I read something yesterday that argued that the funding situation for McCain was not as grim once the presidential race proper begins and that Obama and the DNC have to raise funds at a rather astonishing pace.

Like Smiley, I think there is something murky about the funding numbers once the primaries are officially history. More clarity about this might be helpful, especially for those involved in grassroots fund raising efforts. As far as the race goes, the last few months is important, no?

Posted at July 18, 2008 1:44 PM in response to The Big Picture: Obama, Dems Likely To Vastly Outpace Republicans In Fundraising

There once was a bloke named McCain
Whose jowls weren't linked to his brain
He'd say what he'd say
Just any old way
And it came out wrong or inane.

Posted at July 18, 2008 11:02 AM in response to John McCain Limerick Thread!

Jeff,

I think you've got it right. The cartoon is a typical New Yorker cartoon and "makes sense" in that context but in no other. Publishing it was as dumb as [pick a new yorker's example of some regional folk they think are especially dumb]... really stupid and being stupid typically causes damage. This already has.

One of the big issues in this election should be the "positive polarization" that has been so successful for the Republican party. Some call it wedge politics. It is always based on some superficial distinction (race, class, education) or human situation that only affects those directly involved (choice, gay marriage, etc) and a false sense of superiority and empowerment.

National politics are supposed to about our common concerns. I do not expect folks to like me or have the same tastes and vice versa. That would be a foolish concern that can only lead to false divisions where common concerns are being considered.

I'd like to hope that events like this and this election itself brings the mutual destructive of this into sharp focus. Most of the time, I think, national politics should be pretty boring. The human cost of this kind of excitement is pretty high.

I do not think much of heroes and saints and villains and demons and all the drama around that. Our power comes from our ability to cooperate with each other when necessary despite differences. That is hard enough to do with the folks in our own community and even in our own family.

The folks at the New Yorker proved themselves to be just like the rest of us: fallible humans. I don't think you can "fix" this kind of screw up. All you can do is to try a bit harder at not screwing up. I'd like to think the editors will make that attempt. It would be appropriate to acknowledge that a mistake was made and to offer no excuse or rationalization. The less said, the better. They will not be able to stop the reverberations.

Posted at July 14, 2008 12:30 PM in response to The New Yorker's "Ironic" Obama Cover

libgirl-

Many in Pelosi's district see exactly what you see. She faced a real challenge in this last election. I wish I could say "serious challenge" in the sense that it ended up being a close contest. The challenger received over 10% of the vote. That may not seem like much but it is a non-ambiguous sign that support for here is declining. Not fast enough but I suspect that she will continue to face challenges.

She is entrenched. She is a rainmaker for the party establishment. ($$$$) This means she has all the party machinery at her disposal. She does not get connected directly to the problems. Most of America does not seem to give a hoot about the constitution. If they did, I think their representatives would know it and the speaker would behave much differently. She will not budge until a majority of the house does.

Posted at July 8, 2008 3:47 PM in response to Pelosi: Let Rove Slide

Allsburg,

I'm disagreeing with the characterization of a conversation that crosses international borders is different and lacks protection.

I disagree that Congress can implicitly abrogate part of a treaty.

I think the Constitution is always connected to any law, i.e., the constitutionality of any law is an issue.

I think the basic gist of laws involving privacy, national or international, is that executive functions cannot listen in without involving a judge. I don't understand where Congress has the authorization to grant the executive branch the power to override what I view as a right protected by the Constitution. That can be done by amendment only.

These are political statements on my part. Just saying I disagree with your position. I'm not willing to allow the executive branch of the government this kind of power.

I agree that enforcement is the problem. Is it always a problem. Laws don't enforce themselves.

Posted at July 4, 2008 2:11 PM in response to Who cares about Constitutional Rights? Not me.

Apologies if someone has already said this.

There is a link to the Constitution. If we ratify a treaty, it is the law of the land.

Article VI includes the clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

I'm not an expert on our treaties and international law but I do know that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is pretty clear on this issue and it is a foundation for international law concerning human rights. The basic idea is that governments do not do this without going to a court each and every time.

Differentiating a conversation across national borders as being somehow exempt from our own laws, does not cut it with me. It's my conversation as much as it is the other party or parties. If the government is listening in without a warrant, its violating my rights under the Constitution.

Posted at July 4, 2008 12:02 PM in response to Who cares about Constitutional Rights? Not me.

One of the most coherent and grounded posts I've read on TPM.

Posted at July 3, 2008 3:35 PM in response to They're not talking to us... but we'd better listen anyway

Dean,

Thanks for bringing the EPOP (employment to population ratio) to folk's attention. We all need to see that number much more often plus explanations of the implication. The unemployment statistics are pretty unhelpful these days.

What's not getting done that needs to be done is also something folks need to know more about. In the end, economics is not about jobs but food, health care, education, housing... all the materials and work it takes to have a life. Job creation reflects an organization of work. If everybody is fat, happy and healthy, we are all doing our jobs so who cares about the numbers?

Thanks again for this contribution.

Posted at July 3, 2008 3:21 PM in response to It's Olympics Time and President Bush Thinks He Is In a Job Losing Competition

Here's the link to the Senate Resolution 580.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-580

Insiders are worried about this enough to talk to Hersh. Given the administration's attitude about those who do not agree, how worried do you think those who are talking are?

Posted at June 30, 2008 12:13 AM in response to If FISA Pissed You Off..Just Wait

My bad. It is H.CON.RES.362 (not 320). Regrets.

Here's the link.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.362:

Posted at June 30, 2008 12:07 AM in response to If FISA Pissed You Off..Just Wait