Best of a Bad Decade

I'm one who firmly believes that decades (or centuries/millennia) begin with numbers ending with 1 and end with numbers ending in 0. To bolster my position, one factual argument: You will never find a reference to the Year 0--either B.C. or A.D.--because there isn't one. Therefore, the first millennium A.D. must've begun with Year One (just saw the movie, by the way--good fun!), and, logically, this one began with 2001.

In terms of the worst events of this decade now ending, then, the 2000 election, or even the Supreme Court decision which finalized it, was clearly disqualified from consideration, totally last century. Bush's inauguration was the inauspicious beginning to this decade, century, and millennium, and that level of dissatisfying event has pretty much maintained. It is much easier to come up with the worst 10 things of the decade (see below)*, so I'm going to focus on the more difficult task of identifying the good.

(Note: Last year I did yield to the prevailing mode and list the 10 best rock albums of 2000-2009 and my 10 favorite movies of that 10-year-period last year. I refer you to those for some detail in those two critical cultural areas, and I'd add that 2010 hasn't changed those judgments much or at all.)

I will go fairly broad with these, by category, adding more commentary as we approach the decade's best.

10.Conor Oberst/Bright Eyes I'd say the decade in popular music was pretty foul, probably the worst since the '50's, but Our Man from Nebraska has been prolific with quality product (a new Bright Eyes release is expected in February, 2011). As with Bob Dylan, one never knows what's next. Honorable mention to Dylan and to U2 for keeping it going, and to Green Day for their brilliant album "American Idiot". Finally, my friend Roger McNamee and his wife Ann McNamee have enriched my experience of this decade with their bands the Flying Other Brothers and Moonalice, and I will of course mention my personal favorite, the uncredited cut from the FOB's "52-Week High" CD, the satiric "Dubya".

9. Broadband/Wi-fi Writing from a home in which I have to go outside to talk on my cellphone, I'm one who thinks American mobile is less than it's cracked up to be, and I don't want more apps, just basic functionality for my phone. I'm not all that impressed with the progress in other digital applications, like iPod, video games, or YouTube, either. The speed and capability of the Internet, and the ease of access, though, are real improvements in American lives.

8. Satellite TV Offsetting the continuing, precipitous decline in the quality of network television is the broadening of broadcast alternatives, headed by what is inertially still called "cable"--examples being HBO, the Comedy Channel, expansion of sports availability, business news, etc. And while satellite doesn't always deliver--bad weather has more effect than it should--it's on the right track. And on the subject of broadcasting, satellite radio is Sirius-ly a positive, too.

7. The Coen Brothers And I say that without even having seen "True Grit" (I'm planning to go today). My Best of Year posting will come out next month, when normal people like me will have had a chance to see the late releases, but the body of work in the past ten years from Joel and Ethan is most impressive, even if not uniformly brilliant. Same comments go for Clint Eastwood, though I think he's running a bit dry on ideas.

Two more areas of note in film: Fantasy production has clearly taken off, probably in a sustainable way, with "Lord of the Rings", "Avatar 3-D", and the continuing pipeline of quality animation being three landmark examples. In the reality-based world, the BBC's "Planet Earth" documentary series provided the most stunning natural photography ever seen--given the trends in natural extinction, probably the best there will ever be. I mistakenly omitted it from my best film list last year.

6. David Mitchell This guy has risen to the top of my heap of writers of book-length fiction, with Cloud Atlas (2004) being the best of the best. In non-fiction, I didn't get to Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel (1997) until 2001, but its impact remains unsurpassed.

In a personal note, got to give a plug to my friend Muhammad Cohen and his first published novel, Hong Kong on Air (2007); a very rewarding read on China's takeover of Hong Kong, TV news production, and ladies' lingerie.

There's some hope that the digital tsunami will not wash away book publishing the way it seems to be doing to music. If I'm not mistaken, the last decade set all-time records for number of new titles. The kindles and such will still provide royalties for writers; while editors are still very much needed, book publishers as gatekeepers may not be so critical.

5. Fareed Zakaria He's my headliner for what I mean to be discussion of "other print" (and I use the latter word loosely), but he's also got a strong TV show (GPS, on CNN)--"strong" may be the wrong word, as he has probably a minuscule audience but exceptional informational value. Mr. Z. has a prodigious range, covering economics and politics everywhere (including the US, which he puts in proper perspective) with depth of knowledge and wisdom. His departure from Newsweek, though, means I'm going to cut down on my periodical time (a subscription to Time seems unlikely), which I hope to make up by reading more books.

The decline in the business model for newspapers and magazines is well-reported (what could be closer to journalists' top of mind?), but I'm not sure if that necessarily means a decline in the level of public information--it's certainly out there, and easier to consume than ever before. In the long run, I can anticipate government payouts to individuals who are willing to keep themselves informed (and be tested on it)--if we're going to subsidize good behavior through tax code, why not subsidize our civic education? If we were to do that, though, we should require individuals to read something other than just echoes of their own opinions. I'd watch Fox News and read the National Review if I got paid for it!

I should also mention the rise and rise of blogs and websites with broad participation. None of this can be bad for literacy, even if it's not apparent. Twitter, not so much; Facebook, the jury's out.

4. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, Bono. The downside of the economic crisis has been the collapse of small-scale charitable contribution; the economy is impoverishing all but the upper crust. This is finding a silver lining in the gathering storm of economic inequality, but the four I've mentioned (and some others, like Hollywood celebs, ex-Presidents) are establishing new standards for transnational, big-money philanthropy. Not just megabucks, but very carefully considered, globalized manna for the suffering masses.

Do they make up for the failures of foreign aid (in the US, ever more closely tied to military objectives) and international organizations like the UN? Not even close. Their efforts might even perpetuate false notions about the benefits of capitalism, but at least they are aimed at decreasing dependency.

3. Third World Rising OK, it's a misnomer: the Second World--who remembers?--was the Communist empire headed by the Soviet Union and Mao's Red China, and it no longer exists. The countries I'm referring to--India, Turkey, Brazil, Chile, and the Commie/capitalist chimera China heading the list from this decade--should now be considered the Second World, along with a few, like South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Israel, who'd already made the grade. The Third World should refer to countries like Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, South Africa, Argentina, UAE, and Russia, ones which are making real progress but unevenly, and the Fourth World are the states that are failing or in danger of doing so.

Anyway, the emergence of this Second World is an unmixed benefit to global society; those in the First World who react with fear to its rise are way out of line. "American exceptionalism" is a valid concept, in the sense that the US has a great gift--or several of them--for the posterity of humanity, but not if it means that we have to focus on our separation from the advancement of everyone else in a zero-sum struggle for superiority. Fortunately, I see no chance that that sort will be able to have their way.

2. The 2008 Election.And while we're at it, throw in the surprise success in the 2006 US Congressional elections which helped the stage for '08.

I'm not sure how much more I need to say about it. Even for those who supported the losing side, the event--and the '09 inauguration of President Obama which followed--had its appeal. The setbacks of 2010, for me, were just the low energy trough following the 2008 wave's peak. I'm not sure whether the waves of 2012 and beyond will carry to new heights or just bear the ship of state a bit further along, but I'm optimistic they won't suck us under. Maybe the ardently-desired demise of the Republicans as a major party is too much to ask, but I see plenty of evidence that time and demography are working against them.

1. Family and Friends. As I've often said, most Americans are either over-employed or under-employed. I switched from the first category to the second in 2003, and the benefit has been in the amount of time I can devote to family and friends--no regrets in that regard. Although I have lost some relatives and some dear friends in this decade, for the most part mine have been healthy and happy. In particular I am grateful that my parents--both in their eighties, now--are surviving and still undiminished, and for the vigor of my wife and children.

Happy New Year--and Happy New Decade!



*Bottom 10: 10. Reality TV and amateur performance shows. 9. CSI TV shows and 24. 8. The 2009 Citizens United decision, and the removal of limits for campaign contributions for certain organizations (but not for individuals?) 7. The 2004 Election (and its predecessor, the 2002 election). 6. Climate Change (and the failure to do anything about it). 5. The Economic Crisis (a/k/a The Great Crater). 4. Natural Disasters: Earthquakes, tsunami, Katrina, and Haiti, Haiti, Haiti. 3. September 11, 2001 and its aftermath. 2. The Iraq Invasion, and Bushite Misrule (2001-2009) generally. 1. Vampire movies and books.

This Duck Has Flown

I congratulate the departing 111th Congress on its successful lame-duck session--and I question why some are reacting to this unusually rapid legislative progress by suggesting that lame-ducks be banned in the future.

The key to breaking the logjam was the agreement between President Obama and the Republican Senate leadership on the tax cut extension. Minority Leader McConnell had a signed document from all 42 of the Republican senators pledging to block all progress until the tax cut bill was resolved. That held up (mostly) in a couple of test votes, and in practical terms it meant there would be nothing done in the lame-duck unless the President gave in on the sacred tax cut extensions for high-income earners (for some period of time). The deal made--which, somewhat suprisingly, stuck unchanged through both houses of Congress--came out better than expected, in terms of some additional provisions (like extension of unemployment benefits, a temporary reduction in FICA payroll taxes, and accelerated deductions for business expansion) which may actually have some positive effect on stimulating the economy.

Once the deal was done, progress came quickly on the extremely important START2 nuclear arms treaty with Russia, the moderately important repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" allowing gays to serve openly in our armed forces, food safety, defense authorization, and others, too.

