I've been living in California since 2002. I'm going to have to say that you aren't doing justice to Missouri.

Branson, MO is a total tourist trap (ahem, vacation destination), but on a per-capita basis the amount of theaters & live shows puts SF to shame. (No judgements about quality attempted or implied...) They do have an "American Presidents Museum", by the way.

OK, that was a mixed effort at a defense. How about this:

I will say that if you haven't been to the Lake of the Ozarks, you can't judge rural Missouri's attractiveness. We had a couple very nice vacations there. More coastline than California, and the water's not nearly as cold - if I wanted to pick a state to have a summer vacation on the water, I'd pick Missouri ahead of California.

And... have you seen the polls of the attitudes of rural California? There's not much to differentiate between the two, other than that rural Missouri is green without having to import water into a desert.

Posted at May 30, 2008 6:00 PM in response to GOP Congressman Airing Another Gay-Baiting Ad

I'm going to have to go with no, the spirit of the article is that Congress must pass a budget every 2 years, and there's nothing in my reading of anything you posted that implies that we can't have a standing US army, separate and apart from any militias (the National Guard). Also, there's surely nothing that implies we cannot or should not have a powerful standing Navy, similar to the British Navy at the time of the Revolution.

Posted at May 29, 2008 7:38 PM in response to Standing Armies - A Constitutional Dilemma

The VP slot has hardly any impact on the electoral college - a slight boost in the home state, maybe, but that's it. It gives you a second person who can help campaign, and serves as the only real "decision" about his term that a President makes, so it can be a useful barometer of judgement.

So, with that in mind, here are the 3 ways I'd evaluate most picks:

1) Is the person going to be an effective advocate for the campaign?

2) Does the pick reflect "good judgement" as a potential backup to the candidate?

3) Is this someone I will be happy to see campaigning for President in 8 years?

Obama has charisma, so it's almost impossible for any #2 pick to overshadow him; he should go with someone who has a chance down the road, someone else with charisma. Sorry, but I don't have a favorite to offer.

Posted at May 28, 2008 3:43 PM in response to Veepstakes Open Thread

Oh, I agree, attributing all the acrimony to one side or another is far from reasonable.

The comments from the Obama net supporters struck me more strongly than others, though, since they were from the people calling for a new civil politics, and they stood out so starkly in contrast to the message of the candidate they claimed to support, you know?

There were other things... there was a while there where some of the worst campaign materials and distortions of opponents' records were coming from the Obama camp (unfortunately, this was happening right around when I was making up my mind who to vote for). This is something that's swung back and forth between all the camps. I could give you some direct Barak quotes that distort Clinton's record and positions, just as I can give you quotes from nearly any candidate doing the same for some of their opponents. (Specifically, when I was getting ready to decide who to vote for, I went to factcheck.org and the majority of the recent distortions cited were from the Obama campaign. This very much surprised me.)

Barak sets a high bar for himself. I admire that. He doesn't always clear it, though, and certainly his campaign doesn't... and because he gets big points for setting the high goal, when his campaign, or, yes, his supporters fall short... he loses more than another candidate would. It's still very much a net positive for him, and my impression is that he, his campaign, and his supporters are doing better at meeting those high standards lately.

If I were able to vote again today, I'd vote for Obama over Clinton, and I imagine there's a lot of us out there, so Clinton's claim that making Obama the nominee will have some sort of devastating impact on ALL the people who voted for her is just plain wrong.

Posted at May 20, 2008 10:27 PM in response to Cult Members Speak Out

Well, my "old and desperate" comment was specifically in regards to the idea that John McCain feels (probably rightfully so) that this is his last shot at the big prize. If he misses out this time, there's very little chance you'll see him run again in 4 more years, and he's been working toward a run at the Presidency for a long time. He tried the high road before, and it didn't get him the nomination. Now, my impression is he's willing to resort to whatever works, and I believe that's partly because he feels his own clock ticking away.

As to his age in general - being President is one of the most stressful jobs in the world. A large percentage of Presidents have died in office. It takes a special combination of energy and wisdom to do the job well, along with management skills and vision.

One of my relatives was recently unhappily forced to retire at 60 (the mandatory age for retirement for airline pilots, which has since changed to 65). Another at 80 - he was a leading chemist for PPG corp, and he would've kept working for at least several more years if permitted. So, I have sympathy for the idea that we should let people judge for themselves if they're up to taking on most jobs. And yet... it feels like McCain's VP choice matters a lot more than most.

Interestingly, the laws prohibiting age discrimination have a specific exemption permitting mandatory retirement of:

"any employee who has attained 65 years of age, and who, for the 2-year period immediately before retirement, is employed in a bona fide executive or higher policymaking position".

Posted at May 20, 2008 10:15 PM in response to Cult Members Speak Out

So....

My first and second choices are no longer in the race. I'm in California and wound up voting for Hillary. A while later, I started regretting it; I wanted her to bow out gracefully.

Two of the reasons I voted for her still stand, though: 1) Obama's health care plan is still the worst among the major Democratic candidates, and is still the biggest policy difference to be found, so if you're going to decide based on policies, he's still wrong. 2) Too many Obama supporters were or are so aggressively, bitterly anti-Clinton, anti-Edwards, and anti- their supporters, basically turning the candidate's message inside-out and leaving it feeling very hollow. I could not, at the time, stand to vote for a candidate with supporters who conducted themselves the way the Obama supporters in my area and on the message boards I was reading behaved.

I said to my brother - I want to like Obama, I keep hoping I can be persuaded, but every time I read anything by his supporters... or visited his campaign site... or otherwise looked over summaries of his positions, I was left with the inescapable conclusion that there were several other candidates I'd prefer to be President.

That being said... Hillary's last few months have shown me that voting for her was a mistake. I want her out. I'm also terribly disappointed in McCain - having lived in Arizona for a long time, he was one of the few Republican politicians I've actually voted for. He's old and desperate and taking any path to power that he can find... and I believe and pray that it will catch up to him, and we can all celebrate an Obama victory this coming November.

Posted at May 19, 2008 3:57 AM in response to Cult Members Speak Out

Um, to quote part of your quote...

In addition to serving as, in effect, outside counsel for the other agencies of the executive branch, the Office of Legal Counsel also functions as general counsel for the Department itself.

So, yes, they are an agency of the exectuive branch.

Posted at May 2, 2008 3:36 PM in response to Today's Must Read

If they let it lapse, all they need, apparently, is a Justice Department opinion saying anything they do is OK. What's the problem?

Posted at February 8, 2008 11:15 PM in response to Reid Files Bill to Extend Surveillance Law Again