One Category Where "MacGyver" Was Indisputably Great

There's a great deal of historical rewriting about the legacy of TV's "MacGyver" since the release of the series' DVD sets back in 2005 and 2006.  Unlike other shows from the era, most reviewers seem to be trying to compare "MacGyver" to the quality of modern-day made-for-cable series that produce eight episodes per season with massive budgets unbeknownst to any television producer working in 1985 when "MacGyver" came out.  Even reviewers that are generally favorable to the show always have to qualify their commentaries with reminders of the show's cheese factor and dated storytelling.  Well yeah....it was produced a quarter-century ago and the nature of episodic television has transformed dramatically since then, as is evident even when watching some of the most revered shows of the time like "Hill Street Blues", "St. Elsewhere", and "Family Ties", all of which generate cringeworthy moments when rewatching three decades after their initial broadcasts.

But as I revisit my "MacGyver" DVDs this summer, I'm struck by the extent to which the series outmatched its peers in the 1980s and continues to with present-day television, and that is in the category of musical soundtrack.  Modern TV series seem to have really cut back on original musical scores, opting either for placement of studio recordings from national recording artists or for generic, interchangeable escalations of soundtrack intensity leading into commercial breaks.  There's very little emphasis on original compositions than there was in the past.  But even among shows from "MacGyver's" era, the compositions were generally just frequently repeated offshoots from the show's theme song during action scenes or drippy, melodramatic "tender moment" music placed in sitcoms.  The level of sophistication that went into compositions on "MacGyver" was very rare, and even though the music has that 80s vibe to be sure, it holds up remarkably well and I find that as I'm reviewing these DVDs, they stand out as ear candy often upstaging the actual filmed sequences.

"MacGyver's" original composer was Randy Edelman, who composed the theme song and just a handful of the series' earliest episodes and then semiregularly composed future episodes in the first, second, and third seasons.  Edelman's larger-than-life presence with the compositions he did for the series makes it seem surreal that he only composed 16 episodes total.  The theme song itself was a delight, a synthesized toe-tapper conveying a Mr. Wizard-meets-Indiana Jones vibe consistent with the series with a very period-specific sound.  But even the theme song pales in comparison to Edelman's compositions on those early episodes, which were as thorough and sophisticated as anything I've heard on a TV soundtrack, particularly when set to scenes set in international locales as most early MacGyver episodes were. 

Edelman's compositions channeled the settings and the mood extremely impressively whether the setting was the Middle East, South America, or Africa. The early "MacGyver" episode "The Golden Triangle" was set in Burma.  While MacGyver's Swiss Family Robinson tactics thwarting a hapless Burmese Army seemed insanely awesome at the time, I will confess that this episode doesn't hold up particularly well, but even after the immensely cheesy final action scene, Edelman's musical fadeout that accompanies the largely silent final scene acknowledging the newly acquired freedom of Burmese villagers enslaved by their government turns an otherwise dopey premise into a surprisingly powerful scene.  I'm assuming Edelman didn't work cheap since he was hired for only a handful of episodes for each of the three seasons he worked on, but the depth of his compositions on an episode-by-episode basis continues to blow my mind 28 years later.

After the first five episodes of season one, Edelman bowed out from regular composition duties save for one additional episode in the first season.  His successor would have big shoes to fill, and long-time TV composer utility man Dennis McCarthy seemed an unlikely source to rise to the challenge.  But it was clear from the first episode that McCarthy composed that he would in fact meet that challenge, with some compositions that perfectly captured the science-adventure hybrid tone of the show.  And he did so without ever copying Edelman's much more synthesized compositions.  McCarthy composed episodes for all of "MacGyver's" seven seasons, even though he did just a couple each in the sixth and seventh seasons.  McCarthy filled a lot of these hours with some recycled material from prior episodes, which is the rule for episodic television as opposed to the exception that was Edelman's original scores for every episode.  With that said, however, McCarthy introduced new compositions each season, almost all of which were memorable and high-quality, albeit in a dated 80s sort of way that might not perk up the ears of the average 18-year-old who never lived through the era. 

McCarthy's best composition for the series came in the first season episode "Nightmares", one of the series' all-around best episodes.  That episode ran the gamut from incredible suspense, scientific wizardry, and engaging melodrama with an undertone of haunting desperation for MacGyver and his eventual teenage sidekick, and the composition brilliantly captured each scene and the chasmic swings of intensity set to film.  It was only the fifth episode McCarthy composed for the series but managed to accomplish the near-impossible in that it made Edelman's early music seem less irreplaceable.

 "MacGyver" moved production to Canada in its third season, and in order to satisfy some contracts with the Canadian government, it was required that the series employ a mostly Canadian crew.  As a consequence, Canadian composer Ken Harrison joined the series for season three and in the final two seasons, became the primary composer.  Far from an affirmative action hire, Harrison proved his mettle immediately with three exceptional scores for the highly suspenseful Sasquatch-themed episode "Ghost Ship", the Southern prison farm-themed episode "Jack in the Box", and the Murdoc episode "The Widowmaker", which featured Harrison's most sophisticated composition for "MacGyver".  Harrison's role with the series was closer to Randy Edelman's than Dennis McCarthy's in that most of his episodes featured entirely original scores that rarely failed to impress in their sound quality and their emotional range.  Even as the series reached its creative nadir at the same point where Harrison became its primary composer in the final two seasons, Harrison brought some first-rate scores to the table that were the high point of several episodes.

Edelman, McCarthy, and Harrison were "MacGyver's" three primary composers, but in the sixth and seventh season, a final member was added to the team named William Ross.  Ross was the only of the four composers whose work for the series was largely bland and generic in the way that most other series' original compositions are.  But even Ross had one shining moment with his dark and intense musical score for the classic sixth season episode "Lesson in Evil", which was Ross' first episode composing for the series.