Unlike some, I don't see this progress as a harbinger of significant future bipartisan cooperation. These were all provisions which had been out there for some time, the political effects were generally advantageous or relatively unimportant, and they were bills the Democrats needed now--before the new Congress came in. When logs hit slower waters--as with the DREAM Act, to allow legal immigration for some undocumented who wanted to contribute to our country, or with a massive spending bill--the votes for cloture in Senate were not there.

If campaigning is poetry, governing prose, then the outlook for the text of the next two years is going to be something even more boring: repetitive language lessons, or something impenetrable like software manuals, legislative language, or the tax code. Speaking of which, it seems everyone is psyched to tackle that Augean stable, and there is no handy stream to route through it: value-added-tax is a political non-starter (if enacted, it would be a career-killer for its supporters, so it won't be), as is a flat tax, and the mortgage deduction--in these times of continuing declining home values--would be touched only at great danger of electrocution. I see nothing happening on that front, possibly some preliminary progress towards a longer-term plan to reduce the budget deficit that could happen after 2012--one which will require a prolonged, uninterrupted recovery which may not prove possible--and a very long, boring series of failed attempts to legislate budget cuts and crippling provisions against the health insurance reforms passed early this year.

Fortunately, I think the US economy--but not necessarily the stock, capital, or commodity markets--will improve slowly and steadily over the next 18 months. Our Airship of State is approaching the lip of the Great Crater, and the gentle slope might allow us to achieve a successful takeoff. As that happens, we need to ease off the throttle a bit and not pull up too sharply on the flaps--trying for too steep a climb is likely to lead to a fatal, inflationary stall. The tipoff for recognition that we are on a sustainable flight path will be an announcement in about 4-6 months that the Fed will end its Quantitative Easing with the current second round.

Mor(e)on the NBA

In a press availability quoted the other day, LeBron James said that he thought the NBA was better in the '80's, when there were 10 teams with two or three All-Stars each, and implied that contraction back toward the 24 teams of that era (from today's 30) would be healthy for the league.

With all due respect to the King, that's a bunch of baloney. The '80's NBA was full of bad teams--many of them (Kings, Clippers, Cavaliers) are the same that are bad now. If there was such parity, why was it Celtics-Lakers every year in the championship?

On the other hand, this season is shaping to be a Golden Era-type season with at least a half-dozen teams of true championship caliber.* There will be fantastic Conference finals, even some great Conference semifinals, not just a good Finals matchup.

Then, it will all be screwed up--and I blame the owners, as usual. They caused the problem with excessively generous contracts to second-tier players; now they want to dump their problem on everyone else: the fans, the players, I'm sure they'll blame the networks, the ball and sneaker manufacturers. The answer to their problems, though, is not a work stoppage and contraction, but better marketing and expansion--of their minds.

There are certainly bad, money-losing franchises, but I can't think of any bad NBA cities--places which don't turn out committed fans for good teams. I'd say move the Clippers and Nets to South America and Europe, respectively--let them play a few "home" games in their old cities (ones that already have successful franchises, so they won't lose so much), and watch the merchandise money flow in as never before. Asia and Australia would make sense, too, in an expansion--not contraction--to 32 teams (which would work better, as the NFL has shown). There's plenty of top-quality talent in the world to fill out that number of teams. Oh, and change the name to the "WBA".

*The obvious ones are Miami, Boston, and (post-blockbuster trade) Orlando in the East, along with the Lakers, the perennially contending Spurs, and the Mavericks (Dirk and Co. looking better than ever this year). One should also include in the mix the rising Chicago Bulls, the Utah Jazz, and Oklahoma City Thunder, and there are a couple of other dark horse challengers (Phoenix, New Orleans, Denver, and the surprising New York Knicks).

Mandate in Jeopardy?

About 20 states have filed suits of various kinds against the requirement for individuals to get health insurance that was approved in the health reform bill passed early this year. Even though the requirement does not come into effect for years, Republican state Attorney Generals are looking to block the requirement at the roots as part of their resistance of the "Federal takeover" of healthcare (a phrase recently, and correctly, named "the Lie of the Year" by PolitiFact, an organization that researches bogus claims in the political arena).

The claim from these state AG's is that the Federal government has never previously required citizens to buy a specific product in the marketplace, so that this would be a new power being taken on without precedent. (Auto insurance, for example, can be required of people who drive autos, but one can walk or take the train.) It seems clear that one or more states will find sympathetic judges, so that this one will eventually go to the Supreme Court. There, I would expect the four hardcore right-wingers to oppose the mandate (or anything else coming out of this Administration), so that the decision will fall, as usual, on the unpredictable whim of Justice Anthony Kennedy. The time to start influencing him on this--if anyone can figure out how to do that (perhaps get to his staffers? a prostitute seducing him?)--is now.

If the mandate falls, the whole edifice of the reform will be shaky: without coverage requirements, the number of people not covered will be reduced very little (we are talking about easy money for the insurance companies for the majority of those people, who are currently healthy and think themselves invulnerable, or are just unwilling to pay the insurers). That will mean those who have pre-existing conditions will be priced out of the market, and that public hospitals will continue to be flooded with emergency room costs for people with no insurance. We'll be back to where we started, only having lost years and any semblance of cost controls.

I wonder if the mandate would be judged more constitutional if there WERE a public option? I also wonder what the backup plan would be--a Constitutional amendment? a relaxation of the (already pretty minimal) fines eventually contemplated for those who refused to buy? Perhaps best would be an expansion of the "entitlement" of Medicare/Medicaid to cover catastrophic health problems for all, and scale back other publicly-subsidized coverage.

Tax Us Not

The 2012 election campaign begins--two years early--with something like a consensus: it never seems to be unpopular to argue for reduced taxes, and the Senate squashed any thought of filibuster on the Obama-McConnell tax deal by a decisive 83-15 margin today.

I foresee that the angry House Democrats will respond by leaving the estate tax compromise out of their version of the legislation, as they have already passed a reinstatement of the tax at a higher level. This will begin a Congressional stare-down between the House Democrats and Senate Republicans: who will want the tax cuts more, enough to accept the other side's version of the estate tax? I don't know which will blink first, but as in any staring contest, it's just a matter of time, because both eventually would have to do it.

President Obama will get to sign a stimulus bill as his Christmas present, one larger than he should've expected. Though most quarters would deny him any credit for successful political intervention in this case, he may yet get some econometric love--for a President, the most valuable kind. If the 2011 economic recovery is strong, even if unemployment remains doggedly high, he could enjoy a surge of support that would make him a strong favorite for re-election.

The only question I have is how to turn off the gas. McConnell and Obama's agreement on two years for the extension of most of the tax reductions means that we will be facing the renewal issue again in 2012. I would argue that, regardless of whether the tax cut stimulus works this time or not, it will be high time to end all of the tax cut extensions then. But will there be any politician bold enough to agree with that? Doubtful.

I see Obama already pivoting--not to the right, but toward the hoop: the next ploy will be to re-work the tax code. If several large deductions are phased out, as the deficit reduction commission's various proposals suggest, tax rates won't need to rise to get more revenue. Mortgage holders and state income tax payers should beware.

Julian's Wiki Leaks Upon Us

...freedom's a joke we're just taking a piss
And the whole world must watch the sad comic display
If you're still free start running away.
Because we're coming for you. --Bright Eyes, "Landlocked Blues"

I couldn't resist the quote--made early in the days of the Iraq invasion--from one of my favorite songs of this millennium. It's not exactly on point when it comes to Julian Assange's Wiki-Leaks dump (OK, not quite a dump, more a pisciata, to use the Italian), but there are a few relevant similarities. One is that "freedom" is here being used to spray junk indiscriminately; another is that our diplomacy's workings are here being displayed for effects both "sad" and "comic".

I have to retract some of my comments in my previous post on Wiki-Leaks, though. I thought the first round of leaked documents had a specific purpose: to reveal the weak spots in our Afghan campaign. I didn't really agree with the objective, but to me it was an expression of free press that recalled the Pentagon Papers. This round is more indiscriminate; it seems to be an abuse. Pvt. Manning's alleged release of the documents (another aspect I had wrong last time) and Assange's posting of them seem to have had no reason other than to show that they could. I agree with Secretary of State Clinton and others who have pointed out that, for the most part, the documents provide a vindication of the efforts of our diplomatic corps, all over the world.

There are plenty of victims, some deserving and some less so. The fact that the head of Yemen's government took credit for strikes on his domestic terrorists when we did them doesn't surprise nor appall, though it might cause some loss of face. The criticisms of Afghan President Karzai don't say much new, either; he may be erratic (zigzagging because of the tightrope he walks), his government corrupt (but still I haven't seen any accusations against him personally), but he remains indispensable for our hopes. The description of Italian P.M. Silvio Berlusconi as "feckless, vain, and ineffective" is right on target, and the disclosure may be (finally!) the straw that breaks his government's back. My reading of the situation there is that the government is capable and has adequate confidence from the public (despite the withdrawal of the neo-Fascist faction headed by Gianfranco Fini), but everyone is sick unto death of seeing and hearing him. Secretary Clinton will survive, but her department has been embarrassed by its inability to keep its secret opinions under wraps and her political fortunes have suffered a deep wound.

