AT&T Agonistes

What follows is the unexpurgated transcript of my day thus far. NPR is playing in the distance.

Scene 1 (via AT&T text message)

TMFW: (Insert protracted rant about Wally.)

Me: Internet’s down at the house, and I can’t seem to pick up photos on my phone.

TMFW: Your voice has been stilled.

Me: I am sure this will cause great wailing and gnashing of teeth.

TMFW: I sent a picture to your e-mail.

Me: (Patiently) I saw. Hence my text re not being able to look at it on my phone.

TMFW: That is strange.

(Break during which I reboot my computer, my router, and my DSL modem several times, then drive to town to buy the papers so I will have something to read when put on hold after calling the AT&T tech support line).

TMFW: Call tech support. That should be quick and helpful.

Me: My Urdu skills are not strong.

TMFW: Perhaps you should resort to prayer.

Me: Equally effective.

TMFW: Hence my suggestion.

(Break during which I reboot all computer-related devices in my home once again.)

TMFW: 75 yesterday. 35 today.

Me: 65 here.

TMFW: At least the sun is shining.

Me: No, it isn’t, you asshole.

Scene 2 (via AT&T land line)

Me: (Dials (877) 737-2478)

AT&T: Hello! And welcome to the new AT&T! You have reached the AT&T Residential Repair Line! This call may be monitored or recorded for quality control purposes! Para español mache siete. AT&T’s new voice-activated help line allows you to speak most of your responses! Are you calling about a residential phone line?

(Pause)

If you are calling about AT&T high speed internet DSL accens, the answer is “no.”

Me: No.

AT&T: Okay! I’m going to ask you a few questions to find out what your problem is. If you are calling about your AT&T high-speed Internet access, speak, or say, “AT&T high-speed Internet access.” If you …

Me: AT&T high speed Internet access.

AT&T: I’m sorry, I didn’t get that. Could you repeat it please?

Me: AT&T high-speed Internet access.

AT&T: I’m sorry, I still didn’t get that.

Me: AT&T high-speed Internet access.

AT&T: I’m sorry, I still didn’t get that.

Me: AT&T high-speed Internet access!

AT&T: I’m sorry, I still didn’t get that.

Me: AT&T high-speed Internet access!!!!!

AT&T: I’m sorry, I still didn’t get that.

Me: AT&T HIGH-SPEED INTERNET ACCESS, DAMMIT!!!

AT&T: I’m sorry, I still didn’t get that.

Me: MY GODDAMNED INTERNET IS OUT!

AT&T: Okay! I got “my God-damned Internet is out.” Is that right?

Me: Yes.

AT&T: Please speak, or say, the phone number associated with the AT&T high-speed Internet account you’re calling about.

Me: 919-967-1405.

AT&T: Okay. I heard 919-967-1404. Is that right?

Me: No.

AT&T: Please speak, or say, the phone number associated with the AT&T high-speed Internet account you’re calling about.

Me: 919-967-1405.

AT&T: Okay. I heard 919-967-1404. Is that right?

Me: NO!

AT&T: Please speak, or say, the phone number associated with the AT&T high-speed Internet account you’re calling about.

Me: 919-967-1405. Can I speak to a real person please?

AT&T: No you may not speak to a real person. Please speak, or say the number associated with the AT&T high-speed Internet account you’re calling about.

Me: 919-967-1405, for the love of God.

AT&T: Okay. I got 919-967-1405. Is that right?

Me: YES!!!!

AT&T: Okay. I’m going to ask a few questions about your problem. But first, you should know that most common Internet problems can be fixed by unplugging your complimentary AT&T DSL modem from its power source. We recommend that you take this step now, and will pause a moment to allow you to do so.

(Pause)

Have you disconnected your modem from the power source?

Me: No.

AT&T: AT&T highly recommends you do so. Please do so now. (Pause). Have you taken this important step?

Me: Okay, yes.

AT&T: And did this simple step, so often overlooked by AT&T customers, fix your problem, so that you now realize you didn’t have to bother us on a weekend?

Me: No. I had tried that five times before I called the help line.

AT&T: There’s no need to get snippy, sir.

Me: Well, I did.

AT&T: Okay! Please speak, or say, a few sentences to briefly describe the nature of the problem that prompted you to bother us on a Sunday.

Me: I have no DSL signal.

AT&T: Okay. I heard “wish to purchase new equipment.” Please wait while I connect you to the proper person.

Me: NO!

(Lengthy pause, followed by a rude electronic noise, after which line appears to go dead)

AT&T: If you’d like to place a call, please hang up and dial again. (Beep!) If you’d like to make a call, please hang up and dial again. (Beep!) If you’d like to…

Scene 3 (via AT&T text message)

TMFW: The sun is shining here (Attaches picture to text message so as to underscore gloating, smug nature of text message).

Me: I would have preferred the traditional Peshto speaker to the automatic voice-activated system that just hung up on me.

TMFW: No wonder you are unusually dyspeptic this morning.

Scene 4 (via AT&T land line)

(Repeat Scene 2, through “I have no DSL signal, followed by—)

AT&T: Okay! This is your automated AT&T voice-activated problem-solver again. Which allows you, the AT&T customer, the convenience of speaking, or saying, your responses! Please speak or say the type of complimentary modem AT&T provided you free of charge when you signed up with AT&T’s high speed DSL Internet access..

Me: Motorola.

AT&T: I didn’t get that. The most popular modem types are 2-Wire, Belkin, and Cicso. Which of these do you have?

Me: Motorola!

AT&T: Could you repeat that?

Me: MOTOR-GODDAMNED-OLA!!!!!

AT&T (automatic systems stress detectors kicking in) Please wait while we connect you to our AT&T residential customer technical support and service desk!

(Lengthy pause).

Hello! All of our customer support representatives are busy assisting other customers! We will be with you in a few minutes!

(Pause during which I hear part of “An American in Paris” 536 times and do the entire New York Times Sunday crossword).

AT&T: Hawo! May I ask who I am speaking to, pwease?

Me: Don McCormick. Is this a live person?

AT&T: Hawo, Don! I am a wive person, yes! My name is Shiewathamansdkzm! It is my pwivewege to be assisting you today! Could you pwease confiwm the phone number you’re calling fwom, Don?

Me: 919-967-1405.

AT&T: Wets stawt by finding out what you’we pwobwem is! What is it you’we cawing about, Don?

Me: I have no DSL signal.

AT&T: Okay! Hewe at AT&T we find that most pwobwems are caused by a few simple customer ewwows we’we sure you haven’t twied to solve youwsewf, Don. Can you check to make sure the modem is pwugged in, Don?

Me: Yes, of course.

AT&T: The fiwst thing I want you to twy is unplugging it for a few seconds, Don. Do you know how to do that, Don?

