Crossover voter intimidation?

The Caucus Blog (NYTimes) is reporting that Republicans are intimidating voters in Nevada . . . oh wait, those are Democrats; uh, carry on.

Kicking the snot out of that strawman

Writer Jeffrey Lord has a rambling, bullying op/ed at The American Spectator On-line about some Mike Huckabee statements in reference to American corporate greed as reflected in CEO salaries. I say "bullying" (and "rambling") because Lord spends way too much of the piece beating up on a strawman . . . perhaps he's actually building the strawman for most of that copy--I don't know.

But the important thing to remember is that such rhetoric is usually called forth in service to some other purpose, and it isn't "Conservatism" with a capital "C" or "the movement" (unless you're referring to a particular candidate). I will say up front that populist rhetoric from a candidate raises a red flag with me. That's probably because Democrats have long used those words or themes to demonize the affluent, foster class envy and argue for redistributing wealth (read: trusting gov't to determine what is a fair distribution of material things). Jeffrey Lord hammers that point and loosely connects it with allowing gov't to determine whether human life in the womb should be protected). From the beginning of his article:

"CEO pay and abortion.

On the surface, there would appear to be no connection. But that appearance would be wrong.

One of the more startling aspects of this GOP primary season is to hear a serious Republican candidate like Arkansas ex-Governor Mike Huckabee make an issue of executive pay in the private sector. Huckabee is not thrilled at the salaries paid various CEO's (not, I should say, this one!) by the freely elected boards of directors of free market companies. He leaves hanging the populist implication: let the government decide who gets paid how much compensation."

But as I've observed this campaign and thought about the 2006 campaign and witnessed how the Left (and its willing accomplice--the MSM) has much of the populace effectively sensitized to inequities in our system and in our economy. That's fine; nothing new there, but the problem comes when we (Conservatives or Republicans) categorically dismiss concerns about inequities in economic outcomes while ignoring inequities in economic policy. So-called "corporate welfare" and government bailouts and corporate lobbying scandals reflect that government is very involved in how corporations are run and how much profit corporations "make" and so on and so on. Something can be wrong or immoral and still legal. And law or government policy is a mishmash of such distinctions.

Mike Huckabee isn't proposing--as Jeffrey Lord and other interested parties have implied, that government regulate the salaries of CEOs. But what Huckabee is saying sure resonates with almost all those Americans who are not able to have their cake and eat it, too when it comes to advocating for a market free of government interference.

Paul Supporters Target Fox News . . . and Republicans

This article about how Ronbots were mobilizing against FoxNews caught my eye a week or so ago. Ron Paul's supporters are indeed impressive--for their idealism if not for their ingeniousness. That being said, unfortunately (for Paul's supporters), their candidate's message is not resonating with voters--despite respectable fundraising . . . despite tireless politicking by supporters. Because I have long felt that paring down the number of candidates in debates is essential to have meaningful debates, it is completely appropriate to begin weeding out un-credible candidates.

But I thought this comment about why Ron Paul deserved to be included in any GOP debate was hilarious. Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Paul Supporters Target Fox News:

"An accomodation should be made for Ron Paul. His supporters are highly educated (but not necessarily via the formal route of college), have studied his voting history, have read his policy proposals, and have judged his ethical standard to be acceptable. Though polls indicate that Paul ranks in the high single digits, the quality of Paul’s supporters is extremely high.
.
By contrast, most supporters of the other candidates ignore the voting records of the candidates, ignore their policy proposals, and shockingly ignore their ethical standards. What counts for these supporters is gotcha’s, imagery, and glitz. Just look at all the dumb image posturing before the start of the Iowa caucuses. That posturing occurs because the candidates know that the typical American (who enthusiastically supported sending a too small military force of 170,000 soldiers to Iraq) is an ignorant fool who is easily swayed by some sound bites."

Attaboy . . . that's how you attract support. And there's even more to this comment. Is it any wonder that most Conservatives aren't interested in Paul? That sounds like a comment from a Liberal, pseudo-intellectual if there ever was one.

Club for Loathing

This video clip kind of reflects the suspect obsession of Club for Growth's Pat Toomey with Mike Huckabee--even the host (Chris Matthews) seems to point it out.

It's one thing to pick between two candidates in a primary so as to advance a group's particular issue (actually, CfG is one of the few special interests who is willing to do this--to their credit) but targeting a single candidate in a crowded field of candidates with inarguably mixed records on economic policy is, frankly, suspicious.

