as to why our team or our own actions are justified. But when you do things like going for it on 4th down with a 5-touchdown lead and leaving your starters in when the other team has no chance is difficult to defend. The reason? They are on a mission to prove they're the best team despite the "Spygate" incident earlier in the season and they seem to think this is the way to remove all doubt. Hmmm...

All the Pats are doing is ensuring that the rest of the nation loathes them, and that other teams will stick it to them when they can. That probably won't be this season, but coaches, fans and players have very long memories when it comes to this sort of behavior. And so do GMs, owners, and front office personnel. Don't be surprised if next year or the year after that some team injures Tom Brady with a purposeful late hit. Or, GMs consistently refuse to make trades with the NE brass...or every road game in a down year (which will happen) turns into “how much can we embarrass the Patriots,” Essentially, Bellichick is threatening to create 20 years of paybacks with one season of a raised middle finger.

Now the non-football portion: how much does this translate to our lives, our politics, our interactions with others? Are we ever truly in a place where "it doesn't matter so long as you win"? Yet from our foreign policy to CEO compensation to presidential campaigns, sportsmanship seems to have taken a back seat. Unfortunately, it does come with consequences.

Also, it is very difficult to build up a great reputation, but extremely easy to destroy it. Witness political figures, celebrities, and others who fall from grace. But once a reputation is destroyed, it is an even longer process to remake it, if it can ever be done.

I'm not saying that everything needs to be done in the utmost manner of politeness, but there does deserve to be some simple respect, even when the stakes are high. Maybe especially when the stakes are high. But somewhere we seem to have forgotten that if you're going to tread on someone in any arena that they will make it their mission to take you down. And they, too, have long memories. Even armies who are bent on killing each other understand that once you've defeated your opponent, you have to give them some grace in defeat, or it will come back to haunt the victors.

So root for your team, Patriots fans. You may even go undefeated and win a championship. Just remember that when your team is being taken apart unmercifully in a few years. Unless your team's ownership starts thinking about their long-term future.

IF AL GORE IS SERIOUS

Let’s start with a reality check: Al Gore is not going to win the presidency in 2008. He will not be able to get organized, raise enough money, or campaign fast enough to make a dent in the front-loaded primaries, and he’s certainly not going to enter the fray as a 3rd party candidate. The question should be: does Gore ever run for public office again? His eventual answer to that will tell you whether he’s really in it for public service or for ego.

Forget personal prejudices about Gore’s ability (or lack thereof) to often walk the walk he talks, or what his real purpose was about agreeing to make “An Inconvenient Truth.” He has still been an important part of raising the consciousness in this country about climate change, and has caused the debate to intensify. If he is truly interested in serving the public and effecting a change, then he needs to continue to make his case as Al Gore, Private Concerned Citizen. But if this is just a ploy to re-make himself politically, then he’s not interested in public service at all, but power.

I don’t know the answer here. Gore has always championed environmental protection as his #1 cause, and that makes you want to believe that he’s really in it to educate the country and make a difference. But if you watch his movie with a critical eye, you don’t just gloss over all the references to the 2000 election. Instead, you wonder why it’s included. After all, if this is about raising consciousness on what we’re doing to the planet, who cares about how you lost the election?

That is the dichotomy with Al Gore, and why a lot of people struggle with or discount what he stands for, or what he purports to stand for. If you’re really in this for environmental change, why do you try to show how “unfair” the 2000 election was to you? And if the environment is that fragile, why do you live your extremely environmentally abusive lifestyle and think that by buying “carbon credits” you can excuse your behavior?

See, this is the problem with career politicians. They think they’re above the fray, and they think they’re entitled to positions of privilege. Hey…I’m an agoraphobic person who has partially been rewarded by a lifetime of being on stage instead of down with “the rabble.” So on some level I understand. The difference is that I’m not in a position to make policy. I’m just saying that whatever you see Al Gore do in the future with respect to seeking public office should tell you a great deal about his true motivations.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH ADVERTISING (or lessons from working in gaming)

Some of you know that my company works with ad agencies in addition to video game companies. I was just forwarded an article where an agency owner who thinks very highly of himself was pontificating on what's wrong with the industry.

