ran a little piece from a McCain interview with a local TV newsguy from Portland, ME. The interviewer asked him, given the fact that McCain has identified national security as the most important issue facing the country, what are Sarah Palin's qualifications in the national security area. Amazingly enough, McCain was struck dumb. He muttered something about energy and the guy cut him off and asked him to name one thing in the national security area that qualified Palin to be president. He basically couldn't do it.

It was an astonishingly incompetent performance by McCain. As one of Moyers' guests pointed out, asking a presidential candidate to cite a single piece of evidence to support a claim he's made is not exactly raking him over the coals. It's something he ought to be able to answer easily, but McCain hadn't a clue.

The point being, it doesn't take much to unmask these dunces. I wish it happened more often.

Of course the red staters saw a different interview than Salon people did. In politics as in most public discourse, there are some people who are on your side regardless and some who oppose you regardless. The people you should be talking to at all times are those who aren't decided yet, and who are at least partly open to your message. So the question is not how the redstaters or Obama supporters responded to the View piece, but how others did.

As to the stupidity of the American electorate, have you ever read Anti-Intellectualism in American Life? If not I strongly urge you to. It should be required reading for anyone seeking to understand public discourse in the U.S.

I actually figured out that it was probably a typo. After I'd posted, of course. Oh well.

who claim to be "strict constructionists" what that means. If it means, as they so often claim, that the constitution should be limited to the intentions of the framers, (a) how do you know their intentions, (b) why on earth would anyone want to so limit constitutional interpretation and (c) do they actually understand all the ways that would thwart their own agenda?

The simple fact is that the Framers of the Constitution had no intentions whatsoever about most of what we deal with every day. What did they intend regarding internet speech, for example? What did they intend regarding automatic weapons? Governmental regulation of hedge funds? It just doesn't seem to make much sense as anything other than a phrase to suggest certain things to voters which are probably not true.

I mean, if a SC Justice is a "strict constructionist," doesn't that mean he/she would limit the right to keep and bear arms to flintlock muskets, cap-and-ball pistols and sabers? And how does that sit with the gun nuts in this country?

baseball is a better sport than either football or basketball is that it's better officiated. It's better officiated because calling the game is vastly simpler. Except for a few very rare occurences, there is only one call to make at a time, that call is where the ball is and there's one official to make the call. Also, there are relatively few "judgment calls." Examples are legion. This is another.

but firing him now sends one clear message to fans and players alike - "we're desperate." That's not what Brewers' management should be telling their team that's struggling with another late-season fold-up. There's plenty of time in the off-season to fire anyone who needs it. The Brewers are a young team that will get better, and maybe that means hiring a new manager, but not now.