This is how the joint House committees got started today with Al Gore (at least, as best as I can remember it)...

Rep. Dingell: The chair recognizes the distinguished ranking member Mr. Barton.

Rep. Barton: Parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Dingell: The chair will hear the inquiry.

Rep. Barton: It seems to me that our distinguished guest and speaker has not followed, to the letter, the long standing rules of this committee stating that before entering the building, said guest must turn around three times, recite a passage from The Principia, hop on one leg and spit. Why has our guest not been held to the same standard as...

Rep. Dingell:  The chair thanks his distinguished friend and colleague and informs him, kindly, that the chair has prerogative to fudge things here and there, and the chair has chosen to implement that fudging privilege.

Rep. Barton: Parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Dingell: The chair recognizes my distinguished and handsome friend and colleague.

Rep. Barton: I am certain that our distinguished and only slightly pudgy guest has neglected to allow us to shave his eyebrows while the distinguished guest sleeps, to be followed by dipping our former colleague's hand in a glass of water, causing our guest to relieve himself while still in a state of slumber, causing great joviality for the committee, as well as much pointing.

Rep. Dingell: The chair responds thusly.

Silence

Rep. Barton: Sir?

Rep. Dingell: Chairs can't talk.

Rep. Barton: Ah.

Rep. Dingell: But seriously, the chair responds my saying that he is the chair and can muck about with the rules any way he wants to and in addition la la la la chairs can't hear you.

Rep. Barton: So noted.

Rep. Dingell: And now I would like to introduce, for the purpose of introducing our distinguished guest, an introduction of my distinguished friend and colleague, the co-chairman of the sub-committee's joint select committee on the chairing of committees in joint operation with the congressional commission on committee chairs and their jointure-ship with other distinguished chairs of oversight on committee chairmanships' ways and means and ways of meaning of life, the universe, and my distinguished friend and colleague's committee.

Rep. Gordon: I'm sorry, what?

Rep. Dingell: Bring on Mr. Enviro-guy

Rep. Gordon: Right.

Pause

Rep. Gordon: Former Vice-President-Senator-Congressman-Quasi -President-Mahatma Albert Gore, Jr. is my constituent now, and he gave me his old congressional seat, in a box, with a bow.  My daughter's having a birthday today, and I'm going to give her this congressional seat for a present, thereby "re-gifting" Mr. Gore's gift to me, continuing in the proud tradition of democracy.  I hope our distinguished uber-guest does not mind. Mr. Gore?

Gore: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank...

Rep. Barton: Parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Dingell: The chair recognizes my abortive colleague with the stupid grin.

Rep. Barton: Move to recess for lunch and bribe-taking.

Rep. Dingell: Without objection?

Gore: Well, I...

Rep. Dingell: The motion is passed. Load up, suckers.

END

**

Digg this if you dig this, and come argue with me some more at FifteenNineteen.com!

Whether based in reality or not, the media has imposed a set of "tiers" on the presidential primaries, and in their quest for aesthetic symmetry they have decided that the number of candidates in the top tier has to be three. While this makes at least a modicum of sense in the Democratic contest (Edwards could, conceivably, prevail over Obama and Clinton), the logic breaks down for the Republican hopefuls. McCain and Giuliani are deservedly considered "top tier" in the GOP contest (for now), but the inclusion of Mitt Romney is, at best, premature, and at worst, laughable.

In almost all cases (save, notably, in New Hampshire to which he is a friendly neighbor with much higher name recognition) Romney's poll numbers weak, peaking nationally at 10%. Considering that ever-mischievous devil, good ol' Margin O'Error, it's hard to say that Romney's support warrants even serious acknowledgment, let alone coronation to frontrunner status (Edwards, I realize, has comparable national numbers, but he leads in many Iowa polls, which, as you know, is The Most Important State in the Country).

I believe that Mitt Romney's position as a top contender for the presidency is an invention of the press, and will prove ethereal as soon as any votes are cast. As I mentioned, there is a narrative being written by the media-at-large of a "three and three" battle in each party's nomination contest. While a supporting cast of Bidens, Richardsons, and Tancredos help make things colorful, the reality show we're watching is about two houses, both alike in dignity, with a triad of statespersons vying for leadership of their respective families. There truly are three frontrunners for the Democratic nomination, but there are only two Republicans who (for now!) have any serious shot to win. It is early, and the tectonics have many drifts yet to make, but the current numbers don't lie. Barring unforeseen upheavals, Romney is not going to be the nominee, and we should stop behaving as though he might.*

Why include Romney? In short, he looks good on television. While the other conservative alternatives to McCain and Giuliani like Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee are respectable and charismatic, neither have the Ken doll good looks of Romney, the prominent chin, or the low-baritone voice. Add to that with an easy-going manner (when he's not fudging another position -- more on that later) and his status as a GOP governor of a very blue state, you have someone that, one would think, ought to be a frontrunner!