No offense intended, AuntB

I've been having a "dialogue" with AuntB and others over at her place the past two days (Can’t We Just All Accept that Campfield Genuinely Cares? « Tiny Cat Pants). This all started as AuntB responded to a statement (I think) by State Rep. Stacey Campfield in which he compared America's 30-some-year policy of abortion on demand to the travesties of the Holocaust and slavery in America. You can read AuntB's response yourself, but suffice it to say, she's majorly offended. That's fine; that's not unexpected; but she goes further than that.

I can't speak for Rep. Stacey Campfield and whether or not he does in fact simultaneously oppose abortion and "care" about women and children (not to mention the men who impregnate a woman and want her to get an abortion!), and I think I kind of stepped into the middle of someone else's fight. However, I do have to challenge AuntB's conclusion that (a) if I support outlawing a particular act I have some obligation to accommodate those who are prohibited from doing said act and who had reasons--any reasons, for wanting to do said act, or (b) if I think that abortion is wrong--that it is homicide even, that I have disdain or spite for anyone who has reached a different conclusion.

Legally speaking, if a society concludes that an act ought to be prohibited, and if said act is not a protected right, then we can prohibit the act without regard to the consequences a prohibition may have, assuming the consequences don't infringe on some protected right. Morally and practically speaking, it may be appropriate to offer alternatives to persons who are affected by said law--for example, we outlaw theft, but provide charity through gov't and charitable organizations (my church and Nashville Rescue Mission, as examples) to persons who may perceive that they have no alternatives to theft. And there are almost always non-fatal alternatives to abortion--some available through the charity of others, some available to all persons depending on their resolve to avert an abortion.

Regarding how I view persons who disagree with me on this issue, gee, it's difficult to say. I believe that abortion is understandably a complicated moral issue. Legally speaking, the unborn human is not a "person" until s/he is born, and the unborn human is wholly within the body of the pregnant woman. Spiritually speaking, there are varying opinions about whether an unborn human has a "soul" or merits the same treatment as a born human being. Biologically speaking, again, the unborn human is completely dependent on the pregnant woman and wholly within the pregnant woman. Emotionally or relationally speaking, there's no doubt that a woman (and often even the mate of the woman) feels desperation when facing an unwanted pregnancy. And to be sure, those persons who have made the choice to get an abortion often have an emotional stake in defending the morality or moral neutrality of the act. Some don't feel guilty, but some do.

I have anti-abortion arguments (compelling, of course!) on each of those areas, but can appreciate that others reach different conclusions. Though I can appreciate their view, I still have concluded that unborn humans deserve some protection in the law. I don't per se look down on someone making the choice of getting an abortion or advocating in favor of unrestricted access to abortion, no more than--say, AuntB looks down on those who vote for Republicans, but as a Christian I think I am certainly called to treat those with whom I disagree respectfully and with a view toward winning them over to my (perceived) correct point of view.

But I think this raises an interesting question. Is it possible to disagree without spite? This is certainly an example of Liberals struggling with the concept of civil disagreement, (AuntB as well as various of the commenters on this issue), and I'm sure that my Liberal readers will point out examples of Conservatives doing it, but--come on folks. Related to the issue of abortion, maybe Campfield is guilty of more than simply reaching different political conclusions than AuntB. I doubt it, but I don't know. But I do know that there are a lot of people who think unborn humans deserve protections and it's not because they hate women or are using the issue so as to control people's lives or they think that women are stupid.

No offense intended, AuntB . . . sincerely.

Okay, this bothers me

Earlier today, Sen. Barack Obama was asked by a reporter, "If you win tonight, do you consider yourself the front-runner?" Obama paused and said,

"My name is Barack Obama, I uh, I am never a front-runner; I am always the underdog."

I think it is hard to say that he was making a joke (watch for yourself). I can't believe that it is some false modesty related to his abilities or talent. I don't think it was some tongue-in-cheek reference to how candidates should answer questions (again, watch for yourself). It seem to me that this is a reference to how foreign his name sounds, and how disadvantaged he is as a result.

There's no doubt that Barack Obama's name is not what a political consultant would have chosen, and there's no doubt that some people will balk at voting for a racial or ethnic minority, but I think it is bad form for someone to seek sympathy on that basis--especially a candidate whose platform is about bringing us all together.

That being said, dang, he gave a good, inspiring speech tonight in NH.

