Speed Gibson

The Star Tribune today (Sunday 11/28) decided to discuss "Privitization" of Social Security. I'm hoping King at SCSU Scholars will take a more detailed poke at this, as a couple of the numbers seem suspect. In any case, the Star Tribune clearly doesn't understand the Social Security system. But that doesn't stop them from characterizing those who would fix it as liars.

Social Security (FICA) comprises two separate systems, for collecting taxes and paying benefits. There is no fiduciary link between them. Your earnings history is used to calculate your benefits, but the money you pay in goes entirely to others. The money you receive comes entirely from others.

Even if you retire tomorrow, every dollar of what you will receive has yet to be collected from the taxpayers. This represents a huge unfunded liability, about 12 billion dollars according to Steve Forbes. "Oh, but the money is in Treasury Bills!" they say. But until one of those T-Bills has your name on it, they are just IOU's from one branch of the federal government to another.

As Forbes notes, if we temporarily raise that unfunded liability to 13 billion as we transition, this isn't much of a difference, none that will threaten the overall system.

Part 2 will be in Monday's paper, how to restore solvency. We know what it will be: raise taxes!

As noted in the third NARN hour this week, many left of center think Rush Limbaugh, talk radio in general for that matter, was a creation of the Republican Party. We all know that's false, but I decided to re-read Rush's own account in his first book, The Way Things Ought to Be.

Rush had wanted to be in radio since he was 12, but had been fired repeatedly for "excessive creativity" beyond the program format. After a few years with the Kansas City Royals, he wanted to try one more time. He got that chance at KFBK in Sacramento, California.

After three successful years, Ed McLaughlin, retired head of ABC Radio turned entrepreneur took him national. The details are in the book, including this key point.

I never imagined my show would prosper in large part because I was a conservative. ... I just thought I had to do great shows, and I never associated political views with greatness in show business.

I was terribly, terribly wrong. From [day one] it was obvious ... that something we hadn't anticipated was going on. People were going crazy over this show, primarily because of my political point of view. ... Here, finally, was someone on the radio saying what they felt, what they said to their friends and family.

So, there it was, this unique blend of humor, irreverence, and the serious discussion of events with a conservative slant. ... I would love to tell you this was the result of a brilliantly conceived and flawlessly executed strategy, but it wasn't. It was just me being myself.

Nowhere in this biographical sketch is any mention of any political party or any politician. You can even hear today that Rush is not driven by political ambition or recognition. He has his heroes and villains, as do we all, but his goal is entertainment. And in my opinion, nobody does it better.

Many of those who built upon Limbaugh's work are clearly very political, such as Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt. But they operate by the same free market rules: no audience, no show. Only in a dictatorship can this be forced. Mad Magazine's parody of the Soviet TV Guide had this entry:

11 pm: Leonid Brezhnev Speaks. Watch this program. You may be asked about it later.

The turkey is out of the oven, and Patrick Reusse's 27th Annual Golden Turkey is in today's paper. "If you can't imitate them, don't copy them," said Yogi Berra, but I'm going to try anyway. My committee of one considered the following.

Long-suffering Jay Larson at the Patriot came to mind, since he never seems able to please Hugh Hewitt. He couldn't land a back stage pass with Clay Aiken for Hugh's niece.

Laura Ingraham's staff weren't able to please her either this year, with so many missed cues and over-punctuation with noises and quips.

Hosts like Michael Savage add nothing except emotion borne of self-absorbtion. But is regularly cited as an example of what's wrong with talk radio in particular or conservatives in general. But maybe he's peaked; Hugh Hewitt has just retaken his live third hour on KRLA from Savage.

Hosts at the opposite end of the emotional dial like newcomer Bill Bennett sadly also add very little, despite their great knowledge. It's polite, but since he covers nothing you won't read or hear elsewhere, it's also dull. But he does fill the void from 6:30 am to 7:07 am when Bob Davis is essentially sidelined for silly news, the Rush update, sports, traffic, weather, network news, local headlines, and a big load of commercials, the mainstays of morning drive.

He fancies himself a talk show host, but Al Franken has come up short once again on Air America. Like Garrison Keilor, he's well-known, had some success, but has never hit the big time. Gosh darn it, he's smart enough, and yet he's even second fiddle to Bill O'Reilly.

