The big news from yesterday’s slate of state primaries is Richard Lugar losing to Richard Mourdock.  This had been seen from a long time back, and all that one watched on Election Day was the size of the margin.  This result now sets up a race where the Republican would beat the Democrat by 30 points to one where the Republican will beat the Democrat by 15.   And while the positive signs with this one is that it heralds an age where incumbent politicos are forced to start be running around to make a perpetual case to their constituencies, and while I do have to wince and say “er… six terms is quite a while there, Lugar”… the implications for the present and future of this great nation can be seen when you shift through the subtext of Lugar’s two concession speeches.

The other big item for the big night of underwhelming returns.  This is worth noting.  At least I think so.  West Virginia’s Democratic Presidential Primary Results.  Results so far:

Barack Obama  70,348   57.57 percent
Keith Judd         51,840   42.43 percent

Famously, Obama got whupped by 44 percentage points by Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential primaries — just as everyone in the media was throwing away the facade and admitting that he was the certain nominee.   According to the campaign memoirs, when Obama looked at the campaign schedule and asked if he should go in, he was told flatly and bluntly “No.”  For the 2010 Senate race, Obama is sidelined and the Democratic operatives that came flying in was Bill Clinton (that sort of trick we saw through a swarth of the country — see also Kentucky).

It is one of those states I knew random no name person would win a hefty percentage of the vote against him.  And there it is.  Statistically we have a good perimeter to judge the pro-Hillary vote against the anti-Obama vote of 2008.

If we go ahead and discount a pro- Keith Judd contingency.

Who’s Keith Judd? He’s prisoner #11593-051, currently serving out a sentence for making threats at the University of New Mexico. In 2008, he caused a minor stir for making the Idaho primary ballot, confounding state officials, who thought they had rules preventing that sort of thing. Unbowed, he ran again this year, delivering FEC reports every quarter — although said reports are typically just essays containing his current worries about the Republic. From April

http://www.flickr.com/photos/58372028@N00/7162126418/in/photostream/

According to the inspiringly thorough VoteSmart, Judd’s criminal record is distracting us from an impressive resume. He’s credited as “Founder, World Peace Through Musical Communications Skills, 1963-present,” and “Member, Federation of Super Heroes, 1976-1982.”

It is worth comparing to previous results for the man:
4. Finished third in the 2008 Idaho Democratic primary with 734 votes, or 1.7 percent.
Might have done better, I suppose, if it weren’t for the fact that there aren’t any Democrats in Idaho (as there are in West Virginia.)

Notable too
8. Lists his religion as Rastafarian-Christian.
These are how things change.  It was highly notable when John F Kennedy won the West Virginia primary (through, um, corrupt vote buying, but never mind)  because it was a sign that America was ready to vote for a Catholic President.

So now we just do the delegate math.  Wikipedia has a handy chart for you to keep track… or they would, but it’s a very wobbly page in terms of its information.  An unfortunate belemish for wikipedia.

Randall Terry’s delegates were thrown off by a technicality.  John Wolfe Jr has one from doing well in Louisiana, though I haven’t been followed up on the attempt of his vanquished opponent in law-suiting it away by campaign improprieties.
Also notable, the near victory of Jim Rogers in Oklahoma — right up against but just short of the 15 percent threshold.  (I wish he had those 3 delegates that wikipedia says he has.)

I’ll continue to follow the exiting Democratic Primary race, which is now… right up there with how the Republican Primary has always been (ie: I knew and you knew Romney was the nominee, and we were just going through the motions there.)

Debunk Word History
During the 16th Congress (1819-1821) Felix Walker, a representative from western North Carolina whose district included Buncombe County, carried on with a dull speech in the face of protests by his colleagues. Walker later explained he had felt obligated “to make a speech for Buncombe.” Such a masterful symbol for empty talk could not be ignored by the speakers of the language, and Buncombe, spelled Bunkum in its first recorded appearance in 1828 and later shortened to bunk, became synonymous with claptrap. The response to all this bunk seems to have been delayed, for debunk is not recorded until 1923. […]  In 1923, William E Woodward, a writer with a reputation for giving the blunt facts about respected US institutions, coined the term debunk in a best-selling novel called Bunk.