I'm not sure we want to hear this . . .

There will be (perhaps) unprecedented scrutiny of local (Nashville) government in the wake of the Davidson County Election Commission's security breach . . . are you sure we can handle the truth? ("Metro billed for time when security guards were not on duty" on Nashville City Paper)

"For three months last year the building that houses the Davidson County Election Commission was not guarded on Saturdays, but Metro was being billed anyway.

According to information released by Mayor Karl Dean’s office, preliminary findings in the building security audit currently underway by the Department of General Services indicate contracted security guards may not have been on duty during all of the hours billed for services at the Metro Office building that houses the Election Commission."

She didn't faint, she swooned

Top of the Ticket : Los Angeles Times : Barack Obama, Larry David and the fainting woman*:

"Barack Obama's first and only rally on election day came to a sudden and lengthy stop when a young woman in the Dartmouth College gym fainted, and was eventually rolled off on a gurney by emergency medical technicians."

An Obama political consultant was on hand, though:

A gum-chomping Larry David, in town to help with Obama's get-out-the-vote campaign, paced the edge of the student-filled gym, muttering. "How can I restrain myself?" he said to anyone who would listen. "I have such a great line.... Should I yell something out?"

Finally, he did: "Sinatra had the same effect on people!" "I was trying to break the tension," he said later. "I don't think they knew who Sinatra was."

Gee, is Larry David giving advice to the Edwards campaign?

Weakest link of a "coalition"

This is what irritates me about McCain (The Corner on National Review Online):

"If Independents go with Obama over Clinton instead of voting in the GOP primary, McCain could be denied a crucial victory tomorrow."

It's fine to have "Independents" jump on your bandwagon, but how reliable a (Republican) coalition partner is someone who could as easily vote for McCain as Obama?

Briley? It's not his divorce . . .

I don't want to nitpick this story ("Local attorney may battle Briley for District 52 seat" on Nashville City Paper)about Nashville attorney Mike Stewart's decision to run for a seat currently held by Rob Briley, but this sentence really annoyed me: :

"Stewart is not alone. At least one other local lawyer announced his intention to run earlier last week, and Briley’s decision about whether to seek re-election is still up in the air after a year that included a very high-profile DUI conviction and an accompanying personal scandal centered on his recent divorce."

(emphasis mine). Later in the story, Clint Brewer references Briley's alleged extramarital affair with a lobbyist to the House committee chaired by Briley, but some people will never read that far into the story . . .

Romney not as eager

I posted below about Romney's exceptional handling of several Ron Paul assertions in last night's debate (as a long-shot candidate he too often gets a kid glove treatment).

But Romney's performance in general was much improved it seems to me. Romney struck me as someone who might be tired of the eager beaver routine, by which I mean the unique job interview quality of a political campaign: seeming eager, energetic and yet competent and capable of leading. There's a fine line between demonstrating energy and brown-nosing primary voters, and Romney has seemed--to date, to be on the wrong side of that line.

That being said, the big story coming out of the 1/5/08 GOP debate is how Romney was targeted by all the other candidates, and Romney fared well I think. Perhaps it was the smaller number of candidates on stage, or the fact that they were seated next to each other, or the way it was moderated, or something else, but personal barbs (particularly the scripted ones) really fell flat in this debate (even though at least one person on the stage--it seemed like McCain, generally laughed at Mitt's ox being gored). And because Romney was on the receiving end of those barbs, he was able to seem like the adult in the room--he was too busy taking punches to jab back. He certainly could have laughed off the attempted cut downs, but I think it was better for him to highlight how superficial, petty and unproductive a zinger-based debate is. I think the average voter cannot believe that candidates are not "stung" or at least miffed by attacks or negative campaign rhetoric.

I believe that Romney--as an over-achieving, super-talented, pedigreed fellow--had made it his mission to become President, and once you hire a slew of political consultants you get all kinds of input intended to tweak your personality and presentation. You don't accomplish what Romney has in life by being an eager beaver. While I think that Romney had to "evolve" on certain policies in order secure the GOP nomination, I also think he must strive for authenticity in the remainder of this campaign.

Romney rocks Ron's world (view)

From the clips I have seen, Mitt Romney did a splendid job in the New Hampshire debate last evening: (here and here) he demonstrated the foolishness of Ron Paul's foreign policy--particularly re. Jihadism (actually Paul cooperated in this endeavor).