Rather than the leaks themselves and any possible purpose in them, what I see resulting are a variety of unintended consequences. The openness and access to the diplomatic cables which a young Army intelligence officer could access, copy, and slip into the hands of an unprincipled rogue were the product of an attempt to allow policy-makers all sorts of information to allow them to "connect the dots", a signal failure of our intelligence in the time leading up to 9/11, but now dots will once again be dissociated. Cyber wars break out as unnamed parties attack Wiki-leaks and sympathetic attackers go after those that deny services to them. American diplomats will find more secure ways to transmit and hide their most sensitive assessments. Assange will once again be forced to confront the peculiarities of sex crime laws in Sweden, and the U.S. Department of Justice will examine centuries-old laws to see if they provide some conceivable justification for indictment and possible extradition.

When I was younger, back in the days of Watergate cover-ups and Vietnam deceptions, I challenged my high school civics teacher: why did a democracy need secrecy? I still believe foreign policy options should be debated openly, and facts need to be presented so the public can weigh upon them (even if those issues rarely if ever rise to the importance on the electorate of the domestic economy). What the Wiki-Leaks provide, though, especially this round's disclosures, is something much less than facts, and generally don't meet our "need to know" test.

Sports Notes

Heisman: Cam--Shaft or Be Shafted?
Cam Newton of Auburn was loaned the Heisman tonight by an overwhelming vote margin. There was no doubt that Cam was the top player in college football this year, leading the number one team and coming up with dozens of key plays, both passing and running the ball. The only question was whether he could keep his eligibility to play through the season (OK, there was some doubt whether Auburn would win all its games, but I'm not even sure that would've been required for him to establish his claim to the trophy). Given the quality of his performance and that his team surmounted every obstacle to finish the regular season undefeated, his landslide victory was assured.

Newton is without doubt an outstanding pro college player and should be successful in the NFL, when he will be beyond the threat of investigation. I have little doubt that his trophy will ultimately suffer the same fate as Reggie Bush's--'05 winner Bush surrendered his claim recently when allegations of major payoffs from when he played in college at USC were substantiated. The only allegations against Newton established during this season were that his father negotiated for payoffs with a college (Mississippi State) that Newton, who was coming out of junior college, didn't end up attending this year. That just means that MSU wasn't the highest bidder--Auburn was-- but there is no evidence yet to support that suspicion.

Heisman voters were faced with a difficult choice: to ignore the impropriety, or deny the award to the clear top player of the season. A significant number refused to name Newton on their ballots, but many more accepted the assumption of innocence for Cam (his father was disinvited from the Heisman ceremony).

Not Completely BCS This Year
The NCAA got lucky: there were exactly two teams from automatic-berth major conferences who went undefeated this year, so their national championship game has some legitimacy (for once). The critical break for their hopes to have a fair 1 vs. 2 matchup was Auburn's come-from-behind 28-27 win over last year's champion Alabama. Auburn and Oregon may not be the best two teams in the country, but they did manage to get through without a loss. A third major-college team went undefeated, the Horned Frogs of Texas Christian University, but their conference and schedule difficulty don't rate so highly, so they could be safely excluded.

The other BCS pairings are less impressive: TCU, which has just announced they will degrade themselves and the Big East conference by bringing their football prowess to that top basketball conference in a couple of years, got a matchup with Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl: a good test for TCU's claims to belong in the big time, but a matchup between Stanford (loser of one game, to Oregon) and Wisconsin would've been more in line with Rose Bowl's traditional Big X-Pacific pairing. Instead, Stanford got bumped to the Orange Bowl and a game with ACC survivor Virginia Tech. The real disaster of the BCS is the Fiesta Bowl with 8-4 Big East "champion" Connecticut vs. Oklahoma. And there's another game, I guess. And about 30 other bowl games, including a lot of teams with 7-5 records.

For a really fine flaming of a BCS conehead's public defense of his system (printed in the USA Today recently), see this blog. I refer you also to my post at the start of the college football season.

In Other Sports News
A couple of weeks ago, everyone couldn't stop talking about how the Miami Heat were disappointing everyone and their young coach was doomed and Lebron and Dwayne couldn't play together because they had the same games. All it took was their seven-game win streak since then to shut all that nonsense up: clearly the Heat have enough to blow away all the mediocre teams and win 60 games or so. There's still a question whether the Heat will be a good playoff team, able to get past the second round, and in particular whether they will be able to deal with the Celtics whenever they end up facing them. Next to that question, the theoretically more important question of whether anyone--in any round--can beat the Lakers seems less significant. The Heat-Celtics question, and the future of the next year's season, are the critical dramas that will have to remain unanswered for the next four or five months while the regular season plays itself out.

I'm not a Formula One fan, but the finish of this season with four car/drivers in the running until the last day, and the win by the youngest, nearly unknown driver (whose name continues to escape me) must rank fairly highly in the history of this perpetual snoozefest.

The Yankees and Red Sox have reacted swiftly and instinctively to their unsuccessful campaigns (success defined by a minimum of reaching the World Series): they've whipped out their checkbooks and started writing zeroes--lots of them. The Dodgers, who are waiting for the courts to figure out who will own them, have not been idle, either. It would seem to be a return to normalcy in baseball after this exciting season with the likes of the Giants, Rays, Reds, and Rangers unaccustomedly showing up in the postseason.

I was pulling for Tiger Woods to win that last tournament of the season so that we could have another theme for golf coverage besides when would he ever win again. Unfortunately, he lost a lead on Sunday (unheard of, in the pre-scandal Woods history) and ended up losing in the first hole of a sudden-death playoff. I do think Tiger will pick one up in the early-season Hawaii segment of the tour so we can move on.

I almost forgot to mention the NFL, and this is the time of year when it gets interesting. Early-season league-wide parity, approaching universal mediocrity, has given way to a settling out of the cream and the sediment, and the identity of most of the playoff teams has emerged. In the NFC, the most riveting question now is whether the Eagles, with reinvigorated convict Michael Vick playing quarterback not just better than anyone else right now, but better than anyone can remember, will make it to the playoffs at all. If not, the defending champion Saints look a good bet to make it back to the Super Bowl. In the AFC, last week's Jets-Patriots game established New England as the favorite for that conference, though they could get knocked off their perch in the playoffs by either the Jets or Baltimore Ravens, if either can get their defense up to the challenge that Tom Brady presents.

Finally, I'm strongly rooting for someone to knock Duke's block off in college basketball, so we can look at the wide variety of talent and tons of competitive teams out there, but we may have to wait--in a weak ACC season--for a long time. Perhaps a much-desired early-round upset in the tournament itself.

In Memoriam: John Lennon

Today is the 30th anniversary of that sad day when John was shot. I was working late at the Troy (NY) Times-Herald sports department when I heard it. My editor was dismissive: I almost quit on the spot. I remember not being surprised, though: everybody knew he was at the Dakota; it just took one jerk.

Anyway, here's a tough one: name your top 10 John Lennon songs, in order. (McCartney, Harrison, Starkey, you'll have your own days.)

To help, this site lists the authorship of all the Beatles' songs (it's Wikipedia, but well researched; I suggest just the ones by Lennon, or Lennon with McCartney); this site has all the songs from his recording career (including collaborations with Clapton, Zappa, Nilsson)--it's unwieldy, but if you want to try it, the ones with an "s" after it are from his solo career.

Here's my list:
10. I Want You (She's So Heavy)
9. #9 Dream (that's the one with "ah-hawakawa-pose-pose"--breaks me up every time)
8. Watching the Wheels
7. I'm Only Sleeping
6. Tomorrow Never Knows
5. Yer Blues
4. Mind Games
3. I Am the Walrus
2. Revolution
1. Instant Karma!

Finally, for those who are really challenged and want some additional help, here are names I somehow managed to exclude. First, qualifying names (primarily J.L.) from the Beatles list:
A Day in the Life, Across the Universe, And Your Bird Can Sing, Come Together, Glass Onion, Happiness Is a Warm Gun, If I Fell, I Feel Fine, In My Life, It's Only Love, Julia, Lucy in the Sky with diamonds, Mean Mr. Mustard, Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man, Revolution 9, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite, Sexy Sadie, Strawberry Fields Forever, Sun King, Tell Me Why, The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill, Ticket to Ride, You Know My Name (Look up my Number), You've Got to Hide Your Love Away.

And from his solo career: Beautiful Boy, Cold Turkey, How Do You Sleep, Imagine, I Don't Want to Be A Soldier, I'm Losing You, Jealous Guy, Just Like Starting Over, Mother, Oh Yoko!, Power to the People, Give Peace a Chance, Give Me Some Truth, Going Down on Love (?), Happy Xmas (War is Over), Woman, Working Class Hero, Whatever Gets You Thru the Night, and Woman is the Nigger of the World (with Yoko).

That wasn't so easy, now, was it?

If I Were King

President Obama met with the Congressional leaders of both parties today to discuss what could be done in the near-term legislatively. I wasn't a fly on the wall, or anywhere close to it, but here's the speech I would've given if I were he.

Good morning Speaker Pelosi, Speaker-elect Boehner, Majority Leader Byrd, Minority Leader McConnell, and all the rest of you in the current and future Congressional leadership. I welcome you to the White House and thank you all for coming here, and I will be eager to hear your thoughts on getting the economy going and taking the right steps to make our nation more secure.

I would encourage you to take up the debate of tax policy in this closing session of the current Congress, just as you are planning to do. I know that the Senate Republicans have the ability to block an extension of the middle-class tax cut that I want, but I have a similar capability to block an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy. So, let's end this Mexican standoff and move forward.