Me: Yes, of course. I did so four or five times before I called you, and have done it twice since.

AT&T: You pwobabwy didn’t do it cowectwy. Pwease disconnect the modem fwom its powew souwce, Don, and wait five seconds befowe pwugging it in again.

Me: Done.

AT&T: And you have DSL signaw again, don’t you, Don?

Me: No, of course not.

AT&T: What additional phones or fax machines have you added to youw househowd since the last time youw AT&T high-speed Internet access worked. Don?

Me: None.

AT&T: (Lengthy question in Tagalog, of which the only word I recognize is “Don.”)

Me: Excuse me?

AT&T: I’m sowwy, Don. It wooks wike we need to have a twained AT&T customew sewvice technician come make sure thewe’s no pwobwem with youw lines. Then, Don, we can wesume figuwing out how this is aww youw fauwt. It looks like the earliest one of our trained AT&T customew suppowt technicians can pay you a sewvice call is between eight a.m and eweven a.m. on Decembew 28. Is that a convenient time for you, Don?

Me: Today is December 28.

AT&T: Is that a convenient time, then, Don?

Me: It’s already 11:30.

AT&T: So is that a convenient time, then, Don?

Me: But the time has already come and gone.

AT&T: So is that a convenient time for you, Don?

Me: No, I’m sorry. It’s not. I can’t be here then. Is there another time?

AT&T: Hewe at AT&T we’we sorry our eawliest avaiwabwe appointment was not convenient for you, Don. We were hoping to wesowve this pwobwm quickwy. Our next available appointment is March 22, 2009 between eight a.m. and six p.m., Don. Is that a mowe convenient time for you, Don?

Me: Did you say March 22?

AT&T: Yes, Don.

Me: You don’t have anything open between now and Spring?

AT&T: We have some appointments in the aftewnoon of Decembew 28, Don, but you have aweady decwined Decembew 28 as inconvenient for you, regardless of how convenient it would be for AT&T.

Me: No, I didn’t. Just the ones in the morning that have already come and gone.

AT&T: So you want to change youw mind and accept the previously offewed appointment, then, Don?

Me: Yes. As long as it’s in the afternoon

AT&T: Okay! A twained AT&T customew sewvice technician will be thewe beween one and nine p.m. on Sunday, December 28, Don. Pwease be pwesent untiw the AT&T customer sewvice technician shows up to assist AT&T in diagnosing how this pwobwem is aww youw fault, Don. Youw AT&T appointment identification number is 1FD999876-6839405-aaCF0d/367830FDEE9812319767-33341299W. Please be suwe to wefew to this numbew if you have any questions, Don, and tell them you were hewped by Shiewathamansdkzm. Have a nice day!

Me: Wait. What number do I call if I have questions?

AT&T: The same sewvice number you called to stawt this caw, Don. 888-321-2375.

Me: That’s not the number I called.

AT&T: Yes it is. Have a gweat day, Don.

Scene 5 (via AT&T cell phone)

Most Beautiful Woman in the World: Hello?

Me: Good morning, sweetheart.

MBITW: Oh, hello.

Me: I know we’re planning to finish work on your attic today, but my Internet is down, and I need to wait for a technician to turn up. The next appointment is in March.

MBITW: Well, that’s okay. It’s surprising they were able to get to it so quickly.

Me: Agreed. So I’ll call you as soon as they’re gone.

Scene 6 (via AT&T text message)

TMFW: How’s it coming there, Marconi?

Me: The sun has finally come out. AT&T claims to be sending someone over.

TMFW: The prayers of a good man availeth much.

Scene 7 (via AT&T land line)

Me: Hello.

AT&T: (Heavily accented North Carolinian speech). Hey. This is Jerry with AT&T. I’m on my way, but it’s going to take me a while to get there. My last call was over to Apex. Maybe an hour from there. I don’t know why they book ‘em like that. What kind of modem you got?

Me: Motorola.

AT&T: Little silver job?

Me: Yep.

AT&T: What do the lights say?

Me: “Power” and “Ethernet” both green, everything else dark.

AT&T: Aw, hell. You’re modem’s fried. I’ll bring you a new one. See ya in a few.

Scene 7 (face to face)

AT&T: Hey.

Me: Hey.

AT&T: Where’s your modem?

Me: Right here.

AT&T: You know your password?

Me: No, of course not.

AT&T: (Lengthy discourse of technical language no more comprehensible than Tagalog but more sociably delivered.)

(Pause of about three minutes).

AT&T: Okay, man. You’re good to go.

And thus did the time of trials pass.

I’m now worried that I’m going to get one of those customer satisfaction survey forms in which they ask me to rate my AT&T experience. Face to face, perfect. Over the phone, which, if you think about it, ought to be AT&T’s forte, zero out of ten.

Happy new year.

Further the deponent sayeth not.

A review of "John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, A Private Life" by Paul C. Nagel. The word "pan" could also be used.

As a personal study of a difficult, if sometimes brilliant, man, or as a portrait of a prominent but troubled family, or as an intimate look at a strong and tender and in some ways surprising marriage, or even as an account of how prosperous New Englanders lived their lives in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, a Private Life. by Paul Nagel is informative and thorough. As a historical biography, or even as an analysis of Adams' politics, it is a near-complete failure.

John Quincy Adams ("JQA") was a part of every important development in American history from 1794, when he was appointed ambassador to Holland, to 1828, when he lost his re-election bid to Andrew Jackson, yet Nagel provides almost no explanation of the conflicts or issues of his day. What was the War of 1812 about? What was the Monroe Doctrine? Why was there any question about proceeding with the Louisiana Purchase? You won’t find the answers here. Instead, you’ll find maddeningly precise descriptions of how long he walked or swam each day, lengthy accounts of his concerns about his dissolute sons, and admittedly entertaining recitations of the surprisingly erotically-charged correspondence between JQA and his wife Louisa. This is not because Nagel doesn’t know how to relate history. His description of the Amistad case, Adams’ involvement in it in the House of Representatives and before the Supreme Court, and how it led to JQA becoming prominent as an abolitionist is brief, informative, and thorough. Of why the English Navy felt free to board ships of other nations in the early nineteenth century, though, not a word.

Part of the problem seems to be Nagel’s overly-heavy reliance on Adam’s own extensive diary. JQA spent hours every day writing extensively in his diary, and it is an important historical source. Nagel is pleased with himself for reading the entire diary, and claims to be the only Adams biographer to have done so. It's not the only source, though, and aside from a few other biographies cited in the book's brief “Sources” section, his sole source appears to be JQA’s diary. He doesn't footnote, so it’s impossible to know how thoroughly Nagel either trusts or relies on JQA’s account of himself and the events around him, but if comparison with other sources, even to checking facts, occurred, it doesn’t show. By comparison, Nancy Isenberg’s recent biography of Aaron Burr, Fallen Founder, includes a thorough review of Burr’s (intensely personal) diary and correspondence, but her heavily-footnoted book makes it obvious that she relied on dozens of other sources, including other diarists, contemporary newspapers, contemporary writers, and every available biographical source. Like many diarists (including every member of the Adams family) Burr is inclined to give himself the benefit of the doubt, so when Isenberg relies on Burr's diary she is quick to cross-check with other sources, and her book is much more than a summary of Burr's own reflections. Not so Nagel.

John Quincy Adams was involved in some way with all of the important political and diplomatic events of his day and led a fascinating life from boyhood on. A good political and historical biography of him is clearly warranted. Alas, it remains to be written.

Robin Williams on Obama

Things listed as abominations in the version of Leviticus on my cell phone

The word "abomination" appears eleven times in Leviticus, describing six different types of sin. They are:

1. Eating any part of the flesh of thy peace offering sacrifice. (7:18). Interestingly, eating all of the flesh of thy heave offering and thy wave offering or thy sin offering sacrifice is not only non-abominable, but customary, and if you don't eat it the priest will.
   
2. Eating shrimp, lobster, scallops, oysters, clams, sharks, catfish or any other marine animal that doesn't have both fins and scales. (11:10). So if you've ever been out to eat in Louisiana, you are unto the Lord the same as Siegfried and Roy.
3. Eating carnivorous or carrion-eating birds (11:13-19). Justin Wilson once met a boy who was carrying a dead hawk and Justin asked what he planned to do with it. The young man replied that he was going to make a gumbo. Justin, surprised, asked how hawk tasted. "Oh, about the same as owl," was the reply. Get thee away from me, thou Sodomite.
4. Eating birds that "creep on all fours." (11:20). I've never seen a bird do this, so wonder if the Levite might have been thinking of bats. If so, this may be the least violated abomination.
5. Eating snake. (11:41). I had rattlesnake sauce picante at Jazzfest one year on a dare from the young woman who was with me. They said it would taste just like chicken, but I think it tastes more like alligator. Either way, I am an abomination unto the Lord, so I'm going to end up in the part of Hell that has gay bars.
6. Men "lying down with" men. I presume a euphemism is in use, unless sex standing up is exempt from the abomination rules. (18:22). Interestingly, not only is women "lying down" with women not an abomination, it's not even mentioned. So those who voted in favor of Proposition 8 were not only bigoted pinheads, but they were scripturally inaccurate, too. Lesbian Baptists of the world, unite!

It is also interesting to note what is not an abomination. Eating locusts (including, with surprising specificity, several different sub-species and seasonal varietals), grasshoppers and a lengthy list of other insects (11:21) is encouraged, so we must speculate as to Yahweh's prejudice against the much tastier shrimp. The lengthy list of edible insects, makes me think that yea unto the Lord the people of Israel were mightily hungry at one time or the other, to have worked out such wide-ranging and specific rules on bug eating.

A man or a woman "lying down with" a beast (beast not specified) is not an abomination, but a "confusion" (8:22), a surprisingly charitable and, it seems to me, largely inaccurate characterization of bestiality. Who is confused here, the goat?

To review: A man "lying down with" a man is an abomination, but a woman lying down with a woman is not; a man or a woman "lying down with" a donkey is a "confusion."

Leviticus' moral perspective is ambiguous at best and on that basis is an objectionable foundation for constitutional amendment.

Or am I missing something?

Polycarp's special post-election, transitionary period, middle-of-the-crisis horoscope

(In which highlighted words and phrases contain hints and subtle clues to hidden meaning.)

Aquarius (January 20-February 18): The winking stars say you betcha you're gonna be in the national spotlight for years to come, Aquarius, and Polycarp is gosh-darned sorry yer favorite crooked politician lost his seat to a Democrat in a hand-countin' squeaker because that would have been a great way to getcha in the firmament right away, but if I were a Taurus in the House of Murkowski or a Gemini in the House of Representatives, I’d be watchin' my back, Aquarius, because Polycarp recalls that you ran against a closely-related fellow Republican to get your current job, too.

Pisces (February 19-March 20): The sun moving into the house of Illinois has given a certain magnanimous Leo the opportunity to save your dignity, your pride, your Joe-mentum, and your committee chairmanship, Pisces, after your foolish and pointless turncoatiness of the last four months. You don't get any kind of credit for dodging a bullet, though, because you didn't dodge it. Mr. Leo just didn't let them take the shot. If they had, dodging wouldn't have been an option. It would have been at close range and from all sides.

Aries (March 21-April 19): Aries is the sign of the ram, and boy, did you ever—strait down Congress’ throat. The way Polycarp reads the stars, though, those who ram things down the throats of sheep-like elected officials during a national crisis should have some idea of what they're going to do with the money once thy get it. Having received untold billions, then not being able to give it away, now you want to instead go around buying up parts of banks, which the banks say they don't want you to do. You're doing a heckuva job, Aries.

Taurus (April 20-May 20): There are strange things done ‘neath the midnight sun by Republicans who rant and rale. The arctic trails have their secret tales that could send Ted Stevens to jail. The northern lights have seen queer sights, but the funniest they ever did see was the great Saturday when a Taurus named Fey did Aquarius on late-night TV.

Gemini (May 21-June 20): Carpooling in the hybrid was a nice touch, as was getting rid of the private jets. But Polycarp hears you’re shopping for a bankruptcy lawyer, Gemini. Polycarp never much cared for your products, but gack it will be singularly unfortunate if you go down. The problem is, stressing the need for frugal cars and low wages now is a little like stressing abstinence to Bristol Palin. The time to have had this talk was long ago.

Cancer (June 21-July 22): What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, Cancer. Well, it stays in Nevada, anyway. Sometimes it stays in a large, bleak building over in Carson City. For sixteen years. Alas, Polycarp thinks your golf game is likely to suffer, but that you'll make lots of new friends. Acquaintances, anyway.

Leo (July 23-August 22): These are all good, if extremely familiar, people you're picking, your holiness—I mean Mr. Leo, although after going on for years about how voting for a Virgo was giving a third term to a familiar Cancer, Polycarp is a little surprised that you're setting up a third term for our most famous retired Leo. Since you’re hiring everybody else eback, are you going to hire back the same White House interns, too? And by the way, a certain Scorpio with some big campaign debts is about to be statutorily forbidden to accept donations to pay them off. As the only presidential candidate in history to have run a surplus ... well, you see where this is heading.

Virgo (August 23-September 22): Welcome home Sen.Virgo. The stars predict you can go back to reaching across aisles, breaking up procedural logjams, and acting like you just want what's best for the country. You know, stuff you're good at. The stars wheeling in their courses also have traced out a mysterious mantra they want you to repeat over and over when you get back to work: "Gramm was wrong. De-regulation got us into this mess. Gramm wa wrong. De-regulation got us into this mess. Gramm was wrong. Deregulation got us into this mess." Republican Virgos everywhere are urged to ponder this.

