Well that worked brilliantly, didn't it?

I was nice to America and to the Democrats, but you guys have earned my criticism. It's time to scrap this cozy relationship with lobbyists. I don't care if they are helpful to the process of legislating. I don't care if the perks are nice. It is necessary for Americans to have faith and confidence in their elected officials. And enough voters thought that they could not trust us enough to vote for us. That's due to Jack Abramhoff. That's due to the Mark Foley mess. And that is due to the frustratingly obtuse concept of maintaining the majority and not governing.

I think we've lost our way, guys. I really do. Folks like Bill Quick and Uncle Jimbo coulda shoulda woulda voted for us, if they had any confidence that we would have done a better job with their trust and their vote. That they didn't illustrates how much we have lost our way. Let's stop this nonsense talk about maintaining our majorities and stick with what works. So what works?

First, detailing our plan works. The Contract with America should not have been a one-time, 1994-only stunt. It will go down as a stunt if we don't make use of this effective measure. We complained through much of this election that the Democrats didn't have any plan. But what exactly was our plan. Spell it out. Right now, we need to begin the process of formulating our plan for the 2008 elections. And that means we have to have a two year plan for how we would govern America. We won big in 1994 because we had a plan. We lost big last night, because our plan has grown stale and we have ignored instead focusing on what became a joke for Bill Clinton.

Republicans will have you believe that Democrats will tax you into the poor house and that you’ll meet a terrorist around every corner and trip over an illegal immigrant on the way there.

Some Republicans objected to the joke as an indicator that Clinton wasn't serious about terrorism. We even sounded like them in defeat. It is a funny joke, and it successfully deflected in a three second soundbyte that we didn't have a plan. As much as they were running on anti-incumbent and anti-Bush mania, we were running on a platform of fearing the unknown, namely Democrat leadership.

This is not how one wins re-election. It's trite. It's cynical, and it ticks off a lot of reliable voters, who instead pull the lever for the Greens or the Libertarians or write in Frank J. So priority one is to formulate a list of policies and proposals that will resonate with voters, not only the so-called swing voters, but also you disgruntled base. I'll be throwing out ideas in the coming months that you can use, but common sense should be able to allow you to come up with a list. And unlike past years where you could say that the mainstream media squashed your message. Point number three will detail how you get around this.

Secondly, get to work on recruiting good candidates for all 435 House seats. Find the folks who can win the Senate races that will be contested in 2008. Recruit good Gubernatorial candidates. We cannot concede the Northeast. We cannot concede California. Our principles work and our message is a winner in so much of our nation. If you look at the county vote chart for the past two Presidential elections, we live in a country that is full of folks who agree with a basic conservative agenda of tax cuts, limited government and strong national defense. If we can't win 52-55 Senate seats and 250 House seats int hat environment, then we need to seriously reexamine our political viability as a party. Thomas Sowell had a brilliant piece on NRO yesterday. Read it all. But make particular note of this:

You don’t see individual Democrats in the Senate going off to do their own thing in concert with the opposition and against the interest of their own party, as Senator John McCain has done with so-called “campaign-finance reform” co-sponsored with ultra-liberal Senator Russ Feingold, and as he attempted to do on immigration with liberal icon Ted Kennedy.

Democrats know better than to betray their base of supporters — welfare-state beneficiaries, the teachers’ unions, environmental zealots, the ACLU, and tort lawyers — the way the elder President Bush betrayed his supporters who relied on his “no new taxes” pledge and the way the current President Bush betrayed them by attempting to create amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.

Republicans have too often forgotten the old-time admonition to the girl going to a party, to always remember to “dance with the one who brung you.”

Even some Republicans have said privately that the Democrats have the edge in playing the game of politics. Given the greater political shrewdness of the Democrats and the overwhelming bias of the media in their favor, it is remarkable that Republicans have had any political success at all.

That the Republicans are still a viable party is one measure of how far the Democrats’ policies and values differ from those of most Americans.

Nowhere is that difference greater than when it comes to defending the American people against crime at home and against military and terrorist threats from abroad. Liberal Democrats — which is to say, most Democratic politicians and all of their leaders — are ready to try almost any “alternatives to incarceration” of criminals and almost any alternative to maintaining military strength as a deterrent to enemy nations.

Our opponents are out of the mainstream, yet they tar us as being radical. We need to fix that image and fast. How do we do that? Easy, find likable, personable, articulate, smart candidates. You know whose those people are. They are our donors. They are our thinkers and writers. They are the folks who keep the party humming. They are the grass root folks. And some of them don't want to trade their current jobs for Government work. Their jobs pay more. Their careers matter to them. They do not want to disrupt their family life. And these are really valid reasons. But the ones who are persuadable need to be approached to consider a run for public office. We need to get away from career politicians and find guys with lengthy resumes in the private sector or in service to our nation in other roles. People like Tom Coburn.

In recruiting these people, we will need to reassure them that at some point they can return to the life they prefer. A life away from Washington. This requires serious grassroots party building. I have criticized the failure of the Connecticut GOP to recruit aviable challenger for the Senate race. That was an easy win. That we fumbled away turning out the vote for Joe Lieberman and not a winnign Republican. If we had a base fired up about a candidate, would Joe have considered a run, not really, and we could have cherry picked a seat in the purge. But the CT GOP is on life support. And we need a serious, on the ground party building effort to grow good candidates for 2008.

