I love how the word "controversial" is used as a synonym for "scumbag" in news reports like this.

Posted at July 2, 2008 2:08 PM in response to Shake Up At Top Of McCain Campaign

Is it just me, or during these kinds of hearings is anyone else wanting a Congressman--any Congressman--to ask:

"So, Mr. Addington, please tell me: have you always been a penile-encephaleptic, or is it something you had to study?"

Posted at June 26, 2008 8:04 PM in response to Addington: Unitary Government? Wha's That?

1) Given that Feinstein has been on the wrong side of far too many votes--especially her coverage of her friend Chuck Schumer on the Mukasey nomination--I think we should shunt her opinion into the circular file, where it belongs.

2) I don't like how Senator Clinton has maneuvered, bent the truth, used race-baiting, and all the other nonsense she's done in the last couple of months in her efforts to secure the nomination. That being said, her reference to RFK in the video sounded fairly innocuous to me: "RFK was still campaigning in June," was how it came across.

I'm not a HillaryHater, like so many, but I sure don't like her. Even so, I think folks are over-reacting here. Just one man's opinion.

Posted at May 23, 2008 5:12 PM in response to Hillary Supporter Dianne Feinstein Pushes Her As Veep

No, no; the New Math total number of delegates is 183 higher. Didn't the Obama people get the memo?

Posted at May 7, 2008 3:26 PM in response to Obama Campaign Manager: On May 20th, We'll Have Won Majority Of Pledged Delegates

I don't know as I agree that Conservative ideas failed because they were "radical;" I think a lot of them failed because they were just plain stupid. And it's not like a whole lot of people didn't point that out at the time.

Supply-side economics is a classic example. When the idea was pushed out in the late 70s/early 80s, it's counter-intuitive nature seemed, well, stupid. Why would the supply-side people "invest more" rather than pocket their new, higher takings? And as it turned out, it was stupid; all we got was exploding debt and a huge income divergence.

A lot of similar Conservative and neoConservative ideas were equally stupid at the outset--pre-emptive war, cutting infrastructure funding, installing ideologues rather than qualified applicants, etc.--and failed accordingly. But they didn't fail because they were radical; they failed because they were stupid.

But like Anrig, I'm baffled as to why more Democrats don't point this stuff out. We tried supply-side economics for 20 years; it failed utterly. What argument is more powerful than, ya know, experimental evidence?

Posted at May 2, 2008 3:23 PM in response to Time to Win the War of Ideas--Finally

Hillary is going to win by between 8-12 points. This is just enough that she can reasonably spin it as a solid enough win to keep going, but not enough to change any essential in the race.

And now the suffering will continue. Yessiree bob, I'm sure looking forward to the six weeks between now and 6/3.

Posted at April 22, 2008 10:15 PM in response to Hillary Wins Pennsylvania, Networks Project

PLEASE let it end. Please. I'm begging you, voters-who-haven't-voted-yet. Please.

Posted at April 22, 2008 9:19 PM in response to Hillary Wins Pennsylvania, Networks Project

Please, just let it end. Please. Make the pain stop.

Posted at April 22, 2008 4:17 PM in response to The Expectations Game

Um, the consensus from the discussion you pointed to was pretty clearly to spell it correctly, i.e. "psych." 13 folks for "psych," with only 4 going for "sike" (one of whom was so pedantic as to imply sarcasm--junior high is a "pre-literate culture?"). So your pointer actually bolstered the counter-argument. Sorry, Paul.

Posted at April 18, 2008 2:57 PM in response to Rove's Lawyer: SIKE!!!

Ordinarily, when I post comments I try to be measured, reasonable, and (heaven help us) even-handed.

Sorry; can't do it.

What a crock of shit Stephanopolous is peddling. He and Gibson "moderated" one of the stupidest, lamest, most pointless debates I have ever seen, and he's defending it with some of the stupidest, lamest rationalizations he can toss out.

Good God. "Wanker." "Tool." "Hack." All these are appropriate, and a whole lot more.

Posted at April 17, 2008 7:20 PM in response to George Stephanopoulos Responds To Obama, Defends Handling Of Debate