Martin Olav Sabo has never hit the big time in Congress, but he's not exactly trying. He's got the safest seat in the House, does virtually nothing of note, yet barely needs to even campaign. Even a black woman, the late Dororthy LeGrand, fell far short a few years ago.

Mark Dayton at least made some national headlines this year, closing his Senate office in the face of a terror threat no one else saw.

Closer to home, we have Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson. Once again, his word proved unreliable. He bottled up much of the Legislative agenda, though he found time to lynch Cheri Pierson Yecki, no doubt on orders received from Education Minnesota.

In fact, despite the Minnesota House elections, the whole DFL party had a bad year in terms of deceit, scandal, and law-breaking.

Speaking of deceit, we have Golden Gopher Football. Glen Mason, Sid Hartman, Dave Mona, and a couple of jocks on KFAN all nodded soberly that this team could go to the Rose Bowl. There was no sure loss on the schedule. The result? 6-5, including a couple of blow-out losses.

This wouldn't be a blog post without mentioning Nick Coleman, who knows stuff, stuff he cannot defend. Where is Jim Boyd, the "gatekeeper" when we need him?

But let's get to the finals.

Second runner up: Target, for expunging the Salvation Army. I think many, like Hugh Hewitt, have overreacted, but that doesn't excuse Target, who has yet to serve up a coherent answer or basis for this change.

First runner up: Governor Tim Pawlenty. After a great 2003, he has gone soft, with Canadian drug imports and a weak defense of Commissioner Yecki. Then he tries to extort money from the Indian Casinos (a tax increase), and promises to sign a statewide smoking ban. And now, he wants to call a special session for the bonding bill the Democrats killed, that we didn't need anyway. But I'm hoping he'll shape up in 2005, and he has to given the DFL gains in the House.

But my choice for my first Golden Turkey Award is Joe Soucheray. He has become a clock-puncher like Martin Sabo. His show is now just banter instead of dialogue. He's a success I grant you, but he could be more successful if he'd return to his old work ethic, i.e., actually doing show prep. Instead, he coasts, like yesterday when he spent three hours wondering how to get a stain off his anodized aluminum wheels. Put a fork in him. He's done.

The Intelligence Reform bill to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations is getting scrutiny, by the Pentagon, the President and even Senator Lieberman. But this has the left and the MSM howling; why don't they adopt as is?

El Rushbo found a good perspective. Bush appoints Rice to be Secretary of State. "Oh no! She'll just be a rubber stamp!" Bush appoints Porter Goss to run and fix the CIA. "Oh no! He'll just be a rubber stamp!" Bush (and others) hold up on the 9/11 reforms, and now it's "Oh no! Bush isn't rubber stamping the recommendations!"

Dissent for me, but not for thee!

The Fraters picked up and critiqued blogger Joe Carter who felt NPR was better than Talk Radio. The original post and The Elder's response are lengthy but coherent and worth reading. They agreed on some points, such as Rush's best days are behind him. Rush has a prosecutor chasing him, has quietly ended his third marriage, and battles his loss of hearing with a cochlear implant. But through it all, he remains the Godfather of talk radio.

Time has mellowed him a little over the years. The Soviet Union is gone, no more Gorbasms. The homeless disappeared suddenly in 1993, so we didn't hear Clarence Frogman Henry for 8 years. But it's still the most successful program by far, and he has the best accompanying web site as well. FYI, I am a charter subscriber to Rush 24/7, so I can listen as I am right now via the internet, without commercials.

Hugh Hewitt is #2 in my rankings, but he was a GOP shill at times (win by 40 states?). His support of a weak but wealthy Senate candidate (Pete Coors) in Colorado defies my understanding. Rush kept his head, and provided the best campaign coverage of all.

Another point: callers. Rush understands (insists) that callers are there to make the host look good. He screens better than most, and takes fewer calls than most. He can and does often use them as introductions to topics he wants to discuss. But usually there is at least one caller with a solid point, and very few bad callers.

Finally, we conservatives also read books, more so than NPR listeners I dare say, given the book sales figures.

The tax assessor's notices are in the mail, which prompts this post. Every 2-4 years we get handed more "property tax reform" that's supposed to further limit/subsidize our property taxes. They continue to rise, of course, despite the "help" provided by The Minnesota Miracle Release 17. There seems to be a threshold of pain. Go too high and the Legislatures buys them down by raising other taxes. Go too low, and bond referendums appear to take up the slack.

