Billy,

First a kindly reminder, in accordance with my duties as an editor, that neither the profanity nor the ad hominem in your initial post are in keeping with Ricochet's Code of Conduct. People pay for HBO to hear that kind of language. People pay for Ricochet not to hear it.

As for the point at hand, Diane related her story as she experienced it. Whether that fits into a preexisting schema is immaterial in light of the fact that it actually happened.

I spent half a decade living in the South full-time. I still spend about 1/4 of every year there. I am proud to refer to myself as "Californian by birth, and Southern by the Grace of God." As I said on the podcast, my experience is that 95 percent of the time you can't tell the difference between the South and any other part of the country on racial relations. But that should not lead us to deny that the other 5 percent of the time exists.

The hallmark of liberal views on race is distorting reality to fit a foreordained ideology. Conservatives, I think, should not fall into the same trap.

I agree with those who are wary of the methodology. I had to chuckle when I saw that sentence length was one of the criteria. Anyone who's ever spent time in a Congressional gallery knows that the problem isn't an insufficient commitment to long-windedness from the speakers.

That being said, no one seems to be challenging the bigger premise -- that political rhetoric, on average, has become depressingly pedestrian. I understand those of you who are emphasizing clarity -- it's an excellent point -- but Churchill and Lincoln managed to be perfectly clear with a lot more sophistication. And let's be honest -- if you listen to most of these members of Congress, their simplicity doesn't translate to Sowellesque insight. It's pablum.

If you have the desire, spend part of your Memorial Day weekend with the rhetoric of the Founding Fathers; the floor speeches of Webster, Clay, and Calhoun; The Lincoln-Douglas Debates; Calvin Coolidge & FDR; JFK & Ronald Reagan. You'll find a firmness of prose in each. But, more importantly, you'll find robust thought underpinning them. That, my friends, is the real casualty of this trend.

That's a very good point, though a distinct one. I'd argue that those folks in Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia were never part of Obama's base. But there are places where Democratic defections (and, more importantly, swings among independents) look ominous for Obama.

I'd especially watch the Midwest, where I think Romney has a decent shot of picking up Missouri, Indiana, Iowa, and Ohio. I'd also give him an outside chance at Michigan and Wisconsin. Put those states in play and this thing gets real tight real quick.

Quick addendum: I just saw a report that the state's LAO (Legislative Analyst's Office -- sort of a state CBO) was estimating it at $45 a share (!). They're going to be in for an especially rough ride.

Yes. It's called the DSM-IV.

TR,

It just so happens that I wrote about this yesterday for the Manhattan Institute. Brown's estimates were based on a $35 per share price.

I keep hearing this repeated in the conservative press and I'm a little confused as to exactly why Republicans are crowing about it. These three states will go to Romney in the Electoral College under any circumstances short of a declaration that he'll be forcibly converting the nation to Mormonism on Inauguration Day.

I think the national press sometimes loses sight of the fact that there are still parts of the South where ideology doesn't track well with partisan affiliation. These voters are vestigial Democrats who -- in every other respect -- look, sound, and think like Republicans.

Getting on a Southern California freeway a few weeks ago, I passed a homeless man standing near the on-ramp with a sign reading "I was going to go into prostitution, but I hear the Secret Service isn't hiring."

My first thought: Damned if he didn't make me laugh.

My second thought: Wait, why is he following the news cycle that closely?

EJ,

While not worthy of an AP course, you can at least take solace in the fact that each of these works are better than their authors.

"Founding Brothers", as many others have noted here, is a fine work that transcends Professor Ellis's personal shortcomings.

"The Future of Freedom" hails from a time when Fareed Zakaria was a much more substantive thinker, not the poet laureate of the finger-to-the-wind class. It's actually a very thoughtful (though far from flawless) meditation on the tension between liberalism (as classically defined) and democracy. I enjoyed it very much.

As for "Hardball", I think 10 cents is exactly right. The book is very insightful about the inside game of modern politics and it reflects the stage of Chris Matthews' career that preceded what I can only assume was a severe bout of mercury poisoning.

The instructor could do a lot better, but at least it's not Howard Zinn (you'll want to watch your son's college syllabi for that one).

Editor's Note: As of 9:02 AM, Pacific Time -- when Peter posted this story -- we have officially closed entries for "Headline of the Week", which Mr. Robinson has won by acclamation.

Get better, Dave.

KC, some states are conventional laboratories. Some are more like the island of Dr. Moreau.

Well, Chris, this is how Scott Lehigh describes them in the Boston Globe today:

Mann and Ornstein are widely respected, even-keeled, non-polemical observers who have studied the ways of Washington for decades, so their observations should carry significant weight with serious people.

And therein lies the problem. These two are think tank denizens that everyone is happy to name check as "wise old men", but who no one actually reads unless and until they reaffirm their preexisting prejudices.

Make no mistake, their much-hyped WaPo column was a total analytical punt -- but one that they knew would up their notoriety. In a Washington that took intellectual rigor more seriously, they would be mocked instead of feted.

Ben, did she actually make that complaint during the speech? If so, that's remarkable. Having written commencement addresses before, the first rule from behind the podium is: it's not about you. Somehow, I'm not surprised that point was lost on the solipsistic Couric.

It's interesting to hear from those of you who considered elected office. I had a similar experience, being recruited for a run for the California State Senate when I first returned from Washington. All the objections cited here informed my decision not to do it (as did the sheer pretension of the idea of a twenty-something ex-White House staffer standing for office).

Still, I fret that the traits characteristic of some of our best and brightest are coextensive with the traits that make them averse to seeking office (see Daniels, Mitch). Alas, I see no way of rectifying that in the current political atmosphere -- or in the foreseeable future. Today's Washingtons stay put at Mount Vernon.

I can do no better than to refer you to Diane's comment # 5. It turns out that your humble correspondent is, alas, soft.

I loved this. Beau could not be reached for comment as he was busy reading Hayek at the time.

This reminds me of my college mentor, who owned a Boston Terrier (a similar breed, which is also what I previously owned). When one of his students asked if it was a French Bulldog, he responded "God no. At that point, I might as well just hoist a white flag above the house." Further testimony to the wisdom of attending college in Tennessee.