Here he defended (from Populist Poseur McCain, not Paul, I think) "BigPharma" as an industry that provides a valuable product in America (and worldwide). I perceive that this measured, reasonable, "moderate" (though not in the worst sense) performance is how he is at his core . . . which is different than the type of person that emerges from a debate-prep makeover.

And it is good to have Paul in these debates inasmuch as his comments/statements/positions (especially when fully-fleshed out) are like big, fat fast balls out over the plate for the other GOP candidates.

She's definitely tough enough

You may be tired of Hillary Clinton (I am), and you (Lefties) may not think she is Liberal enough, but you should never doubt her resolve or her spine or her icy effectiveness. Along those lines, the Drudge Report linked to this knee to the groin during tonight's Democratic debate:

Picking a candidate

Party politics are fascinating to me. Why? Because of the organic/complex process by which people pick a candidate. You could call it "messy."

And the process for special interest groups is almost as messy. I've commented extensively on the Club for Growth and its extraordinary opposition to a single candidate--Huckabee, early in the GOP primaries.

And today I've gotten several emails noting Fred Thompson's endorsement by pro-life organizations in Wyoming and New Hampshire. This follows the November endorsement of Thompson by the National Right to Life Committee.

In November, the largest factor in the process was Giuliani's perceived front-runner status, and the importance of folks-for-whom-Giuliani-was-not-acceptable (for policy or other reasons) coalescing behind another candidate so as to deny Giuliani the nomination. For Social Conservatives (wary of Romney's reliability and averse to McCain) Thompson seemed like the best bet at the time, and the NRLC even said at the time that he was the most electable candidate. And "single issue" organizations are rarely "single issue" inasmuch as they have to consider the issue of whether a candidate could ever be in a position to influence policy.

Well, today the landscape is different. Huckabee, once viewed by Social Conservatives as a hopeless underdog, is well-positioned to get the nomination, and his record is plainly, demonstrably more "Pro-life" than that of any of the other credible candidates. There is more information available about him and his record at this juncture, but the same can be said of all the candidates (and I'd submit that the information is not as cut and dried as many pretend).

So, "single-issue" Social Conservative organizations, by choosing someone these groups either (a) are more interested in other issues on which Huckabee is purportedly "weak": immigration and spending or (b) are concerned that Huckabee cannot win in a general election or (c) view Huckabee as too independent of them (read: less dependent on their endorsement). Or it could be a combination of these factors . . . see how complicated this is?

I'd say that emphasizes the respect and charitableness with which we should treat others' good-faith conclusions in a primary race.

Mean what you say . . . and don't be mean

Byron York reports ('Byron York on Iowa Caucus" on National Review Online) about the Iowa campaigns of Huckabee and Romney and hints at what is perhaps the key to Huckabee's success:

"[Romney Spokesman Eric] Fehrnstrom, like the rest of Romney’s team, was unfailingly professional. But his analysis pointed to a blind spot in the Romney campaign, a blind spot most likely shared by the candidate himself. For all his money, and all his energy, and all his organizational skills, Romney could not put to rest the doubts many Iowa Republicans felt about his genuineness, or lack of genuineness. As they paid more attention to politics in the days leading up to the caucuses, some of those voters came to believe that Huckabee had more of that indefinable something that they want in a candidate. In the end, the race wasn’t about infrastructure at all — something Romney never figured out but Huckabee knew all along."

I think that Huckabee's appeal actually hinges on his seemingly un-Conservative message and--here's the point, his willingness to stand by those sentiments. His famous line, "I'm Conservative, I'm just not angry about it," encapsulates this quality well.

Now I'm not convinced that his governing philosophy is as un-Conservative as his "soft" rhetoric sounds, but I think that people are attracted to someone who believes what he believes and seems willing to stand by those beliefs, even when it seems in his interest not to.

The Club for Growth: slouching towards irrelevance

I have long supported the mission of Club for Growth, but I have been concerned by their--in my perception, exceptional attacks against Mike Huckabee in the GOP primary.

Blue Collar Muse at Tennessee ConserVOLiance has linked to an interesting discussion of the subject ("The Club for Growth: slouching towards irrelevance"):

"Over the next few days, we will hear a great deal about the meaning of the Iowa Caucuses, as pundits and bloggers will sift through the demographic data to interpret trends, and voter preferences. There were two obvious winners. There were several losers.

The Big Loser tonight in Iowa: The Club for Growth.

I’ve written quite a bit about The Club for Growth’s ongoing jihad against Mike Huckabee.

