About Me

Name: Ed Lilly
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Whose is the most recorded voice in history? REVEALED!!

I read a fascinating book over the weekend by Mark Frost titled The Match: The Day the Game of Golf Changed Forever.  Frost tells an amazing and true story about a 1956 best ball golf match played at Cypress Point ostensibly to "settle" the question, still unresolved at that time, whether top flight amateur golfers or professional golfers were better.  What does this have to do with the title of this post?  I'll get to that in a minute.  Here's the quick and dirty synopsis of the book:

Eddie Lowery, who started his rise to fame and fortune as Francis Ouimet's 10 year-old caddy when Ouimet won the U.S. Open in 1913, backed a team of amateurs, comprised of a young Ken Venturi and another young player named Harvie Ward.  Lowery claimed there were no two golfers in the world who could beat his team of amateurs.

George Coleman, a wealthy industrialist, avid golfer, and long-time friendly golf rival of Lowery's, made Lowery put his money where his mouth was and put up a professional duo made up of Byron Nelson and Ben Hogan.

From Frost's description of the match, there isn't a golfer alive who wouldn't record the broadcast had there been cameras on the course.  Thankfully, Frost was able to get the story from Ken Venturi (the only surviving member of the foursome) and others who were at Cypress Point that historic day, as well as friends and family of the deceased golfers.

Frost also wrote The Greatest Game Ever Played, about Ouimet's 1913 U.S. Open championship upset of Harry Vardon.  This story may not translate as well into a movie, but it was a first rate golf, human interest, and popular history story just the same.

So who has the most recorded voice in history?  This was just one of the almost throw-away pieces of information I found in the book.  For whatever reason, it stuck in my head.  Certainly the answer was someone I and probably every person over the age of 30 in this country will have heard of.  But I never would have come up with the right answer if I had been given 100 guesses.

I'll update this post with an answer, but figured I would leave it hanging out there for now to see if anyone happens to drop by and wants to take a guess, or perhaps already knows who it is.


UPDATE:  Some excellent guesses, certainly from the right time period, and the Mel Blanc guess is, in it's way, very close.  According to The Match, and from taking a quick look online I see that the Wikipedia page for this person makes the same claim, though that's certainly not an exhaustive search, the most recorded voice in history belongs to....

Bing Crosby.

Crosby started the celebrity pro-am golf tournament with his Crosby Clambake, which moved up the coast from Rancho Santa Fe to the Monterey Peninsula after WWII.  It was during dinner at Crosby's house at the start of festivities surrounding the 1956 Crosby that the wager creating the fabled match between Hogan, Nelson, Venturi and Ward was made, and during the practice rounds the next day that the fabled match took place.

I knew about Crosby's connection to his own tournament, of course, but didn't realize the depth of his  passion for golf.  He was a caddy at a young age, and was a single digit handicap, taking his tournament invitations and golf matches very seriously.  And if I knew it I had forgotten that Crosby died of a massive heart attack suffered walking off a course in Spain after finishing a round of golf.

Between his radio, film, television and recording careers, Crosby's voice is apparently the most recorded ever.  Kind of surprising.  I thought perhaps a long-time broadcaster, like Winchell, Cronkite, etc., might have the distinction.

How is Mel Blanc related?  Well, there are several Looney Tunes cartoons in which Bing makes an appearance, along with other Hollywood stars of the 30s, 40s and 50s.  Blanc did the voices for the Looney Tunes characters, though I'm not sure if he also impersonated the stars who appeared in the cartoons.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thoughts on injured soldiers on Memorial Day

Are injured soldiers returning from the war against Islamofascism getting poor medical treatment?  According to this piece at Bloomberg.com, the answer is yes:

U.S. soldiers returning from the Iraq War with physical or psychological wounds are getting poor treatment from the military and veterans' health care systems, say a majority of Americans polled by Harvard University.

The conclusion regarding the quality of treatment may be correct, but are “Americans polled by Harvard University” able to accurately and correctly make this determination?  Typically, polling is done with a random, representative sample of the population.  So I take this result with a grain of salt.

But maybe there is a subset of data involving injured soldiers that more accurately answers the question, right?  According to the story, there’s this:


People with a close family member now in the military, or who served in the past, had an even dimmer view of the quality of care offered to soldiers and veterans.

This is at least potentially helpful and informative.  Presumably those with close family members currently serving in the military, or who served in the past, may be expected to have a more in depth knowledge of the medical treatment being given to currently injured service members.  But that’s still going to consist of a lot of anecdotal evidence that should not be relied on too heavily in making a general conclusion.

So what’s going on with this story?  Looks to me like it’s a case of the media telling us that perception is reality.  And since they have already told us in prior reporting that medical treatment for wounded soldiers is poor, the survey results are largely a reflection of the success of their prior reporting in getting people to believe it.  Hence, the following:


“There is a sense that this system has failed people who are wounded in Iraq,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard professor who directs the university's program on public opinion and health and social policy. “More than six in 10 Americans believe that people are not receiving high-quality care.”

The survey follows highly publicized reports on inadequate treatment for soldiers who have suffered physical and mental injuries in the war, including a series of articles about decrepit conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington that won the Washington Post a Pulitzer Prize.


The Bloomberg story is interesting, but not entirely convincing as a measure of the quality of medical treatment being given to injured soldiers.  To the extent the American public wants to see this type of medical treatment improve, the story does have this interesting comment:

The survey also found that of the presidential candidates, Republican John McCain is viewed as most likely to improve veterans' health care.
Hmmm.  So will the Democrats start urging voters to switch allegiance and support McCain?  After all, it's for the troops!  And a lot of those injured soldiers have families.  So it's also for the children!

William Katz, at his excellent blog, Urgent Agenda, has another interesting post on a different aspect of medical care for injured soldiers
.  He cites extensively from an article posted by the AARP.  Here’s the setup:


At that moment, Cynthia became one of a growing number of parents who are, by necessity, stepping back into the role of caregiver for their children who are returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with debilitating and often long-term injuries. According to officials from three national organizations—the Wounded Warrior Project, The Military Family Network,, and the Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes— an estimated 10,000 recent veterans of these conflicts now depend on their parents for their care. Working unheralded, these parents have quit jobs, shelved retirement plans, and relocated so they can be with their injured sons and daughters. Many have become warriors themselves, fighting to make sure this new wave of injured veterans gets the medical care and rehabilitation it needs.
The portion of the article quoted by Katz goes on to note that the survival rate for injured soldiers in the ongoing fighting is very high.  Apparently there are approximately 6 deaths per 100 injured soldiers in the current conflicts, compared with 28 per 100 in Viet Nam and 38 per 100 in WW II.  Clearly, advancements in treatment of battlefield injuries has improved dramatically.  But as the article also notes, and the statistics above would indicate, the fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan have become “a war of disability, not a war of deaths.”

Sobering stuff as we pay tribute to those who serve to protect our country's freedoms.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The post in which I pretty much become Andy Rooney

Byron York has a post up at The Corner that reminded me of something that I’ve meant to post before and I don’t think I ever have.  Getting back to the intersection of language and politics, the section of Sen. Clinton’s statement quoted by York contains the following blurb:

...I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York...

Whenever I see references to “President ‘X’ has nominated Judge ‘Y’ to fill Justice ‘Z’s’ Supreme Court seat,” or some reference like Sen. Clinton’s above to “holding ‘A’s’ seat in the U.S. Senate,” I want to kick something.  I understand that there is perhaps a succession of people who may serve in the same job, but my admittedly neanderthal view of our republican democracy and the Constitutional framework is that there is no such thing as a particular person’s seat anywhere in our government.  It’s like hearing Freddie Kreuger’s metal claw dragged across a classroom blackboard for me when I see government office holders or journalists lapse into the convention of referring to a person holding someone’s seat.  Ann Landers’ old call for 50 lashes with a wet noodle is the least we should do in these cases.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

As close to a correction as we're likely to see

I suppose this is about as close as the mainstream media ever gets to apologizing for lying about a Republican presidential candidate:

Rubin says in the Huffington Post that he provided "a full question and a full answer. Nothing was left out of the question or the answer. Nothing is taken out of context."

I think it was a mistake for Rubin not to have released both portions at once. It's not that McCain's second answer totally undercuts the first, but it certainly qualifies it and provides a fuller picture. I don't think Rubin was trying to be intentionally misleading, but he gave the media only part of the story.


Of course, this comes not from the editorial board of the Washington Post, or as an official “correction” of James P. Rubin’s lies about Sen. McCain.  Instead it’s buried near the end of a media column by Howard Kurtz.

Pathetic.  Doesn’t Rubin’s own statement, still refusing to acknowledge the full context of McCain’s comments, pretty much negate Kurtz’s Pollyanna-like view that Rubin wasn’t trying to be intentionally misleading BY giving only part of the story?

I guess you don’t need to have any ability to think logically to write a column for the Washington Post.  Especially when it may mean having to reach obvious conclusions about the lack of character of political comrades.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Isn't this how Nightline started?

We have now hit Day 4 with no apology or correction from the Washington Post editors to address James P. Rubin's lies in his op-ed of May 16.

Some McCain campaign staffer should probably have a "Truth Held Hostage" ticker put on the campaign website to keep track of the Post's irresponsibility.

My guess is that if someone tried to sell this to Sen. McCain as an attack on his honor and integrity, it may actually get his attention.  Seems like that's about the only kind of unacceptable personal attack he recognizes.  But as it's coming from his beloved mainstream media and not another Republican, I can see how he's having trouble recognizing it.

Hmmm, maybe if it was pitched to McCain as "McCain's Integrity Held Hostage".....

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WaPo Fails to Apologize - Day 3

Just checked in this morning with the Washington Post to see if they have managed to stir themselves to issue an apology yet for Jamie Rubin's lies in his op-ed in last Friday's paper.  Still nothing.  Though they did manage to get one of their sports writers to correct an attribution for a quote by an NBC analyst and former jockey on whether he had ever seen a thoroughbred racehorse accelerate as fast as Big Brown did in the Preakness this weekend.  One can only imagine the volume of e-mail and telephone responses that must have poured in demanding the record be set straight.  It's probably why the tubes of the internets were so slow from the time the original story went online and it was finally corrected.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is the NFL headed toward a fall like the NBA's post-Jordan years?

The Bill Belichick / New England Patriots "Spy-aquiddick" affair involving the stealing of the opposing team's signals and play calls through the use of sideline cameras has been slowly working itself out since last fall.  There are a couple of very interesting articles up this morning on this topic.  First, Geoffrey Hunt at The American Thinker pooh-poohs Sen. Arlen Specter's attempt to get a Congressional investigation going to look more deeply into what in the world Belichick and his staff have been up to for at least the past 8 years.  I have some sympathy for his position from the standpoint of wondering whether this is really something we need to throw taxpayer money at, in much the same way I have never been much of a fan of the ongoing steroid/perjury investigation in Northern California and surrounding Barry Bonds.

But reading through Gregg Easterbrook's latest piece on ESPN.com, I think Easterbrook clearly has the better argument that something is indeed very rotten in Bill Belichick's football operations, and the NFL needs to do a lot more to address this before fan reaction and disaffection has a chance to get a lot worse.  A congressional investigation may not be the way to go, but true transparency and complete disclosure seem to be the best way to get past this episode, along with some type of truly significant penalty for Belichick and his staff.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mike & Mike, and Mike, with Predictions Sure to Go Wrong

ESPN’s Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic have a recurring called “Predictions Sure to Go Wrong.”  It is usually an amusing segment where they predict the outcomes of future sporting events, which makes sense as they host a sports radio talk show during morning drive time.

While I don’t get to listen to Mike & Mike very much anymore (for some reason the local radio station that used to be an ESPN affiliate switched format a few months ago), I was reminded of their segments when I read through Michael Goldfarb’s (hey, another Mike!) comment at The Weekly Standard’s blog on an apparent “controversy” involving former Clinton Administration official Jamie Rubin and presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain.  Rubin wrote a column in Friday’s Washington Post accusing McCain of hypocrisy and saying that McCain’s position with regard to meeting with terrorists such as Hamas is the same as presumptive Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama’s, so it’s unfair for everyone to think that only Sen. Obama and his fellow Democrats are appeasers.

In a somewhat surprising turn of events, the mainstream media actually did their jobs and corrected Rubin’s editorial lies.  Of course, the media only did so after having had the relevant facts put in front of them by Sen. McCain’s campaign.  But still, at least the truth did eventually make it out.

So where does the story go from here, if anywhere?  Here’s Goldfarb's post:


CNN Reports: Jamie Rubin Lied

Here's the transcript:


    CNN'S DANA BASH: "You remember these interviews were done shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian elections. Lou, the McCain campaign just in the past couple of hours, found a link to more of Jamie Rubin's interview from back then. In it, I'll read you a quote from the rest of or at least more of the interview, In that quote Sen. McCain says, 'I think part of the relationship will be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.' Now the McCain campaign, as you can image, says that this is proof that Senator McCain has been consistent all along, and I should tell you that CNN asked Jamie Rubin earlier today for the rest of the interview or at least for a transcript and he said he didn't have it. He said he only had this particular quote he said that was e-mailed to him."

    CNN'S LOU DOBBS: "Well that seems, certainly to, as you report, to substantiate precisely what Senator McCain is saying."


Yes, it does seem to substantiate precisely what Senator McCain is saying. Rubin initially claimed that McCain "was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government." But the full transcript shows that any business with Hamas was contingent on Hamas meeting certain conditions, i.e. renouncing violence and recognizing Israel's right to exist. This is no different than his position today.

Rubin now offers a pathetic defense of his smear at the Huffington Post, complete with the exculpatory response from McCain that engagement would depend on Hamas, not the United States. But does anyone believe that he had not seen the full transcript before writing his piece in the Post? Or that the paper's editors would have allowed him to publish this smear if they'd seen the full transcript themselves? The Post got hoodwinked, and they must be furious. It's hard to imagine they don't rebuke Rubin with a prominent correction in tomorrow's paper.


Let's focus on this last (highlighted) part.  A prominent correction in tomorrow’s paper?  Really?  Should we truly expect the Washington Post editorial board to be so outraged by Rubin’s antics that they will address it in the way Goldfarb anticipates?

Color me skeptical.  So, I figured I’d fire up the tubes of the internets and see what the Washington Post has to say in today’s (Goldfarb’s tomorrow’s) paper.

Naturally, I am as shocked, shocked as Casablanca’s Captain Renault to find that the Post has not followed through in the manner predicted by Goldfarb.  Here are today's corrections, in full:


· A listing in the May 16 Weekend section incorrectly said that a program at the Arlington Planetarium is for ages 7 and older. "Larry, Cat in Space" is for ages 2 and older. Also, admission is $3, not $2.50. For seniors and children 12 and younger, it is $2, not $1.50.

· The Working item in the May 15 Business section mischaracterized Charmaine Ruppolt's commute. She bicycles to Washington from Alexandria, not Arlington. Also, she said she skips about three weeks of bike commuting a year because of vacations and bad weather, not simply because of weather.

· The Alexandria-Arlington Community Events section on May 15 incorrectly said that the Del Ray House and Garden Tour's sponsor is Del Ray Artisans. It is Del Ray Citizens Association. Tickets for today's event are available at A Show of Hands and Del Ray Farmers Market.