I will promise to sign a tax cut extension for the rich folks under the following conditions:
1) it must come to my desk before December 15; and
2) it must be separate from the tax cut extension bill for the middle class, which must be approved before the end of the session, and about which my requirements are more specific.
I know it is not my place to write the legislation, but I would recommend that the best elements to retain from the tax cuts are the lower rate on capital gains, the savings of which are more likely to be re-invested in our economy, and on dividends, which will help the stock market. We all know that stock market success by itself will not bring down the level of the unemployed, but it is important in bringing back consumer confidence, which, combined with other favorable developments will bring the necessary resurgence in investment.

I have a further suggestion: since many of you seem to believe that these lower taxes for the wealthy somhow promote jobs, let's put our money where our mouths are, and make the tax cuts for the wealthiest income groups dependent on the growth of jobs: if the net job growth over the next year meets targets, the tax cuts would be extended automatically; if they fail to produce the jobs, they would end. Our Labor Department will be glad to work with you to set those job-growth targets at achievable levels if the cuts are working.

As for extending the tax cuts for the first $250,000 of taxable income, I am less flexible, but I am cognizant of the need to reduce budget deficits. I ask you to pass a bill which permanently resolves the problem of downward-creeping Alternative Minimum Tax levels, and which extends the tax cuts for two years. This bill should contain provisions for the tax cuts to be renewed under reconciliation procedures with a simple majority of both Houses.

If you pass this bill, I will sign the bill for the tax cut extension for the rich folks that you come up with; if you don't I will use my power of the pocket veto to kill that extension. I would encourage my Democratic colleagues to work with the Speaker-elect and Majority Leader to come up with a sensible compromise.

But let me advise you: I will have no hesitation in vetoing any and all retroactive tax cut extensions in the next Congress, or any passed now that do not meet the tests I have provided you. It is a great honor to serve the American people in this position, but, having done it for about two years now, I can tell you that it is not much fun most of the time--I will not miss it.

The time while the House puts together the bills for tax policy would be a great opportunity for the Senate to debate, and then to ratify, the START2 treaty with Russia. When you review the committee proceedings and what we have done since then, you will see that we have answered with clear progress all the objections which were raised, whether for cost of modernizing our nuclear weapons or arranging for the best possible, most economical missile defense program--one that has the full support of our allies and even the agreement of Russia. The consequences of failing to ratify the treaty would be grave, in so many areas, and failure to ratify in this session would be a major setback for our security. I trust you to do the right thing.

Finally, I ask all members to review the report coming out today on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. You will see that a change in this policy, overdue in the minds of the public, will have only positive effects on our military readiness. By all means, bring in the Defense Secretary, the Joint Chiefs, but take the action that they are recommending. This is one more area in which we owe the American people prompt action, working together.

I trust that this is only the first of many meetings to work together for our country's benefit. Thank you again.

Thoughts on Thanksgiving

One thing that we're kind of asked to do for this holiday is to think about all the gifts we have and be grateful for them.

My own thoughts often run along the lines of, "Why me? Why here? Why now?" Not in the desperate, hair-pulling sense, but more from the point of view of seeking a larger meaning of my life in my circumstances and opportunities.

The "now" part may be the most explainable: I haven't done the math, but I have to figure that, at least in the 6,000 or so years of recorded history, a good portion of all the people who've lived are alive today (I'm guessing about 10-20% of them). So, whether you believe that souls are reborn or just go around once, it's not that strange to be around now (and who knows about the future?) Still, I feel that, compared to most of those folks in most of those times, I'm very lucky to be alive at this time when so much seems to be at stake through how we conduct our lives (even if we haven't done all that well, so far, in terms of providing for the future of humanity).

Then there's the "here" part: Given that now's our time, certainly I'm lucky (about 5% chance) to be part of this American society, blessed as it is by our resources, our favorable climate, our abundance, our liberty. From what I have seen in my travels, I can appreciate these gifts: it's not so much that our lives' quality is so much better, but our opportunities are greater.

The "me" part is the trickiest. I'm one that believes that, while I have accomplished some things through perseverance and occasional insight, I don't really deserve all that much credit. I wasn't born wealthy or anything like it, but my advantages have been many, and I didn't do all that much more than--for the most part--utilize them, rather than waste them.

I'm also not one of those who has always known what I was born to do; even now, I'm not sure I will ever know that (until, of course, that day may come when I know that whatever I've done was all that I was ever going to do). I figure the best I can do is learn what I can, be open to the possibilities, try and hold on to a little wisdom and judgement, and do the right thing when those critical occasions (or maybe, some particular occasion) may come before me. The role model is someone like Gerald Ford (!), who found himself President though he had never sought national elective office, and did the best he could (and it wasn't that bad, really) when he got there.

Of course, there are those substantial things like the family I grew up with, the family I have now, the friends I've made, my loves, my jobs, my homes, my entertainments. All of which have been excellent, or even better than that.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, although there is much I don't understand, I know enough to see that I have much for which to be grateful.

It Rears Its Ugly Head Again

North Korea has proved this week yet another time that it is the worst, and most dangerous, actor on the international stage. It escalated a tense situation by using its artillery to fire on South Korean territory. South Korea fired back, and we can only hope that will conclude the actual use of armaments, instead of just aggressive posturing (the US and S. Korea were conducting joint maneuvers prior to the gunplay, while the US is maneuvering an aircraft carrier into the area to show its support for South Korea, while North Korea's threats and provocations are just their normal bodily function).

North Korea's dictatorship cares not a whit for its people, but one has to believe its rulers will not seek open, unlimited conflict. While they can cause great damage to South Korea, the response would be complete destruction of their own country, no doubt with a priority placed on wiping out all government and military facilities. It would bring some pleasure to permanently eliminate this ugly blot on the governance of humanity, and I suspect the US has the war plan mapped out in full detail, but the cost to our South Korean allies would be too great, not to mention that it could cause a greater escalation involving North Korea's solitary backer, China.

I don't really believe a regime of sanctions would have much deterrent effect, though denial of the aid this beggar regime usually seeks could be inconvenient (especially to China, who'd have to make up the difference), and a proposal to impose them in the U.N. would be vetoed by China, anyway. Like a dog closed in a room alone that tears up the furniture, North Korea's misbehavior is a plea for attention.

We cannot appease the North Koreans during this period of madness, but we should assure them that if they will only quit acting up we will be willing to meet with them. Of course, they are completely untrustworthy when it comes to their agreements, but if we can get sufficient access for verification, we can once again resume efforts to reduce the harm they cause to the region through their threats and ambitions to produce nuclear weapons.

In a month or so, President Obama could perhaps nominate our state's current governor Bill Richardson to be the point man of our negotiating team. He is one American they are willing to trust--he has a fairly long history of dealing with them, going back to his days as US Ambassador to the U.N.--and Richardson is leaving his job at the end of the year. He's about as popular as a North Korean dictator around these parts right now, but he's an experienced negotiator, discreet, and an ally of President Obama that he could trust.

Politics and National Security

I am usually amused when politicians of all stripes react in horror to the notion--in the words of the "Casablanca" police chief, they are "shocked, shocked"--that someone may be "playing politics" with matters of foreign affairs, even of national security. As I am with most hypocrisy. Military policy, like diplomatic policy or trade policy, is subject to the winds of political fortune, and it is naive or infantile to pretend otherwise. Similarly, the idea that private citizens may never carry their disputes with official policy in these matters beyond our borders is self-deceiving or excessively innocent.

The idea of these pretenders is that there is something which may objectively be called "the national interest", and that it is the role of the Henry Kissingers and think-tankers of Washington to determine what that is; after which we should all salute it and fall in line. The danger, they will point out, is that by making these matters partisan, they will be held hostage to parochial interests and, inevitably, gridlock. As we will see later, that is exactly what Republican Congressional leaders are trying to do with a couple of current national security issues.

The answer to politicization of such topics is to point out such things as the results--both the intended and likely unintended ones--of proposed policies; to identify the interests that stand to gain, or lose, from them; and to consider such larger issues as how policies will be viewed by the world and how they may affect or modify our country's mission in the world. These are political arguments, though ones that are honestly presented, and I would not pretend otherwise.

Case Study: Iraq
If we look at the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 1993 and events leading up to that, there are three separate events in which I would point to very clear politicization of military policy by the Bush Administration.

The first is the timing of the authorization votes in Congress which President Bush ultimately used to demonstrate legal justification for the invasion: October, 2002. Why did Bush & Co. wait a year or more after 9/11 to request it, if it follows logically? The answer is not that they are slow thinkers, or that something additional happened in the meantime which changed our policy's direction, or even that it took that long to rally the political support for the vote, which was ultimately, arguably "bipartisan" (in that many in Congress from both parties supported it). The vote was taken at that time to put the maximum pressure on Democratic Senators and Congressmen (and on any Republicans who may have been wavering) to support the resolution. The argument was clear: It was their patriotic duty to give the President what he needed, and the Sword of Democracy, in the form of likely revenge from the bamboozled public, dangled over them should they dare to challenge the official wisdom.

The second was the timing of the invasion itself; we heard lots of stuff at the time about how it was so important to invade at that exact time because of weather conditions (which turned out to be awful for the actual invasion), and Bush himself asked the question, "How long were we to wait on the borders once the invasion force was assembled? For what?" This argument ignores the fact that there were supposed to be inspections of possible WMD sites that were interrupted because of the imminent attack, or even the longshot possibility that those inspections might have made the invasion (seem) unnecessary, something that was unthinkable to consider once the invasion force was in place. The real reason for the timing had been calculated long in advance: April 2003 was the optimum timing, more or less, to get the invasion and occupation over with and gain the maximum political advantage from Iraq's new democracy for the re-election in 2004. That it didn't turn out that way this time, that Bush had to deal with the blowback in 2004 (but still somehow got elected) does not change that fact.