Libra (September 23-October 22): After Virgo, you may be the only Republican in D.C.with job security, Libra. Your symbol is the scales, and after six years of opinionated bluster whose ignorance was matched only by it's stubbornness, you brought a calm and judicious touch to your post, a touch ruefully absent from the rest of your firmament.

Scorpio (October 23-November 21): Back when you were still the front runner, or just about exactly a year ago, Scorpio, Polycarp read an article about how comfortable you were in the Senate, and what a contribution you thought you could make there. The job you're stepping up for is one at which complete success is impossible. Are you sure about this?

Sagittarius (November 22-December 21): In Polycarp's youth people said "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." You are managing to prove both sides of that aphorism, Sagittarius. Having gone straight from being a grad student to being a professor, where you stayed until you got your current job, you had never worked one day as a banker before you were handed the keys to the biggest bank of all, which you promptly drove into a ditch, showing the trademark deft decision-making, light touch, and grace under pressure of so many of this administration's appointees.

Capricorn (December 22-January 19): You are a welcome addition to the national stage, Capricorn. We will not hazard a joke. We still have a hard time believing it all happened.

Why there was so much flag-waving November 4

Obama is the first presidential candidate Democrats have actually elected since Roosevelt that we're actually proud of, with the exception of Kennedy.

Truman wasn't elected to his first term, he inherited it when Roosevelt died just a few days into his fourth term. Democrats were never as happy with Truman as they were with Roosevelt, and Truman defeated Dewy (it wasn't as narrow a victory as that picture of Truman with the newspaper would make you think) not because the Democrats loved or even liked Truman, but because the Republicans didn't like Dewy. Republican Dewy got about 22 million votes in 1948 (Truman got 24 million); four years later Republican Dwight Eisenhower got almost 34 million running against Adlai Stevenson, who got 27 million, or 3 million more than Truman had in 1948. The turnout was 26% higher in '52 than '48, and most of those 16 million voters were Republicans who stayed home in '48. But Truman won not because Democrats liked him, but because Republicans were even less enthusiastic about Dewey.

People look back to the Kennedy Administration as the last time Democrats felt so good about electoral politics, but Nixon/Kennedy in 1960 was an extremely close election--125,000 votes, many of which Mayor Daley (the first one) found ... somewhere, that gave Kennedy nothing even vaguely resembling a mandate, although he did have a Democratic House and Senate. Nixon drew about 2 million fewer voters than had Eisenhower, probably the result of Democrats who had crossed over to vote for war hero Ike who then crossed back to avoid voting for a weasel.

Kennedy, of course, was assassinated in 1963, succeeded (as was Roosevelt) by a former Senator that the party had never embraced as presidential timber. As happened in 1948, though, the Republicans fielded a candidate (Goldwater) deeply unpopular with his own party. People think back on Goldwater as a Republican icon, but he was a lousy candidate. Nixon had drawn 34 million votes in 1960, but Goldwater got only 27 million in 1964, and Nixon was not a charismatic or a lovable man or candidate. The only possible explanation is that 7 million voters changed sides because of their distaste for Goldwater, and God knows how many just stayed home. So again, the incumbent Democrat (Johnson) beat the Republican challenger not because Democrats loved their candidate, but because Republicans were unenthusiastic about theirs.

Nixon won re-election over Humphrey in 1968 in a squeaker (500,000 popular vote margin) that was complicated by the candidacy of George Wallace (he got 9,000,000 largely Southern votes that would probably have gone to Humphrey, but it's impossible to say for sure. The South had voted solidly Democratic since the Civil War, but Humphrey was Johnson's vice president and a civil rights supporter in his own right, and Johnson's support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 put the Southern states in play four years later. Nixon, political genius that he was, learned from Wallace that conservative white southerners could be split from the Democratic Party and began appealing to them directly, hitting on the electoral strategy that not only to his 1972 landslide over good-natured chump George McGovern but to the Republican electoral strategy that continued through 2008.

McGovern just never had a chance, and I don't think we can learn much from that election. He was nominated more or less by mistake. Humphrey sewed up the 1968 nomination not by caucusing in Iowa or campaigning in New Hampshire, but by appealing to party bosses in non-primary states. Up until the late sixties, most convention delegates were not selected by democratic means, but named by party leaders. There were some primaries and the occasional caucus, but the majority of delegates were selected in those smoke-filled rooms of fable. Despite the fact that this was perfectly legal at the time, to many, at the 1968 convention in Chicago, it appeared that party bosses had stolen the nomination from Senator Gene McCarthy, who had been campaigning everywhere and was very popular with the young people outside the convention hall, who were at the moment getting their asses whipped by the Chicago Police Department. The whole thing left a bad taste in the party's collective mouth, as did nominating a candidate (Humphrey) who drew 12 million votes less than Johnson had just four years earlier even when running against a known weasel like Nixon. In response, the National Democratic Party changed the rules, so that the primary way to get convention delegates was through caucuses and primaries. The only person who seemed to understand these new rules (and the new importance of the Iowa caucuses) was Gary Hart. McGovern hired Hart as his campaign manager, and Hart set up an elaborate grass-roots campaign organization in Iowa. Nobody, including the press, knew what to expect of the new process, and the news media didn't cover it like they do today. There were no pre-caucus polls, and coverage limited to a busload of newspaper reporters following around front-runner and party-insider favorite, a weepy senator from Maine named Edmund Muskie. Hart's organization in Iowa paid off, McGovern won big in Iowa, stunning both commentators and party functionaries everywhere. Muskie, who until Iowa in 1972 had that "it's my turn next" sheen to him that Hillary Clinton had in 2007, did not adapt at all well to the new rules, and blew up like a hand grenade campaigning in New Hampshire primary a few weeks later, crying on t.v. His campaign never recovered, and McGovern became the front-runner even though he was waaaaay to the left of most of the Party. He ran largely on a campaign of immediate withdrawal from Viet Nam, a policy that was deeply unpopular with organized labor, a constituency that had traditionally voted Democratic. Hart was pulling extremely slick "I-know-the-rules-and-you-don't" moves all the way up to the convention. He won the primaries, but neither Hart nor McGovern was in any way in step with the general electorate, and McGovern got clobbered by Nixon as only a peacenik running against a brilliant weasel who'd learned about race politics from George Wallace could. McGovern';s candidacy was a complete fluke, an accident that will never happen again. If the rules hadn't changed, or if anyone other than Hart and McGovern had understood them, or if McGovern's platform hadn't been so antithetical to the Democratic Party's (then) base, it never would have happened. Just disregard the democratic side of 1972.