Third, the success of talk radio is wonderful. And Fox News is great. The outreach to the Internet communities is important. But it is time to launch a Cable/Satellite television network to give the GOP a face. We already have a number of amateur vloggers and podcasters out there, eager to get messages out. Hot Air and their affiliated shows, Realverse, the right wing of Pajamas Media all can provide content and talking heads for a venture like this. In addition, Podcasters and Vloggers are out there eager to present a case. When Al Gore goes out and creates a TV network, and the liberals constantly try to create a successful left wing talker, it is incumbent on us on the right to not surrender more of the media. We raise phenomenal amounts of money. Examine the cost. And find out if programming detailing Conservative positions and feelings can work. Get a little start-up capital and go to it.

Finally, we need to stop pandering to various blocs of voters. Garnering voters in blocs may win an election, but they do not create good governance. When you are beholden to Christian conservatives, you get Harriet Miers. When you are so focused on improving GOP standing with Hispanic voters, you misread the tea leaves and support a base jarring amnesty plan. Instead, make a compelling case for an individual voter to support the party, both with their vote and also with their time and intelligence. Party volunteers are committed folks, and the more people we inspire to vote, the more people we will inspire to volunteer. And that's how you grow a party.

When you talk to leaders of particular voting blocs, any perceived slight can damage the support of that bloc because they look to their leaders to lead. This invests too much power in oligarchical arrangements where leaders deliver blocs of voters. It is far better to engage individuals than the blocs.

Last night our triumph of 2004 was repudiated. Interestingly, we did not go that far right. But on Iraq, we have been perceived as not doing enough to win the war and allow the Iraqi people to run their own nation. In that regard the concerted efforts of the terrorists who are working overtime to foment sectarian violence is partially to blame. Now is not the time for a lack of resolve. Now is the time to double down and win this sucker, and fast. The election of the Democrats to the House gives our enemies the appearance that they are weakening our resolve. And our resolve on Iraq, because it is a war of preemption, is weak. In that environment, it is incumbent on us to strike with a ruthless brutality to disrupt the plans of our enemies, so that the war reaches a conclusion quickly. It will be harder to strike with that ruthlessness int he new political environment.

The road is long ahead. Buck up and get to work. We have no choice but to soldier on and do the best we can for America.

With things trending to the positive for Republicans, let's look at the races in play in the final 24 hours leading to Election Day. I will be voting early and will gladly note my selections out here tomorrow morning.

In the Senate:

Arizona - The incumbent John Kyl is running ahead, but Charles Schumer, whose job it is to get Democrats elected to the Senate, when he's not performing his duties as a Senator, thinks that Kyl's challenger, Jim Pederson has a chance. He is wrong. In spite of the $1 million that the Democrats sent Pederson's way, Kyl is pulling away and wins this one by better than 10 points.

Connecticut - The incumbent, Joe Lieberman is ahead of his Democrat challenger. Lieberman, who is also a Democrat is running as an independent. Lieberman has led consistently since his primary defeat to Ned Lamont. Lamont's only hope is that Alan Schlesinger, the Republican polling in single digits, can convince a majority of Republicans to vote for him. In a perfect world, Dean Barnett's scenario of Lieberman winning, retiring and governor Jodi Rell appointing Schlesinger to the empty seat would occur. I do not believe Joe Lieberman is eager to burn his bridges with the Democrats, so bet on him serving another term.

A minor observation, the recent ads, in Connecticut, commenting on Lieberman's campaign against Lowell Wiecker, saying 18 years is enough, would fit, if the Democrats had put forth a challenger to senior Senator Chris Dodd who has been around for longer. It's a tailor-made issue when Dodd next comes up for re-election, and hopefully at that time, the Republicans will have a viable candidate to run against him.

Maryland - Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is gaining on Democrat Rep. Ben Cardin to replace outgoing Senator Paul Sarbanes. The most recent polling has Steele within 6 points, or better. And Steele has the support of a number of prominent Prince George County African-American Democrats. Cardin's campaign follies have included a Michal J. Fox ad slamming Steele on embryonic stem cell research, without mentioning the embryonic part. The problem was that the position Michael J. Fox supported was supported by neither Steele nor Cardin. In a state as blue as Maryland, it is difficult to fathom Cardin losing. Sarbanes and Barbara Mikulski have enjoyed 63+ support in the last three Senate elections in Maryland. But Steele has a real chance at a major upset, and my hunch is that Steele wins in a squeaker. One point max.

Michigan - Could all the polls possibly be wrong? Not likely. And so as much as I have enjoyed the campaign that Mike Bouchard has run, the only way he wins is if the dissatisfaction with Michigan incumbents is overwhelming. As ineffective as Debbie Stabenow has been as a Senator, she holds a nearly insurmountable lead in the polls in this stage of the game. Stabenow by five.