· The nutritional analysis for the Honey Double Gingerbread recipe in the May 14 Food section gave an incorrect amount of fiber. It is 0 grams, not 26 grams.

· A May 13 Health-section item about chocolate and pregnancy incorrectly said researchers tested women's blood in their first and second trimesters. The tests were done in the first and third trimesters.


Pretty hard hitting factual errors, no doubt.  And I can see where it was much more important for the editors at the Post to make sure the correct ticket prices for “Larry, Cat in Space” make it to their readers.  After all, there’s only so much newspaper space and bandwidth in the world.  Tough decisions have to be made in allocating resources.

I guess it wasn't so hard to imagine not rebuking Rubin's lies after all.


UPDATE:  As of Sunday morning, it appears that the Washington Post (at least in their online edition) has still failed to issue a correction to Rubin's lies about Sen. McCain.  Good luck to Sen. McCain in his ongoing love affair with the mainstream media.

SECOND UPDATE:  Just to make sure, I sent the links to Mr. Goldfarb's and my blog posts to the corrections@washpost.com e-mail address.  I won't hold my breath waiting for the correction.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Say what you will about Obama and appeasement...

... but you have to admit that he's done what he probably intended, which is to get all of the focus at this point on an argument between himself and President Bush, who obviously isn't Mr. Popularity right now.  So Obama kicks a sitting president when he's down in order to bolster his campaign and his image as the inevitable Democrat candidate.  At the same time, he has rendered Clinton's latest primary victory completely irrelevant in terms of media coverage and sucked all the air from the Democrats' room, in a rather surprising turn of the tables on the Clintons as that was a frequent complaint about President Clinton when he tended to leave no room on the liberal side of the aisle for anyone but himself.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pork chops and applesauce, ok, but grape jelly?

There are a few slightly unusual foods in any family's repertoire.  One of my favorite breakfasts as a kid was cinnamon toast and hot cocoa.  My sister and I would dip the toast in our cocoa and devour the soggy toast.  I have no idea how that became a breakfast hit for us, and I have never met anyone else who thinks it sounds good.  My kids still won't even agree to try it.

Another odd food item that I never questioned is putting grape jelly on the top of a grilled cheese sandwich.  As my kids now know, my dad (Papa) did not like cheese as a boy.  So to get him to eat a grilled cheese sandwich, his mother (Nana) put grape jelly on the top after she grilled the sandwich.  My guess is it was some of her homemade grape jelly which all the grandchildren hoarded as one of our special Christmas gifts.  In any event, my dad learned to like grilled cheese sandwiches, and eventually cheese.  But more importantly, he passed on the tradition of putting grape jelly on top of a grilled cheese sandwich.  I was probably in college before I realized that the rest of the world didn't eat them that way.

Tonight at dinner, I grilled some pork chops that had been marinating in a sauce my lovely wife made for some kabobs that we grilled on Mother's Day.  I forgot to baste the chicken kabobs with the extra marinade, so I figured I would throw some pork chops in so it wouldn't got to waste.

Of course, grilling dinner meant having to face the now familiar complaint from our 7 year old that she HATES things that are grilled.  I'm not sure why she keeps pointing this out to me, because it hasn't changed the likelihood of whether something will be cooked on the grill, and she winds up eating it when we tell her the alternative is for her to simply be hungry and stop complaining about it.  So onto the grill went the pork chops.

Which then brought the added complaint from Miss I-Hate-Grilled-Food that she also hates pork.  And of course, that really isn't going to get her very far, as she typically is a good eater when we have things like pork roast.

Well, tonight she decided to try to hold out on eating grilled pork chops.  Admittedly, I probably overcooked them a little.  I'm funny about not wanting my pork on the medium rare side.  Flavor was good with the marinade, but the chops were a touch toward the dry side.

After our daughter finished everything else on her plate, we had to figure out an approach to getting her to eat at least some of her pork chop.  My lovely wife thought that applesauce would be perfect.  A little applesauce, a little pork chop, all in one delicious bite.  It worked well for her, as she made her way quickly through her pork, and then shared some of the applesauce with our 4 year old, who was delighted to make little pork chop and applesauce sandwiches and tell us how delicious it was.

