The Morning Observation

Going Bowling...

2008-12-28T03:51:00.000-08:00

As I sat to drink my morning coffee, I took a quick look at what bowl games were coming up in the next few days. I perused the list, and two things struck me like a shot of tequila with mayonnaise in it (in other words, not good).

First, there are some just HORRIBLE bowl games. I mean, is anyone really pumped about tonight's match-up between Northern Illinois and Louisiana Tech? Or, how about Rice and Western Michigan? Even the games that include teams you've heard of aren't interesting. Kansas/Minnesota, South Carolina/Iowa, are these games we really care about?

The other thing that really bothers me is that there are only FIVE bowl games on New Year's
Day. FIVE! There used to be about 11. The Cotton Bowl isn't even on January 1 anymore. I mean, seriously. What good does it do me to have three television sets if there's only one game on at a time?

I know one thing though, I sure am glad Kentucky v. East Carolina is a January 2 bowl game. If the entire nation didn't get to see that gem of a game, what would we all do for fun?

OVER-RATED....OVER-RATED

2008-12-26T05:17:00.000-08:00

I know, I know. It's been a long time since I've posted. I know you all have been logging in multiple times per day to see if I've come up with something worthwhile to comment on. Let's just say it's been a busy month.

I was watching some college basketball the other night, and once again, I found myself asking the same question: "Are we finally ready to STOP calling Gonzaga a basketball super-power?"

Gonzaga fell at home to PORTLAND STATE the other night. Now 7-3 on the season, Gonzaga has been touted as a potential Final Four team by the so-called experts. As I've said for ten years, I'll believe it when I see it.

Most of you know that I'm a big Kentucky fan, so let's just do a quick comparison. Gonzaga has lost three games this year. Kentucky has lost three games this year. Gonzaga's best loss is to Connecticut (a VERY good loss, by the way). Kentucky's best loss is to North Carolina (an even BETTER loss). Gonzaga's next best loss is to Arizona, a mid-tier, BCS-conference team. Kentucky's next best loss is to Miami (Fla.), a mid-tier, BCS-conference team. We'll call it even. Gonzaga's worst loss is at home to Portland State. Kentucky's? At home to VMI. Both are low-major schools that should be an easy victory.

So, what do you get from all of this? The teams have almost identical resumes. Yet, Gonzaga is being called a Final Four team. Kentucky is being called a huge disappointment. Confused? I am. The media want so badly for Gonzaga to be good. And Gonzaga is good. But let's stop talking about the school like it's friggin' UCLA of the mid-60s. Gonzaga's best ever season resulted in an Elite 8 appearance. Best EVER! Since then, Gonzaga has been knocked out by the second round of the tournament more often than not. National powerhouse programs don't get knocked out in the second round every year.

This may be Gonzaga's best team ever, and it lost to Portland State. Gonzaga may very well be in the Sweet 16 or even Elite 8 this year. But, as I've said for years, when Gonzaga wins a National Championship, I'll paint my naked body in the school colors and run through the streets screaming like a mad man. I'm pretty confident I'll never have to do that.

The Coaching Conundrum

2008-11-20T07:02:00.001-08:00

If you are a sports fan, you hear every year about coaches that need to be fired, hired, slapped in the face, etc. Sometimes, very successful coaches are shown the door. Other times, mediocre coaches are kept around. It's puzzling to say the least.

I consider myself pretty objective when it comes to gauging a coach's success. And, I basically think there are three types of coaches: (1) Not good enough for the job; (2) Perfect fit for the job; and (3) Program changers. Below is a list of coaches and where I think they fall in the coaching hierarchy. For the purposes of this analysis, I am limiting myself to college football and college basketball.

Mark Richt: Perfect fit. Richt has Georgia football where Georgia football should be. Georgia is better than the vast majority of college football programs. But, at the same time, Georgia isn't USC or Ohio State either. Rich averages ten wins a year. He's a perfect fit.

Phil Fulmer: Not good enough. Tennessee football is better than Phil Fulmer. Sure, he won a championship early on, but what has he done lately? He's had two losing seasons in his last three years. That shouldn't happen at Tennessee.

Tommy Bowden: Perfect fit. I know, I know, he's already been fired. But who does Clemson think it is? Bowden routinely won eight games and went to respectable bowl games. That's Clemson. In the grand scheme of things, Clemson is a notch above the Mississippi States and Kentuckys of the football world, but not as good as a Georgia, Florida or Tennessee.

