Where the GOP goes from here

Frank Rich has much to say on the likely future of the “party of Lincoln.” Hint: the internal Faithful are wildly wrong — and we’re probably worse off for it.

ELECTION junkies in acute withdrawal need suffer no longer. Though the exciting Obama-McCain race is over, the cockfight among the losers has only just begun. The conservative crackup may be ugly, but as entertainment, it’s two thumbs up!

[…]

The Republicans are in serious denial. A few heretics excepted, they hope to blame all their woes on their unpopular president, the inept McCain campaign and their party’s latent greed for budget-busting earmarks.

The trouble is far more fundamental than that. The G.O.P. ran out of steam and ideas well before George W. Bush took office and Tom DeLay ran amok, and it is now more representative of 20th-century South Africa during apartheid than 21st-century America. The proof is in the vanilla pudding. When David Letterman said that the 10 G.O.P. presidential candidates at an early debate looked like “guys waiting to tee off at a restricted country club,” he was the first to correctly call the election.

On Nov. 4, that’s roughly the sole constituency that remained loyal to the party — minus its wealthiest slice, a previously solid G.O.P. stronghold that turned blue this year (in a whopping swing of 34 percentage points). The Republicans lost every region of the country by double digits except the South, which they won by less than double digits (9 points). They took the South only because McCain, who ran roughly even with Obama among whites in every other region, won Southern whites by 38 percentage points.

Those occasional counties that tilted more Republican in 2008 tended to be not only the least diverse, but also the most rural, least educated and slowest-growing in population. McCain-Palin did score a landslide among white evangelical Christians, though even in that demographic Obama shaved the G.O.P. margin by seven percentage points from 2004.

[…]

In defeat, the party’s thinking remains unchanged. Its leaders once again believe they can bamboozle the public into thinking they’re the “party of Lincoln” by pushing forward a few minority front men or women. The reason why they are promoting Palin and the recently elected Indian-American governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, as the party’s “future” is not just that they are hard-line social conservatives; they are also the only prominent Republican officeholders under 50 who are not white men.

And here’s the completely-full-of-truth money shot:

The good news for Democrats is a post-election Gallup poll finding that while only 45 percent of Americans want to see Palin have a national political future (and 52 percent of Americans do not), 76 percent of Republicans say bring her on. The bad news for Democrats is that these are the exact circumstances that can make Obama cocky and Democrats sloppy. The worse news for the country is that at a time of genuine national peril we actually do need an opposition party that is not brain-dead.

For the Republican Party to avoid brain-death, they pretty much have to tell the religious right to pound sand and adopt actual small-government positions — which means shutting up about gay marriage, immigration, pro-intelligent-design crap, and all the other issues so important to the know-nothing fringe. You see that happening? Me either.

More on Prop 8 Backlash

TBogg nails it, on folks on the right complaining about boycotts targeting individuals and businesses who contributed to Prop 8 passage efforts:

The kind of person who contributes money to deny their fellow citizens their civil rights are not someday magically going to be part of the solution: they’re the problem. These are not people to be reasoned with; they’re ignorant, they’re haters and they’re bigots and the only thing people like that understand is power.

So when they stick their noses in other people’s affairs, they forfeit the right to be considered just another “ordinary person”. They’re involved and they would be foolish to expect that those other people in whose private affairs they have meddled wouldn’t return the favor. As they say: you pays your money and you takes your chances.

The Weekend of Almost Surprises

Another Saturday has come and gone, and it is more or less as it was. Florida continued its domination by handing Spurrier his worst loss EVER and drubbing to the tune of 56 to 6. Alabama played badly for the first half, but still stuffed Mississippi State 32 to 7. The only remaining real test for either squad is now each other in the SEC champtionship game, the winner of which will almost certainly play the Big XII champ in the big game come January.

The almost-surprises were downballot, so to speak. LSU very nearly fell to Troy State; the Tigers were outscored 24 to 3 in the first half. Miles must’ve kicked some serious ass at halftime, though, as the final score was 40 to 31.

It’s not a surprise in either case, but it does please us that both Ole Miss and Vanderbilt are bowl-eligable with their wins on Saturday. The Rebels blanked Louisiana-Monroe, 59 to zip, to improve to 6-4, 3-3 SEC. Vandy beat the SEC’s other football whipping boy, Kentucky, in a close one (31-24), and in so doing rise to 6-4, 3-3 SEC — and head to a bowl for the first time in 26 years. (More fun: Vandy could actually beat a demoralized Tennessee next Saturday.)

