I came across a couple of columns this morning commenting on election endgame strategies with general disapproval. First up, Sheila Suess Kennedy, writing in the Indianapolis Star notes that the Republicans are going back to the homophobia well one more time. Energized by the New Jersey ruling that audaciously held that “denying commited same-sex couples the financial and social benefits given their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate government purpose,” we have Republicans hyperventilating about the mortal peril this represents to not only heterosexual marriages but the very American way of life. Conveniently forgotten are lesser issues about troops dying in Iraq to no real purpose, the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, the profiteering of military contractors, the refusal of Congress to implement the the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, warrantless wiretaps of American citizens, the death of habeas corpus, etc. etc.

Meanwhile, specific to Indianapolis and on the other side of the political fence, Abdul sees gamesmanship in the Indy City County Council’s decision to investigate whether Carl Brizzi, Republican candidate for Marion County Prosecutor, misled the Council about jail overcrowding this summer. The subject of the investigation may be worthy, but the timing is suspicious. A week before the election, the Council gets interested about jail overcrowding. Perhaps they were, like Capt. Renault in Casablanca, “shocked, shocked” to find a jail overcrowding problem in Indianapolis. Abdul righteously demands to be plied with Brazilian strippers, good scotch whiskey, and a box of cigars and chocolate if he is expected to be manipulated in this fashion.

For my part, the only last minute antics that have gotten me even briefly agitated are the folks getting worked up about Kerry’s stumbling attempt at humor and the media that enables them. The only way you could say that John “Oh, did I ever mention I served in Viet Nam” Kerry thinks all soldiers are stupid is if you are horribly, horribly ignorant or a liar. And yet, people expressing that view were given hour after hour of cable news time. Liberal media, indeed.

At the end of the day, I’m mildly annoyed that my vote and Abdul’s vote and Sheila Suess Kennedy’s vote are all counted equally with the votes of those who are poorly informed enough that they can be swayed by last minute theatrics and campaign advertisements. I’m happy enough with a system where I can be outvoted. I only wish that the votes were better informed.

My interest in the Connecticut Senate race is an idle one based on my dislike for Joe Lieberman’s various stances. Mainly, I just wanted to quote this Matt Stoller description of the campaign dynamic:

Today, I think there was a decisive shift both in the dynamic of the race and in the tone of the political environment.

It’s not that Lamont has overperformed, or that Joe has melted down, it’s that Connecticut Election 2006 has gone off the deep end.  It’s not your normal white picket fence suburban election, with attack ad facing attack ad.  No, this is more like a white picket fence election that suddenly gets bored with life and decides to live in the forest, take a bunch of LSD, trout-fish naked, and taunt a bear cub before ending its life suddenly and with total and inexplicable resolution on November 7.  Well not really, but there’s no analogy that I can think of summarizing what’s going on.  What has happened is that Joe Lieberman competed in a Democratic primary, lost, and is now competing in a Republican primary, and is losing again.  Meanwhile, Lamont is finally picking up renewed steam and getting back on track as a candidate.  There’s energy here, real energy.

The Palladium-Item has an editorial advocating a freer market with respect to sales of beer and wine. Apparently there is some concern about legislative action that could limit access to beer and wine permits by convenience stores. The Pal-Item says that pressure to take such action will surely come from the package liquor industry which would like to be free of the competition. However, even if that is the motivation, that will not be how they attempt to sell the legislation. Instead, the pretext for limiting sales advocated by the package liquor industry will look a lot like the quote from the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers: “If we have thousands of new outlets selling alcohol, we’ve essentially deregulated how alcohol is sold.” The main evil of deregulation would be an increased likelihood that beer and wine would be sold to minors. While true, that’s probably is not what would motivate the industry to pay lobbyists to encourage the General Assembly to take action.

