The three oldest, and only ones old enough.

Texas 4    Ralph Hall    May 3, 1923    
Served as a fighter pilot from 1942-1945.
Maryland 6    Roscoe Bartlett    June 3, 1926    Didn't serve
Michigan 15    John Dingell    July 8, 1926
Joined Army, but war ended before invasion of Japan.

So 2?

I like that Obama talks from a location as opposed to from the Oval Office. Instead of talking to a camera, he's talking to the people directly affected by the situation.

The last: Unless a World War II is appointed or elected in the future, which is very unlikely.
1    Frank Lautenberg    New Jersey    January 23, 1924    

The next oldest senators.
2    Daniel Akaka    Hawaii    September 11, 1924    
3    Richard Lugar    Indiana    April 4, 1932    
4    Dianne Feinstein    California    June 22, 1933    
5    Chuck Grassley    Iowa    September 17, 1933    
6    Orrin Hatch    Utah    March 22, 1934

#2 and #3 are leaving the Senate, and there is a 9 year gap between Lautenberg and Feinstein. Once Lautenberg leaves, the oldest will be Feinstein, born 1932. Which means that the oldest Senator will have their oldest adult experiences in the 1950s, there will be no Senator with an adult experience during World War II or even in the 1940s.

Mostly ceremonial, but 3rd in Presidential succession. http://www.kansascity.com/2012/12/17/3970665/vermonts-leahy-now-3rd-in-presidential.html

I remember that so many Hawaii politicians specifically wanted either Hawaii senator to retire years ago, so that they would not retire/die so close to each other. But that is exactly what ended up happening. So now both Hawaii senators will have very low seniority.

I read this as "Washington," as in, the state of Washington.

I agree we really need to improve mental health in the U.S. I agree with your post but what about people who don't have severe mental problems that don't need to live in mental hospitals. There are many people who can function in society with medication or seeing a psychologist or some other type of mental healthcare. I personally have seen a psychologist years ago and found it helpful, (hopefully I don't regret admitting that). I'm sure there are lots of people with mild or moderate mental health problems that can become worse over time. How do we help these people.

I agree that psychological help should be just as important as physical help. The hospital that I go to has psychological services available, but I don't know if there are covered by all health care plans. I also don't know if Obamacare made it so that mental health is covered by insurance companies. If not, it should be.

This is an article about a mother who has a mentally ill 13 year old son.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

"I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.

A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan -- they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.

That conflict ended with three burly police officers and a paramedic wrestling my son onto a gurney for an expensive ambulance ride to the local emergency room. The mental hospital didn’t have any beds that day, and Michael calmed down nicely in the ER, so they sent us home with a prescription for Zyprexa and a follow-up visit with a local pediatric psychiatrist.

We still don’t know what’s wrong with Michael. Autism spectrum, ADHD, Oppositional Defiant or Intermittent Explosive Disorder have all been tossed around at various meetings with probation officers and social workers and counselors and teachers and school administrators. He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work."

"At least we have health insurance now. I recently accepted a position with a local college, giving up my freelance career because when you have a kid like this, you need benefits. You’ll do anything for benefits. No individual insurance plan will cover this kind of thing."

This is a second article about a former state legislator who inadvertently made his now homeless son's life more difficult. He worked to eliminate mental hospitals and prevent children from receiving that type of care. The idea, being, that they would no longer be stigmatized and would not be isolated, but instead be among other people. The problem, the author states, is that because of this, elementary schools and parents are forced to manage their own children's mental illnesses, without training or the capability. In many cases, they fail and the children grow up to become homeless, in prison, or go on shooting sprees.
 
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-15/national/35500616_1_mental-illnesses-mental-health-large-mental-hospitals

Excepts:

"The 1980s was the decade when many of the state’s large mental hospitals were emptied. After years of neglect, the hospitals’ programs and buildings were in decay. In my new legislative role, I jumped at the opportunity to move people out of “those places.” I initiated funding for community mental health and substance abuse treatment programs for adults, returned young people from institution-based “special school districts” to schools in their home towns and provided for care coordinators to help manage the transition of people back into the community.

But we legislators in Connecticut and many other states made a series of critical misjudgments.

First, we didn’t understand how poorly prepared the public schools were to educate children with serious mental illnesses.

Second, we didn’t adequately fund community agencies to meet new demands for community mental health services — ultimately forcing our county jails to fill the void.

And third, we didn’t realize how important it would be to create collaborations among educators, primary-care clinicians, mental-health professionals, social-services providers, even members of the criminal justice system, to give people with serious mental illnesses a reasonable chance of living successfully in the community."

So, it seems that the first problem is that there is a serious underfunding of mental health services. The second, is that we should bring back mental hospitals. No, not "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" mental hospitals, but humane mental hospitals. We already have physical hospitals for your body, dentists for your teeth, so there should be mental hospitals for your mind. In the way a physically unstable person has to stay in the hospital in order to recover, it should be the same way with a mentally unstable person at a mental hospital. And, if they are unable to live on their own and are a threat to themselves and/or others, then they should be forced to stay there. I don't believe prison is the answer, since they should not the same as criminals, but I do believe some type of isolation from society (for the most serious cases) is necessary.

