Florida and the State of the Race

The frenetic Republican primary has its latest test today in Florida. Florida, of course, is a land of beginnings and ends, where baseball spring training and retirement communities exist side by side. A state that, despite having no income tax, has two major public universities. It's the state that's gotten our country in this giant mess in the first place. If 15,000 farsighted Jewish grandparents hadn't voted for a a borderline Nazi or tens of thousands of African Americans hadn't been illegally disenfranchised, maybe this country wouldn't have had to go thru the horror of the George Bush era. Florida is a dichotomous state, where coastal elites coexist with backwater rural folks, a reality that has made it the ultimate political battleground.

Today's primary promises beginnings and ends. It's the end of the beginning, the race has boiled down to 4 remaining contenders after the action packed months leading up to the first votes of the electoral season. It's also the beginning of the end, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney seem to be the only viable candidates remaining. Newt and Mitt hate each other on a deeply personal level, and Newt has pledged to continue onto the convention regardless of the outcome of the coming battles. Newt is practicing a scorched earth strategy, insulting Romney on a deeply personal level. Newt is a known egomaniac, a narcissist, who's witch hunt against Clinton was caused by Clinton 'snubbing him' on the way to Yitzhak Rabin's funeral. Romney's negative campaigning has aroused Gingrich's sensitive side, and now he seems unwilling to back down. Newt has used dog whistle tactics in recent days, subtly raising questions about Romney's mormon faith, by bringing up his supposed lack of respect for Jews and Catholics.

I predict today's race will find Romney a strong winner, Gingrich will finish in a weak second. Santorum in a strong third, and Paul will continue to simultaneously inspire and disgust various segments of the party. Regardless, they will all continue on and this sideshow that is the GOP primary will travel on to the next race.

This month promises some calm. Most of the primaries and caucuses this month have clear favorites. In Nevada, for example, the state's large Mormon population will likely make Mitt a winner. The caucus states will favor organization, a boon to Paul and Romney. There will be no debates this month, causing a glaring hole in my television watching schedule. Also, this may make all the candidates go on even harsher attack, because they won't have the opportunity to score points during debates, and they'll also be protected from having to defend their attacks.

The new allocation of Republican delegates, shifting away from a winner take all system, will allow all the candidates to make the mathematical argument that the race is still very much undecided. This coming month promises a lull, and it's unclear if the Republican base will be able to be shaken from the belief that a Romney candidacy is inevitable. While Romney's support seems like it's a mile wide and an inch deep, he has shown some resilience in holding off his challengers. Though that is mainly a testament to his superior fundraising. Money is the game in politics, and it's hard to question Romney's ability to make vast sums of it.

Schizophrenia During the Republican Debate

At some point during last night's Republican debate I began to experience a type of Stockholm Syndrome. I found myself thinking crazy thoughts, cursing the liberal media, cheering Rick Santorum, fearing illegal immigration, and as though my values were under fire from coastal elites. As a coastal elite myself, I guess the Republican debate inspired a form of masochism.

It's a strange experience to watch these debates. They seem to exist in an alternate universe, and in fact a large topic last night was Newt's proposal for a U.S. colony on the moon. Newt's long been a champion of bizarre futuristic ideas, in Al Franken's 1996 book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot," Franken speculated whether Newt's dirty secret is that he "used to smoke weed and watch the Jetsons." This in response to Newt's speculation that soon one would be able to get a diagnostic chair installed in one's house that would interface with a local health clinic. The clinic would then be able to conduct all sorts of tests from the remote location. As Rick Santorum said several debates ago, Mr. Gingrich is certainly prone to spouting off "grandiose ideas." That a Republican candidate could spout off such inanities during a campaign that's largely focused on the spiraling debt, simply goes to show the emptiness of political rhetoric. Though in a Stockholm flashback, I hear myself chastising for my lack of faith in American ingenuity. Don't I believe in American exceptionalism? Isn't my inability to creatively think about the future and my lack of scientific knowhow indicative of the declining American educational standards? A fact that can be directly linked to the tyranny of Teacher's unions. The Republican debates have driven me to schizophrenia, the voices in my head spouting off GOP talking points.

Gingrich has seen his momentum halted in the past couple days. On Wednesday a whole host of Republicans, from former presidential candidate Bob Dole to Reagan era Assistant Secretary of State Eliot Abrams, unloaded on Newt for crimes such as criticizing Reagan and a lack of perfect conservative credentials. The Drudge Report linked to several videos of Newt attacking Reagan during the 80s, and it seemed that every right-leaning editorial column criticized him for one personality defect or another. Newt followed up the criticism by a weak performance in last night's debate. He went back to his well of criticizing the media instead of answering questions, and Wolf Blitzer skewered him and left him hanging, open to an attack from Romney. Newt's seen a 7 point lead in Florida turn into a 7 point deficit in a matter of days as the Republicans have seemingly realized that the only thing more potentially disastrous than a Romney candidacy is a Newt candidacy.

Romney and Gingrich are such disdainful characters that they make Rick Santorum and Ron Paul into genuinely likable guys. Both scored points during last night's debate. In juxtaposition with Mitt and Newt they are humanized by their ability to not be petulant, disdainful, and insincere, at all times. Frankly, I realize there's no real reason to watch any of these debates. There's not a dimes worth of difference between the candidates, excepting Ron Paul. Even Dr. Paul, who comes off as a dangerous radical during these debates, has basically the same beliefs as the other three, with three differences. In the Democratic party variance in beliefs like Mr. Paul's would make him a conservative Democrat, but in the Republican party it makes him persona non grata. These debates are merely interesting in a voyeuristic way. I followed up last night's debate with the Jersey Shore, and the affect of both is similar. In both I'm watching people who lead lives diametrically opposed from mine. I watch to laugh at the earnestness with which both groups say outlandish things, with an endearing self confidence. Their sincerity adds to the hilarity, putting the reality in reality TV. One is left wondering whether their are truly people who can identify with the crazy things that come out of their mouths. With a one month break between debates, I'm left with a dangerous void. Hopefully the race takes more twists and turns after the Florida primary, because I'll be heartbroken when this show ends.

