The Voice of Treason

I managed to catch that global climate change “debate” between Newt and John Kerry today, and I have to admit I’m underwhelmed. After all, it was Newt who recently mentioned the 150th anniversary of the Lincoln-Douglas debates and lamented that what we call debating today falls short.

If I remember correctly, he proposed that our presidential debates should be more like the exchanges Lincoln had with Douglas. Didn’t those two met seven times for three-hour stretches? Gingrich is calling for debates from Labor Day to Election Day – at least nine meetings for candidate dialogues.

My preference, instead, is a debate/discussion format like the ones I see on C-SPAN every weekend. Like the “Same-Sex Marriage Debate” at Pace University between David Blankenhorn (Founder and President, Institute for American Values) and Evan Wolfson (Founder and Executive Director, Freedom to Marry). Debate, discussion, and plenty of good questions from the audience. Now those are interesting to watch.

Maybe I was hoping for something like that today, but to me it was pretty standard fare. All I could think about was how relieved I am that Kerry didn’t win in 2004. The thought of three day long State of the Union addresses! John. Wrap… it… up. But what did get my attention were Kerry’s remarks about the Netherlands and the EU taking this global warming threat seriously. I turned to T to voice my complaint:

“Ha! This is what they’re worried about? Europeans shouldn’t be worried about global warming – they should be worried about — ”

“Global swarming.”

“Precisely!”

I’m reminded of Mark Steyn’s recent article in National Review:

“Since I became National Review’s in-house Demography Bore, I get a gazillion e-mails a day saying: ‘Well, if the death of Europe is really happening, how come no one else is talking about it except you and a few other fringe wackos?’”

Others are talking about it; it’s just that no one seems to be listening. The Pope and the Pope before him expressed concern about Italy’s plummeting fertility rate, but the problem isn’t just with Italian women who have decided to prune the family tree. According to U.N. studies, Central and Eastern Europe are “emptying out.” Germans, Poles, Russians, and Bulgarians are on the endangered species list, and the only population growth foreseen for the Western parts of Europe is from the migration of Asians and Africans.

So, given that a particular group is migrating in great numbers to Europe, nesting and raising their young, and others are converting and joining the new arrivals, it’s unwise to dismiss the changing demographics.

We have our own changing demographics here in the U.S., but our focus these days isn’t on saving the Union – it’s on saving the planet. Fine. Let’s knock ourselves out to save the planet; but for whom are we saving it?

“I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around a campfire but are lousy in politics.”

– Newt Gingrich

There’s just so much bad behavior out there these days. The expansion of Iran’s nuclear program? Well, there is that, but no. The Ministry of Defense giving the thumb’s up to the British sailors and marines profiting from their Persian expedition? The Ministry of Defense immediately revoking that right? British schools dropping the study of the Holocaust and Crusades from their curriculum? Yes, all disturbingly bad behavior, but no. Don Imus making an ass of himself by groveling for forgiveness? Worse behavior than anything he’s ever said on the air, but no, not that either. No, this bad behavior concerns the Clintons.

Polls reveal that a good number of American voters are worried about the prospect of the Clintons returning to the White House because of their track record of bad behavior. Now this is a legitimate concern. However, I really don’t see how their history of bad behavior has damaged them in any way. And that’s the problem with bad behavior. Bad behavior, it seems, only applies to some people. Two people commit the same indiscretion, yet one is disgraced and slinks away, forever ruined, while the other is unscathed. What is this double standard?

When Clinton misbehaved, his poll ratings soared and voters cooed: “He’s just like us!” Adultery worked out for him, yet people are backing away from Rudy Giuliani because he divorced one wife to take up with another. Giuliani has become a target and my fear is that he’s going to respond to the criticism by being “nice.” Nice is not what we need right now.

That was my initial concern with Mike Huckabee. Seems like the nicest guy in the world, but do I want to vote for the nice guy? So when Huckabee criticized Mitt Romney for claiming he’s been a lifelong hunter when it appears he has not, I was shocked.

“It would be like me saying I’ve been a lifelong golfer because I played putt-putt when I was 9 years old and I rode in a golf cart a couple of times.”