Yeah, this is beyond the normal scope of this blog, but since I haven't been posting anything lately, I thought I'd offer my own take on what seems utterly apparent, and it's considerably different than what Johnny Loveshimselfalot has to say.

For ad agencies to be socially relevant again they must --

1) Have independence. This means freedom from shareholders. One of the single dumbest ideas was to collect agencies in these big holding companies and go public. A creative company needs an environment that allows that it to sink or swim based on taking some chances with ideas, otherwise there will never be "big ideas' or because no one will be willing to allow the potential risk. Nothing sucks the life out of creativity like Wall Street.

2) Hire actual creative types. Virtually every ad agency is now populated by account executives who dress funky to show how creative they are. In reality, most of them are simply immature bad salespeople, more Herb Tarlick than J. Walter Thompson. Scratch that: Herb could at least sell. Agencies don't need more AEs who pretend to be creative: they need CDs and Producers and Copywriters who actually know what they're doing. Which means you might need to hire some weirdos who want to crawl into a corner and draw. Take the gaming approach -- throw a twinkie over the cubicle wall and leave him to his craft. Don't worry...he'll come out eventually.

3) Have a SMALL number of people over the creatives (like one or two) who have proven that they a) know what good creative is and b) have some business acumen. This is where the David Ogilvys and Lester Wundermans of the world really made their mark. They weren't writing all the ads or going on all the shoots -- they were letting the weirdos do their thing and acting as the filter, THEN bringing the best ideas to light. Or, in a gaming scenario, they were the publishers, the creatives were the developers. Somehow, that very simple idea has been lost.

4) When something is working, DON'T SCREW WITH IT. In the gaming world, how much money has Blizzard made on World of Warcraft? How much money has EA made on Madden, Need for Speed and The Sims? How much money has Midway made on Mortal Kombat? How much money has Activision made on Spiderman, World Series of Poker, and Guitar Hero? And it doesn't matter if the producer changes -- you don't mess with the formula until it stops working. This is even MORE imperative with advertising, yet every new AE-who-thinks-he's-a-producer has to stamp out the life of what was happening before and do something new. And it never, ever, ever works. Why? See 3) above.

Also note that this does not mean that new ideas aren't encouraged or allowed to surface. It simply means that change for the sake of change is misguided.

Until then, advertising will continue to decline. If they get to the point where they're irrelevant (and that's not very far away) then nothing will resurrect the trade. It will become the equivalent of used car sales.

You know, I always thought the book "Who Moved My Cheese?" was so ridiculously obvious that anyone who read it should have been saying, "Well, duh." The advertising industry is making me reconsider that opinion....but I'm scratching my head the entire time.

The Early Debates

On consecutive Thursdays I've watched 8 Democratic and 10 Republican declared presidential candidates "debate" the issues on MSNBC. (A better term than debate might be...outlined their stump speeches?) Lots of takeaways and impressions. In no particular order:

-Everyone should donate $20 to Mike Gravel's campaign. Of course he has no chance of winning, but where else are you going to see James Stockdale melded into Peter Finch and saying "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more! Now, if I could only remember why I'm mad as hell!!"

-Dennis Kucinich was looking at Mike Gravel going off and a big smile crossed his face. I know what he was thinking: “I’m not finishing last THIS time!”

-Mitt Romney looks and sounds like the perfect Republican candidate. Which is why he has no chance of getting elected, unless he's running against Hillary Clinton.

-HRC will beat no one in a general election. She exudes smarmy and drips with venom, no matter how nicely she talks. Her latest accent, a hard-core northeastern clip she has developed, is emblematic of the distrustworthiness and charade of her entire being. It's quite amazing to me how she has been able to go from Chicago nasal to Arkansas drawl to midwestern accentless to New York in very short periods of time. And no one seems to notice. (But then, no one else seemed to notice what a low-class hoodlum Michael Vick was until now, either.) Trust me on this one, folks: she won't be your next president.