The third was the infamous "outing" of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson occurring soon after the invasion, and the coverup which followed that disclosure. Because her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had the temerity to call the allegation that Saddam had sought uranium in Niger a lie (which he knew because he had been asked to investigate it), certain key people in the Bush Administration decided to take steps to discredit Wilson, including telling columnist Bob Novak and other journalists that Wilson's investigation had been pushed by his CIA agent wife. Because she was a covert agent, and it is a crime to disclose intentionally the identity of a covert agent, it then became critical to protect the administration from the danger that this political conspiracy gone awry could pose--it could have been the Watergate-type event which brought down the administration, or brought its political defeat in the 2004 election. (I'm looking forward to seeing the dramatization of this history in the new movie, "Fair Game", which I will make a point to review when it comes to our town.) Unfortunately, some cover-ups succeed, and though V.P. Cheney's assistant Scooter Libby took the fall for the conspirators, the lid stayed on until 2006, when it just became more rubble in the massive collapse of W's second-term administration.

The point of reviewing these is just to show the degree to which political calculations routinely enter into these decisions; their actions are contemptible because of the underhanded (or possibly, in the case of the Deputy Secretary of State Armitage's disclosure of Plame Wilson's covert identity, clumsy and inadvertent) tactics, and because of the dishonesty before the public and the world.

The Matters at Hand
The announcement by Republican Senator Jon Kyl--the person designated to be the point man for his party in the consideration of the START2 nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia signed by President Obama and under consideration for ratification--that he does not believe there is time to address his concerns in the lame-duck session is pure politics, that is certain. The substantive concerns raised by the Republicans in committee hearings have been addressed directly by the Administration:

First, the concern raised that our nuclear weapon capabilities needed to be revamped has been answered clearly by the Administration's generous commitments of funding for that purpose;
second, there was a concern that Russia's distaste for American missile defense programs had not been satisfied in the treaty's provision--that has now been fully addressed by the agreement of the NATO nations, with Russia's acceptance, to deploy revised missile defense systems for Europe (and for Israel). *

Kyl's reluctance to deal with the issue now does not reflect new reservations about the treaty, but just a desire to stall for time until the new Congress comes in, one in which the Republicans will be in a better position to demand additional concessions from the Administration to pass the treaty. Worse, they may seek then to hold it up indefinitely in order to discredit the Administration before the rest of the world and the American voters. The political calculation would be that, while Russia is no longer the Cold War-era Communist threat to our way of life, it's still safe to treat them as our mortal enemy.

This post is already too long, but the key points about the treaty are these: no one claims that the mutual reduction in arms would endanger our security, the treaty is necessary to resume verification inspections in Russia (critical for the effort to ensure the security of nuclear weapons materials from the danger of falling into the hands of terrorist organizations), Russia's continued cooperation in our efforts to restrain Iran and North Korea may depend on this important confidence-building treaty, and we are required by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to take steps to reduce our nuclear arsenals. All these considerations seem to be secondary to the Senate Republican leadership's political calculations (and poorly calculated, to boot).

Then there is the question of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" from our military policy, which has been proposed for inclusion in the military authorization bill under consideration. As proposed, the change would be implemented by the military services according to their leaders' judgment of the best manner to put it in place. Republican Senators seem intent on digging in the heels to block the provision, even though it is supported by Secretary of Defense Gates (a Republican) and the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff.

As with the START treaty and Russia, the Republicans seem to have made the political calculation that they can gain by blocking this change: they will discredit the Administration and its authority over the military, they can appeal to the homophobic who would not want to admit there may be gay people in our armed forces, and they calculate that they will only offend gay people, who would have to be nearly insane to support the Republicans anyway (though some do).

It's just politics as usual, but it's bad politics. The only remedy is good politics.


*Missile defense still suffers from one fundamental problem--it doesn't work--but at least Obama has changed the program to a less costly form, one that is not designed to be a thumb in the eye to Russia nor an embarrassment to Turkey.

Impious Thoughts

This seems to be the time when those supposed allies and fellow travelers of the Obama Administration get to take free shots at the President. It probably helps that Rahm Emmanuel has departed (less fear in attacking) and that Obama is out of the country. Those who are doing so are falling into two groups: those who need to be cynical about everything for professional reasons, and those who have been secretly harboring bitterness about one issue or another while trying to support the broader Democratic effort during the election campaign.

Now that it's over, and the Democrats have well and truly been shellacked, to these people it seems perfectly natural to come out with virulent attacks about everything except Obama's basketball skills (here, there is truly no reference point, as a basketball-playing President seems without precedent, and it seems they--those skills--are pretty impeccable, anyway). To give the names, I want to villify in particular Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, and Jim Van de Hei. (I would normally provide links, but I really don't recommend that you read the pieces.)

Dowd's fickleness is no surprise; the latest foul ploy is a column written from the perspective of her Republican brother Kevin. I don't believe her and think it's just a cheap trick allowing her to give vent to her most wicked, disloyal thoughts; even if she did have such a brother, why would we want to read his opinions, paraphrased? Rich's column was a real disappointment; he seems to feel that Obama's supporters who went down in the midterm bloodbath were sacrificed for too little; what I'd say is that Rich sees his beliefs challenged by the electoral defeat and blames the leadership. Van de Hei, in Politico, allows a variety of unnamed Democratic pols to vent about a variety of things, some incredibly petty.

The common thread is that Obama is arrogant, out of touch, and isolated. They question whether he can get his mojo back. Rich, Dowd, and the party's carping hectorate seem to want a different President, the one they imagined that they had.

Another common thread is the lack of prescription: Very little is offered in the way of constructive suggestions. Either they have none, or they're waiting for a better time, such as...when?

I am not bound by such restrictions; I can accept the reality of the drubbing without losing faith that we have the best leader, who has pursued wise policies, and that he can lead us to better times. I will modestly suggest some areas in which President Obama can provide some thoughtful leadership, just as he has done in the past, but today I will restrict myself to a few comments on process, and on immediate issues (ones that need to be tackled during the lame-duck Congress).

Popping the Bubble

President Obama has been very frank that he is frustrated by the difficulty of getting exposure to a sufficiently wide variety of "folks" (you don't have to quit using that word, Barack!) The White House is in a permanent state of surface tension, one that is shored up by security needs, and those admitted within are likely to fit into one of three categories: the overawed, friends protecting him, or subordinates protecting themselves.

Two very simple ideas should help soften the shell, if not to collapse it completely. The first is just to have more Cabinet meetings and get the group to participate in a wide range of debates. The Cabinet was well-chosen; it is full of people who are experienced, intelligent, and accomplished, many of them being very savvy politicians, and there is a wide range of political viewpoints (including a significant number of Republicans). President Obama must use them wisely. The rules must be established with all Cabinet members: no telling tales on others, no vital secrets leaked, no disparagement of colleagues; and failure to observe these rules would be grounds for exclusion from future sessions, if not dismissal. Surely they all want to be playing, so they should follow the rules.

The second is to reach out from the bubble to pull us in: to have a systematic outreach effort to identify people who could be brought in and actually encouraged to interact with the President, either one-on-one or in small groups (and backed up by private chat access). President Obama needs to make time--maybe two or three dinners and a couple more hours a week--to sit down with these people and engage them in a relaxed, but substantive, way.

The campaign site has long invited people to contribute and essentially participate in lotteries to meet with the President. This is much too random. There is no doubt that the White House must receive thousands of letters a week; the data base of contributors can be scanned on the Internet to identify people who could be potential candidates; local newspapers have people writing in to express their thoughts. Find the ones who have something constructive to say (even if they're not partisan Democrats), screen them to find ones willing and able to help, and bring them in on the sly.

The 111th Congress is Only Lame, Not Dead
Here's a walking-stick of support.
There are three areas we should hope that the lame-duck session of Congress should address directly, and others that departing Congresspeople should be invited to opine upon freely before they leave.

The first, of course, is that of the expiring Bush tax cuts. Republicans seem to think their interests are best served by taking outrageous negotiating positions on this one; it is true that they can bring up the issue next year with extensions of cuts made retroactive to the beginning of 2011. Obama should take a stance that is extremely accommodating of the Republican point of view with regard to tax cut extension as a short-term program, but that is firm that he will not hesitate to veto tax cuts in 2011 that do not suit him, either politically or economically. Republican insistence on tax cuts for the rich is an issue that will end up burning them badly, if he forces the issue.

My view is that none of the tax rate cuts should be extended more than three years, even for the lower incomes; that, given the weakness of the recovery, dividends and capital gains reductions are the best part of the cuts to extend, if some must be extended indefinitely; that the alternative minimum tax bands have to be more definitively walled off from the middle class, so they won't need to be fixed again every year or two; and that a new band should be established for true high-end incomes over, say, $1 million.

Here are two out-of-the-box ideas to help make it work: 1) Obama and the Democratic leadership should agree that, if an agreement can be reached on high-end tax rate cuts and their duration, that would be passed first as a confidence builder. Once they've gotten theirs, with Democratic support, the tax cuts for everyone else would be approved--and to guard against the possibility the Republicans renege, President Obama can use the pocket veto.
2) A novel approach that violates economic theory but could work would be to make the tax cuts dependent on the expansion of jobs in 2011; if the job expansion materializes (as confirmed by some official measures), the cuts would continue(!) indefinitely, and if they prove not to work, they would expire. Part of the rationale for this counterintuitive approach is that if jobs increase, then there will be more revenue, allowing us to meet long-term budget targets while continuing something that's working. The targets might be modest, like closing 10% of the jobs gap toward a desired level like the traditional non-inflationary 5% gap from full employment.