Texas won (35 to 7 over Kansas), and Texas Tech was idle, so don’t expect much if any movement in the BCS. The finalization of the Big XII could get complicated, since we may see a 3-way-tie in the Big XII South if Oklahoma can deflower the Red Raiders on Saturday. On the other hand, if TT wins out, there’s no drama at all, and they’ll meet the SEC champ in Miami.

New Heathen Comment Policy

You’re going to need to jump through some additional hoops to comment at Heathen. Anonymous comments will require a valid email address; authenticated comments are possible with a TypeKey or LiveJournal account. Spam’s a huge problem, so while I’m sorry to have to make it a bit of a hassle, it’s really the only way I can keep comments open.

More proof Obama is made of Win

President-elect Obama has endorsed an 8-team college football playoff system:

When asked what change he’d make in sports during last week’s Monday Night Football broadcast, Obama said “I think it’s about time we had playoffs in college football. I’m fed up with these computer rankings and this that and the other. Get eight teams — the top eight teams right at the end. You got a playoff. Decide on a national champion.”

That the money-grubbing BCS presidents disagree is unsurprising.

NOW DON’T STRUGGLE

This will only sting a little. After wrasslin’ for way too long with the terminally unfinished and almost completely unsupported Typo, Longtime Heathen M.A.D. courteously helped us migrate this afternoon the that modern-day hegemon of blogging, Movable Type, and what’s more he’s even hosting it for us. If you can see this post, you’re already here — and as part and parcel of this lovely little migration, feeds ought to work again, too.

All hail Michael for his selfless work here — he custom-coded a Typo-to-MT script for me as part of this deal. Now, enjoy.

Some things will be a little different, and the whole commenting thing will be weird for a bit while I sort out what degree of authentication I want to impose thereon. Since working feeds will allow me to syndicate Heathen via my Facebook presence, I sort of expect comment volume — specifically, angry reactionary Republican comment volume — to spike unless I impose some accountability there. ;)

Things you don’t get to be surprised or upset about

If you actively support taking away someone’s right to marry, then you absolutely do NOT get to claim some sort of moral high ground or express surprise when the community you’ve attacked decides they want to hit back.

The Mormons had the audacity to issue a statement with these paragraphs:

While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.

Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

Really? That’s the angle you’re taking? “Hey, it’s just politics, and it’s inappropriate to retaliate?” No, I don’t think so. Turns out, politics works both ways, and you shouldn’t be surprised that there are consequences to enacting hateful legislation.

What’s really amazing to me is this story. Precis: Mormon musical theater director in California ends up having to resign — surprise! — because it turns out that he donated $1,000 to Prop 8. Dude, WTF? And his sister’s even a lesbian. From his statement, quoted in the linked article:

“I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings, maybe even betrayal,” Mr. Eckern said. “It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction.”

Either this man is an incredibly brazen liar, or he has no empathy whatsoever. Prop 8 was not some abstract piece of legislation; prior to its passage, gay couples could legally marry. After, they cannot. To suggest that he “honestly had no idea” that the people around him affected by it would be feel angry and betrayed by his material support of the measure is simply absurd.

Also, good luck finding theater work now, Mr Eckern. Your donation was a matter of public record already, but now you’ve been on record in the New York Times as a homophobic bigot.

Ah, GOP, do you NEVER stop being evil?

Rolling Stone has much to say on the GOP’s voter suppression efforts.

Suppressing the vote has long been a cornerstone of the GOP’s electoral strategy. Shortly before the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Paul Weyrich — a principal architect of today’s Republican Party — scolded evangelicals who believed in democracy. “Many of our Christians have what I call the ‘goo goo’ syndrome — good government,” said Weyrich, who co-founded Moral Majority with Jerry Falwell. “They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. . . . As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

Today, Weyrich’s vision has become a national reality. Since 2003, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, at least 2.7 million new voters have had their applications to register rejected. In addition, at least 1.6 million votes were never counted in the 2004 election — and the commission’s own data suggests that the real number could be twice as high. To purge registration rolls and discard ballots, partisan election officials used a wide range of pretexts, from “unreadability” to changes in a voter’s signature. And this year, thanks to new provisions of the Help America Vote Act, the number of discounted votes could surge even higher.

[…]

To justify this battery of new voting impediments, Republicans cite an alleged upsurge in voting fraud. Indeed, the U.S.-attorney scandal that resulted in the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales began when the White House fired federal prosecutors who resisted political pressure to drum up nonexistent cases of voting fraud against Democrats. “They wanted some splashy pre-election indictments that would scare these alleged hordes of illegal voters away,” says David Iglesias, a U.S. attorney for New Mexico who was fired in December 2006. “We took over 100 complaints and investigated for almost two years — but I didn’t find one prosecutable case of voter fraud in the entire state of New Mexico.”