No such luck with our daughter, who has never been a huge applesauce fan.

So what did my wife suggest?  Grape jelly.  Just dip a bite and eat it.  If you like it on a grilled cheese, it should work for a marinaded pork chop, too, she said.

Somewhat surprisingly, our daughter tried it.  Apparently the first bite tasted pretty good.  But by the second bite, she was done with that taste combination.

At that point, she asked for something a little more reliable, ketchup, and finished her pork chop, leaving her small pile of grape jelly undisturbed for the rest of the meal.

Tags: family   Food  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Newman lives! Or does he?

While sending a much overdue Mother's Day gift yesterday (sorry again, Mom!) with my daughter, I laughed out loud at a hand-written sign posted on one of the bulletin boards at our local post office.  Perhaps as part of the USPS effort to be helpful to consumers, and perhaps as part of some of the legislation relating to consumers' ability to take their names off telemarketing and mailing lists, the sign had 2 pieces of information.  On the top of the page was an address where people could send letters to have their removed from credit card solicitation mailing lists.  Probably a good thing all in all.

The bottom portion of the page provided an address where one may send a letter to have his or her name removed from "so-called junk mail" lists.

So-called?  Well, as we all know:


Well, there really is no junk-mail...well, everybody wants to get a check or a birthday card, but it takes just as much man-power to deliver it as their precious little greeting cards...
As far as I know, there has been no word on a response from Postmaster General Henry Atkins to this potential breach of protocol here in small town New Jersey.  Though someone had taken a pencil and lined through the still readable information on taking your name off the list....

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Finally a GOOD idea from Massachusetts

In the spirit of true bipartisanship, I think that were I in the Massachusetts state legislature, I would have no problem casting a vote for the plan outlined by Prof. Paul Caron at his taxprof blog (h/t Instapundit):

Massachusetts lawmakers desperate for additional revenue are eyeing the endowments of deep-pocketed private colleges to bolster the state's coffers by more than $1 billion a year, asserting that the schools' rising fortunes undercut their nonprofit status.

Legislators have asked state finance officials to study a plan that would impose a 2.5% annual assessment on colleges with endowments over $1 billion, an amount now exceeded by nine Massachusetts institutions.


Now, if only we could Barack Obama's pastor to recognize this type of scenario as a true instance of chickens coming home to roost, we'd be getting somewhere.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

There's more than corn in Indiana

Or so the catchy tune promoting my native state taught me years ago.  Turns out, it may not be only Hoosiers who take this view.  Here's a description from Rashawn Biddle of the American Spectator that I never thought I would hear applied to the place of my birth (h/t Instapundit):

"The biggest mistake by Clinton was in presuming that Indiana was like just another Rust Belt state. The reality is that it is a microcosm of the entire nation, with the almost all the same socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. In some ways, its combination of rural and urban gives it more of a resemblance to nearby Illinois or New York than Ohio or Iowa. "

Unfortunately for those who are tied up in party politics, my understanding is that President Bush's good friend Mitch Daniels hasn't exactly won the hearts and minds of Hoosier Republicans.  Not sure what, if anything, that means for the fall elections, but there it is.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Crossover voting, open primaries, and the "Limbaugh Effect": One voter's tale

My lovely wife, a lifelong Democrat, is having a tough time of it with the current primary battle.  As a conservative who has never been much for party politics, I had never participated in a primary election before this year.  When the New Jersey primary rolled around (and I have already forgotten when it was) Romney and McCain were still the main contenders for the Republican nomination.

Because New Jersey allows anyone to declare a party at the polling station, my wife requested that I vote in the Republican primary and cast a ballot for Mitt Romney.  Being a good husband, and not really having a strong objection to Romney, I agreed to vote for him.  And for what it's worth, not long after my vote was cast, Romney dropped out of the race.  My record of backing long shots continues.

