Why the Democrats are wrong and other meanderings

Name:
Location: Metro Phoenix, Arizona, United States

I'm too lazy to type anything about me. Read my blog and I'm sure you'll eventually learn a few things.

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Iraq and 9/11

After President Bush's Tuesday night address, we had the usual suspects whining about his mentions of 9/11 and asserting "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!" Some were even "offended" by those mentions. I am getting really sick of this, for two reasons.

Reason the first: there were a number of ties between Iraq and al-Qaida. This is detailed rather well here. As for the report of the 9/11 Commission, it said that it couldn't prove any operational ties between the two -- i.e., while it was known that there were links between the two, they didn't have substantive evidence of Iraq playing a direct role in the 9/11 attacks, that on the USS Cole, or the embassy bombings. However, absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, especially considering the number of links between the two.

Reason the second (which I think is more important): we are not out to avenge 9/11, we are out to prevent the next one. Various liberals wish to turn the "War on Terror" into the "Manhunt for Osama". To do this is to miss the point entirely. Catching Osama and others involved in the 9/11 plot would be terrific, but it's only a small portion of our mission. One man does not an entire terrorist organization make. If we get Osama, someone takes his place. We need to crush Islamofascist terrorism as a whole. One of the best ways to do that is to take the fight to them. Despite various liberals (Kerry, Dean, Kennedy, et cetera ad infinitum) protests that Iraq has been a "distraction" from the War on Terror, it is actually the front lines in it. We are facing al-Qaida and its sympathizers everyday in Iraq. The terrorists have themselves admitted that it's the frontline in the war, including in statements from Osama bin Laden himself. It's been said millions of times, but I'll say it again: I'd rather fight them over there than over here. Oh, and as for the allegation that the terrorists weren't there until we show up, consult the link above for a few rebukes of that theory.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Now that's funny

Last week, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Kelo v New London, which involved the Connecticut city of New London seizing houses using eminent domain to allow for the construction of a new mall. They justified this by saying the new mall would increase the tax base. The Supreme Court decided to allow this by a 5-4 margin.

Now, a man has tried to get the government of Weare, New Hampshire to seize 34 Cilley Hill Rd, so that he can build a hotel there. It just so happens that the property in question belongs to David Souter, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and one of the five members of the majority in said case. The "Lost Liberty Hotel" would also have an exhibit on the loss of freedom in America.

I strongly encourage the governing board of Weare to act on this proposal.

Death in the Hundred Acre Wood

Paul Winchell, perhaps best known as the voice of Tigger, died in his sleep last Friday morning. He also voiced Gargamel on the Smurfs and assorted other characters. He credits his wife as the inspiration for his creation of the famous TTFN. He was also quite the inventor, having patents for the artificial heart, a disposable razor, a flameless cigarette lighter and an invisible garter belt.

John Fielder, who voiced Piglet, died on Saturday. He appeared in the Odd Couple and on the Bob Neuhart Show, among other work.

It appears that the voices of Roo and Christopher Robin are the only ones left alive from the original three Pooh shorts (in which two people voiced Roo, and a seperate person played Christopher Robin in each; I have no data on the death of any of the five). Howard Morris, the voice of Gopher, died last month (he also did voices on Ducktales, Garfield and Friends, was the voice of Beetle Bailey and Gen. Halftrack (on a show where he worked with the great Paul Frees), and many others (including work with that other great voice actor, Mel Blanc).

Along with Thurl Ravenscroft (died May 22, voiced Tony the Tiger, sang "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" and was lead vocalist in "Grim Grinning Ghosts" (from Disneyland's (and the other Disney parks') Haunted Mansion)), some good vocal talent has been lost recently.



Short Baseball note

Craig Biggio just tied Don Baylor for the modern, official record for most times being hit by a pitch. He's still 20 short of the all-time record, but since most of that was done pre-1900, it's not officially recognized. This was one of my predictions for the baseball season (well, that he'd pass Baylor, actually, but good enough for now), probably my simplest one. What's interesting about him tying the record, though, is that he did it on Baylor's birthday, and against the Rockies at Coors Field, where Baylor used to coach (the latter is less interesting than the former).