There’s a reason Iglesias couldn’t find any evidence of fraud: Individual voters almost never try to cast illegal ballots. The Bush administration’s main point person on “ballot protection” has been Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department attorney who has advised states on how to use HAVA to erect more barriers to voting. Appointed to the Federal Election Commission by Bush, von Spakovsky has suggested that voter rolls may be stuffed with 5 million illegal aliens. In fact, studies have repeatedly shown that voter fraud is extremely rare. According to a recent analysis by Lorraine Minnite, an expert on voting crime at Barnard College, federal courts found only 24 voters guilty of fraud from 2002 to 2005, out of hundreds of millions of votes cast. “The claim of widespread voter fraud,” Minnite says, “is itself a fraud.”

Go read the whole thing.

Keith on Prop 8

It’s about the human heart.”

Some choice bits:

This isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics, and this isn’t really just about Prop-8. And I don’t have a personal investment in this: I’m not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics.

This is about the… human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not… understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don’t want to deny you yours. They don’t want to take anything away from you. They want what you want — a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

[…]

I keep hearing this term “re-defining” marriage.

If this country hadn’t re-defined marriage, black people still couldn’t marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal… in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn’t have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it’s worse than that. If this country had not “re-defined” marriage, some black people still couldn’t marry…black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not “Until Death, Do You Part,” but “Until Death or Distance, Do You Part.” Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are… gay.

[…]

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don’t you, as human beings, have to embrace… that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate… this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness — this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness — share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

This is cool

It’s Veteran’s Day, which was once Armistice Day — i.e., the day that commemorated the end of World War I, which ended 90 years ago today. You might think all the US veterans of that war are dead. You’d be wrong.

What happens when we wonder late in the day

So, I was just wondering:

Our presidential electoral system is kind of weird, and some of its weirdness is based on the idea that it’s valuable to apportion some amount of Electoral College representation based simply on statehood, without regard to population. This means that even the tiniest “state” gets a minimum of 3 EC votes, even if it’s only got a single Representative in the House. It’s probably not absurd to handle Congress this way, given the separation of powers between the Senate and the House, but it’s far from clear that this is a good idea for Presidential elections.

Because low-population, largely rural states are overwhelmingly conservative, this tends to give a small electoral advantage to Republicans. I wondered, then, what if the Electoral College was concerned ONLY with population-based representation? We’d still have the all-or-nothing state-by-state EC system, but without the Senate-based distortion. How might this affect recent races?

In this world, the smallest number of EC electors is 1, not 3 (I’ve given DC 1, since it currently has 3, but has about half the population of another 3-EV state, Montana.) Instead of 538, candidates vie for 436 (435 House members + 1 for DC). The magic number is 219, not 270.

So then came the math. It turns out to be pretty easy to do this, since Wikipedia has all the data a mouse click away. I’ll cut to the chase and tell you that this “New Math” can only affect races where (a) the winner has more states than the loser and (b) the difference in states won is greater than half the electoral college margin of victory. Only one race in the last 50 years would be affected by this, and it’s the same one where we sent the guy with fewer popular votes to Washington. Go figure.

  • 2008: It’s not even close, but let’s look anyway. Obama won 365 electoral votes, and McCain 173 — a margin of 68% to 32% in the Electoral College. Obama won 29 states; McCain 22. If we reduce each candidate’s total by (states * 2), the adjusted score is 307 to 129, and the margin of victory changes to 70% to 30%. For 2008, then, the extra weight given to small states wasn’t that big of a factor.

  • 2004: Bush won 286 EV, 53% of the EC, and 31 states; Kerry won 251, 47%, and 20. If we apply the same math here, we get Bush 224, Kerry 211, and no electoral change (though a narrower EC race at 51% to 49%). Bush took a 62 EV hit, and Kerry 40, but the real-world margin was too much for the state adjustment to flip the race. The state margin (11) is far less than half the EV margin (40, half of which is 20).

  • 2000: Here’s the money shot. Bush won 271 (30 states, and a hair over 50% of the EC) to Gore’s 266 (21 and 49%) (yes, we’re missing an elector because of the rogue dude in Minnesota who voted for John Edwards). Eliminating the small states’ advantage drops Bush to 211, below Gore’s adjusted store of 224 and flipping this hypothetical race even with Bush carrying Florida. As predicted, the difference in states won (30 – 21 = 9) is more than 1/2 the Electoral Margin (271 – 266 = 5).

