Alaska, one of the reddest of red states, is now going to turn blue in 2 key races this November. Why? Because Alaskan Republicans are so close-minded and loyalist that they nominated two sitting ducks.
In the Senate race, Republican Ted Stevens is facing jail time over corruption charges. This after he has been widely ridiculed for being too old and too out of touch. Suggesting that the internet is a “series of tubes” certainly didn’t help. Naturally, Stevens won his primary last night with over 63% of the vote. Most Alaskan Republicans think that a potential criminal is the best representative of their party.
Stevens is trailing Democratic opponent, Todd Begich, by 13 points. Race over. Give the seat to the Dems right now, electoral projectors.
In the house race (note: Alaska only has one House seat due to its low population), reformer Sean Parnell trails old party hack, Don Young by a 1,000 votes with only 9 precincts remaining. This may need a recount, but this race should not have been close. Parnell is the Lieutenant Governor under the EXTREMELY popular Sarah Palin. He has fought to clean up Alaskan government and has served on multiple committees in the Alaska Legislature. Don Young is an 18-term congressman (yes, 18 terms. He has been in congress almost as long as William Ayers has been a terrorist!). He has engaged in a few shady, but not illegal, dealings. He is a typical do-nothing bureaucrat. While Parnell received endorsments from the National Review, Club for Growth, and Governor Palin, Don Young’s sole endorsement was from Mike Huckabee’s PAC. When two legitimate, conservative organizations and a highly popular governor support taking an incumbent out in a primary, that should have been a signal to Alaskan Republicans. Instead, they were sheep-like in their biannual support of Young.
If Alaskan Republicans are a microcosm, the GOP is in serious trouble. The party has lost the spirit and enthusiasm of 1994. Party loyalists and hacks are being prepared for the slaughter at the hands of power-hungry Democrats, moderates, and disaffected conservatives.
We need to look at candidates and then make decisions. Candidates define parties, not the other way around! If this means voting for a small-government, libertarian Democrat, so be it. This is not about getting 537 (435 in house, 100 in senate, and 2 in White House) people with an “R” affixed to their name on C-SPAN broadcasts. This is about getting 537 people who support freedom, liberty, and the American way. Democrats have never understood that concept. I’m starting to fear we don’t anymore.
My sincere apologies for not being able to live blog last night. I really wanted to, but my computer crashed late Monday night and the computer I borrowed last night could not access the wireless in my house. So as bad as you felt for not being having my live blog, trust me I felt worse. When work is the only place you have internet access, you know you’ve fallen on hard times.
Anyway, yesterday was supposed to be the day to bash McCain. There was a list of Democratic governors and no-names trying to make a name for themselves. The hit squad was sent out in full-force. The only two non-primetime speakers worth mentioning are NY Governor David Paterson and Dennis Kucinich. Paterson came up with, “If the answer is John McCain, the question is ridiculous”. Paterson, a blind African-American, is uniquely positioned to talk about the rights of the disabled. He cites the unemployment of the deaf to be near 90% and the blind to be 70%. Now if the answer is John McCain, and the question is Which candidate believes in not coddling the disadvantaged and encouraged people to go to work, it no longer sounds ridiculous. It might be worth mentioning that Paterson fell into his post because his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer failed to see the irony, hypocrisy, or humor in an anti-corruption specialist sneaking off to be with a high-class prostitute and resigned.
Kucinich was typical Kucinich. He looks exactly like Gollum, from Lord of the Rings, and makes about as much sense. He is off-the-reservation liberal, but amuses Republicans and Democrats, alike.
But the night belonged to Hillary and Mark Warner.
Mark Warner was tremendously boring. He only talked about himself. We’re not sure why he didn’t run for president, but he seems to be readying for a 2012 campaign. As a moderate, he couldn’t pretend to bash the Republicans who he votes with so frequently. He stuck to the tenor of bipartisanship and general support for American prosperity. His support of Barack Obama in particular was lukewarm at best. All in all, it was a huge missed opportunity. Warner made himself look like a greedy, spotlight-stealing windbag. Only slightly different from the young star who gave the keynote address at the 2004 DNC…except Warner isn’t a good speaker and failed to inject himself into the national spotlight the way Obama did.
And so we come to Hillary. Though I am no Clinton backer, I will give the hil-dog her due. She was great. She was strong, powerful, engaging, and still maintained the slight femininity about her. It may have been the best I have ever seen. She went for her tried-and-true tactic of telling a sappy tale about poverty and hit on women’s issues well. Her bashing of McCain was noticable, but not excessive. In short, Hillary gave the same speech she would have had she won the Democratic nomination. She hardly mentioned Obama. When she did say that she supported Obama, she did in the context of Democratic policies. She never said anything about why Obama in particular deserves your vote. She simply hammered home the Democratic agenda in delicious vagaries and asserted her role in that process as a Senator and as a presidential candidate. I don’t know what Clinton fans are thinking and I am not sure that Hillary did drive them to Obama. Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell. But she certainly held back and never addressed her main argument against Obama: inexperience. She had a chance to recant that attack, and she didn’t. Presumably, her main point of opposition against Obama stays. And that could be politically damaging, if exploited properly.
Yet, as I went to bed, I had a sense of relief. Given the 10% edge that generic Demcrats have over generic Republicans, I know that Hillary would have won this race. She does enough things right and has mild enough flaws as a campaigner, that she couldn’t lose. Obama is enough of a gamble, that he could lose this race, which was thought to be impossible by most pollsters a few months ago.
And as Democratic strategists went back to their hotel rooms in Denver last night, there is no doubt they were thinking, “Oh my god. We’re nominating the wrong candidate.”
If John McCain sends out a telegram (we know he doesn’t do text messaging), I really want it to say, “McCain-Lieberman. Tell that Obama boy to take his partisanship and shove it…” Alas, it won’t.
Before I crash the bi-partisan party, humor me as I look at all the positives:
1. Lieberman still caucuses with the Democrats, but could be powerful in slamming them. He was kicked out by the Democrats after losing his primary to Ned LaMont. After no Democrat asked for his support in 2008 and McCain did, Lieberman officially supported Johnny Mac because he wants to cut through partisan hackery. As a punishment, the Democrats stripped Lieberman of his superdelegate status, making him the same as an *bad pun coming in 3,2,1* average Joe.
Lieberman could be effective in talking about how the Democrats have failed him, and America. His public disputes with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could be very effective. If Obama wants to pretend that he has great bi-partisan support, he will have a hard time selling the American people if Lieberman is on the other side. Also, McCain’s negative ads may not seem so harsh since they are coming from both sides of the aisle.
2. He is a moderate liberal on domestic issues. libertarianism (small “l” is intentional) is growing as a political movement. The public is seeing the value in enhancing personal liberty. Whether that means low taxes through the elimination of superfluous issues or protecting a “woman’s right to choose”, libertarianism is an appealing philosophy. With McCain running policy, he can hold the conservative base together while Lieberman dances on the sidelines and convinces confused liberals to jump ship. Unless voters are willing to bet on McCain’s death AND a Supreme Court vacancy, Lieberman will be helpless to promote a progressive social agenda on the courts. In any event, some voters are on the fence and a pro-choice VP on the GOP ticket could be just enticing enough.
3. If McCain doubles-down on experience, they could absolutely tear apart Obama-Biden. Obama took Biden because he knew he was lacking in experience. Four years in the Senate simply doesn’t cut it to be a successful President. Biden brings 35 years in the Senate and is the Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. These solid credentials will be thrown out if McCain takes Lieberman.
Think of it this way: if McCain takes a foreign policy lightweight, like Romney or Pawlenty, then McCain can crush Obama, but Biden will hit Romney/Pawlenty in debates. Though the Presidential debates are more visible and more important, not taking Lieberman mitigates McCain’s great policy advantage.
With Lieberman, McCain gets to maintain a strong edge on foreign policy AND accuse Obama of being a hypocrite by taking a Washington Insider as a running mate. It’s win-win.
4. Lieberman is old and will not seek a second term. In this race, the only way McCain can win is to be far as possible from party identification. In a generic election, voters prefer Republicans to Democrats by double-digits. Therefore, it is crucial to make this election as non-generic as possible. McCain can win on the platform of being a maverick outsider. Bringing in Lieberman fits that mold. Given their ages, it is a sure bet that neither will run in 2012. The White House will have two men who have proudly served their country and are immune to the rigors of campaigning for re-election or kowtowing to party bosses. If America wants to give it a try, it can get four years of good, honest politicians working for the people, not themselves. That is a powerful message, but is incumbent upon McCain and Lieberman promising not to seek re-election.
5. Lieberman is Jewish. I know that being Jewish and in politics is not rare enough to be “special”, it would dispel a few myths and problems for the GOP. First, if Obama wants to be the first bi-racial person in the White House, then McCain can ask Americans to put the first non-Christian in the White House. The DNC spent all night last night focusing in on minorities (Pelosi: female Italian-American, Jesse Jackson Jr: black, Ted Kennedy: catholic, Obama’s half-sister: Asian, Michelle Obama: black). It is hard to call the GOP the WASP party when it’s VP nominee is Jewish.
Also, being Jewish offers electoral advantages. Prior to Obama’s run, Jews were the most partisan demographic, including African-Americans and Hispanics. Lieberman will certainly appeal to Jewish voters and can go hog wild on Obama’s anti-Israel stance (call me anti-anti-Semitic, but I’m pretty sure Lieberman could have a field day talking to Jewish retirees in Boca Raton about Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan). While most Jews are in solid blue states, Florida, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Nevada are battlegrounds and could use any boost possible.
