On Vice-Presidential Experience

John McCain has drawn criticism from both ends of the political spectrum for his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Most of the criticism has focused on the question of whether Palin, a first-term Alaska governor, has amassed sufficient "experience" in her career to be vice president. This question has in turn spawned renewed debate over the nature and extent of Barack Obama experience. While the entire debate is clearly steeped in partisan bias, it is nevertheless an interesting topic to consider from a civics perspective. I have a number of thoughts on the subject, starting with the issue of Palin's qualifications for the vice presidency.

First, it should be obvious that the requisite qualifications for the vice presidency are much less stringent than those for the top job. Vice presidents have no Constitutional responsibilities other than presiding over the Senate and occasionally casting a tie-breaking vote there. While recent presidents have sought to enlarge the roles of their vice presidents by putting them in charge of particular projects, there is no assurance this trend will continue.

To put it in purely practical terms, virtually any motivated elected official from the level of state legislator on up to governor or U.S. senator could adequately perform the job of vice president. It simply isn't that demanding. All that's really required is the ability to articulate the views of the administration. Of course, if the vice president can also serve as a capable advisor to the president or take charge of certain legislative, diplomatic, or political initiatives, so much the better. However, it is entirely up to the president to decide whether, and to what extent, the vice president should take on these additional responsibilities.

I would add that, from the standpoint of both good politics and civic responsibility, a vice president should be seen as someone who is "in the loop." Harry Truman was infamously out of the loop when FDR died, although I'm not aware that this actually created any problems beyond his own sense of discomfort.

Of course, as the Truman example reminds us, the reason we have a vice president in the first place is to assume the Oval Office in the event of the death or resignation of the president. Being next in line, however, doesn't imply that the veep needs the same level of experience as the president. There are three reasons for this.

First, the vice president is highly unlikely to succeed to the presidency. We've had eight presidents die in office, four by assassination. The assassinations all occurred long ago, under circumstances in which the security being provided to the president was at best negligent and at worst non-existent. Presidents are much, much safer from assassination today than they were in previous eras. In fact, the last time a president was assassinated was 45 years ago.

Presidents are also at lower risk of dying in office of natural causes than they were in previous times, due to medical advancements and the fact that it would be much harder for a modern-day president to conceal a life-threatening condition than it was in 1945, when FDR became the last president to die in office of natural causes.

I'm not suggesting that presidents are immortal or cloaked with an invisible force field. I'm simply observing that the likelihood of a modern president healthy enough to be elected in the first place dying in office is very small.

The second reason the vice presidency requires less experience is that, in the event of succession, the veep will be inheriting a fully-staffed administration which presumably is already operating in a manner consistent with the new president's desired policies. Since part of the accepted criteria for v.p. selection is ideological compatibility, there should be no pressing need for the vice president, upon assuming the Oval Office, to make wide-scale, dramatic changes in the make-up or direction of the administration. Moreover, since they would be assuming the presidency mid-term, it's entirely possible that the new president's administration will be of short duration.

The third reason the vice presidency demands less experience relates to the circumstances under which succession occurs. Whenever a president dies (or, in the case of Richard Nixon, resigns), the new president invariably enjoys the universal support of Congress and the people, at least during the first few weeks or months of the new administration.

I don't know much about Sarah Palin, but based on her record in Alaska and her obvious poise and intelligence, there is no question in my mind she is capable of serving as vice president and, if necessary, taking over the reins of a McCain administration in the unlikely event of Big Mac's sudden death or resignation.

UPDATE 09/02/2008: There now seems to be a full-fledged feeding frenzy going on in the lefty blogosphere over Sarah Palin's supposed lack of experience, her pregnant daughter, her decision as mayor to accept federal earmarks, her alleged membership in the Alaska Independence Party, and the McCain campaign's alleged failure to vet the Palin pick. One site (TalkLeft) is actually taking action on when Palin will quit the ticket, as if her decision to do so is somehow inevitable.

It occurs to me that, in pounding away at Palin's supposed lack of qualifications, these people are unwittingly helping to demonstrate that she has what it takes. If Palin can survive the deluge of attacks the left is trying to pour on, and perhaps even fight back a little, the country will see what a tough broad she can be. They're doing her a favor!

The Biden pick: No Joementum?