Minnesota - Either Mark Kennedy has run an ineffective campaign or Minnesota is not going Republican in 2006. With the gains Tim Pawlenty, Norm Coleman and other Republican candidates have made in Minnesota, this race should be competitive. Again, massive poll leads might all be wrong. But that is very, very unlikely. I call this race for Amy Klobuchar by around 12 points.

Missouri - Claire McCaskill is in trouble. The polls are barely showing it, but her campaign, between the ACORN operatives indicted for election fraud and the use of a questionable veteran in an ad decrying Senator Talent's votes for veteran's benefits, is stumbling toward the gate. It was for McCaskill that Michael J. Fox first trashed a politician for opposing stem cell research, when in fact they oppose embryonic stem cell research. The polls show a close race with the candidates even. Talent wins by six.

Montana - Conrad Burns was written off for dead. Jon Tester was popular and his ads were winning in Montana. Sending Burns home was going to be easy. But Tester was unable to put Burns away and on Election Eve, the race is tight, and tied and a tossup. My hunch is that this momentum shift is real and that Burns will pull the comeback. I'll stick with my hunch and call it Burns by four.

New Jersey - Like Jim Geraghty, I have been disappointed by too many New Jersey Republicans to really believe in Tom Kean Jr. The fundamentals of growth of the GOP in New Jersey post-9/11 should make this an easy pickup, especially given Senator Menendez' various ethical question marks. But I am not convinced of Kean's ability to take down the sitting Senator. Although Senator Menendez has been on the job for all of one year, thanks to his appointment by NJ Governor Corzine, he keeps his seat by one or two points.

Ohio - Ohio is the biggest, baddest battleground state in the land. Sometime in the next 17 months or so, some objective soul, pecking away at the his or her keyboard in some massive MSM empire building will tap out that no Republican can win the Presidency without winning Ohio, and due to the implosion of the Republican party in Ohio, there is no chance a Republican will return to the White House in 2009. Overlooked in that future analysis will be the come back of Mike DeWine in this year's election. Sherrod Brown has enjoyed a comfortable lead, but DeWine is crawling back into it. And the ground game in Ohio is as good as it gets. It won't get Ken Blackwell elected, but it will keep DeWine's seat.

Pennsylvania - Rick Santorum is a politician that few people who recognize his name are neutral about. Folks love him or loathe him, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone agnostic about him. So as he stares down the barrel of double digit deficits against a pro-life Democrat, his main weapon is incumbency in a year touted as a revolt against incumbents. Yet he remains poised to shock the Democrat establish, but he needs a lot of luck. First the GOP GOTV effort has to be humming. Second, enough pro-choice Democrats have to find Bob Casey Jr. odious enough to stay home. Finally, the weak showing of some Republican candidates in typically safe districts (Curt Wheldon call your office) cannot hurt overall GOP turnout in those districts. Santorum has one advantage. Bob Casey tends to play prevent defense late in the game giving his opponents every opportunity to pull out their races. With a pair of polls showing Santorum 8 points back and taking into account the ground game in Pennsylvania, Santorum has the fundamentals of a come back in place. I can see it going either way, but I am calling it Santorum by less than a point.

Rhode Island - In 2004, President Bush and Rick Santorum supported liberal Republican Arlen Specter in his re-election bid. I know, I just talked about Pennsylvania, humor me, will ya? In 2006, very liberal Republican Lincoln Chaffee has received support from the Republican party helping him to a convincing, but close victory over Steve Laffey in the Republican primary. Scholars of political thought will look at this outcome as saving one majority over ideological purity. Fine. And as Sheldon Whitehouse built a commanding lead over Chaffee in the general election, it looked like the strategy was failing. Until this weekend, when momentum seemed to have swung back into Chaffee's favor. I'm calling it for Chaffee, recognizing that the coattails of Dad's name are long gone, but that Lincoln has won a good race and has won in Rhode Island before, no small feat in a state that cast 70% of its votes for Bill Clinton in 1996. Chaffee by three.

Tennessee - At one point it looked like Harold Ford Jr. was going to take score the pickup of Tennessee's open seat. Then he imploded, crashing a press conference and developing a tone deafness that John Kerry would envy. Bob Corker is pulling away and at this juncture a single digit victory would surprise me.

Virginia - In easily the ugliest, sleaziest campaign of the year, George Allen will retain his seat, likely by better than six points, belying the closeness that has been observed. This is one of those races that have seemingly been out there and available for the taking, largely due to repetitive missteps of the incumbent. Fortunately for Allen, Jim Webb has made as many mistakes if not more. A truly sad campaign, that thankfully will soon be over. Allen by eight.

Washington - Maria Cantwell is running solidly ahead of Mike McGavick. It does not appear that a rehashing of the political shenanigans from 2004's Washington State Governor's race. Only with a very strong turnout can McGavick hope to close within five points when the ballots that matter count. He seems like a capable, talented politician and has run a good campaign in a deeply blue state. A run for Governor might make sense in two years. McGavick by six.

In total I see the Republicans with 56 seats, Democrats with 42 and the two independents rounding out the field. You may not hear many folks calling for the GOP to add seats, but that's the way it is breaking. The interesting thing is that I think without some obvious flubs, the GOP could have picked up two or three seats. I'll have some analysis of the Governor races later on.

The difference between what people say and what people do is not as small a gap as we would like it to be. The ease with which one may pronounce this ideal or laud that platitude or discuss plaintively about we know to be true, in our existential self, often varies widely from our actions regarding our so-called "ideals", "platitudes" and "existential selves." Truth has been a fungible commodity for much of the last fifty years, so it does not surprise me that when asked for our true feelings or opinions, many people respond, not with their true feelings, but with what they assume the questioner wants or expects them to say.

Most people can understand this concept. A number of people, in pursuit of companionship, (read a hook up) will say any number of things they do not really feel, recognizing that there is a verifiable benefit to them. Does it alter what they believe? Only for tonight, baby. Only for tonight. If you know of what I speak, either by personal experience or through observation or anecdote, then you can grasp what it means to feel social pressure.

At the heart of all people is an unflinching yearning for acceptance. Sum it up like this.

I want you to want me.
I need you to need me.
Id love you to love me.
Im beggin you to beg me.

Social pressure is that feeling you have when you aren't comfortable saying what you feel. My contention is that in our climate, as politically charged as it is, the worries of social pressures influence public opinion. So today's news from NPR doesn't worry me.

Three weeks before the November election, likely voters continue to be pessimistic about the direction the country is heading and they disapprove of President Bush's performance, according to a new NPR poll. Against that backdrop, Democrats hold a growing margin in the battle for control of the U.S. House, the poll shows.

The poll, conducted last week, is certainly good news for Democrats and their supporters. But allow me to get lyrical again and suggest that we need a little less talk, and a lot more action.

Voters go to the polls three weeks today. Absentee ballots have already gone out. But citizens have been voting all year long. Not at community centers and schools. They have been voting with their wallets and giving support to candidates left and right. Well, mostly right according to the Washington Post.

Despite a rush of campaign donations to Democrats earlier this year, Republican incumbents in highly competitive races in the House have a substantial cash advantage going into the final weeks before the midterm elections.

Democrats spent more heavily over the summer and early autumn than their Republican rivals in pivotal House districts, leaving themselves at a disadvantage of more than 2 to 1 in money on hand, according to a Washington Post analysis of the latest campaign disclosures.

The advantages are obvious. Republicans can spend more money getting both the word and the vote out. Even with a catalog of mistakes and miscues that have diminished them, Republicans possess the fundamentals necessary to retain majorities in both the House and the Senate. Those majorities might shrink, but it would take an October surprise of cosmic proportions to overcome the cash advantage that the Republicans have. And unlike the Democrats in '04, the Republicans are not going to hold any of that money in reserve to fund legal battles that may never need to be waged.

My estimate is that the news from Missouri, reported in the Hotline, via Sixers at NRO, is just the beginning of funding woes that will develop for Democrats. I believe that fundraising begins with an idea. Whatever the idea is, there is a limit to the amount of support a person can garner. There is no limit to the support an idea can get. Democrats remain the party of gridlock. Rather than push an agenda, they push against President Bush. They sing the chorus against everything he does. That vitriol animates their base, but it fails to resonate with regular folks. The eighty percent of Americans who couldn't care less about the ramifications of Lynne Stewart light sentence and who will not lose a bit of sleep of the civil rights that could be trampled by the Patriot Act. We wonder who these folks are, because they don't know who Karl Rove is. And with a chuckle, I might add, they probably wonder about us because we do know who Karl Rove is.

But these folks, some of them at any rate, show up on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November and participate in the civic process. And at that juncture they are going to examine what effects them most. How much they paid at the pump this week. What their 401(k) looks like this quarter. How their kids are doing at school. And if all of that is okay, they are not going to significantly change how they voted from last go around. And for Republicans, that is their greatest saving grace.

As Glenn Reynolds has said, the Republicans have not won this race. Not at all. In fact, they earned a loss. The Democrats have not earned the win. In politics, tie goes to the incumbent.

Earlier today, Jim Geraghty, described a political acumen that I thought the major parties were no longer of.

...if Democrats... announced that Harry Reid would not be returning as the party's leader in the Senate, but would instead resign his position because of a failure to disclose a $700,000 land deal with a guy tied to mob cases... they would have a stunningly strong claim to be the Party of Real Reform.

Today, the Republican leadership illustrates that they understand they need that deft political touch, but that they aint got it.

Washington, D.C. -- Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Conference Chairman Deborah Pryce (R-OH) today released the following joint statement after Bob Ney pled guilty to violating federal law:

"Bob Ney must be punished for the criminal actions he has acknowledged. He betrayed his oath of office and violated the trust of those he represented in the House. There is no place for him in this Congress. If he chooses not to resign his office, we will move to expel him immediately as our first order of business when Congress resumes its legislative work in November."

Hastert, Boehner and company are the current leadership of the House.  I find their lack of leadership disturbing.  In addition to mishandling the Foley mess, the complete lack of any sense of the impending consequences regarding the Abrahmhoff scandals and the other corruption scandals on both sides of the aisle raises legitimate questions about the control they have over the members.  Leaders lead.  In leading you tick off some people.  Calling for Bob Ney's resignation, after he engaged in unethical practices is fixing the barn door after the horse gets away.   Instead the House and the Senate ought to have means of ferreting out corruption.  Since they won't work with the FBI, here's what they can do:

The Capitol Police force needs to be expanded to create an anti-corruption task force.  This group will act as an internal affairs division in a police department works.  The officers have a totally different chain of command.  There must be teeth to this force.   The primary agents in this force will be forensic accountants, who examine appropriations and campaign contributions.  With the establishment of publicly accessible databases for both these things, there is a foundational start.  If something bill contains an earmark or appropriation that sends up a red flag, this force needs the backing of a law-enforcement agency to get it cleaned up.  In addition, they will need real investigators who have the authority to interview witness and examine physical evidence on the scene.

Given the complexities of chasing corruption, the likely people to lead such an investigation are former FBI agents who chased down the previous generations of corrupt Congress critters.  When a determination has been made regarding the need to go forward, the Department of Justice will be advised if there is a case.  As charges are filed, the Congressional leadership of both parties will be advised, in a joint meeting.  At that time, they will be advised that leaks to the target of the investigation will not be tolerated.

Corruption cases involving improper lobbying activities or shady land deals or sexual impropriety need to be pursued.  Reacting after scandal breaks is detrimental to our democracy.  Our elected officials do not have an expectation of privacy the same way that regular citizens do.  When they elect to run for office, they are electing to live in the scrutiny of the public eye in a very clear way.  Transparency in our federal government is necessary and vital.

If either party wants to really be labelled as the party of reform, they will begin by creating an powerful, independent investigative service to watch them like hawks.  Does anyone like being observed?  No of course not.  But when you are the vault keeper of our tax dollars, we need to know if you are doing your job.  And frankly,Congress is terrible at policing itself.  So let's change that.

More posts at Ennuipundit.

Bruce Regal opines that the wild cars is broke and needs fixing today over at The Baseball Analysts. The heart of his proposal is this.

I propose that instead of going directly to a four-team tournament, each of the four divisions first have a "Challenge Round" in which the second place team in each division would have an opportunity to catch the first place team in a series of head-to-head games. In effect, the regular season would be extended for up to another 6 games between the first and second place teams, until one or the other clinches the division. If they end up tied at the end of 6 games, they play a seventh game in the form of a one-game playoff. To provide a few examples of how this system would work, suppose divisions ended as they did in 2006. In a Challenge Round, Anaheim (second place, four games behind) would play Oakland needing six wins in seven games; Minnesota (first place) and Detroit (one game behind) would play, with the Tigers needing four wins in six games; and LA and San Diego (who tied for first) would play a full best of seven game Challenge Round series.

First and foremost, Regal failed to consider how he would realign his divisions. Using the final standings in the American League, Detroit, returned to the AL East would play New York in a challenge round. And Minnesota, playing again int he AL West would be challenged by Oakland. If that sounds familiar, it's because that was exactly how the playoffs shaped up. It's a simple oversight, and I think it is a minor one in assessing the proposal. In the NL, Philadelphia would need to rip off 12 straight wins to catch the Mets, 13 to get into the playoffs. And that's where Regal's system fails. First, St. Louis, who is in the NLCS would be at home watching the playoffs. Second, the idea of letting Philly challenge the Mets with such long odds is a little insulting.

A better solution, one that baseball purists and sabermetricians would probably sneer at, only a marketing wonk could love it (which is my day job, by the way). Baseball should retain the tri-division format. I am not fond of uneven divisions and imbalanced schedules. I get a little sick of playing the Yankees 19 times a year (especially when they take five games from us in August effectively ending our season). But this is what baseball has chosen, and going back to two large divisions is unlikely. So we work with what we have.
Instead of a challenge round, I suggest a pair of play in games. The season would draw to a close on a Wednesday or a Thursday. The division winners get the weekend off and two made for television games are played on a Saturday and Sunday night. The games would pit the teams with the fourth and fifth best records in each league in a winner take all format. But the best team might not win. So what?

Seriously, the NFL and College Basketball have compelling playoff formats built around the idea of a series of winner take all contests. And the NFL is proud to say that on any given Sunday, any given team can beat any other. Even though it would take a month of Sundays before the Raiders topped the Bears, folks assume that to be true. If that's the case, shouldn't football use a system that makes sure the best teams have a better shot of winning? Humbug. The NFL wisely recognizes the value of compelling drama. Baseball, Basketball and Hockey play longer series to get more gate revenues and to ensure that teams built for the long haul of there seasons have more odds of advancing. They sacrifice the compelling nature of playoff contests by making series. And I feel the LCS and World Series ought to be a contest of that sort. Even if there is only drama in a seventh game, which may or may not exist.

Here'show it would work. The regular season would conclude on the last Wednesday or Thursday in September. That first weekend in October would be the Major League Baseball Play-In Challenge. The fourth best team in the AL would host the fifth best team in the AL on Saturday Night. The NL would follow suit on Sunday Night. The ALDS would begin on Monday with the best AL record team hosting the winner of the play in game. The other division winners would square off in the other Divisional series. The playoffs would continue as they currently are.

This year, that would mean Detroit would have to beat the White Sox to get to play the Yankees. And in the National League, the Los Angeles Dodgers would host the Phillies for the right to play the Mets. That would create more playoff possibilities, and give weaker teams a chance at a postseason they would not ordinarily have, while placing a premium on winning your division. Further this year's also rans like the White Sox, Angels, Toronto, Boston, Houston, Cincinnati, Atlanta and Florida would be in it longer. End of the season games would be more meaningful for a change.

The potential for greater interest in the game would also increase. College basketbal benefits from the creation of "Cinderella stories". Imagine if a perennial also-ran like Tampa Bay or Kansas City were that fifth best team and they won the play in game. In addition to their fan base, the casual followers would have a rooting interest in cheering for an obvious underdog. Any improvement in ratings improves exposure of the game, enhancing revenues, enriching the teams, and making more competitive pennant races. What more could Major League Baseball want?

More posts on baseball, politics and other gems at Ennuipundit.

Captain Ed penned two posts early this morning that prompted some though on my part. The posts (here and here) detail the reactions in Gaza and North Korea to existing sanctions and impending sanctions. Put bluntly, sanctions aren't working well for either.

First in Gaza

The Western embargo on aid and the suspension of tax receipts by the Israelis have forced the Palestinians into a crisis of ideology. None of the factions involved want to make a lasting peace with Israel, but that's no longer the primary issue at hand in the territories. Hamas and Fatah have finally found their way to the basic power struggle that their shared hatred of Israel has always masked. This conflict pits the older, secular Arab terrorists against the newer, Islamist Arab terrorists -- and this time it will be all of the Arabs in the area that pay for the conflict.

The Palestinians can't blame Israel for this. Shootings such as the one that took Rafiq Siam have their origins in a divide that war alone can address now. In the end, neither side can win, because both are essentially nihilistic and will not stop. The Palestinians have created a death cult in two different flavors, and both sides value martyrdom so much that both will fight until everyone is dead in order to keep power in their own hands, once the fighting starts.

Unrelenting economic pressure has put the unstable Hamas ruling group on the knife's edge. In North Korea, that kind of pressure has recently been felt, and it only serves to get worse.

The sanctions that Japan has imposed have teeth. North Korea can no longer dock its ships in Japanese ports, stripping them of a vital lifeline to hard currency. They normally export clams and mushrooms to the Japanese, who will look elsewhere for their cuisine needs now. North Koreans are barred from entering Japan except for a narrow set of circumstances. Essentially, Japan has closed its doors entirely to North Korea, which leaves the Kim regime with a big gap in its exports -- a problem for a country whose economy is already in free-fall.

How will Kim respond? He might force a naval confrontation with Japan, attempting to dock his ships in defiance of their orders, in the hope that Japan will start a war. A few more missiles might overfly Japan to the same purpose. I doubt that he would overtly attack Japan, an act that would push his only ally, China, even further away diplomatically. The stakes are going up for Kim Jong-Il, though, and one has to wonder what he thinks he's holding.

This harkens back to the often touted and entirely accurate Josh Manchester piece from a week ago.

This pressure has slowly been tightening a multi-lateral, multi-pronged grip on North Korean power. And it's about to get even tighter. The International Herald Tribune notes that "since last September, the U.S. Treasury Department has persuaded 24 banks in China, Mongolia, Singapore, Vietnam and other countries to shut down North Korean accounts. Last month, Australia and Japan ordered their financial institutions to block transactions by companies suspected of having links to North Korea's weapons programs."

The North Korean regime will soon be looking at the kind of economic stranglehold that is fomenting civil war in Gaza. And Dear Leader's response has been to rattle his non-nuclear saber at Japan for imposing stricter sanctions. The risk inherent in Japan's unilateral action is that Kim Jong-il will send over some missiles. It is very likely we will see some military exchanges this weekend. South Korea is playing things more coolly, waiting and seeing what will happen.
The only deterrence at this juncture is that North Korea risks the swift, strong retaliation of the United States. But with a force deployment of only 65,000 or so soldiers in the region, initial US reciprocity will necessarily be air strikes, cruise missiles and other naval bombardments. Since Eisenhower contemplated using nuclear devices on the Korean peninsula 53 years ago, it is entirely possible that will be a consideration should North Korea use WMDs against either of our allies.

Will that be enough to stop Kim? It is impossible to know his intentions. In 1941, Japan attacked the United States after the US embargoed oil to Japan following Japan's incursion into southern Indochina. The economic sanctions prompted a shooting war. In Gaza, economic sanctions are showing the weakness of the Palestinian terror regime. In North Korea, a nation with a large standing army and no shortage of munitions, the exportation of war is more probable.

President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld both emphasized that the US goal is to resolve this situation through diplomatic means. That goal however, can only be reached if North Korea intransigence fades. The likelihood of that is decreasing hourly.

Maybe I am being paranoid, but Iran seems awfully quiet right now.

Reprinted from Ennuipundit.  All this and much much more.

The Columbus Dispatch is today wondering if underage drinkers caught at football games should be arrested. Football being important in the Buckeye State makes it a mitigating circumstance int he violation of laws. I posted my opinion after voting in the poll. I encourage you to go out and do the same.

My reasoning is that as much as I find laws like underage drinking foolish, I do not believe that not enforcing those laws is the answer. The solution is obvious, repeal the law. Young people should have as much right to drink as their parents will allow them. And once they are 18, then as they are no longer bound by the rules of their parents, they should be able to have a cold one at their discretion.

Laws restricting underage drinking drain policing resources that would better be used keeping communities safe from crime. Repealing these laws may create an uptick in drinking in the short term, but it should level out, like most fads increased consumption will fade. Further, college binge drinking could also decline, because responsible parents will help foster responsible drinking habits in their children. There is little to stop parents from allowing their own children to drink responsibly in their homes. And isn't a parent a better judge of his or her child's competency to drink than laws authored by people who may or may not have children at home.

I also object unreservedly to the wink-wink treatment of laws. The rule of law is a foundational pillar of democracy. Any arcane, outdated law that we no longer wish to enforce should be repealed. If left on the books, some demagogue may come along and alter the landscape by attempting to enforce these laws, years after they became a wink-wink offense. This is unfair to people who have become accustomed to lax enforcement.

People should limit their behavior and drink in moderation. I am not in favor of binge drinking, or getting wasted for the sake of getting waster or any other reason for that matter. But in a society that relentlessly promotes alcohol consumption, restrictive laws that make the young people, who are beginning to understand their rights and responsibilities as citizens, outlaws in that society only serves to weaken the rule of law. The continual enforcement of arcane laws, or worse leaving those laws on the books to be unenforced, only fosters juvenile and young adult misconduct and an adversarial attitude towards law-enforcement. Is this really what we want to encourage?

You can find this essay and much more over at Ennuipundit.

Hardly.

To assess failure or success in a fluid and developing situation is foolhardy. The obsessive nature of the Monday Morning Quarterbacking media is to consider the situation, declare a victor and move on to Emeril, who's in studio this morning to make some Jambalaya. Fitting a complicated situation into a short, digestible explanation is not terribly easy, and certainly not when you've got Jambalaya cooking in the studio.

Not even thirty-six hours have passed since the nuclear test took place, and in that span of time, the five parties to the multi-lateral talks that didn't detonate a nuclear device have condemned the party that did. This cannot be considered failure. It cannot be considered success, either. It is simply too soon to tell. If the goal of our North Korea policy is a nuclear free Korean peninsula, then we may have suffered a setback, but not a failure. And that setback is only if North Korea meant to detonate an extremely small device.

North Korea is not now, nor has it been, eager to dismantle their three decade old nuclear program. During the previous decade, North Korea had grown accustomed to receiving what it wanted whenever they rattled their nuclear saber. The knee-jerk reaction of the Clinton administration was to send Jimmy Carter or Madeline Albright off to North Korea, find out what they wanted, give it to them and hope that they abandoned their nuclear program or at the least stay out of the headlines long enough for them to become someone else’s problem. In light of this recent test, reassessing our policies is prudent. But to make concessions to the North Korean regime would be to reward the despot, and confirm that nothing has changed, they can still get what they want by acting out.

Josh Manchester analyzed North Korea's initial statement that they would conduct a nuclear test. Looking over the facts of the case, the impotence of North Korea is plain. They telegraphed their move. They detonated a device. Analysis indicates it was likely a fizzle. This could indicate a technical problem with their design or it could be a ruse designed to degrade our expectations of them. It could also indicate that they are attempting to create low-yield compact devices that terrorists would be interested in buying. Without insight into the plans of the regime, it is impossible to understand its intentions. Regardless, the information present suggests the North Korean regime is looking to get back into the World's spotlight, likely to gain concessions and strengthen its position going forward.

This leaves us with the question of what shall we do next. First, swift, unambiguous sanctions are in order. This is not the time to issue a resolution that's a carrot on a stick, it's time to use just the stick. Further, the economic pressure the US has been exerting on North Korea needs to continue. Finally, a resumption of the six party talks is in order. If our aim is to disarm North Korea, we have really three options.

1. We can attack and disarm them by force.
2. We can negotiate multi-laterally and insist on absolute, verifiable disarmament, spelling out the consequences for any shenanigans.
3. We can discard the goal of a nuclear free Korean peninsula and help South Korea arm itself, as well as help Japan create a deterring nuclear force, as well as a missile defense shield, based on the system we are currently developing.

Non-proliferation is preferable to an arms race. Diplomatic solutions are preferable to war. Therefore the second option is the ideal course to continue on. To declare that option a failure, while the crisis is still unfolding weakens that position and undermines our ability to continue with it. By asking repeatedly as Robert Siegel did last night on All Things Considered if this test constitutes a failure of US policy, the media offers a tacit reward for the North Korean regime. Listen to hear this exchange around the 3:40 mark:

Robert Siegel: And at this point, should we look back on the past few years and say "The policy to date failed. It did not deter the North Koreans from doing this."?

Christopher Hill: Well, certainly we wanted to deter the North Koreans. We put a pretty good deal on the table - a deal that I think was very much in their interests. And, uh, we worked very closely with our partners. And one of the reasons we worked closely with our partners is not in the certain belief that we were going to get the North Koreans to, to, uh, go away from a program that they've been engaged in for some thirty years. I mean this didn't just start last year with the North Koreans. But one of the reasons we engaged in this multi-lateral process was that in the event that North Korea was not deterred, we would have this collective experience, we would have this, uh, this uh, really sense of community that we have developed among the, uh, five parties, I should say. And then we are prepared to move together to the next stage. And I think, uh, we, we have a real common understanding and we'll see in the days ahead in the New York Security Council how well we've done.

RS: See, if I hear you right, you're saying plan A failed policy, but there was a plan B implicit in that and that is a success.

CH: Well, again, I think North Korea failed. North Korea failed to understand its future. Uh, it is not our failure that North Korea cannot see its future. Uh, it is our responsibility to, uh, to, uh, react to the situation, to deal with the situation, and frankly to deal with all the options we have with the understanding there is one option we don't have and that is to walk away from this.

A perceived failure in US policy weakens national resolve to continue such a policy. If we were to make changes in reaction to the behavior of the North Korean regime, they would gain prestige by forcing the alteration of US policy. In a battle where prestige and face saving is as important as genuine victory, denying them that triumph benefits our position. Therefore, unanimous condemnation, which has occurred, and the continued insistence on multi-lateral talks strengthen America's position.

As North Korea attempts to capitalize on the deep divisions in American political discourse, we must recognize that they are using data collected from these failed tests to improve their designs. The experiment failed. US policy has not, yet. A nuclear North Korea would be a failure. And while it seems that North Korea is determined to get a nuke, they do not have one as yet. We must continue to apply pressure to degrade their capability to continue development of a functional device.

The shameless adherence by the mainstream media to Democrat talking points and Bush Derangement Syndrome fantasies of Administration failure only serves to weaken our interests abroad. Our efforts on the Korean peninsula will yield fruit - they already have, in that North Korea conducted a failed test and called everyone's attention to that failure. We must be willing to allow things to play out and resist the instinct to decide what worked and what failed before the next segment of the morning news show.

Jambalaya, anyone?

Reprinted from Ennuipundit.

George W. Bush is an Evangelical Christian.  His faith is apparent in many of the policies that he supports.  Looking at his stands on Education and Immigration, the words of Christ spring to mind.

"'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world.  For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.'

"Then these righteous ones will reply, 'Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink?  Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing?  When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?'

"And the King will say, 'I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!"  (Matthew 25: 34-40 NLT)

In this passage, liberals can find a scriptural justification for all sorts of social programs based on the idea of providing for the welfare of others.  Nevermind, that the call if for righteous individuals, it remains a clarion call for love of others and looking out for the welfare of others.  In light of Christ's comments throughout His earthly ministry, He means that love of and welfare of others includes those that we disagree with and consider our enemies.

Recently, at Hot Air, Allahpundit posed a question to Christians:

Serious question: if it’s okay to turn the other cheek when it comes to child killers, why isn’t it okay when it comes to, say, Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein? That inconsistency among hawkish Christians has always troubled me.

Or is it perfectly consistent, and I’m just missing something?

I contributed some answers, none really satisfactory to me, but I believe I found an answer that reconciles President Bush's actions and therefore justification for Christian hawkishness, int he face of Christ's admonishment to love your enemies and to turn the other cheek. 

From the Sermon on the Mount:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.  Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'  Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'  (Matthew 7: 21-23 NIV)

This passage is commonly interpreted to refer to false prophets.  In that Muslims, Jews and Christians all claim to be the true followers of God, there is plenty of space to refer to the followers or leaders of other faiths as falseprophets .  I think the use of "evildoers" was deliberate.  And I think the parallel between those who cry "Lord, Lord" and do not do what God says and radical Islamists who disregard the message of love for enemies that Christ specifically calls His followers to adhere to is plain.  And I think it was plain to President Bush as well.

When America was attacked, it was not just terrorists who attacked us, it was an ideology of hate that attacked us, an ideology couched in the wild interpretations of the teachings of a religion that is a cousin to Christianity.   The initial response of many Christians was, "Praise the Lord, pass the ammunition."  And I think President Bush was among them.  Recognizing his place as the head of the World's most powerful nation, he was in a unique position to respond to an attack on his nation, and an attack on his faith.

When anyone defames God, and make no mistake, Yahweh, Jehovah, God, Allah are the same God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, and Muhammad, that defamation is a desecration of what is sacred to believers.  When the terrorists attacked, they took innocent lives in the name of God.  For a nation, it would be impossible to turn the other cheek.

An interesting question to pose to President Bush, but one that escapes the mainstream media, due to their inherent lack of understanding of Christian theology, would be to ask:

"Mr. President, we know you hold your beliefs very strongly, and among the tenets of Christianity is the idea of loving your enemies.  Do you feel that as an individual, you have forgiven Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda for September 11th?  And as a followup, if you have, how does that impact your role as commander in chief in the war against terror?"

I agree strongly with many of the assertions made in the comment threads, that it is the responsibility of Christians to as individuals seek to find the strength from God to forgive those who attack us.  But it is also necessary that those who have attacked us, face the consequences of their actions.

Reprinted from Ennuipundit