I would prefer that property taxes pertain to the public needs of the property. That includes roads, sewers, parks, and basic city government. That does not include welfare, medical care, or education at any level. And it has nothing to do with your income or other taxes paid.

With the level of such taxation reduced, I would further require ALL property owners to pay, including churches, schools, and even other government such as county offices and light rail lines. Any "zoning" differences in the rates must be justified by observed differences in public services required, such as police calls.

I coined the term T.M.O. - too much outrage - back when Senator Kerry mentioned Mary Cheney, gay daughter of Dick and Lynn Cheney. Sure it was a gaffe, but not worth spending endless hours condemning.

I purposely avoided posting right away on Target's decision to part ways with the Salvation Army, to allow some time for it to settle in. I didn't want to go off half-cocked like Hugh Hewitt did. For three hours. Maybe three days. I decided this was another case of T.M.O., then went to read James Lileks' bleat on the subject (Thurs, 11/18), whom Hugh kept saying was wrong.

Lileks is right on this one, and he said it perfectly. Most important, James sets a good example for all of us, to make sure that if anything, the Salvation Army winds up with more of our money than they otherwise would have. 'Nuff said. Go read it.

A common argument from the Left involves "moral equivalence" that equates bad behaviors even if one side does ten times as much. Dennis Prager had a caller yesterday try this tactic, that quantity doesn't really matter when discussing immorality. Of course it does, responded Prager. That's what makes the Holocaust the Holocaust, that it was six million killed, not six.

Media pundits are fond of saying that they're objective because they pick on both sides. And indeed they do, from time to time, but nowhere in proportion.

Lori Sturdevant finally got her "fair and balanced" piece in for 2004, reviewing the House District 45B race in New Hope. DFL'r Sandra Peterson's highly negative campaign was too much for the GOP's Lynne Osterman who took the high road. To be fair, Peterson publicly asked the DFL to stop the attack ads, which they of course refused. All in all, the article was very favorable to Osterman, even if it was overly kind to Peterson as well. She could have ended her negative ads by at least threatening to quit the race.

So there! We can't say Lori Sturdevant is one-sided. Not in 2004, anyway.

Jo at Jo's Attic paid homage to Craig Westover's blog as a great source of local information including politics, something she wants to see more of. We generally know much about national, even international issues because of all the media. But we know comparatively less about state issues, especially with the Star Tribune and WDFL-TV whitewashing the news. We know still less about local issues., having little more to go on than the weekly shoppers and local cable like Channel 12 here in the NW Suburbs.

PolicyGuy commented further, noting there are also "distant" entities like County government, of which we know practically nothing. But then out of the blue, Hennepin passes a smoking ban. I didn't even know they had the constitutional power to overlay what Westover has said is clearly a local issue. Ask yourself: who is your County Commissioner? Who was the opponent in the last election? I see them on cable access from time to time, and it's D, U, double hockey sticks.

When you think about it, there are all kinds of government layers that affect you. The State, the County, the City, the School District, the Courts, and the Metropolitan Council. There are also various commissions, such as your local Planning/Zoning Commission, Parks Commissions, Watershed Commissions, and some joint powers entities such as for Cable TV regulation.

These layers work with and against each other, often with coalitions such as the League of Minnesota Cities and the North Metro Mayor's Association, and often with paid lobbyists.

How does one keep up on all this? It's tough to do, but it has me thinking of perhaps doing a separate local blog, more of a web site really, of just my city. I would of course be fair and balanced, I report you decide, completely objective, saving my rants for this blog.

Nick Coleman published another gem Sunday, about the Maxfield Magnet School’s lack of books, which is of course a direct consequence of not paying enough taxes. While it’s fun and easy to fisk Mr. Coleman yet again, his thought process is representative of liberals in general.

[When] Zelma Wiley … took over as principal a couple of years ago, there were hardly any books on the shelves of the school's 21 classrooms and not nearly enough books … in the school's library.

Apparently this school is about 1,000 books short, and has taken to soliciting private donations of books and cash. “If you don't find that situation outrageous,” says Coleman, “you are part of the problem.”

He lists the usual excuses: single-parent households, non-English-speakers, the rate of students moving in and out of this St. Paul neighborhood, and the devil herself, Cheri Pierson Yecke. But ultimately, it’s our fault for not demanding that our taxes be raised – again.