Less auspiciously, Biggio also recently collected his 1,500th strikeout, becoming the 36th player to reach that mark. Reggie Sanders is also closing in on that mark. On a more positive note for Sanders, he's nearing the 300/300 (homers/steals) club (currently at 287/296), which currently only has four members: Barry Bonds; his father, Bobby Bonds; Barry's godfather (and former teammate of Bobby Bonds) Willie Mays; and Andre Dawson, who probably played on an All-Star team with Barry or something (just to keep things all linked together). And just to further the link, Reggie Sanders is a former teammate of Barry Bonds, and also a former teammate of Steve Finley, who is also nearing the 300/300 club (currently at 293/311). Barry is, to date, the only player to reach 350 in each category, and bested that by a wide margin, currently sitting at 703/506, leading this group in each category.

Other recent milestones include Jim Thome passing Bobby Bonds for 10th on the alltime strikeout list, Johnny Damon scored his 1000th run, Garret Anderson got his 1000th RBI, Ichiro Suzuki got his 1000th hit, Edgar Renteria got his 1,500th hit, and Larry Walker grounded into his 150th double play. (That list is by no means intended to be exhaustive).

Update: Biggio broke the record on Wednesday. From the mlb.com write-up: "Asked if holding a hit-by-pitch record was a sign of fearlessness, Biggio responded, 'fearlessness, stupidity, however you want to say it.'"

Labels:

Saturday, June 25, 2005

More on Durbin and Guantanomo

Rasmussen recently released the results of a poll that show what a loser this issue is for Democrats. Only 20% of Americans think that the prisoners are being treated unfairly, whereas 36% say they're being treated "better than they deserve" and 34% think the treatment is "about right". Even among self-identified Democrats, only 30% think the treatment is too harsh, and 28% say they're being treated better than they deserve -- that's a statistically insignificant difference. The issue isn't even much of a winner among Democrats. Of course, those who think its too harsh are more the grassroots of the party, so it could get them acting, but, overall, it alienates too many potential voters.

Man, I love it when we can just sit back and watch the Democrats destroy themselves.

Friday, June 24, 2005

Iran's elections

I'm getting rather sick of all the media attention the "elections" in Iran are getting. They're about as authentic as those ones Saddam had, where he got 99% or 100% of the vote, depending on the election. For one thing, you have to be cleared by the ruling mullahs before you can run. They disqualify anyone they don't like from running. For another, Iranians have become disillusioned with the elections, and aren't turning out to vote. This has led Iran to making up numbers for its vote totals to make it appear that there was a higher turnout (a low turnout shows that the people don't think the election is legitimate, except in more highly developed countries, where people feel they no longer need to care about politics). Western observers have all agreed that turnout was not anywhere near as high as the government claims. Iran is basically voter fraud the way the Democrats wish they could do it.

Bible Verse for the Day

Ecclesiastes 10:2, from the Revised Standard Version
A wise man's heart inclines him toward the right,
but a fool's heart toward the left.

See, Republicans are for the wise, and Democrats for the foolish; it's right there in the Bible.

Where did all of these hits come from?

I pretty much left my blog alone after my last post, and when I went to check out my site stats today, I noticed a large increase (percentage-wise, at least) in the number of hits I'd received. I did some checking, and apparently it was a convergence of several factors:
1. All my regulars were checking in.
2. The Mike Huckabee President 2008 blog picked up this post and linked to it (thanks for the link, I only wish I'd spent a little more time writing that post to make it flow more smoothly).
3. Several hits from people searching for Mike Huckabee, Dick Durbin, and Guantanomo Bay.
4. I also picked up a link from Patrick Ruffini, to that same post in #2 (though not as many people getting it through there).
5. I apparently came up a lot when people clicked the "next blog" button in the top right corner of all blogspot blogs. I don't really know why people would want to click that, but they apparently do. I guess it was a Saturday and they were bored. Interestingly, one of them had clicked it from a flaming lefty page. That had to be good.

Saturday was my highest readership ever, so I say go me. Now if I could only get to 100 in one day ...