With that in hand, let’s delve further. Needing the race to be close to be worth analyzing pushes us pretty far back. Clinton won about 70% of the EC in both his elections; George Herbert Walker Bush won with 79%. Reagan famously waltzed off with 91% in ’80 and 98% in ’84. With EC margins like that, the Senatorial noise becomes immaterial.

  • 1976: Carter, though, was somewhat closer with 55% of the EC in 1976, 297 to 240 for Gerry Ford. However, Carter won fewer states (24 to 27), so the race can’t flip (just to be clear: it means Ford would take a bigger EV adjustment than Carter).

  • Nixon’s 1968 run was also close, with about 56%, but the peculiarities of the year save him: first, he won 32 states and bagged 301 EV — but most significantly the opposition vote was split by Humphrey (Dem, 191 EV, 14 states) and George Wallace (46 EV, 5 states). Ding Nixon his 64 votes and he’s still above the real-world totals of his opponents, so no change here, either.

  • We have to go to 1960 for another “close” race: JFK won with 303, 22 states, and 56% of the EV compared to Nixon’s 219 and 26 states. (Harry Byrd won some votes that year, plus we’re far enough back the the total is actual 537, not 538, hence the funny totals.) Again, we can’t flip the race with the new math because (a) the margin’s too big and (b) JFK won with fewer states.

And all of a sudden we’re back in the 1950s. Actually, the forties; the 1948 race was relatively close, but not enough to get interesting. Truman won 303 electoral votes and 28 states; Dewey bagged only 189 and 16 (Strom Thurmond picked up 39 and 4), so no flip here, either.

To find another candidate for adjustment we have to jump back to 1916, with Woodrow Wilson vs. Charles Hughes. Wilson got 277 EV and 30 states; Hughes got 254 and 18. The key rule is, again, if the difference in states is more than 1/2 the EV margin; the state difference is 12, and the EV margin is 23, so we’d expect the adjustment to flip the election. Wilson’s 277 less (2 x 30) is 217; Hughes’ 254 less (2 x 18) is 218, and all of a sudden there’s a new President for the First World War.

It’s clear that the EC kept the popular vote winner from the White House in 2000. It’s interesting to see that a small change to the EV system would rectify that; however, it’s also obvious that the barrier to entry on such a change (depending as it does on supermajority (2/3) votes in both houses of Congress PLUS ratification by 75% of the states) will keep this exercise firmly in the realm of the theoretical.

Oh, yeah: Rammer Jammer

Roll Tide. Saban went home to Baton Rouge and just barely escaped with the win in OT. Rivalry games can frequently get unpredictable, but the way the Tide played for much of the game was just embarrassing. Still, a W is a W, and the results solidify Alabama’s number 1 BCS position. Other weekend events kicked PSU out of the elite club, leaving the top 5 40% SEC and 60% Big XII; an all-Southern championship game is now almost a given. Florida and Alabama will meet at the SEC title game in Atlanta, and the winner there will likely play the Big XII winner for all the marbles in Miami come January.

Because Someone Asked Somewhere Else: Heathen’s Top Ten Bond Films

  1. Dr. No (1962, Sean Connery). It all starts here, when Connery introduces himself at the baccarat table. Ursula Andress wows audiences as she strides out of the sea in a belted bikini as Honey Rider (the image is iconic enough that it’s been referenced twice since then, first by Halle Berry in the forgettable “Die Another Day,” and then in the #2 film by Bond himself). Jack Lord co-stars as Felix Leiter, Bond’s CIA counterpart; Lord was already too famous from Hawaii 5-0 to continue in the role, however, and the role proved somewhat intermittent anyway — since ’62, he’s been in 9 films (counting the upcoming Quantum) and been played by 7 people (most recently Jeffrey Wright).

  2. Casino Royale (2006). Daniel Craig renews the entire franchise. It’s really that simple. That’s a little over-simplistic; they did well by hiring Judi Dench a few films ago, but the wholesale reboot here makes the whole affair seem fresh, even if the parkour sequence seems a bit contrived up front.

  3. Goldfinger (1964, Connery). Look, how do you NOT love a film wherein Honor Blackman introduces herself as “My name is Pussy Galore?” The other star of this one is the Aston-Martin DB5 (the same make and model Craig’s Bond wins at poker in Casino Royale) chock full of, shall we say, aftermarket goodies. (“Ejector seat? You’re joking!” “I never joke about my work, 007”.)