The Knicks Don't Have the Knack

The 2002-2003 Knicks were objectively horrible. They were a collection of untalented, unathletic, players with little potential for the future. The Knicks had just finished a decade long run of success, but the centerpiece of that era, Patrick Ewing, had been traded 2 years before for a collection of overpaid role players. They traded that years 7th overall draft pick, Nene Hilario, to the Denver Nuggets for Antonio McDyess, who promptly destroyed his knee and was forced to sit out for the next season and a half.

The year before Coach Jeff Van Gundy quit on the team, officially signifying the end of an era. He left the team in the stead of Don Chaney, a middling coach with no track record of success. My defining memory of the Chaney era was of Chaney with his arms outstretched above his head, exhorting his team to play tougher defense. He took on the posture of an exaggerated shrug, and he seemed hapless and hopeless.

And yet, I have fond memories of that team. Their 37-45 record represents the second best season of the 2000s. Moreover, in spite of, or perhaps because of their lack of talent they were fun to root for. I can remember my friends celebrating in shock after a quarter where Othella Harrington scored 14 points. Michael Doleac, an unathletic center, with a silky smooth jumpshot endeared himself to the garden faithful with his consistent shooting. I remember attending a game where the Knicks were getting blown out by the championship caliber Lakers. In the 4th, clutch performances by Doleac and Charlie Ward led the Knicks storming back. They wound up unable to surmount the Lakers, but their effort is representative of that era of New York Knicks basketball. They weren't quite good enough, but they tried hard.

For the next couple of years, the Knicks were a league wide laughing stock. Newly minted GM Isaiah Thomas acquired one overpaid player after another, creating a team that lacked any sort of cohesion. He had a penchant for acquiring players with redundant skills. He got 2 bruising big men, Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph, who served to undermine each others effectiveness because they both demanded the ball in the low post with room to maneuver. Isaiah did a similar thing with Steve Francis and Stephon Marbury, two shoot first point guards who dominated the ball. And yet, because of the lack of expectations and the general derision from the media, those teams had a certain charm. My friends and I would delude each other into believing that each move Isaiah made was the one that would right the ship. The Knicks were horrible, but somehow I look back on that era with nostalgia.

This years Knicks are a disgrace. With the acquisition of Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudamire, and Tyson Chandler, the Knicks were supposed to be contenders. Instead what we're left with is a collection of players who don't seem to like playing with each other. Stoudamire, who set the city on fire with his play upon his arrival, has regressed since the Carmelo trade, with many speculating that he's plagued by back and knee injuries. Anthony routinely shoots too much, with too little success, he seems unable and unwilling to pass the ball at times. When either Anthony or Stoudamire have the ball the rest of the players on the floor seem content to stand around, and it's hard to blame them because neither passes the ball out of double teams with regularity. Tyson Chandler, a glorified role player, known for his rebounding and defensive prowess has been okay, but not transcendent. Showing a proclivity to disappear at times. These are the Knicks three best players, to whom a substantial percentage of the salary cap is dedicated to for the for next couple of years.

The rest of their players are a combination of mediocre players thrust into too big a role, players forced to play out of position, or players whose presence Coach Mike D'Antoni seems unwilling to acknowledge. Coach D'Antoni, who some on the internet refer to as "Pringles" because of his resemblance to the mascot, is incredibly obstinate. He appears to have little influence over his players, and his supposed offensive genius has been undermined by a team that is often unable to score. Moreover, their effort on the offensive side of the ball ranges from stagnant to infuriating. They are too willing to jack up threes, settle for long jumpers, or let Amare and Carmelo handle the heavy lifting.

When I'm at my most disgusted, I flip from MSG to YES, and watch the Nets. It's more fun to watch bad players play bad, than watch the Knicks supposed stars play horribly. The Nets recall the 2002-03 version of the Knicks, an ill-concieved team that is simply not good. But like those 02-03 Knicks, they provide some feel good moments. It's fun to watch Johan Petro struggle, and it feels good when he succeeds.

Of course, I will never be a Net fan. To switch allegiances in sports fandom is tantamount to treason, but I'm fed up with watching the Knicks. Judging from my Facebook and Twitter feeds it seems like many of my friends are as well. How could they not be? Watching this iteration of the Knicks is a horrible experience. Thus far they've played mostly middling or flat out bad teams, and yet they are 7-11. 7-11 is a good place to go for gallons of sugary soda, but it's far from the record many fans expected. They kicked off their season on Christmas day with an exhilarating 2 point win, but since then they've regressed. Listening to the Knicks announcers, Mike Breen and Clyde Frazier, they seem unable to hide their disgust, and at this point, neither can I.

Thoughts on the State of the Union

After subjecting myself to a seemingly endless number of Republican debates, it was refreshing to hear someone articulating Democratic talking points. Obama's State of the Union address reminded the country of how much more cogent, thoughtful, and well spoken he is as compared to any of his would be Republican challengers. Even Obama's biggest detractors admit that he is a masterful public speaker. He's able to couch his rhetoric in a positive tone. His words make liberals swoon, even if he's advancing centrist or right of center ideas. The best recap and analysis I heard about last night's speech was from Ben Steinberg, a friend of the blog and a well informed commentator on political affairs. He tweeted "Well, that was a pretty good speech about a bunch of things that are never going to happen."

I'll take a second to add that I think that Twitter and other social networking spheres have had a profound effect on political discourse. One can get an instantaneous perspective on how their cohort understands political events. The real time aspect of Twitter generally means that things said on that sight have not been filtered through other peoples perspectives, and are thusly a true representation of people's visceral feelings. Too often it seems that the media shapes a narrative that's only partially based on real events. Twitter eliminates the middle man and therefore gives us an understanding of how the general population feels, as opposed to the media establishment.

Getting back to Mr. Steinberg's tweet, I wholeheartedly agree. The State of the Union often takes on a laundry list form, and I'm left wondering how many of the ideas Obama proposed will come to fruition. I can still recall Bush pledging to return the US to the moon and eventually Mars in 2004, as well as pledging to improve fuel efficiency. The State of the Union is always long on platitudes and token shoutouts for various issue groups, and short on any tangible effects. Obama is particularly skilled at delivering partisan messages in a seemingly nonpartisan way, which is a valuable skill. I agreed with a lot of Obama's message, though I did not particularly like his celebration of American militarism and empire. All in all, the State of the Union is just another example of the theatrical nature of American politics. Instead of actually working together to fix America's problems, the two sides merely work on honing a more palatable way of describing their ideologies.