The second big issue that must be tackled is the proposed START2 treaty with Russia. The proposal has been thoroughly vetted in committee and by defense experts, and it's been watered down by requiring (unnecessary) development of a new batch of nuclear weapons, It's time to fish, not to cut bait. It's make or break time, in terms of relations with Russia, and breaking is exactly what we should not do. If we are serious about our participation in the international nonproliferation treaty, we are basically required to do something, and this is such a small thing, we must do it. To give just one example of the huge negative consequences a failure would bring, not approving it would virtually guarantee an end to Russian cooperation in keeping Iran from making and testing a nuclear weapon. Plenty of Republican senators will support the treaty if given a chance; a filibuster would not work. John Bolton has now come out against "hasty action", and he's my pole star: I navigate directly away from whatever he says.

Last of the big unfinished business that must be done now is bringing to a conclusion the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" saga. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has come out in favor of ending the policy--and the law--and he has clear ideas on how to implement the change. Very simply, Gates should request an audience with the current Congress' Republican caucus, he should tell them how it should be done, and they should get behind it. Otherwise, the Administration should announce an orderly end to its enforcement of the policy; the Defense Department has already signaled this direction by requiring any penalty discharges be approved at the highest level, and the policy can no doubt be redefined by fuzzing up the definition of coming out gay until it becomes acts of insubordination, and thus something that directly undermines unit discipline.

Last outreach suggestion for today: The outgoing Congresspeople are among the best possible ones to get advice--on the record--about two long-term problems: a sensible plan for reining in the deficits, with or without full employment; and the mortgage deduction phase-out being proposed by the deficit reduction commission; and a short-term issue: a nonpartisan proposal for revising the rules of the Senate (specifically the filibuster-related provisions). Any proposal would have to be made at the outset of the Senate session in January, but the concept of a proposal that favors neither the majority nor the minority might seem fair to people in both parties now.

A Kinder, Gentler Bushite
Are They Human? Or Are They Dancing?--The Killers
I have been impressed by the discipline former President George W. Bush has shown since emerging from retirement to launch his new book. Showing great respect for his former office, as well as to the job's difficulty and complexity, Dubya is refusing to make any criticism of President Obama and his policies, and he's sticking to it. I'm not ready to read the book, much less to recommend it, but I'm willing to praise this, and I'll make this further offer: I will retire my use of the word "Bushite" to refer to "establishment Republicans" (that phrase for it that seems to have settled in, despite my best efforts). The only conditions on that promise are that fmrPOTUS W continue to observe that restraint, that his brother Jeb does not run for President, and I allow myself its use as a putdown when someone impolitely calls me a "libturd". What is that supposed to be a wordplay on, anyway? (Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question.)


I missed David Brooks' editorial "The Crossroads Nation" when it first came out Wednesday. Naturally, when I ran across it, I thought it was about Turkey, and opened it to find a fairly modest proposal that, if we play it right, this lonely outpost America could have a global future as the location of a chain of local hives of cultural and economic activity in a hypothetical 2050. To me, he was making the entirely reasonable suggestion that we must think about such things--and now--and just throwing out his idea, for what it's worth, to start the debate.

In the letters, Brooks was flamed deeply, widely and persistently. I read several pages of the comments--starting from the Most Recommended--and never saw one that supported even the topic of the discussion. The comments were mostly about how stupid Americans were, in so many ways as evidenced by the recent elections, and very little about how that related, or didn't relate, to Brooks' idea. OK, it was bad timing, but I'm going to persist in trying to stay on the subject when I post on those things, even if I agree with some of the sentiments.

I will try to bring future suggestions under the tag (Label) of "impious thoughts".

Crawling through the Wreckage

The Voters in Their Wisdom...blah, blah, blah.

Unlike the politicians, pundits, or others who need the goodwill of the public for their living, I have no compunction about debunking that introductory phrase which will lead almost every speech.

To say that the government cannot continue to run trillion-dollar deficits is the wisdom of the obvious. Those who blame out-of-control discretionary Federal spending programs like the stimulus program for the deficit have it factually wrong, though; most of the deficit comes from the impact of decreased revenue--due to reduced income caused by the Great Crater and the continuing impact of tax reductions--and from the cost of our military and our unfunded wars in Asia (OK, maybe one could call those discretionary, but even that would be an indictment of their continuation, as wars should be compelled of us, not our choices).

In response to the folly of our voters, the lame-duck Congress seems likely to perpetuate the folly of the Bushite tax cuts. It is also factually incorrect to say that our citizens and our businesses are overtaxed, as compared to the other developed economies, most of which have recovered much more vigorously to the Great Crater than we have. Neither does the business community's excuse of "uncertainty" as a reason for holding off (on expansion decisions which would add jobs) hold any water: all business expansion is done in the context of uncertainty, except that which is spurred by monopolistic control--if that's what businesses are expecting as a condition, we are doomed either to fascism or perpetually high unemployment.

I would say that it is instead the certainty which holds them back: certainty of slack aggregate demand, continuing de-leveraging of households' financials, certain continued excesses of available labor which allow them to offer less for more productivity from workers, near-certain continued improvements in productivity largely driven by technology improvement. Plus, there is the negative effect of what everyone sees as not certain, but likely: increases in benefit costs per employee, increases in costs of inputs for those utilizing any sort of raw materials, rising inflation.

Voters' priorities wisely center around the poor pace of recovery and high degree of underemployment. I don't see any sign, though, that their choices are going to promote the chances of a faster, more durable recovery. What is the job-producing agenda of the Republicans? Repeal health care reform; remove the financial oversight and allow the conditions that produced the economic collapse to be restored; maintain indefinitely the deficit-producing tax reductions which were in effect when the economy collapsed? Buh?

Mostly, though, I don't buy the wisdom of voters' choice--and it's mostly two groups of "voters", the independents and those who for whatever reason didn't show up to vote this time--to give the Republicans "a second chance" (and I do feel it's accurate for them to interpret their mandate that way). The Bushites permanently forfeited their party's claim to any demonstrated ability to competently manage our government; giving them another chance was an excessive act of generosity, even if it was not done in that spirit.

That Being Said...
It is impossible to minimize the damage that the voters, "in their wisdom", have done to the great possibilities of the Obama Administration and to their own interests. The damage is political, but the political damage will likely impair our nation's ability to prosper and make intelligent decisions, forward-looking actions, for years to come. As Jon King said, the voters "put the car in R", and thus we go backwards.

Independent voters, again "in their wisdom", have expressed their preference, both explicitly in poll question responses and implicitly through their choices, for divided control of government. To some extent, this is understandable and practical when they are always faced with the choice of Big Party A candidate and Big Party B's nominee. What I find is lacking is any effort to initiate something which allows them to change this system. The Tea Party--even to the partial extent that it was a genuine insurgent movement from the grassroots--may claim to have sympathizers among Democrats and independents, but in its political expression it has shown itself to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican party (at least for now, and I seriously doubt the GOP will ever let them run free). In terms of big money clustered around party organizations and its fellow travelers, nothing seems to be on the horizon, and don't look for that change to come from either the Democratic or Republican public servants.

To get specific about the damage, the setbacks in the House were much worse than they could or should've been, but the damage was in losing control of the body, dropping below 218 representatives--beyond a few seats' cushion, the rest was excess pounding that doesn't have too much significance: just a bigger hill to climb to recover it. Essentially, the Democrats lost all the ground they gained in 2006 and 2008, mostly in districts in red-leaning states or regions of states. There was a national shift of about 5% in support from Democrat to Republican, about the same amount that shifted the other way from 2004 to 2008. The strategy of finding moderate Democrats who could triangulate a tightrope that veered from the anchoring of the national party strategies in somewhat hostile territory, filling the vacuum caused by Bushite failures, has not proved to be a durable success. (How can one triangulate a tightrope?) The House can be won back in 2012, and with just as definitive a majority as the Democrats held prior to this election, but it will be done by moving the electorate, not the previous form of electoral trickery.

Longer-lasting damage may have been caused by deep Republican victories in state legislatures across the country, and by critical victories in governors' races of key states for Presidential elections and upcoming re-districting contests--both decisive ones, like in Wisconsin, Michigan, Texas, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Nevada; and the very narrow, particularly painful ones in Ohio and Florida. These might be thought of as adding another 15-20 House seats to the hill Democrats must climb to recover that majority, and probably effectively taking a couple of states' electoral votes from leaning Democratic to leaning Republican as we go to the next general election.

The Senate bloodbath was not as bad as others I have seen, and not as bad as it could have been. Partly this was due to Republican overreach in selecting far-right candidates in Nevada and Delaware, as well as self-financing would-be plutocrats in California, Connecticut, and West Virginia. Assuming the current leaders in the pending races in Washington and Colorado hold their leads, the loss of six seats does not change things too much: beside the long-indicated losses in North Dakota, Indiana, and Arkansas, the other seats lost were those of Illinois, Wisconsin, and (technically, due to Arlen Specter's late-career party switchover) Pennsylvania. The first of these should be recoverable in the future, but the last two hurt deeply, as Joe Sestak and Russ Feingold were among the best candidates voters could, in their wisdom, have chosen.