  4. From Russia, with Love (1963, Connery). By far the most complexly plotted of the original films, it’s still somehow under-appreciated by modern fans. Bonus: nemesis Red Grant is played by Robert Shaw, later famous as the salty old fisherman Quint in Jaws. The gadget thing starts here with a fantastic trick briefcase.

  5. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969, George Lazenby). The odd one out; you can win bar bets by knowing this Australian model’s name. The story is that Connery left the role for fear of being typecast, and Lazenby got the nod. Then Connery decided to come back one more time (for 1971’s Diamonds are Forever), and poor old George got the boot. The film is quieter and a bit more subtle than most Bond outings; it’s also the only one with an actual romance (until 2006, anyway). Bond’s paramour in this one is played by Diana Rigg, and by the film’s end he’s married her. Sadly, she’s also murdered by arch-nemesis Blofeld (a viciously cackling Telly Savalas!) before the credits roll. [Blofeld, Bond’s most persistent antagonist, appears or orchestrates action in five films, but shows his face in only three. In those, he’s played by three different actors: Savalas here, but previously Donald Pleasance (“Halloween”) in “You Only Live Twice” and subsequently by Charles Gray (the Criminologist from “Rocky Horror”) in “Diamonds are Forever.”]

  6. GoldenEye (1995, Pierce Brosnan). I always thought it was cool that Brosnan got a second shot at Bond after NBC wouldn’t let him out of “Remington Steele” to take the role in ’86. It’s a damned shame only one of his films is worth watching. It’s only in checking facts to write this that I realize why this may be: GoldenEye was directed by martin Campbell, who also directed Casino Royale. The plot here is more plausible than most, too — post-USSR heavy weapons are ending up in the wrong hands, and Bond has to stop it. It earns extra points by casting Royal Shakespeare alum Sean Bean as the bad guy, and even MORE points by returning to classic nomenclature with Famke Janssen’s lethel “Xenia Onatopp.” Somewhere, Fleming is smiling. (Robbie “Hagrid” Coletrane makes his first appearance here, too, as ex-KGB Bond associte Zukovsky.)

  7. Live and Let Die (1973, Roger Moore). Bond does the Voodoo, and fights that 7-Up dude. No, really. Actually, the main bad guy here is the mysterious Mister Big, played by Yaphet Kotto (see also “Homicide”), but Geoffrey Holder does appear as Baron Samedi, a voodoo priest. Jane Seymour plays a virginal (until Bond gets to her, anyway) clairvoyant. This one’s the first Moore outing, and includes the delightfully absurd super-magnetic Rolex with a bezel that doubles as a circular saw. Suffice it to say that this is where the gadgets get goofy.

  8. Moonraker (1979, Moore). It’s terrible — a few years after Star Wars, and even Bond is in space — but it was also the first one I saw. My dad took me when I was 9 — at a drive in. How dated is that? Also, the wrist-mounted dart gun is a delight, even if we are a bit afraid that the by-then 52-year-old Moore will pass out in the G-force testing apparatus. (Bad news: Moore holds on until the patently ridiculous “A View to a Kill” six years later; even Christopher Walken and Grace Jones couldn’t save that one from the idea of 58-year-old Bond.)

  9. The Spy Who Loved Me (1977, Moore). This gives us the first appearance of two late-70s Bond fixtures: the Lotus Esprit the doubles as a submarine, and Richard Kiel as the 7-foot steel-toothed henchman Jaws (he returns in Moonraker). It’s otherwise reasonably forgettable, except for Barbara Bach as KGB agent Triple X.

  10. License to Kill (1989, Timothy Dalton). By the 80s, the producers at Eon were well out of unmined material with only a few exceptions, and apparently felt that it was too early for a third version of “Casino Royale” (there’s a 1954 American TV version, plus the satirical ’67 take starring David Niven and Peter Sellers). Several of 80s films were actually cut-ups taken from some of Fleming’s short fiction, and LtK is the last of those scripts. As such, it’s kind of a mess, but the central thread is still fun: Bond’s off the reservation and is hunting down the drug lord who killed his pal Felix’s wife (remember him?). (80s note: the wife was played by Priscilla Barnes, near-famous for replacing Suzanne Sommers on “Three’s Company.”) The film’s also fun because of its cast — Robert Davi chews scenery as the baddie, and Bond’s girls include a pre-Law-and-Order Cary Lowell. Lovable gadgetmeister Desmond Llewelyn makes his only field appearance when Q heads to central America to aid the technically unemployed Bond in his quest. Oh, and Wayne Newton shows up as a crooked TV preacher. What’s not to love?