Uh… does that actually count as criticism? But I’m starting to suspect that Romney might be suffering from the same problem. Is he, too, too nice? I keep telling myself that he’s adopted a Reagan strategery what with a warm, fuzzy exterior and a steely interior, but he’s going to need to reveal some of that steel before it’s completely obscured by fuzz.

I watched him as he mixed and mingled with voters in New Hampshire this week. I like that Romney is so quick on his feet and can communicate effectively. I like that he can admit when he’s uninformed on a particular subject and isn’t comfortable answering a question or taking a position when he hasn’t taken the time to learn more. I like that he has people skills. I like that he quotes both Reagan and P.J. O’Rourke. I like that he’s attractive. I like that he’s so smooth. But attractive and smooth can work against a candidate.

I’ve been watching a lot of these contenders on the campaign trail and I try to catch C-SPAN when they’re running installments of Road To The White House. It’s interesting to watch how the candidates react to the people who approach them in these quaint shops and coffeehouses across America. A “for instance.” I watch Hillary as she comes within inches of a prospective voter. She moves in on people as if she’s a cuttlefish. Her eyes get enormous, her mouth opens, her teeth flash, and she makes a high-pitched noise as her hands come out to capture her prey. The housewife in Iowa is mesmerized and cannot move. Once Hillary has grasped the voter, her face moves closer, her eyes get even larger, and there’s just no escape.

What I like about Mitt is that, unlike other candidates, he asks voters about themselves and actually listens to their answers. He finds ways, of course, to establish a common thread and insert himself into the dialogue with these little chats, acknowledging that he knows that particular lake, too – it’s lovely, we fished there when I was a kid – but it isn’t all about Mitt. The voter actually gets to talk and the conversation doesn’t end with a “You’re going to remember to vote for me, right?” Smooth.

But what really made me sit up straight was when Mitt approached a couple with two teenage daughters. The mother was young and attractive and the two girls could easily fit in the hottie category. The mother asked Mitt if she could get a picture of him with her girls.

A hottie on his right and a hottie on his left. Each one moved in close and Mitt stretched out his arms behind them and put his hands on their… air space. Yes, I saw his hands go behind them as if he was going to place them on the girls’ backs, but he never made contact. There was air between the palms of his hands and their bodies.

And the mother kept pushing her daughters off on him, following him around the diner: “Can we get just one more picture?” There was no leering, no flirting, no touching. Talk about a hands-off approach.

And I was immediately reminded of Bill Clinton. And then Diane Denish’s comments about Bill Richardson. Two guys who are a little too hands-on. On some level, Mitt must be aware that he’s attractive and charming and the media will be quick to pounce on any hint of impropriety. But I can’t get that image out of my head. He never made physical contact.

Why, fiddle-dee-dee. That Mitt might be a Northerner by birth, but – unlike our former Democrat president – he comes across like a true Southern gentleman.

“I’m obviously disappointed. I think it is, in fact, bad behavior on her part. I wish she hadn’t done it, but she is the speaker of the House, and fortunately I think the various parties involved recognize she doesn’t speak for the United States in those circumstances. She doesn’t represent the administration. The president is the one that conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House.”

– Dick Cheney

And that was the Vice President’s restrained response to Mee-Mee’s Magic Carpet Ride. I know she’s third in line because she keeps reminding everybody, but is it her strategery to send Bush to prison and Cheney to the George Washington University Hospital Cardiovascular Center?

I’m not Jewish but if I were, I’d say it was a bad Passover. I knew the week was going south in a hurry when I woke up one morning in the middle of a Bush press conference and the questions were even snottier than usual. Things like: “Do you even know the price of a gallon of gasoline?”

A flood of apologies and backpedaling, too, this week, along with more threats of banning words. Can’t say “ghetto” without ruffling some feathers. Can’t say “nappy-headed ‘ho’” without fear of losing your job. Can’t say “GWOT.” So, if we’re not fighting a Global War On Terror anymore, what is it we’re fighting and what are we allowed to call it?

