More pure than Spitzer's or Villaragosa's or Clinton's or Newsom's or Gingrich's or Schwarzenegger's or Giuliani's staffers, certainly.
Really? I mean, really? I simply do not understand the ritual denunciation of Edwards by everyone since his affair became public knowledge. I understand feeling betrayed or disappointed, but honestly, the outrage is so far out of proportion to the act that I can only conclude it's mostly for show, or a continuation of the unusually virulent hatred of Edwards within the beltway, or both.
Rahm says "no prosecution," opponents of prosecution say, "I told you so," supporters get outraged.
So Obama says, "well, maybe possibly - but not certainly - prosecution," and supporters take heart . . . without having gotten any kind of promise that there will be prosecution.
This is exactly how the Bush Administration kept both the conservatives and the moderates on the hook - they'd offer TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STATEMENTS, one of which the conservatives would believe to be the "real" one and one of which the moderates would believe to be the "real" one.
Then they'd do whatever the hell they wanted, confident that neither would care by the time they did it.
I'd hate to see the same dynamic play out among Democrats, but it has been (see also AIG bonuses, punitive taxes on).
As far as I'm concerned, the Obama Administration is offering nothing but doubletalk on this issue. No praise for them until they decide which story they want to stick with.
This is a waste of time and money on behalf of the DNC: they should be working for candidates who have to run for election and re-election in 2010, not a former candidate who probably won't be running for anything ever again.
The Clinton family is wealthy: they can pay of their own debts. Let them.
That Bayh et. al. want to make it more difficult for health care reform and climate change legislation to pass the Senate. Given a choice between a 50 vote requirement and a 60 vote requirement, they choose the latter.
You can believe whatever you want, but in fact, that renders it more difficult to pass health care reform.
Health care? I'd like to know how it is in the best interest of the nation for Obama to ignore the rising cost of health care.
Cap and trade? Again, I'd like to know how it is in the best interest of the nation for Obama to ignore the cost of climate change.
As for Bayh, he sees nothing but himself on television. He doesn't care about the fiscal future of the nation: if he did, he wouldn't be so willing to ignore the danger posed by health care costs and climate change. For that matter, if he did, he wouldn't support the extension of Bush's tax cuts for the rich.
Eight Democrats who want to water down new climate change legislation have already joined with Republicans and signed a letter opposing any attempt to use fast-track budget rules to prevent filibusters. Many of the same Democrats also oppose using those budget rules to prevent filibusters of health care legislation.
They want to use the filibuster to stop health care reform. They want to use the filibuster to stop climate change legislation.
And you want to help them. I'm sure Hillary would be proud.
Furthermore, you should read your own link. What you say:
Wisconsin's Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Middleton, WI) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Janesville, WI) are joining McCain and spouting this nonsense that dedicated, federally-funded projects are the main problems facing Americans.
What your link says:
Two Wisconsin lawmakers from opposing parties are joining former GOP presidential nominee John McCain in pushing to give President Barack Obama line-item veto power.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Middleton, and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, are teaming up with the Arizona senator for what they say is a strategy to hold the line on federal spending and prevent wasteful earmarks.
While it is obvious from legislation that they consider earmarks to be a problem, I doubt Feingold, at least, would consider it among "the main problems facing Americans."
Maybe Feingold and Ryan can go tell the folks in Janesville, Wisconsin (where GM shut down a plant) that what they need to be really concerned about is helping our Iowa neighbors who are sick about pig farms (not pleasant). And that workers' losing their jobs as America heads into an uncertain future have to take a backseat.
Is bullshit. People can walk and chew gum at the same time; they can be concerned with earmark reform and the economy at the same time. Moreover, they can be concerned with earmark reform and nevertheless acknowledge that programs that have been funded through earmarks have merit.
McCain, of course, is not one of those people. But I'd prefer to give Feingold the benefit of the doubt.
I don't think it's appropriate to refer to a hypothetical candidate who prevails in a hypothetical election imagined by a pollster "the people's choice."
Clearly, MyDD has a hard-on for Cuomo and a hate-on for Paterson, but other than the fact that he polls better than Paterson, is there any policy reason to support him over Cuomo? I haven't heard one yet, and so I'm even more confused as to the cause of the pro-Cuomo chatter.
Oh, and BTW, it's Paterson: one T, not two. I'm not nearly as obsessed with Paterson as MyDD, and even I know that.
A colleague was complaining about "welfare queens" following an encounter with someone who paid with food stamps, so I decided to look up exactly how poor you had to be to qualify.
Of course, you have to be very, very poor.
But I was shocked at how difficult it was to figure out whether you were eligible. I haven't seen anything so convoluted since I had to file a Schedule C.
I've heard that the EITC is similarly convoluted.
Given that, it's no wonder that the participation rate is so low.
I don't understand why progressives don't seem to care more about red tape. It must reduce participation in programs like these.
Worse, when similar red tape affects people in higher tax brackets - like, say, those who have to file a Schedule C - it provides Republicans with an opportunity to rail against "big government" and a pretext to slash taxes on the wealthy under the guise of tax simplification.