More on Joe

He’s apparently openly threatening to caucus with the GOP if he loses his committees. Knock yourself out, Joe. The Dem margin is big enough that we don’t need you, and you need a fucking spanking like nobody I’ve ever seen.

Josh Marshall puts it pretty clearly:

I think much of what Lieberman did over the last year was inexcusable. But magnanimity in victory is always a virtue and usually wise. So I don’t think it’s necessary to expel him from the caucus. And perhaps there are some perks of seniority he could be allowed to retain. But allowing him to keep his chairmanship is simply unacceptable. It’s a position the Democrats hold because of the joint efforts of Democrats across the country pulling together to support Democratic policies and ideals and elect Democratic candidates. For Lieberman to enjoy the fruits of that labor after working so hard to stymie that effort would be unconscionable.

Sen. Reid, show your mettle. Kick Joe to the curb. Connecticut will elect another Dem in 4 years, and even if they don’t, you’ll still have the majority.

What it’s like to get elected President

The Obama campaign has released a set of snapshots taken by a campaign staffer of Obama and his family watching the returns, realizing the result, watching McCain’s speech, and heading out to give his own address. There are several really nice and unposed moments caught there.

You may not have voted for him, but the pictures are fascinating anyway — I don’t recall seeing similar pictures from any other election, and these are in particular neat because the candidate has a young family around him. Check ’em out.

And don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out

A reckoning is coming for Joe Lieberman. It’s unlikely the Dems will reach 60 even with him, so for my money I say freeze his sorry ass completely out: no chairs, no nothing. Don’t even let the turncoat bastard speak. Let him vote with the GOP if he wants to; if he does that, he’s unlikely to win his seat back given his constituency. He’s of course free to endorse and campaign for whomever he wants, but he shouldn’t expect the party he shat all over for two years to support him or reward him for that behavior.

Excellent

Received in email from the Jackson Office, from a friend of his, in re: the North Carolina results:

From: xxxxx Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:57 PM To: Jackson Heathen Subject: Love this Fark headline

Apparently worried about its “strength of schedule” the Obama Campaign is trying to improve its BCS ranking by running up the score, adding 15 more electoral votes today

The cherry on top

At 1:20 in this video, our friend AJ is clapping. In a crowd of 200,000 people in Grant Park, CNN caught a shot of someone we all knew, and 30 people in Jason Nodler’s living room immediately pointed and yelled “THAT’S AJ!”

Oh My

Did Nate Silver pull it off? The current called-state map looks an awful lot like his last projection. Like, exactly. Being essentially right is one thing; calling 50 states correctly is something else again. If Indiana and Virginia break Dem, he’s done it.

YES WE CAN

Currently, the closed-projections from major media outlets total 207 electoral votes. This total does not include the 55 votes for California, the 7 for Oregon, and the 11 for Washington, none of which have been even close to competitive. Further, Virginia and Florida are still uncalled, but Pennsylvania and Ohio are in Obama’s column.

We are Done. Oh thank you Jesus, we are done, in so many ways.

Yes They Can.

Sometimes, people can come together for a single cause, and create something really interesting and important. This fall we have an excellent example of this kind of thing, lead partly but not exclusively by a charismatic young African-American man with an extraordinary history and a tremendous amount of personal charisma.

I am speaking, of course, of the Thrill The World project, wherein people all over the world, simultaneously, dress as zombies and dance to “Thriller.” Video here, via JWZ.

BTW, apparently they had 800 participants in Austin.

For certain geeks

Among nerds of a certain age, there is no better calculator for any amount of money than an “oblong” Hewlett-Packard from the 10C series. This excellent family of robust, compact, workhorse calculators debuted in 1981, and included:

  • The 10C, a basic scientific model; and
  • The 12C, a business/financial calculator — and the only one still in production (it’s also one of the three named calculators allowed in the CFA exam); and
  • The 15C, an advanced scientific model; and
  • The jewel in the crown for nerds like Chief Heathen, the 16C Programmer’s model.

These expensive calculators (a 12C is still $70) were objects of nerd gadget lust more than a decade and a half before the iPod or PalmPilot. Even better, their strict adherence to RPN meant being able to use one marked you as a member of a certain tribe — a tribe made very sad by HP’s eventual decision to stop making all but the 12C.

It should come as no surprise to anyone, then, that several enterprising folks have gotten 10C-series emulators into the iPhone App Store. At the astounding (for the App Store) price of $20 you can have the “SCI-15C,” “PRG-16C” or “FIN-12C,” complete with simulated LCD screens and brushed metal bezels (from Thomas Fors LLC; no real web site). Yes, we’ve already got a 16C on the HeathenPhone.