Even relatively good news this week was bad. The Governator has a 60% approval rating. How long will it be before he has a “macaca moment” and there’s a recall election in the Golden State?

I’ve put off any commentary on the whole “hostage/can’t say hostage” crisis, but now that the British sailors and marines will be profiting from their adventure, I have to register my disgust. Anyone who thinks this doesn’t make the British look like a bunch of weenies and doesn’t recognize that this is the beginning of the end is just not paying close enough attention. And to think there were goodie bags involved. All I can say about this is that it makes John McCain look pretty damned good. And he never got a freakin’ goodie bag.

I find I’m watching less of cable news and more of Public Access, PBS, and C-SPAN. Caught some fabulous programming on PBS this week: a Frontline report on ALS, a Nova episode on the wonders of the cuttlefish, and a documentary about Milton Friedman. (Say, if PBS could bring back some programming like Free To Choose and Firing Line, I might be tempted to send them a check.)

I like Public Access because I enjoy keeping up on the latest conspiracy theories, but C-SPAN now is giving Free Speech TV a run for its money. When viewers call in I pay attention because I want to avoid the states that are producing some of these callers. Like, what the hell’s going on in Pennsylvania?

I’d noticed this trend long ago but it’s getting worse. I suggest that C-SPAN revamp its graphics to include not just phone lines for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, but provide a separate line for what can only be referred to as the Blatant Anti-Semite. One caller over the weekend went on a rant about our “Jew controlled” country and sputtered something about how we’ve allowed a group to “put its religious symbol on 80% of our food.” I ran to the kitchen to look for the Star of David on my MoonPies. Wait a minute…is he talking about “K” for Kosher? This is what’s keeping this guy up at night? (Note to self: Caller is from Florida. Avoid Florida.)

David Brooks must be noticing the same trend: He wrote an article this week – “A War of Narratives” – that confirms this “Israel is the root of all evil” mentality. Again, I’m reminded of the Rand quote:

“Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation’s troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen.”

(Our local PBS station, by the way, is presenting Memory of the Camps this week. Why this isn’t required viewing in government schools…oh, don’t get me started.)

And speaking of Jews getting screwed over, what’s with Nancy Pelosi and her message from Israel to Syria? What is this – high school? It’s like she had a message from a secret admirer: Guess who likes you and wants to make peace!

And what’s with the scarf? Was that because she was visiting a Muslim nation or was she trying to look like Valerie Plame on the cover of Vanity Fair? I’m sorry, but as a woman I feel I have to say it. Mee-Mee suffers from the same thing that turned me off of Bill Clinton (uh, not that I was ever turned on, mind you): Nancy has to be the bride at every wedding. And what is this need for her to compete with every other female in her midst? Putting the screws to Condi, is she? I know she was giving it to Hillary when she paraded better pants suits in front of the press (have you noticed Hillary has updated her wardrobe and is choosing better suits these days?): Keep an eye on Nancy because she’s going to be wearing more skirts to show off her legs. Something Hillary won’t be doing.

When I created the D-List I put Pelosi, Dean, and Sharpton on it as possible contenders. I was half-joking, and was considering scratching them off the 2008 list, but now – based on their recent behavior – I’m not so sure I’ll remove them. If for some reason Hillary has to drop out of the race (scandal, maybe? or if Bill drops dead, would anyone actually line up to vote for her?), what makes you think Mee-Mee wouldn’t step in as the replacement female candidate? She has foreign policy experience now, right?

And I’m not counting the Reverend Sharpton out, either. He has a new cause: getting Don Imus off the air. Watch out – there might be two Als on the D-List in ’08. And even Howard Dean is still a possibility. Some say no – he’s just been too quiet. Yes, unusually quiet… that’s his strategery!

And speaking of strategery, is this more bad news for Govzilla? The administration is backing our governor’s trip to North Korea. If there’s any hint that George Bush has put his stamp of approval (is that the rubber stamp the Left is always talking about?) on Bill Richardson, the man is through! (Unless, of course, this is merely more strategery… Let’s see if there’s a photo-op at the White House when he gets back.)

“Many argue that global warming is man-made. And it looks like they found the man.”

