Imagine 100 people representing 100 percent of the American population to include 100 red headed Lincoln pennies representing all the money in America. Clearly, Congress legislated 59 Lincoln cents to 01 person, then 31 Lincoln cents to 4 people. Therefore 90 percent of the wealth is legislated to 5 percent namely “We the People.”
    While 10 Lincoln pennies are legislated to 95 Americans, or 10 percent of the wealth legislated to 95 percent of the enslaved Americans. This is a 90 percent to 10 percent ratio. It was a snap for Congress to fix these numbers.
    As your United States Senator, together it will be liberating turning this formula upside down so an American citizen will find equality in earning 10 red Lincoln cents through tithing 01 red Lincoln penny to govern. This one red headed Lincoln cent being the absolute one & only tax paid by an American citizen. Together we’ve found Your money for healthcare, education, career track and paid vacations.

Our nation’s fiscal troubles are really just that simple.

Exciting news!  Infused with hopeful signs of political revolution coming out of Montana, Gordon Allen Pross is running again for office, returning to take on Richard “Doc” Hastings in the Fourth Congressional District of Washington State.  I look forward to the debate which I’m sure is a’coming, which will surely be decisive in determining the Republican nominee for this seat.  I do not believe he was forced to answer his thoughts on … um… that.

But neither were any of Gordon Allen Pross’s opponents in that Senate race in 2006.  Besides which, there is the distinct possibility Gordon Allen Pross has written up a new platform, perhaps an anti-war program regarding when the United States might leave Iraq based on figuring out the precise time two trains heading toward each other from different directions at different speeds.

U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today released a new web ad. The ad, entitled “American Heroes,” tells the story of John McCain’s Episcopal High School teacher and football coach, William B. Ravenel, who had a profound impact on his life. The ad details the honor code John McCain has faithfully lived his life by, taught first by his parents and reinforced by Mr. Ravenal in high school.

What the hell?  The John McCain campaign is telling the story of how a high school teacher inspired him?  Are we also going to be touting history in Scouting?  As for the Honor Code:

ANNCR: Our heroes help tell the story of America .
We know them well.
They’ve been inventors, athletes, rock-stars and presidents
They inspire us to dream.
Make the right choices.
Live up to their example.
But it’s not always the famous who inspire us.
Sometimes the heroes we need are right in front of us.
For John Mccain, one of his heroes was in the front of his high school classroom.
William B. Ravenel was that hero.
He was the English teacher and football coach who inspired students to live the honor code.“I shall not lie
I shall not cheat
I shall not steal
And I shall turn in the student who does.”
The teacher who believed in exoneration and redemption.
When one of John McCain’s classmates violated the rules and admitted to the infraction.Yes.  That’s what we need in this country.  An Honor Code.  The rules and by-ways of a Military Academy enforced into our general civilian life.  If you spot your neighbor smoking some pot, minding his own business mind you, Call the Police now.  Because that’s the Honorable thing to do.  Which is not an endorsement of the stupidity from the opposite extreme, but Come On!  I remember my first grade teacher regualarly reading these morality stories to the class, and the only one I can recall was one whose message was an anti-Tattling message, which from the teachers’ perspective ran round to “We don’t need to know every single piddling little thing.”

There is in the latest issue of The American Prospect features a cover article about the current stripped down Republican campaign theme: “The Candidate for Real Americans”, which strikes me as the basic messaging of the Republican Party — for good times and bad and with good and bad subtexts — since basically its inception, and perhaps even with some odd Whig and “Anti-Freemason” antecedents — when they were saving the Union.  The Democratic Party, you understand, is the Party of a collection of minority groups somewhat alienated from the American experience — Catholics and immigrants and eventually negroes and those nose-thumbing Intellectuals and the defeated South and those danged hyphens– while Theodore Roosevelt is 100 percent pure Americanism.  One thing the party in this argument is that only two Democrats have won more than 51 percent of the vote since 1860 where the Republicans have multiple landslides.  What they have going against them is the argument against that there collection of minorities trends toward a racist attack and frustration at black “Block Voting” and an anti-intellectualism which wraps itself around the Flag.

But then again… the argument for the moment comes down to the vagaries of Barack Obama’s background, his ethnicity (um… he’s black, in case you haven’t noticed), and his lack of flag pins.  Which is a roughly of enforcement where that precious Honor Code goes haywire in determing the “Real American”.

News clip snippet of psuedo-random woman at the pump:

“This is ridiculous.  The price of gas.  It’s just Ridiculous.  Ridiculous.”

The problem with the news coverage about the price of gas can be summed up with that woman.  It is ridiculous, she says.  And beyond that… what?

One of the odder signs of the time in this political season, and this presidential election, and I saw it over the weekend in a mildly positive piece on Obama from the op-ed column from the editor of the National Review — is a favorable description of Barack Obama into the lineage of George McGovern.  Maybe there are past examples of this from previous cycles, but I kind of doubt it.  As Jonah Goldberg puts it in assessing Obama as a slight but definite favorite against John McCain, “Imagine if Goldwater were nominated, and then won the election.”  Which is essentially a sign of his (clearly stated, mind you) political bias and perspective that he sees American electoral politics of “the other side” in terms of how his side worked out, and is a little weary that the nation is currently dropping Republicans out to sea.