That's enough with the self-absorbed commenting, back to the normal stuff.

One last note: blogspot, blog, and blogs were unknown words for the blogger spellchecker. I find that a tad odd.

Saturday, June 18, 2005

Durbin and Other Guantanamo Bay Coverage

Most of you have probably already heard about Sen. Dick Durbin's (D-IL) recent remarks concerning Gitmo. Let's review them:

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here [at Guantanamo Bay]--I almost hesitate to put them in the [Congressional] Record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:

On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in
a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their
prisoners.


Oh, yeah, that's exactly what I recall from my history reading, that the Nazis abused the Jews by screwing around with the a/c and playing rap music. Let's review, shall we? Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge killed about 1.5 million in its camps, plus had summary executions of about 200,000 other political opponents. The Nazis and Soviets were responsible for, by various estimates, 7 million and 20 million deaths, respectively. Keep in mind that we're talking about innocent civilians here. Exactly how many have died at Guantanamo Bay? And we're talking about terrorists there, not innocents.

The United States bends over backwards to not offend the sensibilities of Muslims with its treatment of prisoners. They are allowed to pray their five times daily, instructed which direction Mecca is in, provided with an imam, provided complimentary copies of the Koran (which U.S. troups serving as guards there go out of their way to avoid even touching), provided special meals (the military spends more per person for a meal there than it does on rations for its own troops), and provided with excellent medical care. Give me a break. Most of these people would be treated worse in prison in their country of origin (there have been a few Brits and the like that came through, but most are from Arab countries). Think any of those countries would provide a Bible to Christian prisoners? In Saudi Arabia, owning a Bible is grounds for throwing you in prison. Yeah, real religious tolerance there. The average prisoner in a country like North Korea would consider a transfer to Guantanamo Bay a blessing. Heck, the average North Korean citizen would consider it a blessing.

They turned the a/c down enough that the prisoner was shivering? Ooh, wow, I've never been that cold. They turned off the a/c, making it over 100 in the room? I live in Arizona, try again (and from what I hear, several of the countries they come from aren't much better). They played really loud music? I've been to parties that did the same. They were chained to the floor for so long that they urinated and defecated on themselves? Messy, smelly, but not even close to the treatment the Nazis would have provided. Also keep in mind that these descriptions are of the interrogation rooms, and not the normal living standards at Guantanamo Bay. People, on average, are more likely to give you information when they're made uncomfortable. Putting them up at the Hilton wouldn't get much information out of them.

As for the prisoners' allegations of various mistreatments, we've recovered Al Qaeda training manuals that instructed them to do as much. They've observed enough western behavior that they knwo how to use our own weaknesses against us. And too many politicians, activists, and others are all too ready to help them do it. Moreover, there have been more instances of the prisoners themselves defacing the Koran than of the guards doing it. What I find most interesting, however, is that allegations of one guard flushing, kicking, or dropping a Koran is cause for more outrage than terrorists bombing a mosque. Isn't that merely evidence that the Koran "mishandling" really isn't so bad, it's merely an excuse to riot/protest/whatever against Americans (or the Bush administration, as the case may be).

Another take on this can be read here.

Interesting

It looks like Poland could have identical twins as its next president and prime minister.

Friday, June 17, 2005

Huckabee and Tax Me More

Well, first I somehow leave Mike Huckabee off my list of potential 2008 Republican candidates. Then, when I mention him in a later post, I somehow neglect to mention one of the coolest things about him. They were having budget shortfalls down in Arkansas (as just about every state was), and the dems, naturally, wanted to raise taxes, especially on the "rich" (there's a problem with referring to people in the various tax brackets as rich or poor, because it's an income tax, not a wealth tax (for instance, a person making $20,000 a year could win the second prize playing Powerball, and make $200,000 (though lose about half to taxes), make the top income tax bracket one year -- thus qualifying him as "rich" to some -- and then fall back to the $20,000 a year -- making him "poor" again)). Well, Huckabee wouldn't hear of it, so when the dems started saying they could afford to pay more in taxes, he created the "Tax Me More Fund" through which a person who felt he was undertaxed could pay more money. Naturally, there were very few takers. He told the dems to put their money where there mouth was, and while at least one of them went ahead and did it, most of the others somehow didn't feel so undertaxed anymore.