For what it's worth, I thought Mitch Daniels was very effective in the Republican rebuttal. He seemed to offer moderate conservatism, as opposed to a total destruction of the social safety net. Mr. Daniels, who served as Bush's budget director, is perhaps the least credible person to take issue with the national debt, but I found him more effective than any of the Republican candidates. This national exposure came on the same day spokesperson for the Republican establishment, Bill Kristol, openly speculated whether Mr. Daniels could be a late entry for the Republican nomination.

My last comment is about the so-called "Buffett Rule". Of course it's ludicrous that Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher tax rate than one of the richest men on the planet. What I found even more ridiculous is that Mr. Buffett pays his secretary only 60,000 dollars a year. While that salary is well above the average American's, it seems a little chintzy for a man who reported an income of 62,855,038 dollars in 2010. Perhaps Mr. Buffett, who's celebrated for his frugality, is trying to belie the theory of trickledown economics personally. Obviously, Mr. Buffett should be applauded for his willing advocation of self sacrifice. Still it seems a little wrong that his hard working secretary makes a relative pittance, with nary a capital gain to be made from Berkshire Hathaway stock.

Yet Another Debate

Another day, another Republican debate. The race has taken on the shape of a reality TV show; the candidates have been whittled down to a final four who clearly have animosity towards each other. Romney and Gingrich seem to truly hate each other, and they both have a good point; both men are unlikable political hacks. The debates are no longer interesting from a substantive point of view. The log lines have been repeated ad nauseam, but it's still interesting to watch the interpersonal dynamics. Coming off the tumultuous South Carolina primary there were a few notable differences.

For one, the audience was warned not to applaud. This is generally pro forma, but Gingrich saw this is as another encroachment by the liberal media. He thinks the networks are worried that the debate audience will side with candidates against moderators, as was the case vis a vis Juan Williams and John King. This may be the networks line of thinking, but as an impartial observer(ha!)I can attest that the cheering undercuts the gravitas of the event, turning it into a sort of WWE style contest, replete with hoots and hollering.

Speaker Gingrich, thrust into the role of front runner, toned down his attack dog style, instead preferring to remain magnanimous in the face of Romney's onslaught. In contrast, it was Governor Romney who spent the night attacking.

Stripped of his front runner status, and with the veneer of his inevitably removed, Romney showed just how poor a candidate he truly his. He spent the night stuttering over his attacks on Mr. Gingrich. He seemed desperate, defensive, and callow. He agreed to release last year's tax returns, but remained unwilling to release more than that. His refusal makes his claim that he has nothing to hide seem specious, everyone knows that Mr. Romney is rich, but he seems embarrassed by his massive wealth. For a man who has built his campaign around his 'private sector experience' he has had to be awfully defensive about said experience. Mr. Romney is right to think that his wealth will be distasteful to many Americans, it's one thing to think of Mr. Romney's wealth in an abstract way, but to put a hard number to it will illustrate just how much Romney differs from the common voter.

Romney's attacks mostly fell flat, with Mr. Gingrich chastising him as a "bad historian" whenever he disagreed with Romney's line of attack. One point where he scored points, in my opinion, was his attack about Gingrich's lobbying for Medicare Part D. He forced Gingrich into a defense of Medicare Part D, and Mr. Gingrich gamely played the role of big government conservative, arguing that it was sensible for the government to provide some assistance, a line of reasoning that could undercut his attacks on Obamacare. Medicare Part D is immensely popular with seniors, who represent a sizable portion of the Florida Republican base. Gingrich was pandering to the audience, but it could come back to bite him when they get into their inevitable pissing match about who the true conservative is. All the candidates, excepting Ron Paul, pandered to the Floridian audience in response to a question about Fidel Castro and Cuba. They all seemed to be refighting the Cold War, with Gingrich going as far to say that he'd favor covert actions to undermine Fidel's regime.

Gingrich seemed to try and widen his appeal in this debate. Besides his answer about Medicare Part D, he engaged in a strange flirtation with Mr. Paul. He pandered for his support by taking a hard line on the Fed, and expressed some support for the Gold Standard. All in all, Gingrich sharply changed his tone, and offered up less red meat to the Republican establishment. There is talk that they will turn to a heretofore unannounced candidate, if Romney seems incapable of stopping him.

Santorum and Paul were largely afterthought. Romney and Gingrich were allowed long stretches where they only spoke to each other. This makes sense, because they are clearly the two frontrunners, but one wonders whether that's the case because of the media's affirmation of them as the frontrunners. Gingrich and Romney are like Twain's Duke and the Dauphin, two con men trying to convince the world and themselves that they aren't who they appear to be. Gingrich fights the notion that he's a career politician, an egomaniac, and the living embodiment of all that is wrong with Washington. Romney fights the perception that he's a plutocratic technocratic soulless moderate.B ut that's who they are. They're charlatans, who've surged to the front of an extraordinarily weak Republican field. Gingrich is one of the most hated politicians in America, with ridiculous high negative favorability numbers, and Romney is an unskilled politician, and precisely the kind of titan of industry America seems to hate right now, but in a Republican field crowded with the likes of Hermain Cain and Michelle Bachman, somehow they are the cream that's risen to the top.

The Republican Rollercoaster

At this point I almost feel as though there's almost nothing left to say about the GOP primary. It's been a frenetic, schizophrenic affair, with the candidate's fortunes rising and falling like the tide. Now Newt Gingrich appears ascendent once again. He had a big comeback victory in South Carolina over the weekend, and has apparently kept that momentum, with new polls showing him with a lead in Florida. The common wisdom was that Romney's financial and organizational advantages would provide a buffer in the Sunshine state, but it seems like voters are fleeing from Romney as though he was that ill fated Costa Cruise ship.

Newt's victory was attributed to his strength in last week's two debates. In the first he smacked down Juan Williams, who dared question whether Newt's racially charged accusations that poor people had no work ethic could potentially be construed as offensive. In the latter debate, which aired the same night Newt's ex-wife gave a bombshell interview on ABC, CNN's John King dared to bring her allegations up and Newt delivered a knockout punch, condemning the liberal media, and taking the focus away from his transgressions. Newt was successful by going after those two Democratic boogeymen, the 'liberal' media and African Americans. That message resonated strongly in South Carolina, where Romney's northern and Mormon roots were viewed suspiciously. If nothing else, we can see just how uncomfortable the Republican base is with Romney. That they'd turn to an unfaithful Washington insider, an ex-lobbyist who's conservative record is impeachable, is a testament to Romney's supreme unlikability. Romney is somehow both smooth and stiff, and his affect is remarkably insincere. With another debate tonight, expect Romney to come out swinging against Gingrich, and all the candidates to get in their digs against one another.

Shockingly, it was Ann Coulter who best articulated my doubts about Mr. Gingrich. She argued that voters wanted someone who could say a snarky line to Obama, rather than someone who could actually beat him. She went on to say that Newt Gingrich says stuff, 'that sounds like it makes sense, but doesn't." This is perhaps the first time Ms. Coulter and I agree, but I found her remarks very apt. Consider Mr. Gingrich's smack down of Juan Williams. In closing Gingrich said "So here’s my point. I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness. And if that makes liberals unhappy, I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job." Gingrich thought so highly of this exchange that he actually turned it into a commercial. The thing is it actually doesn't make any sense. In particular, the second sentence where he sets up the conditional statement and then uses a complete nonsequitor lacks any sort of meaning. It appears to be a rousing defense of his vision of capitalism, but in reality it's merely a bunch of loosely joined platitudes. Gingrich is like a college student bullshitting a paper, he says things in an impassioned tone, and uses adjectives like 'fundamental' to make his arguments seem more academic than they actually are. But apparently this is what passes for intellectual in the Republican Party. Gingrich said he would debate Obama for three hours using only his wits, and while I'm sure he believes in his own grandiose vision of his intellect, I bet Obama is licking his chops.

Shit Bloggers Say

In lieu of merely reposting the piece I published on The Faster Times earlier today, which can be read here http://www.thefastertimes.com/politics/2012/01/19/republican-race-shaken-up-in-south-carolina/,( a scintillating read in my humble opinion) I thought I'd take a second to comment on the latest trend to hit the internet.

It seems like the easiest way to go viral is to follow the "shit (insert some group) people say" model. The group can be a race, a gender, a people that share a common location, really any recognizable group of people. As far as I can gather it began with a video "Shit Girls Say" and has now ricocheted around the internet in every imaginable iteration. Obviously, some of the videos are more entertaining than others, but as a class, a genre, what does their success tell us? In my opinion, it's all about the shock of recognition. Herman Melville coined the phrase the "shock of recognition" in response to the visceral feeling he got from reading Nathaniel Hawthorne's work. It was a feeling of a shared experience, a shared state of mind. The" shit people say videos play on the shock of recognition in two ways. Using the example of "Shit Girls Say," the video is entertaining for boys because it allows them to think that their experience of girls as ditzy and annoying in a good hearted way, is a universal experience. Simultaneously, it's entertaining for girls because it allows them to pass off their worst moments as merely something has been conditioned on them by societal expectations. This is overstating the point to some degree, but what I mean to say is that it's enjoyable because people relate to it.

I thought I'd try my hand at it, and create Shit Bloggers Say:

"I have like the best blog in the world"
"I have the worst blog in the world"
"I got like a thousand page views today"
"I got that ad revenue rolling in"
"Will I ever be published in hard print"
"The internet is totally the new book"
"The internet is totally the new magazine"
"We're in age of democratic publishing"
"the era of word mercantilism is over"
"is anyone even reading this shit?"
"I wish someone would retweet my shit"
"I wish someone would like my shit"
"I have more followers than people I follow"
"What's your klout score?"

admittedly, not very funny, but whatever.

STOP SOPA! I Guess?

This morning I awoke to a nagging, sickly feeling. As this site has seen its proverbial stock rise, has it strayed from its roots? Where was the sense of whimsy, the irreverence that set this site apart from any other online repository of news. In those heady early days you never knew what you'd find on The Redel Traub Report. Sure we talked about politics and news, but we did it with childlike wonder and a tongue in cheek tone that made this site particularly groundbreaking.

I was particularly proud of the Adventures on Wikipedia series, the article about Pepsi was the first I wrote for this website and I received overwhelmingly positive feedback about that article as well as the article about George Washington Carver. In an effort to try and recreate the unbridled passion, the avant garde nature of those early days, I took to Wikipedia today. I thought an interesting article could be crafted about any number of things, Magic 8-balls or Ramen Noodles were early favorites. I took to Wikipedia only to find that the site was blacked out today to protest SOPA, the Stop Online Privacy Act.

At this point I must admit that my operating knowledge of technology is paltry. I fundamentally don't understand how electricity works, let alone the internet. Though I operate this blog, it is a bare bones operation and works entirely off a template from Google's blogger service. I'd heard about SOPA, but I have little understanding of how it would tangibly affect me or the internet as a whole.

Without Wikipedia to turn to, how could I possibly understand SOPA with my limited vocabulary of technical jargon. I searched SOPA, clicked on the SOPA Wikipedia, and ironically it is the one page they didn't black out today. That seemed to be a wise decision, because with all the news generated from today's blackout many computer illiterates would be curious to learn more about SOPA.

As far as I can tell, SOPA would seek to give the government the ability to shutdown websites that hosted copyrighted materials. This has the effect of making users wary of uploading content on user generated websites, and further more would punish entire domains for one piece of illegal content. Certainly, Internet piracy is a big problem, it has fundamentally altered both the music and movie industry. However, there is little evidence that enforcing copyrights more harshly would lessen internet piracy. According to more technologically informed people, there are relatively simple ways to circumvent SOPA. The real threats seems to be in the vagueness of the bill, which could imperil legitimate sites, and the empowerment of government forces to effectively censor the internet.

To be honest, the practical implications of SOPA are still obtuse to me. However, my understanding is not essential to my use of the internet. As I said earlier, if I was forced to understand the electronics I used, I'd be a Luddite. There's been a whole host of people, far more informed than me, that have spoken out against SOPA. Combined with my general aversion towards any limiting of freedom of speech, I can proudly say I don't support SOPA. In fact I wish I'd blacked out my site today in protestation of SOPA. Even if I don't really understand what SOPA is.

Is Romney John Kerry Redux?

