Post Holiday Catching Up

Loose Blog Ends:

• My liberal in-laws and conservative parents shared the house for three days, with only one moderately big political dust-up. All was settled and nice was made, but the most interesting thing was something my wonderful-even-though-she's-a-Fox-News-aficionado mother said: "Colin Powell should come back and run. I'd like to vote for him." My jaw dropped. I replied that he'd probably win in a walk. That there was nobody more perfectly poised to capture 60% of the vote after his opposition to the war planning and execution, but support of the President. I don't think he will run, and I wouldn't vote for him if he did. But mine won't be the last house where his name comes up before '08.


• Bev Campbell commented publicly here a couple of times about family and Christmas, and I'd like to thank her and I hope she was able to enjoy her holiday at home. According to the pro media, she was saying yesterday that unlike Squire, she had not yet decided whether or not to formally challenge the results.


• Also over the holiday, another commenter here strongly urged her to push forward with the challenge, and performed the awkward task of simultaneously rebutting an argument made on another blog about another race, and the applicability of said argument as applied to Bev's race. I know a lot of people would like to see a more transparent election process, and they have a pretty good idea that it won't happen without some direct pressure from a candidate with standing to demand it. I sympathize. But my opinion on this particular situation is that: if there's a reasonable shot of taking office by challenging, then challenge. If there is tangible evidence that the results are unreliable, and the only way to bring these to light is to challenge, then challenge. If there is only circumstantial evidence of irregularities, and challenging the election results based on that evidence has no realistic chance of getting Bev into the General Assembly, then say so, loudly. Explain why the official challenge was not worth doing, then build on that. 2008 will be here before you know it.
  

  Of course, that's only my opinion. And I'm in no position to speculate on how tangible the evidence is and how realistic overturning the results based on that evidence is. Nor have I been in the position of pouring everything I've got into a campaign. It's easy for me to say "if x, y, and, z then walk away and fight another day." Other opinions certainly exist and are welcome here.



• Speaking of which, I promised a comment thread where folks could talk about Brian Eastman. Who is Brian Eastman? According to one anonymous commenter, he's a potential Strickland appointee who plays both sides of the partisan fence. According to everyone else... Well, Google searches on his appointment are pulling up my anonymous commenter's opinion as the first relevant hit. I know this because I've been getting traffic from those Googlings. My searches indicate that he's held a couple of positions in state government, and sat on a management/labor council on the management side (amongst a small group including Maryellen O'Shaughnessy and Mary Jo Kilroy). He has not contributed significant cash to any candidate or committee that I can find...
  

  So who cares? Seriously, I want to know who cares and why. It's possible that this guy Eastman actually is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's also possible that someone is trying to get my help in performing a baseless hit job on a perfectly well-qualified job applicant. Anyone with any info either way, please leave a comment (and please use a name or pseudonym, using 'anonymous' is considered bad form by your host).