Happy Monday!

Sadly, I have to open this with some disheartening news, as I learned yesterday that a deadly car accident in Ballard claimed the lives of three recent BHS grads early this morning. A fourth passenger is fighting for her life at Harborview. I am still trying to find out who was in the car, but reports are they are in their early 20's, meaning it is likely I knew them. Scary and sad.

UPDATE: The Seattle Times has an updated story today. All members of the BHS Class of '08.

--

On a far happier note, I was able to watch Connecticut take on Baylor in the women's Final Four last night, in what was supposed to be a test for the Huskies. It was. Baylor crawled to within three in the second half. But let's get real here. UConn won by 20. They have won their Elite 8 and Final Four games by a combing 60 points. This is a team that hasn't allowed more than 50 points in the entire tournament. They will play Stanford, a team already a 12-point victim earlier this season, a Tuesday's national championship game.

What will I be doing on Tuesday? Watching the game of course, but only after coming down from a double dose of Monday excitement, which will include the Mariners' Opening Day, as well the men's title game. Fittingly, the Red Sox and Yankees kicked of 2010 last night with a thriller at Fenway.

--

How about some politics huh? The thing that caught my eye this morning was an op-ed from yesterday's Washington Post, written by former Vice President Dan Quayle, who knows a thing or two about third party politics. Quayle was George H.W. Bush's veep and on the losing end of the 1992 election, thanks largely to the 19 percent who voted for Ross Perot.

What started as a grass-roots phenomenon ended with 19 percent support at the ballot box -- and a majority of those voters would probably have gone Republican in a two-party race. Speaking on behalf of the Bush-Quayle campaign, to this day we firmly believe that Perot cost the Republican Party the White House.

Quayle's claim is that there is evidence this scenario could play out again this year. In reality, it already has, in the NY-23 district, where the Tea Party and the establishment clashed, to the benefit of Democrats.
Interestingly, he points out the Tea Party's close focus on fiscal policy:

The tea partiers are concerned, above all, with fiscal matters and national security; they are not focused on the social issues that bring together other parts of the Republican coalition.

I say interesting because, as has been pointed out many times, many of these people receive federal benefits. Some have readily admitted such to newspapers. Which begs the question about rural America and how decisions on voting actually occur. It seems widely believed that rural (and mostly Southern, white) voters pick candidates do to born-again social policy. In other words, pro-life, etc. Because if these people voted based on their financial situation, they'd all vote for the welfare that is received by more rural, white mothers than any other demographic. Yet, they defy their own pocketbooks for tax cuts that they wouldn't even get. So many of them are out of work, but they are supporting the party that continues to block their unemployment benefits.

With many of these factors in play, Quayle could very much be right, which would obviously be good for Democrats.

Other links:

- There was actually a lot about the Tea Party today, as many people are trying to figure out just who they are. Well, here is a report showing that they lean heavily conservative, white and older than 34.

- And this response, claiming that 40 percent of Tea Party members are Democrats (uhh), while saying that 80 percent of them dislike Obama, pointing out that number is higher than it is for Republicans. Well yes, considering the group was created to oppose Obama, that makes sense...

Also, the media is covering the Tea Party groups pretty well. Especially Fox News. This writer could be a little more factual himself, given that the report actually states that 40 percent are non-Republicans. Not even close to that number (13 percent) claim to be Democrats.

- I thoroughly enjoy the New Yorker, simply because everything in it is so blatantly partisan. Take this article on climate change, in which the author is clearly advocating for legislation and against meteorologists (or their television personalities at least) who believe it doesn't exist. In response to one weatherman's view on the subject: "Bastardi’s position is ridiculous (which is no doubt why he’s often asked to air it on Fox News)." Awesome

- A map of the Senate races in 2010 still shows Patty Murray as likely D. That will likely change at some point.

- Recently the federal government awarded money from the $4 billion Race to the Top program to just two states. Some are now wondering whether the effort to apply for the second round is worth it.

- And RNC Chairman Michael Steele is claiming that his race is part of the reason he is being held to a higher standard as party leader. Not the party's reimbursement of strip club receipts. Or the lack of money in the bank despite good fundraising. I realize there are some racial things going both ways right now, but Steele hasn't been called a racial slur or spit on for taking a vote. He's been staying in ritzy hotels.

- In the interest of full disclosure of Washington, most of today's conversations will probably revolve around the Redskins, who have just landed a Donovan McNabb in a trade with the Eagles.

- Closing in off with a great story about a man who parked his car and had a ticket within 30 seconds - before he could pay the meter.