Billy Donovan: Program changer. Florida was nothing in basketball before Donovan arrived. Lon Kruger had made it decent, but Donovan has made it a national power. He's doing to Florida what Coach K did at Duke ten years before.

Tubby Smith: Perfect fit.....for Minnesota. Tubby is a class act and a good coach, but he wasn't good enough for Kentucky. He just wasn't. Five good years in ten tries won't work at Kentucky. Tubby inherited a team that had been to back-to-back championship games. Tubby led it to back-to-back 8-seeds. On the other hand, he's perfect for a place like Minnesota. he'll go to the tournament, win 20 games, and they'll love him. Kentucky asks for more.

Billy Gillispie: The jury is out at Kentucky, but I think this guy is a program changer. Keep in mind he inherited a Kentucky team that had been fading for years. Also, keep in mind what he did at Texas A&M. He made that school relevant in basketball for the first time ever. I think by the end of this year, people will see what I'm talking about.

Dennis Felton: Perfect fit. This guy has received a lot of criticism. But, again, who does Georgia basketball think it is? The only time it's ever been great is when Herrick was there...and cheating. Georgia basketball is a .500 program. Some years, it'll make the Dance. Others it'll be awful. That's the way it's always been.

Rich Rodriguez: Program changer. Give him time at Michigan. Look what he did at West Virginia. It took Lloyd Carr ten years to slow down the Michigan football team. Give Rodriguez more than one to speed it up again.

Ron Zook: Perfect fit....for Illinois. The Zooker couldn't cut it at Florida. The proof is what Urban Meyer has been doing the last four years. Zook is perfect for Illinois though. Win seven games, and you're a hero.

Steve Lavin: Not good enough. UCLA caught heat for firing this guy. I mean, really? UCLA basketball is better than Steve Lavin. Want proof?

Ben Howland: Program changer. He took over the mess Lavin had left behind. After a tough couple years, he's now been in the Final Four three straight times.

The point of all this is, certain programs have certain expectations. It takes a program changer to take a middle-of-the-road school to the next level. Those guys are few and far between. If you're at Clemson, don't be so quick to think you're better than Tommy Bowden. If you're one of the crazies calling for Mark Richt's head, you're an idiot.

But, if you're at a top notch program, don't settle for a Phil Fulmer, Lloyd Carr or Steve Lavin. You're better than that. Hey, I didn't make the rules. I just play by them.

The Fountain of Youth

2008-11-16T03:49:00.001-08:00

As legend has it, Juan Ponce de Leon was searching for the Fountain of Youth when he traveled to what we now call Florida. If he found it, it was likely because he stumbled across a highly contested match-up between the Seminoles and the Gators.

Don't know what I'm talking about? Think about it. Sports give an excuse for grown-ups to act like bumbling, immature idiots. Think about the players. Where else besides sports do you find full-grown men chest-bumping, screaming incoherently for no reason, shaving strange designs in their facial hair, and making up little dances for when they've done something well?

Think about the fans. Where else do you find 50-year-olds painting their faces and chests, wearing fake tattoos, high-fiving perfect strangers cause they're wearing the same color shirt, and pouting for hours because something doesn't go their way? I mean, last night I was cursing at my television because a 17-year-old kid made a mistake.

For better or worse, sports bring out the kid in all of us. And I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way.

The Future of the Republican Party

2008-11-07T04:31:00.000-08:00

The Republican Party is in shambles. It lost the White House. It lost more seats in the Senate and the House. The McCain campaign is now blaming Sarah Palin for its struggles. And, it appears that there's no way out.

Don't panic, fellow conservatives. Six short years ago, the Democrats were in the same boat. Bush was president and wildly popular (yes, six short years ago, he was). The 2002 elections were an absolute landslide for the Republicans. And, Democrats were shaking their heads wondering where to look for some help. Keep this in mind: six years ago, none of you had ever heard of Barack Obama.

So, where do the Republicans go from here? I'll tell you where they won't go...Sarah Palin. I think she'll never be heard from again. I don't think that's fair, but I think it's true. McCain's chance at the White House is gone, so it won't be him in four years. Who will it be?

In 2012, I suspect you'll hear a lot about Tim Pawlenty (Gov. - Minn.) and perhaps Mitch McConnell (Sen. - Ken.). I'd also like to see Mitch Daniels (Gov. - Ind.) in the mix. A lot of people think the future of the party lies with Bobby Jindal (Gov. - La.). Jindal is only 37 years old though, so 2012 might be a bit ambitious.