Now, while this was mostly a victory of rhetoric, it did have some practical results. Taxes stayed low, and the legislature looked towards budget cuts instead, which resulted in the normal economic benefit and greater financial freedom for taxpayers. The fund has been copied in Virginia and Massachusetts. Somehow, though, politicians such as John Kerry and Barney Frank (both of Massachusetts) who always complain that Bush isn't taxing them enough, have felt perfectly comfortable paying the lower tax rates in Massachusetts. Frank even said “I don’t trust the legislative leadership and Gov. [Mitt] Romney to make the right decisions, so I’ll donate the money myself, probably to some health clinics in New Bedford that are going to get hit hard in the new budget.” Hmm, isn't it strange that while he doesn't trust government to make all the right spending decisions, he thinks everyone else should? There are those (like myself) who believe that the federal government should do the same thing, either through executive order by the President (akin to how Huckabee created the original fund in Arkansas), or by passing it through Congress. They could simply make a spot on the 1040 where taxpayers could check if they wish to pay a higher amount. It could be done like in Massachusetts, where they'd pay the amount they would have owed under the previous tax rate (that before Bush's tax cut in this case), or (as I believe it is done in Arkansas) pay however much more they think is fair. This would not be a big money maker, judging by its previous application (and common sense), but it would make liberals put their money where there mouth is, and might just get them to shut their big mouths for once (just about every member of Congress would qualify as rich, and those that didn't are at least upper-middle class).

Labels:

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Election 2008, again

Well, I already reviewed the Republicans, so now it's time to do the democrats.

Once again, a quick list of them, sorted by current position, or recently held position, or something, then a list with more details on each.

Senators:
Evan Bayh, Indiana
Joe Biden, Delaware
Hillary Clinton, New York
Chris Dodd, Connecticut
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin
John Kerry, Massachusetts
Joe Lieberman, Connecticut
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas
Barack Obama, Illinois

Governors:
Rod Blagojevich, Illinois
Mike Easley, North Carolina
Janet Napolitano, Arizona

Bill Richardson, New Mexico
Brian Schweitzer, Montana
Tom Vilsack, Iowa


Mark Warner, Virginia


Others:
Wesley Clark, retired Army general
Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee Chairman
John Edwards, former senator and vice presidential nominee
Al Gore, former Vice President
Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, California
.
I had to work at it a bit, but I managed to come up with another blackjack, which is what I had for the Republicans (though I busted by adding another one here). As I did with the Republicans, I included some that I very much doubt will run.

Evan Bayh -- Indiana senator and former governor. His father had also been a popular politician in the state. He's been viewed as a moderate but lately has been drifting left, presumably to build up his liberal bonafides for a primary run. He's viewed positively by Democrats because it's believed that he could put Indiana, normally a sure thing for Republicans, into their column, along with tilting some other midwest states in their direction (Ohio, most importantly). That said, people do look at presidential voting and gubernatorial/senatorial voting differently -- he wouldn't be a sure thing to deliver his home state (though I wouldn't count him out). More importantly, how well would a "moderate" fare in the primaries, especially in these days of the angry democrats? The 2004 nominees, John Kerry and John Edwards, had the first and fourth most liberal voting records in 2003, respectively. Would dem primary voters support the fourth-least liberal voting record among democrats? Unlikely. However, he could be VP material.

Joe Biden -- has spent over half his life in the Senate after first being elected prior to his thirtieth birthday. He made a run at the nomination in 1988, but withdrew after evidence surfaced that he had plagirized some material. He also considered a run in 2004, finally deciding against it when it was pretty much too late to join the race anyways. He's been around for quite awhile and his time has pretty much come and gone. I read an interesting article in National Journal before saying that presidential wannabes need to make their run within x years (12? 15? I don't quite recall) of first winning office, and he's well beyond that. He will have served 35 years in the Senate by the time of the first primary, and you don't serve that long only to suddenly gain a large following.


