Speed Gibson

I'm dreaming of a white Christmas. Just like the ones I used to know.

I recorded the movie "White Christmas" on the DVR, to be played later. I'll also record the classic black and white versions of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" and I have videos of "It's a Wonderful Life" and "A Christmas Story" to watch.

I also have all kinds of vintage holiday radio programs to listen to, including the great Lionel Barrymore as Scrooge. And of course, there is the too often forgotten story of the Nativity, and the message of peace on Earth, good will toward men.

Working in retail jades one a little more each year, and I'm going to try to recapture some of that this year. We live in an amazing age of audio and visual gratification. Why not take advantage of it, as a means of time travel?

I will do that, starting December 1. I agree with Bill O'Reilly. It's still Thanksgiving until then.

First, though, we need some snow. I'm not normally fond of the stuff. I hate it, actually. But that can wait until January.

If I've been negligent posting the past few days, it's because I've been working out. As you may remember, I'm losing weight with Weight Watchers since April. This is my first run through the holiday gauntlet on this program.

This is challenging because Weight Watchers is "tuned" for women and their lower caloric needs. Yes, we men lose the weight faster as a result, but at times like this we lower forms of life would be willing to slow it down a bit. To be fair, Weight Watchers understands and agrees even a plan to stay even or even gain a little is better than thoughts of suspending or quitting the program.

Worse, we have two Thanksgivings in our family, today's with my side of the family and this past Saturday's "prequel" with the wife's family. Yes, that's two big meals just 5 days apart. Oh, and we're going to the Chanhassan tomorrow night!

The only solution is extra exercise, for which Weight Watchers grants "Activity points" that add to my normal Daily and Weekly budget points. So, I've been doing the stationary bike, treadmill, even some weights and a few sit-ups. Plus, I stepped up my walking, doing over 25 miles this past week. On Saturday of course, I listened to the NARN live along the way, then listened to the rest on Sunday via my Pogo recorder.

Well, I had plenty at the first Thanksgiving. In fact, I was stuffed and had leftovers the next day, too. But at the weekly weigh-in was yesterday, I was down over five pounds. Not bad, I must say, but this is only halftime.

Today, we are hosting, meaning we are cooking, meaning we are tasting enroute to the table. "BLT's" (bites, licks, and tastes) count, too.

Well, it's about time to peel the potatoes. I'll have another update next week.

A blessed Thanksgiving to you all!

One of those inconvenient truths about global warming, such as it is, is that the primary effect is warmer nights and winters. That's a good thing, right?

Not that we're seeing much evidence one way or another this year, but the past few days and the week ahead look wonderful. I went out walking, over ten miles both Saturday and Sunday, and both days I felt I could have done twice that.

I only wish it didn't get dark so early!

The Minneapolis Star Tribune denies it, but their Editorial for instant runoff voting smacks of a dish best served cold to Peter Hutchinson. But for third parties, a number of their golden boys might well have been elected, Mike Hatch, Al Gore, maybe even Skip Humphrey.

This frustration is understandable. When the major party votes split about evenly, the third party vote can decide elections, even the Presidency. They don't decide by winning outright, however. They do it by drawing votes away from a major party, one more than the other.

Though there's nothing in our Constitutions about it, our elections have evidenced a two party system from the beginning, or more specifically, no more than two major parties. As such, the contest should be between them, not brokered by small factions.

The third (and fourth and fifth and ...) parties argue that the major parties actively limit the competition. I bought into this during my brief fling with the Libertarian Party, but I think it's systematic. If we could eliminate all political parties and their memory with a mass Vulcan mind meld, we would soon find we had two major parties once again.

If there is a problem, and I agree there is, the Star Tribune's solution isn't the solution. It's a cute way of sweeping those annoying third party votes under the rug so that the winner gets a true majority and the "mandate" that goes with that.

Rubbish. Had Pawlenty still won under this system, the Democrats would still brand him a 46% Governor as they do now. Had Hatch won under this system, the Republicans would have branded him a 45% Governor, and cried foul that the candidate with the most votes lost.

