The Friday night of the release is like the Tuesday night of an election. “Exit polls”are taken of people leaving the theater, and estimated box office numbers start leaking out in the afternoon, like early ballot returns. You are glued to your computer, clicking wildly over websites, chatting nonstop with peers, and calling anyone and everyone to find out what they’ve heard. Have any numbers come back yet? That’s when your stomach starts to drop.

Check out the full post here.

That may sound familiar.  In 2008, with their own nomination pretty much decided, some Republicans went to the polls in late primary states intending to affect the Democratic ballot.  In Texas, a vote for then-candidate Obama was a way to put the final nail in the coffin for the Clinton Era.  In Virginia, some Republicans insisted on voting for Obama to encourage the Democrats to nominate an inexperienced, first-term Senator as their nominee.

Whether as part of an “Anybody But Hillary” movement or whether they believed that Obama was the weaker candidate, would those Republicans vote the same way if they could go for a spin in Doc Brown’s DeLorean?   If they had a hot tub time machine, do you think the 2007 Patriots would have rooted a bit harder for the talented-on-paper Packers or the Cowboys to come out of the NFC for Superbowl 42?

Similarly, Team Obama may think Rick Perry, with his low poll numbers and early campaign missteps, would be a more attractive opponent in November 2012.  It certainly looks like that match up would favor the President prohibitively – and the President looks good up against any of the other GOP hopefuls, too.  It isn’t even November of 2011 yet, though – and a year is a long time.

In a related story, Google revealed that the US government asks the search company for more user data than any other government on the planet.  In fact, there were more requests for Google data than there were wiretaps on phones last year.

While Google may look skeptically on the government requests for information, the HHS program sounds like something out of Google labs – aggregating data about users of the health care system to ensure better future outcomes.  Just as Google has multiple touch points where it meets its users (search, YouTube, Android, Gmail, etc.), so does the government.  What if they started connecting the dots?  We send tax returns in each year, so the IRS knows how much we make, where we live, whether we own or rent, what we do for a living.  On a state level, readily available voter registration data tells them how often we vote and may even give them a good idea how we would vote, based on primary voting history.  That doesn’t even get into people who participate in federal programs for medical help, student loans, social security, or public assistance.  And it doesn’t take into account the possibility of government looking elsewhere for data.  Today it’s Google, but a host of other companies are out there looking at what you but, what magazines you subscribe to, how often you gas up your car, and what TV shows you watch.

Eventually, other government agencies could follow the same model as HHS, expanding their data points on each citizen.  That’s when it could get really interesting, especially if some enterprising staffer in some agency realizes all the information that’s pouring in.  Imagine if the roadblocks between executive agencies came down, all the data was in one big pile?  The administration could be an even more voracious consumer of data, and use if to create detailed analyses of national trends, attitudes, and issues.  Here’s a video representation of how this might look:

A campaign or company wouldn’t use available data to recruit new customers or make life better for existing ones.  When I go to Amazon or Best Buy’s website, they look at what I’ve bought in the past and make recommendations; it’s simply good business.  An executive agency, which is supposed to strive for efficiency, would pick up on this trend as a way to streamline government services.  The difference, though, is that if you’re creeped out, you can always shop somewhere else.

Here’s what my white board looks like this week:

1. Barack Obama. Dean Wormer: Dead! Niedermeyer: Dead! Gaddafi: Dead! The President looked Presidential this week, and American Crossroads polling indicated his “tax the rich” rhetoric has a chance to resonate.

2. Mitt Romney. The sheen of inevitability was nicked in the last debate, but Romney continues to line up endorsements.

3. Rick Perry. The signs of life Perry showed in the Nevada debate should re-energize supporters, donors, and the rest of the campaign infrastructure for a short time. His points on domestic energy development, which he has been bringing up in debates consistently, give him a positive issue to run on that no other serious candidate is talking about.

4. Herman Cain. Cain is driving the Republican discussion with his 9-9-9 plan. The row over his pro-life beliefs won’t be a deal-breaker because there is no meat to it, but may be indicative of a more serious problem with message discipline. His ability to do the blocking and tackling it takes to build an election-winning organization is still suspect. Still the front-runner for the Vice President slot on the GOP ticket.

5. Ron Paul. Paul is still the life of the party. The troop withdrawal in Iraq will give him another chance to tell the rest of the party he told them so.

6. Michelle Bachmann. Her staff in New Hampshire wasn’t all that important, anyway. Iowa is Bachmann’s make-or-break playing field.

7. Chris Christie. Despite denials and endorsements to the contrary, still more likely to be President in 2013 than the last two people on this list. On the outside chance that Romney and Perry wind up in a brokered convention stalemate in August 2012, Christie looks like an obvious choice to unite the party. Sure, it’s a long shot, but still more likely than…

8. Rick Santorum. Santorum looked shrill and childish going after Romney in the Nevada debate, but he made his points. He could wind up as the kamikaze of the debate season.

9. John Huntsman. Still waiting for his mojo. His candidacy is tough to define, though his shots at Herman Cain in the previous debate were witty and clever.

Here’s the story, which notes – buried on the second page – that a fellow in a Boston Bruins sweater was also a part of the party that found and killed the dictator.

It’s possible the candidates are waiting to amass more funds to pay for more-expensive airtime. Or, they could be engaged in an informal standoff for who will try to rule the airwaves.

On the other hand, web ads are a smart move. They are relatively cheaper to make and broadcast and naturally appeal to younger, web-savvy voters — traditionally a weak spot for Republicans.

After the criticism he took in last night’s debate, though, a web-focused strategy makes perfect sense for Mitt Romney.  The video which spawned last week’s round of coverage chided the Obama Administration on trade and intellectual property rights, which isn’t exactly a front-page-news-making issue.  It does, however, speak to some key audiences.  It’s one thing to say you appeal to philosophical conservatives who view government as an instrument to protect citizens’ rights and voters whose views align with business and commerce; but Romney’s ad deals brings up a niche issue that demonstrates an understanding of these voters’ motivations and concerns.

These are also the types of voters who are probably still deciding whether or not a Romney Presidency would be better enough than an Obama Presidency to be excited about a Romney candidacy.  Despite the fireworks of last night’s debate and this morning’s conventional wisdom that the other candidates put him on the defensive, Romney still carries the mantle of inevitability as the 2012 Republican nominee.  He still has plenty of people to convince to avoid being an also-ran in the same category as former inevitable nominees Bob Dole and John McCain.  He won’t be able to explain away his Massachusetts health plan, but online video gives him a medium to show conservatives he understands other issues.

The White House launched We the People last month as a way to provide commoners like you and me a “direct line to the White House on issues and concerns that matter most” to us.  So far, a petition to legalize pot is the top performer, according to The Hill.  The call for decriminalization has attracted over 50,000 signatures.  It also illustrates nicely why the site is such a waste of time for serious advocacy campaigns:

[National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws Executive Director Allen] St. Pierre said online petitions help spread the word and generate supporters who can call and write Congress, but they have not translated into the real-world pressure — and money — needed for his side to win.

St. Pierre is right: online petition campaigns are an excellent way to find and recruit audience.  So how many supporters did this online petition generate?

None.

To sign the petition, site visitors had to create an account on WhiteHouse.gov.  That means that the White House has their contact information (along with whatever issues are important to them) but NORML gets nothing.  Had NORML hosted the petition on their own site, they might have been able to collect signers’ contact information and email address, which would have allowed them to go back to those folks later with calls to action – such as calling or writing Congress.

At least NORML got some good press out of it, which could indirectly recruit grassroots support.  But if NORML – or any other issue advocacy group – wants to generate real impact, pointing people to the White House’s petition platform isn’t going to work.

Online petitions can recruit and mobilize supporters, but they’re better as a starting point, rather than a finish line.  Since We the People doesn’t allow for the next steps, NORML’s apparent success is actually a wasted effort.

Cross-posted on PunditLeague.us.

A few years back, I turned 30, and took the opportunity to look back on the lessons I’d learned in three decades of life. In 45 days of being a Dad, I’ve learned even more:

1. There’s no such thing as normal.
2. If you want God to laugh, tell Him your plans.
3. There is no equality among the sexes. Women are far superior.
4. Guardian angels are not only real, but apparently transferable.
5. You may think you know what’s going on. But you have no idea. Just do your best, hustle, take care of your family the best way you can, and things have a way of working out.
6. Sleep is less necessary than you would think, and underrated.
7. Moms are incredibly strong. Dads just pretend to be, but they a really softies.  (That includes Granddads.)
8. It is surprisingly easy to fall asleep in a chair, even if the chair isn’t all that comfortable.
9. All that complaining pregnant women do about babies kicking in the womb? It’s legit. Babies’ legs are strong, and they kick with fury.
10. If you are up all night, the best options for TV viewing are old sitcoms or cartoons. Movies make you think too much.
11. The occasional McDonald’s run can do wonders for morale.
12. There is no such thing as a small milestone.
13. Mom can make everything better.
14. One look from your kid and or kids will completely reorient your to do list.
15. For being so small and fragile, babies are surprisingly tough.
16. Personalities traits start earlier than you think. Sometimes, they are prenatal.
17. Songs that you would normally not like can become favorites if they happen to come on the radio at the right time to remind you of your children.
18. There’s always plenty of work waiting for you at work, so don’t try to get it all done at once.
19. Remember the way you feel when you change that first diaper. You’ll be excited, and think it isn’t so bad. That wears off quickly.
20. People tend to have lots of questions about your kids. And a lot of times, it is fun to answer those questions.
21. Although it is good to learn from and study others, the most important role models are Mom and Dad.
22. Sometimes doing what’s right for your kids requires small sacrifice on your part – not something that’s big like not getting a new car or staying in more than you go out, but something small like not holding them when you’re sick.  These small sacrifices are hard to prepare for and are tougher than one might think.
23. Life is a lot like playing the infield. You won’t field every situation cleanly all the time, so just try to keep it in front of you.
24. When dealing with doctors and nurses, there are no stupid questions.
25. A Dad can do a lot for his kids by maintaining his love affair with their Mom. Being a good Dad starts with being a good husband.
26. Hospital food isn’t bad if you order the right stuff and you are ravenously hungry.
27. The seconds between the moment you first see your child and when you hear her cry feel like years.
28. No matter how big they get, you will always see your children in the most helpless vulnerable state they were in as a newborn.
29. Mobile phones and social networks are there for your convenience in communicating with others. You don’t always have to pick up, and in fact sometimes you shouldn’t.
30. It’s tough to read out loud and make a story sound interesting.
31. “A man who doesn’t spend time with his family can never be a real man.” – Marlon Brando in The Godfather.
32. The Beatles were full of crap. In addition to love you need patience, humility, faith, and occasionally a short memory.
33. Being a Dad isn’t about having all the answers all the time. Sometimes, it’s all about looking like you have all the answers.
34. There is nothing wrong with taking candy from a baby, as long as it’s your baby. They can’t eat it, anyway.
35. Sometimes it isn’t what you do, but how you do it that counts.
36. Trust your gut.
37. Get ready to never be ready.
38. Time does funny things when there’s a baby in your arms. An hour goes by in a minute.
39. When you say prayers for your kids, all you can really ask for is the strength and wisdom to be the best parent possible. But really, what more could you want?
40. It really does take a village to raise a child. Remember to thank the villagers who help you out.
41. There’s always something to worry about.
42. Don’t get so distracted by where you would like to be that you forget to appreciate where you have gotten to.
43. Keep laughing, no matter what.
44. At times, life happens the way it’s going to happen, and you can’t get overwhelmed or excited. Just enjoy the toboggan ride.
45. When you’re faced with a day that’s gray and lonely, the sun really will come out tomorrow.

This focus on calling out injustice — pointedly, heatedly, sometimes angrily — is what the people of King’s time, friend and foe alike, heard. It made many moderates (and so-called moderates) decidedly uncomfortable.

Anyone tempted to sanitize King into a go-along sort of guy should read his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” from April 1963. It’s a sharp rebuke to a group of white ministers who criticized him as an outsider causing trouble and wanted him to back off his militancy…  And recall King’s response to being accused of extremism. Though “initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist,” he wrote, “as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label.” Jesus, he said, was called “an extremist for love,” and Amos “an extremist for justice.” The issue was: “Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?”

For a shorter version of that last quote, thumb over to Barry Goldwater‘s page in Bartlett’s: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

In fact, Dionne’s characterization of King invites comparison to the coverage of the movement for smaller government.  (To his credit, Dionne has shown he recognizes this parallel to a degree; he’s one of the few left-leaning columnists able to discern the tea party from Republican politics.)

It deserves mentioning that there are plenty of differences: Tea party rallies aren’t being broken up with fire hoses, rubber (or real) bullets, tear gas, or the releasing of any hounds.  King and his allies risked life and limb to make a stand for their big idea.

But they did have that big idea, and believed in it so much that compromise was unacceptable.  People were either equal, or they weren’t; they were either allowed to attend the same schools and drink from the same water fountains, or they weren’t.

With that in mind, let’s look at our policy landscape here in 2011.  There’s a snowballing debt thanks to a governing culture that allows government to spend lavishly to help build a society and direct an economy.  The debt puts at risk the stability of our currency and by extension things like houses and other long-term investments.  More important, the services financed by that debt are generally sub-par and fail to accomplish intended goals.

Either that governing culture changes – reigning in spending, allowing people to make their own decisions about health care and retirement, and eliminating waste – or it doesn’t.

The casualties of this movement include moderate and Washington-centric politicians – such as Mike Castle and Bob Bennett in 2010.  It makes “moderates and so-called moderates” (to borrow Dionne’s term) like Sen. Orrin Hatch uncomfortable.

But if you believe strongly that the government was biting off more than it could chew to deliver failing policies, and that the promises of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and other public assistance programs are a bad check which will be sent back marked “insufficient funds,” you should be fighting.  And supposed allies who favor a “wait-and-see” approach while continuing to conduct the business of government the same way it has been conducted for 80 years aren’t really allies.

That isn’t “extremism,” it’s political advocacy – and as observers from King to Dionne have understood, it’s how policy making works.

Who was behind it? The anti-American crowd?  The Marxists?   The hippies?  The greens?  Cornel West?

Try the Mennonites:  Goshen College in Indiana, the school which banned the tune, is a Mennonite school with the motto “Healing the World, Peace by Peace.”  The rockets’ red glare and bombs bursting in air are too violent.

The anthem is being replaced at Goshen sporting events by “America the Beautiful,” so we can assume this isn’t really a commentary on the nation we all call home being a haven for imperialist capitalist pigs.  Part of what makes America beautiful is that each person has the right to express their patriotism as they see fit.  If the students and administrators at Goshen don’t want to play the national anthem before their Division 8 field hockey games, that’s fine.  Those of us who have never donated to or attended Goshen have no right to tell them otherwise.

On the other hand, as an educational institution, so one would hope Goshen’s choice is educated.  And the idea that the anthem is a violent song is a bit misguided.

Of course, the “Star-Spangled Banner” does use military imagery, because it was famously written during the War of 1812 as a poem by Francis Scott Key – specifically, during the bombardment of Baltimore.  That was a fight that was brought to American shores by then-mortal foe England; we were on defense for that one.

Though set during a battle scene, the theme of the poem – especially the part used for the national anthem – is perseverance through difficulty.  Turbulence and war may come, Key writes (much more eloquently), but American ideals of freedom and peace endure.

Delve a little further into the story behind the poem, and it becomes even more apparent that it is hardly a call to arms.  Remember that Key saw the flag over Fort McHenry from a British ship; he was aboard on a peaceful mission to argue for the release of a popular Maryland doctor.  To make his case, Key presented letters from British soldiers lauding the care they received from American doctors (and this was before the current mess that passes for a British health care system).  The British acquiesced, but held Key and the doctor on the prison ship because the bombing of Baltimore was about to begin; they didn’t want to release a prisoner only to blow them up minutes later.  In the midst of war, both Key and the British officers demonstrated some level of civility and mutual respect.

The fact most worth noting is that the folks America was fighting in the background of Key’s poem, the British, are our closest allies today.  Despite fighting two wars within  30 years, Americans and Britons are fast friends.  (Heck, we can’t even launch a television show without swiping the concept from them, and they have, what, four channels?)

So in an educated historical context, the “Star Spangled Banner” is a song about perseverance through adversity and, after your business on the battlefield is over, making peace with your enemies.

Hey, that sounds like a pretty good song to play before an amateur sporting contest.

Cross-posted at PunditLeague.us.