Why is the Smart car so popular?

It looks very green. But appearances can be deceiving — and deceived I was.

I regularly see people driving Smart cars around my city. For a long time, it made sense.

After all, the car is tiny and probably easy to maneuver into tight parking spaces (though I've never driven one). Plus, I'm sure it offers amazing fuel economy, right?

Um, no. Not quite.

When I finally took the time to do some research, I found out that the best highway gas mileage you can get on any Smart model currently available in the United States is 38 mpg. That pretty quickly killed my enthusiasm for a car that looks like it's great for the environment — but probably isn't really much better than most mid-sized sedans.

Now I just wonder what all the hype is about.

As a point of comparison, Smart cars boast only marginally better fuel economy than my 2004 Hyundai Elantra. (Don't get too jealous.)

How one comment could echo in the U.S. Senate for years

Missouri is colored blue on this map of my 2012 U.S. Senate predictions. It's likely to turn out that way
if Todd Akin doesn't exit now. (Map courtesy of 270towin.com.)

It's not surprising that even top Republicans are calling for Missouri Rep. Todd Akin to abandon his Senate bid in the wake of his outrageous remarks regarding "legitimate rape" and pregnancy. They're very aware of what may have just happened.

Ordinarily, I hate when stupid comments by politicians are captured and made into campaign issues; they become nothing more than a distraction and undermine genuine, constructive debate.

But by any standard, Akin's gaffe is a game-changer. Nate Silver, one of my favorite political commentators, seems to agree. Not only does it make clear what this guy stands for — which in itself is reprehensible — but it taints any of his fellow candidates who are somehow tied to him, politically or otherwise.

Yeah, a bit more about those tax returns…

Apparently, there are certain questions that really rub Ann Romney the
wrong way — like, um, anything having to do with her husband's taxes.

I recently watched this video clip of an agitated, downright combative Ann Romney responding to a question about Mitt's refusal to release any additional years of tax returns.

Without even allowing the interviewer to finish her question, the prospective First Lady (stop for a moment to shudder at that prospect if you need to) insisted that "the only reason" her husband won't comply with this request is that it opens him up to further attacks.

Wait — what does? If there's nothing in the returns to attack, how will releasing them lead to more attacks? Shouldn't it achieve just the opposite?

Is Ann Romney implying that there is, in fact, something hidden that would provide Team Obama with additional ammunition?

No. She doesn't imply that. She says it: "It'll just give them more ammunition."

Maybe Mitt's financial integrity isn't quite as "golden" as his wife claims — though it probably does involve gold.

Whatever (or whoever) takes the focus off of Romney

Mitt Romney has a new, ahem, face to his
campaign.

It's no secret that Mitt Romney has thus far run a remarkably dysfunctional, uninspiring, unfocused, risk-averse, gaffe-riddled campaign. In so doing, he's conceded serious, potentially irreversible ground to a vulnerable incumbent, who, in turn, has shrewdly managed to turn this race into a choice instead of a referendum.

There are more bad-news stories for Romney from the summer of 2012 than this post has room to discuss: Bain Capital. The veiled tax returns and the Harry Reid rumor. The disastrous trip to London. Andrea Saul's politically awkward defense of the Massachusetts health care law. The list goes on.

Romney could have immediately trained a laser focus on the mediocre economy as a stinging indictment against Obama. (He wants to, obviously, but he's failing miserably.) Instead, he's inadvertently provided the president's team with an arsenal of manure that they've effectively employed to keep public attention on the former Bay State governor instead of the shabby shape of the country.

Undoubtedly, this was the main reason for his VP choice. Ironically, it's a choice that may ultimately add to the aforementioned arsenal.

From a strictly political perspective, Paul Ryan doesn't make sense at all. Okay, he'll probably make Wisconsin more competitive this fall. But the Badger State hasn't been red since 1984 in a presidential race (yes, it even voted for Dukakis in 1988), and New York Times political guru Nate Silver still gives Romney just a 20-percent chance of winning it. Either way, Obama doesn't even need Wisconsin to win the election if he still carries states like Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Colorado — and Ryan's ideology will win very few independent votes in those places.

Speaking of ideology, Ryan was perhaps the worst possible choice for the Romney ticket. He is the face and brain of the GOP's extreme, unrelenting shift to the right. This is the guy whose idyllically named "path to prosperity" would turn Medicare into a voucher program and privatize Social Security (both are great ways to forfeit the senior citizen vote); repeal key provisions of the Affordable Care Act; supply lavish tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans; and gut Medicaid. (Not familiar with the Ryan plan? Watch this quick video for an overview.)

If you don't like their stance, don't buy their food

I'm late to the ballgame on this one, but that's okay with me, because I don't have a great deal to say on the topic. As is often the case with stories covered exhaustively by the mainstream media, I really don't even know why we're talking about it.

I've made no secret of my stance on gay rights. I support full marriage equality for same-sex couples and believe that any legal status short of that is unacceptable.

But the debate over Chic-fil-A and its president's position on the issue really isn't about gay rights at all.

Actually, let me clarify that: Dan Cathy's stance itself is, but the controversy that has ensued from it is not.

We live in a free country. For the most part, individuals are free to voice their opinions publicly as they choose. So are businesses. Indeed, some have. Chic-fil-A has weighed in on the debate over marriage equality. So has Starbucks. So have many others.

Laws shouldn't be written by raw emotion

I oppose the death penalty. I understand and respect those who support it — as I'll explain in a moment — but I oppose it.

I could use this post to argue my position on the basis that it does not deter violent crime; or that the risk of an innocent person being executed is simply too high; or that the cost of capital punishment under the current system is higher than life imprisonment.

All of those are true, and all are practical, objective arguments.

But in the aftermath of the July 20 movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colorado, I realized that my opposition to the "ultimate punishment" is rooted in something much deeper than any of those points.

Like much of America, I read and watched as the suspect in these horrific acts made his initial court appearance. I saw him sit there in an emotionless state — cold, passive, remorseless, twisted. Very little about him seemed human.

My reaction was almost entirely visceral. I imagined being in that courtroom and having a great urge to do unmentionable physical harm to this individual who had done something so unspeakably terrible to other people. I'm sure I wasn't alone.