– Dick Cheney mentioning Al Gore at the annual Gridiron Club dinner

“If Gore really wants to save the planet, he can try this: Turn off the lights. Ditch the heated pool. Ride the subway. And spare us the carbon-trading piety.”

– Charles Krauthammer

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has spoken and our planet’s future, unfortunately, looks grim. Heat-related deaths will rise, they say, because arid regions are becoming hotter and drier, and we are – much sooner than we think – going to spontaneously combust. Just – poof! crackle! pop! – burst into flames from the oppressive heat that’s heading our way.

I kept telling myself this as I pulled weeds in the snow today. As I brushed snowflakes from my face I noticed a lizard was staring at me. And then it all came back in a flash: Reptiles are supposed to be dead. I distinctly remember experts predicting that since the planet was getting colder each year, reptiles were slowly becoming extinct. If it keeps getting colder, they said, reptiles won’t be able to digest their food and they’ll die. There will be no more reptiles on the planet. It will be, they warned, just like what happened to the dinosaurs.

I remember this because, in a panic, I went out and bought iguanas. And anoles. Then chuckwallas and tortoises. Geckoes. Skinks and snakes. Soon I had vivariums in several rooms – mini-Brazils complete with tropical plants, hot rocks plugged into every outlet, and crickets hopping all over the house.

And now I’m living in the high desert, pulling weeds in the snow on a spring day – most of the state experiencing record low temperatures, mind you – and I’m being stared at by a lizard.

“Aren’t you supposed to be dead?”

As it turns out, I have no shortage of lizards in my yard. So, if the experts were wrong back when I was trying to save the world’s reptiles from extinction, why are we so sure they’re right now?

I mentioned this to T. He lit his cigarette, then spoke. “There should be a tax.”

“Oh, there will be, don’t worry. They’re already talking about a global warming tax.”

“And I have to agree. If there are so many experts convinced that human beings are contributing to the problem, then they should get serious and implement a tax. A carbon-based life form tax.”

“A what?”

“We should tax people who are producing more life forms. If you have children, you’re contributing to the problem, aren’t you? You’re killing the planet. These people need to penalized. They should be taxed.”

Sound absurd? No more ridiculous, really, than using grass clippings and wood chips to fuel your car. Even Fidel Castro, every Liberal’s best friend, is warning against biofuel – especially ethanol. (One must question if he’s worried about the soaring price of corn or his friend Hugo’s oil revenues.)

Now before we start bulldozing whole neighborhoods to make room for more cornfields, how ‘bout taking another look at nuclear power? Even Mitt Romney was using the N-word in New Hampshire this week. Whatever the remedy, it’s going to have to be one that takes reality into consideration. It has to be a technical solution, so we can just stop looking to government to provide the fix.

CARE (Citizens’ Alliance For Responsible Energy) is a non-profit organization here in the Land of Enchantment that addresses the issues that arise when we start talking about… well, energy.

I’ve provided a link because there’s quite a bit of information on the site and I think it’s worth a gander. (Check it out. Can’t be any worse than a carbon-based life form tax, right?)

“You tell me mistakes
Are part of being young
But that don’t right
The wrong that’s been done
Oh, oh, oh, oh
Uh-oh
Oh, yes

– Brenda Lee

“The word ‘apology’ is tossed around a lot these days…”

– Homer Simpson

My Italian grandparents are both dead, and so are their children – except for my mother. But she’s in no shape to answer the question that I’ve wanted answered for years: How in hell did her immigrant parents learn English when they came here?

They were adults when they arrived, and they spoke only Italian. There were no bilingual education courses for them, and signs and contracts weren’t printed in any language but English. There was no television. Again, how did they learn the English language?

I’d mentioned the other day that I’d caught the Gingrich speech on C-SPAN, but I’d tuned in late and hadn’t seen the entire program. I’d missed that “ghetto” part. To clarify, his actual comments were:

“The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. … We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto.”

What got Gingrich in trouble was the interpretation of “ghetto.” It’s another one of those words that has a long, rich history, but also has several meanings depending who you are. I understood the context here, as I’m sure most people did, but it’s still a word that gets a response, so the comment became news.

