• Question:  Were the votes now designated as "Other" previously counted for Coleman before they were challenged by Franken?

  • comment on a post A Truthiness Problem for McCain over 5 years ago

    The real unanswered and still unanswerable question is, does it make a difference that the MSM is beginning to call him out for his truthiness.  Will two months of the MSM calling him on his lies (assuming they will) cause enough voters to not vote for him?  

    Who knows?

  • comment on a post Hang On, Saxby! over 6 years ago

    What I can never figure out is why this 60-vote rule continues to go on.   Each new Senate must vote on the rule every two years.  Why not just kill it?  

  • comment on a post Hang On, Saxby! over 6 years ago

    If Cornyn loses, then Obama will carry at least 40 states.  Hard to believe.

  • comment on a post The Last Straw for Gonzales? over 7 years ago

    The Decider is shielded by Gonzales.  If about 17 or 18 Republican senators publicly state he has to go, then he is almost gone.  With that many, impeachment is possible.  Short of that number, he stays to the end.  How many have come out against him already?  4? 5?  There's a long way to go.

  • on a comment on 2007 events in first 4 states over 7 years ago



  • on a comment on 2007 events in first 4 states over 7 years ago

    Dear Jerome:

      I enjoy reading your regular postings.  I admire your energy and good works.  But my understanding of standard English is the following:

    I go (present tense), I went (past tense), I have gone (present perfect tense), I had gone (past perfect tense).

    Here's something from the West Virginia Department of Education site.

    http://wvde.state.wv.us/tt/2002/grammart ips/grammartip0004.html

    Please do not take offense.

    If there has been a change in this rule, please refer me to it.

  • comment on a post 2007 events in first 4 states over 7 years ago

    In the Nevada section, it should read "to have gone" not "to have went".  Is that use of "went" now accepted? It is grating and upsetting to read.  Maybe I'm just old.

  • comment on a post Senate Republicans Pass Iraq Buck To Bush over 7 years ago

    Maybe the reason the Republicans will not stop the passage of this bill is because Bush will give them political cover.  Bush will the sign the bill into law with a signing statement that Congress has no authority to tell him what to do.  Then he ignores the part of the law that he doesn't like. What's the difference to him?  Bush does what he wants, when he wants.  What does the law mean to him?

  • comment on a post Political Affiliation of Fired US Attorneys over 7 years ago

    In general, republican presidents appoint republican USAs.

  • comment on a post Prosecutor Purge Scandal Hits Oval Office over 7 years ago

    There is no way Rove is out.  He's still Bush's brain. It will have to be the AG.

  • With all due respect to the writer of this post, this is all fantasy.  The Constitution makes no mention of DC having representation.

  • comment on a post Connecticut-specific Voting Thread over 7 years ago

    I voted in New Haven at 10:30 AM.  Outside at an appropriate distance from the polls was a sign from Joe's people attempting to advise people how to find Joe's name on the voting machine.  There were a few voters ahead of me.  It was as routine as is usual at that location.

  • comment on a post DSCC, Dem 'Regulars' Back Connecticut Primary Winner over 8 years ago

    Dear Matt:

      I think it's much less complicated and significant than your interpretation.  Lieberman is the sitting Democratic senator in Connecticut whom the DSCC people know well personally.  And it would be normal to support that incumbant if there is primary challenge.  What's different here is the option and now the choice that Lieberman has made to run as an independent if he loses the primary.  This is a very rare event.

       So if you want the incumbant to still win, you don't want to undermine support for him.  So you don't say you won't support him if he loses the primary and runs as an independent.  You just say that he won't lose the primary.  If you say otherwise, then you seem to support the theory that he will lose the primary.  So you play cautious and say you will not comment on his potential run as an independent after he loses the primary.  Again if you say so, you seem to say that he may lose the primary.

       But when Lieberman says he will run as an independent if he loses the primary, there is no way that the DSCC would ever not support the official Democratic nominee.

       By the constant questionning after Lieberman's most recent statement, the DSCC had to state the obvious.  They support the duly elected nominated Democratic candidates.


  • comment on a post This is Dislocation, Not Division over 8 years ago

    Dear Chris:

       You are rightly excited about the growth of the influence of the political blogs and especially in the Lieberman/Lamont race.  But before claiming that the world has already changed in the right direction, please remember the last several elections where hopes were dashed.  One step at a time.  This will be a long process.  I, for one, cannot get my hopes too high at this point after so many disappointments.  I hope I am wrong.


Advertise Blogads