That strategy worked out well for the Whigs and for President Clay, who…wait a minute!

The Whigs may also have intimated that Polk palled around with terrorists.

For more fun history about James K. Polk, listen to They Might Be Giants as they perform a song about him:

As some reports noted earlier this year, there is a small but not nonexistent chance that John McCain may not be constitutionally eligible to serve as President because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. The issue is complicated, but the crux is whether McCain is a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Legal scholars disagree about the technicalities, although there is fairly universal agreement that a court would be unwilling to decide this issue. (Whether it makes any policy sense at all to apply the requirement to someone in McCain’s circumstances is a totally different policy question.)

Any challenge to McCain’s eligibility would have to overcome several hurdles, the most formidable of which is the matter of standing, i.e., whether a prospective litigant has the right to pursue a lawsuit. Standing requires, among other things, a sufficient connection to the controversy; a person is unlikely to have standing just because he or she is a citizen. (A lawsuit filed by a New Hampshire man challenging McCain’s eligibility was dismissed in July on that basis.) Congress probably has standing, but we can assume that members of Congress from both parties would be disinclined to bring a challenge to McCain’s eligibility based solely on place of birth (and would be far more likely to simply pass legislation clarifying that McCain is a natural-born citizen).

It is also possible that the Vice President would have standing to challenge the President’s eligibility to serve. Now imagine that Sarah Palin, the woman formerly known as “barracuda,” is the Vice President. Given the ruthless self-advancement that marks her political career to date, and her obsessive concern with place of birth (e.g., flying home from Texas while leaking amniotic fluid to ensure her fifth child would be born in Alaska), it is not ridiculously far-fetched to think that she might be the one to challenge McCain’s eligibility. And if she were initially reluctant, how much restraint and respect would you expect from the Bill Kristols of the world, who had her thrust upon the national stage so suddenly in August, presumably not simply for decorative purposes (Rich Lowry’s starburst fixation notwithstanding)?

I’m just sayin.’

To illustrate, let’s take a look at just a couple of examples from Jack Cafferty’s CNN blog post today on McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin:

“Jo” at 1:56 pm writes,

• “No, I think this is a great pick! The DNC and Obama didn’t go after the womens vote. They messed up. After 34 years of voting Democrat, I am voting for McCain/Palin! I am thrilled they have values that are important to me.”

Um, Jo? Democrats don’t generally call it “voting Democrat.” It’s Democratic. The term Democrat, as applied to the party, is a Republican/Rush Limbaugh usage. Also, “Jo” Average would not refer to the DNC as an entity in a post of this kind, although a not-very-clever political operative probably would. And 34 years? Really? You voted for Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis, but McCain shares your values? You’re overreaching. At least try for a more credible lie, like “I voted for Clinton and then Gore, but…” And the “I am thrilled they have values that are important to me” tagline sounds a bit too polished. Go for something less talking-pointy next time. I give it only a 2.7 on the 10-point fake veracity scale.

Let’s try another. “Patricia Vittoria” at 1:51 pm writes,

• “I am a disenchanted Hillary Clinton supporter. In a million years I would have never imagined voting for John McCain, but with his fantastic bold move of Sara Palin, WOW hats off to his campaign. I am so impressed with his choice, if elections were today, I would change parties. I think she is a fantastic choice and an increible role model for American women today. Bravo!”

Here again we see the overreach. You claim, “In a million years I would have never imagined voting for John McCain.” Yet within an hour or two the “fantastic bold move” of choosing someone you probably have never heard of has so bowled you over that you’re ready to switch parties. No, no, no! Play it more subtle! Try, “I was definitely not leaning toward McCain, but the choice of Sarah Palin is really intriguing and I’m going to look a lot more closely at him.” See how much more persuasive?

Compounding this error is the opener. If you are a disenchanted Hillary supporter, you probably don’t describe yourself that way. If you are a McCain operative, however, you may well use that term to identify the demographic you’re shooting for with this pick. Finally, if you really think Sarah Palin is a fantastic choice and an incredible role model, at least take the time to spell her first name correctly. This one gets a 3.8.

I don’t envy the people slaving away in some windowless computer boiler room to crank these comments out, and they are certainly not being paid to be creative (assuming they are being paid at all). But if you are going to take the trouble to gin up fake comments, at least take the time to make them less transparently fake.

Background: My wife and I bought a house last August. Now that the 1950s are over, we would like to update a few things, so we enlisted the services of an architect couple we know to help us come up with a phased, largely do-it-yourself renovation plan. (The architects will remain anonymous, since if I were them I would not want my names associated with this house.)

I did the elevation drawings myself; here is the very amateur result.

Apparently I left this around to be copied, because my five-year-old son produced this elevation drawing shortly thereafter.

I sent the drawing to the architects (as an omitted elevation drawing). One of the architects immediately responded:

“A couple of concerns:

“We like his emphasis on increasing the daylighting to the future office portion, but are troubled by the potential waterproofing issues with elevating some of the windows through the gutters.

“Providing auto access (as indicated by the Hot Wheels) to the front door may have some benefits, but could impact the landscaping in this area.

“Angling the western facade should help in lowering the seasonal wind loads, but will have some structural and therefore cost implications.

“Someone in the foreground, however, is clearly pleased with the proposed modifications, and we’ll shoot for a similar response.”

The other added a few minutes later:

“I for one think the design is fabulous and has great potential in terms of proportion and scale. The deconstructivist nature of the facade does pose waterproofing concerns as ___ mentioned but we’ll certainly use this sketch for inspiration and as a point of departure for the renovation work.”

And for the record: yes, they were joking. I will never again let anyone get away with saying that architects have no sense of humor. I will also not let anyone with a kindergarten-level education design a home.

Here’s the late Joe Strummer performing the song live in 1999 with The Mescaleros, two decades after its release as the fifth track on the London Calling double LP:

Now, I know that a candidates’ geography quiz of any kind, let alone a televised one, just ain’t gonna happen, but it’s fun to imagine what one would be like. Here’s my take on how the current crop of candidates would fare.

The Democrats

John Edwards identifies all the countries to which American companies are outsourcing jobs, but has points deducted when he insists that there are “two Americas” within the contiguous United States.

Barack Obama correctly identifies every country in Europe and many of those in Africa, but misidentifies Togo as Benin (and vice-versa). Hillary Clinton jumps in to note that she traveled to Ghana, “right next door to Togo,” as part of President Clinton’s “historic six-nation tour of Africa in 1998,” and states that Obama’s Togo-Benin gaffe shows he is “clearly unprepared to be president from day one, as I am.” She rattles off a list of countries to which she made official state visits as first lady. When the moderator asks a follow-up question about the Rwanda genocide, she proclaims that she has “more than 35 years of experience looking at maps of many kinds, including maps of Rwanda.”

Dennis Kucinich shows a surprising command of world geography, but walks off the stage in protest when the moderator asks him to identify “the secret land of the little people.”

Bill Richardson notes that he was ambassador to the United Nations, and starts to point out several countries in which he conducted hostage negotiations. Clinton interrupts to blurt out that her “35 years of experience” included involvement in her husband’s decision to appoint Richardson. She purses her lips in triumph. Richardson smiles, hoping for a VP nod.

Mike Gravel, asked about China, simply stares into the television camera for 45 seconds, then walks away.

The Republicans

Mitt Romney begins by referring to a point on the south coast of Cuba as “the future site of Double Guantanamo.” He then skips to Southeast Asia: “Here’s Cambodia, or if you prefer, Kampuchea, next door to Thailand—which I am happy to call Siam, if you like—and still further west lies Burma, but then again I would be pleased to refer to it as Myanmar if that’s your wish.”

John McCain interrupts to accuse Romney of pandering, and then continues the litany of Asian countries, making brief, trenchant remarks about the geopolitical importance of each, only to halt at Vietnam. “Let me tell you a story about Vietnam,” he says. “Fuhgetaboutit, it’s my turn!” barks Rudolph Giuliani. He snarls the names of the countries from which the 9/11 hijackers came, jabbing at the map with every name, and insinuates that more of their countrymen will arrive with plans to kill us all unless America’s voters elect him president.

When asked about Latin America, Fred Thompson drawls, “Your questions grow tiresome. I pass.” Thompson then appears to fall asleep. The moderator puts the Latin America question to Ron Paul, who responds, “Why the hell should we care about any of these countries?” to a burst of raucous applause. “I’ll tell you why,” ventures Duncan Hunter. “Because Mexico is the largest, most populous country in the world, and is poised to invade America and seize our jobs and daughters.” When the moderator interrupts to correct the factual error about Mexico’s size and population, Hunter mutters darkly about the North American Union.

Mike Huckabee is given the closing question, concerning which nations he views as America’s key allies. After peering genially at the moderator’s map for a moment, he tentatively picks out the United Kingdom (which he calls “England”), Canada (“except for the French-speaking part”), and Israel, then points to Greenland, asserting that “contrary to Duncan’s statement, Greenland is clearly the world’s largest country.”

The moderator expresses regret at using a Mercator projection, and thanks the candidates, who stand beaming before a demoralized television audience.

I don’t visit the Huffington Post site much—for one thing, the name sounds too much like the paper of record for whatever burg the Big Bad Wolf comes from. But I’ve not been terribly impressed with Senator Clinton’s purported foreign policy credentials, so I thought I’d see what Wilson had to say. Perhaps he could persuade me that I wasn’t giving Hillary enough credit. Perhaps she has foreign policy savvy that is obvious only to someone with his unique ambassadorial perspective.

And perhaps magical wildebeests would frolic through my neighborhood, distributing cash, prizes, and fairy dust from their hooves.

As it turned out, far from persuading me of the truth of his thesis, Wilson’s piece inspired this, my very first substantive blog entry, which I call:

How to Subvert Your Own Credibility in Three Easy Steps

Step 1. USE UNWARRANTED HYPERBOLE.

Wilson provides a single example of Senator Clinton’s foreign policy experience: her role as “a full participant” and a “key advisor” in President Clinton’s six-country 1998 trip to Africa, and as leader of a preliminary delegation to Africa. That’s it. I suppose a case could be made that this role provided valuable experience and reflects some larger truth about Hillary’s abilities, but Wilson does not make that case. Here’s the assertion we get instead:

“It was a trip that forever changed the way American administrations think about Africa.”

Keep in mind that this trip took place less than a decade ago, and there has been exactly one American president since Bill Clinton, so “forever” is a bold, bold claim. Moreover, while the Bush administration has increased financial aid to Africa to combat AIDS and malaria (albeit by less than promised), the continent has not exactly been the centerpiece of American foreign policy lately. Wilson’s statement is (at best) unwarranted hyberbole.

Using hyberbole that the facts do not justify is one of the best ways to show any reader who is paying attention that your argument has no real substance. In fact, using hyberbole in an argument is WORSE THAN DETONATING A NUCLEAR BOMB IN NEW YORK. (See how unpersuasive that last sentence was?)

Once I spotted that whopper, I became more skeptical than I was at the outset.

Step 2. MAKE GLARINGLY OBVIOUS MISTAKES ABOUT KEY FACTS.

If you’re still sentient after reading the first seven paragraphs of Wilson’s screed, you’ll encounter the following remarkable assertion:

“In fact, I never heard of Barack Obama until he announced his intention to run for the Senate in the 2006 election.”

I’m no political junkie, but I first heard of Obama after his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. I didn’t watch the speech (or indeed any part of the convention), but I sure heard the buzz about it. Moreover, Obama ran for (and was elected to) the Senate in 2004, not 2006. If I know this fact, Joe Wilson certainly should know it. And you can be sure that anyone who cares enough to read the piece knows it, too (see Step 3, “Fail to Understand Your Audience,” below).

So what messages can we take from this error? There are three possibilities:

a. “I never heard of Obama before 2006 because I really don’t pay attention to much, so you can discount the rest of my argument.”

b. “I know Obama ran in 2004, but I deliberately wrote ‘2006’ to make his time in the Senate seem shorter than it actually is, so I am unfairly biased and you can discount the rest of my argument.”

c. “I wrote ‘2006’ because I’m sloppy and can’t be bothered to proofread something I intended to be a major policy piece, so you can discount the rest of my argument.”

Do you see the common thread in these three possible interpretations?

Step 3. FAIL TO UNDERSTAND YOUR AUDIENCE. You can sometimes survive taking steps 1 and 2 if you understand and correctly judge your audience. If you are a household name, for example, your argument might succeed on headline value alone:

“THE FONZ PRAISES HILLARY CLINTON’S SHARK-JUMPING PROWESS.”

In that hypothetical, a well-known public figure pronounces an opinion about a subject on which he is acknowledged to be an expert. The average person wouldn’t need to read the finer points of The Fonz’s analysis; the headline says everything he or she needs to know. The average person would never see any unwarranted hyberbole or appalling factual errors in the substance of the arguments, and so they would never reject the argument on those bases.

The average person, however, doesn’t know who the hell Joe Wilson is, and likely doesn’t care. The relatively small subset of people who both know and care who Joe Wilson is are probably going to want to actually read the piece. Moreover, many of these people are intelligent, sophisticated, opinionated, and well-informed—like me, if I say so myself—and therefore would certainly notice the unholy presence of steps 1 and 2.

In short, not only did Wilson’s editorial fail to persuade me of Hillary’s qualifications, it had the opposite effect. (Two trips to Africa? I spent nearly five months in Africa in 1996, eighteen months before the Clintons’ trip, so put me on the short list for Secretary of State. Actually, my guess is that’s one of the jobs Wilson’s hoping for…) That’s an impressive way to subvert your own argument in three easy steps. Thanks for the illustration, Joe.

In fairness to Wilson, of course, it’s entirely possible that he didn’t actually write this piece himself. In that case, you can add a step 4: Put your byline on something some twenty-something campaign functionary wrote and call it good.