Rod Blagojevich -- He won the Illinois governorship in 2002 and is up for re-election in 2006. His name has been tossed around as a rising star of his party. I've heard it said that he'll be in for a tough campaign in 2006, but with the state the Illinois Republican party has been in the last few years, I'll believe it when I see something more concrete, especially thinking of their embarassing showing in the 2004 U.S. Senate contest there (where Alan Keyes made a pitiful showing after their original nominee withdrew following revelations involving Seven of Nine and sex clubs). A drawback could be his name -- people like names they know how to pronounce and/or spell. It's not a disqualifier or anything, but it's harder to gain traction when you're known as "that one guy".


Wesley Clark -- retired general, led the NATO campaign in Kosovo. As a former general, he's viewed as giving the Democrats crediblity on national security. However, during Kosovo, the Russians came in and occuppied an airport there, and he ordered the nearby British general to attack them (the general replied "I'm not going to start World War III for you" or words to that effect), which makes you question Clark's judgement (and/or sanity). He was also rather disliked by his fellow officers. During his fairly brief run at the 2004 nomination, he proved himself at least as gaffe-prone as Dean, he just managed to do it more under the radar. Some claim that it was only because it was his first time running for office, but it strikes me more as a character problem. At any rate, it's uncommon for someone to make president their first elected job, and this guy isn't exactly Eisenhower-class.

Hillary Clinton -- wow, where to start with her. As we all know, she's married to that one guy. She brings a ton of baggage with her (and I don't just mean that she'd return the White House furniture). While her positives (that is, the people with a positive view of her) are high, her negatives are quite high, too. Some people have pointed to her Senate win in the 2000 election as proving her electablity, but a) that was due mostly to New Yorkers' fondness for her husband, and b) she won New York 55-44 in the same election that Al Gore beat George W Bush there 60-35 (results don't total 100 in either case due to rounding and third parties). She won by 11 when Gore won by 25 -- makes her victory a tad less impressive, doesn't it? Now, you can come up with all sorts of excuses for why that is, but the fact remains that a dem winning in New York with a margin of 55-44 is not impressive. Likewise, some people have touted a recent poll on how likely people would be to vote for her in 2008 if she ran; the results were something like this: 18% very likely, 38% somewhat likely, 20% not likely, and 24% a snowball's chance in hell. Now, I made up the numbers based on what I remembered from reading a few weeks ago, but they're pretty close. Lots of headlines pointed to the majority being very or somewhat likely to support her. However, there are two problems with this. First, that the poll was of adults rather than registered or likely voters. Second, "somewhat likely" is much more ambivalent than "not likely" -- if something has a forty percent chance of happening, do you say that it's somewhat likely or not likely? More people would go with somewhat likely. I know that's not the way a voter approaches the issue exactly, but "not likely" is a much firmer negative than "somewhat likely" is a positive. While Hillary does well in all the polls, elected Democrats seem to be uninterested in a second Clinton trying for the White House. Of course, none of them want to say such on the record, so what I've heard is anecdotal, but still. As long as I'm on anecdotal evidence, I recall a girl I knew (who was a definite democrat) saying that she wouldn't vote for Hillary for president, because she's too controversial (scandal plagued, et cetera) and could doom the prospect of a second female president for years to follow (the same girl would vote for Elizabeth Dole, for what it's worth). The Right worries about Hillary, and she seems to have a commanding lead, but the nomination is far from being handed to her. She's also up for re-election in 2006, so we'll see how that goes. Oh, quick note on that -- she's been doing gobs of fundraising and it doesn't look like she'll have a major opponent, meaning she can transfer her extra money (some project $40 million) to a presidential campaign, which would give her an enormous advantage (both in having the money and because having money tends to draw more money).

Howard Dean -- former Vermont governor and current DNC chairman, Dean spectacularly fizzled out in the 2004 primaries. He has a horrible case of foot-in-mouth disease. However, to keep this short, he agreed not to seek the nomination in 2008 when he was seeking the party chair. Some have looked into what it would take to remove him from that position, but unless and until that happens, I won't bother any more with rumors about him running (unless he flat-out says he's running).