I think the Republican Party will be just fine. I think it will gain some seats back in 2010 based purely on the fact that Americans typically don't like all the power in one party. In 1994, Clinton lost seats in Congress despite being extremely popular. I think the GOP will have a very difficult time winning in 2012 regardless of who runs. Obama is too smart to do anything in his first four years that might cost him a second four. BUT, I think by the time 2012 rolls around, the Republicans will have more seats in Congress and won't be seen as the mess that people think of right now.

The bottom line is that this is all cyclical. Reagan was unbeatable in 1984. Eight years later, Clinton took over. Clinton was unbeatable in 1996, but four years later, Bush won. Now, Obama wins easily. The days of one party being in control for decades at a time are over. The GOP is a disaster right now, but give it a few years. Just remember, in 2002, no one thought the Dems. could recover. Now look where we are today.

Pride and Disappointment.....A Strange Paradox

2008-11-05T13:34:00.000-08:00

I did not vote for Barack Obama. I do not think he is qualified to be president of the United States. I do not agree with the very large majority of his policies. And, yes, I am supremely disappointed that he is now the President-elect.

Having said all of that, I awakened this morning with an overwhelming sense of pride in our country. First, I am proud of the incredible turnout at voting precincts around the country. This election was personal to people for a variety of reasons, and I appreciate the fact that more people than ever seemed to be genuinely interested in the outcome of the election. I waited more than two hours to cast my ballot, and there were a thousand others there with me. I think that says a lot.

The other reason I am proud today is that after all the tough talk, all the criticisms of both parties, all the debates, etc., we just elected an African American man to be President of the United States. That, in and of itself, is amazing. But, that's not what is so important to me. What fills me with pride is that Barack Obama's status as a black candidate wasn't really what people were talking about. It really wasn't a big campaign issue.

Obviously, there was some discussion about that very real chance that this election would make history. But, the very large majority of the political conversations I heard during the last few months (both in person and on television) had nothing to do with race. They had to do with Obama's policies and associations, McCain's policies and experience, and how individual people felt about those issues. I heard VERY few people discuss the fact that Obama is African American.

Now, I'm not so stupid as to think there weren't racist voters who picked McCain only because Obama is black. And I'm not so stupid as to think there weren't black voters who picked Obama for that reason alone. BUT, during a history-making campaign such as this one, I would say 95 percent of what I saw and heard concerned only the legitimate issues facing our country. When Barack Obama was born, there were restaurants, hotels and even government buildings that he would not have been allowed to enter. Now, he's about to move into the White House. Regardless of how you feel about his policies, I think the progress our nation has made in the last half-century is something we can all take pride in.

Let The Games Begin!

2008-11-02T11:01:00.000-08:00

As Texas Tech pulled out miraculous victory over Texas last night, supporters of the BCS system had to feel like they'd been kicked in the groin. Why? Because once again, it's going to be a November to remember, and the BCS carousel is about the start moving.

Alabama is now at the top of both the AP and Coaches' polls. But I don't know a single person who thinks they'll beat Florida in the SEC Championship game.

Texas Tech is now second in one poll and third in another. Problem is, they still have to play Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, and a conference championship game (if they get there).

Penn State is in the mix is well, but no one thinks they're any good. They'll likely be the only undefeated team from a major conference at season's end. Too bad it's a pretty bad conference.

Oklahoma and Texas are both still in contention, but Texas beat the Sooners and lost to Texas Tech. What if Oklahoma beats Texas Tech, and they've all beaten each other? Confused yet?

Lost in all of this are Florida and USC, who most people think are the best two teams in the country.

For a long time, I supported the bowl system. I thought it made the regular season better. But can you imagine an eight-team playoff with the schools I just mentioned? And I didn't even talk about Georgia, Missouri, Ohio State, LSU, the non-BCS undefeated teams or a single school from the ACC.

A Virtue Out Of Selfishness?

2008-11-01T04:53:00.000-07:00

“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic." You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”

This is a direct quote from Barack Obama in response to the criticism that his tax plan has socialist implications. So, let me get this straight....It is now "selfish" to want to keep the money you worked hard for? It's "selfish" not to want the government to decide what should happen with your own income?

A couple months ago, Joe Biden said we needed to be "patriotic" by paying more taxes. Now, Obama says it's "selfish" if we don't want to pay more taxes. Hey, to all of you reading this (both of you), do you consider yourself "selfish?" No? Then give me all of your money. No? That's not very patriotic.

The New "S" Word

2008-10-30T13:09:00.000-07:00

Holy sweet mercy! If this isn't socialism, I don't know what is:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/23/would-obama-dems-kill-401k-plans.html

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/24/obama-dems-seek-to-end-401-k-plans/

So House Democrats are talking about FORCING workers to transfer their 401(k) accounts to the government? Really? And they seriously complain when Republicans call them socialists? Do they know what the word "socialist" means?

Let me be clear. I am NOT (at least not yet) attributing this plan to Obama. From what I have read in the articles that I have read (two of which are linked above), Obama has not spoken either in favor or against this plan. However, members of his party are getting behind it.

Under this idea, which has been implemented in Argentina, the government would seize your 401(k) account, put it into one big fund with everyone else's, FORCE you to contribute five percent of your salary each year to the fund, and invest the money as Uncle Sam sees fit. Seriously people, what part of this plan is NOT socialist? If you're a Democrat, that's fine with me. But please, please, explain to me how this isn't socialism. If you can convince me, I'll buy you dinner sometime.

Obama Fails To Follow His Own Plan

2008-10-30T07:49:00.000-07:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/us/politics/23fec.html

This is an article from the New York Times written in February 2007. The article details Barack Obama's proposal that the two major-party candidates accept public financing only for their general election campaigns. Let me say that again, this article details BARACK OBAMA'S PROPOSAL that the candidates receive only public financing.

Now, if you've been paying any attention to the campaign, you know that Obama is accepting private financing. In fact, he has spent more on his campaign than anyone else in history. John McCain, who agreed to BARACK OBAMA'S PUBLIC FINANCING PROPOSAL, kept his word and is accepting about one-quarter the amount of money that his opponent has spent. It is absolutely inarguable that Obama failed to keep his promise on this matter. Even if you are an Obama supporter, this is not up for debate. Your only argument can be that it's just not that big of a deal for him to go back on his word.

The absurd amount of money spent by Obama, however, is important to me for two reasons. First, Obama is parading around the country talking about the financial woes of the middle class. Meanwhile, he's taken more money from the middle class in the last two months than any other presidential candidate ever has. Liberals are whining about the cost of Sarah Palin's clothes, and yet, Obama spent about $10 million in 30 minutes last night to run an infomercial for himself.

The second reason this is important is very simple. Obama failed to keep his promise. Not only that, he failed to keep a promise on a deal that he proposed! How that's not important to the American people is beyond me. The fact is that Republican candidates usually out-spend the Democrats. So, Obama started out wanting to level the playing field. Then, when he realized how much money he could raise for himself, he no longer wanted it level. That, to me anyway, shows dishonesty and a failure of character that I do not want in the White House.

How Dare You Ask a VP Candidate A Question About His Own Statements?

2008-10-27T06:39:00.000-07:00

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/10/obama-campaign.html

I don't like hard questions. They scare me. I don't know what to say. So, I just won't go near anyone who might ask me a hard question. I mean, the way I figure it, when I'm vice-president, I'm going to control the media anyway. Just eight more days, and I can say all the stupid stuff I want. In the meantime, I'm going into hiding.

My Political Philosophy

2008-10-25T03:40:00.000-07:00

I've written a lot during the last two months about the presidential debates, the media coverage of the campaign, and things of the like. Although it's clear which side I lean toward, it may not be entirely clear where that lean is coming from. So, for both of my loyal readers, I thought I would share my general political philosophy.

I am a federalist. I think the framers of our Constitution had in mind a system whereby the federal government has certain enumerated powers, and the state governments are left to make many decisions and policies for themselves. I think one of the problems with our system today is that the federal government takes on far too large a role in determining policy that our framers intended the states to decide.

Now, I do think that our federal government needs to protect certain civil rights that, throughout our history, some states have ignored. For example, probably the biggest increase our federal government has ever seen was in the aftermath of the Civil War. The southern states were allowing egregious civil rights violations to occur, and that was wrong. The federal government was right to step in.

But, there are other matters that I think both Republicans and Democrats try to regulate from the federal side that should be left alone. One example that comes to mind is gay marriage. I do not think this is a civil rights issue in the same way slavery was. If you disagree with me, so be it. But, I think there are alternatives to gay marriage (such as civil unions) that clearly don't exist with something as horrid as slavery. I think the states should determine whether a gay couple can be legally married. I am against a Constitutional amendment to expressly allow gay marriage, and I am against a Constitutional amendment to expressly prohibit gay marriage.

I know some people would argue that my view is self-contradictory. On the one hand, I favor a federal government that can outlaw, say, slavery. On the other hand, I do not favor a federal government that can outlaw gay marriage. So, where do you draw the line? How do you decide when something rises to a level to where the feds should step in? That's a tough question. But, I think there is a distinction.

With most questions, it's not that complicated. States can write criminal and tort laws. They can handle insurance regulations and licensing issues (be it driver's licenses, liquor licenses or licenses to practice law). The federal government can regulate things over which the Constitution gives it power.

So there you have it. Our founders created a federalist system. To those who haven't done so in a while, read the Constitution. You might find it interesting.

Blue Jeans v. Botox

2008-10-24T04:29:00.000-07:00

So if you've been watching the news this week, you've likely heard a lot about Sarah Palin's clothes. I'm not really sure why, except that it's just one more thing for the leftist media to criticize. The argument is essentially this: Americans are hurting financially; and Sarah Palin is out spending $100,000 on her hair and clothes for the campaign trail.

Now, do I agree that she needs to spend that kind of money? No. But, when is the last rally you saw Obama or Biden at in blue jeans and a tee shirt? And, how much did Joe Biden's botox cost? I mean, they're the ones supposedly concerned about the middle class, right? Michelle Obama's wardrobe is just as fancy as Sarah Palin's, and she's not even on the ticket. Oh, and by the way, Obama's campaign is outspending McCain's 4-1. That's a fact.

So, why are we worried about Palin's clothes again? Oh, that's right, we're not. The media just needs something to talk about besides Biden's recent suggestion that his own running mate isn't ready to handle foreign affairs.

The Presidential Debate - Round 3

2008-10-16T06:26:00.000-07:00

I'm no Joe the Plumber, but here's what I thought:

McCain's campaign, to me, has become a mysterious land of missed opportunities. McCain, once again, failed to adequately explain Obama's income redistribution plan. He tried to talk about "spreading the wealth," but he's just not very good at breaking it down. So, let me do it for him. Obama wants to take Joe's money, and he wants to give it to people who already pay no income tax at all. He wants to give them a welfare check under the guise of a "tax deduction." How hard is that to say? McCain fought with his words all night.

After the deabte, a Fox News analyst said exactly what I was thinking. The debate seemed to be sort of like a tennis match where McCain was running all over the court just to get the ball across, and Obama was standing still just tapping it back over, every single time.

It's very frustrating, really. I'm not the biggest McCain fan in the world, but I think he's a much better choice for president than Obama. I just wish he could find the words to express exactly what his opinions are. Take the abortion issue, for example. How in the world does McCain miss the opportunity to nail Obama on his plan to provide federally funded abortions? How does he miss that? It's unbelievable.

I'm going to vote for McCain, but I don't think it's going to make any difference. I think McCain could have really scored points last night, because the moderator asked questions that would have allowed McCain a lot of freedom to attack. Instead, he said the same old things, stumbled over words, and missed several chances to land a knockout punch. Round 3 wasn't even close. Obama by a wide margin.

A Fresh Proposal

2008-10-12T04:01:00.000-07:00

I'm not the most sophisticated economist around. I'll admit that. In fact, I really have no idea what I'm talking about. But, I have a general philosophy of fiscal conservatism that shapes my views on specific economic policy. With that in mind, I had a thought. Why don't we have a federal lottery system? I'm probably missing some obvious reason why it wouldn't work, but think about it. I live in Georgia, where literally tens of thousands of students get nearly-free college education funded primarily by a state lottery. The "Mega Millions" game, which currently involves about 15 states, can afford to give away $12 million two times per week, and it pays for state programs as well. So, let's say we had a federal lottery spanning 50 states. It could require an eight-number match to make it a little harder to win. But, the starting point for a payout could be $50 million. People would certainly buy tickets.

I can think of two main obstacles to this idea, but I still think it could work. First, a lot of people would say that it's just a predatory program that gets people with no discretionary income to buy a piece of paper in hopes of winning big. That doesn't bother me much. If John Doe down the street spends $100 a week of his janitorial salary on lottery tickets, that's his problem. The second problem is that a federal lottery program would force states that currently do not have lotteries to join in. I generally don't agree with having the federal government force programs on state governments. But, when I think about the volume of revenue that a lottery system would generate, I still think it could work. Again, I'm probably missing something obvious. But at first thought, I think it could be a way to bring in billions of dollars annually without raising taxes. (More on taxes later today or tomorrow). Feedback (from both of you who read this site) is more than welcome.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up

2008-10-10T06:14:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,435189,00.html

So let me get this straight. This gardener has been burglarized three times. So, he puts barbed wire up on HIS property. He is then told that he has to take it down because a thief might trespass, get injured, and sue? Yeah, that makes sense.

Let me just say this: if you agree with such nonsense, go ahead and let me know so that I can spell the big words next time I talk to you in person. Why? Because you're a moron.

The Presidential Debate - Round 2

2008-10-08T05:55:00.001-07:00

Is it bad that the most impressive man in the room last night was Tom Brokaw? I say that somewhat in jest, but not entirely. Last night's debate was basically a re-run of the first one. The "town hall" format was something of a sham. Brokaw picked the questions ahead of time, and no one in the audience really got to ask a tough question. The best question of the night was from Brokaw himself, who asked both candidates who their treasury secretaries might be. Both looked completely unprepared to respond to that question, as if it had never crossed their minds that they might have to appoint cabinet members if elected.

Obama again seemed more comfortable in his surroundings and did a better job speaking to the audience (both live and television). McCain did a better job than last time of getting specific, but he still missed some opportunities. McCain also added a few "zingers," but his delivery wasn't all that great, and the audience didn't seem to get any of them.

Obama's Best Moment
Obama looked very good when calling McCain out on his alternative energy voting record. McCain kept pointing to the record on other issues, and Obama finally stepped in and said, "Hey, look at the record on this." I thought that was smart.

Obama's Worst Moment
I thought Obama looked like a total @$$ when he demanded that Brokaw give him more time to rebut McCain on the tax issue. Brokaw rightly cut him off and said, "Dude, you have to play by the rules too." Not a good moment for Obama though.

McCain's Best Moment
There were actually two. McCain pointed to a $3 million overhead projector that Obama asked for in Chicago. This was, of course, during the discussion of our government's out-of-control spending habits. Now, I don't know the first thing about this overhead projector business. But, I know if it weren't true, Obama would have corrected McCain. He didn't.

McCain's other good moment was in talking about Obama's tax voting record. Obama likes to say that 95 percent of Americans are going to get a tax cut if he's elected. I personally don't believe he is being honest when he says that. And, McCain called Obama out on his record of voting to increase taxes, even for those in modest income brackets.

McCain's Worst Moment
McCain lost me a little when he started talking about buying up bad mortgages. I mean, we just spent $700 billion to bail out these banks, and now we're going to spend more to buy people's mortgages? Maybe I'm insensitive, but if a guy buys a house he can't afford, that's his problem. He shouldn't have bought it. I think if we are going to try to help that guy, we ought to use our resources to help him get a job, not buy his house for him. McCain and I just simply disagree on that.

The big elephant in the room all night was the character debate that most thought McCain would try to get into. I thought it was smart that he didn't. That's what campaign ads and speeches are for. The average American did not want last night to be about Bill Ayers or the Keating 5.

Overall, I think the average American would say Obama won the debate. However, the only reason I say that is because I think the average American looks at our economy right now, realizes that Republicans have been in the White House, and assumes there is a logical connection there. In addition, Obama is just a lot more smooth than McCain in this type of setting, and he comes across like J.F.K. did against Nixon in 1960 (as if I was there).

On the whole, though, I think both candidates still missed a lot of opportunities. Obama again did very little to link McCain to Bush. He started to at the very beginning, but then never went back there. McCain again failed to really hammer Obama on how his tax plan actually works and on how he plans to pay for all these new programs given the state of our economy.

Any chance we could get the last debate to be between Palin and Biden instead of these two?

This Ain't Your Daddy's Big 12

2008-10-05T06:05:00.000-07:00

At the outset of most college football seasons, I just assume that the SEC is the best conference. And, usually it is. Not this year. The SEC's talent at the bottom might match any league in the country; but at the top, the Big 12 is superior. The Big 12 has five undefeated teams that haven't even been challenged yet. And, if you're just sitting around watching the scoreboard on Saturdays, you might think Big 12 basketball has already started.

Texas has scored more than 50 three times and is averaging more than 45 points per game.

Oklahoma is averaging 50 points per game.

Missouri is averaging about 55 points per game.

Oklahoma State is scoring more than 50 points per game.

Texas Tech's least productive game on offense has been 35 points, and its average is in the 40s.

At the top, the SEC isn't even close to the Big 12 right now. Florida is good, but not that good. LSU struggled with an Auburn teams that looks clearly overrated. Georgia got throttled by a young Alabama team at home. Tennessee stinks. The saving grace might be Alabama, but is there anyone who thinks the Tide is winning any championships this year?

It's weird to say, but the Big 12 is awesome. I haven't even talked about Kansas, a team averaging 35 points per game and coming off a BCS bowl game from a year ago. In most years, I'll put the top six SEC teams up against anyone. This year, as Lee Corso says, "not so fast, my friends."