We know what happened, don't we? The poor are being punished for being poor and the politicians, instead of doing their damnedest to get things solved, are doing their damnedest to pass the buck. Highways are more important than kids.

Let’s finish with this quote from retired Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Wahl:

"The reason it happens is we don't pay taxes enough for the education of our children. And it's not just a good idea to educate them. It's a constitutional mandate. It's in the state Constitution."

You get the idea. It’s all the Republicans’ fault.

***

Let us now ask the obvious question not asked: what happened to the books they had?

Did they suddenly wear out? Were not enough replacements ordered? Were they lost? Stolen? Never turned back in? Were the funds normally set aside for books transferred to other accounts? Did other St. Paul schools take the books or their budgetary equivalent?

No matter the explanation, someone in the District Administration is responsible for this loss. Who is that? What disciplinary action has been taken to date? What actions have been taken to keep the next set of books from disappearing the same way?

Regardless, the dollars involved are negligible given the over $12,000 of per pupil spending. The money is there, and always has been. This school has 21 classrooms, yet the payroll works out to be enough to hire well over 50 full time people. Mr. Coleman’s mentions two “literacy coaches” and a “cultural specialist” in his column, and there are no doubt many other “para-professionals” roaming about. Eliminate just one position and you can buy a thousand books each and every year.

Let me rephrase that last point: buy the books before you fill that last position. No amount of additional staffing can compensate for a lack of books, not to mention desks, computers, athletic equipment, and other supplies whose budgets have also been raided.

***

Minnesota Constitution, Article XIII, Section 1: UNIFORM SYSTEM OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS. The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. The legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state.

Perhaps it is us that should file suit for non-compliance. Our current system is neither thorough nor efficient as required.

The Left is still fuming over the election, even talking of secession. After the midday euphoria of the mid-day exit polls, their world collapsed less than twelve hours later. It's understandable.

1. The Left had retaken control of the Democratic Party from Clinton/Gore.
   
2. They had the perfect candidate, a Northeastern liberal, the most liberal in the Senate, in fact.
   
3. Their candidate had Vietnam War experience, with an impressive array of medals.
   
4. Their opponent was not glib, to the point of appearing less intelligent (to them).
   
5. Their opponent was fighting an war in Iraq that many did not understand or support.
   
6. Their were still lingering effects such as job losses from the recession and 9/11.
   
7. They had unlimited cash thanks to George Soros and the 527's.
   
8. They had the silver-throated John Edwards on the ticket, who was almost as liberal as Kerry.
   
9. They had the MSM in their pocket, overly, even libelously critical of Bush, while Kerry got one free pass after another.
   
10. While seldom leading, they were almost always within the margin of error in the polls.
    
11. They had Michael Moore and a number of celebrity endorsements.
    
12. MoveOn.org and other get out the vote initiatives were functioning well.
    

They had worked hard. All the planets were aligned. George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukasis, even Al Gore were not all in vain. They weren't going to lose to this barbeque jockey this time.

And yet they lost, even worse than before, by millions of votes.

There will be recriminations for a while, but sanity will resume, starting with the removal of Terry McAuliffe. I saw Al From, founder of the Democratic Leadership Council, on a forum on C-Span. His remarks and (surprisingly) those of Donna Brazille, plus James Carville's sober reflections on election night give me hope that the Democratic Party may start finding its way back.

If you had any misgivings about gloating this week, you shouldn’t. Today’s Sunday Minneapolis Star Tribune’s “Op Ex” section has six unfavorable articles on President Bush and his 2004 campaign.

• Ad man Bill Hillsman of Wellstone and Ventura fame blamed some prominent Democrats and organizations, and then asked: “Where would the Kerry campaign and the Democratic Party have been without Howard Dean … MoveOn.org … Michael Moore … George Soros … Rock the Vote … [and] Air America?” Leaving aside whether these were all positives, a better question would be: “Where would the Democratic Party have been without John Kerry?”
  
• Professor Dan Hofrenning of St. Olaf also believes that Kerry misplayed a winning hand by stressing how he would better manage Bush’s problems without providing any overall vision of his own. This is true as far as it goes, but then assumes Mr. Kerry actually had a vision to share. Kerry said he had a plan for everything on his web site, but there was nothing there but restated platitudes. Mr. Hofrenning makes the error of seeing his candidate as he wants him to be, not what he is.
  