Chris Dodd -- the other senator from Connecticut. Much less known than Lieberman, it's believed that the reason he sat out in 2004 was because Joe was running. If Lieberman doesn't run in 2008, then Dodd can make his move. He still suffers from low name recognition, being a senator, and all that stuff. Popular enough that you don't have to search too much to see his name tossed around as a potential candidate, not popular enough to be considered a tier-1 candidate.

Mike Easley -- the North Carolina governor won re-election rather easily in 2004. Winning election twice in a southern state is viewed positively by those who look ahead to general election matchups. However, he's still not well known and not a first tier candidate.

John Edwards -- the 2004 vice presidential nominee for the democrats, he's made no secret about wanting to run again. He was viewed as a moderate, but his voting record -- and his rhetoric -- would indicate otherwise. His charisma also doesn't seem to be as good as it was hyped to be. On the stump, sounded more like a lawyer commercial than a political candidate. He was elected to the Senate in 1998 from North Carolina, and decided not to seek re-election in 2004, when it was quite possible he would have lost. He's made no secret about wanting to run for the nomination again, and he looks certain to attract a certain following, but I doubt he'll win the nomination.

Russ Feingold -- senator from Wisconsin, first elected in 1992, won a third term in 2004 with about 55% of the vote. He's the less-famous half of McCain-Feingold (the campaign finance reform bill, now law). He's popular for the campaign finance reform, but imposes stricter campaign finance rules on himself, which would make it difficult for him to raise enough money for an effective run.

Albert Gore, Jr. -- former senator from Tennessee, failed candidate for the nomination in 1988, twice elected as Bill Clinton's sidekick, and came up just short against George W Bush in 2000. He explored a 2004 run, but didn't have the needed support. He seems to have grown a bit crazed since his close electoral defeat, it seems to have done him psychological harm. Nixon came back eight years after losing to Kennedy to win the presidency, but I don't see Gore doing anything of the sort.

John Kerry -- the 2004 nominee. While he does pull in more supporters in polls than most other potential candidates, most people seem to think he had his chance. Add to that the fact that not many people were excited by him in the first place (most of his support came from being the anti-Dean and then the anti-Bush), and it doesn't look like the Democrats will be renominating a losing candidate for the first time since 1956.

Joe Lieberman -- after being the 2000 vice presidential nominee and following it up with a poor showing in the 2004 primaries, it looks like Lieberman's presidential dreams have come to an end. He's too much of a hawk to gather a strong following in a national democratic primary.

Blanche Lincoln -- senator from Arkansas, with a voting record more moderate than most democrats. She's viewed more as VP material than as a real candidate, though.

Janet Napolitano -- governor of a "pink" state (swing state that leans toward Republicans), that's viewed as a plus. However, she has a 2006 re-election fight coming up that is unlikely to be easy. A defeat would ruin her chances, but an impressive victory would catapult her up the ranks. I'll be campaigning against her, hopefully not in vain.

Barack Obama -- the newly elected senator from Illinois is viewed as a rising star in the party. He's touted as a moderate, but that seems to be more a matter of demeanor than how he votes. He's unlikely to run in 2008 as he won't even have a full term under his belt.


Nancy Pelosi -- She became the House Minority Leader following the 2002 election, when Dick Gephardt stepped down from that position after holding it for eight years (due in part to the dems' poor performance at the polls, and in part so that he could campaign for president). She's from California, very liberal, and I really haven't heard all that much about her running, she just seems to have her name tossed around as someone who might consider running. I don't really see her gaining much of a following unless the she leads the democrats to take back the House in 2006 (highly unlikely), in which case she might want to stick around and serve as Speaker.

Bill Richardson -- former Secretary of Energy under Clinton, it was while he was serving that problems keeping nuclear secrets and the like. Well, at least that such problems came to light. He's seen as more moderate and he is from a swing state -- in fact, New Mexico has been closest in terms of the number of votes seperating the candidates (not the percentage) in each of the last two elections, and was one of only three states that voted for a different party in each of the last two elections. He's considered among the top tier of candidates.