Motivations of the industry aside, however, concern over minors accessing alcohol may well be what motivates legislators to act. The Palladium-Item takes the stance that the benefits from increased market forces — would reduce prices and improve services, benefits that apparently outweigh the potentially increased access by minors, particularly if increased sales generate increased tax revenues that could be used in policing efforts.

Personally, I guess I’m conflicted on the issue. I have no particular desire to protect profits of package liquor retailers. I think our approach to minors and alcohol is problematic — by forbidding alcohol on one hand while advertising its glories on the other hand, we create a climate where minors tend to abuse alcohol as soon as they can get their hands on it. Some European countries where children are exposed to alcohol from an early age tend to have less of an alcohol abuse problem. (Though I suppose there are other countries where kids have early access *and* the country has serious abuse problems.) The Palladium-Item’s purported benefits don’t appear to me to be such unmitigated blessings when applied to sales of alcohol. Sure, I’d like to pay less for a six-pack. But would it really be a great thing for society if alcohol advertising were more effective? If alcohol sales increased enough to pay for more policing?

God knows I drank my share of beer back in the day. So I’m not one to preach against the moral evils of alcohol. But I do know that drinking too much of it is debilitating, causes one to be more likely to get into trouble of various sorts, and doesn’t help society out very much. We should probably back up, figure out what our collective position on alcohol is, and legislate accordingly. From my perspective, step one is to regard alcohol consumption as a health issue and not as a moral/religious issue. Whatever restrictions we impose on alcohol, let’s recognize that there is nothing magical about Sundays.  What use is it do to make liquor sales in stores illegal on Sundays but permit it at bars and restaurants? Are we telling folks it’s bad to drink beer in the comfort of their homes on Sundays but it’s A-O.K. to drive to a bar to do your drinking?

 I don’t have the solution, but I think we should: 1) Remove religion and morality from the alcohol debate; 2) Figure out how best to get kids and adults to drink alcohol responsibly when they do use alcohol; and 3) Improve public transportation so that when we do drink, we can get home easily without harming anyone.

Now that I’ve written a few paragraphs on this, it appears that the debate on alcohol consumption and the dangers arising therefrom has some things in common with the sex debates and the dangers arising therefrom. In both debates, I think there is a sizeable contingent that wants an “abstinence only” approach, and, because of their insistence on an unrealistic approach, we miss opportunities to limit negative consequences from these behaviors to a bare minimum.

I highly recommend The War of the Words. A Ken Burns style documentary of the “101st Fighting Keyboarders:” The right wing bloggers whose brave keyboarding kept us free by helping get us into a war with Iraq. Or something.

When America needed them, they were there.
They had honor.
Courage.
And a lot of spare time.

Wow. Looks like disgraced Congressman Mark Foley was prepared to leave life in Congress for a more lucrative lobbying career. However, it looks like the White House and Karl Rove pressured the Congressional page-loving Representative to stick it out in Congress another two years.

So, we not only have House leaders like Hastert and Boehner looking the other way at Foley’s inappropriate behavior. We also have Rove actively pressuring Foley to stick around.

Foley said he was being pressured by “the White House and Rove gang,” who insisted that Foley run. If he didn’t, Foley was told, it might impact his lobbying career.

“He said, ‘The White House made it very clear I have to run,'” explains Foley’s friend, adding that Foley told him that the White House promised that if Foley served for two more years it would “enhance his success” as a lobbyist. “I said, ‘I thought you wanted out of this?’ And he said, ‘I do, but they’re scared of losing the House and the thought of two years of Congressional hearings, so I have two more years of duty.'”

Oops. Talk about your miscalculations.

A Guardian story about Woodward’s new book. It says that the White House is “in crisis” over Woodward’s allegations that the Bush administration hasn’t been playing straight with America over the War in Iraq. Permit me to be skeptical that anyone in the Bush administration cares what Bob Woodward has to say — or over what anyone in America might think about its actions, or really over whether its actions are actually beneficial to the country. From what I can tell, Bush is mainly concerned about being “resolute.”