• Professor Garry Wills of Northwestern writes a piece that can only be described as raw bigotry, stating that religious Neanderthals had outvoted the enlightened secularists. That the Star Tribune would publish such an article is surprising even to me.
  
• Paul Krugman of the New York Times expects “more and worse scandals” from Bush’s second term, without enumerating any from his first term. But he too thinks anyone concerned about abortion and same-sex marriage is not worth chasing. We wouldn’t want to challenge the thinking and loyalty of the “tolerant” leftists in the Democratic Party.
  
• Professor Lawrence R. Jacobs of the University of Minnesota says Bush is guilty of further polarizing the country by encouraging his base. Why Kerry or any other Presidential candidate is not guilty of this he does not explain. Bush “faces nearly unified Democratic opposition, suspicions among independents, and unease within some parts of his own party.” Why Bush’s situation is any different than any previous President, again, Jacobs does not explain.
  
• Finally, Professor Steven E. Schier makes the remarkable observation that “the Bush effort could only succeed by tying the Iraq occupation to the broader war on terror.” Why else would we be in Iraq? How many times does the President have to make this point?
  

There apparently was no room for George Will, William Safire, or any other opposing viewpoints. We have every right to gloat, at least until they admit the voters just might have picked the best man for the job.

Democrats are in various states of disbelief, denial, sorrow, and anger over this election. But in the long term, the Democrats are truly better off, more so if they act on what they learned.

• Senator John Kerry will not be President. He, like Vice President Gore, has yet to demonstrate any executive skills. His administration would have soon collapsed just from his demonstrated indecision, like Jimmy Carter. But unlike the despondent Carter, an arrogant Kerry’s failures would have resulted in unreasoning fits and public outbursts. He would have been a one term President, with significant collateral damage to his party even if he didn’t seek a second term.
  
• Senator John Edwards is gone. It’s hard to fault the Democrats for choosing him for the Veep slot. He instilled genuine hope in Democrats, genuine fear in Republicans. It was a bi-partisan surprise that he turned out to be such a dud on the campaign trail. Far better to find this out now, not in 2008.
  
• Senator Tom Daschle is gone. He, too, illustrates that legislative skills don’t translate into leadership skills. Newt Gingrich is another example. The Democratic Party was not served by his blatant obstructionism and constant whining.
  
• Terry McAuliffe, Michael Moore, and George Soros: the Democratic Party can kiss these losers good-bye. They all had their chance. They all failed.
  

In other words, while the Democrats lost this round, they unloaded a lot of past and, had Kerry won, future baggage. By 2008, Michael Moore, Dan Rather, Al Franken, et al will have been forgotten. Without Al Gore, John Kerry (& wife), John Edwards, Howard Dean, Tom Daschle, Terry McAuliffe, aet al, the Democrats will be in a strong position in 2008. They need only toss one more loser overboard, another Senator and former co-President.

The Star Tribune recently came out in favor of eliminating the Electoral College system, no doubt because this would favor their liberal candidates, but let's ignore that for this post.

On the surface, getting closer to one man, one vote seems attractive and logical in a democracy. But let's look at a related change, the 17th Amendment which provided for the direct election of Senators instead of by the State Legislatures. How well has that worked?

It would be difficult to grade this any higher than a C. At a minimum, many Senate seats have been "purchased" by wealthy candidates, such as John Edwards, John Corzine, Maria Cantwell, and our own Mark Dayton. Money doesn't always work (Huffington in California, e.g.), but it's the way to bet. The average Senate race now spends over $5 million dollars. The Thune/Daschle race was about $20 million.

We also get mavericks from time to time like Paul Wellstone. With all due respect to the late Senator, there were many better qualified choices from both parties available. Wellstone was personable, but so far left that his own party often couldn't reason with him. Then we have outright morons like Patrick Leahy. I suppose it's remotely possible that our Legislature could send a Sandy Pappas to the U.S. Senate, but few Legislators would opt to look so foolish assuming they wish to be re-elected.

I therefore conclude that popular election of U.S. Senators was a mistake, and by extension, so would eliminating the Electoral College. The latter gives ultimate authority to the Legislatures, which is why the SCOTUS intervention in 2000 was as unfortunate as unnecessary.

The Constitution had it right the first time. If anything, pass the amendment proposed by Professor Judith A. Best, binding the electors to their winning candidates, and requiring the winner-take-all concept be used by all of the states.

Campaign finance reform, which was supposed to limit the role of money in elections didn't work at all. The Presidential race of 2004 spent well over twice that of 2000. I'd like to see John McCain, Russ Feingold, and for that matter, George W. Bush who signed it, summoned to the Boardroom.

"John, what happened?"

"It worked as best it could, but the 527 loophole was unexpected."

"Unexpected? It was there for all to see."

"We didn't think..."

"We agree on that. Russ, can you fix it? Can you outlaw the 527's?"

"Yes, and my staff is already working up such a bill."

"And that will do it?"

"We think so."

"I don't," says Carolyn. "The First Amendment is the biggest loophole of all."

"That's what I kinda thought, " says Bush. "When I signed it. Guess I shouldn't have."

"Carolyn's right. Today it's a 527. Tomorrow it'll be a 528, 529, whatever it takes."

"We'll get it right this time. We're checking everything," says McCain. Feingold nods.

Trump shakes his head no. "Boys, Washington DC is spending two trillion dollars a year, and that attracts a lot of flies. Somehow, some way, the money needed to tap into that is going to find its way into the process."

"That's why we need campaign finance reform," says Feingold.

"You can have that or the First Amendment," says Carolyn. "Not both."

"And by rigging the game just for the millionaires, you've made the problem worse," adds Trump. "I guess I should be happy about that. But frankly none of us should have to be here tonight in the first place. Mr. President, who would you fire?"

"Russ, though I ..."

"Senator Feingold has much of the blame, but he's doing what his party wants. John, it's you that bucked GOP tradition, crafting a bill that nobody needs and doesn't work.

"George, you shouldn't have signed it, you know that, right?"

"I do now, yes sir."

"Shouldn't I fire you?"

"Look, I could have vetoed it, but my cabinet didn't think it would really settle the argument. We didn't think the Supreme Court would go along, and their voice is the one we really needed to hear."

"So you gambled, passed the buck."

"I..."

"Skip it, I get it. John, that buck never should have got to the President's desk. A few more votes in Florida, and a President Gore signs it in a New York minute. It's one thing to oppose a measure like this, quite another for you to break ranks and openly promote it. I know you have your eyes on 2008, but this kind of judgment won't get you there."

"John, you're fired."

Wednesday's Star Tribune lead editorial says that the 2004 presidential election was "... an epic of the good, the bad and the ugly." They can't let it go.

There was quite a lot of bad and ugly, typified by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth and the Sinclair Broadcasting Group's effort to broadcast a smear as "news."

What was bad about the Swift Vets is that the MSM ignored them. What was ugly was that they kept referring to them as discredited, though nothing credible was ever published to that effect. One could say it's a little late to be bringing these old matters up. But when a candidate for President - the Commander-in-Chief - keeps going back for those same matters, trust but verify. I don't recall such outrage when Anita Hill brought her old, unsubstantiated charges against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill was a hero. The Swift Vets are bad and ugly.

By the way, what about 60 Minutes' forgery case? And the New York Times' missing explosives that never were? The ABC News memo saying it's OK to pull for Kerry?

To a lesser extent, Michael Moore was guilty of the same thing with his conspiracy theories in the film "Fahrenheit 9/11."

To a lesser extent? What the Swift Vets charged is true and well-documented. Moore's movie is a lie from front to back, and given we're at war, with troops deployed, and taking casualties, a damned lie.

In 2000, Bush campaigned as a moderately conservative Republican, then governed from much farther to the right ... [polarizing] an already divided nation. Hence tons of money poured into the anti-Bush campaign, much of it from non-traditional sources such as the independent 527 groups and wealthy contributors like George Soros.

George W. Bush wasn't a moderate? A significant number of Republicans will take issue with this, given the education bill, the Medicare drug bill, and the large deficits. But this notion that it's Bush's fault that McCain-Feingold didn't work, that the Democrats had no choice but to cheat on at least the spirit of the law, is juvenile at best.

There's a few other chuckles, and a couple of shots at the Blogosphere. But the overall context, that the Star Tribune is just watching and reporting on all this from on high won't do. Most of their coverage was good this year, but some of it was bad. Above all, they were certainly a party to some of the ugliness they decry.