There are, oddly enough, two books that were published last calendar year that seek to knee-cap the reputation of Grover Cleveland — to debunk his historic legacy as unscrupulous and honest with unimpeachable integrity.  To a Fault.  These qualities tend to lead one to over-look his faults and thus peg him at the top 33 percent of all those famed “Presidential Poll” lists I hanker back to every once in a while (for no good reason).  He was a man abandoned by his political party at the end of his presidency, and for awfully good reasons — his conservatism was getting more doctrinaire and annoying to the growing populist swelling masses.  But if Cleveland emerges as somewhat … dare I say… Nixonian, what does that leave him?

I’ve leafed through the books, though haven’t read them.  From what I can see, arguably Cleveland comes out okay with the book with the long sub-title — the one that calls him “The Supposedly Virtuous President”.  The scandal is apparently set in historical stone — not really up for debate.  It is a mar — he defamed the writer of a newspaper article which was, over – all highly gracious of him and praiseworthy but set up some embarrassing medical details he sought to cover up.  (And did until a decade after his death.)
Still, considering that Cleveland’s one calling card is “Integrity”, it works in the way of “Attack his strengths”.

The other one… well.  Part of Grover Cleveland’s legacy comes from having survived and even thrived after a sex scandal and illegitimate son came to light.  “Tell the truth”, he said, and thus the public didn’t care.  But this came off a price — the defamation of the wife’s character and sending her to an insane asylum.  Also an allegation of Rape, which had been sidelined for political expedencies.  Very serious offenses, I would say, easily brushed aside in the late nineteenth century when society would just deign them the province of “hysterical women-folk” — today makes Cleveland not the kind of guy you’d cite when charging off the pointlessness of a political sex scandal.

What is behind the new Grover Cleveland attack machine?  Connect the dots, follow the money, and get back to me… must be a shadowy group out there working to sour the public on Grover Cleveland… but to what end?  I myself am looking forward to seeing other basically forgotten presidents have their hatchet jobs take place.  Let’s start with the one I’ve kept up a hagiography of sorts here — Chester Arthur!

Reading the Portland Mercury’s endorsements…

After basically going over reasons the “Big 3” candidates stink, they roam through a three other candidates and nearly endorse Cameron Whitten — or a write in for a man they consider much maligned and under-appreciated, the lame-duck incumbent.  But then gives us this…

And Whitten, while funny and smart and passionate, isn’t quite ready to run city hall—as either a political boss or technocratic manager. The same thing goes for the other earnest candidates we invited: Bill Dant, college student Max Brumm, and Scott Fernandez. (But wouldn’t it be fun to see someone like Whitten in a debate against Dan Saltzman in 2014?)

Fair enough.  That makes sense.  Doesn’t like him for mayor.  Thinks he would make a good candidate for city council against Dan Saltzman — or at least a fun one.  Skip to the endorsement of Amanda Fritz in her race against Mary Nolan and we get —

And as for Nolan, if she can stand waiting two more years, we think she’d also make a good opponent for Saltzman.

If I’m getting this right, the Portland Mercury is eager to see a city council race where Dan Saltzman is challenged by Mary Nolan and Cameron Whitten.  They will then endorse Mary Nolan and enthuse that Cameron Whitten was a good gadfly.  Which is not a bad role, perhaps, except that one has perhaps 3 losing electoral bids before even a paper like the Portland Mercury brushes one aside completely and quits being “impressed”.  I suppose this puts him in the “Qualified Activist, not Politician” category, with political electoral campaigns as a tactic that brings diminishing returns.

There is something of a trend that follows through.
We’d also encourage another candidate in the race, Teressa Raiford, to stay involved at city hall. Raiford, an African American activist whose family has been personally touched by the pain of gang violence, spoke unflinchingly to both Fritz and Nolan about the realities of inequity in Portland. The city needs more voices like hers.

It would’ve been better if a well-funded rival had taken on Novick—forcing him to sharpen his pitch to voters. But two opponents do deserve special mention. Jeri Williams, a sex-trafficking survivor and a person of color from East Portland, brought real power to our discussion of issues like cop accountability and equity. And Mark White, a Powellhurst neighborhood activist and the former co-chair of the city’s defunct Charter Review Commission, effectively, naturally, highlighted the need for real charter reform in Portland.

Yeah, well…

One comment for the Mercury… this endorsement for Jeff Reardon in an Oregon state legislator should have made print:
We’re for anybody but Mike Schaufler,

Overall, from the comments:
THE MERCURY SHOULD JUST HAVE SAID, “FUCK IT” AND ENDORSED FRANK CASTANO FOR MAYOR. THAT WOULD AT LEAST HAVE MORE INTEGRITY THAN THIS PANSY-ASSED WAFFLING ON THE DECISION.

In some ways I just have to say… when you have 3 bad choices for mayor… and state as much in your endorsement issue… I would go for the larkey answer (one of the other candidates or a write-in) and then face up to the 2 bad choices question in November.

Political punditry is a thankless task… analyzing what you believe the public’s perception is…. and not wanting to simply state your own perception as being the public’s.  (A lot of people don’t even try to do that much.)

My guess is Obama needs to do the “I ordered Bin Laden’s Death!” thing — for one it puts to shame this element of parody in how the Republican / Conservative Movement portrays any Democratic Administration (And Romney floated it with a retort about “Even Carter wouldadunit”  … EVEN CARTER) —

which is how I always thought the matter would support his re-election politically.  A silly opposition narrative looks even sillier …

… but we may have such a bifrocated electorate that the sullying forth on Fox News, the sheer hypocrisy of the charges … ignoring the shamelessness during the Bush Administration from the same damned world of pundits and politicos … won’t enter into the equation.  We’re butting heads, everyone chooses to believe what they choose to believe, that’s all…

… But my guess is it needs to be along the lines of Point Number 3 for Obama 2012, and not Point Number 1 in order for “I Gots Obama” to be an effective pitch.  At Point 3 you’ll get a nod of “Ah.  Yes”.  At point 1 you’ll get “Yeah, whatsever.”

In other Obama 2012 news: his slogan “Forward” is getting blasted.  And so they march to Wikipedia.  Apparently Marxists used it in the past to demarcate the direction they claimed to be taking things.  Yeah, well.
The web publication of Glen Beck weighs in.
Time for Democrats to look around for any Republican at any point in the past who used the tepid and tedious slogan “Forward”.  Surely everybody remembers Warren Harding’s big “Forward” push.  (It was the name of a publication by Moderate Republicans in the 1960s / 1970s, I think… but the Moderate lost the party war.)

We’re getting through the “Ballots are out.  Vote” phase of the May Primary elections.  I would like to vacate my election endorsement of Cameron Whitten.  He’s running around the city naked with a billboard hanging over (Cameron Whitten for Mayor).  I guess you get the public’s attention somehow — but not the way to bring your attention.  Don’t know if he’ll do this on today’s May Day events — it’s a cloudy day with certain rain coming.

Still… the big 3 candidates stink, so I guess vote for him… or whomever.

The Oregonian’s endorsement of Ron Green:
Congressmen are not required to live in their district, but it’s the general practice, and 3rd District Republicans should take a close look at TriMet bus driver Ron Green, who’s running on a platform of higher tariffs to protect American jobs — what he calls a traditional McKinley Republican position. Green does, at least, know the district.

Ron Green sets the record straight, and my earlier blog characterization based on this Oregonian endorsement stands corrected:
I believe the characterization of myself as a “McKinley” republican is more the writer’s characterization than mine, although I did agree to it when the interviewer suggested it. But, I also added that I considered myself more a Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt Republican, at least as regard tariffs.  […]  The Republican party understood, as did Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and other founding fathers, that the latter three go together. Sound money is another issue, and should be addressed by a close inspection of the machinations of the Federal Reserve.

This raises the question:  Why in the world would the Oregonian interviewer’s mind jump over to William McKinley?
And to this we get this:
Third district pay attention, this kind or republican might have a chance to win it all.
Er… no.

The Willamette Week endorses Delia Lopez, claiming it was a difficult choice to make.:
Republican voters in this district (c’mon, we know there are a few of you out there) have two weak choices. […]  Her opponent, Ronald Green, is a TriMet driver who preaches the need for full employment. If elected, he says, he will go to Washington and form a “shadow Congress.” With marginal candidates, the very narrow margin goes to Lopez.

Ron Green sets that record straight:
I would like to make a comment that the statement describing my beliefs as  “Ronald Green, is a TriMet driver who preaches the need for full employment. If elected, he says, he will go to Washington and form a “shadow Congress.”  Somehow, the statement, taken as a whole, seems to me to suggest, no doubt unintentionally, a rather alarming degree of eccentricity.
A more accurate statement, as watching the tape should reveal, would be “Ronald Green, an average, concerned, working class American, just like most of you readers and unlike Earl Blumenauer, preaches the need, unlike Earl Blumenauer, to end free trade in order to ensure full employment, thereby driving the wages and benefits of middle class, working class and young Americans upward.  He is so committed to this, yet again unlike Earl Blumenauer, he will even form, if elected, a “shadow” Congress of fellow like-minded patriotic Congresspersons to draw public attention to the need to end free trade.”

I need to watch the 30 minute interview session.   Sounds like it’s must see pointless political viewing.

Ronald Green touts his Oregonian endorsement.
Delia Lopez’s campaign site is stuck in 2010.  I have no idea if she touts her Willamette Week endorsement.  I will note to the claim that she’s sounding like a cross between Occupy and Libertarianism — the former isn’t biting; the latter continues where it left off with her 2010 performance — see here, here (What poll was that?)…

The cover for the latest National Review caught my eye.

I’m a little curious to read it, but have a gut feeling it would make hugely disappointing reading.  I see a review which PROBABLY would match my reaction.

In polemical writing, we see the equivalent of this approach in Jonah Goldberg’s current National Review cover story on Vice President Joe Biden. The headline: “Big &#%!ing Joker.”
The approach is to take one unfortunate aspect of the Biden persona—his tendency to blurt out unfortunate pronouncements—and hammer away at it over and over until he is reduced to a caricature. Then we can all laugh at him endlessly while ignoring whatever attributes kept him in the U.S. Senate for 36 years, elected by his state six times.
The Buzz does not carry water for Vice President Biden or any other politician. And Goldberg isn’t wrong to suggest that “Biden-speak” is characterized by the use of “the utmost superlative and the exaggeratedly hyperbolic.” But Biden’s Senate career included much more than that, and any serious profile of the man would at least nod in that direction.

Hm.  Biden, I guess, got away with some scrutiny — in the area of late night joke telling — by dent of McCain’s choice for a running mate — the indefensible Sarah Palin.  (Sorry Palin fans.)  I half imagine we can get something somewhere if we make a moral equivalence and he argues about media treatment of Quayle, or something.  BUT… the thing is… here is what is available online right now:

The word “literally” has taken a beating in the Age of Biden. The vice president’s speeches are “literally” festooned with “literally”s, like hundreds of tethers to the hot-air balloon that is his head. But let’s give the poor word some smelling salts and ask it to get back in the ring for a moment.

There was an Age of Cheney.  There is no Age of Biden.  Maybe he sits somewhere just past Hubert Humphrey in influence under his role of Vice President, and his record there may be substantial enough to warrant a critical examination, but there is a reason that public barely remembers he is there.  It’s a little hard to imagine how one can get worked up about the man, but kudos to the National Review and Jonah Goldberg, I suppose.

The Story of the Rabbit and the Eggplant by Daniel Pinkwater

Once there was a race between a rabbit and an eggplant. Now, the eggplant, as you know, is a member of the vegetable kingdom, and the rabbit is a very fast animal.
Everybody bet lots of money on the eggplant, thinking that if a vegetable challenges a live animal with four legs to a race, then it must be that the vegetable knows something.
People expected the eggplant to win the race by some clever trick of philosophy. The race was started, and there was a lot of cheering. The rabbit streaked out of sight.
The eggplant just sat there at the starting line. Everybody knew that in some surprising way the eggplant would wind up winning the race.
Nothing of the sort happened. Eventually, the rabbit crossed the finish line and the eggplant hadn’t moved an inch.
The spectators ate the eggplant.
Moral: Never bet on an eggplant.

VERSUS:

The Hare and the Pineapple
by Daniel Pinkwater  Alan Smithee

In olden times, the animals of the forest could speak English just like you and me. One day, a pineapple challenged a hare to a race.
(I forgot to mention, fruits and vegetables were able to speak too.)
A hare is like a rabbit, only skinnier and faster. This particular hare was known to be the fastest animal in the forest.
“You, a pineapple have the nerve to challenge me, a hare, to a race,” the hare asked the pineapple. “This must be some sort of joke.”
“No,” said the pineapple. “I want to race you. Twenty-six miles, and may the best animal win.”
“You aren’t even an animal!” the hare said. “You’re a tropical fruit!”
“Well, you know what I mean,” the pineapple said.
The animals of the forest thought it was very strange that tropical fruit should want to race a very fast animal.
“The pineapple has some trick up its sleeve,” a moose said.
Pineapples don’t have sleeves, an owl said.
“Well, you know what I mean,” the moose said. “If a pineapple challenges a hare to a race, it must be that the pineapple knows some secret trick that will allow it to win.”
“The pineapple probably expects us to root for the hare and then look like fools when it loses,” said a crow. “Then the pineapple will win the race because the hare is overconfident and takes a nap, or gets lost, or something.”
The animals agreed that this made sense. There was no reason a pineapple should challenge a hare unless it had a clever plan of some sort. So the animals, wanting to back a winner, all cheered for the pineapple.
When the race began, the hare sprinted forward and was out of sight in less than a minute. The pineapple just sat there, never moving an inch.
The animals crowded around watching to see how the pineapple was going to cleverly beat the hare. Two hours later when the hare cross the finish line, the pineapple was still sitting still and hadn’t moved an inch.
The animals ate the pineapple.
MORAL: Pineapples don’t have sleeves

Beginning with paragraph 4, in what order are the events in the story told?
A switching back and forth between places
B In the order in which the events happen
C Switching back and forth between the past and the present
D In the order in which the hare tells the events to another animal

The animals ate the pineapple most likely because they were
A Hungry
B Excited
C Annoyed
D Amused

Which animal spoke the wisest words?
A The hare
B The moose
C The crow
D The owl

Before the race, how did the animals feel toward the pineapple?
A Suspicious
B Kindly
C Sympathetic
D Envious
What would have happened if the animals had decided to cheer for the hare?
A The pineapple would have won the race.
B They would have been mad at the hare for winning.
C The hare would have just sat there and not moved.
D They would have been happy to have cheered for a winner.

When the moose said that the pineapple has some trick up its sleeve, he means that the pineapple
A is wearing a disguise
B wants to show the animals a trick
C has a plan to fool the animals
D is going to put something out of its sleeve

………………………………………

Hm.  I say throw out the multiple choice questions and make the students compose an essay comparing and contrasting the two versions of this fable.