-The pundits at MSNBC don't want Guiliani to win for some reason that I haven't yet figured out. I'll bet his poll numbers don't take a hit after this debate, though, which tells me the rest of those paying attention don't share their reasoning.

-Bill Richardson was a major disappointment. He seemed largely ill-prepared. When he did give confident answers, he came off as naïve and simplistic. Definitely not presidential.

-Obama is able to hold himself in a debate. I no longer doubt his ability to sway opinions to many of his points-of-view.

-John Edwards is much better prepared than he was 4 years ago. Which makes sense since that’s the only reason he has even been in politics is to run for president. Again…I don’t think he’s electable, especially since his message is to those ‘disadavantaged’ in America. Oops…they don’t vote in large numbers.

Joe Biden would be very electable if he weren’t so arrogant and played loose with facts. Alas…

I still see nothing that sways me from my early prediction of Guiliani vs. Obama.

A much needed road trip

It's amazing what hitting the road for a couple of weeks will do for your soul, or at least for my soul. Hence, an overdue travelog blog.

After a slow 1st quarter, the CW and I have been graciously slammed with work. Two of these projects have required me to travel to the west coast to do a bunch of voice-over talent direction & recording. Because I had to be in 3 different places (San Jose, L.A., Las Vegas) I used that as an excuse to drive instead of fly. As much as I've driven around the country, going west from Austin was an excursion I had not had the opportunity to make.

There is something about driving cross-country in America that makes one reconnect with being American. The independence, the vast differences in landscape, the way the sky changes, the things you glean by talking to various people in bars, restaurants and hotels. Plus, there is the learning experience when you watch and listen to people who aren't native to the place you're visiting, whether they're tourists or transplants. It's even more fascinating to talk to transplants who are originally from the various areas of the country you call home, and understand what they want out of life and their new locale. It's a fabulous eye-opening education.

One of the things I had the opportunity to do was to drive up the Pacific Coast Highway from L.A. to San Jose. All I can say is...wow. I've had some fantastic drives in my years of road trips, but I think that one ranks at least #2 if not taking over the top spot in "breathtaking drives I'd take again." (The others on that list would be driving the Florida Keys, going through Yoho & Banff National Parks in the Canadian Rockies, and driving down the Outer Banks of North Carolina.) I could spend paragraphs describing it, but there is no camera or even an IMAX that could do it justice. It was an unbelievable experience.

I stopped at Monterrey to get some seafood. Unfortunately, I hit Fisherman's Wharf, which is not to be confused with the same place in San Francisco. The SF version is fabulous; Monterrey's....not so much. More of a tourist trap for overweight, underflavored midwesterners to go for the "California experience." My wine was crap (especially for NoCal), my eggplant appetizer was old and bitter. However, the oysters I had were to die for. And they were blue points! No one's doing blue points any more; how come? They were meaty, sweet, and had that taste of the sea that you can only get from oysters. Plus, I was sitting outside on the bay. How bad could life be?

San Jose has always held a lot of charm for me. It's the centerpiece of Silicon Valley, but it's also in a verdant valley between two mountain ranges with the ocean just over the western coastal range. It's big enough to have culture, yet small enough to be accessible and not overwhelming. Go Sharks.

Even with its flaws, California is probably the greatest state in the union, at least in terms of beauty. However, every state has its asshole, and California's is the biggest: L.A. How and why people continue to move and exist there is beyond me. The metro area is huge, overcrowded, and ugly. The people are pretentious to an absurd point. The traffic is probably the worst in the world. The real estate is so out-of-bounds that it makes the Bay Area and NYC look like bargains. Even the "beautiful people" have the help of silicone and surgeons.

However, the drive I took north out of L.A. through the mountains (California Hwy 2, mostly) was another breathtaking display of what Cali has to offer. I love being in Texas, I love the landscape of Austin, and at times I miss the verdancy of the midwest. But man...the varied vistas, the greenery, the floral displays, the ocean scenes, the canyons...it's an unbelievably gorgeous state.

Vegas is another world unto itself.