Another problem with instant runoff is that, according to the Democrats anyway, voters are already struggling with simple "pick one" voting. Butterfly, punch card, and electronic voting systems are too confusing to voters, they say, even for the vote counters apparently. Now you're going to throw multiple choice at them?

The real cure would be to hold non-partisan primaries, where the top two candidates move on to the general election. This practice is in wide use in municipal elections and nobody is having any trouble with it. Minneapolis is in fact taking a step backward in adopting instant runoff. A possible compromise would be to also pass on to the general election anyone getting, say 10 percent or within 10 percent points of second place, but even this is a negative in my opinion. Write-in's are allowed only in the Primary, moving on if they take first or second.

This could mean Democrat vs. Democrat, or Democrat vs. Green, or Republican vs. Libertarian here and there, and if they're the top two vote-getters in the Primary, more power to them. Connecticut's Senate race effective demonstrated this, with Democrat Lieberman vs. Democrat Lamont.

Another benefit is that it ends the nonsense and wasted time spent hearing minor candidates in debates and advertising. Peter Hutchinson was an exception, truly adding to the debate, but most simply got in the way.

Non-partisan primary elections, already proven, would provide simpler, fairer elections. The more complex instant runoff would only add to the dissatisfaction.

The passing of Milton Friedman has special meaning for me. His book (co-authored by his wife Rose) "Free to Choose" was the book that set my feet on the path to knowledge around 1980.

It was the depths of the Carter malaise: stagflation, high interest rates, gas lines, and hostages. I was confused by what was happening, searching for answers. I asked around, buying 3 books recommended to me, "Free to Choose" and two others:

• "Decade of Decision" by Michael Harrington


• "Restoring the American Dream" by Robert Ringer

It was quite the spread - a capitalist, a socialist, and a libertarian. I had taken a little economics in college, but I was otherwise apolitical.

I dismissed Harrington for lack of content. Each chapter would start with "as I will show" and end with "as I have shown" only he hadn't. His contention was that the large corporations set price umbrellas in the market, which didn't make much sense to me and still doesn't.

Ringer's book was a wild ride through America's heritage, but didn't really have answers beyond returning to the 19th century.

It was Milton and Rose Friedman that made sense, in part because they were great writers and could express their thoughts clearly. Socialists like to claim that theirs is the system of nuance and sophistication compared to the crudity of capitalism. The reverse is true.

Swiftee crystallized a thought I was trying to put together.

Look also for the end of any sort of accountability to accompany a blizzard of cash heading into the coffers of Education Minnesota; indeed kids stuck in the public schools may well be the biggest losers of this election.

First, State Auditor elect Rebecca Otto doesn't know if the letters on a spreadsheet go across the top or down the side. As comedian Ron White might say, she has the right to audit school districts; she just doesn't have the ability.

Second, the near veto-proof (as if that matters with Governor Pawlenty) margins in the 2007 Legislature mean that the DFL's managing general partners at Education Minnesota will get most of the surplus, both directly via the budget and indirectly through property tax relief.

And third, the DFL clearly doesn't care about results. Admittedly, the GOP has said next to nothing about Minnesota's minority test score gaps, among the widest in the nation. But the DFL has said absolutely nothing. It's worse than that, actually. Those who attempt even modest reform are shown the door, as in Yecke, Jennings, Harvey, and Peebles.

So here's an issue where the Minnesota Republicans should step up, up to and including vouchers for nonperforming schools, perhaps even incentives to the parents as well if they do their part. This means student testing, with real consequences to protect the students currently being shortchanged by social promotion and grade inflation. This means merit pay for teachers that get results, pink slips for those who do not, just as in any other profession. It means more pay for harder to find science teachers than say, third grade teachers. It means the return of discipline and consequences. This means accurate, coherent, understandable budgeting to finally show where the money is really going, what it buys, and where it might be better spent.

