Surprise!

Here is a big surprise.  Both parties and their talking heads have trouble wrapping their arguments simply around plain and simple fact.  Distortion abounds from the right and the left, and neither has any right to claim the moral high ground.

I am myself presently in a personal "political" turmoil.  I really don't know what to do with the Presidential race.  For one to switch horses is a serious decision.  The one you have now may not make you happy, but there is no guaranty a new one is going to meet your needs.

I am not convinced either candidate for the office in the White House has it.

What sets me off sometimes though is the holier than thou attitude by both sides!

What gets me going is when something is done that is simply plain wrong.  The "wrong" may be in my opinion only, but I would like to think more often than not it is a bi-partisan opinion.

Because you believe in something does not mean that I, or anyone else, must also so believe.  It doesn't make anyone dumb, stupid ignorant or per se evil.  The saints in this world are saints because of the (D) or (R) after their name.  For every lousy politician in one party, it isn't hard to find his or her counterpart in the other.

I encourage all of you to check into all the statements made, all the ads.  A great resource for this is FactCheck.  The Washington Post also does a pretty good job with it.

The other races, those are pretty easy for me.  With the primary over, I will be voting for Keating in the Congressional race.  All past comments aside, measuring him up against which ever Republican is declared winner in the very close GOP primary, I feel he is the best person for the job.  It doesn't mean I will agree with his positions on some things.  It means what it says.

The Senate race, well there is no secret there.  Sen. Brown will get my vote for re-election. Not because he is a Republican, but because in my opinion, based on the two candidates in the race, based upon the fact that he has in my mind, and it may only be in my mind, a substantial record for voting across party lines, the Senator is the candidate most likely to actually work toward a consensus on issues.

He may lean right on some matters more than I like, but his opponent leans far too left on far too many issues in my opinion.  That is the difference for me.

I am middle class, despite the fact some feel I have no class.  I am acutely aware of the potential votes in the Senate and the House will have on life for all of us.  I see what goes on around me each day.  I don't buy into either party line.

Believe it or not as much as I lean right on some issues, I lean left on just as many.

But for me, when it gets down to the nitty gritty, my choice for Brown is based upon an overall believe that he is the best candidate to represent this state.  He may very well lose this election.  Indeed I firmly believe the debates are going to swing this.

Not Menino trying to be some kind of power broker, not Obama's coattails.  The debates.  If Brown stumbles in them, he falls.

But absent something out there that comes to light, he will still get my vote.

Enough of that for now.

Back to the primary ...

As noted, Keating won.  No real surprise.  Too much of his old district was included in this new one.  Ever wonder how it is New Bedford and other South coast communities that seem to get "moved"?  That's for another day, in the mean time, it is what it is.  For Keating to lose this one will take a monumental blunder on his part.  He could probably pull a Coakley and still win.

The governor's council results are very interesting.  While the S-T site had the race too close to call, with Walter Moniz leading, the results on Channel 5 and from one of the other candidates, Nicholas Bernier, had the third candidate, Oliver Cipollini in the lead.  Channel 5 had Cipollini with a 165 vote lead over Bernier, with Moniz in third trailing by 569 votes.

Doing some quick math, and rounding off, the vote difference is within what one would consider valid for looking for a recount.  Rule of thumb anything within a 1/2% should be recounted.  Absent a defective voting machine, the results from the machines, at least the ones in Fairhaven, are pretty dead on.  Absentee ballots certainly will come into play a bit, but if a recount is requested for this one, there shouldn't be anyone with a qualm about it.

Be interesting to see the news play that race gets leading to November if Cipollini comes on top.  I predict national attention.

Brother vs. brother in the general election.  I know, the whole political farce argument will be heard for the next two months and more. Well before we jump on any bandwagon, we may have a few weeks to see what a recount brings.

Anyway, if anyone gets updated results as they stand now, let us know.

A few seconds short of a full minute.

Seems we are getting new hands for the clock at Town Hall.  The old ones appear to have seen better times.  Probably a good idea to get new ones.  The old ones being made of wood seem to have been cracking.  Other work is being done as it seems the hub on the clock was slipping a bit.  Can't have that happening when split second decisions need to be made at times.

Could the present condition of the clock provide an explanation of why time seems to stand still on certain matters?  See the S-T for an up to the minute story on the same.

In the dumber than dumb category, you have to have been reading about the Missouri Rep. running for Senate and the statement made about how a woman's body can stop from getting pregnant as a result of a legitimate rape.

There has to be a school somewhere at which the seemingly ever growing list of politicians major in being stupid.  Rep. Akins of Missouri must have graduated magna cum laude.  Why do I think such a school exists?

Because I cannot fathom how anyone with any basic education who has somehow managed to get elected as a Congressman could be naturally that dumb, either intellectually or politically, and more apparently both.

I cannot begin to even guess what "medical evidence" this guy used to form the basis for his statement.

Everyday you pick up the paper you find something that makes you wonder if we haven't somehow become caught up into a never ending episode of the "Twilight Zone".

I was going to stay away from this today, and have been able to do so since the news broke, primarily because to discuss it means you have to leave all most everything else alone afterward (at least for the day).

Seriously, how can you deal with any other political topic without making everyone you discuss afterward look like a rocket scientist.

Akin has been back pedaling ever since he crammed both feet in his mouth.  A feat possible since he has not brain in his head to interfere.

This is not the type of statement you make and get to fluff off as a poor choice of words, or a mis-statement.  You actually have to believe in the conclusion to come up with it.

Just dumber than dumb.  No other way to describe it.

It should never be optional

It is Friday (I know, another brilliant observation on my part). Always worth noting though. The end of the traditional work week.  

I forgot to mention yesterday the amazing bee chronicle at the Millicent Library.  Some nice pictures in the Fairhaven Neighborhood News of the guests which were removed.  Oh if it were only that easy to remove those who have overstayed their visits at Town buildings.

Today's Standard Times has a story on the drama evolving from New Bedford over the City Council Pay raises.  The Council took a vote to override the Mayor's veto, 9 -1.

Measure the salary in today's dollars, the council raise isn't out of whack for an inflation adjustment.  Politically speaking, if you are going to do it, do it in a non-election year for the council.  Fortunately, or unfortunately, voters seem to have short memories on such matters.

Are they worth it?  It certainly can be justified in an hours put in argument. 

There were a lot of arguments made by the council to support the raise based on the job.  But there in lies the dilemma.  Should it be looked at as a job? 

Bottom line, the ultimate decision will be had by the voters in New Bedford about 14 months from now, assuming it remains the same issue it is today.

The other piece in the S-T that I found really puzzling today was the "Our View" concerning the Governor's Council. It really was a bit confusing, in the end.

I absolutely agree that the Governor's Council as an elected body should go.  I agree with the underlying premise that no candidate should avoid a debate or the press. 

One could get a finger cramp typing away about how the the Brothers Cipollini run their campaigns.  Pretty reminiscent of "old time" politics actually.  The political junkie should have no doubt it was a political move to miss the debate.

What baffles me are the last two paragraphs.

While The Standard-Times continues to believe that the Governor's Council is both expensive and obsolete and needs to be disbanded, we also recognize that a lot of voters will continue to vote in this silliest of political campaigns. 

And, if you are one of those voters who believes you must vote to put someone from District 1 on the council, it's really as easy as ABC: Anybody but Cipollini.

No bafflement about the ABC statement.  A catchy old time pol thing. 

But is it just me or does this read like an endorsement not to vote for the office period?  

Sorry, but those are the kind of statements that actually allow those old time political moves to work.  I know a lot of people who think the Governor's Council is expensive and obsolete and needs to be disbanded, again myself included.  

Until it is though, we need to continue to encourage people to actually go out and vote for the actual candidate we think best suited to sit.  

I mean you just told people it is actually okay not to vote.

When you encourage apathy, you shouldn't complain about what you get.

As a self-proclaimed political junkie, to me such statements do more harm than good. 

