• I hear you. Apart from perhaps the Bennet/Romanoff contest in Colorado, the Deal/Handel run-off was the race that I cared about most. I was clearly rooting for Deal. Can't stand Handel. Not that I care for Deal but Handel should know better. Her comments on gay marriage were reprehensible. But ultimately political considerations mattered. I want to Sarah Palin impaled politically-speaking. I want to see her humiliated so anything that hurts Palin politically is fine by me right now. Mind you, I'd love to see her run just so she can implode.

    I also caught this:

    "This is the best possible outcome for Democrats," said Nathan Daschle, who heads the Democratic Governors Association. "Even after a vicious run-off, Georgia Republicans couldn’t decide between two bad options: a corrupt Congressman or a Capitol insider."

    I'll run against a corruption politician any day. Go Roy!

  • really upsets me. There is no way a 15 year old boy should be on trial for terrorism.

    Child soldiers are to be treated as victims. 

    Thanks for this update.

  • He's made a number of personnel mistakes but by far the grossest miscalculation he has made was his assumption that he could change the tone in Washington. His belief that the GOP could be reasoned with has derailed his Presidency thus far.

    No doubt there are accomplishment, significant ones but the Republicans are largely shaping the debate and he doesn't really have an answer. 

  • I hear what you are saying but the tactics, essentially a threat, seem deplorable. I understand the frustration that Western states have with the BLM but the Governor admits in the interview that Wyoming is "not short of revenue."

  • on a comment on The President Disappoints Again over 3 years ago

    His whole approach at times is baffling and maddening. He always wants to settle for half a loaf. Sometimes that may be the right approach but when it comes to minority rights half a loaf ain't gonna cut it.

    The die is cast. Either you're on board now or you're just another obstacle.

  • on a comment on The President Disappoints Again over 3 years ago

    He tries to please everyone and in the process pleases no one.

    There are now actually conservatives for gay marriage and yet Obama who in 1996 was for it is now trying to straddle a fence. It's a craven act of political cowardice.

  • The main argument against a national primary is really cost. It's expensive to run a coast-to-coast campaign. It's a fair point but given the number of debates now that levels the playing field somewhat.

    The other argument made is that the small states will lose their influence but that's the point, the small states have an outsized influence.

    If we can't go to a national primary then I'd like to see a rotating system where the states & territories are divided into five groups. Group 1 goes in February, group 2 goes in March, group 3 goes in April etc. Then in the next cycle, group 1 goes to back of the line and the other groups move up a month. That way every state gets a chance at some point to be in the first group. The other caveat is that groups would have to be geographically balanced. 

    The caucuses have to go. Other than Iowa, no caucus state gets more than a 10 percent participation rate. Some get a 1 percent participation rate. They discriminate against the elderly, the infirm, those with children. I hate them though I've only been to one in Nevada. It was chaos.

    I still think the electoral calendar is too long. We are already in the early stages of the 2012 cycle with Iowa visits and all. And, of course, the money is insane. But the US is a large country. The other countries that hold national primaries are much smaller not just in population but geographically.

  • I've reading a lot lately on Missouri. Little would surprise me at this point.

  • comment on a post Center for American Progress Attacks Howard Dean over 3 years ago

    "there is no philosophical argument that holds water with the left on how you can have a mandate absent a public option."


  • comment on a post Who is Jon Singer? over 3 years ago

    Jonathan finished law school in May and is now in Portland studying for the Bar exam.

  • on a comment on Elena Kagan Confirmed over 3 years ago

    From The Hill:

    Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) said on Thursday that he will vote against confirming Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court justice.

    Brown announced early this afternoon that he will vote against Kagan, whose confirmation is all but certain after the vast majority of Democrats and a handful of Republicans have said they would support her.

    Brown chalked up his decision to Kagan's lack of experience as a judge.

    "I believe nominees to the Supreme Court should have previously served on the bench. Lacking that, I look for many years of practical courtroom experience to compensate for the absence of prior judicial experience," he said. "In Elena Kagan’s case, she is missing both."

  • on a comment on Elena Kagan Confirmed over 3 years ago

    She's wasn't my first, second or even third choice but at 50 she's going to be on the Court decades and she has a chance to truly leave her imprint on American jurisprudence.

  • on a comment on The Dysfunctional US Senate over 3 years ago

    As I've noted before, I think that the bigger problem with the Senate is the over-representation of the smaller less populated states that tend to be more rural and conservative. Moreover at the nation's founding, the largest state, Virginia, was just 12.7 times larger than the smallest, Delaware. Today, that difference is much wider and getting wider. The largest state, California, is now 67.9 times larger than the smallest, Wyoming.

    I agree with Zach above: the Senate is a leftover from that earlier period, an anachronism in contemporary America. The question is how to change it?

    A few options exist but all require a Constitutional amendment and the small states will never give up their power so the only option thus is an internal reform of the rules that govern the Senate.


  • on a comment on The Dysfunctional US Senate over 3 years ago

    Well, the House is the legislative chamber that reflects the popular will. Equal sized districts, every seat elected every two years, all citizens could vote per the laws of each state, etc. 

    The Senate, as you say, was intended to be the voice of the states. But the Senate was also meant to "cool" popular passions. Hence staggering elections of its members to one-third every two years.

    The conversation between Washington and Jefferson about the "Senatorial Saucer" is what I am getting at. The Senate was the institution to counterbalance popular (i.e. majority) passions. 

    Your point about the separation of powers is well-taken though I am not sure what you mean about the First Amendment in this case.

  • on a comment on Unsustainable Lunacy over 3 years ago

    not to mention frightening. 

    Did you see that guy in Tennessee who is running for Governor? Basil Marceaux is the name. He has become an Internet sensation with his rants about the slavery of traffic lights.

    Marceaux is certifiable but Maes' lunacy is more the John Birch Society type that sees nefarious plots everywhere.


Advertise Blogads