If we succeed, it would mean that a high school diploma is worth something again, including a warranty that the district will compensate both the student and the college if remedial work is found to be needed.

Ironically, the GOP would never have to really do any of this for at least two years since any and all of these proposals will be dismissed in committees, all closely watched and competently "lobbied" by Education Minnesota. But until the GOP regains power, it makes for great talking points toward that end.

Finally, it opens a dialog in the large cities, which the GOP must continue to do, and do ever more so. The suburbs are no longer safe, we just learned. Milwaukee has had some success in this area, and minority parents are clearly displeased with Democrat attempts to scuttle it in the courts.

The GOP is the true party of "power to the people!" I can think of no better way to demonstrate it.

The best review of the (national) 2006 elections I've found is The Return of Two-Party Rule at Reason Online. Some key quotes:

• Nowhere in exit polling did voters say they were throwing the bums out because they spent too little, refused to raise the minimum wage, or because voters were clamoring for more regulation of business, or socialized health care.


• Pelosi and company (along with most of the country's editorial boards) believe you can continue to grow government while reducing corruption -- you just need lots of McCain-Feingold-ish laws, ethics panels, and blue-ribbon “good government” commissions to keep greed and graft in check. That flies in the face of common sense, human nature, and anyone who has paid a lick of attention to politics over the last 50 years.


• The Republicans didn't lose on Tuesday night because they haven’t been governing enough like Democrats. They lost because they’ve been governing exactly like Democrats.

Amen.

As you may know, I'm an old time radio enthusiast, everything from Who's on First to War of the Worlds. Currently, my source (www.rusc.com) is featuring a long series of The Adventures of Superman. The title role is played by Bud Collyer, who went on to host "Beat the Clock" and "To Tell the Truth" on televsion in the 1950's. I always admired his precise enunciation and inflection, not to mention his remarkable ability to shift from Clark Kent's gentle tenor to Superman's forceful, resonant baritone. If you didn't know, you'd think they were played by different actors.

The long series playing now is Superman vs. The Atom Man, the latter being his most powerful foe yet. The Atom Man got that way by blood transfusions of dissolved Kryptonite, giving him atomic powers and weakening Superman if he gets too close. The Atom Man has his own identity, ex-Nazi Henry Miller. I noticed that the actor playing Atom Man was himself very talented. A little web research soon identified him as none other than Mason Adams, who played Lou Grant's boss Charlie Hume on TV. You'd know his voice immediately as I think he did every other commercial during the 1970's. "With a name like Smuckers," might be his most famous tag line. He died last year at 86.

I'm jealous of these talents. I'd rather have a good speaking voice than a great singing talent like Frank Sinatra. Oh, to be like Orson Welles, Lionel Barrymore, Jimmy Stewart, or John Houseman, all who had such unique, recognizable styles than to have a singing voice like even Frank Sinatra.

Would that our politicians had such wonderful voices. Would that we could replace the shrill monotones of Hillary Clinton and Amy Klobuchar with Joan Alexander (Della Street, Lois Lane) and Mercedes McCambridge (Defense Attorney). Or the scolding, condescending tone of Ember Reichgott-Junge with Marian Jordon (Fibber McGee's wife Molly).

Would that we could replace the pedantic, plodding styles of Charles Schummer, Al Gore, John Kerry, or the mushy mumblings of Dean Johnson and Larry Pogomiller with Gerald Mohr (Phillip Marlowe), Richard Kollmar (Boston Blackie), William Conrad (Marshall Matt Dillon), or even long time WCCO weatherman Bud Kraehling.

Former Senator Rod Grams, before that a TV reporter, illustrates how it should be done. It didn't help him get elected, but his smooth, sincere delivery at least allowed you to concentrate on his message, whether you agreed or not.

While the GOP reassesses its situation and prospects, one small but important task should be started in January when Mark Richie takes over as Minnesota's Secretary of State.

Given his record, Mr. Richie must be watched closely. He will be partisan. His policies will having seeming high purpose, but will result in increased voter fraud.