In the further wisdom (on top of the voters') of virtually all the pundits', President Obama has been repudiated--whether personally, in his policies and agenda, or in his deficiencies as a human being interacting with others. I see it differently: Obama was not on the ballot, and his chances of re-election were not noticeably diminished (the price of the Intrade contract for an unnamed Democratic victor in the 2012 Presidential election did drop from 61% to 58% through the evening, though). His job will get tougher, the need for him to exercise sensitivity and discretion will be increased, but he will be better focused and more able to deflect any shortcomings in our short-term shared national destiny toward his opponents (a rhetorical approach which clearly didn't work this year).

I would direct those who want some comment on the future political climate, how it will play out, and how President Obama's fate may look to review my forecast at the tail end of my final election preview. Like President Obama, despite the shellacking, I wouldn't change a thing.

My Personal Responsibility
I have to do some soul-searching about the strategy of my contributions--financial, and, more valuably, of my time--in this campaign. I successfully kept myself to a limited budget of both resources, but I can't feel that I got satisfaction for my investments.

Early in this year, I gave moderately small contributions to each of the principal official Democratic party organizations: the Democratic National Committee (through Democrats of New Mexico), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic Governors' Association, and the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee. After that, I resisted all of the many appeals for additional contributions, except one small additional contribution last month to the DLCC.

Instead, I gave some $$ down the stretch to selected candidates through the Act Blue website. I like the fact that it puts the contributor in control of where the money goes, so--in my case--it isn't wasted in futile money-chasing contests to protect the seats of Blue Dogs sitting on deck chairs on the Titanic. I contributed (small amounts) mostly to losing contests, though: Feingold, Sestak, Alan Grayson in Florida, Alex Sink in Florida, Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway, and New Hampshire House candidate Kuster. The two individuals to whom I gave who won were Colleen Hanabusa in Hawaii and (apparently) Michael Bennet in Colorado. Is money given to losing campaigns wasted? Good question, and I have to seriously consider whether I want to participate in the future in a game rigged for big-money, anonymous donations by oligarchs. In 2012, I may just give to Obama's campaign and the DNC and let them channel some, if any can be spared, to deserving races.

In terms of my time, that's where I worked to help our candidates in the New Mexico races. I put about 30 hours of phone canvassing in this cycle, attending some meetings, and helped my wife do door-to-door on Election Day. I think that's a reasonable expenditure of time for unpaid effort.

The results here were acceptable: while Diane Denish went down to defeat (by about 54-46%) in the governor's race, Taos County did its part for the Democrats once again: about a 5-to-2 margin, on vote totals about 80% of 2008's record turnout. For our incumbent House member, Ben Ray Lujan, the county produced a margin of about 7-to-2, similar to that for Obama in 2008, helping him to a 57-43% win over a Tea Party organizer named Tom Mullins. (Mullins ran a creditable race with positions close to his ideological movement, and 40% is not so bad for this district--I wonder whether they are counting him as a TP roll-out loser?) I find this return on my investment to be more satisfactory.

Most Hurtful Losses: 1) Joe Sestak; 2) Alex Sink; 3) Russ Feingold
Most Pleasurable Wins: 1) Michael Bennet; 2) Harry Reid; 3) Lisa Murkowski

Intrade Review

To Bet or Not to Bet
The follower of this blog will remember that I covered the 2008 elections' betting site on Rasmussen Markets (not real money, though), in which one could take sides on a market for various outcomes--primary election winners, the Presidential race, how many seats the Democrats would win in Congress, and individual races as well. There is some experimental data that things like this can be good oracles of probable outcomes for things like this, or for something like the future performance of the stock--the so-called Delphi effect, but this requires large numbers of people and an active market.

After the 2008 election, though, Rasmussen shut the site down. It was never explained, but I guess that the site did not do what Rasmussen wanted, which was provide some independent confirmation of what they were seeing in the polls, and that failure might have been ascribed to the fact that real money was not at stake. Thus, political operatives or others with ideological axes to grind might have tried to manipulate the results.

There still is Intrade, though, and I have revived my account there so I could monitor the action. Intrade is based somewhere offshore of the British Isles, and it is technically illegal for Americans to wager there (prohibitions on online betting)--if you have an offshore account you can fund it, though they won't accept American credit cards. It is not illegal to have an account there, though.

Intrade makes markets on all kinds of things--sports, the overall performance of the stock market, movie box office or Oscars--both short-term and long-term. Elections, though, are the basis of a very extensive variety of posted markets there--this was true, for example, of the recent British and Brazilian elections, too. Some of those markets are very poorly populated, as measured by number of contracts, or number of bidders out there, while others have thousands or tens of thousands of contracts booked. Most--though not all--of the ones booked on the American elections will be resolved tonight, though there can be dramatic moves in prices of new trades, sometimes several dramatic moves, in the course of an evening. It's also interesting to follow how these "markets" have moved over time; often in synch with polling results, naturally, but sometimes much more dramatically, and sometimes surprisingly.

My feeling about the practicalities of investment on these bets is that one shouldn't/wouldn't take a position unless one has a strong feeling to one side or the other. Of course, there is the temptation to play in the big contests for entertainment purposes.

Getting Down to Cases
Just as I saw with Rasmussen, or one might see with a poll of Wall Street traders, I feel that the Intrade-playing population is a bit biased toward the Republicans. So, for example, while 538.com rates the chances of the Democrats holding onto a majority at 16%, you can get that contract at 4.8 out of 100 (Republicans winning is at 97.0, and "neither", which by the rules would mean that neither side had 218 official winners by Dec. 31, was last traded at 0.5). Now, I would not recommend buying that Democratic-win contract, even if it's underpriced, unless one is willing to stay with the screen and sell it at the first positive news for Democrats during the evening. I learned from my Rasmussen Markets experience that there can be such movements, and that even if things might look good for awhile, you don't want to be hanging onto the losing end of a contract at any price.

The House bet that I do like is on the number of seats the Republicans pick up: Silver (and a consensus of various experts) are talking about 55 or so as the median of their probability distributions, but for that bet (that Republicans pick up 55 or more seats) you'd have to pay 71.0 (last trade, and also current lowest "ask" price), so that might be one to bet against. That "71" is a substitute for the probability of the outcome, the odds at which buyers and sellers balance out. Even better might be to bet against the Republicans gaining 50 or more seats: that last traded at 88, though the price seems to be moving down (you could sell a contract for 82.0 right now, while the low "ask" price now is at 87). The idea would be to bet against the Republicans' doing that, but to be prepared to close out the position, buying an equal amount in the other direction at a lower price. Timing would be critical, and at some point you'd have to decide whether the trend would hold until the end, making you a winner, or would you need to close it out and (hopefully) take a profit, and it may take several nervous days for the contract to be finally decided, if that turns out to be close to the final number (if it's not, trading interest will dry up completely even if the contract is not definitively judged to be either a winner or loser).

When it comes to the Senate, the way Intrade has posted the rules has made for some interesting plays. They are not counting independents Lieberman and Sanders toward the Democrats' total, so the bet is whether the Democrats have 50 votes (because the V.P. would break a tie) without them. As for the bet on the Republican side, you could choose whether to bet they have actual control (51 seats, again without any independents--Murkowski in Alaska, presumably, wouldn't count) or whether they have 50 or more seats. Then, there is the "neither" bet, which would finish "in the money" if the Democrats have 50 or 51 seats (counting Lieberman/Sanders, or 48 or 49 without them). This bet is very popular, with very narrow spreads between bid and ask: most recent trade quotes (as of 9 a.m. MDT) are 48 for Democratic control (should be interpreted in the conventional sense as 52 or more Democratic caucus votes), 12.5 for Republicans, and 42.8 for "Neither"!

The probability, as described above, for a "neither" outcome would have to be rated pretty high--essentially if every race goes as current polls indicate, the Democrats would have 51 and it would be a winner--but the variability on outcomes at this point would suggest this is going to be a very volatile bet through the night. This makes it a good trade, but not necessarily one to "buy and hold".

When it comes to individual races, I find the prices fairly realistic when there is sufficient market volume. Here are some current quotes on individual Senate candidates' chances of winning: Bennet of Colorado, 30.0; Boxer of California, 90.0; Marco Rubio of Florida, 93.0; Kirk in Illinois, 78.9; and Sestak of Pennsylvania, 14.0 (but dropping). Two with somewhat unusual quotes at present are Nevada, where Senator Reid's last quote is at 34, and his opponent Sharron Angle is at 75 (suggesting some strong support for both sides, and a great opportunity for arbitrage), and the difficult race to handicap in Alaska (because of the strong write-in candidacy of the incumbent Lisa Murkowski, and the possibility that support for Republican candidate Joe Miller may be dropping): current quotes are 77.5 for the Republican Miller, 8.0 for the Democratic underdog MacAdams, and 26.5 for Neither (a/k/a Murkowski); however, there are very wide spreads between bid and ask on some of those trades, suggesting there will be a lot of volatility--and that may be true for days or weeks, as the write-in votes will need to be individually counted, so if the race is close, these may continue to fluctuate. Or not.

The key races in the House are generally not so heavily traded, and, somewhat surprisingly, that's true of the governors' races, too, so probably they are not worth commenting upon.

In a longer-term sense, you can bet on whether Sarah Palin will get the Republican nomination in 2012 (currently around 19) or Barack Obama will win re-election (61). These quotes both seem pretty reasonable to me.

Twelve plus two to watch

Election Night Guide to the House
Four hundred thirty five House races are far too many to keep your eye upon, and there's really no need. As we've mentioned before, about three-fourths of those are safe, roughly half for each party--there will probably not be a single upset out of those 320 or so seats. Still, a hundred or more races are too much to keep track of (Nate Silver and 538.com promise to attempt to do so, and for a much more elaborate version of what I'm trying to do here, see this posting he made today.)

What we have here are 12 races where Democratic incumbents are struggling to hold their seats, and two where Republicans are in the same position. I have them collected into four groups below, corresponding roughly to time zones when the polls close. All fourteen of these are very close, ones where different observers differ about who is more likely to win, but they are not all 50-50, either; they represent different shades of pink or light blue (or grey). A majority in each group will indicate story lines in the evening: who takes the early lead, how far up the beach the wave will reach, and whether there will be a Western-state firewall preventing a Democratic rout.

Roughly speaking, you can consider each of these to represent three seats, and collectively the result will give a good indication over the range of likely outcomes in the House races: if the Democrats win all these, it would indicate something like the best-case, say a loss of 28 seats (there are about that many that are basically a lock for Republican pickups); then, for each Republican win below, add 3, until you get to the high end, a gain of about 70 seats estimated if they win all 14. The Republicans' target is a net gain of 39, which would be indicated here by winning four of the fourteen.

Two other sources (besides Silver's) I've consulted to include some other viewpoints on these races. One is Larry Sabato's "Crystal Ball"--he's predicting a 55-seat pickup for the Republicans. To his credit, he goes to one side or the other on every seat; to his discredit, he's basically picking Republicans in every race that's polled as a tie or near-tie. The other is the "Dashboard" on Huffington Post--they've utilized the services of Pollster.com to summarize polling results and predict outcomes. I'm not sure what they are planning to do Election Night, but I recommend their current material as being highly readable and not excessively partisan. Their current House forecasts: Democrats 157 safe, 38 leaning; Republicans 169 safe, 43 leaning; 28 tossups.

Early Indications

KY - 6; polls close 4 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time Kentucky should be the earliest state with readable results. Democrat Chandler has a fighting chance to hold onto a moderate district. This will also be a great indicator for the state's Senate race outcome; a big Democratic win for Chandler could mean a surprisingly tough night for Rand Paul, a must-win seat for Republicans' hopes to get control. HuffPost: Leans Dem; Sabato: Leans Dem; Silver: 52% chance for Dems to hold.

IN-9; polls close 4 p.m. MDT This is always a closely contested seat in the southeastern part of Indiana, currently represented by moderate Democrat Baron Hill. If the pendulum has swung strongly to the Republicans this time, this seat should be declared for them fairly quickly. HuffPost: LD; Sabato: LR; Silver: 69% R.

FL 8; closes at 5 p.m. MDT. A good indicator of whether the Democrats have lost the debate. One of the highest-profile House races, but also a good test for the fate of liberal Democrats in moderate districts (this one is a Republican-leaning district in the suburbs of Orlando, usually held by Republicans until 2008). Lots of money from the left for incumbent Alan Grayson, a very outspoken progressive Democrat; he's opposed by a right-winger (with huge inputs from national Republican-backing organizations) with the fortunate name of Dan Webster, who hasn't yet put his foot in it too badly, while Grayson has done it, more than once. Recent polls suggest that Grayson is an underdog. HP: LR Sabato: LR; Silver: 82% R


How Big the Wave?
These races will give a good indication how broad the danger to Democratic seats, beyond the obvious ones which have strong, built-in Republican advantages.

NH -2; closes 6 p.m. MDT A race I expect the Republicans to win, if it's to be a big night for House Republicans (i.e., picking up control of the House by more than 10-15 seats). New Hampshire has been a key swing state in recent elections, really the only one in the Northeast. The Democratic candidate, Mary-Anne Kuster, is a solid progressive; she seeks to replace another, Paul Hodes, who gave up this seat in the western half of the state to run for Senate (unfortunately, it seems that he will be unsuccessful). Kuster has picked up some national Democratic support and appears to have a very small lead in recent polling. HP: Toss Up (TO); Sabato: LR; Silver: 51% R

PA - 8; closes 6 p.m. MDT This seat in the Philadelphia suburbs is a closely balanced one. Patrick Murphy is the Democratic incumbent, running against a former Representative, Michael Fitzpatrick. The suburbs are a key component of the Republicans' resurgence, and this will be a test of their success in trying to recover a national majority. HP - TO; Sabato - LR; Silver: 71% Rep (52-48 projected outcome)

SD - At Large; closes 6 p.m. MDT Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin is a moderate Democrat, the kind most endangered in this election, but has done well in past elections and has run a strong campaign, so she has hopes of holding this statewide seat in South Dakota. A big part of the Republicans' push is driven by a recovery of strength in the upper Midwest. HP: LR; Sabato: LR; Silver: 69% R

Pivotal Races
These are among the closest of the many close races in the middle part of the evening, when the majority of states' polling closes; I'm looking for these to be too close to call into the late night, but when they are called, their outcomes will be huge in deciding which way the national seesaw tips.

First, a possible Democratic pickup:
IL - 10; polls close at 6 p.m. This district is in Illinois' suburban North shore, and it has been vacated by Republican Senate candidate Kirk. In 2006 and 2008, none of the close races were breaking for the Republicans, and they weren't picking up any seats. This is not the highest probability Democratic pickup district (there are two more likely: one in Delaware and one in Louisiana), but this is exactly the kind of district that the Democrats need to have a chance to repel the Republican wave and hold onto the house. HP: TO; Sabato: LD; Silver: 67% Dem pickup.

IL - 17; 6 p.m. MDT Besides being a very close race, the symbolism of the candidates' names (Hare vs. Schilling) is irresistible: The obvious comment is that the Democrats are running zigzag like rabbits, trying to find cover, while the Republicans are pulling out big coin to buy the election. This is a gerrymandered-looking district sprawling along Illinois' western border with the Mississippi River (i.e., north of the St. Louis area). HP: LR - Sabato: LR; Silver - 62% R

TX - 23; closes 6 p.m. MDT This is a pure test in the Latino-majority portion of Texas. If Ciro Rodriguez loses, it will be a good indication that the Democrats have failed to keep the Hispanics' support, or at least failed to get them to turn out to vote. Indications are not particularly good. HP - LR; Sabato - LR; Silver: 57% R (49-48)

WV - 1; closes 5:30 p.m. MDT. This is an extremely close race for a seat being vacated, a swing district in an important state (West Virginia) for Democrats' hopes to hold onto the Senate -- close to a must-win for them. This is the district in the northern (industrial) part of state. HP: LD; Sabato: LR; Silver -60%R

Is There a Western Firewall?
Holding onto the West is critical if the Democrats want to hold onto the Senate; in the House, if the contest is still in doubt, these seats will be critical for them.

NV - 3; closes at 8 p.m. MDT Nevada has three Congressional districts (it will pick up another after 2010's census, unless the population has nosedived too much); one is solid Republican, one (within Las Vegas) solid Democratic, so this district, in the area around Las Vegas, is the swing district. The incumbent Democrat, Dana Titus, won narrowly last time and is fighting a terrible local economic condition--it may be trending away from her late, just as it seems to be doing for Sen. Harry Reid; a good result for her would probably portend this same for Reid in the single most high-profile Senate race. HP: TO; Sabato: LR; Silver - 61% R.

AZ - 8; closes at 8 p.m. MDT Gabrielle Giffords is a moderate in a diverse district centered in Tucson, Arizona. Compared to the battles around Phoenix, there is a more civil tone about the immigration brouhaha. She's trying to hold on, but Arizona is trending heavily Republican this year and a couple other seats in the state seem very likely to go over. HP: TO; Sabato - LD; Silver - 58% D (50-48)

CO - 3; closes at 7 p.m. MDT John Salazar, brother of Interior Secretary and former Colorado Senator Ken Salazar, represents a sprawling district in the western part of the state. Colorado is as critical in this election as any state; a big success for John Hickenlooper in the Governor's race, and a possible upset win by appointed incumbent Senator Michael Bennet, could together have positive coattails for Salazar, but outside of Denver, the state has swung strongly toward the Republicans. HP: ?; Sabato: LR; Silver - 78% R (52-47)

Finally, the potential tiebreaker:

HI - 1; polls close at 11 p.m. MDT? If it comes down to midnight and the control of the House is still undecided, this will become a focus, and because it's a possible Democratic pickup, the fact that the number of Republicans' likely pickups might have passed 39 could be deceiving. This is one of two districts in Hawaii, just Honolulu and its environs. Charles Djou is the Republican incumbent, but he's only been in office since this spring, when two candidates split the Democratic vote. Polls indicate this is extremely close but perhaps trending toward Democrat Colleen Hanabusa. HP: TO; Sabato: LR; Silver: 64% Dem.

As for the races here in New Mexico (closing time 7 p.m. MDT), they are all on Nate's chart, but they're not quite close enough to make mine. The 1st district (Albuquerque area) looks as though it will be held by the first-term incumbent Democrat, Adam Heinrich, by a margin of 5-10 points. In our 3rd district, the first-term incumbent Democrat, Ben Ray Lujan, should win by 10-20 points, though it isn't quite a walkover. The 2nd district, though, in the southern part of the state, is a classic prime Republican target for a pickup district held by a Blue Dog. The moderate-to-conservative first-term incumbent, Harry Teague, has done his best but is likely to give up this Republican-leaning district to the guy who held it for three terms before trying to run for the Senate. It'll be pretty close, but a Democratic hold would be a bigger surprise than any of the tossup or near-tossup races I've listed above.