Matt takes the position that he cannot support the Johnson-Weld ticket (or the Clinton-Kaine ticket, or the Trump-Pence ticket), and that’s fair enough. I actually think that as a commentator who gets unfairly beaten up for supposedly being a water-carrier for “neanderthal,” arch-conservative Republicans, and an elitist liberal RINO all at the same time—all unfairly and inaccurately, in my opinion—there’s a logic to Matt not voting at all in 2016. At a minimum, this will ensure that in 2017, when someone claims Matt voted for Hillary, or for Trump, it will be a matter of public record that he did not (since he didn’t vote). But I still hope Matt, and folks who share his views, will reconsider and take a second, third, fourth or fifth look at Gary Johnson. 

I get that this isn’t the easy ask it may appear to be on spec. For starters, Matt is pro-life. Gary Johnson is not. And for as much as pro-choice Republicans wish that single thing weren’t a big sticking point for pro-lifers, the truth is that it is.

It bears remembering that for pro-life people, abortion literally is a life-and-death issue.

However, it also bears mentioning that in a contest with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Johnson remains the most pro-life candidate of the three, unless you really, truly believe Donald Trump’s pro-life “conversion” story, which no one who does not also believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus finds credible.

At a minimum, Johnson opposes late-term abortions, including partial birth abortions. Hillary Clinton does not. Donald Trump does not. That makes Johnson the least extreme of the three, and the most palatable, a fact that does not change simply because of Bill Weld’s presence on the ticket, either; while the idea behind the two governors ticket is obviously to add extra heft and governing experience, the fact is, Gary Johnson is the presidential candidate, not Bill Weld—so whatever Weld has said or may say about abortion, or about judges for that matter (Weld seems to have a preference for judges with Massachusetts ties—that’s Massachusetts politicians for you), his views really are subordinate and subsidiary to those of Johnson. And declining to vote doesn’t help stop abortion—whether some or all of it.

As alluded to, another, and related issue some conservatives have with Johnson-Weld is judges. For a lot of voters unhappy with their other options, Johnson himself looks like something of a question mark on this topic, while Weld’s recent comments raise eyebrows—even if they should be seen more as a Massachusetts parochial thing than a “who we really think is qualified” thing. But think about it this way: Johnson certainly does not seem to be planning to nominate a bunch of Ruth Bader Ginsburgs, or people to her left, to the court—which Hillary Clinton would do. He is also exceedingly unlikely to apply as a litmus test to judges that they be consistently deferential to the executive branch, as Trump-nominated judges almost certainly would be. Again, this leaves Johnson still looking like the best option of the three, imperfect though he may be on the judges front.

Johnson has also pissed some people off with his comments on religious liberty, and Matt is one of many conservatives I talk to who are concerned about his stance on this topic. I hear that, but I also have to say, first, go read his op-ed in the Deseret News, and second, remember: Religious liberty is a dicey subject for basically all politicians at this point—even Mike Pence, the one guy in the world who defenders of religious liberty probably thought they could count on until relatively recently.

Remember the debacle over Indiana’s religious liberty law? A lot of conservatives do. First, Pence signed a religious liberty bill; then, after he was pummeled by its opponents, he did a 180-degree, high-profile, gymnastics-grade flip-flop and reversed himself, signing a “clarification” law designed to appease his critics. Pence wound up making no one happy, because he attempted to grapple with the public’s mixed views on religious liberty and make everyone love him.

Not to overly knock Mike Pence… There’s a good reason this stuff is tricky—just look at the polling: Americans want to protect religious liberty, but they also think non-discrimination should trump religious liberty concerns (see the 9/7-10/15 Washington Post poll here). How do you reconcile those two apparently conflicting stances? Johnson believes what Utah has done is the right move. Like that or not, at least with Johnson, you have greater clarity on the issue than you have with most public figures—including Pence, the supposed uncompromising conservative. You also know that your nominee is unlikely to get dragged into the usual painful debates surrounding lunch counters and the Civil Rights Act that typically engulf anyone who describes themselves as a libertarian, even in passing.

Of course, not being a social conservative, Johnson’s stances on some of these issues weigh less heavily on my mind than economics—the area where, along with civil liberties writ large (including surveillance, due process and 2^nd amendment concerns) Johnson shows his libertarian stripes the most, and contrasts well with both Clinton and Trump.

Clinton and Trump are both calling for massive expenditures on infrastructure alone (Trump is suggesting $1 trillion, twice what Clinton is demanding); their records prior to 2016 show plenty of support for deeply unconservative economic policy, too. Meanwhile, Johnson and Weld are governors who both had good, solid fiscal conservative records as governor, even when governing in blue states and having to work with some pretty powerful and numerous Democrats in their respective legislatures.

Go look at CATO’s fiscal report cards on America’s governors from 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. Johnson scores Bs, Weld manages As and Bs. Both were among the most fiscally conservative governors in the nation, in a period when CATO was grading tough (note: a criticism of CATO ‘s ratings, currently, is that they’re a little softer on governors than they were years back). 

Are we hearing enough about this from the ticket? Possibly not—a fair criticism of Johnson-Weld is that they have perhaps devoted more rhetorical effort, of late, to wooing left-libertarians than conservatives or right-libertarians. But the reality is this: Johnson and Weld can be fairly described as “small l” libertarians, who are legitimately fiscally conservative, socially moderate-to-liberal, and plainly preferable to Trump or Clinton when it comes to gun rights, domestic surveillance, and depriving US citizens of due process. They also happen to have more, and more relevant executive experience than any of the other candidates, and—in the form of Johnson—the experience of being a legitimately self-made, successful businessman (as opposed to Trump, who has bankrupted his own company four times, and owes a huge amount of his success to his father).

Is that ideal, from Matt’s perspective? No. Should it be good enough, in a year full of disappointments? I would argue “yes”—especially for conservatives and libertarians who found a way to vote for Mitt Romney…though as noted, in Matt’s profession, he specifically may prefer to be able to prove definitively that he didn’t vote for either Trump or Clinton by simply not voting—that’s just how bad 2016 and the state of political discourse in this country really is.

I will miss Moira terribly. She’s the cat who used to lie on my outstretched legs as I sat on the sofa after our son had gone to bed each night and as I finished off work. She’s the cat who loved playing red dot. She’s the cat who slept between us every night. She’s the cat who mourned her adopted out (by people other than us), and much-missed kittens at least one night a week, by rounding up athletic socks, purring at them and licking them, while cuddling them. She’s the cat who was slightly obsessive-compulsive about licking, and sometimes had to be reminded to quit licking the sofa, when she had progressed on from her own body.

I feel terrible about putting her down in many ways, but I do believe it was best to spare her the suffering of the last few days (or maybe even hours) that she had left. Like most pet owners in this situation, I’m sure, I’m trying to focus more on all the wonderful memories that we will have of Moira, and as part of that process, I was thinking earlier today about what I learned by virtue of living with her for nine years.

(Moira, modeling for the 2013 Mair Strategies Holiday card)

So, here’s to Moira, and here’s some of what I think I learned in my time with her—lessons big and small, silly and serious.

1.    Cats’ noses feel like marshmallows

This goes in the silly category, but one of the things that Moira used to love to do was stick her nose up yours. As such, I realized quite quickly how soft and squishy—and not wet—cats’ noses are. I used to enjoy gently pressing on her nose, and she enjoyed it, too.

2.    Pregnancy and feeding your young takes a LOT out of you, and probably won’t leave you looking even close to awesome

When we first met Moira, and were considering adopting her, she was in a foster home and her kittens had all been adopted out. No one wanted her. She was scruffy and skinny and looked like a total mess. This is what pregnancy and becoming a food source does to you. Thankfully, it gets better. It did with Moira, and it does for other mothers, too. This may sound self-evident or even dumb, but the reality is, as someone who was a bit phobic and skeptical about becoming a mother and had never really had much interest in it (but decided to do it anyway), every example and indicator of what to expect helped—even the non-human ones.

3.    Ginger cats really are the friendliest 

I have now owned three ginger cats, and lived next door to another for a year. Moira was the third and she confirmed for me that for whatever reason, ginger cats really do seem to be the friendliest. Moira basically spent her life purring, rubbing, cuddling, and generally saying hello. That’s pretty consistent with the other ginger cats I’ve owned and been close to. Freaky correlation? Probably. But if you want the super-interested-in-you cat that in some respects behaves more like a dog, gingers seem like a pretty good way to go.

4.    Cancer progresses really fast. Really, really fast.

I’m one of the fortune few who has not seen how fast cancer grows and kills up close. I have many, many friends and family members who have died over the years, but thankfully, have only seen two instances of people dying from cancer—one, my grandfather, one, another family member who had previously survived it and beat it, only for it to come back. Both were beyond middle-aged. Several family friends, mentors and others have been diagnosed with and subsequently beat breast cancer, specifically, which is fantastic, but gives you a skewed view relative to many patients’ experiences.

In the last two months, several friends, plus Moira, were diagnosed with cancer. In the case of one friend, and my cat, the cancer appears to have developed in a matter of weeks (or, in Moira’s case, the cat equivalent of human weeks). I consider myself a relatively well-informed (lay)person when it comes to medical matters, but I simply had no idea that in something like six weeks (or the cat equivalent), one could go from being apparently perfectly healthy to very, very, very sick—in Moira’s case, terminally so, and in the case of the friend, hopefully not (helpfully, unlike Moira, she doesn’t have cancer in a place that makes it completely inoperable; helpfully, also unlike Moira, she has treatment options).

In any event, a) fuck cancer and b) fuck any illness that leaves people making life and death decisions when they’ve barely had time to mentally process what they’re dealing with (the latter seems to be quite common where cancer is concerned).

5.    Kittens are indeed adorable, and many need homes. But adopting adult cats is extremely rewarding.

OK, I already knew this—I’ve adopted adult cats before. But in Moira’s case, she clearly had some special needs (people who would be super-understanding about her kitten situation, and would buy tons of athletic socks as well as kitten-sized, shaped and weight stuffed toys for her to love) and seemed especially desperate for love and affection. I’m glad we were able to give her a good, loving home, where her literal crying and pining was understood, accommodated, and where she was loved dearly, til the bitter end. We still have another cat, Isabel (who we also love dearly, though she is very much more a stereotypical cat—independent, somewhat aloof, and a reverse sexist, to boot), but should we get another cat, now or in future, my suspicion is that it will not be a kitten or barely-not-kitten. There’s a lot to be said for giving the cat that’s not the tiny, cute, adorable, baby cat a home, and seeing what they blossom into. Moira died a beautiful, happy cat—far different from what she was when we first met her, but a great companion throughout. 

It’s hard to narrow a large list of amazing places down to a top 5. But this represents my best effort. Here goes.

1. Angkor Wat

OK, this one was easy. There is nowhere more spectacular that I have been than Angkor.

Undoubtedly, if you travel there today, it will be much more touristy than it was when I visited in 2002. Nonetheless, you should do it, and do it before it becomes more touristy than it already will be. 

The way we did this was a) to fly from Bangkok and b) to hire a car and driver for the day (actually, a couple of days). This gives you latitude to spend lots of time at every temple you want (Angkor is a large temple complex). It also gives you the benefit of air conditioning, which you don’t have if you hire a scooter driver (very common in Cambodia). Since I was traveling with my mother, a car was also going to be better than going by scooter (the latter is a lot more tenable when you’re under 40 than when you’re retired or pushing retirement).

All of the temples are special, and gorgeous. They date from as early as the 9^th century when the Angkor area was a major global population center, and were originally Hindu. Thereafter, several centuries later, the temple complex became Buddhist. There is a specific Angkor Wat temple, and this is probably the most photographed and visually familiar. However, my personal favorite temple within the overall complex is Banteay Srei. It is a small, pink-red sandstone temple and has particularly intricate bas relief carvings. Lost to the jungle, it was rediscovered in 1914.

(image via Wikipedia)

If you visit, remember a couple of things. First, take a lot of water: It is hot and humid as hell at Angkor and you do not want to get dehydrated and end up missing out on what will be one of the high points of your life because you pass out, vomit copiously, or otherwise get sick and have to retire to your hotel/hostel bed. Second, check on the situation with regard to land mines (Laos is really, really bad on this front, but Cambodia has a lot of land mines, too), and stay on the trails. You do not want to tangle either with snakes or the prospect of stepping on a landmine that hasn’t been cleared. Third, wear your insect repellent, and not the light stuff you wear when going hiking in the woods in America or Europe. Mosquito bites can entail a lot of nastiness beyond merely serious itching. (Related: Take your anti-malarials).

2. Palmyra

This is the ancient site in Syria that was recently taken by ISIS—raising fears of history and archaeology lovers everywhere about its future and prospects for destruction.

Originally Neolithic, subsequently Assyrian and Seleucid and Roman, the city is situated at an oasis and was famously run by one of the great female leaders of the ancient world, Zenobia. She attempted to extend Palmyran control as far south as Egypt, and clashed with the Romans, who ultimately took the city after much trying (Mark Antony had reportedly made Palmyra a target, though it took several hundred years for the Romans to gain a firm handle on it).

There are various temples here, most notably the Temple of Bel. There is also a beautiful theater and colonnade, as well as a surviving monumental arch. There are also several interesting tombs, above and below ground. The site also contains Aramaic and Greek inscriptions, and a Byzantine church.

(photo via Wikipedia)

Palmyra was largely lost to history until the beginning of the 20^th century. Hopefully, the site will be preserved despite ISIS’ control of it.

3. Baalbek

I recognize that I am on something of a Levantine trip right now, but Baalbeck really is spectacular, and worth a look—despite the fact that it sits right smack in the middle of territory controlled by Hezbollah in Lebanon. 

The general Baalbeck area has been inhabited for thousands of years, including by the Phoenecians and Hellenes (and, she says half-jokingly, the culture vultures who now visit for the Baalbeck International Festival, as well as possibly ancient aliens—no, not really, but the show apparently featured something about the site at some point). However, it is the Romans who really built it up, and indeed tore it down when Christian emperors shuttered it and used stones from the site to construct a basilica (blame Constantine for the former action, and Theodosius for the latter). 

Known as Heliopolis (thanks to Alexander the Great), Baalbeck holds four temples (to Jupiter, Venus, Mercury and Bacchus, or alternately, the local equivalent gods that were merged with Roman gods to make worship according to Roman dictates easier and more natural for the local population). The Temple of Jupiter is the biggest (and, it is worth noting, not intact), but the Temple of Bacchus is the best preserved. There are various colossal stones here, too, and roof sculptures of various gods and goddesses, as well as Mark Antony and Cleopatra.

(image via Wikipedia)

If you visit, dress conservatively—not burqa-conservative or Saudi-sheikh-robe conservative, but if you’re a woman, it’s best to wear trousers, and no exposed shoulders, (I rocked a somewhat minimalist headscarf, too, not least to protect from the sun) and if you’re a man, avoid tank tops. Recognize also that there is a certain amount of danger, at least theoretically, though when I was there (admittedly the summer of 2001), I did not feel threatened or intimidated or scared (just very hot). Bigger dangers to tourists than Hezbollah, or neighboring countries targeting the area are probably heatstroke, sunstroke, and mass sunburn. Wear your sunscreen. Bring and drink a lot of water, or indeed Gatorade (electrolytes are important). 

4. City of London 

This may seem like an odd inclusion here, but the square mile known as London (the actual City of London, not broader London) contains a wealth of historical gems from the Roman period onward. These can all be viewed, and many visited, for free, just by walking the streets of the City.

London was Londinium in Roman times, and you can still see the city wall built by the Romans here if you walk the area immediately around the Museum of London, or just behind Tower Hill tube station. The remnants of a Roman fort still stand on Noble Street. If you visit the Guildhall, you can actually view the remains of a Roman Amphitheater down in the basement. The foundations of a Roman temple were discovered in the City, too, but have now been moved to an alternate location (supposedly, Bloomberg, which owns the land where the temple ruins were found, will be relocating them back in due course).