The negatives:
1. McCain is already too far to the left. The conservative base is pretty unhappy with McCain. Campaign finance reform, a path to citizenship for illegals, opposing torture, and waffling on the Bush tax cuts are all very damaging. McCain got beat by Bush in 2000, because the Rove machine turned out the Evangelicals. McCain certainly will have trouble doing that if he has a pro-choice running mate who is mildly sympathetic to gay rights. If McCain can’t hold together the conservative base, there is no amount of moderates that can save him.
2. Lieberman is hawkish, hurting chances of building a bi-partisan coalition. If the Democrats want to win this election on the drumbeat of failure in Iraq, then Lieberman doesn’t help McCain. Democrats can turn the tables and say that it didn’t leave Lieberman, Lieberman left the party. Joe’s hawkish stances on Iraq, Iran, and Israel are all directly at-odds with the Democratic Party’s platforms. The Democrats will only need to make a slight alteration from “The Republicans caused this war and the war needs to stop” to “the War Hawks caused this war and the war needs to stop”. It’s a pretty simple sidestep and mitigates the appearance of bi-partisanship.
3. Lieberman is too old. If you thought the charges of senility on McCain were bad, wait until he gets Lieberman. The campaign will be branded Grumpy Old Men. I think of Walter Matthau as more McCain and Jack Lemmon more Lieberman, but the Obama people can sort it out. As Obama is trying to show, it is very easy to cast old people as “out of touch”. And that is exactly how the Dems will play it.
The easiest way to win an election is to get 50.1% of the population as close as possible to the edge of not voting for you. The GOP needs a big coalition to take down Obama. To cater to multiple groups, it must be willing to risk losing them. But it cannot afford to. The question is whether or not McCain-Lieberman pushes to the Evangelicals into staying home. If not, this pick will all but seal a Republican victory. It is this question that is tearing up the McCain War Room.
Despite being John F Kennedy 2.0 (or so we’re told), Barack Obama makes a few too many mistakes. And by “mistakes” I don’t mean calling Pennsylvanians desperate voters who cling to guns and religion. I mean actual mistakes. Things that he doesn’t believe in, but inadvertently says or suggests.
For whatever reason, Barack seriously struggles with the locations of his speeches. Last night he did it again, unclear which city in Missouri he was in (hint: there are only two! it’s 50/50, Barack!) Here a few of his recent missteps:
1. Joe Biden will be elected president (interesting)
2. Obama visits 57 states (Heinz varieties or US states…they’re so damn similar!)
2A. Eau Claire, Wisconsin is actually a state…(does this count to the 57 or is it the missing 58th?)
3. Obama’s uncle liberates Auschwitz (actually, Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviets and Obama’s mother never had a brother. So an imaginary uncle joined the Red Army. Somehow, I’m not surprised)
4. Obama on Iraq (Not even Two-Face could make heads or tails of this one)
5. Last night, Obama couldn’t decide if he’s in St. Louis or Kansas City (note: he needs his daughter to ask him what city he is in so he can get his facts right). I’m not sure which I’m more concerned about: Barack taking advice from Michelle or Barack NEEDING advice from a 7 year old.
6. Obama suggests that having a baby is a punishment (Some parents ground their kids. Others use spanking. Barack forces pregnancy)
7. Obama makes myriad “mistakes” and suggests he is not ready to run for president in 2008
I think I finally figured it all out: it’s because his name isn’t really Barack OBAMA. It’s actually:
I’m currently sitting between two of my liberal buddies and figured I should document my thoughts.
(note: one of them comes up with, “I consider myself progressive, thank you very much”. The other comes up with, “I’m a socialist, if anything”.)
Nancy Pelosi: I only caught the tail end of it, but I heard a lot about Barack Obama being right and John McCain being wrong. It was kinda funny, actually. The crowd was very quiet…I’ll cut the Dems some slack and say that they are too busy eating their organic, tri-color food in organic packaging. (Reminder: I’m not kidding. The DNC has strict rules on food being 70% local and/or organic and at least 3 colors must be represented…but Obama is BI-racial, not TRI-racial. Perhaps he isn’t as progressive as we were told)
highlight: Pelosi says that Obama has brought bi-partisanship back to Washington. WHEN? The ethics bill and …um….well….
Oh, yea. I forgot. History doesn’t matter in Obamaland!
Tribute to Jimmy Carter. Democrats haven’t realized they should pretend he never existed? Democrat is elected in a very weak economy, facing a global scourge by an enemy of the US, and facing an energy shortage and then absolutely makes it worse? THIS is the image? Go for it, guys!
Jesse Jackson Jr.: His attempts to channel his father and Barack Obama fall a bit short. He tried hard. And if we know anything about liberal ideology, if you try, that’s good enough. We can always add a government subsidy to hook him up. Somehow his father’s goal of physically emasculating Obama goes unmentioned.
Highlight: Jesse Jackson Jr. talks about great moments in American history; Lexington & Concord, Appomattox (apparently not the courthouse), Selma, and Denver. Really? Revolutionary War. Civil War. Civil Rights movement. Obama’s nomination.
it’s official, they’ve gone off the deep end.
Caroline Kennedy comes out to introduce Ted Kennedy. She is a train wreck of a speaker. She seems awkward and uncomfortable. She also makes the obligatory comparison of Obama to JFK.
Random list of “Democratic” accomplishments that she is attributing to Ted Kennedy.
“If your taxes are about $5,000 too much because of unnecessary government, Teddy is your senator, too!”
Highlight: There are about 16 camera cut-aways to Maria Shriver, a member of the Kennedy Clan. No Schwarzenegger, thankfully. Is this a reminder that there are other living Kennedys? Or is it to suggest that Arnie doesn’t support Obama.
The tribute to Ted Kennedy is odd. It’s more documentary than tribute. There is an odd infatuation with the ocean…I guess too much of a hardened conservative to get this. Ted fought for better equipment for troops. DIDN’T OBAMA OPPOSE FUTURE SPENDING IN IRAQ? Wow. The Democrats are now officially supporting stances on key issues that their own Presidential nominee proudly opposes?
Let the cannibalism continue!
Ted is alright. The speech is pretty good and is a thinly veiled attempt to recreate Reagan’s “Morning in America” theme. It’s rosy. It’s optimistic.
lull in the action as commentators talk about Ted Kennedy’s legacy and the attempts to humanize Barack Obama. Does it bother anyone else that Obama needs to be humanized? Shouldn’t all presidential candidates be human, anyway? Unless, of course, he is *drumroll* MANCHURIAN!
Highlight: “The party that once emphasized individual rights has gravitated in recent years towards regulating values”. Wait, wait, wait. The Democratic Party is the one that DOESN’T regulate values? Was that before or after Democrats waged a war on trans fats, SUVs, and the minimum wage while supporting hate crime legislation and Affirmative-Action. ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME?
enter: some random former Republican congressman from Iowa. This guy is a vanilla speaker and clearly there to prop up the notion of Barack’s bipartisanship. Is this the best they have? They think this guy, who was never famous and will never be famous, is the answer? Damn, even the Republicans didn’t pretend to be bipartisan in 2004 and they had this guy:
Claire McCaskill: Senator from Missouri
She starts off way too cheery. It’s a little creepy. Is this how Obama wants Clinton? A Stepford Senator?
She tells her story and her husband’s story and calls Barack’s and Michelle’s American stories. She skips out on when Michelle became a racist in college and Barack was supported by William Ayers and married by Jeremiah Wright.
On second thought, her creepy smile isn’t so bad. She is doing a nice job providing a “pragmatic” and “friendly” view of Obama. I could see middle-aged mothers seeing themselves in McCaskill and playfully agreeing. This might be the best speech of the night. The only hitch for Democrats is that McCaskill will only make the contrast between her and Michelle that much more obvious.
Here we go: Michelle Obama!
Here is her bio pic. It’s about her love for South Side. This attempt to humanize her is really laying it on thick. Michelle loves her kids (I’d hope). She has reached out to others (unless they are proud Americans. Then they’re ignorant). She makes people feel better (unless they are greedy capitalists. Then they should become teachers)
She is introduced by her brother, who happens to be the basketball coach of Oregon State (Go beavers?). There is a series of odd basketball analogies. I’m a sports fan, and even I think this is bs. He tries to deliver this line on Michelle and Barack helping the American people and it comes across flat. He doesn’t even believe his own crap!
Here’s Michelle! She is wearing a kelly green dress-like thing. There is some sort of broach (brooch? breach? I’m not sure what its called) at the neckline.
How many times she has said “change: 1
9:39 CST - she plays the humanizing card with jokes and sentimentality about her family
9:43 CST - give dignity to strangers (the same bitter American strangers or the friendly, self-righteous Princeton undergrads who hate black people?)
9:44 CST - America should be a place where you can make it if you try (unless you support an expansion of unemployment programs and government entitlement programs, then you don’t have to try)
9:45 CST - “We settle for the world as it is, not as it should be” (life lessons from Ray Nagin!)
9:46 CST - Obama channels woman’s suffrage and MLK…in case we couldn’t tell she was a black woman (my “progressive” friend smirks as he reminds me that Switzerland did not have woman’s suffrage until 1979).
9:47 CST - Michelle Obama supports Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. The Clinton reference gets a huge ovation (the contrast between Michelle and Hillary is too clear to be overcome, sorry speech writers)
9:49 CST - “I love this country” - THIS BRINGS A STANDING OVATION FROM THE CROWD. In case you haven’t figured it out yet: the Democrats are definitely in trouble when there is surprise and excitement to hear that a potential first lady loves her country.
9:51 CST - “Give each child a world-class education”…by throwing money at the problem? by supporting the federal government’s incursion into education? The same federal incursion that Democrats condemn in their staunch opposition to NCLB? Hypocrisy: it’s in the air.
9:54 CST - She’s almost crying talking about how Barack wanted to give his daughter a father’s love. (soooo we ARE allowed to talk about how Barack had an absentee Kenyan father who had scores of children through multiple women. Including one child who currently starves to death Kenya, only meeting his famous half-brother twice in 30 years?)
9:55 CST - “A girl from teh South Side can..” do whatever she wants. (Was that the WHITE values of success and high-paying jobs in law firms? I can’t keep her racist tendencies straight)
9:57 CST - Barack shows up via live feed from Kansas City. He shows some comedic chops with the reference to his courting of Michelle and his “persistence’.
My thoughts: I think Michelle gave a good speech and played up the Trophy Wife that Americans expect from a First Lady. She gave a nice look at Barack Obama as a person, but Barack still has serious (and legitimate) obstacles to be seen as anything other than elitist socialist. David Brooks had great analysis saying that Michelle missed the opportunity to make Barack a person, not just a savior.
I hope to be live blogging each night of the DNC and provide a post each morning on a DNC-related topic. So log on here each night this week for all sorts of shenanigans.
The rhetoric will get more ridiculous, but I’ll be sure to stay Pragmatically Political
I come bringing wondrous news: BARACK OBAMA BRINGS CHANGE! Change! If you don’t like high oil prices, Obama will change them! Lost your job? Change the economic situation! Think that the public campaign system should be altered? Change!
It’s Change, y’all! How can you not want change! Everyone wants change! Barack Obama and panhandlers agree: Change is good.
One small hitch: change doesn’t mean progress. It doesn’t mean improvement. It definitely doesn’t mean prosperity.
Joe Biden never got the message. In this “welcome video“, he seems ridiculous. The same man who said that Barack was not ready to lead as recently as this past winter, now joins The Movement. He speaks to Obamaniacs as an outsider. He knows that he was not part of The Movement. He has been in the Senate since Barry was in Hawai’i. He is part of the big, bad political machine that Obama wants to tear down. He does all but apologize at the altar of Change and beg for forgiveness. He praises Obama’s parishioners and congratulates them. He then asks that they accept him as one of their own.
How does he do it? He calls on Change. Eight times in 2 minutes and 57 seconds he says “change”!
This clip is proof-positive that Obama is completely out of touch with mainstream America. He picks a moderate liberal with a ton of experience and this guy is the outsider. Joe Biden, Mr. American politics, has never been an outsider. He offers a solid balance of relative youth and experience, foreign policy and domestic policy. He is from Delaware, a state that doesn’t conjure up any negative images. THe fact that Obama’s campaign is so radically left and so unapologetically “grassroots” makes Biden the annoying step-father who you have to obey to get what you want but don’t actually respect.
Though I am no Biden supporter, I feel awful for him. A proud, distinguished senator is being emasculated by a young upstart with a fresh face and smooth speaking-style. Biden is put in the position of being forced to renounce his past so that he become a full-fledged member of Change.
Biden might make an Obama administration more tolerable (I can’t help but giggle thinking about Biden telling Obama, “Barack, you can’t give up the seat on the UN Security to Kenya. You can’t do this!”). However, it doesn’t make Obama more electable.
The GOP has been red hot with the accusations that Obama has his head in the clouds AND is becoming a “washington insider”. So what does Obama do? He brings on a guy who has said that Obama lacks the experience the lead an is the ultimate washington insider. Good job, guys.
In case you’re interested, here’s an illustrious of comments that Joe Biden will regret
Useless News & World Distort has released its annual college rankings today. From the very top to the very bottom, all schools deeply care about how they are ranked. A simple move of 2 or 3 spots brings tears of pain or tears of joy. It has become the measuring stick for comparing schools. High-achieving students will decide which schools to apply to, and attend, based largely on the rankings. Without further ado, the top 25:
1. Harvard
2. Princeton
3. Yale
4. MIT & Stanford
6. Cal Tech & UPenn
8. Columbia, Duke, & UChicago
11. Dartmouth
12. Northwestern (w00t w00t!) & Wash U in St. Louis
14. Cornell
15. Johns Hopkins
16. Brown
17. Rice
18. Emory, Notre Dame, & Vanderbilt
21. UC-Berkeley
22. Carnegie Mellon
23. Georgetown & University of Virginia
25. UCLA
Here’s the USNWR formula (and my assessment of the quality of each factor):
25%: Peer Assessment
P.A. is the most weighted factor and asks universities officials to rank other schools on a scale from 1 to 5. How fitting that the dumbest metric has the most importance. If you ask Northwestern what it thinks about Wash U, it is in its best interest to give a very low score. There is no reason to help out the competition, right? Worse, since the schools are distributed randomly, Northwestern is more likely to judge Purdue, SW Missouri State, Bowdoin, and Berea. How in the world can anyone intelligently grade those schools? University officials deal with their own university and the immediate competition. Worse, scoring from 1 to 5 makes each point needlessly important. At what point does a a 3 become a 4? Small scales only serve to accentuate and exacerbate the most minute of differences. Small differences turn out huge on the assessment, but big differences can be muted if one school is a 3.6 and the other is a 4.4. I won’t even touch the hypocrisy of objectively rating schools with a measure as subjective as this. Is there a bell curve? Doubtful.
20% Retention
16% goes to 6-year graduation rate and 4% to freshman retention rate. I like the idea of schools graduating their students. However, 6 years is far too high. The issue is not how soon I can get out of school (students often co-op and take 5 years minimum), the issue is if I graduate with a good degree and great memories. Therefore, I reluctantly accept this metric, but would like to see more emphasis on freshman retention and less on graduation.
20% Faculty Resources (6% is percentage of classes with less than 20 students, 2% is pecentage of classes with more than 50 students, 7% is faculty pay, 3% is percentage of faculty with highest degree, 1% is student:faculty ratio, 1% is percent of faculty who are fulltime)
Again, this is a well-intended portion of the formula. Students to learn better in smaller class environments. Professors generally are better when they are well-paid, have the highest degree, and are fulltime. However, there are loads of exceptions. First, some classes shouldn’t be small. Intro to Microeconomics need not be a 15 person seminar. Intro to Sociology does not require constant class discussion. Moreover, most universities have discussion sections, which allow students to meet in 15-20 people groups to discuss course material with a Teacher’s Assistant.
Also, professors’ success is not always based on money, tenure, and degrees held. Good professors get paid more, not the other way around. Throwing money at faculty helps the rankings, but might build complacency. Some of the best professors I have had are not full-time. Some professors are visiting from another university or simply a guest lecturer. Spending a career in academia makes you an academic. Sometimes having a professor with very different life experiences and interpretation of course material can be extremely gratifying. That said, I again accept the USNWR’s need for uniformity.
15% Student Selectivity (7.5% ACT/SAT score of enrollees, 6% is the amount of students who graduated in the top 10% of their class, 1.5% is the acceptance rate)
This is the best metric in the whole damn rankings. Students with good grades and high standardized test scores make a university more challenging. A key part of college is learning from fellow classmates. Therefore, your potential classmates should be as hard-working, tracked by grades, and innately intelligent, tracked by test scores, as possible. Also, a low acceptance rate suggests that the college is highly sought after. Yes, SAT scores aren’t the be-all-and-end-all, top 10% of the class requires different levels of intellect depending on the high school attended, and some schools have high acceptance rates because they self-select (think: BYU only attracts mormon applicants). However, the biggest flaw in this part of the equation is that weighs too little. Smart kids create smart universities. Simple.
10% Financial Resources
This counts university spending per student on academic resources. It intentionally does not count sports and dorms. However, I think it should. A university that drops millions on the football team is offering a great service to the student body. During the fall, I have the opportunity and privilege of seeing my Northwestern Wildcats play Big 10 football. We aren’t the best, but we frequently get on television, draw big crowds, and play the best teams in the country. This is a tremendous asset, as it builds school spirit and provides great on-campus events. Homecoming just means a bit more when it is followed by a football game. Tailgates, pregame activities, postgame activities, and sports all have left an indellible mark on my college experience. Dorms also are important. I want to live in a well-maintained dorm with good facilities and large living space. Those who live in small quarters with leaky faucets struggle. College is a LIVING-learning environment. It’s unfortunate that USNWR forgets that most students live on the university.
5% Graduation rate performance
This one is by far the weirdest. It looks at the proportion of students receiving Pell grants and their test scores and predicts what the graduation rate should be. Whether or not, and by how much, a university outperforms/underperforms the “expectation” is this variable. It’s way complicated and I don’t like statistics with variables I don’t have access to. I like the thought process, because universities that take low-income, low-achievers and help them graduate should be rewarded. However, the low-income student who gets a Pell grant to go to Harvard is probably self-motivated enough to graduate, regardless of what the stats say.
5% Alumni giving rate
This one is by far the dumbest stat. The percentage of living alumni that give to the university is too manipulable. For example, Northwestern offers free events to graduating seniors in the week preceding commencement. However, you must donate $20.08 (creative, no?) to the alumni fund to get access. Formals, free beer, and trips to Six Flags cost well more than the donation, but it is NU’s way of gaming the system. It sets up the events at a huge loss to boost alumni giving rates and, maybe, to send seniors out on a high note. And I seriously doubt that the folks up in Evanston are the first ones to figure out how to game the system.
So there it all is. That’s the big, scary US News and World Report College ranking methodology. Let me lament on how sad of all of this. As a Northwestern Tour Guide, I waited on pins and needles for the rankings to come out. I desperately wanted to know how we stacked up and if we improved. I shouldn’t care, though. I should sell prospective students and their bankrolling parents on strong academics, numerous extra-curriculars, and a great living-learning environment. Unfortunately, I know that many on the tour are only visiting because they want to go to a top __ school. It’s horribly sad and reflects poorly on us. We are so status-driven that we are willing to let our college decisions be based on a shoddy formula. What university you attend can be one of the most important life decisions. It sets up your academic perspective, offers a wealth of experiences, fosters great friendships, and is the setting for countless mistakes that can only be made on a college campus.
To the fact that high school seniors will let a crappy news magazine dictate how they spend 4 years of the life, I respond, “NO ‘EFFING WAY”.
To the fact that USNWR has built a monopoly on understanding American universities, I find it to be Pragmatically Political (or Economic…but I’m not changing my user name for those bastards)
Two months ago, this race was absolutely over. McCain trailed by double digits and electoral projections had Obama winning by roughly 75 electoral votes. Virginia was undoubtedly blue, Georgia was a serious toss-up, and Badlands region was under attack. Over the summer, John McCain has completely turned this race on its head. The south is unquestionably Republican. The Badlands have been saved. Alaska is firmly Red. Virginia is thrown back into the toss-up. Florida is leaning slightly to the GOP. In fact, RealClear Politics actually has McCain ahead in the electoral college! While Republicans dance in the street, the real question is HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?
It is only through understanding, and my glorious collection of past posts, that we continue the McCain Train.
A few thoughts:
1.The GOP has turned a debate on how to fix the economy into a debate on oil prices. Offshore oil drilling has been a diamond in the rough. It sat undiscussed for years and was dug up at the most opportune time. The Republicans are correct. Increasing the supply of oil and stifling oil speculators which are driving up prices is not partisan. It is not ideological. It is fact. John McCain is on the correct side of the issue and Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are too wrapped up in their own ideological bubble to get out of their own way.
1A. My concern is that if oil prices come down, the economy may still slump. Poor investments and the housing bubble are not the GOP’s or Democrats’ fault. They are the fault of the Fed, the global economy, congressional protection of Fannie and Freddie, and the American people. Yes, we are to blame. We have too many damn credit cards, buy too much house, and save too little. If those failures are seen as the real problems, voters may turn misplaced anger at McCain. So we need the Democrats to keep being obstinate on oil…at least until Election Day.
2. I won’t say that war is good, but the conflict in Georgia made foreign policy an issue again. Hillary’s 3AM advertisement almost doomed Obama in Texas and Ohio. Luckily for him, he was so far ahead in delegate counts at that point that it just didn’t matter. McCain actually got the 3 AM ad in real life. President Bush did get the unexpected surprise about the Russian invasion. He did have to make hard choices and he does have to sort it through with the rest of the world. Not just did the issue help, but the responses did, as well. McCain was on-point and able to flaunt his credentials. Obama seemed lost and unwilling to take a stand (Barack afraid to make a choice? NO ‘EFFIN WAY!)
2A. This issue doesn’t have enough legs to get to November. It will slip to the back pages of newspapers behind the Olympics, the Conventions, and Labor Day grillfests. I certainly don’t hope for another international conflict, but McCain must continue to invoke Georgia. He doesn’t need another 9/11 to remind Americans that security is important. The troop surge has worked, he has experience, and he rhetorically crushed Obama when both faced an international crisis.
3. McCain beat Obama at Saddleback. For anyone who doesn’t have Obamania, McCain crushed Obama. The disparity was so bad that Team Obama needed to allege that McCain cheated. When a presidential candidate starts accusing the other of cheating in a forum that took place in a church of all places, it’s getting ugly. I have said this for a while, but McCain is better off-the-cuff. His maverick style plays well and he doesn’t have a problem engaging with people. His life story is remarkable. Obama’s? Not so much. His written speeches are, unfortunately, phenomenal. There is no doubt that he is a great orator. However, he gets into trouble when he doesn’t have a teleprompter. The “bitter” comment came off-the-cuff. His reponse to Georgia was unprepared. His suggestion that abortion is “above his pay grade” clearly was poorly rehearsed.