Very few TV shows have a musical legacy to boast about and its a shame that so little is said about the musical legacy of "MacGyver", which was usually feature-film quality.  Television today doesn't seem to place much of a priority on sophisticated original compositions, and depending on the nature of the show that may well be a good thing.  On the other hand, it would be nice if at least some modern shows, particularly a show like "Burn Notice" which is very much a modernized throwback to classic 80s action shows including "MacGyver", would attempt a soundtrack worthy of its predecessors.  Because as someone who has consumed MacGyver's adventures many times and is revisiting them again this summer, the series' music is the one thing guaranteed to hold up each and every time I review it even on occasions where the story content doesn't hold up as well.

Minnesota's DFL Smokers Should Sit Out The Next Election

In 2010, then DFL gubernatorial candidate Mark Dayton specifically campaigned to Minnesota voters against raising the cigarette tax.  It was a refreshing change from the emissary of a political party that has allowed itself to become the party of lifestyle micromanagement, censuring the mostly working-class participants of lifestyles that it decrees to be "sinful" and generally making both asses and frauds of themselves while doing so.  With that in mind, the scores of thousands of Minnesota smokers who voted for Dayton in the last election must feel like he's the Brutus to their Julius Caesar right now, as the man who not so long ago passionately opposed cigarette taxes has just championed and then signed the largest cigarette tax increase in American history.  And he did so without any public hearing on the pros and cons of such a consequential change in policy, treating smokers without any dignity whatsoever.

I don't even smoke but I am truly sick about this, not only because Minnesota's tax system just got a whole bunch more regressive at the hands of the party whose narrow mandate last year was to tax the rich, but because they show absolutely no signs of ever reining in this impulse to "civilize the savages" into government-approved lifestyles, usually based on the entirely fictional premise that those who indulge in these renegade lifestyles run up higher health care costs.  The Republicans insisted that you don't get to have a welfare state without losing your freedoms, and the Democrats are determined to make a self-fulfilling prophesy about this.  As the Democrats continue to embrace paternalism to the point of making New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg their David Koresh, they are gonna lose me.  Not to the Republicans as the GOP is becoming more untenable as a reasonable governing party with each passing year, but losing me to apathy and resignation that there is nobody in public office whose endgame isn't imposing additional hardship on the already-suffering working class.

Many on the left cannot understand my fury on this issue and can't believe I'd abandon the Democratic Party over something like cigarette taxes, but the issue is a genuine bellwether on a number of metrics and the Democrats' embrace of the issue makes them look increasingly like frauds, predators, and bullies.  This is the party that preaches progressive taxes but their path-of-least-resistance revenue-raiser always seems to be the cigarette tax which is far and away the most regressive tax ever imagined, growing only more regressive with each year that smoking is reduced to a downscale pastime.  This is the party that preaches tolerance but twists themselves into pretzels to justify why they shame and dehumanize smokers every opportunity they get despite having the pedigree of the Democrats' base...or alleged base.  This is the party that preaches secularism yet channels James Dobson and Pat Robertson with its moralistic embrace of "sin" taxes.  This is the party the preaches responsible budgeting yet mortgages its budgets at every level of government on artificially overpriced cigarettes even as consumption rates plummet.  And this is the party that rightfully bemoans the needless criminal culture created by aggressive drug laws as it applies to marijuana, yet are inching ever closer to a de facto prohibition on cigarettes in which the tobacco black market, indisputably controlled by some of the shadiest characters on American soil, is growing with each passing day.  And perhaps worst of all, the template used to humiliate and bankrupt smokers is clearly on the cusp of expanding to all manner of additional "naughty" consumer products, with politicians lying in wait for the years of brainwashing to produce a political climate where they can take on "Big Pop", "Big Fast Food", "Big Ice Cream", "Big Girl Scout Cookies" and whatever other bogeymen they can dream up....all taking the form of usage restrictions and higher regressive taxes levied on the peasantry.

For the past decade or so, ever since this war on smokers began to take its current form, I've held my nose and voted for Democrats despite my growing misgivings and their escalating shrillness on the issue.  But I think I've crossed the tipping point with Dayton's additional $1,000+ per year mugging of low-income workers, abuse victims, and the mentally ill to bankroll a professional sports stadium for millionaires and billionaires.  My previous assumption was that even with its arrogant and paternalistic assault on smokers (and other naughty pastimes of the poor whose paternalistic assault is right around the corner), the Democratic Party still represented a net positive for these voters in comparison to the monsters on the other side raging about the "47% of Americans dependent upon the government".  But as Obama calls for yet another huge cigarette tax increase of his own to pay for universal preschool, it's become clear that whatever benefits the poor would otherwise face by voting Democratic are being canceled out by the party's regressive and ethically monstrous financial censure on their lifestyles.  "Sin taxes" have officially become the left's version of "47% of Americans dependent upon the government", and the premise is no closer to reality on the issue for which the Democrats have become agents of intolerance than it was for the fund-raising dinner full of multimillionaires that Mitt Romney was addressing last year.

As I said before, the Republicans are not an option and don't show any signs of being an option in the foreseeable future, so that means the only hope for genuinely progressive minded voters (and for persecuted smokers specifically) is to teach the Democratic Party a hard lesson.  Until this paternalistic beast roaring inside the Democratic Party is tamed, they will continue to kick us in the crotch with these cynical schemes.  This is why I am calling for the organization of a group vowing to sit out the 2014 election in protest of Minnesota Democrats' intolerable governing philosophy.  The title "DFL Smokers Sitting Out The Next Election" has a certain ring to it, and the name itself should be enough to give Minnesota Democrats' heartburn.  Maybe, just maybe, if an organized group of smokers (and their sympathizers) can embark on a media push to let the Democrats know that they won't be returning to the open arms of their unreformed abusers this time, the message will finally get through that pissing on smokers every time you win an election comes with political consequences.  And if they are well organized, smokers can rightfully claim the scalps of fallen DFL lawmakers in a way unambiguous enough to make this message resonate. 

Just think of how narrow the DFL's mandate was in Minnesota, both with Governor Dayton's 7,000-vote victory and with the majority in the legislature achieved by breathtakingly close margins in more than a dozen Senate and House seats that happened to swing the Democrats' way.  If even 25% of Democratic-leaning smokers sat out the 2014 election, just think of the mischief they could create.  The Senate isn't up next year, but Dayton and the DFL majority in the House would be long gone, most likely along with a couple DFL constitutional office holders statewide like Mark Ritchie and Rebecca Otto, and possibly even Senator Al Franken.  Given how much I fear the Republicans, I don't advocate this lightly, but since Democrats are making it obvious that they will perceive every election they win this millennium, no matter how narrow, as a mandate to impose massive financial and psychological hardship on the state's most vulnerable residents and their families based on their lifestyles, they need to be punished for this.....punished with the kind of prejudice that will make them think twice about their party's direction moving forward.

Anybody who reads this and thinks it's a good idea should e-mail me or comment on this thread and I will be more than happy to help you with any organizational ideas from across state lines.  I really hope Minnesota smokers have enough self-respect not to let the DFL get away with this.

Are Illegal Immigrants "Makers" or "Takers"?

The always controversial debate over illegal immigration is once again churning on Capitol Hill with a fragile new coalition of lawmakers putting forth their latest attempt at a bill to legalize the more than 11 million illegal immigrants living in America.  The issue divides factions of both parties, but the tug-of-war this past week highlights the fact that it divides Republicans most, leading to a rhetorical sparring match in which both factions are being disingenuous.

The opening salvo was fired by the Heritage Foundation, which released a study saying that legalizing undocumented Americans will open them up to accessing our social programs, and that the math works out to something like 6 to 1 in terms of government outlays likely to be spent on newly legalized immigrants versus what they pay in taxes.  The return volley came from the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP, personified by antitax ideologue Grover Norquist, who said that Heritage's argument could just as easily be an argument against having children, and when asked what impact it would have on the economy if the illegal immigrants were to go away, he responded that "GDP would go down".

They're both right...and they're both wrong.  And that dichotomy underscores how desperately the immigration debate needs some context.  I'm not sure about the 6-1 ratio Heritage is peddling, but I suspect they're right that if legalized, these mostly low-skill immigrants will consume more public resources than they contribute to the Treasury.  But Norquist's carefully parsed words about "GDP going down" without the immigrants speaks volumes about the real dynamic here, in which the economic contributions of these immigrants does grow the economy, but that all of that growth is being consolidated by the richest of the rich...the people whose interest Norquist is guarding.  Thus the economic contribution of the immigrant worker is understated by the artificially small figure on their W-2s.  If they were compensated proportionate to their economic contribution, they would be net contributors instead of net "takers".

It's basically the same cynical shell game from the last Presidential campaign, in which Mitt Romney spent his entire professional life stripping the working-class and its communities of as much equity as he could squeeze out of it and passing those resources on to the corporate boardroom.....and then having the unmitigated gall to point his righteous finger at the very people he mugged and bemoan the "47% of Americans dependent on government".   The immigration issue exposes the extent to which the factions of the Republican Party have to balance their conflicting goals of turning America into a nation of low-income Americans while simultaneously reducing dependency on the government.  I submit that those goals cannot both be achieved in a democracy, where an undercompensated peasantry will seek an alternative financial livelihood through the government when the reward for work keeps diminishing, and immigration adds another layer of complexity to the issue.

Last week, David Frum wrote the best column I've read in years on the immigration issue.....http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/05/06/david-frum-a-nonsense-consensus-on-immigration.html.............Frum is a former Bush speechwriter, but a moderate Republican who speaks more sensibly on class-related issues than most left-leaning columnists who haven't given two passing thoughts on the impact of immigration on working-class wages.  When this issue had a national hearing six years ago, the pitchforks overpowered the elites and despite the country evolving some in recent years to a more pro-immigration mindset, I still suspect the pitchforks are gonna win the fight again in 2013.  The extent to which the Republican Party of 2013 has shifted from upper-middle-class suburbanites to white working-class Southerners--the very people who will be most negatively impacted by the economic forces Frum describes--has created an extremely lopsided political advantage for illegal immigration's critics.  While the party's power base still lies in its Chamber of Commerce money interests, the GOP has become so dependent on the votes of bubbas earning $20,000 per year and whose blood tends to boil the most about immigration that the prospect of them sitting out elections and denying the GOP victories will undoubtedly tilt the playing field towards the opposition.

And we're already seeing the origins of this playing out with the immigration bill heading to the Senate, and Republican critics such as Jeff Sessions and Chuck Grassley filing dozens or even hundreds of poison pill amendments to make the bill untenable to a majority of lawmakers.  The guy with the most on the line is Florida Senator Marco Rubio, whose advocacy for immigration reform is pitting him against the very Republican base most likely to punish him if he plans to run for President in 2016...and you can be sure there will be a large field of opponents willing to take advantage of a Rubio vote looked upon as a mistake by the party's base.  The fear, even among nervous supporters of Rubio's position, is that he's gonna get rolled by Chuck Schumer and other Democrats who are not negotiating in good faith, particularly as it relates to the language of immigrants only being able to become citizens if they pay years worth of back taxes and "get in the back of the line".  Most people don't expect the road to citizenship will be anywhere near that onerous and they are probably right, as you can be sure Democrats will continue to leverage this issue to get the Hispanic vote even if and when immigration reform passes, only now moving the goalposts to "heartless Republicans are slowing down your path to become citizens" by actually wanting to follow the contours of the law just passed.

But there's a danger for Democrats of stepping into a trap with this legislation as well, as it's a good bet the current configuration of the bill will look a lot different after thousands of Senate amendments and after the more conservative House of Representatives gets done molding it.  Democrats could easily find themselves in a position forced politically to accept ANY immigration reform bill, even one framed by Republicans with a frontloaded "guest worker program" and a backloaded "path to citizenship".  I consider a guest worker program to be apartheid and could never vote for any immigration reform bill that contains that provision.  And I suspect a lot of the Democratic base is with me on that, meaning the Democrats could demoralize many of their existing voters by signing on for a bad law without creating a wave of new immigrant voters to replace them anytime soon due to Republicans' successfully slow-walking the citizenship process.

Clearly there are a lot of obstacles here and what's most intriguing is that the contours of a good-faith immigration reform law are widely popular with voters of both parties.  If legislation could be crafted to legalize current undocumented immigrants with a path to citizenship, coupled with assurances that the border will be sealed and slow the influx of new illegal immigrants down to trickle, bipartisan majorities would support it.  But as Frum's article acknowledges, the elites in both parties have an entirely different agenda when it comes to immigration reform, and that is a means for their corporate campaign contributors to reduce labor costs and keep them reduced for the rest of eternity.  The more the debate drags on, the more obvious it will become to voters than their cynicism about politicians' handling of the issue is warranted and public support is likely wither away just as it did in 2007.  The biggest issue of our time is the fact that wages are at an all-time low as a percentage of GDP and keep getting lower, and the larger the public hearing is on the immigration issue, the more working-class voters of all political stripes will recognize that the endgame of this legislation is for Grover Norquist's clients to continue "growing GDP" and pocketing all of that growth for themselves.

Early Look at 2014 Senate Races

In the months after every Presidential election, we go through the same mindless process of declaring long-term supremacy of one party over the other.  And so it goes in the aftermath of the 2012 Presidential election, with all the expert commentators writing the Republican Party's obituary and with overly cocky Democrats buying into way more of the bullshit than they should.  Every indication points to 2014 being as terrible of a climate for Democrats as 2010 was, particularly in the Senate where a half-dozen highly vulnerable red-state seats are poised to fall entirely into the GOP's hands in an unfavorable political climate.  Making matters worse is that at the forefront of policy discussions are gun control and illegal immigration, both of which put these red state Democrats even further on defense.  On top of that, expect the economy to continue its anemic growth amidst entirely flat or declining growth for the Joe Sixpack voters for whom America quit working quite some time ago.  And the biggest wild card of all is implementation of ObamaCare, where the early indications are not promising for political success.  If it continues to be the clusterfuck we've seen so far, we have another 2010 on our hands in the midterms.

With all this in mind, I'll take a cursory overview of next year's Senate contests to see if my current thoughts prove too bullish, too bearish, or right on target....

Alabama--The Democrats will surprise the world by regaining the political narrative in Alabama and upsetting three-term GOP incumbent Jeff Sessions.  Er, wait...no they won't.  Sessions will win in a 30-point landslide.   Safe GOP.

Alaska--Early polls are worth nothing in Alaska as we've seen how wrong they are every election cycle, always overstating Democratic support.  With that said, it's undoubtedly some relief to accidental Democratic Senator Mark Begich that he leads against hypothetical opponents in his bid for a second term, but here's a seat where a little advertising heat from the GOP and its allies is likely to make a world of difference, especially given that Begich has proven to be a surprisingly boilerplate Democrat outside of energy issues, with a long list of votes that will be used against him.  On the other hand, Begich does not appear to be in such a position that he's a certain dead man walking.  If Joe Miller wins the Republican primary, I suspect Begich gets a second term.  But against any mainstream opponent in the political climate we're wading into, Begich is probably the underdog.  Leans GOP  (+1 GOP)

Arkansas--Two-term Democratic incumbent Mark Pryor's situation strikes me as similar to that of Mark Begich in Alaska.  While things are not yet so bad that it's impossible for him to win, I suspect it's odds-against.  It was clear immediately after the 2008 election that Blanche Lincoln was gonna lose in the next midterm, but Pryor's grasp on his state's electorate was always a little stronger than Lincoln's, which is the only thing that may keep him in the game there next year with Arkansas lurching radically towards tea-flavored Republicanism.  Still, the national Democratic priority list of gun control, gay marriage, and immigration reform puts Pryor in such a difficult situation that he'll have a tougher time than ever trying to explain to constituents why they should keep him around.  Freshman Congressman Tom Cotton is said to be a frontrunner for the GOP nomination, and if Cotton runs, I suspect he wins.  Leans GOP (+2 GOP)

Colorado--From two highly vulnerable Democrats named Mark to a third potentially vulnerable Democrat named Mark....that being freshman Mark Udall.  Democrats are on such an extended winning streak in Colorado that it's easy to overlook Udall as potentially vulnerable but I hope he's watching his back because the state is still pretty evenly divided and a defensive political climate could prove damaging.  Purple district Congressional Republican Mike Coffman from suburban Denver would seem to be the strongest challenger from a shallow GOP bench in Colorado.  Right now, Udall has a clear advantage, but it's an advantage that could easily slip away with a few bad breaks.  Leans Democrat.

Delaware--Another accidental Democratic Senator, Chris Coons, will run for his first full term next year.  While it's doubtful that he'll get lucky enough to run against Christine O'Donnell again next year, he shouldn't have to.  Delaware is moving leftward and there are no obvious candidates the GOP could run against Coons after losing just about every statewide election in the past two decades.   Likely Democrat.

Georgia--It's a shame this seat, vacated by retiring Republican Saxby Chambliss, couldn't come up in a Presidential year where minority turnout has made Georgia competitive more quickly than I'd have anticipated.  But given that the seat will be open in a midterm year with a political climate that looks challenging, it seems likely that whatever Tea Party nutjob the party runs will be a definite favorite, capable of weathering whatever negative press comes their way much like Governor Nathan Deal did in the 2010 campaign.  Democrats have a handful of credible candidates they could run while far-right Congressmen Paul Broun and Phil Gingrey are best positioned to be the Republicans' emissaries.  Democrats have an outside chance if the GOP runs Broun, but the perfect storm necessary for a Democrat to win a Georgia Senate seat seems very unlikely to materialize in a year like 2014.   Likely GOP.

Hawaii--Incumbent Democrat Brian Schatz, appointed after the death of Dan Inouye, may end up having a significant primary challenge on his hand from any number of ambitious Hawaii Democrats, and a primary would probably present him with his most serious threat, but there's an outside possibility former GOP Governor Linda Lingle could be persuaded to throw her hat in the ring again after her hopeless 2012 bid with native son Obama at the top of the ticket. There's no guarantee Lingle would make this race any more competitive than she did in 2012, but at the very least it should be an outside concern for Democrats in a doomsday environment.  Likely Democrat.

Idaho--Freshman Republican Jim Risch won in a landslide in the worst political climate for Republicans in my lifetime, so he'll have no problem at all winning a second term in the political climate of 2014.  Safe GOP.

Illinois--Very hard to imagine any scenario where three-term Democratic incumbent Dick Durbin receives a serious challenge in 2014.  Illinois proved in 2010 that in a perfect storm scenario, Republicans can eke out victories there, but the odds of Illinois turning out Durbin for a second Republican Senator would require another scandal of Blagojevich-level scope that seems highly unlikely.  Safe Democrat.

Iowa--There's still plenty of time for things to wrong, but thus far the aftermath of the retirement announcement from veteran Democrat Tom Harkin has produced everything going right for Democrats.  Their strongest candidate, Congressman Bruce Braley, immediately threw his hat in the ring while the strongest Republican, Congressman Tom Latham, deferred.  Now the frontrunner for the GOP nomination is right-wing Congressman Steve King, who polls horrifically in statewide matchups and it's hard to imagine him winning even in the most untenable political environment.  Again, the race has not taken full form yet, but Democrats like what they're seeing so far in regards to holding it.  Leans Democrat.

Kansas--Republicans don't lose in Kansas, and veteran Senator Pat Roberts will extend that streak with another landslide next year.  Safe GOP.

Kentucky--The car wreck of an Ashley Judd candidacy has thankfully been avoided, meaning Kentucky Democrats may be in a better position to avoid a downballot bloodbath, but there still only inches closer to their endgame of taking out Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.  The talk is that Democratic Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes is considering a run, and she has the potential to be a formidable candidate, but probably not next year and definitely not in Kentucky.  No matter how much Kentucky voters dislike and are sick of Mitch McConnell at this point, they dislike and are sick of Obama much more.  In the end, I'd be surprised if this was even close as I predict a double-digit McConnell win.  Likely GOP.

Louisiana--Three-term Democrat Mary Landrieu is an enigma in that she's the most liberal Senator to ever come out of red-and-getting-redder Louisiana, but she's also the state's most popular politician.  It appears she's letting it go to her head though as she's been voting with her party quite a bit even this year, despite her apparent plans to run for a fourth term next year.  In her previous three runs, she's managed small margins of victory even in neutral-to-positive political environments.  I don't suspect 2014 will be a neutral climate for her and it's very unlikely that it will be positive.  And now Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy, her toughest possible opponent at least on paper, has thrown his hat in the ring.  If the election were held tomorrow, I suspect Landrieu would hang on.  But the election isn't tomorrow, and I think 2014 will be the year Landrieu can't hang on any longer.  Leans GOP  (+3 GOP)

Maine--Maine may be a left-leaning state, but unlike some other left-leaning New England states, they don't seem to care whether hanging onto their "moderate" Republican Senators results in GOP Senate leadership becoming a majority.  Three-term incumbent Susan Collins won by 20 points against a top-tier Democratic challenger in the strong Democratic year of 2008, so the chances of taking her out in 2014 is very low.  It's not out of the question she may decide to retire as Olympia Snowe did last year, but as of now all signs point to her planning to run again.  And if she runs again, she wins.  Leans GOP.

Massachusetts--Before I can speculate on who wins John Kerry's old Senate seat in 2014, a special election will decide who wins it in 2013.  The frontrunner is clearly Democratic Congressman Ed Markey, but the last Massachusetts Senate special election frontrunner didn't fare so well, so caution is definitely in order before making a call.  Former Senator Scott Brown is not running, but at least on paper, Republican Gabriel Gomez looks like somebody worth taking notice of.  Odds are that Markey wins both the special election and a full term next year though.  Likely Democrat.

Michigan--Here's the nation's most wide-open Senate race following the retirement of long-time Democratic incumbent Carl Levin.  Both sides have a decent bench of credible candidates and there's no clear frontrunner right now so I can only make a call based on conditions on the ground and the political climate.  Even this is challenging, however, since the last midterm election in Michigan was a Republican blowout, even in the immediate aftermath of the Democrats rescuing the auto industry with virtually no Republican help.  Democrats still win more often than not, however, so I will give the narrowest advantage to Democrats just based on the fundamentals.  Leans Democrat.

Minnesota--After his incredibly narrow win in 2008, freshman Democrat Al Franken seemed poised to be one of the most vulnerable Democrats of 2014, but at least so far it isn't shaping up that way.  The top-tier of Republican challengers have either ruled out a challenge against him or are biding their time before making a decision, and delayed decisions to run create serious fund-raising obstacles in the current all-about-the-money climate.  With that said, if the political climate is as bad as it was in 2010, any Republican could probably beat Franken.  And whichever Republican does run strikes me as being at least a little more electable than Minnesota's 2012 GOP candidate Kurt Bills.  It's advantage Franken to be sure, but he's not yet a slam-dunk.  Leans Democrat.

Mississippi--Veteran Republican Thad Cochran seems like a candidate for retirement heading into 2014.  He's always been very popular in the state and would win by his usual 25-point margin if he runs again, but if he retires he'll inevitably be succeeded by another Republican who will most likely win by just a little bit less.  And if Cochran retires, it's a safe bet his successor will be more conservative as Cochran is about as moderate and congenial of a Republican as can be expected from Mississippi.  Safe GOP.

Montana--It's pretty obvious to me that long-time Democratic incumbent Max Baucus' goose is cooked.  While everything currently points to him running for re-election next year, my money is on him deciding against it when polls continue to show his standing failing to improve.  And I expect the seat has to be a tempting target for Republican Denny Rehberg, who lost narrowly to Jon Tester last year but would probably love to take out the even bigger target up next year similar to how John Thune returned from his 2002 loss to snuff out Tom Daschle in South Dakota.   The wild card for the Democrats here is if former Governor Brian Schweitzer can be coaxed into running.  He could win, even against Rehberg, if he decided to run, but that strikes me as a longshot, so my inclination is to bet that either Rehberg or "generic Republican" wins.  Leans GOP  (+4 GOP)

Nebraska--Following the surprise retirement of one-term Republican Mike Johanns, Nebraska has another open seat to fill next year.  In a similar situation last year, Democrats were somehow able to convince their strongest candidate, former Senator Bob Kerrey to run for his old seat.  And even in a much better political environment, Kerrey still lost by 16 points.  That bodes very poorly  for Democrats having any chance at all in 2014 as Nebraska just seems to be gone for them at every level.  Safe GOP.

New Hampshire--Given the volatile political climate of New Hampshire which seems to have a wave election one way or the other every two years, freshman Democrat Jeanne Shaheen has always been in that "potentially vulnerable" category, although she has yet to get an announced challenger to my knowledge.  News just last week could make things more interesting, however, as former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown has indicated some interest in switching states and running for Senate there.  With much of NH sharing Massachusetts media markets, it would be a masterstroke for Republicans if they pulled this off.  Assuming that Brown is still a longshot though, I've seen nothing yet to indicate this race is anything but Shaheen's to lose.  Leans Democrat.

New Jersey--As it stands now, Cory Booker appears poised to be the Democratic candidate to fill the senior of the retiring Frank Lautenberg.  Aside from Chris Christie who is very unlikely to make a Senate run, the GOP has a nearly nonexistent bench in New Jersey capable of seriously challenging Booker, so it would really require a political earthquake for Republicans to be competitive here.  Likely Democrat.

New Mexico--The political climate has changed a lot in New Mexico over the last decade, and almost entirely to the Democrats' advantage.  Even if things return to a 2010 posture, it's hard to imagine any Republican not named Susanna Martinez capable of toppling Democratic incumbent Tom Udall.  Likely Democrat.

North Carolina--The one endangered Democratic incumbent I'm leaning towards having a re-election advantage is freshman Democrat Kay Hagan.  The race should be close either way, but I think what may end up helping Hagan is that the Republicans who, through gerrymandering, have taken complete ownership of North Carolina's state government has proven more outside the mainstream to North Carolina voters than Obama.  Hagan's voting record is indicative of the balancing act required of a North Carolina Democrat, maintaining the support of the liberal base while trying to hold on to just enough conservative-leaning Old Southers to eke out a victory.  A worsening political environment could still finish her off, but as of now I think Hagan is better positioned for narrow victory than narrow defeat.  Leans Democrat.

Oklahoma--James Inhofe will probably run for another term and if he does, he will win easily in hard-right Oklahoma.  Or if Inhofe decides to retire, his Republican replacement will win easily.  Whoever has the (R) next to his or her name will win by more than 20 points.  Safe GOP.

Oregon--Freshman Democrat Jeff Merkley looks like he would be pretty vulnerable on paper, but his state has become such a wasteland for Republicans in the last 10 years that it's very hard to think of a GOP challenger that could take him on, with the obvious exception of former Senator Gordon Smith who seems like a longshot for a comeback.  Barring fantastic candidate recruitment by the Republicans or a massive partisan tide, Merkley is gonna be hard to beat.  Likely Democrat.

Rhode Island--Every indication is that Democratic incumbent Jack Reed plans to run for another term.  If he does, he'll win and if he doesn't, another Democrat will win.  I see no path to victory for any Republican running for federal office in Rhode Island.  Safe Democrat.

South Carolina--Two things seem pretty certain to me in the two Senate races up next year in South Carolina.  First, Republicans will win both of them.  And second, newly appointed African American Republican Tim Scott will be one of the two Republican winners.  A bigger question is whether two-term GOP incumbent Lindsey Graham will be able to survive a primary challenge following his years of deviations from Tea Party orthodoxy in a state where it's almost impossible for a Republican to be too conservative.  It ultimately doesn't matter in terms of partisan scorekeeping, but I'm leaning towards Graham being taken out by one of the state's fringe-right Republican Congressmen or even by a Some Dude Tea Party challenger.  Safe Republican for both seats.

South Dakota--Barring unforeseen developments, former Republican Governor Mike Rounds is gonna win this open seat vacated by retiring Democrat Tim Johnson.  Now it's entirely possible that such unforeseen developments could arise, including a Tea Party primary challenge against the "moderate" Rounds or simply that Rounds is another Tommy Thompson on the campaign trail.  Tim Johnson's son Brendan is one of the few Democrats even being mentioned for the blue side, along with former Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin who seems like a longshot to run.  Right now though, South Dakota looks the furthest gone of all the seats currently held by Democrats.  Likely GOP.  (+5 GOP)

Tennessee--Every indication is that center-right Republican incumbent Lamar Alexander plans to run for a third term.  Expect another crushing 2-1 victory if he does, but even if he doesn't, a 20-point Republican victory seems inevitable in the Tea Party Nation that is 21st century Tennessee.  Safe GOP.

Texas--For the next year, the biggest concern two-term Republican incumbent John Cornyn has is not letting his Tea Party nutjob colleague Ted Cruz get too far to his right and thus inspiring a Tea Party challenge against Cornyn.  I'm betting against it though and predict another easy victory for Cornyn.  Safe GOP.

Virginia--Freshman Democrat Mark Warner has always been inexplicably popular even in conservative corners of Virginia and it's helping him sustain commanding polls leads against hypothetical Republican challengers heading into 2014.  His strongest potential challenger would be Governor Bob McDonnell, but given McDonnell's obvious Presidential ambitions, it's unlikely he'd want to dirty his hands with a Senate record.  With that in mind, it would take on helluva a rotten political environment to make Warner vulnerable.  Likely Democrat.

West Virginia--Long-time GOP Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito has been biding her time for more than a decade, cautiously awaiting a political climate in which she thought she could wrestle a Senate seat from a popular Democrat.  That opportunity finally came in 2014 as she was one of the first to announce she was gonna challenge veteran Democrat Jay Rockefeller....until the epically vulnerable Rockefeller surprised nobody when he decided not to run for re-election.  Now Democrats have a very large bench in West Virginia so this thing isn't over, but the political tide is running so fiercely against them in the Obama era that it's hard to imagine the center-right Capito won't be the new face of West Virginia politics in another 18 months.  Likely GOP  (+6 GOP)

Wyoming--I'm assuming long-time Republican incumbent Mike Enzi runs for another term.  Either way, whoever has the (R) next to their name wins in a landslide.  Safe GOP.


My current tally has the Republicans gaining six seats, which would mean a 51-49 GOP majority.  Obviously it's too early to give any predictive merit to that assessment but with South Dakota and West Virginia very close to being gone already, it's an ominous sign for Democrats of how easy it will be for them to lose their majority.  Given that most of the contested races seem to go the same way in a wave election, Democrats desperately need to avoid a wave election this year of all years.  Right now I think their best hope at holding their majority is for Republicans to forfeit more seats by running Todd Akin-Christine O'Donnell-type candidates.  As always, time will tell.

Trying To Play a Summer Sport in the Winter

It may only be April 3 as of this writing, but the Major League Baseball season is already officially underway.  Not only is it underway, it's already almost a week old.   Those who only loosely follow the sport of baseball may be wondering why the baseball season is already a week old in the first week of April, especially when much of the country is less than two weeks removed from blizzards and Alberta clippers.  It's a good question, and the only answer is a combination of cluelessness and insatiable greed by baseball team owners that at some point will have huge negative implications on the quality of play, particularly in the postseason when it counts most.

Over the past 30 years, the baseball season has expanded collectively by more than a month.  Back in the mid-80s, the postseason had its first round of extension and the World Series that used to end by mid-October began to end in late October.  A decade later, another questionable expansion of the postseason grew the season by another week, with a good number of World Series in the last 20 years extending into November.  And right when I thought it couldn't get any more ridiculous, yet another expansion of the postseason is being added this year, only this expansion is pushing the season up a week.  A sport that was intended to be played in the summer is now being played from March to November when, global warming notwithstanding, it's winter in about half of the MLB markets.

Growing up in Minnesota, I can remember several extended winters growing up with a late spring thaw where the snowpack didn't melt away until April 10 or later.  And 2013 has had a late spring thaw as well, and in the aforementioned Minnesota, there is still substantial snowpack only an hour north of where the Minnesota Twins play in Minneapolis.  So I guess the team narrowly averted a major mess given that their home opener was on April 1, only about a week after all the seats in the stadium were still buried in snow.  Now in the past, it would have been common sense not to schedule a home opener in Minnesota on the first game of the season, and that was true even when the season began a week later.  But not anymore.  Tempting fate, those who schedule MLB games went right ahead and scheduled an outdoor baseball game in the Minnesota tundra on April 1.

And the reference to an "outdoor baseball game" is a perfect segue to the other big problem afflicting Major League Baseball in 2013.  Having sensibly pivoted towards domed stadiums in inclimate markets a few decades ago, baseball is now shrugging off the need for domed stadiums at the very time that it expands its season in both directions to the time when snow falls.  It's only a matter of time before Mother Nature gives us a harsh reminder of just how stupid that the overlapping decisions of repeatedly extending the baseball season and getting rid of domed stadiums were.

So what could propel the decisionmakers of Major League Baseball to tempt the weather to this extent, particularly when it pushes the critical postseason into winter weather territory?  The usual:  gluttony.   More team owners want to get into postseason action, to where the number of teams eligible for postseason play has unjustifiably increased from four to 10 over the last 20 years, and thus allowing more greedy owners to cash in on postseason play.  Unfortunately, a windfall for owners has turned into a nightmare for baseball fans, particularly those who are only able to watch postseason baseball on TV....provided they can find a network that airs it.  The broadcast nations used to be patient with MLB's expansive postseason, airing the games in primetime even as it gobbled up their lineup for the entire month of October.  But as postseason baseball consumes more and more calendar time, the broadcasters have lost their patience and the majority of postseason play has now been relegated to cable, meaning the average baseball fan who can't afford cable is potentially unable to even watch his or her hometown team in the league championship series. 

And for those who are able to watch postseason baseball, the World Series that was so exciting two decades ago has effectively become a nonevent.  I am a baseball fan and even I'm bored with postseason baseball by the time the multiple early rounds of playoffs finally end after four full weeks and the World Series finally begins around October 25 or whatever the date happens to be.  And of top of everything else, the variance in team payrolls extends from the New York Yankees $225 million annually to the Houston Astros' $25 million, a chasm so wide that the number of contenders for postseason play is shrinking even as the postseason itself keeps growing.  America's favorite pastime is rapidly becoming a victim of its hubris, overexposure, and foolishness....and it seems very unlikely this insanity is ever gonna be rolled back at this point no matter how unhinged things are in the eyes of the random casual fan of the sport.

One Working Class Hero Rises and Another Falls

Worlds intersected this week on MSNBC as one working-class hero took his bows while another got the shaft.  On Wednesday, the videographer responsible for the "47%" video that exposed Mitt Romney once and for all as the monster that he is last fall finally went public.  The guy's name is Scott Prouty and, as expected, he was a member of the staff at the hotel where Romney made his plutocratic comments at a $50,000-per-plate fund-raiser full of high rollers who have dedicated their lives to undermining American workers.

You never know what to expect when a guy like this reveals himself, but Prouty came across as deeply impressive, intelligent, and courageous.  He knew that revealing the contents of this video to the world would put a giant target on his back by the right-wing machine, but after a couple of weeks of soul-searching, he decided he couldn't live with himself if he didn't come forward.  And even the way he anonymously took to You Tube to drop snippets of the video, slightly altered to protect his identity, before thoroughly researching some of what Romney said in the video and leading him to lefty journalist David Corn, who helped distribute the video nationally, was extremely tactful and helped time its release at the perfect moment in the campaign.

One of the most interesting parts of Wednesday's interview with Prouty was that the 47% comments were  not his primary motivation for releasing the video....it was Romney's comments about how fantastic the caged-in conditions were in the Chinese factory went to buy, where young women we stacked 12-to-a-room in on-site dormatories. I was taken aback by those comments as well and felt they were unfairly overshadowed by the 47% comments, so I was glad Prouty found Romney's worldview in which such working conditions were jubilantly celebrated to be as offensive and as I did...and as motivational as it was for him to release the video.  In a way, the lack of scrutiny that portion of the video received during the campaign was pretty depressing, as it underscored the environment that Romney and his corporate donor base was eager to bring to America....and will succeed in if they ever con Democrats into allowing a "guest worker program" to any immigration reform bill that is put forth.

Now for the bad news....Prouty gave this interview to MSNBC's Ed Schultz, the working-class champion who Prouty so respected that he came to him first for a revelatory interview.  And in the cruelest of ironies, Schultz scored this giant interview....the night before he was benched by his network who wants to replace him with someone younger.  It's a huge mistake by MSNBC as Schultz had a specific niche audience and brought to light specific stories that nobody else in the media--even on MSNBC will touch--and his ratings were good as well.  His numbers were even better than what Keith Olbermann got in his final two years in that time slot, but apparently Schultz's numbers didn't skew as young as what other MSNBC hosts numbers did.

Schultz is not going away entirely as he'll now be sidelined to a two-hour slot on weekend afternoons, at least for now, and he's claiming he volunteered to take the demotion even though nobody believes him.  This feels a lot like Dan Rather's departure from CBS News in 2005, where he was officially going to be a continued "60 Minutes" correspondent but was quietly bounced completely off the air within a few months.  Schultz's replacement will be Chris Hayes, who is quite impressive himself and more of an intellectual heavyweight than Schultz.  I like Hayes, who has his own show currently on MSNBC weekends, and the message of his show won't be entirely out of sync with Schultz's, but the metaphor couldn't possibly be uglier for those concerned with labor issues.  The movement's highest-profile ally is taking it on the chin in favor of a younger voice peddling academic liberalism.  Every minor step forward always seems to be accompanied with a step back.

Sequester Stupidity

As the nation lunges ever-closer to the edge of another artificial crisis with the March 1 realization of the previously unthinkable "sequester", a particularly childish argument is ensuing about who is responsible for it rather than invocation of adult solutions or compromises.  Unfortunately, I'm gonna have to confess that in this pointless blame game, President Obama is probably most complicit, indirectly, because it's just another example of him having underestimated the extent to which Congressional Republicans have become 200+ Lex Luthors, plotting to destroy their own country.

In the final throes of the debt ceiling debate in the summer of 2011, with the country only days (and possibly even hours) away from a default that would have triggered a global depression, the Obama administration came up with the "sequester" as a way of convincing House Republicans to kick the can on a spending fight and pass a debt ceiling increase.  By making reckless military spending cuts a key component of the sequester, the Obama team figured Republicans would have no choice but to bargain in good faith when the time arrived, as they would never be willing  to allow such damaging cuts to their sacred cow of defense spending bloat.  I think everybody is a little bit surprised as we approach March 1 to see that Republicans ARE willing to savage their own military base if it means taking away some of Obama's political capital.

Unfortunately, it appears there are two types of Republicans in Washington right now, and both types are equally harmful to the country.  The first type of harmful Republicans are the true believers, those who think government spending of any kind is an unqualified drag on the economy and the budget, and that only good can come from any pound of flesh they can slice off the "Leviathan".  This would be the Tea Party types, driven by ignorance and ideology more than simple partisan gamesmanship, and thus supportive of riding off the sequester cliff.  The second group is the GOP leadership--the Mitch McConnell types--who have a better understanding of the connection between government spending and the state of an economic recovery when private sector growth is lagging, but are still willing to let the country deal with the fallout of a haphazard, frontloaded cut in federal spending simply because they think doing so will weaken the President and help their fraternity's chances of reclaiming the victory trophy in the next election. 

And politically, the calculation by the Republicans could play out shrewdly on this one.  Unlike the previous artificial deadlines, it seems both Obama and the public are too exhausted to care that much about this one, even though the consequences of letting it pass will be not insignificant.  The debt ceiling and New Year's tax hike deadlines would have had abrupt consequences on the public felt by nearly everyone, but the sequester will have a slower drip-drip effect in which the pain will not be broadly felt in the near term.  This allows Republicans to take credit for the cuts in spending but then blame Obama for the lack of economic recovery that plays out over the next two years largely as a consequence of the spending cuts.  And the case to counter this will be pretty complicated for Obama and the Democrats to sell to the public.

And for all the unnecessary extraction of resources our economy so desperately needs that will occur as a result of this sequester, it's effect on our deficit will be infinitesimal.   It might even grow the deficit since the reduced economic activity that will come as a consequence from the sequester's fallout may reduce tax revenues.  As is frequently cited, the real growth in our deficit long-term will be the result of entitlements, which will not be touched as part of the sequester.  More specifically, the growth will be the result of America's uniquely dysfunctional and prohibitively expensive health care delivery system.  Obama reportedly went so far as to counter Speaker Boehner's claim of the nation's "spending problem" by saying "we don't have a spending problem....we have a health care problem."  This is a relatively astute observation, but the administration's stated solutions to our health care spending problem don't fill me with confidence about its seriousness to bring those costs down.....

First, ObamaCare kept the basic structure of the existing health care delivery system intact.  Doing so was necessary to keep enough special interests onboard to pass the thing, but I actually agree with Paul Ryan's comment regarding ObamaCare's stated intention of reducing health care spending.....that if ObamaCare reduces the deficit, "I will eat my tie".  Second, Obama is on record in being willing to raise the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare to 67 as part of a "grand bargain" in dealing with Republicans.  This suggests to me that Obama doesn't have a very serious grasp on what's driving health care costs in the country.  It isn't 65-year-olds bankrupting Medicare....it's 85-year-olds.  And third, the administration's front-and-center push to control health care spending involves the usual suspects.....pretending that smoking and obesity are responsible for higher costs rather than lower costs, again confirming that they don't understand how health care spending works.

In truth, we can narrow Obama's comment to Boehner of having a "health care problem" as it relates to our deficit even further.  We have an "old people living longer" problem.  Sensible countries address this issue by rationing health care outlays.  In America, we're not even talking about it, instead pretending that our deficit issues will go away if fewer people eat cheeseburgers or if a few federal workers lose their jobs.  It's too soon to tell how severe the pain will be that the country endures as a consequence of the sequester, but it's safe to say that whatever level of pain we endure, it will be for absolutely zero benefit as it pertains to spending reduction and deficit control.