The Tower of London is also worth a visit, despite the expense involved in doing so. A Norman fortress, the Tower has served as the traditional pre-coronation palace for kings and queens. It has also served as a prison for the biggest and baddest or just most famous, and an execution site. Anne Boleyn, Lady Jane Grey and others were executed here. Prior to becoming queen, Elizabeth I was held here by her sister, Mary I. This is where the famed Princes in the Tower went missing (and may have been disposed of).

The City also holds St. Paul’s Cathedral, the great masterwork of Sir Christopher Wren, St. Mary-le-Bow (the church within range of whose bells a Londoner must live in order to be a true Cockney), and a whole slew of headquarters of livery companies, the modern-day versions of the medieval guilds (Goldsmiths’ Hall is probably the most notable of these; the Goldsmiths have been headquartered at this site since the mid-1300s). 

The Guildhall itself is, of course, here. As is St. John’s Gate, the former home of the Knights Hospitallers and an entrance to their priory, Clerkenwell Green (which used to host a monastery and a convent, connected by an underground passage that still exists and is accessible via the basement of the Karl Marx Memorial Library) and the Charterhouse, a major Carthusian monastery dissolved by Henry VIII (it was the home of the Carthusian Martyrs).

(image via Wikipedia)

Tower Bridge (London’s most famous bridge, which people erroneously mistake for London Bridge, the far more boring bridge upriver) runs between the site by the Tower and the South Bank.

You can also visit Leadenhall Market and Smithfield Market, two of the City’s historic markets. Smithfield still functions as a meat market. It is also the site where Richard II met with Wat Tyler, leader of the Peasants’ Revolt. Nearby are the church or St. Bartholomew the Great and the execution site of William Wallace. 

All this, of course, is mixed with tall, modern buildings bustling with financial services activity, especially. It is a site to behold.

Note also that while the Temple Church is outside the City, as technically are Clerkenwell Green and St. John’s Gate, it is worth a visit (and you can rope in a visit to Pieminister on Leather Lane with ease, too).

5. Sigiriya

Picking a fifth site for the purposes of this post was tricky. Sigiriya narrowly wins, because of its spectacular situation, its beautiful frescoes, and the astonishing fact that people actually managed to build a palace on top of the massive stone mesa in the middle of the overall site at the point in history that they did. 

If Sigiriya looks familiar, it may either be that you’re a) interested in Asian architecture, history and/or archaeology or b) someone who watched a lot of Duran Duran videos in the 1980’s (the video for “Save a Prayer” was shot here). In my case, I first became aware of Sigiriya by virtue of being the latter.

(image via Wikipedia)

Sigiriya was inhabited before it was developed as the capital in the 5^th century. However, the urban planning for which Sigiriya is known is the construct of its history after taking over from Anuradhapura as the capital. Sigiriya hosts an artificial (i.e., non-natural) reservoir, highly decorative and planned gardens, hydraulic systems, and sculpted lions’ legs and paws (the head used to also exist, but it fell away).

Sigiriya also now hosts a bevy of mischievous monkeys, who will steal any food you bring into the site and which they are even remotely capable of getting their hands on (I’ll cop to having lost my lunch this way). 

If you visit, be forewarned that the climb to the top of the mesa is arduous and quite scary (especially if you have even a remote fear of heights). Depending on the weather, despite it being hot down at ground level, up top, it can be cold and windy—so bring a sweatshirt or windbreaker if you go. Also, bring something to snack on, and lots of water. You will need it to replenish after climbing to the top, before heading back down. 

I will admit, I am also somewhat wary of certain street food in certain countries due to hygiene and disease considerations; in some cases, I’ve had to be, because of things like potentially being pregnant (and wanting to stay pregnant, should I have been). For that reason, while I wish I could say the samosas my husband ate in Kuala Lumpur could make this list, they can’t quite—I didn’t try them because if it’s a choice between being extra cautious about food because your doctor told you to, to avoid any risk to a potential pregnancy that you were told you would probably never be able to have, or tasting the samosa, you sacrifice the samosa. For the time being. I will go back to Kuala Lumpur and I will eat their samosas. And, I suspect, so will my kid. 

In any event, with the samosas disclaimer now being out of the way, here are my top five recommendations in terms of street food/fast food.

1. Pieminister, London (and elsewhere!)

Pieminister is phenomenally excellent. The food is high-quality. The selection is vast. They come with mash and mushy peas. What’s not to like?

My ability to sample Pieminister’s full range of pies is limited, as I cannot eat beef (for medical, not religious or ethical reasons). However, I have had the pleasure of sampling the Chicken of Aragon, Deerstalker and Thai green curry chicken pies.

(picture via pieminister.co.uk)

They are all amazing. And cheap. You can easily eat here for less than £10.  That’s a good deal in a city full of expensive, and sometimes not all that great, food.

2. Lobster soup, Iceland

One of the things you find in Iceland is lobster. Lots of lobster. And one of the things you can get from food trucks in Reykjavik, the capital, is lobster soup. Amazing, delicious lobster soup. 

It basically tastes like the very best lobster bisque you’ve ever had, but with a hint of turmeric, and richer—not least because you can get it with whipped cream (yes, whipped cream) on top.

Iceland is expensive, as you would expect. Lobster soup is cheap by comparison to most food there ($10 or less for a good-sized bowl). If you go, be sure to try some. 

3. Malasadas, Leonard’s Bakery, Honolulu

Imagine the best donut you’ve ever had. Now, imagine it hot, fresh, and filled with either rich custard cream or coconut cream. Imagine heaven in a lump of fried dough.

What you have just mentally conjured is a malasada. Brought to Hawaii by the Portuguese, Leonard’s Bakery in Honolulu makes great ones.

I am personally undecided as to which is best: The custard cream or the coconut cream variety. For what it’s worth, my husband prefers the custard cream variety. But hey, you should really get both, and see for yourself. And if you’re still not sure, go back for seconds. Or thirds. You can surf the calories off later.

4. Chilaquiles, Mexico City

Chilaquiles are Satan’s way of efficiently packaging the requisite ingredients for obesity and a heart attack into a single, easy-to-find and cheap Mexican street meal. They are also incredibly delicious and something that you must try at least once in your life.

What are chilaquiles? Fried corn tortillas layered with sauce of some sort: Mole, or red salsa, or green salsa (your author’s preference is green). Depending on when the sauce is added, it can soften up or merely flavor the tortillas. On top sit shredded chicken, beans, queso fresco and crema. Onions, avocados and other bits and pieces may be added.

(image via Food Network)

5. Crepes, Paris

I lived in Paris for a year, and in that time, I ate a lot of crepes. They are cheap, available all over the place, good, and easy to eat on the fly. This matters greatly if you are a stressed-out student running around like a headless chicken. It also matters greatly if you are a student needing to fill up on something after stumbling out of a bar at closing time, before passing out on your floor.

The best crepes are buckwheat. But any crepe, served with a liberal helping of ham and grated emmental cheese, together with an appropriate amount of black pepper, is awesome. The fact that they come rolled up in a little triangular package perfect for eating on the go makes them even more wonderful. The fact that they are so cheap (single digit dollars) is fabulous, not least because you can always afford to get a second one for dessert. For that option, my money is on the lemon and sugar crepe, or a crepe with Nutella.

The top three on this list are obvious for me. The last two are less so, and in fairness, Damascus and Istanbul were also in pretty close contention. But here are some thoughts on the top five, in any event. 

1. Rome 

It’s probably easier to say what I don’t like about Rome than to list what I do. In truth, there is only one thing about Rome I don’t like, and that is that it’s big. Really big. A lot bigger than you would think, if you haven’t been there. That makes walking the city tougher than you might expect, which is unfortunate because there is a lot best seen on foot. That really just means you should allocate more time than you think necessary if visiting the Eternal City. 

So what’s to love in Rome? In no particular order…

The Vatican: OK, this works better if you are a) Catholic b) an art lover or c) both. In my case, as a Catholic, having been raised by artists, this is pretty much a no-brainer. If you are religious, see if you can manage to participate in Mass here. A friend and I were lucky enough to attend Mass on Easter Sunday, led by Pope John Paul II. It would be fair to say that was a highlight of my life to-date, but merely visiting St. Peter’s is a high point in itself. If you travel to Rome, be sure to do it, and do the Vatican Museums, also. It’s well worth the effort. 

Christian Rome, more broadly: Rome is home to a ton of churches, boasting amazing art and architecture. Some of my favorites are in Trastevere. Rome also hosts its catacombs, which I will confess I have never yet visited—but again, would be worth checking out if you have the time.

Roman Rome: No pun intended. I’m married to a guy who studied (Ancient) Roman history extensively, so walking around the Colosseum, the Forum, the Circus Maximus, the Largo Argentina, Hadrian’s Palace, Ostia, the Pantheon, the Baths of Caracalla, and the immediate areas is a lot of fun. With the bevy of ruins still in good condition, it’s easy to imagine Rome during the Republican and Imperial periods. It’s easy to immerse yourself in these periods of history. It’s easy to spend whole days wandering around these sites, feeling thrown back in time—even though you’re surrounded by throngs of tourists, many of whom would, under normal circumstances, be deeply irritating. Prioritize walking from the Circus Maximus, to the Colosseum, through the Fora, and take in the Domus Aurea and Marcellus’ Theater if you can. It’s a great, if tiring, walk, highly educational and atmospheric, with lots of opportunities for high-grade photography. If you want an additional experience targeted at the Republican/Imperial Roman history enthusiast, there’s also the gladiator’s school. I’ve never done it, but I’ve always been tempted. If you love animals, check out the cat sanctuary at the old temple at the Torre Argentina.

Food: Rome has great food. Street food, sit-down food, you name it. Some of my favorite things include pizza cut with scissors and served up on the fly near the Torre Argentina, gelato (everywhere, but some particularly good gelaterie seem to be around the Camp dei Fiori and the Piazza Navona; my favorite flavors tend to be the nut ones—pistaschio, especially—but also spumoni and cassata), small, traditional trattorie in the old Jewish Quarter, and pepe e cacio pasta pretty much everywhere. The advantage to Rome being so big, and there being so much best seen by walking is you can actually justify eating all of this without packing on weight (OK, if you don’t drink a ton of booze, you can). The disadvantage is if you’ve allocated too little time, you’re going to miss out on some phenomenal (and cheap) food, which would be a tragedy. 

Football: If you love calcio, and I do, Rome is a good place to try to catch a game, if you’re able. Lazio and Roma have traditionally both been teams worth watching (though admittedly, so far as Serie A is concerned, I support Juventus. Sorry, Romans). 

Shopping: Let me stipulate upfront that I hate shopping more than almost any activity. I would rather do an hour at the dentist with a drill than an hour shopping. But with that being said, if you’re going to shop anywhere, Rome is a pretty good place to do it, especially if you want to buy Furla handbags in between visits to churches and gelaterie. It can be good for buying food, too, whether at street markets or indeed at places like Eataly—which is a bit like combining Whole Foods (but Italian), a tapas bar (but Italian) and Ikea (but, um, Italian). Some people hate it. I personally love it.

2. Seville 

I have a soft spot for Seville. I did an exchange there for about five weeks when I was fifteen, and it was amazing. Years later, Seville still amazes as much, for all the same reasons it did originally.

History: Seville has a rich history, combining Christian, Moorish, Jewish, and Roman strands. In the city center, much of this comingles in easy proximity. The cathedral is one of the world’s biggest (the third, allegedly, and also the biggest gothic cathedral in the world). It holds Christopher Columbus’ tomb and incorporates parts of the former mosque—most notably, in the form of the orange tree garden and the Giralda, which is fun to climb and imagine Moors on horses climbing using the ramps (no stairs!) built in from the bottom. The Alcazar and its gardens are a stunning example of mudejar architecture and planning. The Barrio Santa Cruz—the old Jewish Quarter that surrounds these sites— is beautiful, and worth walking around with its hidden squares and narrow passages, though it is also extremely sad to think of the people who once lived here and were expelled because they adhered to the wrong faith. It’s worth a look at the university, which is the site of the former tobacco factory where Carmen is set, as well as the Jardines de Murillo (big gardens). It’s also worth walking down to the river, to see where the boats to the new world set off, and where the Torre de Oro is positioned. The General Archives of the Indies near the cathedral contain Columbus’ records. To sum up, you cannot escape history in Seville, which if you’re a history buff, is a great thing.

Easy proximity to other places of interest: Another big advantage of Seville is that it is so close to other Spanish locales that offer much of the same historical appeal, namely Cordoba, Granada and Italica. Cordoba boasts its church/mosque with its many red and white striped arches, and fewer richly decorated, jeweled arches, as well as a bridge originally constructed by the Romans. Granada is, of course, home to the Alhambra—a must-see—as well as the chapel housing the tombs of Isabel and Ferdinand, and numerous teterias (tea-houses), a great place to relax after hiking around the Alhambra (though walking to them from there is a trek). Italica is a Roman site just outside of Seville, with amazing mosaics.

Food: Spanish food is phenomenal. And while I no longer drink, I used to, and it’s fair to say that Jerez is also phenomenal. Some favorite foods you’ll find in Seville include paella (especially seafood paella), jamon Serrano (kind of like pancetta, but better), tortilla (potato omelette), ensalada rusa (potato salad with peas and carrots, and in Seville, in my experience, commonly also tuna), croquetas (especially ham), olives and manchego cheese. As a general rule, calamari and anything with prawns is also worth a sample. Things with oranges in them are also worth trying. A fun experience is going to the San Marco pizzeria, which is housed in the old Moorish baths—this is a good way to combine history and food.

Events: Seville hosts an amazing Holy Week, complete with processions featuring nazarenos (the guys that dumb Americans commonly mistake for Spaniards wearing KKK outfits), tons of flowers, statues of the Virgin Mary, and so on. Seville also hosts its spring Feria, full of women in flamenco dresses, Spaniards on horses, family and neighborhood casetas loaded with people drinking manzanilla and dancing Sevillanas, as well as quite a few fairground rides (at least when I was there!). This is one of the biggest parties you could ever attend, and one of the coolest, too.

Culture: Separate to the above, there is plenty of flamenco on offer in bars and restaurants, bullfighting (if you like that kind of thing, though to be clear, I do not), and so on. Also plenty of good art; some of the best I ever saw was in a convent I managed to gain entry to thanks to a personal relationship of my host family. 

3. Edinburgh

For many years, Edinburgh felt like my second home, so perhaps it’s no surprise that I rate it highly. However, it really is a cool city—again, full of culture and history.

History: The old part of the city is routinely packed with tourists, to be fair. But it is still full of interesting sites. The obvious ones are Edinburgh Castle and Holyrood Palace, which bracket the Royal Mile, Edinburgh’s old high street. Along the way are the Scottish Parliament, John Knox’s House, St. Giles Cathedral, and the headquarters of the Church of Scotland, all worth checking out. Along here, and on adjoining streets, many scenes from the fall of Mary Queen of Scots and the Reformation played out (Antonia Fraser’s Mary Queen of Scots contains useful details as to precise locations, if this is of interest to you).

Also worth checking out are Princes Street Gardens (check out the flower clock, designed by one of my relatives, as it happens) and the Walter Scott Memorial, in front of which there will invariably be a piper worth listening to for a few minutes. Check out some of the Georgian New Town, also.

Culture: The Edinburgh Festival is world-renowned for a reason; it’s a genuinely great theater/music/opera and dance event. (During the Festival, Edinburgh also hosts the Military Tattoo at the Castle; if you’re interested in bagpipes, Scottish highland dancing, and similar, this is a must-attend event). However, Edinburgh is home to great theater, opera, and so on anyway.