The selection of Delaware senator Joseph Biden as Barack Obama's running mate seems both underwhelming and a bit anticlimactic. Biden has been around quite a long time and certainly would be qualified to assume the presidency if necessary. In fact, he's clearly a lot more qualified than the guy at the top of the ticket. But what does he offer in terms of political appeal?

The first fact to bear in mind about Joe Biden's electoral strength is that both of his presidential runs -- separated by 20 years -- ended in abject failure. His 2008 candidacy is of course the more relevant of the two, being so recent. Without looking at vote totals or delegate counts, I would estimate that Biden finished fifth, behind Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Arguably, he created less of a splash than Dennis Kucinich. Thus, for all of his credentials and apparent charm, he is anything but a hot political commodity.

The major qualities Biden brings to the ticket are age and experience. Not coincidentally, these are two major qualities lacking in Barack Obama. Obama had a chance to select a running mate who would enhance and accentuate his "change" theme, but he opted to move in the opposite direction. Therefore, I think this pick will ultimately be perceived as one more in a series of recent instances in which Obama has chosen to place his own brand-name identification at risk in order to meet a pressing political exigency. (The other examples that come to mind are his movement to the center on issues such as Iraq and offshore oil drilling and his willingness to use personal attacks on John and Cindy McCain to stem the erosion of his lead in the polls.)

Although Biden was supposed to be a "safe" selection, it is not without its downside for Obama. While Obama managed to keep the pick a secret until late Friday evening, McCain's people were able to launch a Biden attack ad even before the official announcement ceremony on Saturday afternoon. By "Biden attack ad," I mean an ad in which Biden is seen attacking Obama during the debates as being unqualified for the presidency. The Delaware senator is also shown heaping praise on McCain. Especially given the timing, it's quite an impressive piece of political advertising, and one that garnered significant play in its own right during the marathon coverage of the announcement. Biden even made an oblique reference to the ad in his speech at the announcement ceremony, implying that his regard for McCain has diminished as the campaign has progressed. Perhaps that is so, but it doesn't explain his repeated criticisms of Obama as being dangerously unprepared for the presidency. Knowing that these damaging soundbites would inevitably appear in a McCain ad, Obama may already be feeling some buyer's remorse.

How "the devil you know" can survive a "change" election

The word "change" has held nearly talismanic sway over political commentators throughout this presidential campaign. The conventional wisdom held that 2008 is a "change" election, and that John McCain, as a living embodiment of the Republican status quo, would stand little chance against his young Democratic opponent. As the race has unfolded, however, it becomes increasingly apparent that the voters' thorough familiarity with John McCain, far from being the albatross that will sink him, is actually one of his greatest assets. In fact, for a number of reasons, it is the gift that keeps on giving.

First, the nature of John McCain's career in the public eye is such that he has managed to earn the respect of most Americans for something he has done, while simultaneously pissing off those very same people for something else he has done. He has done so not by changing positions on issues, but by involving himself prominently in a wide range of national issues, staking out clear positions on those issues, and refusing to hew to any particular partisan or ideological agenda. Accordingly, voters have known McCain when he was right and they have known him when he was wrong, but they all know him nevertheless. The advantage this gives him is he doesn't need to spend time or money in defining himself to the American people.

The second advantage for McCain derives from the first: Because he doesn't need to define himself to the voters, he can focus his campaign on defining Barack Obama (or, as he puts it, "drawing contrasts"). He could construct his entire campaign around the basic formulation of "Here is how Barack Obama is different from me," and the "me" half of the ensuing comparison would already be well-understood by the average voter. Being such a known commodity frees McCain's hand to run effective attacks on Obama's lack of experience, liberal voting records, and questionable personal associations.

Finally, because voters feel like they already know who McCain is, he is largely immune to the negative attacks that Obama might otherwise run against him. Negative campaigning works, but mainly it works against candidates who are not already well known. Candidates who lack a well defined image with the public are vulnerable to negative advertising because, at the same time they are trying to introduce themselves to the voters, they must contend with whatever counter-narrative their opponents are presenting. To take just the most recent example, John Kerry had little hope of establishing his self-defined image as a war hero once he was branded as a liberal Washington phony.

Negative attacks work only so long as they are credible. Because McCain is so well-known, certain attacks just aren't credible. The idea that McCain is some kind of Bush progeny out to give the President a third term is just silly. Everyone can recall innumerable instances in which McCain seemed to relish the opportunity to stick his finger in Bush's eye. Even household pets, moreover, would question the suggestion that McCain would adhere to any predictable policy agenda, whether Bush's or anyone else's.

This AP report on Obama's supposed "tearing into McCain" illustrates how difficult it will be for Barack to land a glove on his well-known opponent. In it, Obama is reported as having unleashed the following "attacks" on McCain:

1. "Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to 'John McCain's president, George W. Bush.'" (Again, this kind of general linkage won't work if Obama can't establish the predicate that McCain is some kind of Bush acolyte.)

2. Obama "prais[ed] the Arizona senator as a 'genuine American patriot.'" (There is no way at this point for Obama to undermine McCain's bona fides as a war hero. He must accept that as a given.)

3. "McCain says 'Here's my plan, I'm going to drill here, drill now which is something he only came up with two months ago when he started looking at polling." (McCain is a poll-driven political opportunist? Nice try, but everyone remembers McCain's wildly unpopular stances on immigration reform and the Iraq war.)

4. Obama noted that "many" of McCain's advisers "had been lobbyists in Washington before McCain asked them to sever all lobbying ties." (Fine, except voters will remember McCain as a vocal supporter of campaign finance reform who has spoken out on the need to reform Washington. Because of his history in this area, most voters seem to regard McCain as far less corrupt than the average member of Congress. Moreover, his basic reputation for integrity and independence would seem to supersede this rather parochial and ill-defined charge of having employed former lobbyists to work in his campaign.)

5. Obama attempted to label McCain as being unfair for questioning Democrats' approach to foreign policy. According to Obama, McCain's people "say this other guy is unpatriotic, or this guy likes French people [emphasis added]. That's what they said about Kerry." "They try to make it out like Democrats aren't tough enough, aren't macho enough. It's the same strategy." (While it's certainly debatable whether Democrats are "tough enough," McCain has hardly revealed himself to be a monster by calling into question the Dems' commitment to a strong foreign policy. This has been one of the defining differences between the two major parties since at least 1972. At worst, the charges to which Obama is alluding are just the usual rough and tumble of presidential politics. For Obama to become whiny and defensive about this kind of stuff -- he's been accused of liking French people? -- provides some insight into how frustrating this campaign is becoming for him. )

I've said before that I think Obama may have already peaked. Part of the reason for that relates to the fact that McCain is such a well-known figure. Americans have witnessed McCain in action for years and a large majority most see him as a credible chief executive and commander in chief. It will difficult for Obama, in the span of a couple months, to dramatically alter that perception.

This matters.

[Nurse] Stanek says her friend had been told to take this baby and leave him in a soiled utility closet. She offered to take him instead. “I couldn’t let him die alone,” she says.

Stanek was horrified by this experience. This was not an abortion — it was something worse. Could it be legal to take a living and breathing person of any size, already born and outside his mother’s womb, and just leave him to die, without any thought of treatment? . . . .

Stanek’s effort to right this wrong would lead her to testify before various committees. It would lead her to a state senator, Patrick O’Malley, who would propose a bill to stop what was going on at the hospital. Her attempt to change a corrupt medical practice and bring hope to defenseless infants would put her on a collision course with a state senator named Barack Obama.

Read the whole thing.

Georgia on my mind

It's unfortunate the Russians decided to launch an invasion in an unfamiliar corner of the world during the height of a U.S. presidential campaign. The timing of their move makes it nearly impossible for an ordinary citizen to make heads or tails of what's going on. At the risk of exposing myself as a complete ignoramus, here is what I have been able to gather:

Evidently, Georgia was an independent nation until the early 1920s, when it was swallowed up by the U.S.S.R. (or what became the U.S.S.R.). After the fall of European Communism, Russia never quite reconciled itself to the notion of Georgian sovereignty. The geopolitical situation there has been highly unstable due to the existence of two semi-automonous regions within the borders of Georgia known as Ossetia and Ajaria. Naturally, these areas represent distinct ethnic enclaves (because what's a good international crisis anymore without the scourge of rampant tribalism?). Moscow supports the Ossetian and Ajarias autonomy movements because of Russia's rich tradition of liberty and self-government. Actually, it's because Moscow views Georgia's internal struggles as a source of weakness and vulnerability for the government in Tiblisi.

Given the mess there, you're probably thinking it's a good thing there's no oil in Georgia and no perceived strategic interest at stake for the U.S. Unfortunately, both of those assumptions are wrong. Oil from the Caspian Sea transits Georgia via the Baku-Supsa oil pipeline. And the U.S. has been actively courting Georgia for years as an ally and possible future member of NATO.

Vladimir Putin and his criminal cohorts in the Kremlin evidently decided the opening of the Olympic games would be a good time to send a column of tanks into Georgia in order to bring the former satellite back into the Russian fold. Of course, this was done under the pretext of responding to Georgia's persecution of the Ossetians. Russia's action leaves the West in a bit of a bind. Although the U.S. properly regards the move as an intolerable act of aggression, there doesn't appear to be any practicable military response available to us.

Here in the U.S., Barack Obama initially responded to the outbreak of hostilities with a plea for the parties to work toward restoring peace to the troubled region, fueling speculation that he might appoint Barney the Dinosaur as a special envoy. John McCain's response was, predictably, more bellicose in tone. While not explicitly advocating a military response, McCain has made it clear he would take a tough stand against Russia.

McCain has also used the occasion to make several important points with voters. First, he never bought into the starry-eyed notion that Russia could become a force for peace and justice on the world stage. In other words, he was right about Putin just as he was right about the surge in Iraq. Second, and again as in the case of the surge, McCain saw the unvarnished truth of the matter immediately, without succumbing to the false optimism that infected Bush's perception of the situation. In other words, he's not "McSame" at all, but foreign policy realist with impeccable judgment. Third, he's an experienced hand at foreign policy, who's known Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili well enough to call him "Misha." Barack Obama probably thinks Misha is a sushi bar in Harvard Square.

All of that would seem to make the emergence of this crisis something of an unexpected boon for McCain's candidacy. I'm not sure that's the case, however. While Americans in large numbers would probably agree that McCain is better equipped to deal with a crisis such as this, the country is also quite war-weary. They would welcome a Clintonesque "vacation from history." What people like about vacations, most of all, is taking a break from responsibility. In a sense, Obama's vacuous initial statement on the crisis, issued from the beaches of Hawaii, is exactly what America wants to hear. By the same token, McCain's response is about as welcome as receiving an urgent message from a dutiful assistant back at the office. You say to yourself, "What now?" So the apparent benefit McCain derives from the sudden flare-up of an international crisis is mitigated, I think, by the temptation of American people to avoid having to deal with the issue beyond the level of simply expressing disapproval for the Russians' actions.

In the end, however, I think McCain will come out ahead as a result of all this. I say this because I think the "crisis" part of this episode is going to pass rather quickly. Russia will achieve (if it hasn't already) its military objectives and some semblance of stability will emerge from the ashes. As noted above, there really doesn't seem to be much the U.S. can do about it beyond simply condemning the action in one form or another. Or, put it this way: whatever we do in the immediate aftermath, it won't involve preparing troops to march into battle. McCain can still trumpet his superior judgment in perceiving the Russian threat while tacitly acknowledging that our hands are tied, militarily. In this way, he can still play the role of the responsible statesman without spoiling Americans' hoped-for day at the beach.

John Edwards thinks you're an idiot

When the National Enquirer broke the story of John Edwards' and Rielle Hunter's midnight rendezvous at the Beverly Hilton, his fans on the left started performing mental gymnastics in a vain attempt to salvage the Silky Pony's dubious standing as a future Democratic standard-bearer. This weekend, Edwards sent out the following message to those fans and defenders: "You are all a bunch of idiots."

On Friday, Edwards copped to the relationship with Hunter, but insisted he wasn't the father of Hunter's baby, Frances Quinn. He also insisted he was unaware of the fact that his close friend and political ally Fred Baron has been providing huge financial support to Hunter. For his part, Baron insists that the money and multi-million-dollar housing he is lavishing on Hunter and Edwards aide Andrew Young are simply his modest way of helping out a couple of friends and "former colleagues" in need. This from the same loyal and generous guy who recently sued his own son to collect on an $800,000 loan used to fund a start-up company the kid was involved in.

It seems highly unlikely Fred Baron has any genuine relationship to either Hunter or Young other than his role as their benefactor. If anyone should be ladling out tens of thousands of dollars to help give those cute kids, Rielle and Andrew, a start in life, it would be Edwards himself, who was much closer to them than Baron was and nearly as wealthy. But of course, that would look bad.

For those inclined to accept the veracity of Edwards' explanations on Friday, Saturday must have been a tough day. For it was then that his purported willingness to take a paternity test was hammered successively from two opposing sides. First, Rielle's younger sister, seemingly speaking on behalf of sane and intelligent people everywhere, demanded that the DNA testing proceed forthwith and predicted it would not turn out the way Edwards would have us all believe. Then, on Saturday evening, it was revealed through an attorney for Rielle that she would not be agreeing to the paternity test, her sister's opinion on the matter notwithstanding. Rielle supposedly ruled out DNA testing out of concern for her privacy. Of course, that's tantamount to an admission that Edwards is the father. If the testing indicated that Edwards was not the father, the story would presumably die and Rielle could immediately go back to being a nobody.

It would be inappropriate to speculate as to whether Ms. Hunter is being paid off in exchange for letting Edwards maintain his claim of non-paternity. It would be inappropriate to speculate because we already know she is being paid off, to the tune of $15,000 a month. The idea that Fred Baron would continue supporting her in this fashion even if she were to blow the cover off Edwards' "I-can't-be-the-father" shtick is simply absurd.

All of this would be funny if it weren't so downright disturbing. The fact is, there's a level of personal corruption here almost too staggering to put into words. It obviously goes well beyond Edwards' mere carrying on of an extramarital relationship. He has used his wealth and connections, and played on the good will of his credulous supporters, to orchestrate a campaign of deception involving not only himself and Ms. Hunter, but also Mrs. Edwards, Andrew Young, and the entire Young family. In order to try to salvage some small part of his meager public reputation, he has pulled who knows how many others down to the gutter with him. And, perhaps worst of all, he has done this in order to be able to say to his own flesh and blood in years to come, "I am not your father." What kind of man does this?

I was never an admirer of John Edwards. Prior to this, however, I merely saw him as a phony and a lightweight. Now, he seems positively evil to me. I hope his supporters come to see him brought down -- all the way down -- so they can realize what fools he made of them.

Paddy Harrington takes a huge step toward golf greatness

There aren't many golfers who have won two majors in the same calendar year. Their names read like a roll call of the greatest golfers of all time: Nicklaus, Woods, Hogan, Palmer, Player, Watson, Trevino, Faldo, Price, O'Meara. And now Harrington.

Harrington also joined an elite group of players who have won at least three majors in their careers. In an era dominated by a guy with 14 professional major championships, it's easy to lose sight of how few players win even two majors, let alone more than that. Harrington joins only Woods, Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, and Vijay Singh as an active player with three majors under his belt.

Harrington won the PGA at Oakland Hills yesterday in a manner strikingly similar to his victory last month at Royal Birkdale. In both cases, it appeared that as soon as he caught the glimmer of victory on the horizon, he locked onto it like a fighter pilot locks onto an enemy bandit. Fangs out. He poured in lengthy putts on 16, 17, and 18 to nail down the win. Watching from his sofa, Tiger may have experienced for the first time what a clutch golf performance looks like on live TV.

Edwards comes clean (well, sort of)

John Edwards clearly had to say something about the brewing scandal, on e way or the other, prior to the Dem convention. Otherwise, he wasn't going to be able to attend it. Conventions are wall-to-wall media, and he wouldn't have been able to go anywhere in Denver without being hounded about it.

He chose to speak up today because it's a Friday and also Opening Day of the Olympics. For this reason, the story won't make quite the same splash it otherwise would have.

Substantively, he has chosen to "split the baby," as it were. He denies paternity, but based on reasoning that sounds suspiciously weak. He says the affair started in'06 and ended too soon for him to be the father (which presumably means no later than April 2007). However, he admits visiting Ms. Hunter at the Beverly Hilton within the last few weeks (as reported by the National Enquirer), casting doubt on his claim that the affair had ended back in early '07. Moreover, he hasn't taken a paternity test, which would seem like the first thing a person in his position would do if he were so certain of not being the father.

Sounds almost like he's saying he's not the father now just so he can act surprised about it later, when a paternity test is actually conducted. "Oh, human gestation is nine months. I thought it was two months. In that case, sure, I guess I could be the father. Sorry! Didn't mean to lie or anything when I called the story ridiculous."

There are other details seemingly designed to make Edwards appear less heel-like. For example, Elizabeth's cancer was supposedly in remission during his relationship with Hunter (although, again, that wasn't the case when he hooked up with her at the Beverly Hilton last month).

There's a huge opening here for further media attention. Edwards says he hasn't paid any money to Hunter, but left open the possibility that his friends did so without his knowledge. I suppose it's possible Edwards has friends who are so devoted to him, they go out of pocket to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in order to take care of his enormous personal problems without so much as telling him about it. Color me skeptical, however.

A FURTHER THOUGHT (3:52 PM): Why would his friends be paying this woman if Edwards is not the father? If anything, payments by Edwards would tend to point to paternity, as would any extraordinary efforts to put her or Andrew Young into comfortable digs. If Edwards isn't the father, it makes no sense for his friends to be doing any of these things.

BREAKING: McCain's tastes in pop culture surprisingly un-fogeylike

The hard-hitting journalists at Entertainment Weekly have gotten John McCain and Barack Obama to open up about their favorite TV shows, movies, and musical performers. Surprisingly, despite the quarter-century age difference, McCain's choices seem somewhat more edgy and cool than his younger rival's. Here's a breakdown, along with some comments from me:

TV shows: McCain mentions Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Wire, and 24. Obama mentions M*A*S*H, The Dick Van Dyke Show, and SpongeBob Squarepants (along with various other Disney and Nickelodeon fare). It appears the old Navy flyer doesn't mind a little violence and strong language on the tube.

Movies: McCain's favorite is the Marlon Brando adventure Viva Zapata!, directed by noted HUAC enabler (and I mean that in a nice way) Elia Kazan. Obama likes The Godfather. Score this one a draw. The Godfather (also a Brando flick, I would note), is a better film, but also a more predictable choice.

Music: One of them likes ABBA, Usher, Linda Ronstadt, and Roy Orbison. The other likes Sinatra, Dylan, Sheryl Crow, and John Coltrane . . . also, Javanese flute music and African dance music. Okay, I gave it away with that last bit. Usher aside (pun intended), Obama comes out ahead here. However, I again can't help but notice that Obama's picks seem a little contrived, like he had Caroline Kennedy and her folks at the Kennedy Center vet his picks. McCain's are obviously for real. Nobody would name "My Eyes Adore You" as a favorite song along unless they truly happened to like it.

Superheroes: Incredibly, they both named Batman, but for different and wonderfully revealing reasons. McCain praises the Caped Crusader for "[doing] justice sometimes against insurmountable odds. And he doesn't make his good works known to a lot of people, so a lot of people think he's just a rich playboy." Obama likes Batman (and Spiderman too) because "they have some inner turmoil. They get knocked around a little bit."

Edwards' mistaken identity defense won't wash

The National Enquirer's publication of photos of John Edwards and his alleged love child has certainly succeeded in getting more people talking about the story. However, a surprisingly large segment of the blogosphere remain unmoved by the photographic evidence, claiming that the man portrayed in the "spy cam" photo is not, in fact, John Edwards.

Obviously, in the age of photoshop, there is no way for a member of the general public to be certain the photo is legit. That said, it amazes me how willing people are to believe that a successful business enterprise like the NE would be willing to throw away millions of dollars in legal costs, damage awards, and future news stand revenues in order to publish a doctored photograph that would almost certainly be revealed in short order to be a fake.

Frankly, if I were inclined to give Edwards the benefit of the doubt, I would be more focused on the possibility of an innocent explanation, such as the possibility that he was only visiting Rielle Hunter as a friend, and had to do so in the middle of the night, and in such a secretive manner, because he was afraid how it would all look if people saw him hanging out with her. That story may sound far-fetched, but it's unlikely the NE has any evidence on hand to disprove it.

Anyway, as for those who claim the picture doesn't even look like John Edwards, I would offer this photograph from CNN as Exhibit A. Note the shape of Edwards' nose and forehead in partial profile. Note also the distinctive angle of his right ear. It's clearly the same guy.

When I saw the headline this morning, "Obama Pushes Back on GOP Tire Pressure Attack," I realized it wasn't a dream. Barack Obama really did spend ten minutes of national air time yesterday trying to defend his suggestion that keeping tires properly inflated would be a viable alternative to drilling for more domestic oil.

Here's why you should just let it go, Barack:

First, although keeping everyone's tires properly inflated would save fuel, it can never happen in practice. It's not like setting your thermostat to 68 degrees, where you can do it once and leave it there. People would need to be checking their tires all the time. Realistically, many people aren't going to make the commitment, and there's nothing the government can do to make them. Similarly, not everyone is going to get regular oil changes and tune-ups, which would also improve gas mileage.

To understand why the suggestion of keeping tires properly inflated has no place in a serious discussion of energy policy, consider an analogy to food. If consumers are up in arms over rising food prices, it is no answer to point out how leftovers often end up getting tossed away instead of eaten. Sure, my spoiled leftovers represent a potential savings, but it's really none of your goddammed business, Barack. How 'bout you worry about lowering food prices and I'll deal with with what's in my fridge? We're not electing you nanny, you twit.

Obama's persistence in making the case for proper tire inflation is unbecoming for another reason as well: Even he doesn't seriously place that much importance on the idea. It was something he mentioned in passing as a way of putting into perspective the modest amount of oil that new offshore drilling would supposedly yield. It only became a big deal for Obama after the GOP turned it into a joke at his expense. So now he's acting like a petulant teenager, upset because the grownups are laughing at something he said. Now he's given people a reason to wonder if he's too thin-skinned to handle the presidency. Nice going.

Brooks on fire

The first thing I read this morning was this fantastic analysis from David Brooks.

When the New York Times hired Brooks to replace William Safire, nobody was very happy about it. The liberals stalwarts saw no reason to hire a successor to the outgoing house conservative, and conservatives perceived Brooks as a kind of milquetoast Republican only a step or two above David Gergen. Despite the poor initial reception he received, he has really done some tremendous work for that paper.

Obama's energy proposals appear to be complete nonsense.

I'm no expert on energy issues, but Obama's plan to "eliminate the need for oil from the entire Middle East and Venezuela oil" in ten years appears to be nonsense.

I did some quick checking and found that OPEC accounts for roughly 37 billion out of the roughly 86 billion barrels of oil produced annually worldwide. (OPEC includes Venezuela and therefore represents a reasonably proxy for the Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil Obama has targeted for elimination.) Oil being a fungible commodity, it's not entirely clear what Obama means when he talks about "eliminating the need for oil" from these two sources. A natural reading would be that he intends to cut U.S. consumption by 43%, which would be the same proportion that Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil bears in relation to total world production.

If that's the case, then we can already say with confidence that his three-part plan for achieving those savings within ten years will be an utter failure.

Part one of the plan calls for massive government handouts and tax credits to encourage the production and sale of plug-in hybrid vehicles, with the goal of putting a million of them on the road in six years. But there are currently 125 million cars on America's highways. How is the addition of a million or so hybrid vehicles going to yield the dramatic reductions in imports he is calling for?

The second part of the plan is to divert tax revenues to promote R&D into solar, wind, and geothermal energy, in order to "require" that these renewables comprise 10% of our energy sources by the end of Obama's first term. (This is up from 5% currently, he states.) However, since none of these renewables can power our automobiles (except for the paltry million new plug-in hybrids he wants to build), it's hard to see how they're going to help reduce oil imports.

The third component of Obama's plan is to "call on businesses, government, and the American people to meet the goal of reducing our demand for electricity 15% by the end of the next decade." This, of course, isn't a plan so much as a statement of a goal. And, it fails to address the larger stated goal of reducing oil imports.

Obviously, the U.S. can generate all the electricity we want through coal, nuclear, and other resources. But increasing electricity production will do nothing to reduce oil imports so long as our cars run on gas. Clearly, the long-term solution is to transition to electric vehicles, and there's already plenty of technological progress being made in that direction. But the suggestion that such a transformation can, or even should, take place within ten years is baloney. Moreover, the switch to electric vehicles will come about not because Barack Obama willed it to be done, but because private enterprise will find a way to produce affordable electric vehicles that are as good or better than the cars we drive today.

Annoying read of the day.

There are so many annoying aspects of this New Republic editorial, it's hard to know where to begin.

I guess the title is a logical place to start: "The Weird Persistence of John McCain." Because the piece has nothing to do with John McCain's tenacity, it should really be called "The Weird Persistence of the American People." What the editors actually seem to find "weird" is the fact that the American people haven't already unanimously elected Barack Obama to two terms as president -- and it's August already! Evidently, America is weird for relentlessly going through the motions of evaluating the respective merits of two candidates when it's already obvious Obama is the superior choice.

In declaring Obama the obvious choice, the New Republic relies entirely on economic issues. In other words, they ignore national security, future Supreme Court appointments, and the candidates' personal experience and qualifications as factors that may determine how Americans vote come November.

Obama should vanquish McCain on the economy, the editors opine, because "These are the type of painful times when voters invariably turn to Democrats." Oh, really? Tell that to Al Gore, who lost in 2000 as the nation went into a recession. Tell that to Jimmy Carter, who presided over some of the toughest and most uncertain economic times in recent U.S. history, and was promptly whipped by Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election.

The editors of The New Republic apparently believe Americans are automatons who are pre-programmed vote Democrat whenever economic hard times arise, regardless of the causes of the economic troubles or the proposed solutions thereto.

I made the mistake of following The New Republic's advice and visiting Obama's website to review his economic platform. Rather than finding "a slew of terrific policy proposals," I found a grab bag of intellectually bankrupt schemes all seemingly conceived around the idea of taking tax dollars from one group of people to confer benefits on another. That, and increasing the size of government at all levels.

Here's one such gem:
Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave: As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers.

In other words, Obama wants to appropriate tax revenues to create a federal bureaucracy to assist states in setting up state bureaucracies to force employers to give certain workers paid leaves of absences. Who benefits? Government, for one. The employees who get to draw a paycheck without actually working, for another. How does the economy benefit? Not in the least.
Like I said, annoying.

Do I still have to buy those light bulbs that look like curly fries?

The evidence is in, and it proves that global warming is not being caused by carbon emissions. So says a former global warming alarmist who seems to know what he's talking about.

It's the part in the middle I don't understand.

This seemed like an appropriate first post about golf. Watch the first minute or so.


Reminds me of an old Steven Wright joke. "I'm writing a book. I've got the page numbers done, so now I just have to fill in the rest.

Has Obama already peaked?

An interesting dynamic in this presidential race is that it pits an older, thoroughly well-known candidate -- a "grizzled veteran" if there ever was one -- against a sleek and charismatic newcomer. Based on that comparison alone, it would not be unreasonable to predict a landslide victory for Obama. Of course, it's not quite that simple. The grizzled veteran in this case is widely admired, beloved by many, and still obviously at the peak of his influence and abilities. Moreover, youth and inexperience are not necessarily a good things when it comes to running for president.

Still, the big advantage Obama appears to have on paper doesn't seem to exist in reality. The latest national polls give Obama a lead of only one or two points. With the polls apparently tightening, Obama could find himself actually trailing McCain a week from now. This raises the question, can Obama regain lost ground or has he already peaked?

I think a strong argument can be made that Obama's best days in this race are already behind him. His main strengths have been (a) the fact that he personifies the idea of change in this so-called "change" election and (b) his skillful use of rhetoric, with an emphasis on amorphous themes like "hope" and "unity," which have enabled him to appeal to voters across the political spectrum. However, while these strengths are well-suited to create a positive first impression with voters, they may not count for much as the race heads into its final three months and voters develop a clearer picture of who Obama really is.

The perception of Obama as an embodiment of change is clearly an important part of his appeal, but it seems incapable of generating any more support for candidacy than is already reflected in the polls. Those who assign significant value to the idea of electing a president "who doesn't look like the guys on the dollar bills" are presumably already in his corner. Obama has never really tried to enlarge this group by, for example, giving speeches explaining why it would be better to elect an African-American than a European-American. Voters either accept that proposition or they don't, but either way, they're unlikely to change their minds about it now.

Obama's other big strength -- his use of rhetoric to appeal to voters across the ideological spectrum -- seems even less likely to serve him going forward. Obama may continue to enthrall crowds with his appeals to "bridge the gaps that divide us," but more and more voters will come to appreciate that he is, in practice, very much a man of the left.

Obama's reliance on the change theme and inspiring rhetoric may in fact prevent him regaining control of the race. Having promoted himself as a new kind of leader that Americans of all persuasion should rally around, he cannot risk overly negative attacks on McCain or overt demagoguery. Such tactics would only help to re-brand him as a typical, old-style politician. Moreover, any major shift of his campaign away from his personal qualities and toward a debate of substantive issues will create more focus on his liberal positions and his lack of substantive accomplishments. He may be like a race car driver who's still in first place but who's running out of gas with no chance to refuel.