It was, though, the turning point for the Republicans: they figured out their Southern strategy: say things you think Southerners like, and you'll win over all the conservatives nationwide. You just don't have to worry about the others. And it's worked consistently for them since.

The exceptions are Carter and Clinton. Neither of them, though, sparked much Democratic pride, either.

What the Democrats took away from the 1976 election was that the only way to win the general election was to run a Southern governor. That's the lesson they learned, but they were wrong. Again, winning that race had nothing to do with what the Democrats thought of their candidate, but with what the Repubs thought of theirs. It would be facile to say that the real lesson was "don't be Nixon, or his chosen successor," but it's more complicated than that. Gerald Ford, our country's only non-elected head of state, was challenged hard on the right by none other than Ronald Reagan in 1976. Reagan had been ramping up his campaign to take the reins of the Republican Party when Nixon left office in 1976. Reagan was stymied by Ford's decision to seek re-election, and the mainstream Republicans (the low-tax, small government group kind) were dismayed by Reagan's "family values" campaign. Reagan, figuring he would be too old to be a credible candidate in 1980, challenged Ford hard from the right. The Republican Party establishment stuck with Ford, but Republican true north had shifted. Ford got the nomination but was banged up by the primary campaign, and the true believers who had supported Reagan weren't motivated. Plus, everything about the Republicans then had that Watergate stench to it, and given the anti-Republican mood of the country, Captain Kangaroo could have beat Ford. Instead of Captain Kangaroo, though, the Democrats put up Jimmy Carter, similarly equipped for national office and formerly governor of Georgia, who won the election after receiving 7 million votes less than Nixon had just four years before. This was not an enthusiastic electorate. Again, the Democrat won not because of Democratic enthusiasm but because of Republican ennui.

Reagan ran again four years later, and, popular and charismatic as he was, pulled 4 million fewer votes than Nixon had eight years earlier. This is not because Nixon was more popular than Reagan, but because Fritz Mondale, the Democrat who ran against against Reagan, wasn't a complete chowder-head who didn't belong in a national contest the way McGovern was. Even still, Reagan was at his most popular in 1984, and swamped Mondale in a landslide.

One other point about 1980: Ted Kennedy, that least charismatic Kennedy, chose to challenge incumbent Carter, charging hard from the left. When this happens to an incumbent, he has to lean in the direction of his challenger, which meant that Carter had to run in 1980 further to the left than he or the electorate were comfortable with. As had been true of Ford following his challenge by Reagan, Carter emerged from his fight with Kennedy too bruised to succeed in the general election.

Mondale was a nice guy but hardly inspirational. The Democratic Party was highly splintered, and the result was there was no candidate everybody would be happy with. A nice guy and honest politician like Mondale didn't motivate the voters. Fritz got only 13 electoral votes, the fewest of any major party candidate since 1936. The Democrats next put up Michael Dukakis, a nice guy, a good fund-raiser, and a complete weenie who allowed himself to be filmed riding around with a tank soldier's helmet on, and who just couldn't fight the cold-hearted ad campaign run by Bush pere. Bush pol Lee Atwater managed to convince the people that Dukakis had personally allow a career criminal named Willie Horton a prison furlough that Horton turned into a crime spree. It wasn't true and was highly disingenuous but it was highly effective. Again, though, there was nobody who was enthusiastic about the Dukakis candidacy, not even Mrs. Dukakis, who was at home drinking most of the time.

Which brings us to Clinton. Democrats like to point to Clinton with pride as an example of a successful Democratic president, and it's true that things went well in the country with him in the Oval Office. He was not, though, popularly elected. He had been the keynote speaker at the 1988 convention and gave a speech that was widely ridiculed for being too long, but it put him in the national spotlight. When primary season rolled around in 1992, most of the "name" democrats refused to run. Mario Cuomo, then governor of New York and the Democrat with that next candidate aroma about him, looked at Bush's approval ratings, then above 80% (Gulf War I was on and it went extremely well, unlike some other wars in the region we could name) and declined to participate. Al Gore, then a popular senator from Tennessee who had run in 1988, did the same. Enter Bill Clinton, one of the few (along with Jerry Brown, Jessie Jackson and Paul Tsongas) with so little to lose in terms of national prestige he was willing to give it a whack. Then, as 1992 wore on, the economy began to tank (nothing like now, but even small declines were frightening after the white-knuckle terror of the Carter administration) and it was too late for anybody else to catch up. Even still, Bill didn't really win. In 1992, Clinton got 45 million votes, Bush pere got 39 million, and crackpot billionaire Ross Perot got almost 20 million, almost all of which would certainly have gone to Bush had Perot not been in the race. If he'd gotten just half of them, though, and the rest had stayed home (no Democrats voted for Perot) Bush would have won handily. If three quarters of them had voted for Bush it would have been a Republican landslide. So again we see the recurrent theme since World War II: Democrats win when the Republicans have problems, not because they're fielding a good team.


The 2000 election brought the Nixon southern strategy to full flower in the hands of Karl Rove, master of wedge issue politics and voter motivation. The Democrats pulled together pretty well behind Gore for the first time in a long time--far better than they did for Clinton. It's hard to know, but fun to speculate, about what the last eight years would have been like with Gore at the helm.

Although not germane to today's topic, Kerry was another yo-yo who never had a chance. In 2004 Democrats everywhere agreed that stopping Bush was essential, and they made a mistake that hasn't happened in any other election, so far as I am aware. Democrats everywhere voted for him because of a consensus that he had the best chance of beating bush. Nobody was particularly enthusiastic about Kerry himself, but they liked his chances. Which is another way of saying "I don't like him but I'm voting for him because I think somebody else might like him." Not surprisingly, nobody was enthusiastic about him, and he lost. Surprisingly, both candidates pulled much larger turnouts than their partied drew in 2000. Bush fils got 12 million more votes in 2004 than in 2000, and Kerry got 9 million more than had Gore.

So. What's the point? This Reagan administration is going to be remembered as the defining one of the last thirty years, but it went back earlier than that. The Democratic Party hasn't found its footing since Roosevelt died, fielding a series of chumps, yo-yos, weenies, Senators, and one good Kennedy. Since Roosevelt died, democrats have won generally because of Republican stumbles, not because Democrats nominate popular candidates everyone in the party supports.

Until November 4. Now everything feels different. Left-wing flag-wavers are finally out of the closet.

How many people can you identify?

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

It really can't be this good. Oh, wait-- it isn't.

I even like what the Republicans are saying. From a story identified as written by the Associated Press in the print edition of the Durham Herald Sun (curiously carried neither on their website nor that of the Associated Press but run on ABC News' website as its own): "It's going to be a cheerful opposition," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. "We're going to carry those timeless principles of limited government, a strong defense, traditional values, to the American people." Pence, of Indiana, is expected to take over the No. 3 leadership post among House Republicans." After all the years of recrimination and uncivil backbiting on both sides of the aisle, Pence's offer of a cheerful opposition couldn't be more welcome news. Everett Dirksen and Lyndon Johnson were drinking buddies, as were John McCormack and Sam Rayburn. Tom Delay and Nancy Pelosi couldn't shake hands, and the politics of the day reflected that. Bitter partisanship made middle ground impossible to find. Single-party rule would be awful and corrupt, and a cheerful interaction between the parties would be a wonderful change.

And from another AP story in the same paper: "Even students who did not vote for Obama said they felt a responsibility to 'try to help him out' and how we live in a democracy that isn't about 'government governing the people, but about people taking responsibility,' says [DePaul University political science professor Molly] Andolina, who researches the habits of young voters. 'It is amazing to hear them talking in these terms.'"

Amazing indeed. An era of cooperation would also be wonderful, and the fact that it is our youngest voters who are voicing these views gives us much to hope for in the future. Enough with the vituperation on AM radio from the right and sarcastic superiority in the blogosphere from the left. Responsibility and cooperation--my God, what a concept.

Historians are likely to see the most recent election as the end of an era, and it's been an odd era: the post- Viet Nam, post-Watergate era, an era in which Baby Boomers were the most important voting group. My guess is that it will be referred to as the Reagan/Bush Era (sorry Bill). Its signal characteristics will be remembered as coalition politics in which no faction was ever happy and deregulation of all industries and markets. That era imploded in the Fall of 2008, a victim of its own successes. I'm hoping that the next era, one that began Tuesday night, will be remembered as a problem-solving era in which we as a nation focus on solutions, overall goals, cooperation, and tolerance.

Oh, wait. Tolerance. Right. The picture isn't all rosy. California passed Proposition 8. Damn.

Eyes on the prize. Stick to your goals. We've made so much progress. We'll get there. Keep the faith.

The falcon cannot hear the falconer, but maybe it doen't matter this time around

Tuesday's election was not just historic, it was different. It might even have redefined the way we go about American politics. For the first time since the Kennedies, the a major party didn't vote as a coalition of factions, but as a unified party. I never thought I'd see it from either side, certainly not from the Left.

Here's the deal: since the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers in 1963 and 1968, American liberalism has been defined more by what it is against than what it is for. We've become a loosely affiliated group of often like-minded people who oppose racism, sexism, handguns, pollution, global warming, limitations on abortion, war, and pretty much everything the second Bush administration ever did. Opposition has been what we're all about, and it's been getting more complicated every election: Johnson ran against poverty and ran attack ads against Goldwater. It worked. McGovern ran against war and racial discrimination, and while I can't remember any attack ads, that may just been because he had no money. Anyway, it didn't work. Carter was against discrimination and pollution and right to work laws and sexism and Republican corruption, and it worked, but once he got into office, each of his constituent interest groups tried to jostle and elbow its way to the head of the line, which pushed his administration farther to the left than the electorate could tolerate, so he cratered after one term. Clinton put Carter's coalition back together and motivated minority voters, but he's not really a good example, because he never could have won if crackpot billionaire third party candidate Ross Perot hadn't siphoned off 19% of the center-right vote from Bush pere. Without Perot, Pere would have won in a walk. Really more of a stroll. Or an amble. Nevertheless, Clinton sneaked into power, and once in, he (personally, as opposed to those around him) seemed to understand that the party needed to stay towards the center to retain the White House. He hadn't really won, after all, and he was smart enough to know it. Here's where the perils of coalition politics took a bite out of his behind. There was never a chance that an outsider like him was going to have much impact on Congress, especially having won only 43% of the vote. Not that he really tried, at least not until it was too late. His people just didn't understand that they were more lucky than good and had no mandate to boss Congress around. Once again, each constituency group made loud demands, and with a Democratic Congress and a Democrat in the White House, they all expected action. Once again, it led to electoral failure, this time in the form of the 1994 mid-term elections.

When the Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, a mere two years after Clinton's election (if we'd all remembered that he didn't really win we wouldn't have been so surprised) it wasn't as much his fault as everyone said. Dems had been too vocally partisan about fringe issues in Clinton's first two years. After twelve years of Reagan and Bush pere, by God, House Democrats were ready for a turn, and they demanded quick action on dozens of pet projects and harebrained schemes. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, got Republicans nationwide to buy into the (mostly never implemented or even seriously attempted) Contract With America so that all of them were running the same campaign. It resonated everywhere in several senses of the word. Democrats dissolved into their various bickering splinter groups and failed everywhere. Newt may have been forming a coalition, or co-opting the Reagan one under his own banner, but it didn't look like it at the time.

During the post-Kennedy years, the Republicans had started their own coalitions, theirs just didn't have as many moving parts. At least not to start. Republicans up through Nixon had run as fiscal conservatives who saw foreign relations as a route to trade, peace and prosperity. In the post-Nixon period, Reagan figured out that there were a lot of "values" voters who didn't think their voices were being heard throughout the south and Midwest. He welcomed them into his tent. He managed to say things that traditional conservatives wanted to hear about balanced budgets, strong defense, and smaller government, and also managed to convince conservative Christians that he shared their views on abortion, gun rights, gay rights, prayer in school and that kind of thing--issues that had never been aired on the national stage before. It's odd that he convinced them, since he never went to church, but such was his appeal (George Will loved him) that nobody ever questioned him on any of this. His voters thought of themselves not so much as a coalition as two groups with a common purpose who were working together.

In reality, though, his voters were a coalition of a complicated suite of Christian conservatives on the one hand and a simple group of fiscal/foreign policy conservatives on the other, two sets that had noting in common but who were sustained in harmony by the charisma of Reagan himself. In the absence of Reagan, the Christian Right was unenthusiastic about Bush pere (unfortunate for history, since he knew how to start a war, which fils did not). It abandoned Pere to defeat at the hands of Clinton/Perot and only found its footing in the nineties when it was united not by previously-acknowledged common purpose but by its newly-discovered hatred of Bill Clinton. When the same coalition was reassembled in 2000 by Bush and Rove, the bickering and infighting amongst different Republican factions reached a volume not heard since the Democrats of the Carter administration.

Whether Reagan believed all of what he said is open to debate, but what he promised bore no resemblance to what happened, except for the tax cuts and increases in military spending. On his watch the government grew, the deficit ballooned, our international standing sagged (Jessie Helms made a mockery of the U.N., and Reagan did nothing), and discretionary spending soared. On the values issues his judges (O'Connor, Kennedy) upheld Roe v. Wade, and he allowed limitations on gun ownership (the Brady Bill). Rove and maybe Bush appear to have learned from Reagan that promising conservatives what they want is important, but actually giving them what they want is less so. Who else are they going to vote for?

So the overarching themes of the last forty years of presidential politics are that (1) governors usually win and Senators usually lose (just think back) and (2) that you can't get elected president except at the head of a coalition, but once elected, that coalition will make it more difficult for you both to govern and to retain power. Your constituents will want to pull your party towards its extremes, and disappointed factions will splinter and complain and develop a sense of frustrated entitlement.

All of this factionalization leads to lots of anger, too. Single issue voters on both sides are so sure of their positions that they have no ability to find middle ground. Anti-abortion Republicans feel justified in protests and demonstrations that seem utterly unreasonable to any outside observer. Pro-environment liberals set fire to Colorado condominium developments and Hummer dealerships. They call themselves "pro-life" and "pro-environment," but they're not. They're not "pro" anything. They're against abortion and against gas-guzzling SUVs. The fact that abortion and gas-guzzling are wrong is what's important, otherwise they'd be working in orphanages and giving flowers to Prius drivers. Being for something doesn't make you angry, certainly not angry enough to commit murder or arson.

There's a lot of anger and impatience associated with the things liberals have been against over the last forty years, and a lot of it is understandable. African-Americans were angry at discrimination and the awful way they've been treated throughout our history. Women were angry at being paid less than men. Environmentalists were impatient with a government that relied on crackpots to turn a blind eye to global warming. Civil libertarians watched with horror and anger as phones were tapped and non-combatents were detained in military prisons. All of that liberal impatience and anger is hard enough to suppress when a Regan or a Bush is in the White House, but it comes bubbling to the surface scalding hot once Clinton or Carter gets elected. "Our guy is in the Oval Office. He promised us he'd do something about this. He couldn't have gotten elected without us. This issue is extremely important to me. Why isn't he doing anything?"

Over time the coalitions on both sides have become increasingly unstable and uneasy, because every member wants to be first. The same coalition that adhered like rubber cement to the charismatic Reagan abandoned the less charismatic Bush pere and blew up like a hand grenade under the awkward Bush fils.

Until now. Everything just changed.

Last Tuesday the board got swept clean. It's all the sudden different. A young man with a soaring message of hope and coalition did not, as all of his predecessors had for forty years, appeal to our fears and feeling that we've been victimized. He did not collect a bunch of pre-existing factions and make promises to them. He didn't even specifically appeal to organized labor or civil rights groups. He appealed to all of us. He identified the major challenges facing our nation: the war in Iraq, the economy, global warning, health care, and energy independence, and told us his plans for dealing with them. He then built a political organization like only a Chicago pol knows how: from the ground up. Volunteers showed up from everywhere, and he used them--he didn't need Clinton's donor list or the Teamsters' volunteer list. He utilized the Internet to raise untold amounts of money--more than they could spend--from millions of small donors rather than a few big ones. When Bill Clinton was in the White House, if Hollywood came calling with requests to extend copyrights beyond the dreams of avarice (and certainly beyond the authorization of the Constitution) Bill had to listen. Not Barrack. When a coalition of big box church preachers wanted to talk to Bush fils or pere about the Biblical implications of tax policy, Bush (either) had to listen. Obama won't. He doesn't owe anybody anything. Several actors in the most recent presidential drama stepped on to the presidential stage tried to reinvent themselves to appeal more to their party's base. Not Obama. He knew who he was and he stuck to it. Finally, a real deal. And finally, no coalition. No special interest except a national interest.

His overarching message is one of cooperation, transformation, collaboration, and hope. It is an inspiring message. The Democratic Party, and I hope the American liberal movement, has suddenly, in the course of just two years, defined itself in terms of what it is for, rather than what it is against. The energy and patriotic pride we're feeling can transform politics into a more productive, more civil, happier future. Without coalition politics and all the jostling and trying to elbow our ways to the front of the line it entails, we can develop priorities as a nation. Without the angry baggage that comes with issue politics, we can address our most pressing needs, rather than the ones with the most vocal protesters.

I think our homework is to get along, to remember that the country is governed from the center, not the left, and to concentrate on what we're for, not what we're against. And that would be wonderful.

I know the election was historic, and wonderfully so. But it was unusual, too, and its unusualness may turn out to be more important than its historicity.

Sorry for going on.

Lessons learned

1. Incumbents can't run as the party of change. Not just McCain and Palin, but deeply entrenched Republicans across the country tried to co-opt the call for change in Washington by, without any explanation at all, claiming to be agents of change. Voters weren't fooled for a minute, so you've seen the last of that tactic for at least a generation.

2. Negative campaigning may have run its course. Negative and often untrue campaigning, like Bush pere (well, really Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater) used against Dukakis, and Clinton (well, really James Carville) in turn used against Bush pere, and most especially like Bush fils (most certainly really Karl Rove) used against McCain, Gore, and Kerry has been increasingly effective for the last twenty years. Until now. The wave seems to have crested with Liddy Dole's "godless" ad (scroll down) and perhaps it will now recede, not because the candidates are feeling slimy or because the voters have complained so consistently about it, but because uniformly across the country the more negative campaigners lost this year.

3. Liberals are patriotic, too. Since the Nixon administration, Republican have shown a pronounced tendency to describe liberal values as un-American and unpatriotic, as though sticking to their party line was the only way one could be a patriotic American. This was never true and we now have proof. The displays across the country on election night were the happiest and deepest kind of patriotic pride. The candidates that we (Democrats) have run for the last 35 years (think back--McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry) have all been compromises of one sort of another, and the only winners, Clinton and Carter, got the job because they ran effective campaigns, not because they had an inspiring message. It's been a long time since we had something to be so proud about. It's so nice to be genuinely happy.

4. Crisis sharpens our collective mind. Things are worse in our country in many ways than they have been in my lifetime. As a nation, we evaluated the candidates and made a choice that demonstrates much about our values. As I heard someone famous say earlier today, "when the night is darkest, the stars shine more brightly." In the Great Depression, we elected Roosevelt, and in World War II, we did it again. This time we elected a man with a message of cooperation, collaboration, change, and transformation.

5. Charisma matters. So do intelligence and oratory. A lot. Charisma and intelligence can get you elected and lead to prosperity (think Clinton) but charisma and oratory make you a political icon who changes global politics (think Reagan). A president who has little charisma, is an ineffective orator and shows few signs of an active intelligence (I'm sure you can think of a recent example) oversees disasters. But we're talking about elections here, and despite the conclusive evidence that an unintelligent, uncharismatic, unintelligent man can reach the oval office, Obama's moving oratory and charismatic stage presence showed from the start. Remember that speech he gave at the Kerry convention? You knew immediately that he belonged on the national stage.

6. Change can come fast. As recently as the Iowa caucuses, major political figures were reluctant to endorse Obama because they thought he had no chance of winning. In early 1992, Bush had just finished Gulf War I and no big-name Democrats dared to declare as candidates because pere's popularity numbers were considered unassailable. The little-known governor of Arkansas decided to give it a shot on little more than his own keynote address at the convention that selected a doomed presidential democrat and a lot of ambition. Then the economy took a nose dive and billionaire crackpot Ross Perot entered the race on his own dime. Brilliant politician he may be, but Clinton got a whole lot of help from current events.

7. Race isn't the factor we thought it was. Even among African-Americans, conventional wisdom has been that they can get elected as mayors and to congress pretty much anywhere, but statewide elections are beyond their grasp everywhere. No one will ever say this again. This will transform electoral politics at all levels, but particularly future races for the U.S. Senate and governor, all across the country.

8. Once you have a political identity, you're stuck with it. This time around two of the Republicans tried to re-invent themselves as people who adhered much more closely to the values of the evangelical right than their records supported. In this they failed, but the effort prolonged the candidacy of Mike Huckabee, a funny and talented crank, beyond all reason. It just doesn't work for Republicans to do this, but I predict they'll keep at it. Ever since Reagan invited big-church evangelicals into the tent, they've been feeling like they should be driving, and they never believed in McCain or Romney. If McCain hadn't selected Palin, they would have all stayed home, so she did him far more good than harm, no matter how strange she looked trying to mouth rehearsed lines. Allowed to answer questions spontaneously from her own script she won't look stupid and can go fourteen rounds with Anderson Cooper. Palin/Huckabee 2012.

9. Long-term legislators can't win the White House. A person who has been in the Senate a long time, or even a medium time, has made a lot of compromises and a lot of votes. This provides his or her opponents in the primaries and the general election with lots of ammunition. McGovern, Mondale, Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and McCain all had lengthy legislative records that were used against them in highly imaginative, frustrating, and occasionally entertaining ways. All lost. The winners were mostly governors and former governors (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush fils) and one notable short-term senator. You have a competitive advantage if there are fewer ways to shoot you down.

10. Joe Lieberman is snake-bit. Just look at what's happened to him. Twice in his life he thought he might be vice-president. Who aspires twice to the vice-presidency? He makes McCain's decision-making history look charmed. Poor schmuck. His committee chairmanship days are suddenly behind him, his moon has waned. What's next for Joe the senator? Besides a certain amount of embarassment, I mean.

11, Republicans are going to firm up. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today. Rush and his listeners are all mad. Their take on the election is that they haven't been represented on the ticket since 1994, when Newt Gingrich's Contract With America convinced Republicans that the country was theirs as it had had been for most of the Reagan administration. The difference with Gingrich, and eventually Delay, was a harsh partisanship that demonized the other side. Bush fils was somebody that the evangelical right embraced as one of their own because they thought he'd appoint judges who might overturn Roe v. Wade, and he has. Ideological conservatives, the ones who favor small government and low deficits, are going to have to figure out how to share a party with people who care more about gay marriage and abortion. Not an easy fit.

12. Democrats have to move to the center. I'm left of center pretty far. But Obama's presidency will be about governing the nation, not about accomplishing everything I wished we Democrats could have done for the last forty years in the first hundred days of his presidency. There's lots to be done, and I'm extremely enthusiastic about the man we've chosen as president, but let's remember he's ruling the country, not just the blue states. This isn't about us, it's about the country. Let's behave.

But boy, am I proud.

Oops.

My idea (scroll down) that Sarah Palin appoint herself to fill the Senate seat that Ted Stevens hasn't yet been re-elected to or resigned from, while fun, won't work, alas. According to Diane Rehm (who needs source documents? I have a radio, for God's sake) Alaska law requires a special election to fill a vacant seat in the U.S. Senate. And yes, each state really does get to decide how to fill vacancies in Federal elected posts, and there's no uniformity.

Liddy Dole has been attacked on all sides for her "Godless Hagan" ad (scroll down again) but says she's hearing anecdotes on her bus tour of North Carolina(the "Eliza-BUS Tour!" and no I'm not making that up, link here) from people who like it and are appalled at Hagan, so she's keeping it on the air. Her campaign is sticking with the story that it's completely accurate.

From the News & Obeserver (link here) long time GOP strategist Carter Wrenn says "the next sound you may hear will be the roof falling in on Liddy Dole."

I think that, like so much else in North Carolina this year, the Dole-Hagan race is too close to call.

So over the top it's almost funny

Before you watch, you should know that Kay Hagan is a Presbyterian Sunday school teacher and has been for many years.

Who shall blog the bloggers themselves?

From my favorite conservative blog, Best of the Web Today, the following paragraph, the last sentence of which is a most profound understatement:

"This is beginning to look like a bad year for Republicans. The GOP's latest misfortune is yesterday's conviction of Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska on seven felony corruption accounts. Stevens, 84, who has been in the Senate just under 40 years, is up for re-election this year, and decided to stick it out and run despite his age and legal problems. He has been narrowly trailing Democrat Mark Begich, but that was before the conviction. It's hard to see how this can help him."

The article goes on to suggest that Ted Stevens might keep the seat in Republican hands by promising to resign immediately following the election so that the governor could appoint someone else to the position. It might work. Alaskans are a pretty red group of folks, and wouldn't like having a Democrat representing them in the Senate.

Taranto doesn't close the loop on this, but it would be great good fun if Governor Palin would appoint herself to Steven's seat, so that she'd be in Washington on inauguration day and could snark about John McCain not being conservative enough from the floor of the Senate.

Actually, I've already voted.

What Tina Fey could do next

I once worked for a large insurance company that was losing money. Management introduced sweeping new changes to restrict the outflow of cash. They severely reduced the autonomy of their adjusters, making it much harder for them to settle claims. The plan didn't work the first year, so they clamped down harder and became more even restrictive, introducing new, extremely specific procedures manuals from which deviation was highly discouraged. It still didn't work and the company continued to lose money, so management became ever more deliberate, requiring all adjusters to follow ever-more rigid procedures and manuals from which no deviation was allowed. It never worked, and all the good adjusters quit. I've noticed other corporations do the same thing--if the new Six Sigma program isn't working, it can only be because it wasn't applied strictly enough. Increasingly inflexible strict adherence to the company line is the only way to go, at least until it fails completely. In any kind of judgment job, the only way to manage employees, is to hire good people, train them well, and leave them alone to do their jobs. For the last two weeks any Republican standing in front of a microphone has said the same thing: you should be afraid of Obama because he hangs around with terrorists. No matter what the question is, that's the answer. It may be disciplined, it may be rigidly on-message, but it isn't working. If every Republican on TV had something personal and different to say about why he or she supports McCain, they might actually reach a swing voter or two. Clamping down harder and harder on a negative message is accomplishing nothing.