But someone else phrased it as “Goldwater is to Reagan as McGovern is to Obama.”  This is a curious calculation, as Goldwater to Reagan is 16 years and McGovern to Obama is 36 years.  I will note two things here: McGovern to Clinton is 16 years, and between 28 and 36 years is the mythical years that lie between a “Political Realignment”.  The 36 year interval, actually, also lies between William Jennings Bryan and Franklin Roosevelt — interesting, no?

“What are you talking about?” you ask.  Well, I’ll just have you think about it for a second.  Bryan is a curious figure in American political history, as he is simultaneously figured as a man whose electoral fortunes lied on a fading American pst and a harbinger of his party’s future which readily became a line of political attack such that Roosevelt Hoover attacked Roosevelt’s then tepid government programs as “Warmed over Bryanism” — or something along those lines.

Arbitrarily, I might add, that there was 36 years lying between Goldwater and the second Bush.  Does this mean anything?  No.

Today you can run over to the bizarre blog “hillaryis44.com” and see the lunatic fringe of partisan Hillary Clinton supporters setting out to prove that Obama is the next McGovern by pledging to either vote for McCain or write in Hillary Clinton’s name on the ballot, I suppose desiring to keep up the negative legacy of McGovern in perpetuity.

Some commentary of note regarding the problem of Clinton — who, as I pointed out, lies at the 16 year interval between McGovern and Obama:

There was perhaps one more reason why the Clinton campaign slid from presumptive inevitability, before the votes were cast, to a pitched battle and, eventually, a loss. It may have been the case that neither those in the press that conferred presumptive frontrunner status nor the Clinton campaign itself took into account that the decided frustration with politics, government and incumbency transferred in some small but nontrivial way onto Clinton herself.

Americans are very, very tired of the current administration, but for many Americans the rise of Bush has also tarnished the Clinton years in a perhaps unexpected way. It demonstrated that the successes of the Clinton presidency were transitory — in some cases, astonishingly transitory. Even during the Clinton years, Democrats aside from Bill Clinton himself did dismally, as a party. The House and Senate were captured not just by Republicans, but by unapologetically hard-right conservatives intent on gutting the very notion of cooperative government. Once Bush came into office as well — an event many Democrats blamed in some part on fatigue with the Clinton presidency — Clinton-era gains were rolled back one after another. Environmental protections, deficit reduction, a vibrant economy, relative peace; there seemed to be nothing of those years that could not be almost immediately dismantled, and which was immediately dismantled, and with vigor.

It is difficult to parse how any of this could be the fault of Bill Clinton, but from a strictly emotional standpoint, it was draining for Democrats to watch. Democrats defended Clinton from a parade of largely manufactured scandals in the nineties, only to see true corruption go unpunished, and even be celebrated, in the Bush years. Democrats watched the media latch onto any petty triviality, no matter how small or how obviously planted, during the Clinton years; in the Bush years, even blatantly illegal acts were covered with barely half the same vigor. It was deeply frustrating; it was absurd; it was maddening.

So from a purely emotional standpoint having little to do with Hillary Clinton, it is not clear that casual Democratic voters — not hyperpartisans, but the day-to-day citizens that make up ninety-nine percent of the party — saw a return to the Clinton years as the unambiguously good thing that it was portrayed as. Yes, we could return to those years — but what would come of it? The same stupid, conservative-fueled scandal journalism? The same modest, largely centrist policies, which would be dashed again the very next presidency?

It is not something that is the fault of Hillary Clinton, but nonetheless it may have dulled the expected enthusiasm for her campaign, and provided a very narrow but much needed opening for someone to run as a “true” outsider, untainted by either the Clinton or Bush years. Barack Obama was a candidate nearly tailor-made for such an opening.

The other sentence of note from this dailykos piece is the one pointing to the remarkable tepidity of both Clinton and Obama in desiring to fade into the background in the Senate, which to me was as good a reason to be weary of both candidates as any other reason.

While I recognize that Obama’s association with Reverend Wright will reverberate still and continue to harm his campaign in one manner or other, there is a sure sign that the fight to change the election to one against Reverend Wright has “Jumped the Shark”.  It is this.

Here you see someone working for Hugh Hewitt at Townhall.com with the intention of posting up Wright’s Trinity church’s old newsletter during the time Obama attended.  Now, under normal circumstances under normal rules of political attacking, you would think that the pages they decide to post would be the more incendiary ones.  But, apparently not, or we have come to a point where just ripping out everything from Reverend Wright’s back stock is incendiary enough.  These newly uncovered newsletters for this “Pastor Watch” feature uncover the shocking requests for a Kidney donation for a sick member of the congregation, and a request for charity to send for the relief of Katrina victims.  Surely these uncovered church documents will sink Obama’s campaign.

I may as well add I found this via here.

