Dave Barry and Bob Graham

As you know, my man Dave Barry has stopped writing a weekly column and has spent the past few years writing children's novels of unknown worth and following his wife to sports events. But, like with Calvin & Hobbes in newspapers, the powers that be have been reprinting old Dave columns. Most I've read already but sometimes we get lucky and there's a 'new' (meaning so old that it wasn't published in any of his books) column. So it was a week ago when I was able to read a 1983 interview between Dave and then FL Gov. Bob Graham (D).

I advise reading the whole column, but suffice it to say that Graham is possibly the sharpest politician I've seen interviewed, based on his extraordinarily swift wit. Mario Cuomo struck me as sharp and funny but just read this amazing interchange, which Dave swears actually happened, and was not pre-planned:

BARRY: What can the state do about harmonica safety? I don't know if you have any idea how many Floridians die every year in harmonica accidents....

GRAHAM: Well last year we actually made some substantial improvement. In 1981, there were four people who died of harmonica accidents. Now actually, I think it's only fair to count three of them, because the fourth one was actually, I would say it was more of a swimming-pool accident. He was playing the harmonica in the swimming pool and actually jumped off the shallow end, hit his head, and we don't know whether it was the fact that he swallowed the harmonica, or the brain damage. They counted it as a harmonica accident. Now, this year, or 1982, the last year for which we have statistics, we only had two harmonica accidents. I think it was the result of the public-service ads that I did....

BARRY: The Harmonica Safety Day I think was a wonderful....

GRAHAM: ...and we built it around the theme that if you want to play Dixie, it's fine, but don't do it in front of the air- conditioning duct, because that's where we found that most of the deaths occurred. It was the vacuum that was created.

BARRY: This leads us pretty much directly to toads. I've been staying at a house in Broward County, and there are, every morning out on the patio, toads the size of mailboxes. What can we do?

Just to 'fact-check', I searched to find if there really had been a Harmonica Safety Day. Nope. Gadzooks, what a guy!

I remember when he ran for president in 2004 and now I'm even angrier that he didn't make any headway. If he had run instead of John "Choke" Kerry?! Think about it: a sharp, savvy, popular Governor and Senator from Florida who opposed the Iraq War! Grrr.

Pic from this completely unrelated site.

Pain of Living the Past

As you've noticed, I'm going through a lot of backposts, and while much have to deal with the 2008 election, I'm also fixing up the earlyblog which takes me back to 2004. Oh boy, if you're finding yourself not hating Bush as much as you used to, go back and read newspapers from 2004-2005. That'll get you hating again.

Old Post Reforms

I'm still cleaning up the old posts from 2003-2005 and adding pictures. Here's one that I'm using for the 2004 Election (a demotivator!)

Counter-Predictions for TPM

This is the body of a letter I sent to the TPM regarding their predictions for the Iowa/New Hampshire and beyond: "How We See it":

In general, I believe that your prediction of the potential nominees is on the mark. Two caveats, one for each prediction:

1. Democrats - I don't think you can rule out Obama even if Hillary gets #1 in Iowa and New Hampshire for two reasons:

(a) Obama has a lot of money- that gives him the ability to fight loud for a long time (unlike Edwards in '04 who kept running after it was clear that Kerry had clinched it, but it was largely a futile gesture).

(b) Hillary's negatives are pretty high. I think that Kerry was able to lock up the nom in '04 because most Democrats accepted the expertise of the early primary voters, assuming that since all the non-screaming candidates (e.g. Kerry, Edwards, Clark) were all major unknowns that they felt "if the early voters accepted one of them then, OK, let's just take that one." I heard this from my parents who accepted at face value Kerry's front-running status (and the false-positive crossover appeal of his military record) even though I, as a political junkie, felt that he was the kiss of death.

I don't think there'll be a front-runner repeat of 04 with Hillary because we KNOW that woman very very well. Even if she wins the first three contests (IA, NH, SC), I assume that all that will do is force Edwards to leave the race. Edwards is so far splitting the anti-Hillary vote, and if he drops he'll leave a loud Obama to provide a valid alternative contrast to Hillary. And when the field clears between these two well-funded choices, I think that Obama will get much more popular.

I think a model for Hillary vs. Obama could be 1984's Mondale vs. Hart -- if Mondale had more money, was more hated, and actually had no governing experience and if Hart was smarter, had more substance, and a lot more money. I was only 12 at that election, but in looking at the data I'm impressed at how many states Hart managed to win.