It seems as though nothing is more thrilling for political pundits than finding historical contexts for present day elections. Every election cycle they search for a historically analogous election that will shed some insight on the upcoming one. Pundits wax poetic about whether the 2010 midterms more closely resemble 1994 or 1982, for example. It's often appeared to me to be a fools errand, using superficial similarities to help justify their present day prognostications. With that said, today we're gonna do precisely that.

It appears as though the Republican nomination has been wrapped up by Mitt Romney. We've written at length about the uneasy process through which Mr. Romney has appeared to solidify his place as the nominee, his rivals have been unable to capitalize on their success and create a winning coalition that unites the disparate strands of the Republican party. And thus they've been left with Mitt, who seems to excite no one, but has convinced enough folks that he's the most electable.

It was this term 'electability,' that gave me flashbacks to a dark time. The year was 2004 and George Bush was in office. Bush and Obama seem to arouse a similar vitriolic response, both were portrayed as outsized caricatures of each parties particular personification of evil. Bush was a swaggering war criminal, and Obama is a Kenyan Muslim socialist. To defeat these evil characters it makes sense that both parties eschewed ideological purity for this strange sense of 'electability.'

Mr. Bush's rival in 2004 was, of course, John Kerry. Mr. Kerry and Mr. Romney have some obvious traits in common. They are both exceedingly wealth, moderate, aloof, from Massachusetts, and seen as flip floppers. These are the kind of trite superficialities that pundits usually draw on, but the similarities are more than skin deep.

The biggest issue in 2004 was the various wars the U.S. was waging. Kerry made sense as a candidate because he was a bonafide war hero. In contrast to Bush, who went AWOL, Kerry would supposedly be able to speak about U.S. military intervention in a well informed way, and attacks on his dovishness could be refuted by his earlier heroism. The major issue in this cycle will likely be the economy. Romney, who is quick to tout his 'private sector experience,' will be able to speak with some credibility on how to fix the economy. In 2004 the Republicans eviscerated Kerry's war heroics with attacks from the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. Similarly, Democrats will likely point to Romney's tenure at Bain Capital and argue that he killed jobs. Though the accuracy and mootness of these arguments are different, they'll likely function the same.

Moreover, Kerry's ability to talk about the wars was undercut by his votes for the war. Romney won't be able to raise the issue of Obamacare, a redmeat issue for the Republican base, without Democrats reminding that Romney created a similar system of Healthcare in Massachusetts.

It all comes back to this issue of electability, both parties were desperate to beat these incumbents, and sought candidates that they thought could appeal to moderates. While Howard Dean or Michelle Bachmann may have been saying things that more closely aligned with the base of their respective parties, they both had flaws and appeared unready for primetime. Instead voters seem to want a well-coiffed candidate who looks the part, and is uncontroversial.

2004 was a close election, John Kerry acquitted himself well as a candidate, but he was unable to excite anyone. Republicans were able to paint him as an uppercrust flip flopper and Kerry was unable to connect with voters. His loss came down to a couple hundred thousand votes in Ohio, so it's hard to begrudge his candidacy or even argue that a different candidate would've done better. Still, it's not hard to imagine that some potential anti-war voters were turned off by Kerry's flip flopping on that issue. Similarly, Mitt Romney may alienate potential voters because of Romneycare and his general lack of conservative bonafides. One thing about the 2004 election that seems almost assuredly to repeat itself, is the hard fought close nature of the race.

Off To War We Go

It's been a common trope in the Republican primary to accuse President Obama of being an appeaser when it comes to Iran. The recent news of a downed U.S. drone in Iran, saber rattling over the Straight of Hormuz, cyber warfare attacks against Iran, Wednesday's assassination of a top Iranian nuclear scientist, the arrest of alleged CIA operatives in Iran, and the supposed Iranian plot to kill a Saudi ambassador on American soil, to list just a few points of contention, has ratcheted up tensions. Given these incursions, allow me to wish that Obama was more Chamberlainesque at least when it comes to Iran.

Indeed, war with Iran now appears to be a fait accompli. The game seems to be to make life as miserable as possible for Iranians through small scale military actions and economic sanctions, the Iranian Rial has crashed in value in recent days. Of course it wouldn't be a true romp in the Mideast without some encouragement from our friends in the oil industry, and rest assured that they are smiling and counting their stock options as oil prices have risen following Iran's threat to close the Straight of Hormuz.

Today comes the troubling news that Israeli Mossad agents conducted a false flag operation, pretending to act as CIA agents, recruiting members of the Sunni terrorist organization Jundallah. Jundallah has been a thorn in the side of Shia Iran, carrying out numerous terrorist acts. Given the fair and balanced nature of the Redel Traub Report, we tend to tread lightly when it comes to the topic of Israel, but suffice it to say its practically unthinkable that any other country would be allowed to impersonate CIA agents with relative impunity.

Just as in Iraq, the central tension is Iran's desire for WMD. Well given these recent attacks on Iran's sovereignty the desire for a nuclear bomb seems understandable, we can ignore the fact that the IAEA has stated that while Iran has acted suspiciously it doesn't appear to be that close to building a bomb. Why wouldn't any player on the international scale want to be nuclear? A nuclear bomb is de facto currency on the market that is foreign relations, North Korea has immunized itself from invasion by it's development of a bomb. An Iranian bomb would be worthless against the U.S. without a method to deliver it, and Israel, though in range, enjoys such weaponry superiority that an attack against it would be tantamount to national suicide.

Unlike the boogeyman it's portrayed to be, Iran is a relatively weak country. Ralph Nader points out that their GDP is smaller than that of Massachusetts and it's surrounded by the U.S. military on three of its borders. During the Bush era it made overtures of peace towards the U.S., including an offer to help depose the Taliban immediately after September 11th, an offer the U.S. may want to reconsider. Given the state of almost outright war, one shudders to think what would happen if our supposedly "dovish" president, is replaced by any one of the GOP candidates, with the notable exception of Ron Paul, who have all sworn to take a more hawkish approach in the region.