Brian Shweitzer -- he managed to win the governorship in a red state, to his credit, but it required a very unpopular outgoing Republican governor, a lackluster challenger, and having a Republican running mate (for those that don't know, some states have gubernatorial candidates run with candidates for lieutenant governor, much like how presidential candidates have vice presidential running mates) and he still barely broke 50% of the vote, winning 50.44% to 46.02% (two methods of looking for vunerable incumbents involve looking for those who won by less than a 5% margin and those who won with less than 55% of the vote, both of which apply to him (though I guess the second is redundant).

Tom Vilsack -- advantage in that he's from Iowa, whose caucus kicks off primary season. However, a win there could be discounted as home field advantage, which would diminish the positive. Vilsack was allegedly on the short list of potential Kerry running mates. I recall that there's something very unpopular about him, but I can't recall what ... I'll add it in if I can think of it.

Mark Warner -- Virginia governor is term limited so he'll be out of office after the 2005 election (Virginia is weird both in that it has its gubernatorial election the year after the presidential one (New Jersey is the only other state to do that) and that it limits its governors to a single term (the only state I can think of to do that)). He was hyped as a potential challenger to Republican senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate George Allen, but word is that he's said privately that he won't challenge. Has been outspoken about needing to reform the party, which would aid him in the general but could kill him in the primary. It currently looks very much like he'll be running, and he'll probably earn some free publicity by media mentions of each party having an upper tier candidate from the same state (not a very common thing, especially if it led to a matchup between the two in the general election).

That's it for now. In the future, I think I'll go with shorter posts. I'm not a big fan of the ones that last for over 2,600 words.

Labels:

Thursday, June 02, 2005

A few non-related points

I mention how long it's been since the Royals had a three-game winning streak, and what happens? They sweep the Yankees. So much for that.

While there are several names that come to mind of potential Republican candidates for the nomination in 2008 that I neglected to mention in my previous post on the matter, the biggest one that comes to mind is Mike Huckabee, governor of Arkansas. He's term-limited, so he can't run for re-election in 2006. That would free him up to start campaigning a year before the primaries, if he so chose. He received some national attention a few years back, when he got on a health kick and lost around 100 pounds. Arkansas is considered a swing state, so that could help him (being from a swing state is viewed as positive because it generally moves the state from being a swing state to being in your party's column; this of course does not always work (see Al Gore, 2000 or, for a vice presidential candidate, John Edwards in 2004)).

For those with numismatic interests, one of the 1913 Liberty Nickels was sold for $4.15 million. For those who aren't in the know, the design of the nickel changed in 1913 to the Indian Head or Buffalo design. However, a few (presumably five) Liberty Head Nickels were made by an unscrupulous mint official (who later retired from the mint and sold them for a high mark-up). The five nickels have a rather interesting history -- a couple of them were owned by the king of Egypt, and one was presumed lost for a number of years after its owner was killed in a car accident, and it was just authenticated last year, I believe (members of his family had previously tried to get it authenticated but were told it was a forgery).

British couple Percy and Florence Arrowsmith celebrated their 80th wedding anniversary on June 1. That's just an amazing accomplishment. Guiness lists them as having the longest marriage of a living couple and having the largest aggregate age (he's 105 and she's 100). The queen sent them her congratulations. I must say, though, that whoever did the AP write-up did a lousy job; it was a very poorly written article. Whoever was in charge of editing did a poor job, too.

As you've probably heard by now, Deep Throat has been identified as W. Mark Felt, who had been the number two guy at the FBI. The thing I don't get is all this "hero" talk about him. The guy did it to get back at Nixon for not giving him the directorship of the FBI. That's hardly a noble undertaking. It's more like petty vindictiveness. To further diminish any nobleness that others might want to assign to him, his family says that they came forward to get the money that comes with such a revelation. Plus, the guy had been convicted of authorizing searches without warrants, a true follower of J. Edgar Hoover, and exactly the kind of thing that Nixon got into. How all of this leads to him being a hero, I haven't a clue.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Baseball, again

Well, we've passed Memorial Day, which is a traditional time for early-season evaluation. Since the current playoff system went into effect, 67% of teams who were in first place on Memorial Day made the playoffs. So that's news that the Baltimore Orioles, Chicago White Sox, Texas Rangers, Florida Marlins, St. Louis Cardinals, and San Diego Padres will like (the Marlins were the only team of the six I had pegged for a division title (though I didn't call it in my predictions post, I know)).