If we don't want Milwaukee-style illegal voting, Richie's policies and practices moves in this direction must be exposed and challenged, with legislative proposals if necessary.

Granted, the DFL (the leadership at least) that profits so disproportionately from this will smile and yawn, but I have to believe that stories of dead people voting will draw reaction and rebuke.

I see lot of discussion about the "get out the vote" effort. Some say we (the GOP) didn't get the job done. Some say we did it to the point of being annoying. One pundit dryly observed that we got Republicans to the polls only to watch them vote Democrat.

Is that the strategy? Run some fuzzy feel good ads about yourself, a few hit pieces on your opponent, then just push people to the polls? We left out a step: giving the voters a reason to vote for us. We didn't do that this time, at least not for those unhappy about Iraq despite the many speeches by the President.

Yes, we got tax cuts and economic growth. But we also got Medicare Part D, earmarks, a Bridge to Nowhere, and sadly, billions wasted in Katrina relief.

Yes, we got two great justices on the Supreme Court. But we also got several more scuttled by the gang of 14 thanks to mavericks John McCain and Arlen Spector

Yes, we haven't been attacked, but we've had Abu Ghraib, the 9/11 commission, and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

For every one good thing, it seems we had several bad things happen, and an unfriendly press ready to emphasize the latter. And it all flows from drifting away from core principles (conservatism) and taking your base for granted, thinking they had nowhere else to go.

Our own Governor didn't help matters, either, especially when he told us we were the ones who didn't understand why he repeatedly left the reservation. Ironically, he was the sole survivor among the statewide offices thanks to Mike Hatch's late meltdown. Even his once forgotten prospects for VP were resurrected.

Honor your base, stay true to your conservative roots, and voters will respond without all those phone calls, especially if the Democrats overplay their hand.

The sun rose yesterday morning on what promised to be a beautiful day, as it was. So after reading the newspapers, I unplugged the rest of the day. I was tired from staying up the night before, so I went to bed rather early, after watching "Dancing with the Stars" of course!

The sun will soon be rising again this morning on what should be another classic Indian summer day. Hopefully I can get out for a walk this afternoon.

It's time to plug in again, so I'll begin listening to the transcribed post mortems of Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Hugh Hewitt, Jason Lewis, Joe Soucheray, Michael Medved, Bill Bennett, and Dennis Prager from yesterday.

Catching up on the blogs this morning, I expected Götterdämmerung but found most surprisingly upbeat. Nobody is confused as to why we lost, and lost big. Maybe there were exceptions like our U.S. Senate race, where the media took such a strong hand. But even here, I suspect they merely turned a small loss into a big loss.

It's like weighing in at Weight Watchers each week. Often, you worry about what the scale will say. Sometimes, you don't like what it does say. But at least you know where you stand. You make your plans and adjustments accordingly, and look forward to the next weigh-in.

Of all the losses we suffered last night, the most undeserved was that of Mary Kiffmeyer, our Secretary of State. It really calls into question whether voters should even be trusted with such decisions. All the fine work she and her predecessor Joan Growe did is now at risk. Increases in voter fraud are now almost certain to happen under winner Mark Richie.

Another casualty was State Auditor Pat Anderson. No doubt public pension fund trustees, Education Minnesota, and The League of Minnesota Cities can rest a little easier with Rebecca Otto in charge. Last I saw, she couldn't even read a spreadsheet, let alone prepare one.

It's too soon to say how the Attorney General's office will fare under Lori Swanson. Maybe she can do a good job and make at least some of the needed reforms identified by challenger Jeff Johnson now that Mike Hatch's political career is finally over.

Taken together, though, maybe it's time to consider a Constitutional Amendment to make these jobs appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The job of Auditor probably should just be incorporated within the Department of Finance, much as we did the old Treasurer position.

In Kennedy vs The Machine, the Machine won. Amy Klobuchar will be our junior U.S. Senator. But it's not all bad news.