Easy proximity to other places of interest: Rosslyn Chapel—well worth visiting, irrespective of whether you’re into the Da Vinci Code or not—is nearby. Depending on your definition of “proximity,” so are Stirling (host to another great castle, and the Wallace Monument), the Borders (full of beautiful, ruined abbeys), St. Andrews (where yours truly attended University, home to a beautiful ruined castle and cathedral, and some very cool, very old University buildings, as well as the very famous golf course), and the very beginnings of the Scottish Highlands. 

Food: OK, I’m kind of joking. But deep-fried Mars bars aside, Scotland—and Edinburgh, especially in my opinion—is host to some pretty good food. For something traditional, and awesome, try the Waverly for high afternoon tea (note: The Balmoral is also good, but it’s only a little better than the Waverly and far more expensive). Try Mother India’s Café for something not traditionally Scottish, but great. And do try haggis. It sounds awful, but it’s actually delicious.

Golf: I hate golf. But if you like it, there’s nowhere better to play.

4. Aleppo 

It may qualify as leading readers on to list Aleppo here, because so much of what made it such a cool place to visit has evidently been destroyed in the course of the Syrian War. This is incredibly depressing; Aleppo was host to amazing sites of historical and cultural import, and I consider myself lucky to have been able to visit it when I did.

History: Aleppo hosts an amazing, huge Citadel, which apparently is still standing—though that may not remain the case forever. It is incredibly old, with the site itself having been used for thousands of years before even Caesar walked the Earth (though what you see today is really from a little less than a thousand years ago, and is Ayubbid). Aleppo used to also hold a 15^th/16^th century souk with amazing shops including many trading in luxury goods, and a wonderful olive oil soap factory (seriously, it made some of the best soap ever). The souk, sadly, is no more. Aleppo was also a locale of significance for Agatha Christie, with the Baron Hotel, where she wrote part of Murder on the Orient Express, situated here (Lawrence of Arabia also stayed there, and King Faisal declared Syria’s independence here). Aleppo is, or at least was, home to numerous medieval hammams (baths).

Food: Aleppan cuisine is genuinely some of the best food on the planet, combining diverse flavors including pomegranate, cardamom, walnut, eggplant, pistaschio, yogurt, cherries, pine nuts, lamb, and burghal. Basically, Aleppans seem to have taken the best of every culture they encountered (which were a lot, given their locale on the Silk Road) and mixed it all together. The result is phenomenal.

5. Hong Kong

Hong Kong is a city far different to the others on this list. While it boasts traditional aspects, it is also undoubtedly very modern and recognized as such. Here’s what I think makes it worth visiting.

Architecture: Hong Kong harbor is just an amazing sight to behold. It is especially intriguing that so many of the buildings were designed to conform to Feng Shui principles. Whether you believe in Feng Shui or think it’s epic BS, this makes for a spectacle that is very visually interesting, and worth seeing and exploring in person.

Sites: Hong Kong is full of fascinating and beautiful temples, monasteries and the like, including the 10,000 Buddhas monastery and the Precious Lotus monastery.

Awesome horse racing: Happy Valley, Hong Kong’s race track, is probably the most fun and accessible race track I’ve ever visited, and that includes Churchill Downs and Keeneland in Kentucky. Right smack in the middle of the city, it’s ideal to hit up after dinner.

Food: Needless to say, if you like Chinese food, Hong Kong has what you want. Lots of it. It also has great food from elsewhere in the former British Empire (I’m thinking about a great Nepalese restaurant we visited there), and a surprisingly large number of great pastry shops selling things like red bean buns and green tea cake. 

Shopping: As noted above, I hate shopping. That said, there are some times when the deals to be had on quality goods are simply too good to avoid enduring the pain that is dropping cash and hauling bags of stuff around. One example: Hong Kong is the home of the super-fast, super-awesome, super-affordable tailor. Sam’s Tailor on Nathan Road in Tsim Sha Tsui is who our family has used (some of us have lived in Hong Kong), and they’re great. Another example: Night markets. Full of cheap and cheerful goods, they’re worth a look, even if you don’t buy. Another: high-end women’s fashion produced by Asian designers. Another: Furniture and interior décor items (see Yue Hwa, for example).

This has probably been to my financial benefit—my suspicion is that travel writers don’t make much, and the competition is pretty fierce. But with that being said, having undertaken a couple of trips with my infant son has got me thinking that there are some observations about the places I’ve been that others might find interesting, even if no one is prepared to pay me to write about these locales. So, since I have a blog, I use it too little, and I occasionally find myself bored of politics and all things political, but I rarely tire of thinking about places I’d like to visit—as well as those I have visited—and travel is about the only indulgence our family has (we don’t drink, we don’t smoke, we don’t do drugs, we don’t eat beef so no steakhouses, etc., etc.), I’ll be posting a few things. We shall see how many of you care to read them.

As a bit of background, I am fairly widely traveled, though still less widely than I would like. I began traveling very early in life, as my family moved from Seattle to just outside London (where, had I not been born on the early side and had my parents left Seattle just a little earlier than they did, I would have been born) and then back again. Maybe that’s why I like travel—it has seemed normal and natural to me from an early age. Or maybe I like it because I just like sampling other cultures, food, and because I love history. Maybe I just like taking a break from things by immersing myself in very different surroundings (I don’t fully understand the concept of a “staycation”).

Whatever. In my view, travel and visiting other places is one of the great things in life, and something I hope my son grows up to appreciate as much as his father and I do. Of course, even if he doesn’t, probably for a few years anyway, even if he doesn’t love traveling, he’ll be along for the ride. Luckily, thus far, he seems to enjoy it—though obviously, some places he has liked far more than others.

In any event, thanks for reading, please tweet your thoughts to me (@LizMair), and I hope you enjoy.

[intro]

1. You've worked for candidates who lost elections, so why should anyone listen to your views on politics?

Not a lot of people really do listen to my views on politics, relative to people like Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, Joan Walsh and Al Sharpton, but for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure I've had a better track record of predicting outcomes and reasons for them than any of these people. So maybe you should listen, or maybe not. That's your call.

But as for the losing thing, first of all, I've advised winning candidates and parties as well as losing ones, both in the US and abroad. I consulted for the GOP in 2010. I've advised foreign parties and individuals who have won elections. I worked for Scott Walker in his recall election in 2012. I've also worked for losing candidates and parties and organizations (Carly Fiorina is the one who is usually mentioned). And I've worked for people who aren't up for (re-) election who are generally regarded as pretty successful.

My general attitude where working on campaigns is concerned is that I've got to really like and believe in the person, and that their odds of winning aren't really things I consider relevant when deciding whether I like them and want to work for them. Most consultants want to work only for winners, even if they are wet farts of human beings who frankly no one should be inspired by or want to vote for. So, some of them have more winning records than me. But they also work for wet farts of human beings, so there's that.

The vast majority of my work isn't for candidates, committees, parties, etc., though. It's on issues. Again, for whatever that is worth.

2. You only hate Obamacare because it's Obama's initiative, right?

Nope. You should take a look at the pieces featured on this site about Romneycare, the precursor to Obamacare. You'll see I was one of the earliest and most vocal right-of-center critics of it. I hate Romneycare and I hate Obamacare, largely for the same reasons, although ironically, Obamacare actually has a couple of things I like (Medicare cuts, most prominently) that Romneycare doesn't.

3. You don't want people to have health care, do you?

Actually, I do. I just don't believe that the way you provide quality universal or near-universal health care at a reasonable or fair cost is not through expansion of government's role in it, or through a system like the NHS.

4. You don't know anything about the NHS, so how can you criticize it?

Actually, I do. I am a dual US-UK citizen, and the NHS was my primary source of health care for many, many years. One of the reasons I returned to the US was to get into a better health care system than the NHS. The NHS provides universal, fairly crappy care for free for many people, and at a higher cost than (IMO) is warranted for a number of people who don't use it much, but pay for it through their taxes. Sorry to disappoint.

5. You don't have any ideas for what to do instead, though.

Actually, I do, and so do others. Go back and look at John McCain's health care plan from 2008. Hell, look at Obama's. You know what's interesting? Obamacare isn't what Obama proposed. It's what Hillary Clinton proposed. If Obama had pursued what he ran on, it would have been better.

Also look at various health care proposals from people like Rudy Giuliani, Tom Coburn and, yes, Paul Ryan (on the Medicare reform front; there's merit to getting everyone in the country into one system, as opposed to keeping people in something more akin to 3 or 4 systems).

6. You hate gay people.

I'm actually a long-time gay rights supporter. I am on the board of the Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry. I was on the board of GOProud. I've been on the record as supporting same-sex marriage for far longer than the vast majority of Democrats or liberals.

7. You're a social conservative.

Nope, I'm pro-gay-marriage and I'm also pro-choice, though I have some very major moral objections to abortion in most circumstances and would never have an abortion myself. See below for more.

8. You're a baby killer.

I guess this depends on how you define it. I do think abortion should remain legal in the first trimester, or where the mother's life is in jeopardy. I don't think abortion should be allowed on sex-selective or disability-selective grounds, although I also don't think legislation can stop this entirely, only discourage it. I also think people should look at adoption a lot more than they currently do. I think there are huge moral problems with abortion, and that people should abort far, far less. And I would never have an abortion. Above all, I think the best ways to curtail abortion are a) for more people to use better birth control, and more consistently and b) for a cultural case to be made against it, as opposed to seeking to use the strong arm of government to stop it. I'm a skeptic of the effectiveness of big government, and that's true whether we're talking health insurance policy or abortion.

9. You're a racist/xenophobe.

This is true, actually. I am not a fan of Belgium and have met very few Belgians I like. I have a bias against Belgium and Belgians.

But I do like people of Latino, African and Asian extraction, as well as White people -- except if they're from Belgium.

10. You're a lesbian.

No, but I get that some people think any woman with short hair is a lesbian. I'm actually married to the guy I've been with since I was 18 and we have a kid. And yes, my husband was born a man with all the relevant bits, and still lives as a man with all the relevant bits.

11. You hate social conservatives.

No, I like a lot of social conservatives. But I am not a fan of Rick Santorum, or his influence on the GOP. Mike Huckabee is somewhat better insofar as I think he's actually at root a nice guy who cares about people and isn't just bitter and pissed off all the time, but I obviously disagree with him on some stuff.

12. You want to deport all unlawful immigrants.

Unless we're talking gang members or people involved in major financial crimes or sex criminals, no, I'm actually basically for amnesty. I'll even use the word, unlike a lot of people.

13. You hate poor people.

This is partially true. If they're Belgian, I do hate poor people.

But I like and would like to improve the lot of poor people who are not Belgian. I just disagree with liberals and most Democrats about how best to do that. I also disagree with some members of my party about it, too.

I also kind of hate people who support Tottenham Hotspur FC, and a lot of them are poor. Actually, hate might be a bit of a strong word. Dislike and feel sorry for may be more accurate.

14. You voted for Mitt Romney.

I did. I have regretted it for pretty much every second I've thought about it since. In hindsight, it was obvious he was going to lose in my state, so I should have just voted for Gary Johnson. My vote made no difference, but I might have felt marginally better about voting for the going-nowhere libertarian pot guy.

15. You're a RINO.

I have worked for, and like, a lot of more moderate Republicans. And I am a social liberal, and a big softie on immigration. So, yes, kinda, but see below.

16. You're a Tea Party nutjob.

I have also worked for Rand Paul, Rick Perry and Scott Walker, and I like all of them albeit for slightly different reasons. I am very, very conservative on economic policy. I am also extremely pro-2nd amendment. So, yes, kinda, but see above.

17. You spend more time trashing Republicans than Democrats.

Sometimes this is true. But the thing is, there are so many other people who trash Democrats so effectively that I'd just look too second-rate if I focused exclusively on that.

18. Why do you have Justin Bieber's hairdo?

Dude, he changed his hair awhile ago. Keep up.

19. You're an ignorant, uneducated moron.

I'm pretty bad at math, but for what it's worth, I have an MA from the University of St. Andrews, and an English law degree, and I used to be a corporate lawyer. I also speak four languages, albeit three of them increasingly badly.

20. You're not even American, how are you qualified to opine on American politics/culture/history/whatever?

I am American. I am also British.

21. You're not even British, how are you qualified to opine on British politics/culture/history/whatever?

See above.

22. You don't know anything about the rest of the world, you're like most dumb Americans who have never traveled outside their borders.

I've traveled to every continent except Australia and Antarctica, and I've lived in four countries. A non-exhaustive list of places I've traveled to: Canada, Jamaica, Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Motenegro, Greece, Italy, France, Switzerland, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Hong Kong.

But I am bad at math.

23. Carly Fiorina blew her 2010 campaign.

So, California is really hard terrain for a Republican. The party has a shitty reputation with Latinos and no Republican is going to fare well statewide until that problem is rectified. Likewise, unions have a lot of clout out there and they turn out voters en masse to crush the GOP. But it's worth noting Carly lost by less than the registration gap, and less than Meg Whitman lost to Jerry Brown by. That was basically what should have happened with a well-run Fiorina campaign, and that's what we got. We also forced Democrats to spend money in California in 2010 that they could otherwise have spent in Illinois defeating Mark Kirk. We got senator Kirk, and as I more or less expected, we got Senator Boxer. I can live with that result, even though I would have loved to have Senator Kirk and Senator Fiorina. Senator Giannoulias and Senator Boxer would have been a bridge too far, however.

I'll add to this list as new topics crop up. Thanks for reading!

[intro]

Ahead of tomorrow’s independence referendum, ironically this seems a good description of the nature of the challenge that faces both the “Yes” and “No” campaigns. What looks from the outside like an election where really pretty much everyone should have a formed, pre-set view with few caveats, few things that might make people waver in their positions – after all, we’ve been talking and indeed fighting about this issue every couple of decades for centuries now, it seems – the reality is that for a lot of Scots – those eligible to vote and those not (yours truly, along with thousands of other self-described Scots who are not registered to vote in Scotland) – the entire decision to be made, either for the purposes of voting or reaching a personal conclusion, is actually more emotionally, economically, and historically fraught than I think either the “Yes” or “No” camps want to admit. The trouble for both campaigns is that in order to win, they’re both going to have to try their best to appeal to some people who have some very conflicting views on independence, and who sense that everything that would be good about it could also be bad, and that everything that would be great about staying in the UK, could also be terrible. 

Scots are generally among the most culturally proud people on the face of the planet (we’re also among the most irrationally negative, to the point of near-delusion on certain points). Whether or not a given Scot is a nationalist, has ever voted or would ever vote for the SNP, the fact is that on some level, most likely he thinks Scotland is a land apart and should be, on at least some level. He is probably less than England-enthusiastic, perhaps in the way Renton is in Trainspotting (English-dislike coupled with mopey Scottish self-loathing), maybe in a semi-jovial sports rivalry sense (will at least strongly consider supporting Brazil if Brazil is playing England in the football), or perhaps even in a fairly in-your-face, aggressive and somewhat or explicitly hateful manner (yes, there are instances of anti-English crime and straight-up bigotry in Scotland). There’s a decent chance that he holds on to historical grievances that are in reality not even close to based on fact, and are irrationally self-deprecating (e.g., “we were taken over by England,” disregarding the fact that actually, it was a Scottish king who ascended to the English throne when an English queen died without kids – so we really took them over). Some Scots are nationalists and proud because they correctly ascertain that Scots and Scotland have done a lot of hugely consequential, amazing things – without any comparison to, or even thought of, England being involved in our assessment of our heritage, culture and nation. But that kind of Scot is perceived to be in the minority, and candidly, while I think the “Yes” campaigners have tried to keep it positive by emphasizing opportunities that will come with independence, the “Yes” campaign really is relying a lot on the breadth and depth of anti-Englishness in some form to win the day.

It might. There’s a fair bit of it about. The “No” campaign hopes it won’t. There’s a lot of sentiment about that lends itself to a “No” vote, too. And ironically, in many cases, from the same people drawn to independence.