The star player of the first half has to be the Cubs' Derrek Lee. He's currently the triple crown leader for the National League (.363, 16, 46). Before this year, he's been a good, but not great player, so it's rather unexpected for him to be doing so well. He's on pace to set career highs in hits, doubles, homerruns, runs, RBI, total bases, stolen bases, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, and batting average, plus he's on a borderline pace for a career high in walks (and is just two shy of his career high in intentional walks already). Definitely a career year for him.

The San Diego Padres had a phenomenal May at 22-6, erasing the effects of a poor April. The Yankees also overcame a poor April and rose into second place in their division, though they fell back to fourth on the last day of May (though only one game out of second and four games out of first). St. Louis and a host of injury problems are making me look dumb for choosing the Cubs, and injuries are also making me look dumb for choosing Giants (who, due to their own recent poor play and the amazing play of the Padres, just fell to nine games back in the division). The good news for the Giants is that it looks like Barry Bonds will be back around the All-Star Break -- for real, this time.

Juan Gonzalez has a history of getting injured. He's reached 145 games played (a season has 162 games) only twice in his career, and over the last three years, has averaged about 60 games played. So, he comes off the injured list on May 31, plays his first game in over a year, and what does he do? He injures himself grounding out in the top of the first.

A surprising number of hitters have been having big trouble at the plate so far. A couple of guys even have batting averages 100 points off from last year. Following is a list of all players with a qualifying number of plate appearances who have averages at .230 or below, along with a select group of bigger names who have higher averages but still way below their career average, often by 50 points or more.

Average Player
.157 Aaron Boone
.183 Cristian Guzman
.198 Casey Blake
.200 Mike Lowell
.210 Victor Martinez
.210 Doug Mientkiewitz
.217 Jack Wilson
.218 Eric Chavez
.218 Jason Lane
.220 Steve Finley
.223 Paul Konerko
.224 Adam Everett
.227 Joe Crede
.228 Jermaine Dye
.229 Rafael Furcal
.230 Royce Clayton
.236 Adrian Beltre
.242 Mike Piazza
.246 Jason Kendall
.251 J.D. Drew
.253 Manny Ramirez
.259 Todd Helton
.262 Larry Walker

And some that have done poorly, but with limited playing time (mostly due to injuries), but still with 100+ at bats:
.192 Rich Aurilia
.202 Marquis Grissom
.211 Raul Mondesi
.213 Jim Thome
.231 Jason Giambi
.246 Sammy Sosa

I could have added some more, but there were a few who, while doing 50 points worse than their career average, were on about the same pace as last season. I could have probably left a couple more off the list, but oh well. It looks like Mondesi is heading for retirement due to his poor play, and some of the others have lost some playing time due to theirs (though, in the case of the first group, obviously not very much playing time). Unfortunately for the Cleveland Indians, Boone, Blake, and Martinez have been everyday (not literally, but they have been the regulars) players for them, so three of the five worst hitters so far this season (among those with enough plate appearances to qualify for the batting title (though that's not something they have to worry about anytime soon)) are in their nine man lineup, though it's not like they have many bench options -- Alex Cora, Jose Hernandez, Josh Bard, and Ryan Ludwick are hitting .230, .219, .209, and .220, respectively. The only surprising thing is that the Athletics actually have a worse team batting average. Though, as Roger Clemens could tell you, the Astros have the worst offense in the majors, which is why he's only 3-3 despite leading the majors with a 1.30 ERA (he's allowed no runs five times, which resulted in four no decisions, and his losses came in games where he game up 3 runs, 3 runs (2 earned), and 2 runs (the only other game that he gave up two runs in was a no decision)).

One last tidbit, and then I'm out. The Royals haven't had a three game win streak since around the all star break last year, a streak that has reached 125 games and is the longest such streak since the 1985 Pirates went 144 straight games.

Labels: