National

President (2016)- Hilary Clinton vs. Some Idiot: The Clintons have had a long time to prep for this. Barring some force majeure they will roll over whatever whackjob makes it through the increasing insane GOP nominating process. Prediction: Clinton Senate (2018) - Tom Carper vs. Father Time Carper isn't up for election again until 2018. At that point he'll be 71 in calendar years, which converts to only 57 in rich person years. Prediction: Carper Senate - Chris Coons vs. Christine O'Donnell: I was skeptical about the idea that O'Donnell would run again, but the rent isn't going to pay itself. The remnants of the DEGOP seem perfectly willing to support her on the grounds that they think it annoys liberals like me. Which...uh.it does. Dammit Christine!! Why do you keep vexing me by being the real American in Delaware politics!? Prediction: Amusement. Come inside for more...

The GOP is as out of gas as any political party in American history (except possibly the Prohibition Party). Clearly in the absence of some strategy change, the party's future isn't bright. Neither, judging by Meghan McCain, are the next wave of conservative pundits. McCain, who's celebrity status rests on the fact that her Dad got trounced in a Presidential election, is taking up the mantle of the party's party girl in a new cable TV series.

The series, which debuts on the new network Pivot TV this Saturday, is a combination talk show and unscripted series — half “The View,” half “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.” It follows the exploits of one Meghan McCain, the daughter of the current U.S. senator from Arizona and one-time presidential nominee John McCain; she alternates between interviewing her guest and showing a slice of what it is like to be the daughter of a U.S. senator who lost the presidency in a landslide. She has been given 30 minutes a week on an aspirant cable network to prove that she has nothing to say. Prior to the release of her current series, Meghan McCain was a columnist for the Daily Beast; her columns for the site, for which her last piece ran shortly after the last presidential election, included such pieces as “Yes, I Wear Fake Hair” and “The GOP’s House Hottie.” She interviewed Snooki, too!

While I was away from political blogging this summer, I started a side project that deals with an obsession of mine - employee engagement. In addition to having written a self published book on the subject of employee engagement, I teach an organizational behavior class each year at Goldey Beacom that deals with the topic. The blog: exit119a is an attempt to put the theories I discuss in class under real world microscope. This is how I describe it in the "About" section....

Latest "whip counts" are trending away from supporting the President's call for a humanitarian bombing of Syria to kill just the right number of civilians to send a message to Assad and evil doers everywhere. Firm Nay's continue to mount while firm Yeah's are still few and far between. If and when a vote finally comes, will a "Yes" vote from the Delaware delegation, that does not represent the feelings of Delawareans, hurt "C-cubed" on election day? C-cubed has been fairly transparent about its intended votes. this Washington Post item is FireDogLake's source for listing Delaware as:

Coons: Firm Yes Carper: Leaning Yes Carney: Leaning No

(I think they've misread Carney, but if he isn't putting out any statements to clarify his position, who knows?)

Zimmerman stalked and killed Trayvon Martin the night after a massive fight with his wife that resulted in her leaving his ass. So, terrific job Florida. Zimmerman was out to…

The strongest point President Obama has in launching a military strike on Syria in retaliation of Assad using chemical weapons is the following statement, made in his press conference at the G-20:

THE PRESIDENT: My goal is to maintain the international norm on banning chemical weapons. I want that enforcement to be real. I want it to be serious. I want people to understand that gassing innocent people, delivering chemical weapons against children is not something we do. It’s prohibited in active wars between countries. We certainly don’t do it against kids. And we’ve got to stand up for that principle.

It is the point that sways me a little, but then the President says something further about the aftermath (i.e. if we attacked and then Assad used the chemical weapons again) that puts we back in the no-intervention witness:

THE PRESIDENT: Is it possible that Assad doubles down in the face of our action and uses chemical weapons more widely? I suppose anything is possible, but it wouldn’t be wise. I think at that point, mobilizing the international community would be easier, not harder. I think it would be pretty hard for the U.N. Security Council at that point to continue to resist the requirement for action, and we would gladly join with an international coalition to make sure that it stops.

And let's say that happens, and the international community is swayed to get involved. What is the goal of further action? It is obvious, to get rid of Assad and to get his chemical weapons. How do we do that? Invasion. Boots on the ground. No, Mr. President. No.