(A competitor, R.L.M., has another 12C on offer for $10, but a quick survey of comments suggests that Thomas Fors’ versions are superior — and even at $20, it’s still far less than one of these actually cost back in the day. I do sort of wonder what a $9.99 emulator on a phone will do to HP’s ability to sell $70 12Cs, though.)

(Incidentally, it’s the Fors verisons we commented on previously, on 5/15/08.)

Scalzi FTW

The writer is fairly centrist, but has made no bones about his disdain for Bush’s administration. Yesterday, he made his endorsement official. Here are some choice bits, reproduced here because I like them enough I want to make it absurdly easy for as many people as possible to read them:

I endorse Barack Obama for President of the United States and will be voting for him on Tuesday. I heartily encourage you to do so as well, if in fact you have not voted already.

I’m going to vote for him because I believe he is what I think a president should be: Smart, informed, engaged, practical in ideas and in the execution of those ideas, deliberative and as we have seen in this campaign, someone who keeps his head while all those around him are losing theirs. […]

He’s not where he is now because he got lucky. He got there because he worked for it. I mean, holy God, people: He’s a black man named Barack Hussein Obama. Think of what you have to do just to get beyond that here in these United States. I joked the other day that it was a verifiable miracle of St. Obama, but in the real world, it’s no miracle. The man earned being where he is today, and likely where he will be at the end of Tuesday night.

I’m voting for Obama, but I’m also voting against both the Republican Party and John McCain, and voting against both for the same reason: Outside of a drive to win and be in power, there’s just nothing there. […]

… Bush is the standard bearer for the GOP because the GOP wanted him. He was (in what will likely soon be more than one sense of term) the ultimate president for the modern GOP: a genial figurehead for the general population to have its figurative beer with while the “smart guys,” rather less attractive (no one wants to have a beer with Karl Rove), do their thing in the background. Bush was what the GOP wanted him to be and did everything they wanted him to do. Its problem is not that Bush wrecked the GOP brand, but that through him the modern GOP became what it was always going to be, in the end.

I was never going to vote for John McCain, but of all the GOP primary candidates this year, he was the one I would have had the least problem with eventually becoming president. But he lost me with his campaign, which was substanceless, stunt-driven and more focused on trying to scare voters from Obama than on making the case for McCain. I wanted to feel like if McCain won that there would still be enough of a break between his administration and the Bush administration that we wouldn’t continue the downward spiral we’ve been on — that McCain at least would be there at the controls, trying to yank the flaps into a “climb” position. Instead all I got from his campaign was that McCain’s a maverick, and Obama hangs with terrorists and probably wants to eat my children. You know, I’m not stupid. I know when someone’s trying to distract me with handwaving from the fact there’s no there there.

And then there’s the Palin thing, which exposed the bankruptcy of both the McCain campaign and the modern GOP. No one in the world believes that the Palin pick was anything more than a spur-of-the-moment choice, a sop to the GOP base and a transparently cynical bid for the Democratic women still smarting from Clinton’s loss in the primaries, an estimation by McCain’s camp that Palin’s possession of a vagina outweighed the fact that she shared not a single policy with that presidential candidate. […]

But the Palin pick did firm up the support of the GOP base, a fact which should terrify anyone with a working brain. Palin is indisputably the single worst major party candidate for high office in living memory, a proudly ignorant political automaton whose only notable qualities are a pretty face, a sufficient lack of awareness to blind her to her own incompetencies and a quality of ambition that can only be described as voracious. The GOP base should have been insulted that this was all it was given by the McCain campaign; instead it embraced her and has declared her a frontrunner for 2012. Which tells you that the GOP base has learned nothing in the last eight years; Palin, in every way that matters, is nothing more than Bush with boobs. […]

It’s appalling that the GOP base holds up Palin as the sort of person it wants as president of the country, and it points to the sort of intellectual and moral vacuousness that party has that the rest of us simply can’t afford anymore. McCain’s decision to pick her as his running mate is something politics wonks will discuss for decades, one of those credibility-destroying moments that in retrospect simply defies belief.

As for how I felt about it personally, let me put it this way: before the Palin pick, I was going to vote for Obama. After the Palin pick, I was also and most emphatically voting against McCain. The only way Palin should be in the White House is on the public tour.

Things that confuse me

Randall Stross has a piece in the NYT bemoaning the slow boot time that’s still the rule for most machines. Even pushing it down to 30 seconds is too slow, and he’s absolutely right about that; in today’s world, we should all be able to get our information appliances up and running almost instantly, like our phones. That an iPhone (e.g.) can do this just makes system startups even more annoying, and it’s apparently annoying enough for Stross to give it significant space in the New York Times.

Except, of course, that he’s missed an important development. I don’t know what the state of these things is in Windows, since I haven’t used Windows as a main machine or a laptop in nearly a decade, but on my Mac, boot time is also slower than ideal (call it a minute). The thing is, though, that boot time is now irrelevant, since I never shut the machine down. I just unplug peripherals, shut the lid, and stick it in my bag. When I get where I’m going, I just open it again, and within a second or two I’m ready to roll. I haven’t actually shut down my laptop in months — and that was for a RAM upgrade. With increased stability and some clever work between hardware vendor and OS developer, this kind of sleep-stability (and its companion, constant availability) should be achievable by anyone — though if my Windows colleagues are any indication, sleep isn’t any more reliable in 2008 than it was in 1998. They’re all shutting down and rebooting every time they pack their computers up. My colleagues are smart people; I’m assuming that if sleep actually worked, they’d be using it.

Windows people, is it really still that broken? Is it reasonable for a nontechnical Windows person to keep his or her laptop booted in perpetuity, as I do with my Macbook Pro? I understand — and revel in! — the fact that Apple has a significant advantage here in owning both the hardware and the software, but surely this problem is solvable for the heterogenous Windows laptop world. What about the Linux folks (of whom I think there are maybe two here)?

No surprise here

Fulmer is resigning at Tennessee. Frankly, we’d have preferred he hung around a bit more; with him at the helm, UT could’ve stayed an impotent backwater indefinitely. Tennessee is 3-6, 1-5 in the SEC, and lost a blowout to South Carolina on Saturday.

More at ESPN.

Post-Halloween Movie Rec

Our favorite scary move, hands down, is the excellent Bubba Ho-Tep. The premise is simple: late in his career, Elvis arranged to swap places with an impersonator in order to escape the circus his life had become; his intention was to swap back, but before that could happen, the impersonator expired on the royal throne at Graceland, and the authentic E.A.P. (an excellent Bruce Campbell) was stuck as the impersonator, eventually ending up in a rural Texas old folks’ home where his best friend (played by Ossie Davis) is convinced he’s actually JFK.

And that’s when the mummy attacks start.

Yes, it sounds ridiculous and silly. But trust me: they completely pull it off with the right blend of horror and comedy plus an unexpectedly graceful touch on the existential angst of aging. Highly recommended. (And previously discussed here (10/2003) and here (12/2003).)

There’s a follow-up coming, which is sadly bereft of Campbell, but perhaps Perlman can pull it off.

BCS is out

  1. Alabama 9-0
    1. Texas Tech 9-0
    2. Penn State 9-0
    3. Texas 8-1
    4. Florida 7-1

What’s obvious, at least to me, is that Alabama, TT, Texas, and Florida would all absolutely demolish Penn State. They’ve got no business in this list.

Meaningless Polls are out

While we await BCS, chew on this: AP has it Bama, Texas Tech, PSU, UF, Texas; USA Today sees it Bama, PSU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Texas (WTF?); the fan poll is worthless.

(That same link will eventually show BCS, too.)

The Death of the Whiskey Pact

Texas didn’t bother to show up on time today, and let Texas Tech play all by themselves for a half before waking up. Too little too late. Leonard’s Loser: the Longhorns — and the Heathen chances to attend the BCS game with the Attorney. Damn.

At least Alabama won (blanking homecoming creampuff Arkansas State by 5 touchdowns). And so did Florida in a decisive victory over preseason darling Georgia (49-10). Look for Tech in the top spot, followed by Alabama. Penn State is off this week, and the former #6 (Georgia) lost, so the new rankings COULD put Florida as high as #3, based on the quality and magnitude of their win. However, I see UT dropping not that far, either, so maybe TT, UA, UT, then drop in PSU, Oklahoma, and USC. It’s all mumbling until the computers chatter late on Sunday.

Florida and Alabama will play in the SEC game, so one of them will drop at least one more game — but a one-loss UF will have a good case for the BCS game if they win out. (Though obviously an undefeated Alabama would have a stronger case.)

We love the Economist

Unsurprisingly, they’ve endorsed Obama:

IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

[…]

At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies. If only the real John McCain had been running

That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.

[…]

The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.

Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.

Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

Just so you know

We don’t do anonymous comments here. Identify yourself, or don’t comment. Thanks.

Update: Let me be clear. I’m more than willing to engage anyone here, on Facebook, or wherever, but not anonymously. If you’re too cowardly to argue under your own name, you’re not worth my time.