2. Republicans - Huckabee is not going to be easy to eliminate.

To consolidate a blog post I wrote on this, I think that Romney's support is very soft. He is the default candidate because all the other candidates are sick jokes and because Mitt's got looks, money, and clean living. But he's also a laughable phony. What scares me about Huckabee is that even though he has very little money and little staff, he is a very impressive Evangelical poster child and that gives him a built-in power base. Four words: "Passion of the Christ" - that movie made money because of the massive outpouring of Evangelicals who were probably not compelled by Madison Avenue but because thousands of them heard about it in church every Sunday. I think this power-base and free communication network can explain Huck's explosive rise in Iowa and South Carolina and also how he's tied with Giuliani nationally. Add real money and a real staff to Huckabee and I think he'll be a Goldwater on Christ.

While Huck has a dark side (a temper, the gifts in office, his compulsion to cover up and lie) and a dumb side (much of his policy ideas), I would posit that the scandals won't bother Evangelicals. Why? Three more words: "George Dubya Bush." How many scandals did Dubya accrue? His dark side is darker than Huck and his dumb side deeper. But the Evangelicals gave him a pass because (a) he was Born Again, and (b) every time he committed a sin against The Lord or against The Human Race, he'd just accept Jesus again and he'd be as right as rain. And if the Evangelicals accepted that with the Bush, then they'll be even more generous with Huckabee. Because while Bush is reborn, Huck is a freakin' preacher!

For example, Huck's biggest scandal (so far) is freeing Dumond, yet I believe the Evangelicals will just look at it as an act of Christian charity and move on. Seriously. And I don't think the Evangelicals will care that he's got liberal-ish views about spending government money to help the poor because that also fits into the preacher paradigm.

The only way I think Huck is knocked out is if somehow the fervid support he'll get from the Evangelical base is statistically too small to offset the GOP's anti-Evangelical voters. Given the stripping away of almost every group from the GOP over this scorched earth years of Bush-Cheney, I don't think there's enough anti-Evangelicals to stop Huck.

2009 Update: Hey, these predictions held up pretty well. Yay me.

Backpost finished 2009-12-14.

Lieberman Endorses McCain

So Lieberman did it, he endorsed McCain for 2008. One can surely wonder how a life-long Democrat, someone who won the VP as a Dem 2 terms ago, could endorse someone from the other side? Well, even if you didn't ask it, my mom did. And here was my answer:

Over the weekend I was hearing rumors that this would happen. I am not entirely surprised... Lieberman is a rare politician who actually takes things personally. McCain stayed loyal to him, they are very good buddies, and close. Don't forget, also that McCain had toyed switching to the Democrats at one point (2002 I think) and was even considering being Kerry's running mate in '04. Even though McCain is crazy conservative on some issues, he isn't on others and same thing with Joe as a liberal.

Alls said and done, McCain probably called in a chip to Lieberman and since Hillary, Dodd, Obama and Edwards all abandoned him in '06, Lieberman felt that he could allow McCain to cash that chip.

Again, the way I see it is that Lieberman - the Independent - is not supporting the party (GOP) for president but the man (McCain). And if McCain wins (which is still unlikely, but, hey, ya never know), Lieberman could very well be his running mate.

Lieberman has angered me with his intransigence on national security and constitutional issues... but considering the way the Democrats threw him under a bus in '06, I can't entirely blame him. Just slightly...

Backpost finished 2009-12-14.

Political Reading After November's Debacle

Because of my busy schedule, I was unable to read every single article in every single magazine I subscribe to at the moment it arrives in my house; I give myself several weeks (months) of idle or throne time to get through them all. However, now that the Disaster of '04 has happened, I find that all of these pompous, under-thought political articles are just terrifying.

[Update: My reflections on my mindset 3 months ago]

The spitting rage I was in 3 months ago has dulled into a lugubrious torpor. This is what it must have felt like in February 1973 in the shadow of Nixon. Except that the dirty tricks were more obvious under the Trickster (whose intelligence was a disadvantage, we see - the worst presidents were usually the meatheads and they were worst because they got away with it: see Harding, Bush).

The biggest - if not only - factor in Bush's victory was that we were attacked on our own soil. He's a fool to play it as a mandate but he's gotten where he is by being a fool, so for him it works. Bush is the Disaster President in more ways than one.

Backpost started 11/14/04 & finished 2/16/05.

Shoot the Moon

The last men standing after all the cabinet shuffling is Don "Dishonor" Rumsfeld and John "Freefall" Snow (Snow to Stay on With Bush) - which makes total sense. While Bush has been, overall, one of the worst leaders of a North American republic, his very worst areas have been in economic policy and in war planning.

Then again, if you see things my way, that staying part of the Bush cabinet is a grave punishment, then actually Rumsfeld and Snow are getting what they deserve! Either way it's a clear case of 'aveira gorreret aveira'

Backpost finished 2/16/05.

Ridge Resigns Homeland Post

This makes what, 7? 8? resignations (AP: Ridge Resigns Homeland Post). Wouldn't it be great if Bush, dizzy with all the resignations, high on crank, gets confused and resigns as well? Yeah!

{2009 Update, great clown Ridge pic from here.}

What If: If Kerry Had Won

Then maybe SpaghettiOs would still be made by Franco-American!

Political Discourse: Texas Style

Put up your dukes.

Columbia Journalism Review's Too Late

When I did my senior thesis (almost 10 years ago, egads!) I used the CJR as a necessary balance to the excesses of journalism back in the day. The freakshow that exists now was barely imagined in 1994 and CJR (and other watchdogs) have not kept up.

In this post-mortem of the 2004 political coverage CJR tries to make up for the collective lack of talent and restraint of the whole industry.

{2009 Update: broken link because CJR decided to close it's domain name; cheap bastiches.}

Canada's View of America

Evidently, Canada has been receiving quite a number of investigative requests since Bush's overwhelming crushing stunning majority victory. The Toronto Star suggests that this be the new map of North America.

Kerry is what now?

According to the AP wire, Kerry hints White House run in his future. He's hinting that he wants to run in 2008.

I must admire the type of abject idiocy that makes someone think he can prevail in what others would think are hopeless circumstances. However, this ain't that. Didn't Kerry get the memo? He was running against the most hated man since Richard Nixon and HE STILL COULDN'T WIN! It wasn't because there weren't enough Democrats, or "swing voters" or "get out the voters" - it's because he was so profoundly unappealing as a person and 'leader' that more Americans went with the inbred frat-boy thug.

In fact, my rage over Kerry has redoubled with this rumor. How dare he?!?

{2009 Update: French Kerry pic nabbed from a lost part of the interwebs and recreated on my computer - enjoy you image-googlers.}

Shiva Over

Depending on how you count, Shiva for the world ends today. The election was on Tuesday, but the concession was on Wednesday... hard to tell when I can get off the floor.

For those who wish to retain some sanity and clarity in the past week's horse-sheiss storm, especially as it relates to the "Republican Mandate" - see these proportional population electoral maps.

Just like Greenland, the red states of our vast Midwest & south and rendered as mere bulges of pitiful red-neck splotches.

Still No Blogger

Blogger still isn't allowing me on - or putting up my recent posts. I'm sitting here exhausted and furious. I'm especially angry at Kerry for not coming himself with a public statement of confidence. All I see from the online NYTimes and WPost is Andrew Card and a big banner headline "Bush Confident of Victory." Kerry needs to come out strong, and he's not and I want an explanation.

Note, the "confidence" thing is all part of the Rove playbook. By playing the press into declaring him the victor, all attempts to actually count the votes are called "recounts" instead of, uh, ya know, "counts."

I've heard and read some frum Jews saying that this is God giving another victory to George W. I want to remind ya'll that this is a vote, not a lottery, and so our fate is being sealed by human action - but even then, God's invisible Hand could very well be giving Bush victory but as a punishment. That's how it feels to me.

Four More Years of Abu Ghraib

Just in case the recent pronouncements of the domestic agenda and the 'political capital' of a razor thin victory have confused you, the reports are coming in of systemic abuses in Guantanamo prison (AP: Guantanamo Abuses Reported.)

This was one reason why Bush had to lose: so the abuse, which was ordered down from the highest levels of the Executive Branch, could have been exposed and the 'evildoers' brought to justice.

I won't say that anyone who supports Bush or voted for he and his mobsters is guilty of suppressing these crimes. As I said before, you Republicans have a chance to communicate to your Embarrassment in Chief that you want justice done. As non-base, I will be ignored (to say the least).

But if Abu Ghraib, and now Guantanamo, doesn't keep you up at night, then there's not much hope for you as a moral person.

The New Republic: 51-48

"51-48," by the New Republic Editors
Post date: 11.04.04

This hurts. The convictions and the dreams of American liberalism have genuinely failed to carry the day; and so, for the sake of liberalism, but also for the sake of America, it is the hour for making discriminations among the varieties of despair.

There certainly are grounds for despair. In their first term, without a popular mandate, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney governed in a radically sectarian manner, in conformity with only the wishes of their hallowed base; and there is no reason to think that the popular mandate that they have now secured for a second term will provoke them to reconsider their virulence and their smallness and their indifference to the evidence of experience beyond their own. In the aftermath of this election, the president speaks about unifying the country, but he spoke that way in the aftermath of the last election, and he became the most spectacular disuniter of America in contemporary history. We must not expect the Bush administration to rise above its theology, its secrecy, its instrumental attitude toward the courts, its sympathy for the rich, its economicist approach to health care, its easy conscience about the exploitation of the environment, its belief in its own infallibility, its regular sensation of perfection. There is no sign that the Bush administration has any good idea about how to correct its course in Iraq or to put an end once and for all to Osama bin Laden; or that it regards anti-Americanism as a serious impediment to American values and American interests abroad. The Bush administration may now be expected to behave triumphally and (as the talking heads say) to move forward with its agenda. Hard times, brutish times, lie ahead.

But there is a kind of despair, a glamorous pessimism, that liberals must at all costs avoid. The cartography of the electoral college may show a continent of red with some blue lesions at the extremities; but the popular vote in the election of 2004 was 51 percent for Bush and 48 for Kerry, and those are not the numbers of a political or philosophical rout. Fifty-one to forty-eight: Those are the numbers, rather, of a conspicuously unclear and unthrilling Democratic candidate, whose advantage in money did not offset a disadvantage in authenticity. But the important point is that, all the healing pieties of the morning after notwithstanding, this is a country divided against itself about many matters of first principle. The diversity of worldviews upon which we pride ourselves is haunting us. In such a welter of fundamental differences, the work of argument and organization becomes even more necessary. American liberalism did not die on November 2. It merely lost an election.

There is honor, moreover, in a certain kind of loss. In our distracted and accelerated and gamed society, with its religion of winning, we sometimes forget this. But the many millions of Americans who believe that the tax code should be more fair; and that one of the ends of government is to bother itself about its neediest and least fortunate citizens; and that the morality of the market is not all the morality that a society requires; and that the Bible is not the basis of a democratic political order, or of our political order; and that robust stem-cell research, and science more generally, is a primary social good; and that gay marriage is a question of equality and not the beginning of the end of civilization; and that American troops must not be sent to war ignorantly or dogmatically, or without the means to win; and that the good reputation of the United States in the world is one of its most powerful historical instruments--the many millions of Americans who believe these things are not wrong. They are merely not a majority. But they are a very large minority.


This is not to say that the wounding outcome of this election should fill liberals with a sense of their own purity. Not everybody to the left of Bush is like everybody else to the left of Bush; and it would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party to wallow now in the sort of Michael Moore leftishness that made many Americans worry whether John Kerry was sufficiently obsessed with American security, and sufficiently excited about American power, to protect them at home and to promote their purposes abroad. (On the question of American power, the American people are right and Ted Kennedy is wrong.) An internecine quarrel must now begin. But it cannot begin where there is only alienation, and the self-fulfilling confusion of the Bush administration with the United States of America. This country is bigger than its every president. This Constitution is not easy to destroy. This is not the apocalypse. But it is the most formidable challenge to American liberalism in our time.

{2009 Update, all the Epic Fail pictures from all over the interwebs}

Why the election results are devastating

It's not because "my man lost" - as you know, I did not like Kerry and thought the Democratic Party base that chose him in the primaries were dead wrong. It's because I believe - and have mountains of fact to back me up - that Bush and his cronies have been deceiving the public and the world in the worst way. And I felt that after the election of Kerry the truth would finally come out; that the frightened and muted Press would finally open their mouths and report what they already know and have been hiding.

And then a sizable majority of America would see that Bush was not what he claimed to be. That this government is *not* what America wants.

I still believe that. I believe America was robbed. And maybe now the Press will realize that they have been complicit in this agony and will start doing their jobs.

Terror Alert!

Hey, according to my Sesame Street Alert, there's no longer an Orange Alert in NY and DC!

And, sure enough, that's what the Homeland Security Page says. When was the level reduced? After Kerry's concession or after Bush's victory speech?

Worth Seeing

From Michelle Cottle in The New Republic online:

"Early indications are that this election laid to waste a couple of fundamental pieces of the conventional wisdom that we all heard in the closing days of the race: one, that high voter turnout benefits Democrats; and two, that undecided voters tend to break in favor of the non-incumbent. Figuring out how these two tidbits turned out to be so wrong will give the hard-core electoral handicappers something to obsess about for the next several weeks.

Meanwhile, the rest of us might want to turn our attentions to a more basic question: What the hell happened with the exit polls? I understand that these samplings are always less-than-spot-on. But come on, people, these babies were so wrong last night that Bush backers looked ready to kill themselves--and each other. (And as a result, I have more than a few dear friends, not to mention a husband, now finding it very hard to cope with their dashed hopes.)"

To be honest, the numbers are waaaay off. And, as my brother points out, www.electoral-vote.com says

"One thing that is very strange is how much the exit polls differed from the final results, especially in Ohio. Remember that Ohio uses Diebold voting machines in many areas. These machines have no paper trail. Early in the campaign, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell, a GOP fundraiser, promised to deliver Ohio to Bush. He later regretted having said that."

Kerry conceded for *what* reason?