What amazes me is how so many of these parents of mentally ill children simply don't give up. I mean, it's beyond their skills, it's not what they want to do, it's making their lives harder, and saddest of all, they didn't do anything wrong. They just got unlucky. I think if there were mental hospitals that were paid for by the government and would take in any mentally ill children and adults, (and would force those who were severely mentally ill into the hospitals) it would make everybody's lives easier. It's just a win win win situation. The mentally ill are better cared for, their families are relived of that burden, the government does have to pay for this, but in return there is much less crime committed by the mentally ill, and there are more people who, free of having to manage a family problem, are able to contribute to society.

Or, we could ignore the problem and you could just deal with this personally as a parent, teacher, social worker, police officer, or citizen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpggD8tGBdw&list=UUN7U2T3uID9uzSbTd9t9e7g&index=9

What if we had a ridiculously high tax on bullets?

A sort of nationalist, Hispanic American sovereign party? I personally don't think that it will, but what do you think?

Is this possible:

At the current rate of, oh I don't know, at least several mass shootings a year, do you think it will be back as a main issue in 2016?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban_n_2311477.html

Here we go.

Discrimination on the basis of race: reprehensible.
Discrimination on the basis of gender: reprehensible.
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation: reprehensible.
Discrimination on the basis of weight: hahah fatty go kill yourself

You can't choose your race, gender, or sexual orientation. But you can choose to become fat.

Are you counting CA or NY as Nixon's home state in 68/72?

CA for both.

Didn't in 1998, some Republicans were actually considering voting to make the Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt speaker instead of Gingrich?

I wonder if the House GOP goes super crazy, Pelosi could lure 17 GOP moderate members with some nice committee chairmanships?

Good riddance.

Don't worry, we'll take any GOP members you don't want. All are welcome! One of us! One of us! Gooble-gobble, gooble-gobble!

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/at-the-white-house-charlie-crist-becomes-at-democrat-151435.html?hp=l2



At the White House. I wish there would have been some type of fraternity-like ceremony for this.

Since 1980, the ticket with the shortest distance between the two nominees’ home states wins. By home states I do not mean the states in which they were born, but the states in which they are politically based. In measuring the distance, I use the distance between the two states closest points.

2012
Obama’s Illinois is 622 miles from Biden's Delaware.
Romney’s Massachusetts is 730 miles from Ryan’s Wisconsin.

2008
Obama’s Illinois is 622 miles from Biden's Delaware.
McCain’s Arizona is 1462 miles from Palin’s Alaska.

2004
Bush’s Texas is 316 miles from Cheney’s Wyoming.
Kerry’s Massachusetts is 400 miles from Edwards’ North Carolina.

2000
Bush’s Texas is 316 miles from Cheney’s Wyoming.
Gore’s Tennessee is 527 miles from Lieberman’s Connecticut.

1996
Clinton’s Arkansas is 0 miles from Gore’s Tennessee (they border each other)
Dole’s Kansas is 806 miles from Kemp’s New York

1992
Clinton’s Arkansas is 0 miles from Gore’s Tennessee (they border each other)
Bush’s Texas is 447 miles from Quayle’s Indiana.

1988
Bush’s Texas is 447 miles from Quayle’s Indiana.
Dukakis’ Massachusetts is 1266 miles from Bentsen’s Texas.

1984
Reagan’s California is 462 miles from Bush’s Texas.
Mondale’s Minnesota is 586 miles from Ferraro’s New York.

1980
Reagan’s California is 462 miles from Bush’s Texas.
Carter’s Georgia is 659 miles from Mondale’s Minnesota.

Previous to 1980, the outcome is more random:

1976 longer distanced ticket wins.
1972 longer wins.
1968 longer wins.
1964 shorter wins.
1960 shorter wins.
1956 longer wins.
1952 longer wins.
1948 shorter wins.
1944 longer wins.

I'd like to see a return to the days when the majority of states were classified as "swing states" (à la 1960, 1976 and 1992) rather than just the handful it is now.

Me too! 2012 had such a few number of swing states.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-03/obama-said-to-consider-vogue-editor-wintour-for-u-k-embassy.html

The list should be of any defeat, whether by special election or primary.

How would Stephanie Herseth Sandlin do against Rounds?

In 2008 we had former Governor Jim Gilmore, although his campaign was pretty much a joke. Before Macaca 2006, George Allen was considered a likely 2008 candidate.

In 2008 you had Mark Warner being considered, and Governor Tim Kaine and Senator Jim Webb being possible Vice Presidential nominees.

Now in 2016 some still consider Mark Warner and Tim Kaine a possibility, but more likely Bob McDonnell is attracting attention. So the last 5 Governors of Virginia have been discussed as possible national candidates.

Is there something about Virginia that makes its Governors and Senators more likely to be considered Presidential candidates than other states?

1. Is it that "Mother of Presidents" nickname?

2. Is it because, being so close to D.C., more Washington pundits are aware of Virginia politics? Maryland politicians (with exception of Martin O'Malley) doesn't seem to attract as much attention.

3. Or is it because Virginia is currently a swing state?

I feel like the 2004 Democratic primaries ended too quickly.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/hillary-is-running-a-dispatch-from-the-saban-forum.html