Dan Savage releases this item of sarcasm regarding gay marriage election outcomes, and placed at the feet of Florida Governor Charlie Crist. 

But let’s look on the bright side of the anti-gay-marriage amendments, shall we? The openly Republican governor of Florida, Charlie Crist—who got engaged to a real live girl when he was in the running to be McCain’s VP—won’t have to marry a real live girl now. Because it’s illegal for gays to get married now in Florida—right, Charlie?

Interesting.  Yesterday, the conference of Republican Governors presented some fairly odd moments, and what people were paying attention to was friction between Sarah Palin and the rest of the conference.  The friction was especially acute amongst the half a dozen 2012 presidential hopefuls in the bunch — presenting telling spittings such as this one.  Though, Crist is not in that group who have touched down in Iowa.  (Race, race, race.  It’s all one stupid race after another.)

Charlie Crist is probably basically unstoppable in his re-election bid for 2010, having just solidified a portion of Democrats by extending early voting in the election — an act which caused the famed anonymous Republican operator comment, “He just blew Florida for John McCain“.   I think that may rub his presidential ambitions in the Republicans primary a little raw, but moreso I think the supposition that he is gay likely would stop such a thing as a Republican Presidential nomination.

The rumblings are that Sarah Palin was snubbed, as (first source I can find) the governors’ vote this morning that elected, HUMAN EVENTS has just learned, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford the new chair of the Republican Governors Association, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour vice-chair, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist chair of the RGA’s February 2009 Annual Gala in Washington, D.C.  That Governor Charlie Crist was elected to organize the Annual Gala doesn’t help Crist’s case.

Not that I care too much.  He didn’t openly (er… “openly“?)  campaign for Florida’s ballot initiative, which puts him in a different place than the gay-baiting Democratic Senate candidates in Kentucky and Mississippi.

The rumors of closeted homosexuals in elected Republican Party members swirl around, occasionally proven right and occasionally not.  I won’t mention his name, out of a sense of prudence, but there is a senator from South Carolina who is supposedly a closeted gay man.  He hasn’t been caught making out with a man yet.  But I remember a few years back seeing that a Senator from Idaho was well known to be gay.  It turned out that he wasn’t, and Larry Craig has set that matter straight.  I quote, “I am not gay; I never have been gay.”  Though, in that case, it becomes a bit of a he said / he said situation.  To further settle that matter, Craig — along with David Vitter — sponsored a “Marriage Protection Act” in that last Congress, which read like a bad Onion parody. 

In other news, Silverton’s mayor has himself some breasts.

Roosevelt Hailed by German Press

Berlin Expects Debt Settlement and More Liberal Tariff Under New Regime

Dictatorship is Forseen

Centrist Newspaper Stresses that United States No Longer is Better Off Than Debtors

President Roosevelt’s inauguration fills the German press with hope for greater activity of the United States in foreign affairs, although it is realized the situation of the banks will monopolize the new President’s efforts for some time.

Germany expects two things from the new President, settlement of the war-debts problem, which German business men and economists contend has been barring the way for world business recovery, and , secondly, a more liberal tariff policy.

The Frankfurter Zeitung says today:  “In his dealings with foreign countries President Roosevelt probably will endeavor to observe a more urbane and less distant attitude than one has been accustomed to find in Washington.  In transacting business he will be more adaptable but will be hardly able to show himself more yielding than his predecessor, even if Congress follows him in a lessening of resistance.  He will be too much bound to anonymous currents of public opinion.”

The Boresen-Courier says: “America is ripe for a dictator, and it is possible for Roosevelt to become this dictator if in his first attempt he succeeds in drafting a comprehensive economic program and presents it effectively and convincingly to Congress.”

The Boersen-Courier believes Mr. Roosevelt’s policy will incline toward progressive ideas.

The Koelnische Zeitung applies to President Roosevelt what was said to Martin Luther when he went to Worms to be questioned by the Emperor: “You are going on a grave errand.”

Germania, the leading Centrist newpaper, says: “The new man is confronted with enormously difficult tasks.  Saying, ‘America, you are better off’ does not hold true any longer.  Governing America today is no fun, even if it is considered the American Parliament has eliminated itself in wise restraint.”

The government papers are especially hearty in their welcome to the new President.  The Kreuzzeitung says:

“Germany greets Roosevelt as a representative American.  The nation with respect and sympathy hopes that the friendly relations between both States will be further promoted by his administration.”

The Lokalangzeiger says:

“Germany greets Roosevelt and the American people in the heartiest way.  Although Germany’s attention these days is conentrated on domestic matters, she wants to take the opportunity of President Roosevelt’s inaugruration to emphasie that she hopes for fiendship with the new President and the American people under his leadership.”
…………………………..

Coverage as reported in the New York Times, and I didn’t record it when, for whatever reason I stuck it in the backfile here (for the past few years), but it would have had to have been upon election, as Hitler came to power with the Reichstag Fire on February 27 and that would have pretty well consolidated all opinion coming out of German press for his inauguration in March… to what I guess was a much sought after Dictatorship.  Well, that feeling was in the air at the time.

How does this pertain to the next administration?  Roughly, nothing.  The one thing one would advise for Obama is to “manage expectations”, which would allow him to ride out the problem that the Germania put out about how “saying America will be better off is no longer acceptable.  Governing America is no fun anywmore.”  No “Mission Accomplished”.

Perhaps the more interesting discussion / debate in the Oregonian editorial / Letters to the Editor complex concerns high school football, and the disparity in resources available to rich suburban schools compared to poorer schools.  A Lake Oswego resident charged in, railed for the great support and hard work they all put in to make their high school football program successful, and charged anyone bemoaning the disparity with demanding “Socialism”, which may or may not be the case.

I think what you find if you scope around the nation, in general, is that less financially advantaged high schools tend to have better basketball programs and richer high schools tend to have better football programs — football being a more expensive proposition.  None of which is to say I give two rips about the state of anyone’s high school athletics, and on that score figure there’s no real problem anywhere with how things turn out one way or the other.  But as for the decrying from the Lake Oswegon of creeping Socialism to whatever might be devised to get resources into poorer athletic programs, no less a sports force than the National Football League runs off of a Socialist program, and Pete Bozell’s great dream of “Parity”.  Of course, this has lead to every few years, right on schedule, since the early 1980s a bemoaning of the league as steeped in mediocre without any good team, but fans who yell this line tend to stop after their team mediocrely wins their big game.  In the end, this seems to have helped it’s bottom line in earning large quantities of money.

But I leave that all aside and try to digest this letter.:

Rural bias widely accepted
If you take a good look at the election maps, it’s obvious that the most widely accepted bias is the one held by urban residents against rural residents.

Consider comments directed at Sarah Palin like, “caribou Barbie” or columnist Katha Pollitt urging Palin to, “Get back to your iceberg.”

If someone advised an urban candidate to, “Get back to your slum tenement,” would that be considered acceptable?

Critical comments were directed against Levi Johnston (Palin’s future son-in-law) regarding his search for work out of town rather than staying in Wasilla with his pregnant fiance, Bristol.

This displayed a profound lack of understanding about the realities of finding meaningful and profitable work in a small rural community.

It’s going to be interesting to watch how the lack of representation for rural voters plays out in the coming years.

RAY PENDLETON
Southeast Portland

We’ve sort of been hitting ice burgs of arguments existence of “double standards” for one side or the other of the great donkey / elephant game — or other demarcations of this divide (urban versus rural?  Really, must I?), sorting out “the way we live our lives in actuality”.  But imagine reactions if Barack Obama had a teenage daughter who was knocked up by his boyfriend, and as a result dropped out of high school to get work.  “Slum tenemant” indeed.  Meanwhile, that “interesting to see how the lack representation for rural voters” final sentence almost sounds threatening — but I don’t have any guage on where it’s going.

“Elections matter.”

I saw this stated at the end of a dailykos blog post which trumpeted the news that the influential committee chair Senator Max Baucus of Montana has unveiled his plans in forming a Universal Health Care plan.  In saying this, you are required to suffix the name “Max Baucus” with “of all people”, as in “this is being done by Max Baucus, of all people.”

Elections have consequences?  You better believe they do.  Can you imagine what would have happened if Bob Kelleher had won this squeaker of a race?  Where would we be now?

Taking a look at the map, it’s worth mentioning that this is one of those states where one of the parties won every county in the Senate seat — along with Wyoming, Massachusetts, Maine, Arkansas (though the Democrat — 7K year old Earth believer , and — hell!  Alaska (though that seems to be one massive “county”.)  The best performance on a county level that Kelleher did was 41.1 percent in Sweet Grass County and Sanders County and a 40.3 percent in Garfield County.  I don’t know the partisan divide around Montana, and in a race which should be scrambled a bit in how people vote (this is an eccentric Socialist Republican), these results should not be much predictive of partisan make-up.  But, looking around the presidential map for Montana, I see that these three counties are Republican — Obama didn’t was in the 20s or 30s in the three 40 plus counties for Kelleher.

I imagine South Carolina is a bit more scrambled — the Democrat (such as he was) was a supporter of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul — and ran against the rampant Liberalism represented by Lindsey Graham, throwing his head around in those parts of the state that that might be attractive.  But the map is fairly similar to the presidential race — I suppose a closer look might be interesting to take, but I don’t quite care enough to take that effort.

Incidentally, if you look at Alabama on the County level for the Senate race, I think you can spot in its most concertrated form what is commonly referred to as the “Black Belt“.  Though this also becomes pretty evident on a county-level if you look at the map of the United States as a whole for either the Senate races or the presidential contest.

“Elections matter”.   Mark Begich has overtaken Ted Stevens in the balloting, as early votes and absentee votes are being counted. He lead at the end of yesterday by THREE — count them, one two three — votes. He now has a “comfortable” lead in the three digits. Unless there’s something about the ballot that were just counted that makes them different from those yet to be counted (Anchorage goes first?), this strikes me as an irreversible trend in the direction of Begich. Mark Begich wins. Ted Stevens loses. The other permetation comes with Sarah Palin having started to send out feelers suggesting she might just pursue the Ted Stevens seat after Stevens is kicked out of the Senate (right now it’s the basis of a leadership fight within the Republican Party with Jim DeMint challenging Mitch McConnell to have the vote to kick him out of the Republican Caucus). But, this prospect of “Senator Palin” is moot with the apparenta Stevens loss.  (As an aside in the on-going saga of Sarah Palin, I will note for the record that I never bit on the item about Africa and whether it is a country or continent.  Maybe I should have taken a swipe against it publically just to establish myself some eye-witnesses?  I may as well quibble about some arguments of it as an immediately establishable hoax, though, which had the argument “A third grader knows Africa is a continent.  You expect me to think Palin doesn’t have the knowledge of a third grader?”.  To be fair, I was smarter as a third grader than I am now — so the question’s basis is wrong.  Also, Africa tends to be lumped into one discussion as a whole entity when discussing “the plight of Africa”.)

Lieberman appears to have a posse in the Senate that will protect his Committee on Homeland Security (I don’t see what the problem with stripping Lieberman there is — even in the magnanimous statement that he is “with the Democrats on all but one issue”, that would suggest he shouldn’t be in a leadership position for the Democratic Party on Security matters), so that game leads to its sort of predictable conclusion.  And then there were two.  Franken — Coleman in Minnesota — the full weight of Mitt Romney has come out on behalf of Coleman in his efforts to stop three digits worth of votes from being deciphered where voters squared when they should have circled — and the run-off in Georgia which is December… 2nd?  That, I guess, determines whether the Democrats have 60 seats in the Senate or 59, and the Chambliss ads are running over to that effect with the slogan “It all comes down to this.”  Because if there’s one thing people fear, it is a Democratic majority with 60 seats instead of a Democratic majority with 59 seats.

I believe that calculating the effects of a third party candidate is just about never a function of simply allocating all of the third party candidate’s votes to one of the major party candidates, and oddly enough it seems this letter writer to the Oregonian who tries to do just that knows that too.

Has anyone noticed that Gordon Smith would have won this last election if Measure 65 had been in place? Sunday’s Oregonian reported unofficial election results: Merkley, 817,932; Smith, 766,508; Brownlow, 87,533.

If Measure 65 — the so-called “open primary” measure — had been the law, then only Merkley and Smith would have been on last week’s ballot.

It is not unreasonable to speculate that, driven by idealogical reasons, Brownlow voters would have voted for Smith (or not at all). Had that occurred, the results would have been quite different: Smith would have beaten Merkley, 854,041 to 817, 932, a margin of 36,109 votes.

BILL SNOUFFER
Southwest Portland

Brownlow believes he threw the election to Smith, but third party candidates tend to believe they’re important — something that goes in two directions, Brownlow believing he didn’t spoil the election or Nader insisting that he didn’t spoil the 2000 election and drew from Republicans (“I am not a mere spoiler”).

Merkley: 48.9%
Smith:  45.8%
Brownlow:  5.2%

Wipe Brownlow off the election and you can expect a good number of his votes to have gone for Smith (It is not unreasonable to speculate that, driven by idealogical reasons, Brownlow voters would have voted for Smith), a rather large number of his votes to just disappear into the ether (or not at all — and with that Snouffer undermines his own argument), and a smaller but still decent number to go for Merkley.  What is telling is that Smith was concerned enough about Brownlow to run advertisements touting what an extreme Liberal Brownlow is, pointing to some views which are, strictly speaking out of the mainstream of the, quote-in-quote “fringe” of congressional Democrats but in a large gathering of Democrats you can probably find a few who hold to them, along the lines of “Bush must be tried for war crimes”.  (Oddly enough for Brownlow, I believe outside the purview of the One World Government of the UN.)

You would also have the effect with Brownlow out of the race of some in that 5.4 percent bracket voting for whoever has the better hair, or looks better in a grainy black and white photograph, or whose name spills off the tongue better at a random moment.  Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum politics, gotta make a choice and the Bright Colors (whatever Bright Colors those may be) are no longer an option.

All of this is to say, wipe Brownlow’s name off the ballot, run the same campaigns (a bit confusingly in this thought experiment, with the candidates still acting as though Brownlow were on the ballot), and…

Merkley wins.  Now, change the results down to — maybe a one or one point five percentage difference between Smith and Merkley and the same 5.2 percent for Brownlow, and we have a different ballgame to consider.

#1:  There is a way that election results are this sort of lagging indicator of societal and cultural trends.  Old people vote and young people do not vote.  The checks and balances of government and bureaucracy avoid trends.  I note, for instance, that all the measures pertaining to “decriminalizing” marijuana to some degree or other (mostly by way of allowing for medical marijuana) passed, long a piece of toxicity which voters send drug warriors to election victory, and where we as a nation probably were years ago.

#2:  That said, this is the first measure relating to gay marriage on the ballot where the defeat for the, quote-in-quote, “Gay Agenda” was basically tactical.  I do not think there was a single thing that could have stopped the 2004 ballot measures from passing; I do think this one could very easily have swung differently.  The “No on 8” team was clueless and deficient in various ways: late in mounting an attack due to early positive poll numbers, a bit timid in asserting the issues at stake and afraid of their own shadow.

#3:  It is worth mentioning that “Domestic Partnership” is set in stone, and on a national scale would probably be what would be forged in law if congress were forced to vote.  This is a shift — what was radical yesterday is conservative today.

#4:  Fault-lines in the electorate have been bluntly drawn.  For instance, isolate the religious vote of the most churched part of the electorate and something becomes clear: the numbers swing rather drastically as election day approaches.  Pastors are quite influential and start increasing the rate of “Sodom and Gomorrah” sermons, laying down their law of God.  The racial dimension, while troubling, is not surprising and somewhat matter-of-factly should be factored into the voting percentiles of putting together an electorate, even as a “No on 8” campaign works toward bringing the margin down.