With each salvo launched by Pat Toomey and the Club for Growth, the Huck has seemed to gain additional momentum. Each time a new “White Paper” has been released (there have been three so far) the level of skepticism towards CfG has grown. Among a large portion of the conservative coalition, the Club for Growth is no longer viewed as an honest broker. After spending upwards of $700,000 in attack advertising with the stated aim of derailing Huckabee, and future buys pending in Carolina, Huckabee went from low single digits in the polls to this solid victory in the opening act of the 08 election.

Toomey will, no doubt, claim that the message just isn’t getting out, and will order his troops to increase the volume, exaggerations, demonizations, polarizations, and continue the promotion of small-tent conservatism that continues to drive the Club towards irrelevance."

Nailing Naifeh

You've probably heard that Tenn. House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh has penned an open letter accusing (most) state Republicans for disingenuous, partisan rantings about last year's legislative session. ("Naifeh takes shots at GOP lawmakers in op-ed" : Political Animals). That's fine, and it is smart--even after the horse is arguably out of the barn, for him to frame the issues to his advantage.

But it is hard to frame the spendthrift-turned-panhandler situation in a positive light . . . unless you ignore all the facts. I liked the body slam from commenter Royce E. Burrage Jr.:

"[Naifeh wrote] 'House democrats put $250 million of a $1.3 BILLION revenue surplus into savings.' Isn’t that special…especially when the revenue surplus was further enhanced with an increase of over $200 million, estimated, due to increased taxes, bringing the total to an estimated $1.5 BILLION or more. So, they barely saved the estimated tax increase. With a FY 2008 State budget of $27 BILLION, a “rainy day fund” of $750 million represents a mere 2.8% reserve based upon current spending. Grandpaw would guffaw, and he was a farmer with no credentials in accounting.
. . . .
During the 2007 period of the current legislative session, democrats, specifically our Finance & Administration Commissioner, Mr. Dave Goetz, a democratic appointee, told Tennesseans that State revenues were running at all time highs. Six months later we were told, as cited in the news media, by this very same individual that his department has been preparing for a budget shortfall for the past 5 years; “We knew this day was coming; it’s here. We’ve been preparing for this for the better part of five years. We’re ready to manage our way through it.”

Which is it Mr. Goetz, Mr. Speaker Naifeh?

Heads should roll . . .

I am amazed at all the lapses in professionalism/security/plain ol' thinking that have resulted in the loss of computers and sensitive data belonging to the Davidson County Election Commission. ("New details reveal numerous mistakes prior to Election Commission break-in" on Nashville City Paper) I know Ray Barrett and he is a fine man, and I believe he is generally competent in his job. I'm not sure he is the one that should take the blame (read: lose his job), unless it's clear that he was tolerating behavior that contributed to this incident.

I like how Councilman Craddock predicted that this incident would cost taxpayers "several thousand" dollars. Ha. The computers themselves cost that much, and I'm sure the city can survive without those particular computers. But I think the city of Nashville ought to strike a deal with some identity theft protection company and offer 6 months to a year's subscription for persons whose private information was on those computers. And the security company should be fired (not to mention sued for breach of contract with damages). I'm somewhat sympathetic to persons who might have believed the computers would be behind locked doors during the break, but anyone who doesn't appreciate the sensitivity of such information should probably learn a lesson on the subject in some other sphere of public or private employment.

Perils of political procrastination

I've always struggled with procrastination. So even though I am very interested in politics, and even though I KEEP UP (much to my wife's chagrin) with politics, I still feel like I'm cramming for the GOP primary; scrambling to pick a candidate.

In any event, I'm taking a second look (not in the usual way) at Huckabee. I always bristled (here, for example) at the term "Compassionate Conservatism" particularly inasmuch as it was crafted (and claimed) by a purported Conservative. It implies that "compassion" is anomalous with "conservative." And I may be concluding that it will be hard to support Huckabee for president. I know that sounds squishy or waffly, but I am just keeping it real. This may be an example of the dog who caught the car . . . Huckabee's ascendance was always a long shot, and I wanted to make sure that the GOP candidate wasn't selected for me by the "GOP establishment" or the MSM, so I have long considered supporting him. Unfortunately, I now have some misgivings which are the result of all the disclosures and discoveries that come out over the course of a campaign.

It's Huckabee's premises that concern me. I concede that we as individuals are more interdependent than ever in the history of America, and that our interdependence blurs lines between accountability and how my life affects others. But I don't think that it has to be that way, and it is a wrong direction to go in arguing that "healthcare costs" will be less if I let the government/state encourage/underwrite others' efforts to lose weight, for example.

Take this recent Time op/ed:

When the Republicans met in Dearborn, Mich., to debate the economy, most of the candidates maintained that times were good and that people who thought otherwise just hadn't seen the statistics.

Huckabee had a different message: "For many people on this stage, the economy's doing terrifically well, but for a lot of Americans, it's not doing so well." He talked about people who have trouble paying their rent or getting health insurance or paying for college. Huckabee does not always have convincing answers to these problems, but at least he recognizes them.

On environmental issues, too, he has broken from the pack. Only John McCain and he have urged the Federal Government to combat global warming. "I'm one of the few Republicans who talk very clearly about the environment, health care, infrastructure, energy independence. I don't cede any of those to the Democrats," he says.

In addition, while acknowledging the importance of magnanimity and Huckabee's appeal to moderates (largely due to his "presentation"), I think Huckabee--like Dubya, may be too inclined to compromise.

Believe it or not, Huckabee's alleged siding with Liberals in the struggle within the SBC is a significant issue for me. His seeming pragmatism in rolling-over for or compromising with Democrats in Arkansas in regard to any and every taxing/spending issue. The potential–as evidenced by his SCHIP debate comment (seeming to say he would not have vetoed the Dems’ bill), to act the same way if he were to get into the White House concerns me.

From a John Fund article about Huckabee.

Rick Scarborough, a pastor who heads Vision America, attended seminary with Mr. Huckabee and is a strong backer. But, he acknowledges, "Mike has always sought the validation of elites." When conservatives took over the Southern Baptist Convention after a bitter fight in the 1980s, Mr. Huckabee sided with the ruling moderates. Paul Pressler, a former Texas judge who led the conservative Southern Baptist revolt, told me, "I know of no conservative he appointed while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention."

To be clear, I have never "endorsed" Mike Huckabee, though I admittedly have been eager for him to get a fair listen and for his articulation of social conservative principles to be heard. I started blogs for him and Sam Brownback at the same time (and reserved blog names for a handful of other potential acceptable-to-socially-conservatives candidates at the same time). I have attempted to give fair consideration and critiques to all the GOP candidates (except for Ron Paul and some other Grandstandidates ©) It may seem odd to say that but I have long worried that accelerated primary schedules coupled with the dominance of "the Media" in shaping perceptions (and a desire so to shape, frankly) can result in voters making hasty and perhaps ill-advised decisions about whom to support for President. I am just thankful that I'm not going to have to vote tonight on who I want to represent the GOP in '08.

I'm leaning Thompson (you can do a search of a particular candidate's name to get a feel of my feelings about him/her).

I like his demeanor/temperament, his communication skills, his charisma and his rather consistent conservative record. I think that the MSM (and any Republican already committed to another candidate) have a stake in hyping the perception that Thompson is lazy or disinterested or arrogant. This Newsweek article from September provides both sides of this argument, I think.

But as soon as I'm close to picking Thompson, I get an email notification of some lame google hit piece (here) from the Thompson campaign. Face it, people . . . there is plenty of legitimate stuff with which to hammer Huckabee . . . and that stuff resonates with me. The other stuff just irritates me and reflects poorly on your boy. And news like today's report that Thompson would back McCain if he dropped out concerns me . . . I'm not a McCain fan.

As I wrote to David Oatney earlier today, I--like most people, have a number of variables that I'm considering before making my choice, and despite what supporters of various candidates say, there's not a no-brainer choice.

Man, I love the internet

I was just sitting here tonight trying to figure out why I had been hearing--in background noise over the past few weeks, that LSU would "basically have a homefield advantage" (against Ohio State) in the BCS national championship game yet as I hunkered down for marathon bowl game spectating, I realized that Georgia was playing Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl, which is in NOLA.

"What gives?" I thought; why are two BCS games being played in New Orleans this year? Well, according to my research ("BCS Media Guide") the BCS began having 5 bowls last year, which means that on a rotating basis one of the 4 BCS bowls (Fiesta, Rose, Sugar, Orange) each year will host its bowl game PLUS the Nat'l Championship bowl game.

That's what I get for not paying close enough attention to sports (try convincing my wife of that). But how would I have had that mental itch scratched in decades past?