Kudos to the New York Times.....What???

2008-10-04T04:32:00.000-07:00

At long last, the New York Times is doing some reporting. It seems strange to say that, so much so that the automatic editor on my computer thinks I must have made some grammatical mistake. The front page of the Times this morning recounts the relationship between Democratic presidential nominee Barrack Obama and the radical, non-repentant terrorist Bill Ayers. Oh, you didn't know Obama was connected with a terrorist? I've known for 18 months. But, that's because I look beyond what most media outlets will let you hear about. Well, congratulations New York Times. You've finally done some reporting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

Now, this article largely downplays the connection between the two men. And, this article is probably very accurate. What??? Did I say that right? Look, I don't think Obama and Ayers are best friends. I doubt they even speak much. But one quote in this article says it best. Imagine if John McCain had had overlapped so many times in his professional life with a man who unapologetically bombed an abortion clinic. You think you wouldn't hear about that EVERY DAY? You think McCain could just get by saying: "That's old news," or "That guy was in diapers when I made my first run at the Senate." I don't think that would fly, do you?

The bottom line is that Obama has crossed paths on a number of occasions with a guy who admittedly set off bombs in our country. Ayers hosted the first fundraiser for Obama's first campaign. Whether it happened last week or 40 years ago, that's not a good connection to have. And, when you're trying to become president, it is more than relevant to discuss such a connection. I applaud the New York Times for FINALLY reporting on it. I just wonder how this didn't become newsworthy to the publication sooner. And, I wonder if it would have taken this long had it been McCain who had such a questionable connection.

The VP Debate

2008-10-03T04:20:00.000-07:00

Wow. I guess the first thing I would say about the VP debate last night is that I came away much more impressed with both candidates than I did last week when the would-be presidents faced off. Biden was sharp, on point and much more poised behind the podium than I have previously seen him. Palin was well-prepared, charming and didn't say anything to give media-types something to jump on.

Perhaps my expectations were too low for both of the running mates. In the recent weeks, Biden has asked a guy in a wheelchair to stand up and lied about being shot at in Iraq. Palin has said she reads every newspaper in the country and been caught like a deer in the headlights when asked if she approves of the Bush Doctrine. Neither candidate had a moment like that last night.

On the issues, Biden was strong economics and foreign policy, unlike Obama last week. He was not as good on energy. Palin was great on energy, good on economics, and good enough on foreign policy (given that she's with McCain, who's very good on foreign policy). The only downside I saw in both speakers was that they didn't always answer the question asked. I imagine that they were probably both told to find ways to steer their answers into areas of comfort. And, they both did that very well.

All in all, I have to see this one as a draw. Like the presidential debate, I don't think last night changed anyone's mind. I think Palin likely pulled favor with some undecided female voters, and Biden probably won among undecided male voters. It's a tie. But, it was a lot of fun to watch.

The Presidential Debates - Round 1

2008-09-27T04:06:00.000-07:00

In General

In general, Obama appeared as the better speaker and the more charismatic candidate. That's not news though. McCain appeared more seasoned and experienced. That's not news either. The thing that really struck me was how condescending Obama came off. He constantly called his opponent "John." Yes, that's his name, but you just don't do that in a presidential debate. You do that when you run into each other in the men's room at the Capitol. McCain, in turn, always referred to his opponent as "Senator Obama." Also, Obama continually interrupted both McCain and the moderator. He also made audible comments during much of the time that McCain was talking, saying things like, "That's not true." Truth be told, no one stopped him from doing it, so it may have worked. It amazed me that McCain didn't call him on it. But, to me, it came across as very condescending. At one point, in fact, Obama held up his hand to the moderator as if to say, "You don't talk when I'm talking." It seemed angry.

The Issues
On the issues, I thought it was a fairly even split. There were things I thought Obama could have capitalized on more, and the same goes for McCain. In particular, McCain blew a great opportunity to explain what exactly Obama wants to do on taxes. Obama says that 95 percent of people will get tax cuts. That misleads the public as to what actually would happen. A large number of people who do not currently pay taxes would just get free money under Obama's plan. McCain never pointed that out.

Obama, on the other hand, didn't do enough to link McCain to George W. Bush. Personally, I don't think McCain and Bush are all that similar. However, Obama's best strategy is to make it sound like they are one and the same. He did that a couple of times, but not enough.

