If it were a legitimate effort to register voters, why would they have the drive immediately before the primary? If I were trying to register voters, I would get the materials into their hand as early as possible - under the assumption that people aren't going to fill them out right away and fedex them in.

And, not only did they not get them in the mail as early as possible, they did so after the registration deadline.

The only reason to have them immediately before the primary would be to create confusion in a way that wouldn't leave people with enough time to resolve it before the primary.

When you add the fact that they didn't include legally required identifying information in the call, that they blocked the number on caller ID, that they persisted in using misleading language after being repeatedly warned by state authorities, etc. it becomes very doubtful that this is just a perfect storm of innocent mistakes.

Posted at May 1, 2008 1:08 PM in response to Board Members from Robo Calling Nonprofit Criticize Effort, But Vouch for Group

1. I'm sure that there are any number of jokes/statments that would be appropriate for Jay Leno, or any other commedian, to say that would be inappropriate for the president of a news network to make in an event where he is representing that network. I love George Carlin's work, but if George Bush did "The Seven Deadly Words You Can't Say on TV" at the Correspondents Dinner, I think it would be judged in poor taste. (Making light of the mistakes that caused thousands of soldiers to die, not so much).

2. It isn't the jokes per se, it is the slanted news reporting that goes along with them.

Posted at March 10, 2007 12:33 PM in response to Roger Ailes, Freedom Fighter

" Or if I applied for a job at Catholic Charities my not being Catholic might not exactly help..."

I dunno - I've come across people who aren't Catholic who work at Catholic Charities. I interviewed for a gig at a big Christian social service agency, and there was no point in the interview where my religion could have come up (and it seemed deliberately so).

There is a difference between a job where you are advancing a religious agenda, and a social service agency where religious belief is irrelevant to your job function. Presumably a synagogue would be able to discriminate against Catholics applying for a Rabbi position.

Posted at February 19, 2007 1:45 PM in response to Blogging populism and the political establishment

"It would be much more productive to engage the United States the way China has engaged, peacefully, stealing our future and ruining our economic base by flooding the US with cheap goods."
A lot of the trade imballance between the US and China consists of US companies making cheap goods in China and importing them into the US.
"We have seen the enemy and he is us."

Posted at January 28, 2007 5:35 PM in response to From New Republic: Preparing for War With Iran

Since you're saying that sanctions are useless, I presume you like the military option.

If so, what do you think that the possible negative consequences of an Israeli/US attack on Iran would be?

What would happen if Iran retaliates by:

- A large scale missile strike on Israeli cities
- Attacking US Ships (naval or commercial) in the region
- Blockading the flow of oil tankers in the region
- Missile attacks on US forces in the region
- Attacks on US Soldiers in Iraq through proxies
- Terror attacks on the US military in the region or outside

Do you see any scenario where the US and/or Israel attacks Iran and it doesn't lead to escalation?

I only mention this because the US currently has 130k or so soldiers in a country that is run by organizations with strong ties to Iran (al dawa, SCIRI), and has supply lines a couple hundred miles long through shiite territory. Do you think an attack on Iran - making for the potential of the US being involved in three simultaneous wars - will make matters better?

What do you see as the likely short term consequences of such an attack, and do you see it as acceptable?

Perhaps the US could take Iran up on its long standing offer to negotiate?

Posted at January 28, 2007 5:03 PM in response to From New Republic: Preparing for War With Iran

And yes the media is biased against Gore. Sure.
I think that the media was fairly biased against Kerry as well.
Kerry came very close to winning, and Gore did win the vote.

Is there anyone in the Democratic field right now that wouldn't face an uphill battle in the media?

I see this as being more structural than personal. That is, it is indicative of the power of the "right wing noise machine" rather than the individual personalities involved.

Posted at January 3, 2007 8:42 PM in response to Why Not Gore?

I think that Gore 2.0 could win for five reasons.

1. He did it before. Do you think that anyone who voted for Gore in 2000 would vote Republican?

2. The "What could have been" factor - I think that Bush's unpopularity will be a big boost to any democratic candidate. Gore would benifit even more so from this, for obvious reasons.

3. A better VP. I don't see how Lieberman did too much for Gore in 2000. Imagine if he had someone as charasmaic as Edwards or Obama, strong on national security on Westley Clark or tied in to fund raising as Clinton.

4. He's a different man. The Al Gore that I've seen givinig speeches critical of the Bush administration, and in An Inconveniant Truth is not the same candidate that only won by a razor thin margin.

5. Iraq. So far all the major Republican hopefuls are tied to Iraq. Edwards framing of escallation as the McCain Docterine shows how useful that can be.

But if I vote for him in the primary it won't be because I think he could win. Its because I want him to win.

Posted at January 3, 2007 8:17 PM in response to Why Not Gore?

This, however, misses the point entirely, given that the entire Arab world and then some - Iran especially - is arrayed against Israel and would like nothing better than to see the map redrawn without a Jewish state. Without taking that strategic reality into consideration, it does little good to pontificate about "disproportionate" military responses.

How is Iran's desire to see the map redrawn without a Jewish state a "strategic reality"? That is, is Iran currently in posession of an army that could destroy Israel? As I understand Israel outspends all of its neighbors combined on its military, and is at peace with Egypt and Jordan. The fact that they also have several nuclear missiles is worth noting as well, as is the fact that the US would doubtlessly rush to Isreal's defense should they be subject to a large scale attack.

And even if Iran were a potential military threat to Israel, how would that figure in to the Palestinians relative defenslessness against the Israelis? Is the hypothetical war with Iran and the Arab world an imaginary second front on that battle?

Posted at November 26, 2006 6:07 PM in response to Olmert Gives Peace A Chance

isn't it obvious that the vast majority of terrorism is perpetrated by Muslims?

What do you mean by terrorism?
Terrorism, as it is used in US political discourse, is not a technical term, it is an insult. That is, people don't go around with a precise definition of terrorism that they apply to all acts of violence. Rather terrorism is used to portray violence that you don't like as bad, and violence that you do like as good in contrast.

Terrorism is frequently used as a way to naturalize the violence of the strong agianst the weak, and pathologize the violence of the weak against the strong.

Dershowitz proved this brilliantly in his book on terrorism, Why Terrorism Works. If I were to devote an entire book to the subject, somewhere in the first paragraph I would have a sentence saying "By terrorism I mean..." and then try to apply it consistantly throughout my argument. He explicitly refuses to do so. He states that terrorism is bad because it targets civilians, and goes on to recommend targeting civilians to fight terrorism.

If you want to say that killing people is wrong, that would be a moral statement. If you want to suggest the right and wrong ways to kill people, its simply aesthetics. Large penis shaped bombs falling from the sky are not an inherantly more or less moral way of killing people than are car bombs. Some folks think they look better, though...

Personally, I think that not killing people is generally preferable to killing them in all cases, and don't find the word "terrorism" very useful in making that case.

So, come up with a definition of terrorism that seems reasonable, tally up who'se doing it in the world and get back to us. Otherwise your generalization is completely meaningless.

Posted at October 12, 2006 5:58 AM in response to Muslim-Baiting in Politics: Something New and Ugly

"The French would seem to have proven torture's effectiveness."

By loosing Algeria?

Posted at September 16, 2006 6:19 AM in response to Mr President, You Would Understand If You Had Fought