Delving into Data: Part II

On Friday we looked at some of the data about how states have historically voted since 1960. Today we’re going to dig a little deeper to see if this data can tell us anything about this year. For your review, I'm including the (almost too small to read) charts again.

First let’s take a look at Tier 1 Republican states: Arizona, Oklahoma, Utah, Nebraska, Idaho, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Of these, all but Arizona have voted for the Republican presidential candidate every election except 1964. Arizona voted GOP that year, but Democrat in 1996 only. So what was going on in 1964? That was Barry Goldwater against LBJ. Goldwater only took six states. Arizona was his home state; the others were Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, and South Carolina. The first four of those states were also outliers in the 1968 election, voting for the third party segregationist candidate. In other words, it was not likely Goldwater’s conservatism that appealed, but his racism. The Tier 1 Republican states probably didn’t vote in favor of LBJ’s liberal policies so much as they voted against Goldwater’s unsavory policies; none of the Tier 1 states ever had slaves or particular race issues.

George Romney, Mitt’s father, ran (among others, including Nixon) against Goldwater in 1968. People today like to characterize that as the moderate candidate vs. the conservative. While there were a number of conservative positions put forward by Goldwater that have since become basic doctrine, back in the 1960s, the matchup was more likely to be seen as sane vs. insane. Think, for comparison, of Ron Paul’s anti-Israel foreign policy—with vitriol.

All of the Tier 1 states voted against Obama in 2008, so it’s likely we can count on that position again. Of Tier 2 Republican states, Virginia and Indiana are the outliers. They voted Democrat in 1964 (the same year the Tier 1 states voted Democrat) and again in 2008. The “historic” opportunity to vote for the first black president, especially with the alternative being a weak conservative, probably caught them; now that the results of that mistake are clear, they are not at all likely to go Democrat again this time.

There were 22 states that voted against Obama in 2008; it is practically guaranteed that all 22 will vote against him again. So the question is, really, which of the ones suckered in to that “historic” thing now know better?

Colorado has gone Democrat only in 1964 (the outlier Goldwater year), 1992 (Clinton’s first, but not his second race, when 3^rd party Perot was a factor against the GOP), and 2008. Since the Obama error is considerably worse than the Clinton error, logic would say they will go against Obama in 2012. No guarantee, but that is a possible 9 electoral votes.

Then we’re down to Florida and North Carolina. Florida went Democrat in 1964 (Goldwater again), 1976 (against Reagan, but they are adjacent to Carter’s Georgia), 1996 (Clinton’s 2^nd term, another 3^rd party Perot interference), and 2008. Floridians voted for Bush narrowly both times. So they’re questionable. As my son Political Sphere points out, Florida has people who couldn’t read a ballot, and then tried to overturn an election by looking at “pregnant chads.” Having our future depend on them makes us feel vulnerable. But the state, with 29 electoral votes, is definitely worth fighting for. They have been voting regularly for GOP governors for quite a while, so that is a positive.

North Carolina went Democrat only in 1960, 1964, and 1976. Up until 2008, they went GOP seven straight times. Let’s hope it was just the “historic” problem, and they will self-correct, for another 15 electoral votes.

In the top 4 tiers, the only real question is Florida. If we assume the scenario that the GOP gets all of the top 4 tiers, as we showed in the last post, that’s 212 electoral votes.

In lower tiers, the GOP will also get Georgia, Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas, and West Virginia—all of whom voted against Obama in 2008 when we didn’t know how bad he would be. That is another 45 electoral votes, putting the GOP candidate at 257. Another 13 electoral votes means a win.

Of the remaining states, let’s look at those who voted GOP recently before 2008:

·         Ohio                            GOP in 2000 and 2004             18 electoral votes

·         Nevada                        GOP in 2000 and 2004               6 electoral votes

·         New Hampshire            GOP in 2000                             4 electoral votes

·         Iowa                            GOP in 2004                              6 electoral votes

·         New Mexico                 GOP in 2004                              5 electoral votes

Ohio alone could do the job, or any other three. Plus there is the possibility that any historically blue state might notice the abysmal result of the Obama vote. Almost any loss could mean defeat for Obama.

This assessment is based mainly on history. There is no guarantee that demographics have stayed the same. For example, Texas voted Democrat four of five times from 1960-1976, but has voted GOP in every presidential election since. Some migration has happened with people leaving high unemployment places to places with more opportunity. The better opportunity places tend to be conservative, places that resist big government interference.

National polls show two conflicting things: low and sinking approval ratings for Obama (despite the mainstream media as his propagandists), and slight leads for Obama against specific GOP opponents. But the polls don’t say who was polled. A fair poll would be numbers that relate to registered GOP and Democrat voters, and should be likely voters. Polls tend to be canvass more Democrats than Republicans, and not necessarily those who vote. So polls tend to be skewed against Republicans. Also, the national polls do not show where the voters are. If there is a preponderance in urban areas and blue states, the poll is skewed against Republicans in a way that is particularly inaccurate in relation to the electoral college.

The point is that, ten months out from voting day without a chosen Republican candidate, there is quite a lot of reason for us to hope for change, so we can get our country back.

After Another Debate

Several presidential debates have gone by without my commenting on them. So here’s what’s been happening: questions are asked of candidates who agree almost entirely that Obamacare must be repealed, economic policies must return to free market, government needs to be smaller, spending and the deficit need real cuts, and faith and integrity are essential. There is no point in debating those ideas; we can save that for debates with the sitting president who disagrees on every point.  

So the debates tend to concentrate on separating these very good alternatives to the status quo from one another. Where there are differences in specifics, I find that I always understand better when the candidate has a forum where he/she can express the thought process more fully. The sound bites that come in short debate answers offer this differentiation very poorly. People who agree that we need to protect our sovereign border shouldn’t be accused of being against that idea because of a specific that requires further explanation. People who all agree that nationalizing health care is an abomination (“Obamanation”) should not be accused by their colleagues, again and again, of lying about their views. Having a colleague turn to you and say, “No, that’s not what you believe; you believe this and this” is not only a ridiculous waste of time, it’s offensive.  

In just about every debate, Newt Gingrich has reminded us that we don’t really disagree with each other; we disagree with the current administration and its direction. If he’s in the race for no other reason, I appreciate that. 

Nevertheless, there were a few gems from last night’s debate that I’d like to share. Some for entertainment; some for enlightenment. 

This first is an exchange between Mitt Romney and Herman Cain. Some day maybe I’ll take a closer look at Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. I have many reservations, but I also like the idea of simplifying and flattening the tax system. (Michelle Bachman pointed out that that concept was something all agreed on.) So the exchange here is only entertaining. Cain is talking about only changing the federal tax system, doing nothing to individual state plans. And Romney is pointing out that the complaint is the discomfort people have adding 9% sales tax on top of something like an 8% state and/or local sales tax. They don’t really disagree. But the apples and oranges thing is funny.  

Romney (to Cain): Are you saying that the state sales tax will also go away?

Cain: No. That’s an apple. We’re replacing a bunch of oranges.

Romney: So, then, Governor Perry was right.

Cain: No, he wasn’t. He was mixing apples and oranges.

Romney: Well, but, will the people in Nevada not have to pay Nevada sales tax, and in addition pay the 9% sales tax?

Cain: Governor Romney, you’re doing the same thing that they’re doing; you’re mixing apples and oranges. You’re gonna pay the state sales tax no matter what.

Romney: Right.

Cain: Whether you throw out the existing code and you put in our plan, you’re still gonna pay that. That’s apples and oranges.

Romney: Fine. And I’m gonna be getting a bushel basket that has apples and oranges in it, ‘cause I’m gonna pay both taxes. And the people of Nevada don’t want to pay both taxes. 

If there ever were a national sales tax on top of state and local sales tax, I think the item should be marked to show the retail cost, plust the cost with each of the taxes, so there's an awareness of the taxes being paid, and no sudden shock at checkout.

Newt Gingrich followed up with a concern I have about Cain’s plan. He credits Cain with opening up the conversation on a major reworking of the tax system. But he says there are a lot of details that need to be handled; it’s not as simple as Cain describes. And something that complex takes time. 

Gingrich: I favor very narrow, focused tax cuts such as zero capital gains, 100% expensing, because, I think, as Governor Romney said, jobs are the number one challenge over the next two or three years. Get something you can do very fast. Change on this scale takes years to think through, if you’re gonna do it right. 

Rick Perry made a good case for using our own resources for energy independence, and since he’s from Texas, where energy is a major industry, I believe he could do it. 

Perry: We’ve got 300 years of resources right under our feet. Yet we’ve got an administration blockading our ability to bring that to the surface, whether it’s our petroleum or our natural gas or our coal. And 1.2 million jobs could be put to work, Americans who are sitting out there listening to this conversation tonight, somebody wants someone on this stage to say, “Listen, we’ve got an idea here how to get you to work and take care of your family and have the dignity of a job.” And that’s exactly what I did with my plan—laid it out where Americans understand, we don’t have to wait on OPEC anymore. We don’t have to let them hold us hostage. America’s got the energy. Let’s have American energy independence. 

Romney didn’t disagree, but extended energy policy to the larger economy, in a way that, if you don’t see them as rivals, but as allies on the same side, would be very positive. 

Romney: He’s absolutely right about getting energy independence and taking advantage of our natural resources here. We’re an energy rich nation that’s acting like an energy poor nation…. But there are also a lot of good jobs we need in manufacturing and high tech jobs, and good service jobs, and technology of all kinds. America produces an economy that’s very very broad, and that’s why our policy to get America the most attractive place in the world for investment and job growth encompasses more than just energy. It includes that, but also tax policy, regulatory policy, trade policy, education, training, and balancing the federal budget. And that starts with repealing Obamacare, which is a huge burden on this economy. 

Ron Paul is generally good on economic issues—and just about as out of the mainstream on foreign policy. But I liked his discussion about getting medicine back to free market choices. 

Paul: There’s been a lot of discussion about medicine, but it seems to be which kind of government management is best. But our problem is we have too much. We’ve had it for 30, 40 years. We have Medicare. We have prescription drug programs. We have Medicaid. And what we need, I mean, there’s pretty good support up here for getting rid of Obamacare because it’s a Democratic proposal, and we want to opt out. I think we’d all agree on this. But if you want better competition and better health care, you should allow the American people to opt out of government medicine…. Let people opt out, pay their bills, get back to the doctor-patient relationship…. When the government gets involved in an industry, prices always go up. We have tort laws to deal with. And we need more competition in medicine. But the most important thing is letting the people have control of their money and get it out of the hands of the third party. 

The issue of attracting Latino voters came up. I liked Gingrich’s comments, and I think this is yet another idea all of the candidates agree on. 

Gingrich: There are hundreds of different groups that come to America. As Governor Romney said, I think anybody who understands America has to be proud of our record as the country which has been the most open in history to legal immigration. But the truth is most Latinos in the United States aren’t immigrants. Most Latinos in the United States now have been born in the United States. And the fact is they want virtually exactly what everyone else wants. They want an economy that’s growing…. And they want to have a chance that their country is going to work to give their children and their grandchildren a better future. I think we have to have the same message for every American of every ethnic background—that we want to make America work again. And you’ll know it’s working because you will have a job, and you’ll have a chance to take care of your family. 

I want to like Rick Santorum. I think he’s at a disadvantage in this strong field, but he often speaks well on the values that contribute to civilization. He tends to try to make it a contrast between himself and the others, and I think that’s a mistake, because there is so little actual disagreement; it makes him look petty. But when he actually speaks on family and faith, he says it well. This comment was following up about attracting the Latino community, which he pointed out is very interested in strong families. 

Santorum: The basic building block of society is not the individual; it’s the family. That’s the basic unit of society. And the Latino community understands. They understand the importance of faith and marriage. They understand that bond that builds that solid foundation, and that inculcation of faith and religious freedom. And I think the Latino community knows what’s at stake in this country. There’s a lot going on right now that’s eroding our religious freedom, that’s eroding the traditional values of marriage and family. And there’s one candidate up here that consistently sounds that theme. Look, I’m for jobs too. I’ve got an economic plan; I agree with everything that’s been said. But we keep running roughshod over the fact that family in America, and faith in America, is being crushed by the courts and by our government, and someone has to stand up and fight for those institutions. 

Have the debates convinced me yet who to vote for? No. I’m not fully decided. But I’m getting closer, I think. I’ve written off Paul and Huntsman (didn’t miss him last night). And I don’t think there’s much hope for Santorum or Bachman this time around, or Gingrich ever again (although I’m still glad he’s there saying what he’s saying). I think I could live with any of the top three as a candidate. But doing the research away from the debates is a better way to find out who they really are and who is worth getting behind.

Ye Shall Know Them By Their Fruits

It is a nearly a week since the Values Voter Summit, in which a Dallas pastor introduced Rick Perry with a hint at maligning Mitt Romney’s religion—which was followed up with media afterward and verified by said pastor. I don’t know what else happened at that summit, or who else spoke. That pastor’s bigoted comments (and in my opinion, they were bigoted) were what came out. 

Perry’s campaign has tried to do damage control, not totally effectively. Should they have known the risk that came with allowing this man to take the microphone? I think so. As we try to make decisions about who to vote for, this can be a big black mark. 

What was the offensive remark? Pastor Jeffress insists that it is better to vote for a Christian (even a marginally moral one, he verified later, without implying that Perry was less than morally committed) than to vote for a moral person who isn’t Christian. He verified afterward that indeed he views Mitt Romney’s (and John Huntsman’s) religion as a cult. He says it matter-of-factly, as if that is the standard belief. 

Huckabee did this to Romney last time around; we’ve had plenty of time to deal with this kind of attack. Romney has spent plenty of time dealing with it. You might want to review his "Faith in America” speech from December 2007. 

This sort of drive-by media hit probably doesn’t deserve any further attention. But I’d like to look at some underlying truth related to civilization. 

The official statement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in response to this particular attack is:  

We really don’t want to comment on a statement made at a political event, but those who want to understand the centrality of Christ to our faith can learn more about us and what we believe by going to mormon.org. 

They noted at LDS.org/newsroom today that they are getting a lot of media questions since last week, adding this statement:

Over the past several days, the Church has received a flood of inquiries from media asking about the Church’s belief in Christ and other tenets of our faith. As part of the ensuing conversations, Church representatives have referred media to pages on mormon.org that explain clearly our belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior of mankind, and to the following scripture from the Book of Mormon:

“…we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.” (2 Nephi 25:26)

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in, study and seek to live by the teachings found in the Old and New Testaments. We also believe in the Book of Mormon as another testament of Jesus Christ. As the verse above plainly teaches, Christ is at the center of our worship, study, service and faith, and we believe this is clearly demonstrated in the lives of more than 14 million members in over 130 countries around the globe.

You should know something about the definition Pastor Jeffress uses for “cult.” You probably picture (and he may want you to picture) a charismatic Jim Jones style leader, people pulling themselves out of society and behaving in weird, incomprehensible ways. But his actual definition more or less distills to “had a founder and started small,” and differs from the 4^th Century Nicene Creed definition of "homoousios," a Gnostic word meaning technically that God the Father and Jesus Christ are one in substance. You can look it up in Wikipedia, but you can’t look it up in the Bible; it isn’t there. On this point Mormon theology does indeed differ from Catholics and Protestants. But this definition puts absolutely every other world religion in the “cult” circle as well—all of Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Taoism—all cults.  

Another point Jeffress probably has in mind is the Protestant belief that a literal belief in the infallibility of the Bible is all the authority needed. Latter-day Saints believe authority comes from someone in authority, tracing back to Jesus Christ himself. This is also the Catholic view of authority, that they trace it back to Peter, the first pope, who got his authority from Christ. So Jeffress apparently includes even Catholics as a “cult.”  

And since every church and even every individual has a different view of what the Bible means, it may be that Jeffress includes as a “cult” anyone who interprets the Bible differently from him. It’s probably true that any religion looks strange to an outsider, but I look at Jeffress’s religious views, and I see strangeness. No offense intended. 

So, what if we go by the Bible’s suggestion that “ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16)? I’d like to do that. 

A couple of years ago I went to a statewide homeschool conference and attended a lecture by Pastor Voddie Baucham, of Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, Texas, on taking a multigeneration view—about passing on our virtues and values to subsequent generations—thinking not just about teaching our children but thinking of how to influence our children so that they will pass the values on to our grandchildren and beyond. Pastor Bacham is fun to listen to, and most of what he said that day resonated with me, so I have kept my notes. He told us some surprising statements and statistics. 

First, he defined having a Biblical worldview as believing in Jesus who lived a perfect life, died for us and suffered for our sins as our Savior. I don’t know what this Baptist’s views are specifically on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but that matches the church’s official statement above. 

Baucham said that less than 10% of professed Christians have this Biblical worldview, and only 51% of pastors have it. Yet all professed Mormons believe this, and all of their lay pastors teach it. There are a few more Mormons worldwide than the number of Jews, and a little under half live in the US. I haven’t done the math, but it might be there are more US Mormons with this Biblical worldview than there are other Christians with it. I’m not sure what the 49% of Christian pastors teach, if they do not teach of the divinity of Christ and his atonement for our sins. 

Pastor Baucham pointed out that only 5% of professed evangelical teens are doctrinally literate enough to be called Christians. I do not know how he measured that. But in Mitt Romney’s religion, children from age 3-18 receive weekly Sunday lessons, with additional mid-week supporting activities from age 8-18. (This includes but is not limited to Boy Scouts; the LDS Church sponsors more Boy Scout troops in the US than any other organization.) During 9^th-12^th grades students get daily religious instruction, often at 6:00 AM—every school day. It is unusual to find a committed LDS youth without a pretty good religious education. This might explain why LDS youth are more likely to score high on social markers like education, celibacy before marriage, and abstaining from alcohol and illegal drugs. In today’s world, even in the best of families, sometimes youth succumb to the influence of the worldly culture that surrounds them, but Mormons have a very good track record. 

One of Pastor Baucham’s purposes in this lecture was to persuade us that it is up to parents to educate their own children in religion; the churches are there only as support. In a standing-room-only crowd of over 500 people, he asked us to raise our hands if we were raised in a family that regularly worshipped at home (which he said should include a song, prayer, scripture study, and doctrinal discussion). Three of us raised our hands—yes, I was one of these, and we have done it with our children. Romney and Huntsman, had they been there, would have raised their hands. And so would any of their children. Family Home Evening, a weekly worship service provided by parents to their own children in their own homes, has been a worldwide practice for Latter-day Saints since about a century ago—to make sure parents understood how to pass along their values to multiple generations. 

Romney pays 10% of all his gross income (yes, gross, not net), plus additional offerings to the poor, as a typical practicing Mormon. As a wealthy man, he probably gives much in addition to various charities. He declined a paycheck when he ran the 2002 Olympics and also when he served as governor of Massachusetts. He has served as a lay minister, giving on average probably 15-20 hours weekly of personal time for zero pay. At age 19 he spent two years as a full-time missionary—not just without wages, but even paying his own way. 

There is a large body of testimony from those who have actually worked with him that he is honest and trustworthy in his business dealings. He has a beautiful family, a strong marriage. No one even suggests the possibility of infidelity, because he has so consistently lived his religion for so long. In other words, the fruits of living his religion are good. 

Mitt’s religion may be different from most of the other candidates’, but it looks like it has been good for him. If there are still concerns, maybe it’s a better idea to find out from Mormons what they believe, instead of depending on rumors of “cultism” spread by someone with a stake in doing damage to Mitt Romney or his religion. 

We can look at his policies and politics another day. But, for the love of God and country, when we do it, it should be untainted by religious prejudice.

Fires and Debates—Not Fiery Debates

I’m having trouble settling on a single fully thought through topic for the day, so I’ll do a few random thoughts.

More Fires

Subdivision in Montgomery County after fire

The fires around us are still taking up much of our attention. So far I don’t personally know any evacuees, but I have friends who know evacuees, including some who have lost homes. My daughter Social Sphere called from far away at college, with some concern that her house might not still be here when she gets back. I could be pretty reassuring about that, but she did make certain we knew what to grab if we had to evacuate. She visited with a friend from San Antonio who had to evacuate a few days ago, driving out of the neighborhood with flames on either side. But their house survived. 

The odd thing is how little Social Sphere can find in the media about the Texas fires. It made her angry and suspicious that they are trying to cover up what’s happening. Local/state media are of course covering it. We can all see and smell smoke everywhere around us, so we need answers. The devastation is significant enough, though, that we'd expect national coverage.  

When I wrote a couple of days ago, the hot spots included Montgomery County, with areas about 45 minutes northwest of us. In the past day it has been Waller County, just to the west of us about 30 minutes. We know people there and are unsure about their status. From the freeway nearest us, smoke is visible. 

We continue to pray for rain. The temperature is down, topping out at 90 or a little below. After a summer of 100+ degree days, this feels like some relief. But this drought—rain is the much-needed answer.

Debate

We recorded the debate and watched it late last night (me and Political Sphere and wife). While I have leanings, I am undecided. Some of the reason is that the field as a whole is light-years better than the incumbent. (Someone on facebook said, “A pet rock would make a better president.”)  

A highlight for me was when Newt Gingritch took the moderator to task for a not-well-disguised attempt to cause contention among the candidates. Fireworks get ratings; I guess that was the purpose of the questions. Also, they tend to provide sound bites for later post-primary use, as Newt knows. I am a fan of Newt’s ability to speak. It is such a contrast to Obama. No teleprompter needed. That’s true of all of them, but Newt is just so quick and at ease. I don’t particularly want him as president (loss of trust issues), nor do I think he has much chance. But I’m glad he’s there; the debates benefit. 

We wanted to see Perry perform. Despite a news media theme that he is a Bush clone, and as prone to misspeaking, I have never found that to be so. However, he does sound very Texan. You’re not at all surprised to learn, for instance, that when a coyote attacked while he was out jogging, he pulled out his gun and shot it. Don’t all Texans carry guns while jogging? No big deal. I thought he did OK. I’m not totally convinced by him; I’ve seen some things in Texas that don’t settle well. I’ve seen other things that I’m rather pleased with. Nothing happened in the debate to move me either direction. 

Mitt has been “accused” lately of courting the Tea Parties. Again, this is a media constructed issue. I read almost everything he said from the last campaign, and try to keep up this time; he’s consistent, and he speaks pretty clearly in agreement with many Tea Party themes, particularly economic ones. I liked how he fielded the question [my paraphrase]: “I don’t think you have to carry a membership card. But if they’re for smaller government, lower taxes, free enterprise, less burden on businesses who create jobs, then I guess we agree.” I’m currently going through his 50-point plan for the economy, that came out a couple of days ago. It was free to download to my Kindle, with read-aloud feature activated, so I can listen in the car or doing other things. So I’ll give it a fair look. [I'll try to be fair to the incumbent's economic "solution" tonight as well, but the leak that it centers on yet another $300 B stimulus gives little hope in any upcoming change.]

I would have liked to hear more from Michelle Bachmann; she was good when we heard her, but she wasn’t in the spotlight. Rick Santorum didn’t have a particularly good evening either. He seemed tense. I hope he stays longer in the race. I read his book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good several years ago and very much liked what he had to say. I even thought, “Maybe when he’s older he’d make a good president.” But if that is so, I don’t think this time around is it. 

Herman Cain and Ron Paul didn’t change my opinions. I like limited things about them. I think Cain needs broader experience, but I like him on economic issues. Ron Paul is always interesting to have in the debate, even though he’s not persuasive. I think he shows that the debate actually should be between Republicans and Libertarians. At least then the discussion would be about the Constitution, what it means, how we preserve it--instead of the Democrat idea of “totally transforming” our nation; i.e., ignoring the Constitution and the freedoms it ensures. In a more ideal world, the socialist ideologues would simply move to purposely socialist countries and stop trying to steal our freedoms from us here.

Huntsman lost me when he thought serving Obama in China was more important than serving out his term as governor in Utah, and hasn’t won me back. I’d be interested if someone can share information to persuade me otherwise. But so far I find him unimpressive in this particular field. Still, better than the incumbent.

There was a Mitt moment I appreciated last night. Perry had answered the Gardasil question, fairly well, although I’ve never been satisfied with his behavior on that issue. I was very angry about it at the time. But Mitt graciously pointed out [again my paraphrase], “The Governor said he would like to have handled it differently, looking back; he would have gone through the legislature. We all have those things, looking back, that we’d rather have approached differently. I don’t think there’s any reason to keep dwelling on that issue.” It may be that this was a subtle attempt to say, “So you can stop harping on the Romneycare thing as well,” but I think it’s just his innate niceness. Sometimes I would like him to be a little more “Texan,” for want of a better image. But smooth and gracious are simply in his nature. His polish comes from experience and a genuine gentility, not from a “slick politician” kind of niceness. I know this from watching a long time, but I know it’s hard for people new to him to fathom. I know people like him: good, clean family man, hard-working, strong in his faith. So I don’t have too much trouble believing it’s real in him. While I’m not yet fully persuaded to dive in as a total supporter, if he turns out to be the nominee, I will be glad to help him defeat the incumbent. 

AdSense

I hope you are not too annoyed by the little ads that appear with this blog. I “monetized” with the modest goal of paying toward my Spherical Model website. The information said they use technology to “read” my material and match ads that fit the content. So I’m very puzzled about an ad I’ve seen the last couple of days suggesting I click through to learn how I can connect with others in Houston to help re-elect Obama. Really? Is there anything in this blog that could be construed by anyone to believe I would want to do that? Actually, I can’t click through anyway; it’s against the rules, so that I can’t artificially inflate numbers in an attempt to get myself more money. But why do they think my readers are likely to be interested in that ad?  

I suppose in my own self-interest I should encourage readers to support my “sponsors,” but in this case, I totally appreciate that that’s not going to happen. Today when I brought up the page, there was a poll about whether to vote for Perry as president; that seems at least plausibly relevant.

____________________________
* The photos were sent to me in a forwarded email; sorry I don't know who to credit.