Here’s the trouble: Just as Scotland’s greatest export is its people, that makes Scots – defined broadly – inherently likely to be hugely conflicted by a move that seems likely to cut the country off and separate it, as opposed to integrate it more into the European, transatlantic or even global economies or community, while simultaneously fulfilling deep-seated desires to “be our own country.” 

Scots – especially Scots in the military – did a great deal to establish and then administer the British Empire. You still find Scots spread out over the Commonwealth, America, and the world as a whole. Engineers in Seattle and Kenya. Lawyers in London and Hong Kong. Accounting and finance folks in Washington, DC, and Toronto. These people are both, in general, fiercely proud of being Scottish and fairly wary of seeing their home country cut ties, given the potential for winding up isolated. And they recognize that that is a real prospect. Not only will Scotland be extricating itself from a Union that has, by many measures, been regarded with skepticism and yet has simultaneously proved pretty beneficial to Scots for many, many years (from the original bailout facilitated by the Act of Union to Scots having the ability to move to London and pursue moneyed careers there that could not have been pursued in Aberdeen or Dundee or Inverness or wherever else with ease). Scotland will also find itself in an undoubted mess where the European Union, with which it seeks to engage more by severing ties with more Euroskeptic England, is concerned. No way will Spain, most especially, be happy to sign off on Scotland acceding to the EU without a great deal of trouble, as that sets a dangerous precedent that could embolden Catalonia to split (this is also a problem for other EU member states, it should be noted). And then there is the question of terms should that hurdle be overcome.

The “Yes” campaign says Scotland will keep the pound. That will set some people at ease, insofar as the Euro doesn’t look like nearly the fun and games it did just a few years back. But it’s pretty clear even an independent Scotland will not be able to make currency and economic decisions free and clear of outside interests. And frankly, even if Scotland does, and the pound is kept, that presents another difficulty: Scots are being asked to support independence, but if the pound is kept, by definition, that means that Scotland is not fully (maybe not even mostly) in charge of its own economic policy. Is that independence? Or is that devolution on steroids? And is that satisfactory for either of the dual instincts that a lot of Scots have where independence and Scotland’s potential role in the world are concerned?

The same issue may arise with regard to some broader international questions. I have heard independence advocates talk about a benefit of independence being that Scotland could strengthen relationships within NATO, with Scandinavian countries, with the US. That we could exert more power on the international stage than we do by being part of the UK within the UN, NATO, and so on. But does a small country negotiating with other small countries in a big organization really get more say? What about the fact that lobbying by various “No” forces within the US may well have an impact on the robustness of any future US relationship with Scotland? If Scotland splits, it’s going to want a strong relationship with the US and Scandinavian countries, just as it’s going to want a strong relationship with Europe. But for people who allege we’re always being pushed around, not listened to, dominated by someone else (despite that being factually dubious), how satisfactory will independence be, given our conflicting objectives and desires?

The bottom line is that the “Yes” and “No” campaigns are both still grappling with the same dilemma, and will be until the polls open: A lot of Scots see Scotland and ourselves as “different” to the English and England and in need of more substantive recognition of that fact—more substantive recognition than even the “No” campaign is offering in the wake of some freaky polling. But we want privileges that come with being treated as the same – to keep the pound and other positive aspects of union (like the 22 year-old Scot who wants to go work in the City being able to do so by simply jumping a train, equipped with some cash, a job offer and a suit), keep our international relationships, be powerful on the global stage (perhaps best achieved by sticking with the status quo, despite its unsatisfactory nature) and so on.

Scots want independence. But then we don’t want independence.

And that’s the trouble for both the “Yes” and the “No” camps at the end of the day. To win, you’ve got to get people with that element of bipolarity and changeability to pick a side — shockingly not an easy task, even if we and our ancestors have been thinking about this on and off since the late 13^th century. [intro]

My position has largely been that economic immobility, to the extent that it exists, is a greater concern.

Ultimately, pervasive, long-term economic immobility speaks to a problem with regard to fulfillment of the American Dream. The general idea behind America is that here, anyone who is hardworking (and especially anyone who is hardworking and talented) can make it, irrespective of the economic status into which they were born. Lose that and you lose a lot of our national character and much of what makes, and has historically, made this nation great.

To which I find that liberals typically reply something along the lines of, "yes, we agree, but we have no mobility here anymore, either, because the inequality problem is so out of control." Inequality leads to immobility, in many of their minds. And in the minds of those who don't see it quite that way, I find there is generally at least a belief that inequality correlates directly with immobility, across the board.

I have long suspected that in fact, the extent of inequality in many parts of America does not correspond with or indicate equivalent immobility problems. I don't spend hours a day analyzing studies about this stuff (I have a day job, and it doesn't involve extensive economic policy analysis on a par with, say, what you'd find in a policy job at Brookings or CATO), but anecdotal evidence suggests that this is not so, at least in many major cities and metropolitan areas, as does other evidence upon which I stumble from time to time. Like this, from Crain's NY:

Last summer, the nation's foremost researchers on inequality issued a provocative report which said that economic mobility—supposedly one of the victims of the growing inequality in America—varied dramatically across the country and in ways that defied linkages to the gap between rich and poor and the politics of the local region.

Recently they issued a second, advanced version of their work in which they ranked the nation's cities according to their economic mobility. New York, the nation's capital of inequality, ranks sixth best among U.S. cities. The researchers gauged economic mobility by figuring out the chances that someone in the bottom 20% of income will reach the top 20%.

[...]

New York is the most unequal city in the nation when the percentage of income of the top 1% is the determining number. (This is a controversial but probably correct way to do it.)

Inequality in New York City is concentrated in Manhattan. Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island have the same inequality as the rest of the nation. Brooklyn is slightly more unequal, but not as much people think.

Economic opportunity remains very high in the city as the economy continues to add near record numbers of jobs. Maybe that is despite the chasm between the rich and the rest. Maybe it is because of it. No one really knows.

Other cities where mobility is high include tech centers like San Jose, San Francisco and Seattle. Also on the top 10 list in terms of mobility are Washington, DC, Salt Lake City, Boston, San Diego, Newark and Manchester, NH. The quickie post to which I have linked doesn't assess or state inequality levels in those places, however, it does note that inequality is deemed a problem in San Francisco and Boston (something that seems right, anecdotally; I suspect the same could be said of DC and Newark).

What does this tell us? Not necessarily anything definitive, but I think it suggests that a lot of the rhetoric we hear-- especially out of, ahem, certain New York politicians-- about the extent to which inequality is the economic problem that needs to be addressed may be just slightly overblown.

It does not appear that in New York's instance, or that of San Francisco or Boston, general inequality issues do mean a lack of economic immobility, even if that can be demonstrated in other parts of the country.

Therefore, it would seem to me that the emphasis should be on continuing to pursue policies that preserve and ideally enhance economic mobility, as opposed to focusing on trying to make everyone more economically equal.

To be clear, I do not think the policy prescriptions for each issue are the same or overlap as much as some may.

As an economic conservative, I do think that conservative tax and spending policies are generally conducive to ensuring a certain level of mobility, because ultimately, high spending paid for by high taxes, usually with a good dose of regulation dumped on top, will inhibit a non-wealthy entrepreneur's ability to get a business going, hire people, and make lots of money (therefore enabling the born-poor, hardworking entrepreneur to rise up the economic ladder, ideally bringing some employees with him/her) just as much as they will curtail Paris Hilton's ability to amass even more money to do whatever with.

Without regard to my philosophical preferences, I also think it's obvious that if we don't have a decent education system (which I am unconvinced we do, across the board), it's going to be awfully hard for those born in the bottom 20% to rise up to the economic level of the top 20%, unless we attempt to address the challenge by simply making rich people a lot poorer (the direction and effect that I think a lot of liberal policies would have, but one that doesn't properly or fully address inequality or immobility concerns).

But as a libertarian (and a social liberal who generally likes immigrants and weirdos of all types, as well as cultural diversity), I think it's interesting that the cities listed above that appear to have the most mobility are ones that generally tend to have a good bit of that diversity and tend to be more socially libertarian. Perhaps this contributes to a fostering of entrepreneurial values or at a minimum, the development of weird and wonderful new ideas drawn from non-traditionally American sources to which significant economic value ultimately attaches, irrespective of economic policy constraints that otherwise might inhibit entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and a willingness to take risks and do things differently than they have traditionally been done seems to result in economic reward, in at least a good percentage of cases. Entrepreneurship correlates strongly with status as an immigrant or the child of an immigrant (perhaps unfortunately for us native-born Americans).

I would also note that this need not mean a run towards rampant secularism or political correctness, either; it seems, again from anecdotal evidence, that places in the South that remain "traditional" as gauged against, say, New York City, but which have taken in a lot more immigrants or have seen more integration, appear quite entrepreneurial and to have decent economic mobility prospects. Here, I am thinking parts of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

Or maybe my thinking on this is all just skewed because I spent most of my formative years growing up in Seattle, an area which evidently does not have the immobility problems of which many liberals complain (though like everywhere, I'm sure Seattle too could do better on mobility). It's quite possible that growing up in the era of Microsoft, Amazon, the grunge music boom and so on affirmed my belief that yes, one can be born poor and retire extremely rich at age 40; I am not yet retired, nor would I describe myself as extremely rich, but suffice to say that my economic circumstances today are significantly better than those into which I was born. I am an entrepreneur, and have benefited from living (apart from a couple years of my life) in rather culturally diverse environments; I have also had the benefit of an excellent education; and apart from living in the UK and dealing with high costs of living and high tax rates while working there, I have had the benefit of generally also functioning in a relatively free market society where regulation is lesser than in many parts of the world, taxes are lower (or at least they were, until recently), and where social spending is not as great (though defense spending clearly is more extensive).

In sum, I could be seeing all of this through highly personalized, rose-tinted glasses. 

But I do think this data is interesting and suggests that policymakers' focus should be less on inequality than on preserving and enhancing social mobility; and that the policy prescriptions for the latter are probably not synonymous with those for the former.

I keep getting asked about this, as a consultant who has worked for both deeply conservative and "anti-establishment" candidates as well as rather moderate, rather establishment candidates, so I figured I might as well take a few minutes and put pen to paper here and share some thoughts.

My first thought is this, which seems not to be being seized on much by a lot of the folks writing on this topic: Although in the case of the NRSC, we know that the committee expressed explicit discomfort with working with SCF on the basis of the fact that SCF often appears to be "against the NRSC" on spec, there's another really good reason why if I were running a committee, I'd be concerned about contracting folks who were simultaneously working for outside groups, superPACs, etc., etc.: Legalities and firewall problems.

In the 2012 cycle, there was far more minimal media scrutiny of weak or frankly could-not-exist-in-reality firewalls separating off work being conducted by a number of firms from work the same firms were conducting for people with whom one of their clients were legally barred from coordinating. There was at least one piece written about the lengths being taken in certain Democratic circles to ensure that no accusation of coordination could ever be raised-- friends who went months without speaking to each other, because one worked for such-and-such group and the other worked for a campaign committee, etc. The Republican side, I believe, has been a little less diligent when it comes to this and given the rigorous regulatory focus that some people believe has been brought to bear far more harshly where right-of-center politics, policy and advocacy are concerned, and given that we are talking about *paid media* in the case of Jamestown, it seems to me that if they are committed to doing work for SCF, no matter how robust a firewall they may have in place, there could be legitimate concern about them handling work for committees-- independent expenditure arms or not-- as such. And if no concern about coordination exists, there is of course a legitimate concern about conflicts if work done for the SCF entails attacking the NRSC in paid media, or vice versa. 

It may be that Jamestown has extremely robust firewall procedures in place (I know people at the firm but haven't asked), but the odds are that a) they are less rigorous than, say, what you'd find at a law firm employing thousands of people and b) even if they are, that doesn't eliminate the underlying conflict concern-- and if it doesn't, it's not surprising that one client might take a pass on continuing an arrangement where mixed loyalties are on offer, together with the possibility of leakage. The bottom line is, there is the potential for some professional ethics concerns to arise here and political consulting firms rarely being massive, hundreds-employing entities, they are rather tougher to satisfactorily manage than they are in, say, law firms, accounting firms, large ad agencies, and so on. That's not a knock on Jamestown; that's a reality of the business that we're both (generally) in. We all have to deal with it. It sucks when you lose a client or a prospective client as a result of it, but it's happened to all of us. This is part of the game.

What is arguably not part of the game is winding up with a former client apparently being willing to complain to the press about the work you continue doing when that client has made a decision to walk away. Typically, complaining about someone with whom one was in (or had the possibility of being in) a professional relationship with is reserved to the aggrieved consultant, as opposed to the person cutting the checks. But in this case, it seems clear that some "establishment" types have been willing to vent a little in the press. That, plus the fact that it is looking like pretty much all "establishment" types have either taken this same decision not to use Jamestown and/or advise others not to use them-- and more importantly, the fact that this is being aired in the press-- is what I think strikes people as less usual or explicable. 

But is it as big a deal or as big a problem as people pretend?

Maybe I'm being callous, and it's possible this comment and this post will come back and bite me in the ass one day, but I tend to think not. 

The reality is, this stuff (blacklistings, decisions not to hire X consultant because of their affiliation with X-- opposed to their quality of work) happens all the time. It's happened to me with both types of candidate. I've been aware of extremely conservative candidates I've pitched being warned against hiring me because I worked for the RNC in 2008 and am a total RINO/am an untrustworthy Paultard (interesting how those two accusations can be peddled simultaneously, with the same intention) and I've had to answer questions about both and attempt to allay concerns about both before getting anywhere close to being able to take on a candidate (and as much as I'd like to say I've been consistently able to allay such concerns, the reality is, I have not, and it's cost me business and clients). I've also had at least one more establishment figure's personnel freak out over my having worked for more conservative figures (in addition to, again, being "too much of a Paultard"-- I love how that one cuts both ways!).

Is this fair or right?

Possibly not. I'd like to think everyone gets judged, hired and fired on the basis only of the quality of their work (which in our firm's case is exceedingly high). 

But it is the reality. How many political consultants can you think of who obviously suck at their jobs, but keep getting hired for all the biggest/highest-remunerated/most high-profile roles, likely because of who they know, who their friends are, and quasi-nepotistic concerns? I'm not one for making public enemies, on the whole, so I won't name names here, but suffice to say, I see this all day long, every day, and to my mind, it's something that ought to be of far greater concern than blacklisting of a firm over the work they do for an organization that a) they can't risk the appearance of coordination with and b) they would never want their stuff leaked to, even inadvertently, even if purely by accident. The latter is a risk judgment call. The former is a pattern that is pervasive on both sides of the aisle, and which in the GOP case, unfortunately (I believe) often puts my party in a position where the best candidates (moderate or conservative, establishment or not) are not going to battle with anything close to their best troops or best weaponry. And then we lose when we should not.

The bottom line here? If you're a GOP candidate or organization and you're looking for a direct mail and/or ad firm, my guess is you're going to hear the name Jamestown a lot. If you have concerns about coordination or leakage based on their existing client list, then I think there's a valid reason to a) raise the issue and b) if the concern is not allayed, shop around some more. But please, don't hire any of us-- including myself and Jamestown-- just because some person we're buddy-buddy with and you're buddy-buddy with told you you should, and without having regard to the quality of our work. 

The fact that the latter thing even has to be said is an indicator of the true controversy with regard to political consulting and contracting within the GOP: It's not the blacklisting, it's the quasi-nepotism. [intro]

Let's stipulate two things from the get-go here.