New Hampshire in Review; On to the Next One

After the nailbiter that was the Iowa GOP caucus, the New Hampshire Primary was relatively uneventful. The results jived with most prognostications, no candidates withdrew, and it's on to the next one. South Carolina, a far more conservative state, and a traditional killing field in Republican primaries, is up next. In 2000 Bush unleashed a harsh whisper campaign against John McCain, which alleged among other things that McCain had fathered a black child. One shudders to think about the harsh attacks that will begin to percolate in the coming days.

Mitt Romney is certainly happy with his showing last night, he received 20,000 more votes than in 2008, and raised his share of the percentage about 8%. He was quick to note that he's the first non-incumbent to win both the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. But Romney's success here was expected, and he faces a tougher terrain in South Carolina. Romney did pick up an unlikely ally in Ron Paul, who's attacked both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum as Washington insiders, and defended Romney from attacks over his record at Bain Capital. Paul sees such attacks as running counter to the spirit of unfettered capitalism, and at this point Romney surely appreciates the kind words.

At this point the only thing that seems able to stop the Romney juggernaut is if the Santorum, Perry, Gingrich crowd can choose a candidate to coalesce around. Gingrich has a great deal of money and has already made large ad buys in South Carolina. Perry abandoned the New Hampshire primary to focus on South Carolina. And Santorum's family values message should play far better in South Carolina than in libertarian New Hampshire. All these candidates can expect to do fairly well here, I'd estimate their likely support at around 20%, but if Romney can beat them, which seems fairly likely, he'll be tough to stop.

Gingrich is seemingly only in the campaign to attack Romney, but he's likely made the calculation that if he can emerge as the last man standing he could have success against Romney. It's going to come down to a battle between his ego and his hatred for Romney, because as long as he stays in the race he fractures some of the anti-Romney vote. The same goes for Perry and Santorum. At this point it seems Santorum is the only candidate who hasn't been tarnished by this campaign, and would seem the likely candidate to emerge as the anti-Romney. However, his support for Bush-era big government policies and his extreme anti-gay rhetoric, may make him a tough sell as an electable Republican. Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum are all splitting the same pool of support, allowing Romney to skate through with pluralities.

One notable thing is that in contrast to a GOP that seems to have an enthusiasm advantage over the Democrats, they saw only about 15,000 more voters than in 2008, and about 40,000 less than the Democrats saw that same year. The number is even less impressive when one considers that New Hampshire has a fairly open primary process, where Democrats and Independents can vote in the Republican primary. Combined with a myriad of polls showing the GOP unimpressed with the crop of candidates, it seems the GOP doesn't have an overwhelming enthusiasm advantage.

Obama in Wonderland

The latest scandal to hit the White House is news that in 2009 the Obama's threw a lavish "Alice in Wonderland" themed party. The news emerged in Jodi Kantors latest book "The Obamas." Kantor, a heretofore respected New York Times columnist, broke the news that not only did the party occur, but Johnny Depp and Tim Burton were in attendance. And who were the recipients of this wasteful government spending? Children of wealthy Obama donors? A secret cabal of World Bankers? In fact, it was no less an undeserving group than children of military families, and Washington D.C. area public school children.

In response to the news that Mr. Depp and Mr. Burton did not appear in the White House visitor logs, Republican National Committee Spokesman Joe Pounder had this to say: "The most transparent administration somehow forgot to log Johnny Depp coming to the White House?" Apparently Obama's promise of transparency depends on the day, the event and what they don't want to disclose."

It remains baffling to this reporter why news like this and Mrs. Obama's fitness program are met with such consternation from Republicans. Both are met with cries denouncing big government, but it just goes to show you the misplacement of Republican priorities. Getting children to exercise and throwing them parties is a waste of government funds and an unnecessary incursion, while banning Gay marriage and abortion are necessary to uphold family values. That the children in question are the families of veterans sent to war by a Republican president with specious reasons, only underscores Republicans stunning lack of empathy. Certainly the argument could be made that the party was a waste of money, but the government is constantly throwing lavish parties and wasting money, not to mention waging unnecessary wars, so one might think that doing something nice for military families would be an justifiable one time expense. It speaks volumes about the excesses of partisanship in this country that a minor story like this one becomes a full fledged scandal in some people's eyes.

Tebowmania Soars to New Heights.

The Redel Traub Report has delighted in writing about in Tim Tebow over these past months, though admittedly much of it has been tongue in cheek. Tebow is the rare athlete who transcends sports, whose success or failure has symbolic importance. He has become an embodiment of the culture war, a litmus test for a worldview. Tebow's success has created a weird conflict, while Tebow's religion and politics are objectionable, he is the quintessential underdog. He is Rudy, an athlete who's told he doesn't have the physical tools to succeed, but manages to overcome the obstacles thanks to sheer determination. Tebow's story took a dramatic turn yesterday with the Bronco's shocking 29-23 defeat of the reigning AFC champion Steelers.

While Tebow's season up to this point has been a case study in lucky bounces and opponent mishaps, yesterday's game was completely different. Tebow was simply masterful, completing 10-21 passes for 316 yards and running 10 times for 50 yards.(The fact that Tebow's 316 yards has religious connotations, John 3:16 is a particularly famous bible verse, seems to have been lost on no one.) Tebow was an effective passer yesterday completing 3 passes of 50 or more yards, which happens to be 3 more than the Jets completed all season. The Bronco's followed the formula of letting the run set up the pass, and as the Steelers became more and more aggressive with their blitzes, the Broncos were able to take some shots downfield with success. If the writing I've done about Tebow to this point has denigrated his ability, let me be the first to say that yesterday he was very good.

During yesterday's game, for the first time I found myself explicitly rooting for Tebow. I root for upsets, for weirdness, for unconventionality, and Tebow and the Broncos embodied all of those things. If Tebow is unlikable because of his heavy handed religious views, then that puts him in the same category as many other athletes. Athletes are people, and thus flawed. Tebow's opposing QB yesterday, Ben Roethlisberger, has been accused of rape. In my fandom I've almost certainly rooted for all manner of felons. One of my heroes growing up was Latrell Sprewell who gained notoriety for choking his coach. If I've been able to overlook foibles in all of these cases, why not excuse Tebow? One answer that comes to mind is that all the other athletes expressed remorse for their transgressions, while Tebow openly flaunts his religion.

Apparently, after the Bronco's win, Tebow set the record for the most tweets per second about a sporting event. Tebow is a phenomenon, he has captured the cultural imagination. The Broncos will travel to Foxboro next weekend to play the Patriots, and will likely be huge underdogs. The Patriots beat them handily during the regular season, and Pat's Coach Bill Belichek, perhaps the best in the league, will be certain to draw up a complex defensive scheme which aims to stop Tebow. The Bronco's will likely lose, and we can be done talking about Tebow, at least until next season. However, if Tebow has taught us anything it's that the phrase "any given Sunday" is truer than we give it credit for, and anything can happen. Tebow has made this season fun, his crazy comebacks has lent an air of spontaneity and inanity that is enjoyable in the staid corporate atmosphere of the NFL.

The Knicks

Now that I've endeavored to bring my loyal readers fascinating stories on a daily basis, I'm constantly looking for inspiration. While Tim Tebow and the Republican primary are a fun to write about, I can only produce so much content about them before I feel I start treading on ideas I've already expounded on. With that said, let's turn to the world of sports and my beloved New York Knicks.

For those that don't follow them, the Knicks are off to a sluggish 2-4 start, disappointing for a season when some thought they might be championship contenders. They've looked horrible on both offense and defense at times, and seem to have little idea how to play as a team on either end. Promising neophytes Toney Douglas and Landry Fields have appeared to regress. Free agent center Tyson Chandler has delivered little on his promise to bring interior defense to New York. And lastly, and most troublingly, superstars Amare Stoudemire and Carmelo Anthony appear to be uncomfortable playing with each other, instead settling for alternating isolation opportunities. Only rookie Imam Shumpert has played well, though he's gotten hurt in both games he's appeared in.

In my opinion, the problem lies solely with the coaching staff and specifically with head coach Mike D'antoni. In my freshman year at Wisconsin, me and several friends took a bus to Milwaukee to catch a Bucks-Knicks game. During a timeout, my good friend Jake Langbecker, who was wearing a Stephon Marbury jersey, caught Steph's attention during a timeout, and Marbury pointed to him in thanks for his support. Marbury had earned his way into D'antoni's doghouse without even appearing in a regular season game. It would later come out that before that very game, that D'antoni had offered to play Marbury but Marbury refused, the Knicks were shorthanded because they'd made a number of trades earlier in the day that left their roster depleted. Marbury was upset because he'd been benched for the first several games on the season, and never appeared in an another game for the Knicks. I tell this story because the Marbury situation provided my first glimpse of a stubborn coach who burned his bridges with players. He'd repeat the same pattern with Nate Robinson,who responded with a monster game the first time D'antoni allowed him t play after an extended absence, and Chris Duhon, who he benched after he'd been the starter the whole year up to that point.

D'antoni becomes weirdly attached to or angry at players for little discernible reason, but more troubling is his stubbornness when it comes to his gameplan. D'antoni is known as an offensive guru, but he's shown little flair for it this year. His offensive 'genius' has been implied by his uptempo style, but he's never been great at drawing up plays off timeouts, the Knicks often struggle to get the ball to their best players in crunch time, often winding up with Jared Jeffries, an offensive black hole, taking the last shot. Even more frustrating is his insistence that the Knicks switch defensively on every screen, which leads to huge mismatches such as Tyson Chandler on DJ Augustin, a small PG, something I saw with shocking frequency on Wednesday night. I must admit, I liked the idea of D'antoni as coach when he took over in 2007. I thought his uptempo style would be fun to watch, but over the years I've soured on him, and now I think he should be fired.

One thing I've started to come around to in my sports fandom is that I literally have no control. On internet message boards fans become hyperpartisan, I think this is a pointless endeavor. If I disagree with a trade, I still want my team to win, regardless of whether their following my chosen path. I follow sports to emotionally invest myself in something, and like it or not this is where my allegiance lies. I can't change the Knicks, only hope that things get better. And I hope they get better very soon.

The Jersey Shore and Friendship

As we've discussed many times The Redel Traub Report is unquestionably about the life of the mind. We consider ourselves the successor to the "salon culture" that helped foster the Enlightenment. If this blog has one goal its to spark a second Enlightenment, which, I guess, would focus on politics, wikipedia, and other bullshit I happen to be interested in. Perhaps not as lofty as new conceptions of the origin of sovereign rule, or the rights of man, but certainly more interesting. With that said, we at the Redel Traub Report do have our guilty pleasures, I've mentioned my penchant for The Celebrity Apprentice and Sarah Palin's Alaska. Though I, in some ways, reject the notion of guilty pleasures, that is a topic for a different blog post. Today is certainly an appropriate day for this discussion, because it marks the premier of the newest season of The Jersey Shore.

The show is often a target of criticism. It's offensive to Italians, it's voyeuristic, it's simply stupid and boring. All these complaints are valid to some degree, the show is often boring and generally centers on the drunken exploits of "guidos". However, these are not the reasons the show is enjoyable. For me the show hits its high watermark when it simply focuses on the friendships between the cast. By this I refer to the inside jokes the cast is constantly coining such as "GTL" T-Shirt Time" and "Grenade". The substance of the jokes matter less than the element of human friendship we can all relate to.

As I've grown older and begun to get a better sense about the nature of friendship, the more I've come to believe that it's these small inside jokes that truly form the basis of the human relationship. The reasons for this are many, an inside joke often relies on a shared experience, or at least a shared sensibility. Almost every group of friends I've ever been in, or even been witness to, starts to develop their own slang, their own quasi language. These reveal a worldview in some ways, the things that mutual friends find funny reflect a shared schema of the world. For instance, for the Shore cast, nothing is funnier than saying T-shirt time, because it instantly takes them to a place they can fundamentally relate too. For them, the focus of life is going out drinking and clubbing. "Tshirt Time" refers to the point during one's evening right before they are about to hit the town, when they change out of their house clothes, and into a fancy shirt, generally an Ed Hardy in the case of the Shore. This is part of the reason young people identify with and enjoy the Jersey Shore, "t-shirt time" is a recognizable moment of many young peoples lives, the Shore just created a lexicon to easily identify it.

This is what truly makes this blog the finest repository for news and opinion on the net, even when discussing a topic as banal as the Jersey Shore, we find a way to relate it to a big part of the human experience. Reality TV is fun to watch because it's enjoyable to watch human interaction, reality tv often heightens the stakes by having said interaction be a train wreck. I'll be tuning in tonight to watch the drunken exploits of Snooki, Sitch, and the rest of the gang, because at this point after 4 seasons with them they are people I've come to know and understand. The Jersey Shore, and reality tv, are garbage in many ways, but in other ways they are a truer expression of the human condition than any creative artist has ever produced. And you're a grenade if you disagree.

Republican Candidates and Their NFL Doppelgangers

I recently finished a piece comparing Santorum's success in Iowa to that of Bronco's QB Tim Tebow, it can be read here: http://www.thefastertimes.com/politics/2012/01/04/santorum-channels-tebow-in-iowa/ . I thought it was a fun conceit, and something I've always had a lot of fun dong, I've compared athletes to rappers, to movie stars, etc, and though it's a kind of meaningless endeavor, its often good for a couple laughs.
With that said I've turned to the rest of the field.

Mitt Romney=Phillip Rivers, If Santorum backdoored his way into a win Iowa in a similar way to Tebow and the Bronco's, then it makes sense that Romney would be comparable to Rivers. Both were heavy favorites, both had the gaudy numbers, both had a fair amount of past success, and both have serially failed to get the job done. Like Romney, the Chargers are often early favorites, who shoot themselves in the foot during crunch time. Both Romney and Rivers seem like they should be in that elite tier, but consistently fail.

Newt Gingrich=Matt Hasselback, Both have a track record of some success. However, both have done enough damage to their reputation that they don't seem to be viable candidates for that top tier.

Ron Paul=Mike Vick, Both are incredibly unique, both are polarizing. For both their uniqueness is part of their success and part of their downfall. Vick's scrambling style makes him an incredibly exciting and dynamic QB, but also gets him hurt a lot. Paul's foreign policy makes him enticing to some, but out of line with mainstream Republicans.

Herman Cain=Brett Favre, I'll let you make up your own sexual harassment joke here.

Rick Perry=Mark Sanchez, both have a championship pedigree, and were highly regarded when they burst on the scene. However, both have proven themselves far too erratic for big time success.

John Huntsman= Matt Leinart, both seemingly have all the traits you could ask for, but for whatever reason they seem to be more comfortable in the back up role.

Michele Bachmann= Caleb Hanie, some early success that seemed to augur big things in their futures, but both proved to be not quite camera ready when they got their shot. Both are now out of the running.

Iowa Caucus Primer

Well what a long strange trip its been. After a multitude of debates, and seemingly every candidate, besides Huntsman, having their moment in the sun, the Iowa Caucuses are today. It seems apropos that it falls on the first business day of the new year, because the year will almost certainly be dominated by the presidential campaign. Obama and his Republican opponent will spend record breaking amounts of money, and voters can expect a deluge of media attempting to win their vote. Given the apocalyptic rhetoric of many Republicans, we can look forward to a pitched battle that will almost certainly be proclaimed "the most important election of our lifetime."

The caucus takes place at 8pm tonight. The caucus process is different than a typical election, there is a drawn out process where voters make speeches in support of the candidates. Tonight, roughly, 120,000 Iowa's will flock to caucus locations across the state, and cast the first ballots of the 2012 election.

That said lets take a look at our crystal ball and attempt to project the outcome of tonight's caucus: In first place, we like Mitt Romney. If the weather was worse we'd like Ron Paul, but the clear forecast gives Romney the advantage. I think there is a large element of the Republican Party that is so desperate to beat Obama, they'll vote based on electability. Similar to his fellow Massachusetts' lawmaker John Kerry, Romney has all the gaudy measurables that seem to make a good presidential candidate. He's wealthy, handsome, and moderate enough to appeal to independent voters. In a crowded field, with many campaigns vying for similar subsets of voters, I think Mitt's coalition built around his electability will win the day.

In second, we project Ron Paul. His voters are die-hard which is important in a caucus, but he has little crossover appeal to supporters of the other candidates. He is a polarizing candidate. Iowa also doesn't have an open system, which hurts Paul. If Democrats and Independents could vote in the caucus, it would likely benefit Mr. Paul. The media will likely downplay Mr. Paul's success, but his rising support indicates a real anger with politics as usual.

In a relative upset, we like Rick Perry for 3rd place. Since his various stumbles, Perry has largely eschewed the media spotlight, but Republican blogs seem to indicate that he still has a lot of support. He will be an attractive candidate in southern primaries, and if he can come in 3rd tonight he will likely become Mr. Romney's number one rival. Perry is a prodigious fundraiser, and a boost tonight will reinvigorate his campaign. He's been positioning himself as the choice of social conservatives, and that's a large base in Iowa. 3rd place depends on who these social conservatives turn to, with Bachmann, Santorum and Perry vying for their votes.

In 4th place, flavor of the week Rick Santorum. Santorum is a similar candidate to Mike Huckabee, who won the 2008 Iowa Caucus. Like Huckabee, Santorum is a strong social conservative, who leaves himself open to criticism by those who see him as a big government conservative. If Santorum had started to peak a little earlier, he may have a been a strong contender for 1st, but it seems it's too little too late. Santorum's recent support seems to be almost by default, as voters soured on the other contenders. Whoever finishes stronger between Santorum and Perry will likely emerge as Mr. Romney's chief rival. Santorum could be an attractive Vice-President choice for Mitt Romney, with his social conservative bonafides.

In 5th place, we see Mr. Gingrich limping to the finish line. Gingrich has been pulling out all of the stops in recent days. He broke into tears, in a move reminiscent of Hillary Clinton, before a forum of women voters. Today, he's making news calling Mr. Romney a liar. Gingrich had his time to shine, but voters were reminded of his problematic personality. The Republican establishment brought out the knives, and wounded his campaign. As we've documented in earlier reports, all manner of Republican media types blasted Mr. Gingrich. Combined with his unlikable personality, Gingrich won't be able to compete.

Beyond that, some combination of Cain, Huntsman, and Bachmann rounding out the field. Cain, though he's stopped campaigning, is still on the ballot, though in a caucus his lack of infrastructure will be deadly. Bachmann could surprise us with a strong finish. If she can win over social conservatives she could make some noise, but we just don't see that happening. Huntsman has not been able to gain traction this whole election, look for him to end his campaign after a last place finish tonight, and a weak showing in New Hampshire.