I agree with Newt. Americans, regardless of their ethnic background or heritage, should share a common language. We might all look different and believe different things, but it is imperative that we all be able to communicate effectively with one another. No one is saying we should all limit ourselves to one language. But there are more Chinese citizens who can read and speak English than Americans.

So? There are more Chinese, so those numbers make sense. Yes, but that’s not the point of the factoid. The Chinese are learning English so they, too, can speak “the language of prosperity.” After years of living and working in the San Francisco Bay Area where there is a staggering number of languages spoken, I feel it is simply unrealistic to think that America can provide a linguistic smorgasbord. Here in Nuevo Mexico, I bought a tube of mascara the other day and the packaging was bilingual. In both English and Spanish, my mascara can lengthen and define my lashes without clumping. But how would I know that if I didn’t speak either language? And why is it fair that the package is only in two languages?

I’ve written here many times before about the issues with so many languages in the Bay Area and the feeble attempts to be “fair” to everyone. The only fair solution – the only common sense solution – is to require that everyone be able to communicate using the “common” language. And that language is, and should remain, English.

So I agree with Newt that bilingual education isn’t the answer – especially in government schools that produce students who are illiterate in not one but two languages. Again, I appreciate that Gingrich can address issues like this, so I was appalled when I heard him apologizing for his remarks, especially in Spanish.

My first reaction was negative. I’m tired of everyone apologizing and backpedaling after every controversial statement; wouldn’t it be refreshing for someone to refuse to back down for a change? What would be wrong with standing by your remarks and only being sorry that so many people somehow weren’t able to understand them?

I suppose that’s another way to look at it. Let’s say Gingrich wasn’t actually apologizing; instead, he was offering a helpful clarification of the remarks, possibly making the point that if those who were offended had heard and fully understood the original remarks when they were spoken in English they might have successfully interpreted the speaker’s intent.

But suggesting that people should learn the language of their country – whether it’s America or Myanmar – and assimilate is an idea that shouldn’t require an apology. To permit whole segments of our population to exist in “half-lives” and not fully participate is what’s shameful here.

But we don’t want to talk about that, so the media makes a fuss over a word and takes the focus off the idea. An idea that should be discussed and debated. But this game works. It’s precisely why Mitt Romney will be forced to apologize to the small varmint lobby and Rudy Giuliani will be pressured to ease off the Vito Corleone impressions.

I’ve been posting the R and D Lists here for months (lists of Republicans and Democrats who have said they’re running in ’08, said they’re not running in ’08, are just dropping hints, or are still waiting to be coerced) and I’ve tried to mix it up a little what with providing links to their websites or providing assorted candidate quotes. Last time I listed them I listed them by their ages. (Just trying to separate those Boomers from the “Silent Generation.”)

I can’t figure out if I’m bored with this or just bored with the candidates. Until there’s some major change in the line-up, there really isn’t any point in posting these lists. My beef is that they’re long, since I include both “real” and “possible” candidates – as well as the ones who have come to their senses and dropped out of the race.

I stumbled across the Candidates Page on Politico, and I decided it could be a solution to my problem. It’s a basic list of the most probable candidates, and websites and photos are provided. A nice little feature includes related articles and updates on each candidate.

So, until I commit to adding Politico to my long list o’ links, I’ll provide the Candidates Page here for your perusal.

“I am after the Hispanic vote. But I am also after the Anglo vote, the Native American vote and every other vote that is out there. I’m not running as a Hispanic. I am running as an American governor who is proud to be Hispanic.”

– Bill Richardson, governor of Nuevo Mexico (yes, it is a state)

First let me give credit where credit is due. I was discussing politics with T the other day and when I said “Barama,” he told me I should have a “barama-ter” on the site. Clever lad. And it is tempting to put some sort of graph out there what with the onslaught of polling data each day.

A “for instance.” I heard this week that a poll of Hispanic voters revealed that 60% will support Hildog – er, Hillary – and only 9% will support Bill Richardson. More than twice as many than that will support Barama. The problem?