First, almost certainly Liz Cheney is fibbing about her stance on same-sex marriage, given comments she has made previously and the impression she and folks close to her have obviously allowed to persist not merely out in the public, but frankly in private, amongst close family members. She is almost certainly doing it for political purposes. It is exceedingly unlikely to do anything for her, politically, because a) same-sex marriage is not a particularly motivating issue in the way that say abortion or Obamacare or guns or even taxes are in Republican primaries and b) pretty much no one believes her stance is what she said it was, on Sunday.

Second, it's hard to see how Mary Cheney and her wife would not be at least a little hurt by what was said, and perhaps more importantly, the fact that it appears no heads up was given as to the stance Liz would be very publicly taking on this issue (which doesn't seem to conform to the stance Mary and her wife thought Liz held). It's hard to imagine them not wanting to vent at least a little bit, and let's not forget, Mary is a Cheney-- and neither her Dad nor her sister are exactly known for biting their tongues or playing nice with people who oppose their positions on key issues. I've been told by people who have worked with Dick Cheney that a challenge in handling his communications is that he simply does not care what people think of him. I daresay Mary may have a bit of her Dad in her that way. And I think Liz probably does, too.

Yet despite this, the whole episode feels uncomfortable, even to those of us who agree with Mary Cheney on the policy issue at stake here and empathize with her need to publicly vent and push back on Liz. The spectacle of two sisters, largely perceived to be quite close, fighting is both sad and unnerving, especially in the context of politics, where there's a tendency to highly prioritize the "virtue" of loyalty.

I put "virtue" in quotation marks because I personally believe that in politics, loyalty is most often a "virtue" invoked by someone who has seriously screwed over another person and wants them to not abandon them or raise hell about it or just generally be peeved or disgruntled over a long term. Sometimes that's not the case, but frequently it is, and we can see this on every level from intra-staff relations to the way that different parts of the party-- moderates, conservatives and libertarians, for example-- interact with each other routinely when it comes to primary fights, voting patterns and volunteer efforts. Nonetheless, regardless of the merits of loyalty, it's one of those things we're told is important in politics (as Philip Seymour Hoffman's character says in Ides of March, "There's only one thing I value and that's loyalty. And without it, you're nothing").

But the Cheney-on-Cheney fight is actually useful for us to watch play out because I think it's forcing a lot of people to think about how much loyalty really matters-- and if it does, loyalty to what or whom. And as you might suspect from what I've said above, my view-- probably like Mary's at this point-- is that loyalty is highly overrated, and is really only owed where it is earned. And I'm not sure you earn something merely by having the same parents as the person who ostensibly owes you something.

This is something I've spent a lot of time thinking about before. As some people reading this post will know, periodically, I get asked if I would consider running for public office (usually Congress). At one time, I thought I might. Subsequently, I have changed my mind on that. One thing I've known throughout, and that I think of every time someone asks, is that were I to run, I'm quite sure that I would not have the electoral or financial support of my family (though unlike Josh Mandel's family, I also would not likely have them running paid ads against me-- we're Scottish; we're too cheap for that). And while that may make a lot of you think "wow, Liz's family are a bunch of assholes," actually, with few exceptions, no, they're not, and actually, I'm OK with the concept of families not standing steadfastly by their campaigning relative, no matter what that person is running on or how deeply they may disagree with it personally.

I don't talk much about my family publicly, and I'm not going to go in depth here, but suffice to say, I'm pretty sure that if asked, my mother would tell a reporter that she thinks I'm way too right-wing on entitlement reform. My sister and I definitely don't agree about unions, and it wouldn't hugely surprise me if she noted that on Facebook were I running and making comments she interpreted as disparaging of them. My brother is probably the politically closest to me, but he and I certainly disagree on health care policy, and he's a pretty active Facebook user and generally rather vocal about his political opinions. I'm not actually sure that if I ran for Congress, I would get their votes (and I seriously doubt I'd get their money). Of course, they also do not have the public profile that Mary Cheney has, nor do they likely have the same number of Facebook friends, or the same number of reporters among them, and I guess that's convenient for me.

The same could be said of my friends, more of whom are liberal than not (contrary to what certain friends, ahem Mike, naturally think). I'm sure they could all get on board with the idea that if I were to run, it would be because I'd be trying in my own way to make the United States a better country. But I'm pretty sure some of them would view it as a misguided way.

I'm OK with that.

I don't think your family or friends have to uniformly support you, agree with you, or at least stay silent about important issues to them just because you disagree, or even because one believes the other is entirely wrong. Obviously, it's best to avoid surprises where policy stances are going to become evident that perhaps might not have been before-- this avoids hurt feelings to the maximum degree and also optimally ensures that any ensuing back-and-forth falls more into the category of legitimate airing of differences on an issue rather than public sniping. But frankly, on any important policy issue, emotionally-charged debate is something that a) a prospective public official had better be prepared for, because a lot more of it will happen if elected to serve and b) can be enlightening, and is rather at the core of democracy and a free society (whereas "loyalty" is not).

Would it be nicer if the debate that now exists between Liz Cheney and her sister had been more sanitized and less personal, like the debates we typically see about same-sex marriage in presidential debates? Perhaps. But I'm not sure that's really possible, nor is it necessarily desirable. On both sides of this issue, people have strong feelings and deeply personal reasons for feeling the way they do that no matter how much they may be cloaked in philosophical argumentation I think in some way, to some degree, always come down to personal experiences, gut instincts and the like. 

The rest of the country is involved in this particular debate, and it will probably come up at thousands of dinner tables this Thanksgiving (not least due to Liz and Mary's own comments). The only real reason I think the Cheneys should be different is that it seems implausible that Liz's views on this matter are what she said they were this weekend-- which, if I'm right on that, means there isn't really a debate or a disagreement, just some conjured-up political theater. [intro]

Since this is the topic of the day, I figured I'd post a little something on this point here (largely repeating what I sent said reporter), so people know where I stand on it, as an observer of the race and a Virginia voter. For a lot of you, this is unlikely to make for pleasant reading. But it is my honest, and unvarnished, opinion, for whatever it is worth.

First, I fear the lessons that should be taken away from the election are not those that will be taken away by the parties. This is a stinging defeat for Republicans, and a lot of us are going to be licking our wounds today and trying to find some way of making it hurt less. Usually, that involves making excuses that should not be made. By the same token, a lot of Democrats are over-jubiliant about the result. This is fine with me, as they will take away "lessons" from what happened that are, in fact, wrong. This gives Republicans something to exploit. I hope we do.

But for now, here are the lessons I think should be taken away from what happened, in no particular order of priority. [intro]

7) Virginia in particular is a state that is changing rapidly in terms of voter profile, demographics and philosophy. This ain't your daddy's Virginia. Act acordingly.

Unfortunately, my Father died when I was 21, so he's not around to see what I think he taught me. But in any event, here's the best, funniest, and most useful of those various lessons.

Thanks, Dad. I miss you every day. 

1. It’s better to be smart and compassionate than to be super-smart and lack compassion.

2. It’s always an appropriate time to eat olives.

3. Maintain a sense of humor, even when it seems impossible.

4. The critics are wrong. Ishtar is a great film.

5. Being tight-fisted with money is a virtue. Be cheap and save.

6. A flat tax is a good policy idea.

(My Dad preferred Jerry Brown over Bill Clinton in 1992, in large part because he liked the flat tax proposal).

7. The way you were when you were 25, 30, 35, or 40 need not define the way you will be when you are 50, 55, 60 or older. Not everyone is really grown-up when adulthood descends upon them, but everyone will get there.

8. Sometimes, the best thing to do is just walk away.

9. People will say you can’t do things. Usually, they’re wrong.

10. The Oakland As will pretty much always come out ahead of the Mariners. Especially if you're actually at the game.

11. Education is critical.

(Pier Walk at the University of St. Andrews, where I attended university).

12. Wool breathes.

13. Never trust green women.

(Real lesson: Star Trek is awesome).

14. The most important and interesting parts of all modern music are drums and bass.

15. It’s totally normal and appropriate to dip French Fries/chips in milkshakes.

16. When you’re in pain, take painkillers.  When you’re sick, take your medicine, drink lots of liquids and go to sleep.  Sitting around suffering isn’t conducive to healing.

17. Sometimes, you’ll take shit for doing the right thing. But it’s still the right thing.

18. Always tell racists and other “phobes” off, no matter who they are.

19. Christmas is for the children; get them gifts, forget about the adults.

20. It’s better and more efficient to take someone shopping for a present and get them something they really want, rather than try to guess, surprise them, and get it wrong.

21. Raw intellect without common sense can prove limiting.

22. There are worse things to be than "difficult to work with." Stupid and immoral are two such things.

23. Be careful about pissing off your mother.

24. It's totally fine to be the proud owner of 15 rabbits at a time.

25. To paint, to draw, art history, how to read stock statistics and what they mean, and how best to manage your financial arrangements to maintain as much peace and harmony as possible at home. 

[intro] 

1. If you need to get something done, ask really nicely. If that doesn't work, make yourself such a living hell to deal with that people will do whatever you're asking of them so they won't have to interact with you further.

2. Shooting guns is fun.

3. There is nothing wrong with ABBA.

4. George was the best Beatle.

5. If you let public sector unions get out of hand, you may wind up with dead bodies going unburied.

6. Animals are way more awesome than humans. Humans kind of suck, actually.

7. Sometimes, the appropriate thing to do is tell someone to "Fuck off!"

8. You don't have to spend a lot to look good. You can find amazing stuff at the thrift shop.

9. Stay fit and healthy like Grandma. But don't cook like her.

(These are courgettes. My grandmother put them in almost everything. To this day, I hate them).

10. You're not better than anyone else. You may be better at things than someone else, but you're not better than them, and they're not better than you.

11. Being popular is much less important than most things.

12. Les Miserables is the best musical.

13. Tap dancing is a great way to burn calories, work out tension, do something artistic and make a ton of noise, all at the same time.

14. Cooking for your husband is a nice thing to do, not something reserved for submissive weaklings married to misogynists. However, remember to prick potatoes before baking them.

15. Everyone is going through some private hell. Remember that when you ask yourself why so-and-so is being such a dick.

16. It's perfectly acceptable to talk to birds, squirrels and other wildlife.

17. Bet to show. Not to win, nor to place.

18. Sometimes, a packet of M&Ms really is the answer to all your problems.

19. Always say "thank you for having me" when leaving a party.

20. You have more control over a stick-shift/manual car than an automatic.

21. Question authority. All of it. 

22. You can ask as many times as you want, but the answer will still be "no."

23. Mascara is the most indispensible item of make-up.

24. Don't try to pet otters at the zoo. They're cute, but they bite.

25. Basic French. How to tap dance. How to drive. How to make oatmeal cookies.

[intro]

I know this sounds tinfoil hat-ish to some folks. But I can't help but immediately feel again that there is some of this going on, intentionally or not, when I read things like this, from the Washington Post:

The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

[...]

Obama pledged in his State of the Union address to do more to make sure more Americans can enjoy the benefits of the housing recovery, but critics say encouraging banks to lend as broadly as the administration hopes will sow the seeds of another housing disaster and endanger taxpayer dollars.

“If that were to come to pass, that would open the floodgates to highly excessive risk and would send us right back on the same path we were just trying to recover from,” said Ed Pinto, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former top executive at mortgage giant Fannie Mae.

Administration officials say they are looking only to allay unnecessary hesi­ta­tion among banks and encourage safe lending to borrowers who have the financial wherewithal to pay.

[...]

“If the only people who can get a loan have near-perfect credit and are putting down 25 percent, you’re leaving out of the market an entire population of creditworthy folks, which constrains demand and slows the recovery,” said Jim Parrott, who until January was the senior adviser on housing for the White House’s National Economic Council.

One reason, according to policymakers, is that as young people move out of their parents’ homes and start their own households, they will be forced to rent rather than buy, meaning less construction and housing activity. Given housing’s role in building up a family’s wealth, that could have long-lasting consequences.

[...]

Deciding which borrowers get loans might seem like something that should be left up to the private market. But since the financial crisis in 2008, the government has shaped most of the housing market, insuring between 80 percent and 90 percent of all new loans, according to the industry publication Inside Mortgage Finance. It has done so primarily through the Federal Housing Administration, which is part of the executive branch, and taxpayer-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, run by an independent regulator.

The FHA historically has been dedicated to making homeownership affordable for people of moderate means. Under FHA terms, a borrower can get a home loan with a credit score as low as 500 or a down payment as small as 3.5 percent. If borrowers with FHA loans default on their payments, taxpayers are on the line — a guarantee that should provide confidence to banks to lend.

But banks are largely rejecting the lower end of the scale, and the average credit score on FHA loans has stood at about 700. After years of intensifying investigations into wrongdoing in mortgage lending, banks are concerned that they will be held responsible if borrowers cannot pay. Under some circumstances, the FHA can retract its insurance or take other legal action to penalize banks when loans default.

“The financial risk of just one mistake has just become so high that lenders are playing it very, very safe, and many qualified borrowers are paying the price,” said David Stevens, Obama’s former FHA commissioner and now the chief executive of the Mortgage Bankers Association.

The FHA, in coordination with the White House, is working to develop new policies to make clear to banks that they will not lose their guarantees or face other legal action if loans that conform to the program’s standards later default. Officials hope the FHA’s actions will then spur Fannie and Freddie to do the same.

[...]

The FHA is also urging lenders to take what officials call “compensating factors” into account and use more subjective judgment when deciding whether to make a loan — such as looking at a borrower’s overall savings.

“My view is that there are lots of creditworthy borrowers that are below 720 or 700 — all the way down the credit-score spectrum,” Galante said. “It’s important you look at the totality of that borrower’s ability to pay.”

Before delving more deeply into this, let me first get a little bit of light "I-told-you-so" out of the way regarding measures advocated by Obama and other Democrats, generally, that some of us said at the time were interventions in the private market and actions regarding the lending market that would indeed help guard against another financial crisis, but with the tradeoff cost that banks would become thoroughly unwilling to lend to borrowers with less than a perfect credit score and a boatload of cash to use as a downpayment.

Surprise! The intervention in the market and action vis a vis lenders worked: They're not lending to people who look at all iffy anymore because they don't want to get hammered if (or maybe even when) the iffy borrowers default and the taxpayer doesn't pick up the tab!

But now, to the real meat of the matter: What are we talking about doing here, why, and what are the potential effects of it going to be.

Clearly, the Obama administration has come to the view that, contrary to what they had perhaps thought previously, banks taking a very conservative approach to lending is a problem, and banks need to get riskier (although I'm sure they'd quibble about the degree of risk involved).

So, they are returning to some of the core "realizations" that drove the policy moves to make it easier for people to get mortgages to buy houses back before and during the bubble-- those policy moves (e.g., the Community Reinvestment Act) having helped ultimately to build that bubble. These realizations include:

- construction is a big chunk of our economy, and if we don't constantly make it super-easy to get credit, there won't be buyers around to buy new houses, and if that's the case, we'll have a crappy construction sector and a bunch of blue-collar, non-college-educated males unemployed, and the economy won't look so healthy, either;

- if you make it harder or riskier for banks to lend, they tend to try to find ways of reducing their risk and/or hassle. That means less lending to unestablished twenty-somethings (even if they have great credit ratings) and, predictably, less lending to a whole swath of middle and lower income people who, while nowhere near as risky as a no-income no-job no-assets  borrower like the kind that was able to get a mortgage on a big, expensive house a few years ago, still aren't anywhere near as safe a bet as the guy who's already owned (and paid the mortgage on) two houses, makes $250k a year, and can front a 25% downpayment;

- that in turn tends to mean (gasp!) the borrowers most able to get credit are rich, white people who are probably already pretty financially secure and not dependent on getting on the housing ladder to achieve financial security (in part because in many cases, they're already on the housing ladder and have already achieved a fair degree of financial security);

- (and I'm conjecturing here) it's basically impossible for the vast majority of people to get ahead and build any wealth or savings in a country where wages have been pretty flat because all potential increases have been being plugged by employers into ever-pricier health insurance plans (with the health care cost inflation rate being higher than the overall inflation rate), and where a lot of people can't save because they have exorbitant amounts of student debt to pay off. So, hey, let's make people rich anyway, by making sure everyone "owns" a house and stimulating the hell out of the real estate market (a.k.a., growing the bubble), so that people can comfort themselves by looking at the surveyor's estimate of their house's value after a bout of crying induced by seeing only a couple of thousand dollars in savings (if that) after years of work. (Hey, also, let's solve the problem of parents not being able to afford $100k to send their kid to some crappy college to get a BA in "media studies" or somesuch by ensuring they can borrow more easily to fund the four years of study put into getting the "media studies" degree).

The reality, folks, is that America without risky lending is a bitch for a lot of people.

They don't start off ahead, and they have much more minimal chances of getting ahead than what most of us grow up believing.

The Obama administration has noticed. And they likely know that fixing that situation is hard; moving back towards where we came from, even with all the attendant risks of people losing their houses, going bankrupt, shareholders losing value, people watching their pensions and investments go up in smoke, banking institutions crumbling, and taxpayers footing a big, fat bill, to prevent worse, might-- just might-- be easier, at least in the short term.

That doesn't make it better, of course, or smarter, thinking long-term. But it is more immediately pain-free, and at least allows the illusion that is sadly as it stands just that for a fair chunk of people-- an illusion-- of being able to achieve the American Dream to continue.

Hence my suspicion, between stories like this and the Fed keeping interest rates crazily low, that we're going to pursue policy that moves us towards rebuilding the bubble at least a bit, like it or not. And personally, I remain skeptical of the wisdom of such moves, though I certainly understand the motivations. [intro]

My translation: 

"Personally, when I hear the term 'married,' I think of a man and a woman. That's what the term has meant historically and as a matter of religious definition. However, states need to recognize contracts whether they're between gay couples or straight couples, which many states do not currently do on 'public policy' grounds. We also need to reform the federal tax code so that it doesn't treat married people differently from single people. If we do both of those things, then you achieve equal rights without having a discussion about what 'marriage' is or is not and who is entitled to what from government and who is not."

He's basically right here. The big problem, on my read, is that this isn't something that would be politically popular enough to get it done. (Additional side issue: This doesn't deal with immigration questions). But it is important insofar as it indicates his thinking.

Remember, many constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage also bar government recognition of anything between two dudes or two ladies that looks or acts like a marriage (i.e., civil unions, partnership agreements). (And remember, courts are part of government, too). We have states that have said "no" to the idea of partner visitation rights where one half of a couple of hospitalized. These policies amount to a non-recognition of contracts. And that is a huge problem for same-sex couples.

Paul's answer, unsurprisingly, is not the most practical one (I'm a libertarian and I think our ideas are awesome, but I certainly won't argue that they're easy or could be implemented in a straightforward, non-controversial manner). But it does give an important indication of how he thinks about this issue, which is very different from how a lot of Republican elected officials think about it. [intro]

That effort will culminate tomorrow, with the meeting of the state central committee.

But on the eve of the vote, it appears that those behind the effort have attracted some fresh opposition, in the form of two former Republican governors of the Land of Lincoln:

Former Republican Govs. Jim Thompson and Jim Edgar urged the GOP State Central Committee to adopt a “big tent” approach as they head into a special meeting Saturday, when the panel could vote to oust Party Chairman Pat Brady.

“If they fire Pat Brady, it will further submerge the Republican Party in Illinois, which is at a pretty low point, anyway,” Thompson said Thursday in an interview with WBEZ.

[...]

Given the timing, Edgar said it would be unwise to fire Brady for his public support of same-sex marriage, as public sentiment is headed in the same direction.

“I think it’d be a mistake to use that as a reason to – to remove somebody who I think’s done a credible job,” Edgar said in an interview Thursday. “And it’s the wrong political decision as well as, I don’t think it’s the smartest thing to do.”

[...]

“If they vote Pat Brady out, they better have a damn fine candidate to replace him, rather than leave the party leaderless or rudderless or in the hands of somebody who can’t do the same good job that Pat does,” Thompson said. “That would be outrageous.”

Previously, it appeared that Brady's opponents were arguing for his ouster on grounds that extended beyond his support for same-sex marriage. 

Illinois State Sen. Jim Oberweis, a state central committeeman behind the ouster move, has however conceded that Brady's stance on same-sex marriage is a, if not the, primary issue, telling WBEZ, “You cannot have the chair of an organization publicly going out and lobbying in opposition to the organization’s stated goals. Doesn’t matter what the goal is. It would have been exactly the same result if he had lobbied in favor of Obamacare."

Brady backers argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is not a majority position among Illinois Republicans, and further, that Brady has not pushed for same-sex marriage on behalf of the ILGOP, but rather in his personal capacity. Brady also notes that the principle of accepting a diversity of opinion is in the ILGOP's platform.

Brady views the attempt at his ouster as something that would "send a terrible signal to the people of the state of Illinois that we’re a close-minded party." 

Meanwhile, state central committeeman Roger Claar told WBEZ that the move was reminiscent of a "kangaroo court."

In order to remove Brady, three-fifths of the state central committee will have to vote to do so. 

As previously noted, my personal opinion is that Brady should remain in office, particularly given the importance of electing a Republican governor in 2014 and the significant challenge that installing a new Chairman now would present in achieving that.

This is of course setting aside that Brady's stance on same-sex marriage is in line with Illinois opinion on the issue, which is politically helpful. [intro]

Pat Brady, who was elected Chairman in August 2009, became the target of same-sex marriage foes after publicly voicing support for same-sex marriage, which has been the focus of legislation in the Land of Lincoln this legislative session. 

Committeemen Jim Oberweis (a state senator from Sugar Grove) and Jerry Clarke (of Urbana) are depicting the move as grounded in a broader set of concerns, ranging from fundraising to communication issues.

However, in an interview with radio station WBEZ earlier this month, Oberweis conceded that the move was “something to do with a CEO of an organization lobbying on behalf of something the organization opposes” (the “something” in question apparently being same-sex marriage).

The move to oust Brady is reportedly opposed by Sen. Mark Kirk, who won his Senate seat under Brady’s tenure. It is also opposed by Illinois House Republican leader Tom Cross, and grassroots conservatives within the state.

Supporters of Brady point to the Kirk Senate seat win, the pick-up of four congressional seats, and the win of various state-level offices which had previously been held by Democrats as evidence of Brady’s effectiveness.

In addition, they cite his work in bringing the party’s finances and operations into order (one supporter points to both fundraising and cost-cutting, as well as upgrading its data operations). Chris Robling, an Illinois GOP analyst and blogger calls Brady “the best chairman we have seen in 20 years.”

In the wake of the news, Brady has canceled a major fundraiser that was reportedly expected to bring in $250,000 to the party, and at which Exelon CEO John Rowe, himself a same sex marriage supporter and big donor to the IL GOP, was to be honored.

In a statement to WBEZ, Rowe said, “The party needs to work its way through this because it’s pretty clear that you can’t be too conservative on the so-called social issues and win in Illinois.”

That’s true enough, but as many of us conservative and libertarian same-sex marriage supporters have opined previously, it is inaccurate to suggest there is anything philosophically inconsistent with support for the freedom of same-sex couples to marry and support for free markets, the pro-life perspective, and a robust national defense.

Brady has had the good sense to support same sex marriage rights as many others in the GOP, ranging from Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to Ted Olson, have publicly declared their support for government recognition of same-sex marriages.

That may not be popular with same-sex marriage opponents, but it is it is also hardly on a par, as substance goes, with a party Chairman running the organization’s finances into the ground, engaging in gaffe-a-minute interviews that wreck the party’s image, or failing to develop and then execute an appropriate GOTV program come election time (these are just some of the failings that have been evident on the part of other state party chairmen from around the country over the years).

The 2014 Illinois gubernatorial race is one for which both Illinois and national Republicans have high hopes. One concern about ousting Brady that should exist—separate to that of the reputational damage to the party that would be sustained by purging a Chairman over views that are within the mainstream of American political opinion, in a bluer state like Illinois where the Rick Santorums of the world are unlikely to compete under even the best circumstances—is to do with the prospect of having hard work needed to win the governorship halted as another Chairman takes over, acclimates to the office, and attempts then restart work that Brady has already begun.

Illinois Republicans should resist the temptation to clear house over a philosophical disagreement on one issue, and keep Brady in place.

Not only will his brand likely prove more of a help than a hindrance, but the mess of changing horses in midstream (which was too risky even during Michael Steele’s objectively rather shambolic tenure as RNC Chairman for RNC members to seriously pursue) will be avoided. [intro]

I’ve largely kept out of this process for two reasons. First, travel during December prevented me from partaking in certain efforts forming part of this overall endeavor. Second, I’m a cynic, and remain skeptical that the efforts that have been undertaken and which are, in some cases, continuing will result in the party really understanding the true nature and depth of its problems, let alone cause the party to get its, er, shiitake mushrooms together.  The incentives just aren’t quite aligned in that direction yet, in my honest opinion (I may write more on that later).

But, people keep asking me where the problems lie and what do I think needs fixing. So, I’m publishing this post, which—full disclosure—I really feel like comprises a number of “Master of the Obvious” elements, but which some people seem to be missing despite all the chatter.

Here are the big five problems the GOP has faced and will probably continue to face, having regard to where opportunities were missed in 2010 and 2012. [intro]

First, a lot of bad candidates have been fielded, and a lot of crappy campaigns have been run. And no, I don’t just mean that candidate whose name immediately popped into your head there. 

Second, and tied in with this, we have too many less-than-cutting-edge and insufficiently creative and/or out-of-date consultants making a lot of money off of said crappy campaigns.

Third, our technology sucks in comparison to what Democrats have.

Fourth, growing portions of the electorate—Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Americans—either loathe us or just don’t like us.

Fifth, the party seems to have forgotten that it’s supposed to stand for something—by which I mean actual principles of some sort, and not just, say, the general bumper sticker concept that “OBAMA = BAD.”

Obviously, some of these problems overlap and interrelate, but let’s start by discussing candidates to pinpoint some problems there (while hinting at some problems in other categories, too).

Everyone knows that Todd Akin, Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle were not good candidates. What a lot of people don’t seem to recognize is that their opponents, even though they looked like they would perform better based on on-paper attributes, were even worse candidates. How do I know this? They lost to Todd Akin, Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle. I’m serious. Think about that for a minute.

Now, I come from the more moderate end of the GOP, and cut my teeth as a blogger as an advocate for moderate Republicans. A lot of people in that part of the party will be inclined to respond to this criticism by saying, “no, they weren’t worse candidates, it’s just that the party is so extreme that more moderate/mainstream candidates can’t win over the base.”

And it pains me to say it, but this is simply not true, and I’m going to throw out several names to prove it to you: Mark Kirk. Kelly Ayotte. Carly Fiorina. Dan Coats.

Kirk, Ayotte and Coats not only beat primary opponents widely considered to be more conservative than them, they also won in the general. Fiorina (for whom I consulted—full disclosure) won decisively in the primary besting an opponent generally regarded as more conservative than her (and for the record, California Republicans are more like Kansas Republicans than New York City Republicans). While ultimately losing in blue California, Fiorina lost by a lesser margin than did gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. She also beat the registration gap between Democrats and Republicans.

Now, not all of these people started off running campaigns that might be described as A+ (side note: In my experience, most campaigns suffer road bumps and hiccups on a fairly phenomenal scale for the first 2-8 weeks, anyway). 

However, they did not assume they would coast to a victory and they took the job of campaigning very seriously. 

That means they hired good staff (not just whoever was already familiar to them or in their entourage or who that one guy who won big 10 year ago used, or some big name consultants who talked a good game but didn’t have a record of putting points on the board).

They set a good strategy that was not predicated on “I’m electable and Republican primary voters like to vote for candidates widely considered to be electable, because they hate Democrats and want to beat them above all else.”

They used opposition research, not just fluffy positive-message “I love puppies” nonsense.

They reached out to, and engaged with, key constituencies.

They raised the requisite amount of money, having regard not just to advertising requirements, but (in at least two cases) also digitally-oriented initiatives they wanted to run, maintaining appropriate field staff, etc.

They (mostly) spent the money they raised wisely, and not on gimmicky things like airplanes flying around with promotional banners flowing from them or dubious things like big consultancy fees or salaries to the candidate’s own family.

They made a conscious effort not to say stuff that would read as dumb and/or offensive and/or crazy (or which actually was dumb and/or offensive and/or crazy).

They recognized they were campaigning in the 21^st century and not, say, 1994—and they ran their campaigns accordingly.

These are things the other guys didn’t do, or didn’t do enough of. 

Sarah Steelman, one of Akin’s opponents, basically failed to raise any money, making it hard for her to beat Akin on the day (one dreads to think how she would have stood up to Claire McCaskill, who wasn’t exactly running the world’s cheapest, crappest campaign). 

Mike Castle, who I would have infinitely preferred Delaware Republicans nominate, just couldn’t fathom that his party would nominate someone as nutty as Christine O’Donnell (lesson #1 in life: Never assume, because when you do, you make an “ass” out of “u” and “me.”) He also spent time campaigning at, say, art fairs—probably a very good thing to do in the general, but probably not that helpful in a Republican primary. (Note: Castle did turn things around in the final weeks of the campaign, though by then it was too late; so he does deserve some credit for his efforts.)

As for Sue Lowden, well, she allowed herself to become the Chicken Lady, and did not (other than with regard to that and losing to Angle) run a very remarkable campaign. Tarkanian, the other Republican in that fight, got tagged as a gun grabber, which just doesn’t really fly in Nevada.

Other than Castle (who had won statewide in Delaware previously, indicating he knew how to overcome that obstacle), I honestly do query whether any of these people would have won their races, had they won the GOP nomination. My gut tells me “no,” despite the popular conception that they would have been more palatable candidates to the general electorate.

So the answer isn’t just “bolster the candidate who looks more electable with outside money,” as at least one group is now proposing to do.

The answer is, if you don’t want to run Sharron Angle or Todd Akin or Christine O’Donnell in the general and thereby fail to retake the Senate, identify and run better more mainstream or moderate candidates in the first place.

Or, if you are a more mainstream or moderate candidate who is aggrieved at the prospect of losing to some looney bin Tea Partier whackjob, get your shiitake mushrooms together, quit whining, and do the hard work it takes to win.

No one is entitled to electoral success or backing from the party faithful. You have to earn it. Get off your backside and get it done. This is not flag football. This is the NFL. And too few Republican candidates and campaigns understand that.

To that point, we come to problem number two: Consultants.

Just like in professional sports, we have a good number of seasoned vets who did a stellar job at some point in their careers and who likely do still have something of value to contribute, but who just have not been delivering of late (with repeated demonstration of this).

They should be involved in campaigns and not forcibly retired, but perhaps they shouldn’t be, you know, in charge of everything or most of the huge things.

Frequently, however, they are in charge, setting all manner of strategy, dictating message, dictating hiring (often of more junior personnel with whom they have a personal or business relationship, but who may not be the best people for the job), and controlling budgets and expenditures.

This is a little bit like if the San Francisco 49ers had, in last night’s Superbowl, decided to play Joe Montana as their quarterback, while paying him huge fees, and giving him hiring and firing authority over the rest of the team. It would not have been a good idea for the 49ers, and it would have left their fans tremendously disappointed, but it would have been fun and profitable for Joe Montana, and it would have generated a lot of earned media for the team in question.

The GOP does this too much. They need to stop doing it, and start looking for the next Joe Montana. Hire that guy.

Now, admittedly, in some areas, this is tough.

In some cases, the best talent available just doesn’t want to work on many (or any) political campaigns (full disclosure: I am part of the problem here; I prefer corporate and trade association—a.k.a., issues—work, though I will work for very select candidates under very select circumstances). 