When should any elected office be looked at, even by implication, as one you don't really need to vote for?

On the whole, as much as I might gripe about the rates, coverage and opinions, I like the S-T.  I am extremely glad this area is able to maintain a daily newspaper. I get ticked off at myself on the days I actually don't read the hard copy and solely rely on the web version and dread the potential in the future that the actual paper may in fact disappear.

This is the first time I can honestly say I think a true disservice to all readers, and voters, has occurred.  I don't think I have ever before been so dumbfounded by something in the editorial section.

It shouldn't be about whether a race is worthy of your vote.  

As obsolete as many offices and positions are in the Commonwealth and its political sub-divisions, who gets elected to those offices is extremely important.  If this was not a fact, what would be the point in the piece about a candidate skipping a debate in the first place?

The actions of our elected officials in whatever antiquated position can indeed have a profound affect on us all, as somewhat noted in the S-T.  

When you go to the polls the ABC lesson you should bring with you is an informed decision to vote for All the Best Candidates.

Fractured numbers

There is a pretty interesting story in the S-T today, page A-3, and no it doesn't have to do with Romney putting his foot in his mouth.  That one should be on the entertainment page.  You got to wonder just how much prep. work anyone puts in.  I mean it doesn't take a herculean effort to learn a few no nos when on a "foreign" tour.  Remember Ms. Manners, you don't embarrass your host.

Anyway, I actually speak of the "news war" article.  Fox News vs. MSNBC.  It details somewhat the split in the political slant of viewers of the two cable networks most commonly associated with the right and the left.       A very fair designation for those two cable stations.

Let's face it, claims of impartiality and high news reporting standards aside, the middle isn't a place either news outlet travels to with any frequency.

The articles discusses the political slant of viewers in percentages.  There aren't any surprises in it.  A higher percentage for Dems watching MSNBC and higher percentage of GOPs watching Fox News.  CNN is thrown into the mix.  CNN is considered the "middle ground" news channel in many circles.  Debatable but, that's what it is considered.

The other significant point in the article is the fact that it is roughly a little more than 3 million Americans tune in each day to cable stations for news.  This is significant for a couple of reasons.  The first is that is about only 1% of the total population.  

More significant is the fact that it is the only reference to true numbers.  In actual people watching the channels, something somehow missing from the article, Fox News is constantly the most watch channel throughout the day.  By a large margin, and at times close to and exceeding the combined viewership of the other two.  

CNN is in more homes by at that same 3 million than Fox News, which is about in 3 million more homes than MSNBC.

The potential viewers doesn't come close to explaining the differences in actual viewers.  I am not going to go into numbers, i.e. how many are watching what and when.  TV by the numbers is a great sight if you want the nitty gritty.

What makes the newspaper story interesting is that when you take it a bit further, it seems there is a definite preference by those who actually view.  The thought process is seeing a definite shift.  

I have no personal favorite.  I am a channel surfer when it comes to news shows.  I think it is mainly because the slant on the various shows on the cable channels can be too hard to watch. It at times gets sickening.   

I am old enough to remember Huntley and Brinkley and Walter Cronkite.  I remember news stories being reported and the editorials being saved for the end of the show.  I think I suffer from the heartbreak of Nostalgia.  

I suppose in an age of 24/7 broadcasting, the sideshows are a must for the ratings draw. 

Speaking of ratings draw ...

Seen and heard a few little tidbits all ready about next April's election.  Yes all ready.  Been asked too many questions about it, yes all ready.  

Nothing much worth mentioning, except the fact is people are all ready mentioning it.  Relax folks.  Take the summer off for this one.  

Do yourself a favor politically and lay low until the dusts settles on a couple of the hot button issues. If your serious, mid-October is the time to gear up. 

Anyway, that's it for today.  Not much I know, but the "serious" stuff is still being debated internally.  

My editorial staff is still divided on a couple of pieces.  Me personally, I am leaning one way, The other two, myself and I, well they seem to be a great odds over the type of ending for the proposed fractured fairy tale.