• Since she is replacing "her hero" Mark Dayton, she really won't change anything.


• We will finally learn what Amy Klobuchar really stands for.


• The Northern Alliance will be blessed with considerable program material for many Saturday's to come.


• Amy Klobuchar will no longer be Hennepin County Attorney.


• Since Klobuchar is now the most popular Senator since Hubert Humphrey, maybe the last of those Wellstone! lawn signs and bumper stickers will disappear.

We must concede that Klobuchar ran a smart campaign, carefully avoiding issues, debates, specifics and controversy while the Machine trashed Kennedy. I hope she realizes that the bill for the latter will soon come due.

I'm sitting on my couch, laptop in my lap, listening to the Patriot and WCCO on my ccRadio, and watching TV results on Fox, CNN, KSTP-TV, and Channel 12 (our award winning local cable news channel).

On the latter, I'm pleased to report that Tim Willson will be our new mayor here in Brooklyn Center, and that incumbent Councilmember Diane Niesen will be leaving. Mark Yelich and Dan Ryan will be our two new Councilmembers. With Willson and incumbent Kay Lasman (not on the ballot this year), the Council will be able to stop arguing minutia and get on with what's important.

Let me therefore also call your attention to the hard work and great public service of departing Councilmember and runner up in the Mayoral race, Kathleen Carmody. I hope she will consider rejoining the Council once again in 2008.

A number of bloggers are publishing summaries of their preferences. Here are mine, several of which I have detailed in earlier posts.

• Mark Kennedy (R) for U. S. Senate. Much more experienced, sees the world as it is, unlike his opponent.


• Jim Ramstad (R) for U. S. Representative, District 3. Running unopposed in any real sense.


• Peter Hutchinson (I) for Governor. If we must elect a liberal, I prefer civility and clarity.


• Steve Arakawa (R) for Minnesota Senate 46. The incumbent is just collecting a check, shown some poor judgement. It's time for a change.


• Debra Hillstrom (D) for Minnesota House 46B. Understands her district, merits at least one more term.


• Mary Kiffmeyer (R) for Secretary of State, probably the best in my lifetime.


• Patricia Anderson (R) for State Auditor, again probably the best in my lifetime.


• Jeff Johnson (R) for Attorney General. He will refocus the office on its primary duty, which is not consumer protection.


• NO on the "Transportation" Constitutional Amendment. It's bad law, bad policy, unnecessary, and ultimately a tax increase.


• None of the Above for Hennepin County Commissioner, District 1. The incumbent thinks he's much smarter than the people he represents. His opponent is an anarchist.


• Rich Stanek for Hennepin County Sheriff, the right man for the times, despite the Strib endorsement.


• Mike Freeman (D) for Hennepin County Attorney. He knows the job and the turf. It's the wrong year to gamble on a visionary.


• No idea on Soil and Water District Supervisors. And who are all these people filing for these jobs?


• Tim Willson (D) for Mayor of Brooklyn Center, the one best qualified to "refocus" the City Council on what's important.


• Mark Yelich, Dan Ryan for Brooklyn Center City Council, qualified, needed fresh blood to replace an incumbent that just doesn't understand city government.


• Incumbents rule on the back page, the judicial candidates.

I am voting for Peter Hutchinson for Governor, admittedly a protest vote, admittedly by a process of elimination.

First, I excluded the statistically invisible candidacies of Davis (American Party) and Brown (Quit Raising Taxes party). The Green Party's candidate Ken Pentel will get a few thousand votes, but his positions are at best poorly reasoned from many a flawed premise. That leaves incumbent Tim Pawlenty (GOP), his major party opponent Mike Hatch (DFL), and third party candidate Peter Hutchinson.

Mike Hatch is unacceptable on many fronts, including those that surfaced again this past week. His candidacy is borne of ambition, even obsession at times, not of any great urge to work for a better Minnesota. So while I actually agree with a few of his stated positions, his approach will always be to dictate and then argue, not suggest and then build consensus.

Whatever the shortcomings I expect of a Hatch administration for Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty is not the answer. I say this not because he isn't conservative enough, but because I ultimately have no idea what the man truly stands for.

Yes, Tim Pawlenty's record has been the most conservative, well, that I can remember. But let's be more specific here. The Tim Pawlenty of 2003/2004 had his hands largely tied by "mega-honkin'" budget deficit. And he did a great job, no question, in dealing with it. But the Tim Pawlenty of 2005/2006, more cautious with DFL gains in the Legislature and with a little extra money rattling in the coffers was markedly different, talking glibly of the need for "fun stuff" in the budget. And when the extra money proved insufficient in liberal eyes, he quickly blinked and proposed raising taxes to garner still more money.

Now substitute Roger Moe, whom Pawlenty defeated in 2002. Moe wouldn't and couldn't have done much differently in responding to the Ventura deficit in 2003. The priorities would have shifted some money, but the large GOP margin in the House would have effectively blocked anything but perhaps a small tax increase. In 2005, yes, he would have raised spending, probably a little higher than Pawlenty. But an increase in income taxes would still have been a tough sell; even some Democrats said as much. Financially, at least, I think we'd be in about the same position with Roger Moe as Governor.

Now Moe would probably not have signed the Conceal Carry bill nor some other legislation. Pawlenty was therefore still the better choice in 2002, given the promises Pawlenty made to secure the GOP nomination and the results obtained. But now it's 2006, and we must acknowledge that Tim Pawlenty broke several of those promises, chief among them to not raise taxes.

I'm not talking about that DFL BS about Pawlenty raising property taxes. And forget about the fee increases; those would have occured under any administration. No, Pawlenty has raised taxes significantly on tobacco users, a claim he adolescently denies to this day.

He also signed the Twins stadium bill, a clear case of taxation without representation. He said he did this reluctantly lest we lose the Twins (uh, we don't know that!), but had no reluctance in donning a Twins jersey as he signed the bill before a cheering Metrodome crowd.

The Racino proposal that bordered on extortion was all about raising revenues, too. Oh, but it was just on a small segment of the population, one that supposedly wasn't paying its fair share, only they were per law and treaty. But paraphrasing Donne, each man's tax increases my own, literally and figuratively. As with the smokers, sooner or later tax increasers find their way to your door.

Ethanol is more than just policy. With subsidies and prohibition of non-ethanol blends, it is effectively a tax as well. The hard truth is that we would be paying less for gasoline and be less dependent on foreign oil if these subsidies and mandates were abolished. Pawlenty is a smart educated fellow. He knows this. He should fold, yet he's not just calling, he's raising the bet to 20 percent ethanol, seemingly unaware of the limits that both Hatch and Hutchinson discussed in Friday's "Almanac" debate.

Many of us grudgingly admire Democrats for being more consistent, having certain tenets that are virtually non-negotiable like abortion and K-12 spending increases. We wish Republicans would at least honor what is should be their prime directive: holding the line on taxes.

Lacking this quality, and in view of several other unforced errors like Canadian drug imports and free college tuition for the top high school students, the real Tim Pawlenty doesn't seem very conservative at all. I dropped a hint that I see nothing but liberals on the ballot. Said another way, I cannot conceive of a bill that under the right political circumstances that Pawlenty won't sign.

Short of writing in Learned Foot, that leaves me with Peter Hutchinson. I am under no delusion here. I've even read his "The Price of Government" book (co-written with David Osborne). Peter Hutchinson is a liberal, one who claims that liberal policies can be competently administered. He does at least acknowledge that there are diminishing returns with larger government. He argues that government would work better doing fewer important things well than everything as time and budgets permit.

Hutchinson's management and related experience could be helpful, too, especially when dealing with the likes of Senate Majority Liar Dean Johnson. But further analysis is pointless, as Hutchinson clearly isn't going to get the chance to govern.

Chad the Elder says we'll never get a perfect conservative in a Governor, that Pawlenty is about as close as we'll likely ever get. I contend that while Pawlenty's early record was conservative, his later record and current campaign are much less convincing. In Pawlenty I see a man who likes spending and regulating as much as the next candidate, just on different programs. I argue that as long as we keep electing Pawlenty's, we never will do any better.

That all said, I expect Pawlenty will win narrowly. I truly hope he does as opposed to Hatch, but he will have to do it without my vote.

I like Michele Bachmann. I like her politics. If I lived in the Sixth District, I'd vote for her. But frankly, I'm a bit sick of her right now.

Could I just listen to one show without her as a guest or a caller? I heard her every two hours on the Patriot yesterday, though maybe the "Final Word" segment escaped. (I only heard their first hour so far.)

I know Bachmann outworks anyone in politics. And despite the encouraging polls, yes, she's in a dogfight with what might be the sleaziest campaign I can recall, that of Patty Wetterling. But maybe even the Patriot has to set some rules.

In fact, I think the Patriot went over the "good radio" line in general yesterday. It was a pretty obvious Republican get out the vote effort all day long, and it got as tedious as the wall-stripping I was doing at the time.

I normally would argue it was too one-sided as well, but not in this extraordinary year of appallingly obvious DFL support and bias by the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Besides, DFL candidates refuse to appear anyway. Only the old Patrick Campion show "Patriot Insider" seemed to have any consistent success booking liberal candidates. Maybe they're still smarting from those appearances, and won't go near the Patriot now.

I will be especially thankful this Thanksgiving to have this particular Election cycle finally over.

I recorded the Poli-Chicks this morning, curious to hear what they might have to say about the E-85 / Mike Hatch meltdown, maybe even Kerry's Freudian slip. Maybe I whizzed through it too quickly, but I didn't hear anything on Kerry. The E-85 slip got less than five minutes late in the third hour. The Hatch blowup? They generously allowed one call, the very last one.

Here it is, the last weekend before the election, and the Poli-Chicks are babbling about laryngitis, the Saddam verdict, the death penalty, maybe a little on the Transportation Amendment and the latest Minnesota Poll. You never would have guessed there was an election on Tuesday.

I don't get it. Here is the once mighty KSTP, now just Soucheray and Friends, letting another show slip away. In fact, to advertise this show as "Poli-Chicks" borders on dishonest, certainly this week anyway. Does this show not have a producer, someone to focus the talent on what the listeners want discussed? It would seem not.

Or maybe legendary hack Stan Hubbard decided to play it safe, fearing a lawsuit should Mike Hatch lose. In any case, anything short of Michael Savage or informercials beats this show.

I'm willing to forgive Judy Dutcher for apparently not knowing what E-85 is. I'd like to forget about it, too. Maybe she froze, maybe she actually doesn't know about it. Either way, a little humorous candor would have solved the problem.

But even experienced Hatch watchers have to be astounded as to how poorly he played it, when he really didn't even need to play it at all. Lashing out at Stan Hubbard as a "hack" and prattling that "I know more about Ethanol that you do!" showed voters like no GOP attack ad could just how nasty and petty Hatch can be.

I'm still leaning toward Peter Hutchinson, but Hatch is making this tough not to retreat back to Pawlenty.

Pat Kessler (WCCO), Tom Hauser (KSTP), and others do "fact checking" of political ads, giving out grades. I find they're being more than generous, and I've yet to see a failing grade. And what are consequences? Much less than in real life, especially for Democrats.

Grade   Terrorist Republican    Boss        Spouse       Democrat



  A     Spared    Pollyanna     (expected)  (love!)      Positive



  B     Beheaded  Misleading    Verbal      The Look     Forceful



  C     Beheaded  Deceptive     Warning     Counseling   Tsk tsk    



  D     Beheaded  Swiftboating  Fired       Separation   Misspoken



  F     Beheaded  Creepy Liar!  Sued        Divorce      Troubling