In other cases, there just aren’t a lot of people who actually do the thing in question, as opposed to claiming to do it.

Which makes for a good transition point to discussing technology.

These days, just about everyone fancies themselves a digital guru of some sort, but in practice we have a lot more of these than we do these in the party. And it was a huge problem in 2012, because the Obama guys had this.

No amount of planning to conduct Skype sessions or Google + hangouts with activists or really cool plans to do snazzy demographically-targeted Facebook ads (hint: My mother can do those, too) or Internet radio advertising is going to overcome that basic deficiency.

What will is actually recruiting genuine technologists from, you know, tech companies to come work on GOP campaigns. But this is something the GOP isn’t doing as well at as we should, for a couple of reasons.

First, people who are building the future at Microsoft or Google or Facebook or Apple or Intel or Amazon or wherever are likely earning quite a lot more than they would at, say, the RNC. They also likely have a lot more ability to secure budget for items they deem essential to spend on than your average RNC New Media Director does, and potentially less paperwork entailed to actually get the money. So only diehard Republicans would likely entertain a mere discussion about leaving and going to work there, unless the party committee starts allocating a lot more money for its New Media Director position and operations.

Second, suffice to say, there aren’t a lot of those diehards out there. The GOP, more than Democrats on the whole, has appeared disinterested in technology and technology policy issues that directly affect the tech sector. Moreover, certain policies the GOP has advocated or been seen to advocate are noxious to a lot of people in the tech world.

Opposition to more legal immigration, which you get from some more loudmouthed conservatives and conservative-oriented groups like FAIR, is not a seller in Silicon Valley or Redmond.

Opposition to gay marriage similarly is not.

The Paulite end of the party actually has a fair number of fans in the tech sector (check out Google personnel’s 2012 donations if you don’t believe me), but the Rick Santorum/Todd Akin portion is, well, not helpful for getting the actual talent you’d want on board to take a good look at potentially getting on board, in a hands on, day-to-day, active way. 

This tends to limit access to a particular type of talent to a particular type of candidate, only. Good news if your last name is Paul. Bad news if you’re anyone else (probably).

Third, even if you overcome these things, a lot of what is culturally normal on political campaigns is anathema in the business world, and the tech sector specifically. A three-day turnaround to get a new website approved? Literally, the standard approvals process is roughly as scary to your average technologist as waking up in bed with his mother-in-law, naked.

As to the fourth problem, it’s been pretty well-covered over the course of the last couple of weeks with the immigration debate heating up. Nonetheless, it’s worth noting just how deep in it the GOP currently is, and why.

Yes, in part our problems with Hispanic voters are to do with the stance the party has, by and large, taken on immigration. 

However, just as much, it’s to do with the language, and our perceived lack of focus on non-immigration issues that matter deeply to a large proportion of Hispanic-Americans.

First off, let’s just stipulate that people like Tom Tancredo getting the platform that they did several years ago has not been helpful. Talking about building electrified fences, double fences, etc., and spurring self-deportation has not been helpful. Calling people “aliens” is generally not a winner. Confusing Asians with Hispanics is not a good thing.

And by the way, all this is true in my experience with naturalized Americans who are not actually of Hispanic origin. Even if it’s intended to be anti-illegal immigrant only, it reads as anti-immigrant, and in many cases, it actually is anti-immigrant. The ad that FAIR has recently been running on DC cable underlines this point: It targets both legal and illegal immigrants, and I personally find it so loathsome I will not link to it here.

But setting aside all this, among other areas of policy that the GOP rather ceded to Democrats some time ago is that of education—which is a key issue for many minority groups, and for immigrants, especially. This is because these groups tend to be very focused on the concept of opportunity, and without a good education, opportunity is diminished.

Say what you will about George W Bush and education (and I’ve said plenty over the years), but his focus on education was something that enabled him to reach out to non-traditional GOP constituencies in a way that, candidly, Mitt Romney was not going to be able to. Bush didn’t win the Hispanic vote (or the African-American vote, for that matter) but he did fare better than Mittens, and it’s worth thinking through the various reasons there could be for that.

Now, in 2016, we might find the same thing with Bobby Jindal or Jeb Bush (who I seriously doubt will run, but hey, there’s always a very small possibility). It was potentially an option for Rick Perry, though Mitt Romney’s handling of the in-state tuition issue helped kill Perry off before that could ever be tested.

The bottom line is, in addition to dealing with immigration policy in a manner that does not read as hostile to key demographic groups and optimally also improves the system, making it easier to immigrate legally and for people we want here to remain here legally and, you know, build businesses, pay taxes, grow our economy, hire people, and generally contribute to our society, the GOP needs to adjust its language and more broadly start focusing on policy areas that actually do matter to these people. Saying that we’re anti-abortion, just like you Carlos and Maria, isn’t doing the job, and it’s not going to, at least not without being coupled with something much stronger and more pertinent. And for Asian-Americans, the social issues chat is likely completely worthless—but again, education is very important.

Finally, a big problem facing the GOP is that it doesn’t really have a very strong brand—or if it does, it is simply the “OBAMA = BAD” brand, which is still pretty weak tea in my estimation (it worked to a degree in 2010, but not in 2012). 

Back in the day, I recall a debate about what core principles defined conservatism (which tends to inform the principles of the GOP, whether I like it or not).

David Freddoso, then of National Review, opined that they were guns, babies and taxes.

I opined that spending ought to be in that mix also, though candidly, I’m not sure it ever really has been to anything more than a minor degree, let alone the degree I would hope (but then again, I’m not a conservative, I have issues with conservatives, and if I’m being honest, I would much prefer libertarianism to be the driving philosophical force behind the GOP).

In any event, these days, several years on from that debate, it doesn’t strike me that the GOP is really defined by its stances on guns, babies and taxes, or really anything else, except that diehard opposition to Obama.

Let’s be blunt: This is not good branding.

Coca-Cola is the biggest name in the soda market. If Pepsi wants to change that, do you really think they do it by simply transmitting the message over and over again that Pepsi is “not Coke?”

That’s a pretty poor pitch, if you ask me, and so is the GOP’s.

Bottom line: The GOP needs to start standing for something bigger and less reactive/dependent (i.e., something that only exists because of another thing) than it currently does.  

Be the isolationist party, or the realist party, or the neocon party.

Be the party of Milton Friedman economics, or don’t-- but if you’re going to purport to dislike Keynesianism, quit pulling stunts like insisting on higher defense spending or whatever other kind of spending because OMG jobs.

Be for big government conservatism, or be for limited government—but again, if you’re going to purport to be for limited government, don’t campaign on reversing Obamacare’s Medicare cuts.

Be for babies, but if you’re going to do that, quit using pro-life values and proposed legislation primarily as a talking point or a way of bringing in campaign donations or of getting diehard pro-lifers to staff your volunteer operations 24 hours a day because no one else will, and actually do the thing you claim you want to do.

Be for opportunity and the prospect of social mobility, but if you’re going to do that, quit treating education like the #1,053 item on the issue priority list right underneath investigating Lance Armstrong’s drugging as some Republicans do, and start thinking about how you reallocate money away from wasteful programs that benefit people who don’t really need a ton of help to those who are genuinely poor and disadvantaged and who do.

Or be for the super-rich exclusively, but do it proudly and convincingly.

I won’t say I’m not bothered which path is taken, because of course I am.

But looking at this from the perspective of someone who thinks about branding, please just be for something a little bigger than whatever Obama’s against. Not least because he won’t be President forever. 

Those are the problems afflicting the GOP, as I see them, for whatever that is worth.

Now, if you’re reading this and you agree, please go do your part because Joe Montana cannot win the 2013 Superbowl for us. Or the 2014 Superbowl. Or the 2016 Superbowl. Not even with a brand spanking new SuperPAC.

Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady of St. Charles is calling GOP lawmakers asking them to support a proposal to legalize same-sex marriage, he said today.

Brady said he was making the calls as a citizen, outside of his official role with the Illinois Republican Party.

"I think it's time for people to support this," Brady said.

Well done to Chairman Brady for stepping up and not merely taking this stance, but being prepared to reach out to Republican lawmakers to urge them to do the same. More prominent Republicans should do the same. [intro]

[intro]

Yes, Election Day is the day after tomorrow. And after four years of watching the effort to remove President Obama from office play out (and periodically contributing to it in direct, professional ways), the time has come for me to make some firm decisions, and share them publicly.

Readers of this blog and my followers on Twitter will know that this election has proved a somewhat painful one for me, going back to 2009.

Having served on the RNC team in 2008, and having been a longtime fan of John McCain for years before then, while I was proud that America proved wrong the pundits who claimed our country was too racist to elect an African-American President, I was saddened that America made what was, in my view, the wrong choice as between Obama and McCain four years ago.

Like many Republicans, within weeks of President Obama being sworn into office, I began thinking about who I would like to succeed him as President—because it was apparent that his approach was not one with which I agreed.

Jon Huntsman, one of my top choices, took himself out of the running by agreeing to serve as Obama’s ambassador to China. Mark Sanford, my other top choice, took himself out of the running by virtue of his personal behavior and the excruciating press conference he gave explaining it.

Being a long-term critic of Mitt Romney, I was unwilling to jump aboard the Romney ship, especially given my deep-seated disagreements with Romney on health care policy.

My concerns about health care policy did, however, provoke me to take a closer look at a guy who I instinctively thought would be a good choice for me—Tim Pawlenty (whose record on health care is, incidentally, really good and worth a look for people who believe Republicans have nothing to offer on that front beyond free-market rhetoric or watered-down liberal “solutions”). I boarded the good ship Pawlenty, but exited it when it became unfeasible for various reasons to remain on it; subsequently, Jon Huntsman resigned and entered the race—intriguing to me, but (I felt) unlikely to pan out.

And then Rick Perry decided to enter the race, after it became clear to me that Pawlenty would be exiting it early and at a point where the practicalities of me being involved in a presidential race looked far better.

While there are certainly areas of disagreement between myself and Perry (basically, they come down to “gay issues”), I felt that on the majority of issues that I vote on—free trade, the size and role of the federal government (which ties in with spending), tax policy, health care and immigration— he was the best fit, and a far better choice than Romney. I also felt he had some interesting and worthwhile ideas where things like education reform (also something where Pawlenty has shown leadership within the GOP) were concerned, and by far the best jobs record.

So I boarded the good ship Perry, knowing it was in shaky territory when I did, but being willing to have a go at something even if the odds were decent that it would capsize (as it ultimately did).

From the middle of 2009, I believed it was overwhelmingly likely that Romney would be the GOP nominee. And that was an unsettling thing to me, because I do have deep disagreements with him and haven’t exactly loved his philosophical flexibility and willingness to pander to different audiences.

I tried, on behalf of two different clients, to stop Romney from running away with the nomination, something that speaks to the fact that I have had issues with him as a presidential candidate.

But he did win the nomination, as I expected. And now, Virginia appears to be coming down to the wire. So I am publicly stating my commitment to vote for Mitt Romney for President this Tuesday, despite the lingering concerns I have about him.

Here’s why I think you might wish to consider doing the same if you share my perspectives and live in a swing state also.

First of all, let’s start with a discussion about Barack Obama.

Let me be clear (pun intended): I do not think Obama is a bad guy. Among other things, I think he’s a great father and husband.

But I have been convinced, ever since I started scrutinizing his record, statements, and personal and professional history at the RNC in 2008—where I was privy to the vast majority of opposition research on Obama including tidbits that to my knowledge have never been covered and make him look even worse than he already does, in my opinion—that Obama simply doesn’t have the kind of motivations I want in a President. It is a problem that no matter how nice of a guy I may think he is in his private life, I simply cannot get over in order to think well of him in a political context.

I have inflamed liberal and conservative opinion by saying this before, and I will inflame both by saying it again, but it is my firm belief that Obama’s sole purpose in politics and his only genuine interest is self-aggrandizement. I do not believe that he believes in anything, except for self-aggrandizement. His liberalism is incidental, not the product of an actual belief in progressive policies, and to the extent he cares about particular policies, it is because he believes they will enable him to get ahead and benefit himself and his friends, not because he believes they are good, productive, or beneficial.

What Obama displays is not even the usual, predictable, basic power-seeking you get with politicians, or the typical ego trip. It’s far more emblematic of what you find in machine politics than what you find in politics more broadly. It is no surprise, given that Obama comes out of Chicago, where machine politics is the norm, and accruing power and prestige is an end in itself. But it is deeply saddening, given Obama’s posturing four years ago as representing some “new,” cleaner, shinier variety of politics—posturing that even I wanted to believe. And it is not a characteristic I particularly want in a president. Self-aggrandizement as the sole objective—indeed, the raison d’être— is not something that I think deserves to be rewarded, especially as, in Obama’s case, it has led the president in question into both policy inconsistency and instituting and pursuing policies that I believe are downright bad. It is an added annoyance and perhaps even a danger that the rise of Obama has also helped to generate a weird, cultish following that excuses all manner of behavior I consider obviously bad, and certainly hypocritical or inconsistent on Obama’s part.

This conveniently leads us to a discussion of the fundamental policy problems with Obama—the thing that far more voters have seized upon.

Let me start by saying that in 2008, when Obama won the Democratic nomination, I was happy about it, for two reasons. First, I never believed McCain would attack Hillary Clinton as hard as he did Obama, let alone as hard as he would have needed to in order to beat her. But second, and more importantly, Obama was far better on policy from where I sat.

Obama’s campaign rhetoric suggested he thought civil liberties needed better protection than they had received under the Bush administration. Obama was for a version of health care reform that wasn’t a nationalized version of Romneycare, which I have opposed since its inception and continue to oppose (sorry, Romney). In fact, Obama strongly opposed the individual mandate as a candidate (a big plus in my book). Obama appeared to be less at ease with protectionism than Clinton. Obama had sponsored the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. Clinton sounded a far more confiscatory-taxation friendly note than Obama did. And my gut had always told me that Hillary was far more big government-friendly than a guy who, for all the mockery of his community organizing days, at least seemed to think by virtue of his initial job choice that community, as opposed to government, might play some kind of an important role in society.

There was plenty that I opposed Obama on: As a candidate, he was already proposing massive new spending that was obviously unaffordable and unwise. Obviously, he was comfortable with tax increases. I thought his comments about sitting down with Ahmadinejad early in an administration were daft. I didn’t like that he was sounding any kind of protectionist note. I loathed his votes for poison pill initiatives that brought down comprehensive immigration reform. I thought his purported post-partisanship was complete BS given his deeply partisan record in the Senate. But would he have been better than Clinton? Yes, I believed he would, and actually, I still think I’d prefer him as president to Hillary, on policy.

However, Obama has flip-flopped on some things he campaigned on that actually really matter to me. His record on civil liberties is terrible, just like Bush’s was terrible, and no amount of strawman-construction or detraction from it by his fans can change that fact. Given how much I carped about Bush on civil liberties, Obama is definitely not getting a pass from me on this. Furthermore, Obamacare contains the individual mandate, on which Obama has himself flipped a full 180 degrees, and shamelessly, and over which I have been sounding alarms since 2006 in the context of Romneycare.

Add to that that he has, as expected, spent boatloads of money and exploded the deficit (just like Bush!), not delivered well enough on jobs, not done enough to advance free trade, and not done enough to advance immigration reform, and we have a problem.

He engaged us in Libya without congressional approval, which I do believe he should have obtained (knock Bush for Iraq all you want, but Bush did at least ask Congress to approve our engagement there), and he made some major foreign policy missteps like signaling “more flexibility” in a second term to Russia, and generally weakening our relationships with key allies like Israel and the United Kingdom (sometimes through silly oversights, assumptions, or careless words or behavior).

And yes, his behavior with regard to the drug war (cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries in California) also irks me a great deal.

Ultimately, what has happened in Benghazi scares the crap out of me, as someone with friends in the diplomatic corps, and my sense is that while it’s impossible to fully protect your civil servants abroad, especially in dangerous countries, intelligence is never perfect, and hindsight is always 20/20, the Obama administration dropped the ball there.

He’s the boss, and I feel the buck should stop with him.

I didn’t vote for Obama in 2008, obviously, and I certainly won’t be voting for him in 2012. But in my estimation, no one else should be voting for him in 2012, either, given this track record, and given my interpretation of his rationale for wanting a second term (it really is all about him; it’s really not about you, or me, or anyone else).

But not voting for Obama doesn’t mean voting for Mitt Romney, of course.  There are other options on the ballot; there is the option of writing in; there is the option of not voting at all. I have considered all of these options, apart from not voting. But there are reasons why, if you think like I do, you should consider voting for Romney—and not just failing to vote for Obama.

First of all, I believe this will be a close election, but one in which it has from the get-go been more likely than not that Obama will win. If that is a problem for you on any level, then you owe it to yourself to take a look at Romney, and do it seriously, before Tuesday.

Let’s be candid: If you’re like me, you’re going to find there’s a lot not to like. I won’t rehash it all here; for me, the sticking point with Romney really always has been, and always will be, Romneycare, which has now evolved into Obamacare.

But with that being said, and with me throwing Romneycare out there first, let’s just agree on one thing: While I think it is highly unlikely that as President, Romney would repeal Obamacare (because he won’t have a sufficiently conservative Congress to do it, because he can’t do it all through executive actions, but most of all, because I believe he actually does like and believe in some of the cornerstones of Romneycare and Obamacare), there is zero chance of Obamacare being repealed with Obama, and some (albeit small) chance of it being repealed or tweaked in some major way under Romney.

Moreover, there is a strong chance that Obamacare will be tweaked in small, but meaningful ways under a President Romney, and that that will happen quickly. Whether you loathe Obamacare as is, or think it just can’t function as currently constructed, Romney is the only person capable of winning this election who even has a rhetorical commitment to repealing and/or overhauling Obamacare.

But that’s not really why I am voting for Romney. The real reasons I am are the following:

• Paul Ryan: Unfortunately, Romney hasn’t run on the Ryan plan or spending cuts that Paul Ryan has voted for (including in the area of defense, where I believe not-insignificant spending reductions can and should be made). But at least if Ryan becomes Vice President, there’s a chance he’ll badger Romney enough on a daily or weekly basis to get him to take entitlement reform, tax reform, and spending cuts more seriously than he currently does. Also, I like Paul Ryan, and if we can give someone like him, as opposed to one of the Huckabee-like big government social conservatives (who remain surprisingly dominant in a “Tea Party-infused” GOP), a leg up on becoming President someday, I say that’s a good thing on balance. 

• Dodd-Frank: It sucks. In addition to entrenching too big to fail, it also imposes a bunch of new regulations that are problematic especially for community banks, who weren’t the bad guys who led to the financial crisis, and it risks regulatory muddle by making various entities responsible for the same oversight, threatening to create a situation where the left hand does nothing because it thinks the right hand is, while the right hand is effectively taking a nap or spending hours a day watching porn from its Washington, DC headquarters. Romney gets this, and more. It’s probably the area of policy where he has the most to say that conforms to my views.

• Taxes: I have a lot of issues with Romney on taxes, but at least he’s committed to attempting tax simplification for some proportion of the population. He also understands that double-taxing US companies is a bad idea and that what Obama has proposed would effectively do that, whereas Obama, the former law professor, doesn’t actually appear to understand our tax code (I find that worrying). 

• The deficit: I don’t think Romney is nearly as committed to slashing spending as I would like him to be, but I do believe he’ll be better on the deficit than Obama, who I think has zero commitment to spending restraint and will, in practice, be forced into extending the Bush tax cuts he wants to end. 

• Rand Paul: I always keep in the back of my head that Rand Paul endorsed Romney, because his belief is that Romney is in the generally right terrain with regard to things like auditing the Fed, protecting Internet freedom, and wanting Congress to vote on foreign military engagements. Rand Paul may be naïve (he wouldn’t be the first libertarian to be proved to be). But I also think it is likely that he has extracted some private commitments from Romney on these things, and the Romney people know the Paul forces can cause trouble for them if they don’t vaguely adhere to some of what was (presumably) discussed. This is at least marginally helpful.

On a whole range of things that matter to me personally, neither of these guys will be better than the other. But Romney scores better than Obama on at least a few of my top concerns as a voter.  And there is a chance, albeit not an overwhelming one from my standpoint, that he can pull out a win this week—so I am prepared to back him.

If you live in any of Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, Florida or Virginia, and can’t decide between Romney and Johnson or writing in, I’d urge you to have a think about the above. My rationale may not be enough to get you to push the Romney button. But it is enough for me—just.

And Mitt, if you happen to read this and if you do prevail on Tuesday, please know that I’ll be enthusiastically in the bag for a second term if you really do slash spending, bring down the deficit, reform entitlements, reform the immigration system, ditch the worst aspects of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, govern like a free-trader, and hold to the general status quo on social issues. Oh, and have lunch with Paul Ryan weekly and take him seriously.

If you govern demonstrably more like a civil libertarian than Obama has, hell, I’ll even max out for a second term.

Onward to Tuesday. [intro]

I am giving serious thought to breaking up with you, and I want to put you on notice of that fact, clearly and explicitly, and in terms even you-- with your ADD and disconnect from other people's thoughts and emotions-- can understand.

You may have noticed me being grouchier than normal over the last couple of weeks, and rolling my eyes at things you do more frequently, and in a non-ironic kind of way.

I kind of thought you might have noticed why, all on your very own.

But you have been so tied up with stuff like dishwashing and binders, and so focused on supposed bias and skewed polls, and so willing to flit between these subjects and other trifles on a whim, that I guess paying attention to me and anything I care about has simply been beyond your capabilities.

I know you want to keep my interest, but you're getting very close to losing me for good.

When we first encountered each other, I was skeptical of you.

You told me you'd be the most important election of my lifetime thus far.

You told me that important debates would be had by the candidates and that they would outline their proposed solutions to the greatest challenges facing our nation and there would be stark differences.

You told me this would be so, even though I suspected I'd be asked to choose between President Obama and Mitt Romney, and I felt like that choice was not conducive to producing the situation you described.

But you said I should get involved with you, that you'd prove me wrong, and that our relationship would be worth me investing my attention and my emotions in.

So far, I've had little more to show for it than frustration, exasperation, and irritation.

I've lost sleep some nights thinking about whether this situation can be fixed.

No, it's not me. It really is you. No, really. You sold me a bad deal, and if you changed your ways, it might be worth it, but I'm close to concluding at this point that you don't give a shit and you're wasting my time.

You should know that I've found myself looking at other potential matches, too.

I've always had a very close, intimate even, friendship with the English Premiership (yeah, I know that's been a sore spot for you, and it's made you jealous, but I derive emotional satisfaction from spending time with him that I rarely derive from spending time with you).

I broke up with the world of big business and the financial industry long before we met, back in 2005, but I'll admit it here-- I've been watching CNBC a lot lately. I've even been finding Jim Cramer less annoying than most of the political cable news TV hosts.

I know sometimes I get really tired of running and working out, but lately, they're looking more like friends than my old frenemies, and I've been hanging out with them more as I've looked to get a break-- any break-- from you and the way you try to dominate my time and hoard my attention.

I know you're going to tell me that many more important things hinge on you and my relationship with you than, say, the outcome of any of this weekend's football matches. And to tell you the truth, that's the only reason I've hung around so far.

But it's increasingly clear that you're focused on trivialities, and yesterday's concerns, not about what's about to come across the horizon and doing things now not just to fix the current situation but also prevent problems that I can see coming, but which you dismiss every time I flag them with talk of who strapped a dog to a roof, or who ate a dog, or Olympic horses, or parties with Jay-Z and Beyonce.

You know what these are. We've discussed them before. They include things like:

- the bleak outlook that seems to exist not for women, but rather for non-college-educated, working-class, blue-collar males across the country;

- the rise of China and India and other future economic powerhouses, relative to our standing as a nation. (Yeah, sometimes you'll pay lip service on this one, by talking tax reform or education reform, but really, it's like a peck on the cheek when I want a good, solid 30-minute cuddle-- something else you suck at, by the way);

- the education bubble and what we do about it (I bitched about this one with my previous boyfriends, too, and he never did anything about it-- what is it with you guys?). No, I don't mean just "how do we make college more affordable." I also mean what do we do about the fact that as education has become pricier, students seem to act more and more like "I paid $100k for this education, so even if I'm an ignoramus, you'd better give me a good degree." It's a real problem, and no one seems to be doing or saying much of anything about it, let alone other problems in our educational system;

- what's happening in the Middle East. PLEASE don't give me that stuff about Israel and the Palestinians again. I've heard what you have to say about Iran, too, and yes, that's important, but what I'm talking about here, and you know it, is the increased political engagement of non-elites in the Middle East, whether we encourage that, tolerate and manage it, or supress it, and whatever the answer, how, and why;

- not just unemployment, but what appears to be a problem with wage stagnation that has persisted for many Americans for quite awhile now;

- relatedly, health care and insurance cost inflation-- this, inflation in the cost of college, plus the wage stagnation problem noted above seem to me likely to have contributed to the financial crisis as people took on a lot of debt to pay for things that were becoming more and more unaffordable, tapping out value in their (inflated) home values, and leaving them screwed when the bubble inevitably and eventually burst;

- whether we should allow more immigration and if so, what are we going to do to overhaul our system so it can be done with greater ease legally (you know I support this, but the most I ever seem to hear on the subject is a token mention of H1B visas, or DREAM, which isn't really much at all).

You don't want to talk about these things, but they're going to present real problems in the future. Maybe you can find the wherewithall to address at least a couple of them sometime in the next week? 

Think about it over the weekend. England's Premiership and I will be hanging out then, so you'll have some time and space to think about how to get your act together, and see if you can keep my interest and any level of emotional engagement.

I don't even know how to end this note... but it's definitely not "love," as things stand.

Best (I guess?),

Liz [intro]

I "go" it now and again. So do a lot of you. For me, it usually involves parking attendants at underground lots in Washington, DC, or incomptence or extreme laziness witnessed in the workplace. For my husband, it often involves Maryland drivers and dance music and Belgians (especially if combined together). For one of my best friends, it involves the health care system and patronizing doctors. For another best friend, it involves attitudes he encounters far too often in his chosen profession.

For many conservatives online, it involves media bias, and alleged instances of it.

It appears that yesterday, when I was working and not paying terribly much attention to what was going on on Twitter or out in the blogosphere (yeah, yeah, I don't actually spend all my time tweeting, I'm just good at multitasking), I apparently missed a major round of certain conservatives going apeshit over something that strikes me as pretty "meh" and largely failing to notice something that to me was positively rage-inducing, both of which involved coverage of the presidential campaign by the media.

So what else is new... the liberal RINO in the corner didn't get pissed about something a bunch of online conservatives got pissed over, and got pissed about something else they didn't notice.

Well, this time, I think it actually matters because the specific topic is media bias at MSNBC and an MSNBC presenter actually did something pretty egregious on camera yesterday that should have been called out, big time, by both the left and the right in my opinion-- but it's possible some people failed to notice because they were still fuming about this.

Why yes, readers. That is a post by my fellow candy-ass RINO and friend Jazz Shaw over at Hot Air. Yes, in it he does say he doesn't think Morning Joe displayed rampant media bias aimed at re-electing President Obama by focusing time and attention on a rather uninteresting nothingburger of a story. And why yes, I am going to defend him a bit while I prep up for attacking an MSNBC host who in my view actually did something that warrants an on-air apology-- with no doubt about it.

Here's the deal. I first saw this clip when my mother sent it to me. I watched it. It struck me as pretty uninteresting. A crowd appeared to be a bit more excited about a Vice Presidential nominee-- who had just finished speaking-- than the Presidential nominee. That's pretty standard stuff.

Perhaps you have met this guy:

who was generally deemed more exciting to the base in attendance at campaign events than this guy:

Maybe you recall this guy:

who was also a lot more popular with conservative voters and likely to get them cheering than this guy:

Hey, maybe you remember this lady:

You do, right?

You remember that pretty much every time she and John McCain showed up anywhere, ever, everyone was like 300 times more excited about her and vocally so than they were McCain, yes?

So setting aside that Ryan had just finished speaking and that this was a fast-moving story being covered on morning TV by people who probably wake up at 3AM and may have been rolled into coverage when someone hadn't had their triple shot espresso, there are reasons to think Joe Scarborough and Co might not have edited the tape in an effort to re-elect Obama, right? 

Right. But apparently, there are people who are jumping on this as true evidence of a mainstream media conspiracy while overlooking... Martin Bashir during his show yesterday basically straight up suggesting that Mitt Romney might not be capable of serving because he has a secret mental illness his campaign is hiding or something but which he's cottoned onto because Ann Romney expressed concern about the toll the campaign might be taking on her husband on camera.

No, seriously. This happened. (I'm not posting the video because a) it doesn't appear to be on MSNBC's site and b) I refuse to give bullshit like this any direct play).

You want to see what mainstream media not-so-subtly pushing a conspiracy theory looks like?

Well, maybe that's not what Martin was trying to do, but what he did sure looks a hell of a lot like exactly that.

And he did it at a normal time of day, when everyone has had their coffee and is ready to rock and roll.

Admittedly, Martin Bashir does not have the same media heavyweight profile that Joe Scarborough does, particularly within the political realm. But let's be candid here: Hinting around (deliberately or not) at a conspiracy to cover up a mental illness that could be disqualifying from public office is pretty nasty, heavy stuff, even for a guy best known for interviewing celebrities, not dabbling in political coverage. It's heavy and nasty enough that a lot of liberals I spoke to about this agreed it was bad form, at a minimum.

That's partially so, by the way, because if Ann was suggesting that Mitt might be a bit depressed about the polls, or a bit anxious while trying to win a hard-fought election, or getting a bit obsessive about campaign perfection or imperfection, that actually is not disqualifying and as a society, it'd be lovely if we could quit treating people who suffer from depression, anxiety disorders and/or obsessive/compulsive behavior (of any type) as incapable and untrustworthy. (I say that as someone who suffers from all three illnesses).

But it's actually because the takeaway for your average viewer is more nefarious than that.

The takeaway, worst case, from watching the Morning Joe tape is "hey, Republicans like Paul Ryan better than Mitt Romney, who they don't seem to like very much." (This is actually true, by the way). Or alternately "Oh man, that Mitt Romney is a total dork." (This is pretty much true, too, and by the way, while I love Paul Ryan, he's kind of a dork, too). Or, most sympathetically, "God I feel sorry for Mitt Romney." (I'm by no means your stereotypical Republican voter, but I have that feeling roughly once a day).

Whereas the takeaway from the Bashir segment was: "Not only is Romney dishonest and lying to you (remember those tax returns!), he's also *going to have a freaking nervous breakdown on the job and become catatonic in the Oval Office and go around peeing in jars, Aviator-style* *while having the ability to nuke the world. NUKE THE WORLD* *DO NOT VOTE FOR HIM*."

Look, I'm not a big believer in mainstream media bias. (I am a big believer in mainstream media laziness, and mainstream media pack-of-sheep behavior, however). But even I was like "holy shit, Martin Bashir, that's about as big a 'let me see how I can artificially, out of nothing, make David Axelrod's day today' moment that I can imagine."

So yeah, some vigilance about media bias appears to be deserved. So does some going apeshit. But let's not worry about Joe Scarborough. Let's worry about the guy who interprets normal spousal concern for a husband who's working really, really hard as a sign that Mitt Romney is about to go all "Falling Down" on us.

Let's go apeshit on that guy. [intro]