There was a brief bit of muttering when Obama finally disassociated himself from the church of the cynicism in citing Harrassment of church members, including invalids.  It struck me as a sort of true enough that was not Obama’s main concern — which was political damage control — but who cares?  It was a fair enough concern and whatever the purpose of calling Media out to quit hovering around that corner of church happenings went back to a fair point indeed.

The headline for The Oregonian’s sports related “Grab everyone’s attention who walks by the boxed containers” front page yesterday was “Celtics Pierce Lakers”, obviously a play on the name of the Celtics star who had a big game, um…  I’m not much of a sports fan or particularly basketball fan, so … is it… Franklin Pierce?

Anyway, I asked someone who doesn’t follow sports”
“See The Oregonian’s front page headline?”
“No.  What did it say?”
“Celtics Pierce Lakers.  Guess who the big star of the game was?”
“Was it… Pierce?”
“Yep!”
“Lucky guess, I suppose.”
“What you need to do is show off to the next basketball fan you see by saying ‘Wow!  Did you see what Pierce did to the Lakers last night?”
“I’ll be sure not to do that.”

Upon his Republican primary election victory shocker, Bob Kelleher’s Daily Show profile (alongside the Smurfish Stan Jones) for his 2002 Green Party bid was dusted off, and bouncing over the Internet was his promise to defend the state’s “Shirley”s.  To be mocked, you understand.

Here I sort of have to defend Kelleher.  “Shirley” is one of those forced personal examples of a struggling individual who Kellerher’s service in government is meant to help allievate.  And “Shirley” then morphs into a demagraphic category — along the lines of “Waitress Mom”.  Of course, “Shirley” is a name which has falledn out of fashion, and as such suggests a little older — which is appropriate considering the man is a little older.

It is fairly comical that the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s website does not have a picture of Kelleher on the individual Montana “race” page, and also note the news release of a “Bushman” running for this race — who, I guess, was weakly the Republican Party’s slated candidate.  Though it is interesting to note which states have a race up and which do not.  Massachusetts, where the Republican – tapped candidate also failed and where Kerry has as big a lock as Baucus, for instance, has the Republican challenger’s picture up.  Kelleher is the latest of the long-line of Republican down ticket debacles this cycle, a trend which hits here in Oregon with how the race in the Fifth Congressional District unravelled for Mike Erickson.

For his part, Bob Kelleher has set up a new website, ridding himself of his old free site, still in its development stage, and is making a go of his Republican identification, as you see with the news that John McCain gives speech supporting UK style Question-and-Answer sessions for U.S. President.

So, how does Bob Kelleher win?

So why did 26,765 Republicans vote for him Tuesday? Kelleher didn’t just squeak out a win. He got almost 10,000 more votes than his closet competitor, Mike Lange, the GOP House majority leader in the 2007 session and a man whose Republican identity is hardly in question.

“I don’t know,” Wilson said Tuesday with a laugh.
But there are many theories.

First, Wilson said, the vote in the GOP Senate primary was split among six candidates, none of whom had raised much money or done much campaigning to get their names out. The one possible exception, Wilson said, was Lange, who gained fame – or at least infamy – at the end of the 2007 Legislature, when he let loose a mouthful of profanities that were widely seen on television and computer screens. Lange also participated in the conciliatory, bipartisan meeting with Democrats that brought an end to the stalemate over the state budget.

Wilson and Jim Lopach, a political-science professor at the University of Montana, say the surprising victory probably boils down to name identification: Kelleher has run a lot. Voters see his name over and over. And when they are faced with a slate of names they don’t know, they gravitate toward the one that sounds familiar.

I don’t know.  Vote for him over g’damned Max Baucus.

From The Rolling Stone:
Even some Republicans are bewildered by the failure of Senate Democrats to stand up to the White House. “When you see a headline like ‘In The Senate, A White House Victory On Eavesdropping,’ something is wrong,” says Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican from Rhode Island who was ousted from the Senate in 2006 by voters who believed a Democratic majority would take on the Bush administration. “We threw out all these incumbents for a reason. But there’s been no discernible change in direction.”

Two problems with saying “even Republicans” and linking that prhase with the name “Lincoln Chafee”.  First of all, Lincoln Chafee is no longer a Republican — he became an Independent sometime after losing that election, which I assume if he wants to be governor of Rhode Island now it is his if he wants it.  Secondly, even when he was a Republican, he was a Republican who was the very definition of the phrase “Exception to the Rule”.  To wit:

When asked whether he felt that his loss may have helped the country by switching control of power in Congress, he replied: “To be honest, yes.”

This is not really a comment on the issues raised, and the narrow issue that “even Republicans” might be dumb-founded by impotence of Democrats may well be right, but going perplunking about for an “Even Republican” or an “Even Democrat” is a matter that tends to throw partisan bias into light — along the lines of picking out the supposed responsible member of the party.  View the “Democrats for Bush” website for 2004 and see the glowing picture of Zell Miller.

But I already made this remark during the 2006 elections.

In the current election cycle, Republicans across the nation are dropping the “Republican” from their name.  Gordon Smith and Norm Coleman, for example.

Partisan-wise, the Democrats m