Overall
On the whole, I think Obama held his own on the economy. I don't agree with his policies, but he seemed poised and prepared to talk about it. On national security, I think Obama was out of his league. And he should be. There aren't a lot of people out there with more credibility and experience on national security than Senator McCain. In my view, Obama's entire position on the Iraq war misses the point. In 2008, I don't care whether we went into Iraq for the right reasons or not. I care what we're going to do about it now. I want our next president to know how to handle the situation we are in, not spend a bunch of time asking how we got into the situation. Whether you agree with our invasion of Iraq or not, the truth is, we're already there. What do we do now? McCain's debate on this point was superior to Obama's in almost every aspect.

I call Round 1 a close victory for McCain. He could have done better but missed some opportunities to capitalize on what Obama said. Obama kept it close by talking more, getting more face time and being far better in front of a camera.

McCain's Mistake

2008-09-25T11:00:00.001-07:00

It's pretty clear from reading this blog (both of you who do, I thank you) that I am supporting John McCain in the upcoming election. Well, actually that's not accurate. I'm not supporting Barack Obama, and I don't want to throw my vote in the garbage can. So, I'm stuck with McCain. However, John McCain looks a little foolish right now. He's suspending his campaign because of the nationwide financial crisis. He's trying to call off Friday's debate. Both of these are bad...really bad...moves. First, although the financial crisis is a big deal, it's not something that should stop a campaign. Candidates have campaigned during far worse. Second, calling off the debate (or trying to) makes McCain look unprepared. I get what he's trying to do. But it still makes him look silly.

I don't think McCain is in any way afraid to debate Obama. In fact, McCain is the one who asked Obama to do a series of ten town hall meetings where they both talked about their positions on the issues. Obama refused. I think McCain is trying to win people over by saying that "we shouldn't be going about business as usual during a time like this." This is simply wrong. That's exactly what a president needs to and must do. When we're at war, the president still has to take care of domestic business. When there's a domestic crisis, the president still needs to be aware of what's going abroad. When there's a hurricane in the Gulf, the president still needs to be aware of a potential terror threat in D.C. That's what presidents do. They multi-task. And I, for one, am disappointed that McCain appears unwilling to do that.

Does this mean I think McCain would be a bad president? No. I just think, this week, that Obama looks more prepared. That's the first time I've said that, and I hope I don't have to say it again.

Tina Palin, Sarah Fey....I'm Confused

2008-09-18T05:50:00.000-07:00

Tina Fey's impression of Sarah Palin has received a lot of talk this week, and I'm not really sure why. First, a lot of people said it was unfair to Palin. I totally disagree. Saturday Night Live is an entertainment show. The folks I have criticized for being unfair to Palin are supposed journalists. Tina Fey is not. It's totally different. If she wants to do a parody, she should do it. And, for the record, I thought it was about the only funny thing from SNL this past week.

The other thing I don't get is why this has become such a big "news" story. Politicians are made fun of on SNL all the time. George H.W. Bush was a fixture during the Dana Carvey years. Clinton was made fun of routinely. The 2000 election practically kept SNL on the air. So why is a parody of Palin such a big deal? I don't get it.

Sean Hannity asked Palin if she saw the parody, and the Gov. said she thought it was hilarious. Palin admitted that she had the sound turned down on her television, but she said the visual was "spot-on." Palin went on to say that before people knew who she was, she actually dressed as Tina Fey for Halloween. This is why Palin is so popular. Imagine Bill Clinton saying he used to dress as Phil Hartman, or George W. Bush saying he acted like Will Ferrel. I sure can't.

Ah, the Irony

2008-09-17T16:45:00.000-07:00

Josh Howard got himself in a little bit of trouble on YouTube. While attending a sporting event, and during the National Anthem, he was caught on tape saying: "The Star-Spangled Banner is going on. I don't celebrate this sh!t. I'm black."

Now a lot of people are jumping all over Howard for this comment. And I certainly don't agree with his sentiment. BUT, he has every right to say it. The irony, however, is that Howard is knocking America, a place that gives him the right to say what he said. In America, Howard can say that and endure nothing more than the ridicule of other citizens. In some other countries, such a video would mean a fine, imprisonment, or worse. I mean, seriously, what do you think would happen to Yao Ming if he were caught saying something like that during the Chinese National Anthem?

I have no problem with people speaking their minds. And I don't even have a problem with it when it's anti-American. I just hope they realize that the very place they are disparaging affords them the right to do so.

Awesome!

2008-09-15T12:47:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422341,00.html

Not much to say here. This is just awesome. I can't even train my dog not to jump on people.