HOPE ON A SLIDING SCALE

OK, all the hard righties have been telling us for years that WJC and BHO were just toying with out emotions and manipulating us when they talked about "hope" as a basis for their respective theories of governance.  I kind of get that.  All the USA is supposed to offer us is the pursuit of happiness.  Whether and how we get to happiness is kind of up to us.  That's cool.  I buy into that argument.

So why is the same sappy use of "Hope" to support a theory of governance by Glenn Beck not as objectionable?  We all heard it yesterday.

Geese and Ganders, kiddies.  Geese and Ganders.

FROM GRASS ROOTS TO GRANDIOSE

Made the terrible mistake of reading my local newspaper while drinking iced tea.  Spewed when I read a quote from the local Tea Party spokesman saying it would support a candidate from either party who could 

"...meet the ideological requirements of the tea party." 

Now that's building a "big tent," isn't it?  Or maybe it's nature's way of telling you that you're a gas bag.

Get over yourselves.  What's the punch list of "ideological requirements up to now, 33?  

The Tea Party had this cool thing going where it was simply and straightforwardly against spending growth and higher taxes.  

THAT was an effective, grass roots organization. I guess now, you've gotta have the right abortion stance, immigration stance and position on Roger Clemens "misremembering" or just lying.  Next Ideological Conclave, guys, stake out a position on breast versus bottle, too.  Let's get as much ideological purity going here as possible.

"Ideological Requirements," my Aunt Fanny!

CHICAGO WHITE SOX PUT A CLAIM FOR MANNY RAMIREZ

Nothing says "do away with the DH" like a claim for Manny from an AL team after the entire NL has passed.

JAMIE, IT'S OK TO PUT YOUR NAME BACK ON YOUR VOICEMAIL NOW

Eldrick's divorced.

POLITICAL DISCOURSE: FALSE CHOICES FROM 30,000 FEET

Whether discussing foreign affairs or domestic policy the discourse on the status of the Presidency is essentially the same every where.  On the one hand, it's "Bush was an idiot.  He deviated our resources, diluted our freedoms and caused us to be viewed as a hostile by most of the world.  His was a terrible Presidency."  On the other hand "Obama's a terrible president.  He tries to do too many things at once.  He turns economic functions over to the Government.  He decides important things too slowly.  He is not attuned to the deficit and people around the world don't respect us because we're too weak."

From that menu: we're supposed to pick one.  

But maybe we have the answer sheet wrong.  Maybe the critics of both guys are right.  Maybe in the rear view mirror it'll become clear we have had two unsuccessful presidencies in a row.  Why do I have to chose.  I can be unhappy with both of them.

A LITTLE SOMETHING FOR BASEBALL STATHEADS OF A CERTAIN AGE

Seriously, can imagine anyone discussing Nolan Ryan's 'BABIP"?

YOUR PUBLIC DEFENDER AND STATE'S ATTORNEY MIGHT BE A LITTLE

distracted today,