Still, did my beautiful bride make this suggestion because she wanted Romney to be a nominee or the president?  No.  She's still leaning toward Clinton as her candidate of choice, but in ranking the four leading contenders at the time of the NJ primary, she put McCain as her least favorite choice.  So she wanted me to vote for Romney to prevent McCain from getting the nomination.  Thus, she sought to manipulate the other party's nomination process.

So how did my wonderful wife react to my lifelong Republican father's crossover vote for Obama in Indiana's primary yesterday?

She decided this morning that it was ethically wrong for him to have done this, and that he should let the party members decide who the nominee will be.

When I reminded her of her own impassioned plea for me to do exactly the same thing, but in the Republican primary, she of course decided that was somehow different.

"You're SO a Republican," she explained.

"No, I'm a conservative, but I'm NOT a Republican," I pointed out.

I think she realized she wasn't going to get very far trying to parse a distinction that would sway me, but it didn't make her any happier with the thought of Republicans crossing over and mucking around in the Democrat primaries.

But it's an interesting question.  Apparently my mother, also a long-time Republican voter, declined the opportunity to vote in the Democrat primary, and instead cast a ballot for Huckabee.  She presumably thought it would be wrong to vote in the other party's primary.

Clearly, my father sees it differently, and I essentially agree with him in practice.  My own reasoning is probably more cynical than his, in that I figure there's no ethics in politics anyway, so it's silly to cite a moral or ethical prohibition against such type of scheming with one's vote.  His view was a more pragmatic one, seeking to put an end to the Clinton era once and for all by supporting a candidate who at least talks the talk of trying to bring people together to solve the country's problems.  Of course, he's also enough of a realist to not have very high expectations that, should Obama actually take office, he will deliver anything near the unity and healing he has touted in the primaries.

And for what it's worth, in talking to my father this morning, he indicated that he thinks there must have been a huge crossover vote in the Democrat primary in my hometown county.  He must have read the local papers already this morning, because he cited the following general numbers to indicate his point:

2004 presidential primary:  23,000 total votes / 15,000 Republican / 8,000 Democrat
2008 presidential primary:  43,500 total votes / 16,500 Republican / 27,000 Democrat

It's hard to know how much of the increase in turnout for the Democrat race is due to young, first-time voters and just generally higher interest, and how much may be Republicans crossing over.  But the county as a whole has voted consistently Republican as far back as I can remember, so it would be hard to believe that in the last four years there has somehow been a demographic and/or political shift of such significance that it took a predominantly Republican county to an overwhelmingly Democrat one.  Should be interesting to see what the vote totals show in the general election by way of comparison.

As for my wife's concern with crossover votes?  I keep trying to tell her it's up to the parties to make the rules.  If they want to only allow party members to vote and prevent voter shenanigans, they better change the rules rather than somehow try to deny human nature.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where have you gone, Gale Sayers?

Actually, I know where Gale Sayers has gone.  Unfortunately, da Bears are still stuck with the buffoonish Cedric Benson at running back rather than a classier, more exemplary type of person such as Sayers or the late, great Walter Payton.  Why is Benson a buffoon?  Well, aside from his completely uninspiring on-field performance, we get the latest on the hard work he's been doing in the off-season to justify his multi-million dollar salary:

Chicago Bears running back Cedric Benson failed a sobriety test while operating a 30-foot boat, then resisted arrest before being hit with pepper spray and dragged ashore by officers.

If Benson were to never play another down for da Bears it would be ok by me.  Unfortunately, the brain trust at Halas Hall doesn't exactly have a great track record to fall back on in providing confidence that they understand how to put together a competitive offensive scheme and/or personnel, so the only upside to dumping Benson would be the satisfaction of ditching a bad character guy who sets a terrible example for young fans.

Guess I better enjoy this brief portion of the early baseball season while the Cubs have not yet been mathematically eliminated from winning the division.  August, and reality, will be here soon enough.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive