Boxer and Fiorina Debate in Blue Red State California

Jan Brewer's cringe inducing debate performance received more media attention, but there was another debate this week of significantly greater import. Carly Fiorina and Barbara Boxer met for their first (and potentially only) debate of the election season. It is one of the "dirty dozen" contests that will determine whether the GOP retakes the majority in the Senate.

Democrats enjoy a huge advantage in statewide California elections. In 2008, 44% registered Democratic, 31% registered Republican and 20% Independent (Decline to State). Despite the uneven playing field, Fiorina and Boxer were polling at a dead heat going into the debate. Combine that with Republican Meg Whitman's lead over Democrat Jerry Brown, and some usually careful conservative bloggers are moved to hyperbole - Ed Morrissey:

"Welcome to California, the Red State... If both Boxer and Brown lose, what does that say about the direction of California — and what does it mean for Barack Obama? California’s one of the few states where his approval numbers remain mildly positive. If that’s true and Democrats still lose statewide races in this cycle, it makes Obama an irrelevance, and perhaps means that the state with the largest number of electoral votes may be in play two years from now."

Yeah... I think Ed is getting a little ahead of himself. Let's dial back a bit and just focus on this critical California Senate contest and debate. A sample clip:

I generally have very low expectations for political debates. Perhaps that is why I was pleasantly surprised, even impressed by the Boxer/Fiorina face-off. My take:

Both candidates acquitted themselves well and were very well prepared. It was a good debate. Boxer and Fiorina clearly had different objectives in this debate, and I think they both accomplished what they set out to do. With her big registration advantage, Boxer just needed to play to her base. California voters already know Boxer and her shtick. She just needed to be the crusading liberal senator her base expects and not make mistakes. If she can get the Democrats off their collective asses and voting in force, she should win this going away. But this year, with 60 days to go, with Democrats feeling lethargic and uninspired, that appears to be a mighty big "if".

Fiorina had more at stake in this debate, as I suspect this was the first time that many California voters started to pay attention to this election. This was Fiorina's chance to make a first impression on voters who do not know her well. She needed to look senatorial, competent, and in command of the issues facing the state. Debates are as much about TV, presence and image as they are about issues. From that perspective, she knocked it out of the park. She came across as smart, articulate and tough with a detailed understanding of the issues - basically a strong business woman. Fiorina could have easily blown her chances with a stumble in this debate, but instead she inspired confidence.

That said, there was one major issue that has emerged in this contest that I did not feel qualified to judge. So I asked my wife - Who had the better hair? She did not hesitate - Carly had the better "do". That seals it. I'm calling this round for Carly. Michael Rosen agrees...

"... in one area in particular these two strands — big government liberalism and legislative fecklessness — weave together: the cap-and-trade regime, which Fiorina calls the “most expensive regulatory act in U.S. history,” which will burden consumers and kill yet more jobs, but to which Boxer has adhered religiously. At the debate, Fiorina blasted the senator for her inability to shepherd the ill-considered legislation to passage and for having it “taken away from her and given to John Kerry.” This, in the end, is Boxer’s legacy: failed leadership and misguided policies amidst troubling times. Thus, in a toxic environment where irate voters find themselves booting incumbents even during primaries, it’s not much of a stretch to predict that Boxer’s political life will never be the same come November."

...and Garry South disagrees. Most post-mortems called it close or a draw. The Survey USA Poll that Morrissey linked has Fiorina up by 2 points - within the margin of error. It was conducted the day before and day of the debate, so we don't get a clean read of the debate with that poll. I'm guessing Fiorina was good enough for a bump in the polls that will give her a lead outside the margin of error. We'll update this post when we get a definitive read - probably early next week.

In other election news, the blogosphere was abuzz with Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball Prognostication:

"In the Senate, we now believe the GOP will do a bit better than our long-time prediction of +7 seats. Republicans have an outside shot at winning full control (+10), but are more likely to end up with +8 (or maybe +9, at which point it will be interesting to see how senators such as Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others react). GOP leaders themselves did not believe such a result was truly possible just a few months ago. If the Republican wave on November 2 is as large as some polls are suggesting it may be, then the surprise on election night could be a full GOP takeover. Since World War II, the House of Representatives has flipped parties on six occasions (1946, 1948, 1952, 1954, 1994, and 2006). Every time, the Senate flipped too, even when it had not been predicted to do so. These few examples do not create an iron law of politics, but they do suggest an electoral tendency."

Strange, his prediction seems vaguely familiar.

Let's net this out - for any fellow Californians who understand and believe in the moderating influence and simply better governance that results from divided government in Washington D.C. - this is the contest that is likely to be the difference. It is time to step up.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Good News, Everyone!

OK, I couldn't resist the title & pic combo. But it IS nice to finally see a small suggestion of a bright spot in the employment situation. Below is a chart from the Mercatus Center at George Mason U. regarding temp staffing contrasted with payroll employment.



While the short text implies the fall in temp staffing is a bad sign, I have a somewhat different take seeing the two stats together*. The fall-off in temps staffing coincides with a positive uptick in payroll hiring, which strongly suggests that an equilibrium is being reached in payroll staffing. To wit, it suggests that employers have reached a point where they have quit downsizing and insuring against further decline, and for the moment are feeling comfortable with fully staffing at their current levels of production.

That's a far cry from actual growth, mind you, but given the very expensive mandates already shoved down their throats (ObamaCare, new taxes and regs), the threat of more to come (more tax hikes and even more burdensome regs), the weak economy and ongoing workout of bad assets from the real estate and financial bubble-bursts, amd the enormous uncertainties associated with all of the above, it's a positive indicator of equilibrial stabilization, perhaps due to watchful waiting ahead of the elections. Which beats the hell out of further decline and IMHO is a positive indicator of reduced "double-dip" potentials.

If the "watchful waiting" hypothesis is correct, evidence of it will be found in market trends tracking the polls the closer we get to the elections, and in the election-reaction market movements the first week of November, as election results are confirmed.

[*--Pay attention to the somewhat different scales so as to not get the two levels confused as being the same. Also, for those not used to reading such things, please note that positive/negative is where the lines cross their respective 0.0% lines, not where the trend direction changes. Payroll jobs did not start upticking in early-'09, for example, that's where the rate of losses started reducing. But increases in payroll employment do not begin until the 0.0% point was reached in the uptick of the trend, roughly May '10. And temp staffing did not hit 0.0% until July '10.]

The question facing libertarians...

...is not the question debated in the August-September issue of Reason - "Where do Libertarians Belong?".

That debate featured Cato Kauffman Foundation scholar Brink Lindsey, Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg and Tea Party organizer Matt Kibbe. An interesting read, but more than a little frustrating. They re-litigate the same hand-wringing debate I first noted and commented on at the beginning of this blog, over four years ago. In particular, Jonah delights in beating Brink about the head and shoulders with the "Liberaltarian" trope that Brink enthusiastically supported a few years ago. Brink is decidedly less enthusiastic now. Perhaps he read this sad account of my own failed liberaltarian affair.

For those who don't have the time or inclination to read the entire article, I offer this debate summary:

• Shorter Brink Lindsey: Libertarians should forget the right and aim for the center. BTW the Tea Party also sucks.
• Shorter Jonah Goldberg: Libertarians should forget the left, and stick with the right.
• Shorter Matt Kibbe: Libertarians should forget the right and left, and work with the Tea Party to find a new path. BTW - Fuck you Lindsey and the horse you rode in on.

Brian Moore has an even shorter version. No real conclusions were either expected or found by the paticipants. But at least there was one amusing answer to the question offered by a commenter at Reason.com: "Where Do Libertarians Belong? - In the camps, silly."

More interesting than yet another futile attempt to answer this unresolvable question, are the questions that the debate spawned around the blogosphere -

Clive Crook thinks the question should be phrased "What Use Is a Libertarian?" Nick Gillespie answers his question with another question - "Are Libertarians Really as Useless as a Bucket of Armpits? Or Do They Just Smell That Way?" Black Jesus worries "Is Libertarianism Dead?" Ilya Somin wonders if Brink is moving "From 'Liberaltarianism' to Libertarian Centrism?" Noah Millman asks "Whither Libertarians?" Mollie Hemingway invokes the "The death of liberaltarianism?" Stackiii wants to know "Can These Groups Win Without Each Other? Heather Horn finds even more posts with even more questions and finally asks one herself "Should Libertarians Ditch the Republican Party?

So many questions. And yet, no one is asking the right question:

How can libertarians become politically relevant?

Back to Clive Crook:

"I cannot see what purpose is served by worrying about which of these unappeasable opponents would make the better partner."

Exactly. Aiming for the middle does not cut it. Nor aiming to shoot the right as Lindsey advocates, nor aiming to shoot the left as Goldberg advocates, nor aiming at both as Kibbe advocates.

From a practical perspective, asking rhetorically whether libertarians have a "use" or "where they belong" is less important than understanding how they can be politically relevant. One key to political relevance is simple - a predictable centrist libertarian swing vote. The rub - for a swing vote to be predictable it has to be organized. And nobody yet has figured out how to herd these cats. This is sometimes referred to as the "Hot Tub Libertarian" problem.

There is an answer. There is a way to herd these cats. There is a path to imbuing libertarians with policy shifting power and political relevance. Paraphrasing from an earlier post "Curing Libertarian Electile Dysfunction":

A libertarian swing vote organization is going to have to look different than traditional political organization. After all, it is something we will have to accomplish while sitting in the hot-tub. What is needed, is an organizing principle. Ideally, a principle that is so obvious, so logical, and so clear-cut, that no leadership is needed, no parties are needed, no candidates are needed, and no infrastructure is needed. Ideally it is this easy: You think about the principle, and you know how to vote.

That organizing principle exists. It is voting for Divided Government. It is absolutely clear-cut and easy to understand. Divided Government is documented by Niskanen et.al. to work in a practical real-world manner to restrain spending and the growth of the state. As a voting strategy it can be implemented immediately. More importantly, it can collectively be implemented individually as we sit in our hot tubs and ponder the sorry state of the world. Whatever the percentage of the electorate that a libertarian/Tea Party represents, whether it is 6% or 20%, if they vote as a block for divided government, they immediately become the brokers of an evenly split partisan electorate. They arguably become the single most most potent voting block in the country, specifically because they are willing to vote either Democratic or Republican as a block. Specifically because they are not fused to one party or the other. Specifically because they are not trying to figure out "where they belong".

If a libertarian/Tea Party divided government vote is shown to swing elections for two or three cycles, then libertarians will no longer be inchoate, their message no longer diffused, and their political clout no longer flaccid. As long as the bulk of the electorate remain polarized and balanced, even a small percentage libertarian (or Tea Party) swing vote organized around divided government will be enough for those Tea Party libertarians to proudly display the biggest swinging political "hammer" in town.

It could happen.

Addendum:
The Reason cover has an image of some of our favorite pols on a Nolan Chart. This quick quiz plots your political proclivity on such a two dimensional political chart, with the four corners defined as liberal (L), conservative (R), libertarian (U), statist (D). I hadn't taken the test in a while, and the result is unsurprising - this is where The Dividist belongs...

As a libertarian dividist, I'll be voting straight Republican for federal office this year. Should the GOP take the majority in either house of Congress, I'll be voting for the re-election of Barack Obama in 2012.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Ten in Ten Wherein we explore the prospects for restoring divided government by means of the GOP winning the Senate

Labor Day is fast approaching, bringing the unofficial end of a long hot summer and the official start of a short hot fall political election season. As a political blogger, the sun never sets on the election season. Time to take another stroll down the Dividist beach to see if that beautiful object of our affection, Divided Government, is drawing any closer.

Last time we looked for her the answer was "no", the same answer we found shortly after the election in 2008, and when we looked again in 2009. Conventional wisdom still says "no", but conventional wisdom has taken some surprising turns in 2010.

Conventional Wisdom

In January, the expectation was that the GOP would make gains in both houses of Congress, but fall short of retaking a majority in either. It just looked like the GOP was buried too deep in the sand to dig themselves out in one cycle. The Scott Brown "Massachusetts Miracle" eclipsed that particular ray of conventional wisdom, and since then CW has cautiously has settled on a partly cloudy forecast with a chance of heavy Republican rain. The current political weather report gives the GOP a good chance to retake the majority in the House of Representatives, but the Senate is still considered by most to be out of reach. Conventional wisdom is not unanimity, so you can find some grasping at straws, others fearing the worst, and a few wondering how bad it could get. To the center right, it looks like a done deal. We'll start our analysis by narrowing down the range of possibilities.

Every Possible Scenario
The entire universe of possibilities can be distilled to these four outcomes - listed in order of Current Conventional Wisdom:

1. Democrats retain Senate, Republicans win House
2. Democrats narrowly retain House and Senate
3. Republicans win House and Senate
4. Republicans win Senate, Democrats retain House

The best way to evaluate this would be a bottoms-up analysis looking at detailed polls and statistically correlating demographics and voting history on a district by district, state by state, and election by election basis. I'm not going to do any of that. For one thing, it is beyond my ken, for another, I can get all that from the usual suspects doing the polling and Nate Silver's blog doing the quant work. Instead, I’m going to look at the election through the prism of two "rules of thumb" and look for similarities and differences to historically analogous elections. And steal from Nate.

Maxims and Thumbs
The first rule of thumb does not get much publicity, but is an interesting fact that I've dubbed "The 100 Year Rule". In the almost 100 years since we have been been electing Senators directly (only since the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913) the House of Representatives has never flipped majorities unless the Senate flipped first or at the same time. If conventional wisdom is correct and the Republicans take the House but not the Senate, it would be an historic first. So my first prediction is to go out on a limb and say this is not going to happen. Conventional wisdom is wrong and this scenario is the least likely of the four.

The second rule of thumb is Tip O'Neil's maxim "All politics is local." To the degree that O'Neills maxim is true, it is true about the House. This is just another way of saying (as is the first rule) that it extremely difficult to flip majorities in the House of Representatives. House incumbents, (frequently aided by gerrymandered districts) enjoy extraordinarily high re-election rates. Even when voters tell pollsters they despise Congress in general, they'll say they love their specific representative who is often the conduit by which federal services are delivered or expedited to individuals, municipalities, and businesses in the district. House elections are almost always "local." Almost.

Looking Back
1994 and 2006 were two midterm election cycles where elections were decidedly not local. They turned on national issues and the House of Representatives flipped majorities simultaneously with a flip in the Senate. These two mid-term elections shared several characteristics: We were under One Party Rule (Democrats in '94 - Republicans in '06); There was widespread dissatisfaction with the party in power; The opposition party was energized; The base of the incumbent party was disillusioned with a palpable lack of enthusiasm; There was a widespread perception that the party in power was arrogantly pursuing policies opposed by a majority of Americans; Major corruption scandals were in the headlines for the party in power throughout the election year (Rostenkowski in '94, Abramoff and Foley in '06).

Now, without a doubt, all of these elements are present in 2010. However, I don't believe the 2010 corruption stars (Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel) rise to the level of the corruption superstars we had in '94 and '06. In both of those elections, the corruption scandals were the last straw and triggered the "throw the bums out" gag reflex in the voters. Unless there is an October surprise and more corrupt Democratic pols make into the headlines, I just don't believe there is enough animus to overcome the huge House of Representatives incumbent advantage to get the massive 40 seat shift. Plus, one should not underestimate Nancy Pelosi. My conclusion on the House: Close, but no cigar. 2010 will not be quite like 1994 or even like 2006.

Miracles Happen
So if we are to see divided government restored in 2010, the best chance will be the Senate. In January this looked like an impossible hill to climb. The Democrats held a 60-40 super majority and the tie-breaker in the person of Joe Biden. To gain the majority the Republicans would have to win 11 seats. Nobody in either party considered that realistic. But - then something remarkable happened. Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. You might not think that one seat would change the complexion dramatically, but it does.

Thanks Nate
Time to rip Nate Silver's work. His chart on the left is remarkable. It shows Nate's stack ranking of the Senate seats most likely to change parties. Of the top 12 seats most likely to switch parties, 11 of them are currently held by Democrats. All either have the Republicans leading in the polls or are within the margin of error. The one seat of the top 12 currently held by a Republican is the Florida Senate, and it is only there because Independent Crist is in a dead heat with Republican Rubio. The Democrat has no chance in Florida. And if Crist were to win, he would likely caucus Republican for reasons that I'll outline shortly. Now - this still appears to be a very tough climb as the Republicans need 10 of the 11 Dem seats in play to secure an outright majority. But wait! - there is another scenario - they may need to win only 8 or 9 of the 11 seats to take control of the Senate. How? the answer can be discerned by looking to the 2012 election.

2012 effect on 2010
This year the structural playing field is even. There are 37 Senate seats yet to be decided, with 19 currently held by Democrats and 18 held be Republicans. In 2012 the Republicans will have a huge structural advantage in the Senate elections. Of the 33 seats contested, 23 are held by Democrats and 10 by Republicans. The Democrats will be on defense with many more seats to defend, the Republicans will have a target rich environment. If they don't already have the majority, it it is a lock the GOP will take the majority in 2012.

Why is this important in 2010? Because Senators Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman can count. If the GOP gets within 1 or 2 seats of an outright majority, Nelson and Lieberman will be in play. They'll have one shot to cut a deal to guarantee their committee chairmanships for at least another 4-6 years (if re-elected), whereas they will be out as Committee chairs after two years if they continue to caucus Democratic. This also applies to Crist should he knock off Rubio in Florida. My take - these guys like the power and perks that come with committee chairmanships and will not be inclined to give them up too quickly. It just would not be as much fun for them, being in the Senate without that chair. And lets be honest - its not like you liberals have been particularly nice to either of them over the last couple of years.

The Dividist Prognosticates
The Dividist 2010 election prediction: The GOP wins 8 or 9 more Senate seats outright, then takes majority control by flipping Lieberman and/or Nelson. They fall a few seats short in the House and Nancy Pelosi continues as Speaker of the House.

Stack ranking of all possible election scenarios in order of likelihood:

1. Republicans win 8-9 seats flip Lieberman,/Nelson take Senate, Democrats narrowly retain House
2. Democrats narrowly retain House and Senate
3. Republicans win House and Senate
4. Republicans win House, Democrats retain Senate
   

We'll be tracking this dirty dozen of Senate races in posts between now and the election to monitor our last best chance of restoring a perfect "10" in '10 and once again gaze upon a beautiful, desirable, smoking hot divided government in 2011.

Takeover Chances

Race
	Margin
N. Dakota	Hoeven v. Potter +40
Arkansas	Boozman v. Lincoln +32
Indiana	Coats v. Ellsweorth +14
Delaware	Castle v. Cook +9
Pa.	Toomey v. Sestak +8
Colorado	Buck v. Bennet +5
Nevada	Angle v. Reid +1
Florida	Rubio v. Crist +1
Illinois	Kirk v. Giannoulias +0
Wash.	Rossi v.Murray -1
Calif.	Fiorina v. Boxer -2
Wisconsin	Johnson v. Feingold -3
Kentucky	Paul v. Conway +4

(chart from Nate Silver's 538)

Ok - I actually listed a baker's dozen. Rand Paul's race in Kentucky is included in the watch list, as his lead is barely out of the margin of error. It'll be an interesting race to watch. Like Sharon Angle in Nevada, Rand Paul was a tea party favorite that knocked off the GOP establishment candidate. In both cases, media gaffes prompted unfavorable polls and a lot of chortling from the left. The left-o-sphere was confident that the Tea Party had torpedoed GOP chances in Kentucky and Nevada. I checked in with Moonage, a Kentucky blogger who always has his finger on the pulse of local politics. He is calling Kentucky for Rand Paul. Take it FWIW, but I think Moon's got it right.

Nevada? Another matter. Frankly I am astonished that this race remains a virtual dead heat, and it is prompting signs of panic on the left. The Nevada race may be the single clearest indicator that this may be a bigger GOP tsunami than Conventional Wisdom has yet to acknowledge.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Of Maxims and Mosques and Monticello and Mojo

I was recently contacted by the blogging authorities, demanding to know why I have yet to post about the Mosque/Cultural Center to be built/not built in a location somewhere near/not near ground zero in New York. I have no excuse. I cannot plead ignorance, as I have been cognizant for some time that this was a Mandatory Blogging Topic - yet I failed to act.

I have avoided my blogging obligations because, on this issue, I feel a lot like this guy - or this guy - or perhaps like William Shakespeare "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." I see this as little more than a excuse by partisans and bloggers on both the right and left to flog their favorite bogeymen in the hope of securing a minor political advantage. The significance of this story is not worth the ink and electrons spilled on it.

But, I don't want to risk my blogging privileges, so let me make my position on this question perfectly clear - This blogger stands firmly with Michael Bloomberg, Grover Norquist, Chris Christie, Joe Scarborough, Michael Gerson and Barack Obama (Friday, 8/13/10 version) in support or indifference to the location of the Cordoba project mosque - and stand in opposition to Harry Reid, Howard Dean and Barack Obama (Saturday 8/14/10 version) who do not support the location of the Cordoba project mosque.

In America, in matters of religious tolerance there are no close calls, there is no qualification of first principles, and the first amendment is not location dependent. I hold no quarter with the distinction of "rights" vs. right which seems to be the Clintonian parsing of choice among those looking to rationalize making the Cordoba Project move the mosque.

I''m going to make this easy on myself and crib extensively from a previous post invoking the views of a founding father whose quote is the source of the name of this blog and speaks directly to this issue.

Thomas Jefferson writing in the third person, in a letter to Dr. Jacob De La Motta on the occasion of the 1820 dedication of a synagogue in Savannah, Georgia:

."Th. Jefferson returns his thanks to Dr. De La Motta for the eloquent discourse on the Consecration of the Synagogue of Savannah, which he has been so kind as to send him. It excites in him the gratifying reflection that his country has been the first to prove to the world two truths, the most salutary to human society, that man can govern himself, and that religious freedom is the most effectual anodyne against religious dissension: the maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where its true form is "divided we stand, united, we fall." He is happy in the restoration of the Jews, particularly, to their social rights, and hopes they will be seen taking their seats on the benches of science as preparatory to their doing the same at the board of government. He salutes Dr. De La Motta with sentiments of great respect."

His short letter speaks to both the intent and core convictions of a key founder and architect of our country and constitution. Consider the pride and importance that Jefferson invests in the principle of religious freedom and diversity in this letter. He finds it "gratifying" that our country was the "first to prove to the world" the "two truths" that are the most beneficial to human society - "that man can govern himself", and absolute "religious freedom" is the only answer to "religious dissension".

Andrew Sullivan reminds us that Islam was explicitly included in Jefferson's message of tolerance. He quotes from Jefferson's autobiography where Jefferson expands on the intent of the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom - "Jefferson On The Toleration Of Islam":

Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read 'a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.' The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."

Finally in a letter to Moredcai Manuel Noah, Jefferson reminds us that protection of religious freedom under the law, while necessary, is not sufficient to ensure tolerance and the fair and equitable treatment of all religious belief.

"Our laws have applied the only antidote to this vice, protecting our religious, as they do our civil rights, by putting all on an equal footing. But more remains to be done, for although we are free by the law, we are not so in practice. Public opinion erects itself into an inquisition, and exercises its office with as much fanaticism as fans the flames of an Auto-da-fé. The prejudice still scowling on your section of our religion altho' the elder one, cannot be unfelt by ourselves. It is to be hoped that individual dispositions will at length mould themselves to the model of the law, and consider the moral basis, on which all our religions rest..."

The work of religious tolerance was incomplete in the time of Jefferson, and remains incomplete today. Religious intolerance is an issue that every generation of Americans must face anew for themselves. As Americans of good will fought for the principle of religious freedom at the beginning of the American experiment, it falls to Americans of good will in each generation, of every religion, race and creed, to ensure that in their own time their generation remembers and understands that - as regards religion - “divided we stand.”

To wrap this up I will invoke a poet/philosopher of our own time - Mojo Nixon. While these lyrics were written in response to another civil libertarian challenge, I don't think Mojo would mind my applying them here...

"You know - Thomas Jefferson
Is gonna be mighty pissed
When he finds out about this,
I say - Come back from the dead Tom,
Sock ‘em in the head."

- Mojo