But it must be clear, by now, that he is no such thing. The justification for the Romney candidacy is that he is the electable, conservative alternative to McCain and Giuliani, but with every interview and article that justification erodes. A quick scan of Romney's press will tell you a few important things...

I'm back!

As my internship and my graduate work keep me very busy, I imagine I will continue to post less frequently than I'd like, but I at least hope to find a little time here and there to make this site worth checking out again.

So here are some thoughts on the recent (though admittedly non-electoral) stink over the firing of U.S. Attorneys: I find this notable not because we're finding out that work within the Gonzales Justice Department is politically motivated (no! You're KIDDING!), but for what it reveals about Harriet Miers.

When she was nominated by Bush for the Supreme Court, we heard a lot of complaints about her, but we rarely heard from the woman herself. The result, for me anyway, was to give the impression of a well meaning, grandmotherly, semi-competent old lady ("I've been nominated for the Supreme Court? Oooh, goodness gracious me, I should bake some cookies for the nice Senators!"). How nice, but why would Bush nominate her to the nation's highest court? We all kind of cocked our heads at that. Now we find out that she was the one who came up with the idea to clean house in the DOJ, firing all US Attorneys in order to stack the department with attorneys friendly to the administration.

   This is not something my grandmother would do!

Suddenly, it looks like Miers is a cutthroat political hatchet woman, at whose site even low-level bureaucrats should quake.

Of course, now it's no mystery why Bush nominated her for the Court. Yes, Bush likes appointing buddies and people with whom he's comfortable to lofty positions in government, but in Miers Bush not only had a friend, but a loyal minion, a henchwoman eager to clear him a path of least resistance. Did we luck out?

Digg this article, and then come and argue with me some more at FifteenNineteen!

Things are crazy over here as I wind up my show and prepare to move to DC, but I noticed this little news item and I wanted to talk about it a bit.

According to the New York Post, Rudy Giuliani has started recruiting relatives of victims of the 9/11 attacks for his presidential campaign.  Now, a few weeks ago, I wrote a piece where I warned that Giuliani would not be the instantly un-nominatable candidate as many pundits are dismissing him.  Rather, I posited, the aura of being a (perceived) hero of 9/11 would inoculate him from various attacks on his social stances, unpopular with the GOP rank-and-file.  What I didn't write about, because I didn't know the answer, was how he would use that aura himself.  I assumed it would be a built-in part of his arsenal.  All he would have to do is show up, and the glow of his 9/11 image would bathe him in a halo of heroism.  He would hint at it himself, but be very Obama-like in his public modesty, while his underlings went out to the talk shows to discuss nothing but Rudy and that terrible day.

But of course, that wouldn't be enough in and of itself.  By actively recruiting 9/11 victims' relatives to officially get on board his campaign, Giuliani can extend the scope of his untouchability by surrounding himself with other even-more-untouchables.   Before now, attacking Giuliani would require stepping on eggshells because of what he represents to many people.  With this strategy, an attack on Rudy could be perceived/spun as an attack on the victims of 9/11 themselves (much as an attack on Bush is often played as an attack on the troops, which is of course absurd).  Rather than step on eggshells, Giuliani's adversaries will have to navigate land mines.  It just might work.

Obviously, I am fascinated by the presence of Rudy Giuliani in this presidential race.  He is such an anomaly in so many ways, that his emergence as a serious contender throws so many things usually taken for granted right up in the air.  In any other time, his stances on social issues truly would make his candidacy for the GOP nomination a joke.  Now more than ever I feel that he has to be taken seriously by anybody else planning on running against him, both in the primaries and, if he gets his way, in the general election.  It is this kind of unexpected twist that makes following elections so much fun. His hero image is one advantage.   The more McCain fights with Romney and minor-leaguers like Brownback and Hunter for the title of "most conservative candidate," the more breathing room it leaves for Giuliani to claim the "electable" mantle. From an analytical perspective, both parties' primaries are going to be very exciting to watch.

Oh, and welcome to the race, John Edwards (I know, we were all shocked), and rest in peace, President Ford.

Digg this article, and then come and argue with me some more at FifteenNineteen!

To my loyal readers and first-time visitors:

What follows is a little off-topic.  It is my contribution to a celebration of the life of Carl Sagan on the tenth anniversary of his passing.  The idea for what is called the Carl Sagan Blog-a-thon was spawned by Joel Schlosberg, and there is another blog commemorating Sagan called Celebrating Sagan, which I also recommend.

I am posting this piece on both of my blogs; my political blog FifteenNineteen, and Paul is Making Me Nervous, relating to my work in music and theatre.  I hope you like what you read, and will go and find out more about this amazing human being we lost a decade ago.  

I don't remember where I was when I first heard that Carl Sagan had passed away, but I do remember where I was later that night.  I was in college, hanging out at my friend's apartment.  A few close friends were there, and I brought up the news item of Dr. Sagan's death.

"Carl Sagan died today," I said, sadly.

"Who's Carl Sagan?" was the reply.

I was totally surprised, because I assumed everyone knew who he was. I didn't expect that most people had read a bunch of his books, or had seen Cosmos (recently, anyway), but surely he was famous enough to warrant recognition by my friends at least.  I mean, Johnny Carson had imitated him!  "Billions and billions!"  Come on people!

I tried to convey to them why it was so bad that we had lost this important man, and while my friends played along and humored me, I really couldn't get my message across.  I would have to grieve a little more privately.  It was too lonely to be openly morose about the death of a man who, to everyone I was with, was no more than some guy that nerds worship for space or something.  Maybe now, ten years later, I can have another go at it.  Read on.

The year 2006 hasn't even ended yet, and we're already surrounded by politicians announcing their candidacies for president.  I couldn't be happier.  Sure, there's plenty of stuff going on in the world, subtle and exhaustive minutiae for the press and blogosphere to pore over, but it's the clash of the pseudo-titans that makes for sexy blog entries!  In this posting, I want to address a little-discussed candidacy that I postulate may have a bigger impact than expected.

A few days ago, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich surprised me by announcing his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination.  He had run in 2004, and while he was spirited and passionate, he failed to make a major splash in the campaign.  He was an interesting and inspiring side show, running a campaign he couldn't win, but giving us all something to believe in, and even if you didn't vote for him, you probably wished him well, and cheered his few double-digit showings in the primaries.  He was a positive influence who had the effect of keeping the leading candidates (as well as debate moderators) honest.  I'll never forget when he tore into Ted Koppel at one early debate for asking too many questions about process and the horse race (that's my job, now), and not enough about policy and the war in Iraq.

I thought that would be it for Dennis.  He had made his point, and with a new Democratic majority in the House, I assumed he would ease into the role of progressive elder statesman, making reasoned cases for controversial positions, from a place of greater influence.  When the news broke that he was back for more, I was surprised.  And then, I started thinking...read on!

...and I promise that will be the last alliteration in this post.

Thinking I would be putting the issue of instant runoff voting (or "IRV") aside for a few entries, a strange string of coincidences occurred.  If you've been following, you already know that upon FifteenNineteen's endorsement of IRV, I received a detailed critique of that system from Dr. Warren Smith from the Center for Range Voting.  I offered him a blog entry here all his own, and he took me up on it, and that entry is here.

A day or so later, I got an e-mail from Rob Richie, who is the head of FairVote, an organization that advocates IRV. Turns out he's been to see shows at the Blackfriars Playhouse (where I'm working now) several times, has seen all but one of this season's shows, and he had written to say that he'd seen my blog's material on IRV, and that he'd be seeing our next performance of Macbeth that weekend.  In our correspondences, Mr. Richie agreed to counter the entry by Dr. Smith, and what follows is his own entry concerning IRV and Dr. Smith's critique thereof.

The blog's all yours, Rob!

Read on...

Two posts ago, when FifteenNineteen endorsed instant runoff voting, among many critiques, I received a response from Dr. Warren D. Smith from the Center for Range Voting.  He gave a lengthy explanation of his opposition to IRV in the comments section, and then in my next post, I dealt with a couple of his points, as well as points from a few other responders.  In that entry, I asked Dr. Smith if he would be kind enough to submit a full-length blog-worthy response, and I would give him his own official entry right here on FifteenNineteen.  He has  kindly done so (and done so very quickly!), and what follows is his entry, unedited (except for some infuriating Gmail reformatting), compiled from two e-mails he sent me today.  Enjoy, and we'll get to talking more about it later.  Take it away, Dr. Smith.