#5:  Isolate down to a single issue, or single cluster of issues, generically the “Gay Issues” — and assess which you would rather have: President Obama or a defeat of Proposition 8, and there is no contest.  President Obama makes the court appointments.

#6:  Arkansas banned adoptions for non-married people, a proxy for the gays but not exactly confined there.  So, California takes one step back and Arkansas takes about four steps back.  Not much of a silver lining, I suppose, but there’s a reason it’s a “silver lining” on a cloud.

I would suggest something about the “arc” of something or other (is it “time”?) “always marching toward justice”, but I am sick of hearing that quote.  The victory for Measure 8 “in California, of all states” is currently being cited as a sure sign that this is a “Center Right Nation”, whatever that means.  We are not a “Center Right Nation.”  We are a Left-Center-Right-Forward-Backward-Up-Down-Diagonal-Round-Square-Sideways Nation.

Hey now.  This just floored me.  From The Guardian, on the long-going determination to re-open the  Jeremiah Duggan case.

The power of the attorney general to make decisions free from the scrutiny of courts came under renewed attack last week, in a challenge by the family of Jeremiah Duggan, a British student whose death in Germany five years ago has been described by lawyers as “disturbing and bizarre”.

The attorney general, Lady Scotland, who is said to have considered the case personally, refused to consent to the Duggan family’s attempt to seek a fresh inquest into his death, stating that it had “no reasonable prospect” of succeeding.

The family are challenging her claim that the attorney general’s decision is “immune” from judicial review, the process by which the courts scrutinise the decisions of public officials, and the “long-standing practice” of providing no detailed reasons for such decisions.

Simple and straight forward so far.  But then there’s this.:

The family are challenging her claim that the attorney general’s decision is “immune” from judicial review, the process by which the courts scrutinise the decisions of public officials, and the “long-standing practice” of providing no detailed reasons for such decisions.

The case, which the high court last week allowed to proceed, could be the most high-profile challenge to the role of the attorney general since the House of Lords considered the controversial BAE affair earlier this year. In that case the court scrutinised the role of the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, in advising prosecutors to drop the investigation into allegations of corruption at BAE, following threats from Saudi officials. “It is a logical progression from the decision in the BAE case that our government should be more transparent and answerable,” said Frances Swaine, the lawyer representing the Duggan family. “This case could have wider ramifications. If it succeeds it would be a way of opening up our constitution.”

Good golly.  The BAE Case.  This is actually jaw-dropping.  I know next to nothing about the details of the BAE Scandal, except the manner that the Lyndon Larouche organization used it in the months after Kenneth Kronberg’s suicide.  It was a heavy handed flurry of distraction to get the members of the National Committee, in Leesburg, to quit thinking about what had just happened with Kronberg and get back to the matter of saving Human Civilization.  Perhaps it will be worthwhile for me to reconstruct this for precision (from things I posted on this very blog), but in general the events followed as thus.:  #1:  Lyndon Larouche “revealed” that Molly Kronberg had donated money to the George W Bush re-election campaign, and demanded to know “What more needs be said?”  #2:  A flurry of reports came out of the Larouche-pac site about the BAE Scandal.  #3:  The Internal Daily Briefings relayed the suggestion, from Jeffrey Steinberg, that History has changed due to the implications of Larouche’s most recent web-cast on the subject of the BAE Scandal, and thus we all understand how everyone is under such distress at the moment because of this history changing web-cast on the BAE Scandal.  #4:  The topic of the BAE Scandal was summarily dropped and never mentioned again and the organization moved on to other matters.  (Not quite in the proper chronology, so indulge me for this one:  #5:  a Larouche troll posts a comment informing me that I am an “empty husk of humanity”.)

All of this is sort of tangeantal and either demonstrates an element of irony from the fates, or is a hidden message from the British — relayed in the Guardian which, as we established five years ago for reporting on the death of Jeremiah Duggan — is a tool of the British Oligarch in its aims for war in Iraq, and the coming… Dark Age?

Actually, Larouche is on a bend saying Obama is not going to be president — which seems to swerve somewhere between a statement of Assassination and to the “birth certificate” story-line.  (But that one’s tipped off from one follower, the … um… cryonics guy).  Witness, and to get away from serious matters of manslaughter for a little bit of levity — if darkly tinged:

Obama is not going to make it to the presidency on jan 21– so all these morons like Emmanuel who think they’re going to be “in power” will be surprised to learn that there is a true american underground that will likely invalidate Obama– and at the same time “educate” the Obamatrons– about what the american constitution says… that yuo have to be natural born citizen of the US which Obama is nOT.

I thought the British were going to stop him, as opposed to the “True American Underground”. Which is… ?

To finance the Real American Revolution– against tyranny– invest in the Larouche organization! Start a Larouche Club in your town

Yeah, I’ll get right on that.  (And yes, I am here just reposting this.  The more pertinent and important press release from Erica Duggan and “Justice for Jeremiah” precedes that comment at the end of this here.)  More pertinent to this case, Larouche is now beating the drums against Gordon Brown… a proxy for the Queen of England, I suppose.

Meanwhile, back to that imporant matter:

The new evidence submitted by Mrs Duggan included reports by three crash investigators and a forensic photographer.

The coroner’s pathologist, who carried out a post mortem examination on his body on its return to the UK, said his injuries were consistent with being beaten around the head.

AND, I have some mixed feelings about the comments left to this here, but I guess it’s understandable where they come from.

I note that factnet is down as their funds are low, which is where I would have dumped a probably briefer comment perhaps stating simply “BAE?” and assumed everyone knew where that came from.  As is, I had to spell that one out.

It looks like Virgil Goode has been defeated, the man who railed against Keith Ellison’s inauguration on his faith’s Holy Book — the Quaran, and who gave this rant.  One pleasant defeat for what I guess can be called “Bachmann Caucus”.  I suppose this means there will be one fewer source of amusement from out of Congress, but now that I come to think of it, this is never true:  Dennis Kucinich does some goofy things sometimes.

On the negative side of dangling elections, Darcy Burner has been defeated.

The Omaha – based electoral vote has been called for Obama.  This will compound every cartographer for the electoral map, who now need to dab a slab of blue onto the red Nebraska.  Missouri remains in flux, though seems to be tilting toward McCain, and with no reason anyone cares will probably simply settle to McCain.  Good news: a supposed “bell weather” which has never voted for the loser except for a “good wishes to Truman” in 1956 since time immemorial has falled by the way-side, joining Maine when it became similarly irrelevant back in 1936.

Turning to the Senate:  MINUS ONE.  The Joseph Lieberman question.  Let us say you are Joseph Lieberman.  The question is: where can Joseph Lieberman wield the most power?  From a lesser committee, or sub-committee, as offered by Reid in the majority Democratic Party, or in the minority Republican Party Caucus?  Mull this over and ponder its permetations for Joe in the media circuit.  I think both spots fit him okay in placing him as a “critic of the Democratic Party” and “Uber-Independent fellow” on, say, the Sean Hannity program.

The Democrats basically have to hold to their stated position.  This is a meta-narrative.  There were theoretically good points to be made for leaving Lieberman around, but not after the deal / ultimatum was put on the table.  See, the Democrats have a reputation for being easily pushed over.  And to relent is to prove this right.

PLUS TWO:  Jim Martin has a new ad up, as he catupults to the run-off election.  He shows footage from Obama’s victory speech for half the commercial.  It explicitly ties him to Obama’s coat-tails.  This is a little weird, as he just came off of Obama’s coat-tails, and it got him to 46.8 percent of the vote, or roughly the exact same percentage of the vote that Barack Obama received.  On one hand this seems to be Martin’s ceiling here; on the other hand this appears to be his floor.  So, Saxby Chambliss has come out with an ad which shows scary footage of President Elect Barack Obama, and stating that Jim Martin and Barack Obama will raise your taxes.  I guess the extra component ad in Martin’s campaign is that he, as a member of the majority party under the Majority Party President, sits closer to power than the member of the minority party, and this is supposed to pull away those extra couple of percentage points away from Chambliss.  Either that or Obama’s approval rating has risen enough to carry Martin through in the post-election honeymoon?
And John McCain is coming down to campaign for Chambliss.  Which is good, because McCain doesn’t have anything better to do.