Too many Hispanics/Latinos don’t seem to be aware that there’s a Hispanic candidate running. I’ve seen Bill out there on the campaign trail and in his opening statements he explains that, despite his last name, he really is Hispanic. Not that that’s important, he says. He’s not running as a Hispanic. He’s just a Hispanic who happens to be running. It’s an awkward moment, but he’s charming and has a way of making his point exceedingly clear. (Again, do not misunderestimate Govzilla.)

It’s obvious that both parties are pandering to this particular block of voters. It’s a fast growing demographic, to be sure, but what really interests me is the dilemma of the Latina vote. This is a whole other issue. The new majority of Hispanic voters is female; their ages range from the mid-twenties to the mid-forties. And they’re torn. Do they vote for a woman or for a Hispanic?

I see it happening right here in Nuevo Mexico. Friends who have been immersed in their culture are now finding their independence but are nonetheless struggling with their new freedom. Young women who have degrees, careers, and have bought their own homes are still uncomfortable about “the break.” When they’re with their Anglo friends, their lives are their own; when they’re with family, the old rules still apply. I know adult women in their twenties and thirties who still feel they must serve the men first and eat after the men have finished. It reminds me that my mother claims she never saw her own mother – an Italian immigrant who died during the Great Depression – eat. But I would have thought women today – especially if they’re paying for and preparing the food – would insist on eating it when it’s warm.

Some parts of a culture are worth hanging onto; others should be let go. It’s clear the Hispanic vote will splinter; Latinas will need to decide what’s most important to them and the winning candidate will probably be the one who’s in on that secret.

“We are on the edge of an extraordinary revolution in the productivity and quality of government in America, and nobody understands it because everybody who’s inside government doesn’t understand the modern world and everybody who’s outside government understands the modern world but is so fed up with government they won’t think about it. So we’ve become two worlds.”

– Newt Gingrich speaking to the National Federation of Republican Women; March 31, 2007

Every time I think about ditching cable TV, I remind myself how much I enjoy C-SPAN (1, 2, and 3) – especially on the weekends or in the middle of the night. I caught part of Newt’s speech and the comparison to Edwards’ “two Americas” is inevitable. But instead of Edwards’ pro-union, populist rant fueled by class envy, Gingrich presents a better, broader hypothesis.

Instead of pitting the “haves” against the “have-nots,” Gingrich zeros in on the real issue: Our government needs to change. With every election we vote in people who promise to change it, improve it, fix it and nothing ever gets done. Government, like the average American, just gets bigger, slower, and dumber.

According to Newt, our government is “a 1965, Lyndon Johnson, fossilized, unionized bureaucracy” that just doesn’t work. And better appointments won’t make it work. Why? Because it’s “a frozen, obsolete model.”

It’s hard to imagine that the average American who wouldn’t be caught dead with an outdated cell phone is perfectly comfortable with a government that’s stuck in the previous century. Gingrich presents the alternative: An economic model of business and technology that, unlike our current government, actually works.

To illustrate, Gingrich pulls an example out of everyday life:

“It is a fact that we have systems in America which can track millions of packages simultaneously in real time and they do it at no extra charge… Over here in the federal government they can’t find between eleven and thirteen millions illegal aliens. So, in this world they can track a package while it’s moving. In (the other) world they can’t find the person while they’re sitting… Now, here’s my proposal. I think we should allocate two hundred million dollars to send a package to every illegal immigrant. UPS and FedEx will find them, we’ll pull it up on our laptop, and we’ll know where they all are, right?”

He has another example. When he asked the women in the audience if anyone had gone to an ATM outside the United States to get cash, many nodded. He explained the transaction. You’re thousands of miles from your bank, but you can put a plastic card in a machine and type in a four digit code; then there’s a series of actions in which numbers and accounts are validated and information is transferred, and - in a matter of seconds - the machine spits out cash.

And then there’s the other model: government. A hotel owner in California - under injunction from state court - can’t fire the illegal aliens he’s hired, even when it’s discovered that one of them is the 43rd person to produce the same Social Security number. Newt’s point is that it’s virtually impossible for an honest employer to validate worker identification when it takes so long for our government bureaucracy to act. We talk about a national identification card, and that’s something Gingrich might consider - “as long as it’s run by VISA, MasterCard, or American Express.”