This was the CW's first visit to Sin City, and it figured to to be interesting to see it through her eyes; I expected that she was going to hate it. I can't say that she did, but I can say that it isn't going to be a destination for either of us. Neither of us are gamblers (unless you want to count my love of very-low-stakes home poker games). The food in Vegas, quite frankly, sucks. At least it used to be cheap, but now you don't even have that to recommend it (and it's expensive not only in the casinos but also far away from The Strip). And there's something sadly amusing about the blatant sex. Maybe it's because of my years on the road and having it shoved in my face, but something about the advertising of it basically says "if you don't get it anywhere else, at least you can get it here." And frankly, that is sad. Based on the tourists I see whenever I'm there, though, the message is hitting the target audience.

The drive back on the back roads of Arizona and New Mexico was extremely interesting. The deserts were in full bloom, so it was probably the most beautiful time of the year to traverse them. The most fascinating part is how often they change; every 20-30 miles the vegetation is different, the mountains are different, and the temperature is different. I found myself wondering, though, about the people who live in this area of the country. How did they get here, why do they stay, and what the hell do they do for a living? It's hard not to answer that with "they were born here, they know of nothing else, and look at their abodes; they're on welfare." I'm sure that's not the majority of the backroads desert denizens, but it's got to be a high percentage.

The trip also confirmed something else: Austin is indeed home. As much as I enjoyed (and probably needed) the excursion, it was exciting as we got closer to the ranch. This is where I belong.

WATCH THE BELT BUCKLE

There are lots of pundits, both amateur and professional, making all sorts of predictions about the 2008 presidential race. I'm no different in that regard. And, we all probably think we see things that allow us to draw conclusions that may or may not have any shred of reality to them by the time the election rolls around. However...

...when I was a wee lad, my father tried to teach me to football. He did at least succeed in giving me a love for the sport that I have for no other, not even the ones I actually did play well (like tennis or track). An unintended consequence was that a phrase he gave me while trying to show me the intracicies of defending and tackling in the open field became a great life lesson:

"Randy, watch the belt buckle."

This meant that a receiver or a running back would always try to fake you out before moving in the direction they were actually going to go. Their hands might flail, their head might pivot, their shoulders might juke, they might step one way and cut another. But the belt buckle would never move anywhere but where the body was actually going to go.

This same philosophy holds true for life, including politics. We're going to be told all sorts of things: Hillary's got lots of money, Obama's got the buzz, Giuliani's too abrasive, McCain has the support of party insiders, on and on and on. What's really going on?

Watch the belt buckle.

In this case, "the belt buckle" is the actual direction that someone's campaign is going, or the personal effect and perception they have with the electorate.

We'll be told that Elizabeth Edward's cancer will give John Edwards some sympathetic attention. Does it give him a shot? Watch the belt buckle. I see a man who still polls very high negative numbers, and compared to the other "front runners" he's not having much luck building a war chest even though he's been running for president since he came to the Senate in 1998. He's going to the turf for a loss of 3 yards.

We'll be told how much money Hillary Clinton has raised, how Bill will give her a boost, and how great of a campaigner she is. Does she get the Democratic nomination? Watch the belt buckle. Hillary's negatives are over 50% in some polls. Even in the more favorable polls her "won't vote for her no matter what" numbers are in the high 30s. Essentially, she's juking and spinning, and she might spin down the field for a few yards. But she has little chance to get to the end zone.

I don't want to overuse the football analogy because that's not really the point. What IS the point is to not be swayed by your own personal feelings or anyone else's for a candidate. Nor should you be swayed by the story-of-the-moment, or some minor jump or drop in the polls.

So when you see that the media is already trying to pile on Giuliani, yet his positive numbers rise while his negative numbers fall, the media is trying to juke you. When Fred Thompson hasn't even "taken off from the line of scrimmage" and people are trying to put him in the White House (Wesley Clark kind of comes to mind), you might want to see how well he runs down the field first. When John McCain is the supposed "chosen guy" of the Republican Party, but he's being caught handily from behind...well, you get the idea.

Watch the belt buckle.

By the way, Obama's got 70 yards of open field with only two defenders to beat, and one of them's turned the wrong way....