Minnesota:  I suspect Al Franken is going to end up winning this.  Call it a hunch.  First time voters scribble too much, and the scribblers edge toward Franken.  A 300 vote deficit for Franken will thus be overcome.

What’s great here is that this will forever be thought in the minds of Republicans as having been a tainted election, stolen by Franken in the middle of several nights with new ballots being furnished out of thin air.  Which is just as well, because Republicans didn’t consider Al Franken a legitimate Senate candidate in the first place.  But, if it is any consolation to Franken, Lyndon Johnson was forever thought to have stolen the 1948 Senate seat in Texas against Coke Stevens — and he ended up becoming president.  Of course, he did.  But that was only because his 1944 attempt to steal a Senate seat was thwarted by the other side, who out-manuevered the Johnson team in the art of stuffing and removing ballots.  The “other side” were Alcohol Interests who wanted to ship a “Dry” politician out of Texas and to Washington, so they fooled Johnson who thought they, as “Alcohol Interests”, would have been helping him.

ZERO SUM GAME.  Alaska is really the Twilight Zone of politics, isn’t it?  The results are fishy, but a little hard to get a hold of what happened, precisely.  In the absense of anything but conjecture and conspiracy theory and crude off-handed jabs, we just have to shrug the whole game off and pretend that nothing looks weird.  Ted Stevens looks like he’s on the road to re-election, or maybe not, (early votes skew toward the Democrats, but are evenly distributed through this hyper-Republican state, so who knows what to make of this?)  — and then immediate expulsion.  The question everyone has is: How does Sarah Palin thus become Senator?  Well, she resigns her gubernatorial post, and has the new governor and current Lieutenant Governor appoint her for the next two years, at which point she’ll be up for a special election.  And that is Palin’s clearest path toward continued national relevance.

When a Republican wins a presidential election, namely George W Bush winning in 2004, there is an outcry among liberal Democrats of “That’s it!  I’m moving to Canada!”  The main alternate country is France, but that brings us to another language.  I think there’s a common understanding about Great Britain that it’s not all that great, and their Health Care Delivery System is only good when compared to America’s.  The biggest jokers on this accord are various celebrities who get easily lampooned in making these assertions — there is never any follow through.

A similar effect seems to be at play with the election of Barack Obama.  Except it is a little bit different.

Franklin Gun Shop outside Nashville, Tenn., sold more than 70 guns on Tuesday, making it the biggest sales day since the shop opened eight years ago. Guns & Gear in Cheyenne, Wyo., also set a one-day sales record on Tuesday, only to break that mark on Wednesday.

Stewart Wallin, owner of Get Some Guns in the Salt Lake City suburb of Murray, Utah, said he sold nine assault weapons the day after Obama was elected. That same day, the gun store Cheaper Than Dirt! in Fort Worth, Texas, sold $101,000 worth of merchandise, shattering its single-day sales record, store owner DeWayne Irwin said.

One Georgia gun shop advertised an “Obama sale” on an outdoor sign, but the owner took it down after people complained that the shop appeared to be issuing a call to violence against the country’s first black leader.

AND

The Denver Post reported that by midday Wednesday, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation’s “InstaCheck” background check — which is required for the sale of a firearm and typically takes about eight minutes — was jammed with waits lasting more than two hours.

This is similar to the news that came after Election 2004 that Americans were jamming the system of the Canadian Immigration websites exploring the possibility of emigrating.

AND  “The day after the election, I had many more calls than usual from people looking for semi-automatic rifles,” said David Greenberg, the owner of the Second Amendment Family Gun Shop, in Bisbee, Arizona, who sold out of AR-15 rifles in recent days.

It is a brave new world.  I imagine the Milita Movement, which sort of waned away as 9/11 subtley brought them into the mainstream of “hyper-patriotically defending the nation”, might be on the march again, such as it was.  They better stock-pile those guns.

You gotta love those gun shop names, though.