3A. Rick Warren wasn’t the most objective interviewer. While he asked fair questions identically to each candidate, the emphasis on values in a Christian setting will always favor the Republican. Formal debates will allow Barack to give his scripted responses, in all of their rhetorical glory, behind a podium. However, McCain isn’t afraid of Obama the way Hillary was. He knows that he can beat this young upstart on even ground. And, as the American people repeatedly prove, confidence is everything in presidential debates.
4. The mastermind. De facto campaign manager Steve Schmidt has been phenomenal since taking over for Rick Davis. Under Davis, McCain’s people were largely decentralized and granted a great deal of autonomy. Staffers couldn’t stay on-message because the message changed from day-to-day, office-to-office. Obama wasn’t being attacked and continued to showcase his best attribute, not talking about the issues. In early July, the campaign let Schmidt take over day-to-day operations. Since then, the campaign has been a well-oiled machine. The message was consolidated: McCain has experience and Obama doesn’t know how to lead. The oil drilling issue was all McCain would talk about for weeks. The campaign also used Obama’s celebrity, a huge asset, into a weakness.
So do you want to know why McCain has made a comeback? Because Steve Schmidt turned this:
The media is liberal. Unabashedly, unrelentingly liberal. There I’ve said it.
On the Daily Kos liberal icon and sex god Keith Olbermann proudly announced that Rachel Maddow will be getting her own show on MSNBC. Who is Keith Olbermann? I fondly remember this guy from ESPN:
Now he’s become this guy:
And after Hillary’s (admittedly stupid) comment about RFK’s assassination, he came up with this:
I know he seems like the same guy, but you gotta trust me. Olbermann is actively trying to be the liberal reincarnation of Bill O’Reilly. And now he proudly champions his role in bringing in Air America All-star Rachel Maddow onto the air. MSNBC has made a tremendous leftward shift in the past year. I won’t pretend that Fox News is right of center, but I cannot accept that MSNBC is as, if not more, partisan. No one really takes Bill O’Reilly seriously. He brings on helpless liberals and beats them with logic and/or manipulation. Olbermann has launched surgical strike after surgical strike against Bush, McCain, and any candidate with an “R” that precedes his/her name.
I’m okay with partisanship in the media. I’m not naive or arrogant enough to suggest that objectivity is possible, let alone real. However, I simply cannot sit by idly and watch as a news organization builds up its leftist army of “journalists”.
To her credit, Rachel Maddow is the most open about her leftist leanings. Air America is admittedly, and intentionally, liberal. People listen to Air America with the intent of hearing liberal viewpoints. Not nearly enough are aware that MSNBC is entering the same mold.
MSNBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell has joined Olbermann and Maddow in the McCain assassin camp. She has LIED not once but TWICE on behalf of Obama.
First, she falsely reported that Obama was not allowed to visit wounded American troops in Europe and the Middle East. She said about Obama’s inability to visit troops
Still, Mitchell has neither retracted nor apologize for her gross misrepresentation of the thoughts and actions of Senator Obama, and, more importantly, McCain supporters in the Pentagon.
More recently, she has suggested that John McCain could hear Rick Warren’s questions during Saturday’s debate. And that explains how and why John McCain completely outclassed Obama. Of course. Because there is NO possibility that John McCain is actually the better candidate and is able to better connect in a more personal, impromptu environment. Rick Warren in this interview says that there is no chance that McCain knew the questions beforehand.
If Ms. Mitchell wants to spout off lies and conspiracy theories on behalf of Obama, then she has no business masquerading as an unbiased political reporter. So unless and until Andrea Mitchell has “Obama Spokeswoman” has her official title in all MSNBC dealings, I will remain angry. So angry that McCain campaign manager Rick Davis sent a complaint to the president of NBC.
And THAT is why conservatives dominate book sales and the radio waves. When the market of ideas and information is opened, the American people choose “right-leaning” options.
And THAT is why 49% of Americans believe the media is favoring Obama and only 14% for McCain
And THAT is why polls are shifting and more states are moving into Toss-Up or Lean-Republican status.
And (hopefully) THAT is why John McCain will win the White House.
5. Lieberman is Jewish. I know that being Jewish and in politics is not rare enough to be “special”, it would dispel a few myths and problems for the GOP. First, if Obama wants to be the first bi-racial person in the White House, then McCain can ask Americans to put the first non-Christian in the White House. The DNC spent all night last night focusing in on minorities (Pelosi: female Italian-American, Jesse Jackson Jr: black, Ted Kennedy: catholic, Obama’s half-sister: Asian, Michelle Obama: black). It is hard to call the GOP the WASP party when it’s VP nominee is Jewish.
Powered by FireStats
.jpg/466px-Mark_Warner_during_the_Commissioning_Ceremony_for_the_VIRGINIA_(SSN_774).jpg){kind=link}