Case in point. I needed gas the other day so I went to the gas station and inserted my debit card. Instantly there was a message: “Card has expired.” I remembered getting a new card in the mail but I didn’t activate it because I still had plenty of time left on the old one. But now it was April, and the old card expired in March. Quick fix: I went home, found the card, and called a number. In seconds the new card was activated. Meanwhile, T was on the computer booking a flight to Kansas City. His friend was talking to him on the phone while he was typing his personal information; minutes later another friend called to say that he noticed in the e-mail that contained his itinerary that T had misspelled his own last name. (This happens when one types and talks simultaneously.) So T dialed a number, got an airline rep, explained the problem, and by the time he thanked her and said goodbye, he had received an e-mail with the correction. Today, on a roll now, I activated another card and settled a matter with a different card company in only a few minutes. In contrast, months have passed and I’m still sorting out my mother’s address change with the Social Security Administration.

One last Gingrich example. He brings up one of the worst models in government: government schools. The Detroit school district receives plenty of funding yet it graduates just 21% of its freshmen that enter the system. Think about it. Taxpayers give the district plenty of their money, and get what? If this was a department store it would be forced to change or it would close, wouldn’t it?

We demand customer service and something in exchange for our dollars from a local business; why don’t we demand the same from the business of government?

…Is all that makes the world go around. Every time I see Cabaret I get that weird creepy feeling. I used to think it was just Joel Grey, but after I saw the totals that the 2008 candidates had raised in the first quarter, I got that same weird creepy feeling.

Joel Grey’s off the hook. That weird creepy feeling is the knowledge that something here - under the colorful facade - is sordid, perverse, obscene, and wicked. I think it’s time we stop telling little boys and girls that when they grow up they can be president. Instead we should tell them to invest their lunch money and sell off their toys because they need to build a war chest. Kid, if you want to grow up to be president, you’re going to need a billion dollars. For starters.

C.W. (Conventional Wisdom) says that the fix is in. He - or she - who has the most bucks wins. Tom Vilsack figured this out early on, dropped out of the race, and pinned his hopes on a VP nomination. Some are suggesting that others follow his lead and clear the way for the top moneymakers.

On the Democrat side, some are saying that Dodd, Biden, and Kucinich need to face facts and just pack it in. The nomination belongs to Hildog - er, Hillary - because she and Bill can bring in the big bucks. Others are saying that it’s still too soon to assume. Barama could pull in more than Hillary, and Edwards and Richardson shouldn’t be counted out.

On the Republican side, some are saying that Brownback and Huckabee are wasting their time. Huckabee - the anti-Clinton - raised a whopping $500,000. That means he can buy part of a California bungalow in a run-down neighborhood. Why, if he can get Sam to throw in his two mil’, they can buy the whole place and have a little left over to renovate.

It’s discouraging because I really like Mike Huckabee. What’s more discouraging is that it’s becoming clear that we have to let go of that hopefulness - that naivete, perhaps - that makes us think that there’s some little guy with a message who can come from the back of the pack and gain enough support to win the nomination. It’s not the money. It’s the person.

But that’s just not the case. This isn’t some Frank Capra film. It’s Cabaret.

Running:
1. Duncan Hunter
2. John McCain
3. Rudy Giuliani
4. Tommy Thompson
5. Mitt Romney
6. Sam Brownback
7. Tom Tancredo
8. Mike Huckabee
9. Ron Paul
10. Jim Gilmore
11. John Cox

Still crouching in the wings:
12. Newt Gingrich
13. Fred Thompson
14. Chuck Hagel
15. George Pataki

There’s been talk, but which party?:
16. Michael Bloomberg

In the same boat, but not necessarily the Titanic:
17. Jeb Bush
18. Condi Rice

Hit by the iceberg and sunk:
1. George Allen

Won’t run if nominated, won’t serve if elected:
2. Richard B. Cheney

Jumpers:
3. Bill Frist
4. Frank Keating