To be blunt, I don't think the American people care nor should care too much about balancing the budget at a time when (1) we've lost over 400,000 jobs the last six months (2) before that experienced the first economic recovery in six months (3) have 48 million Americans without health insurance, and (4) have 35 million Americans living in poverty. Let's tackle the issues of the time -- not just any issue.

Posted at July 8, 2008 3:28 PM in response to McCain Will Balance Budget By End Of First Term. Or Was It Second?

Self over country. Really?

Like when he voted against establishing a federal holiday for MLK's birthday and voted to strip the commission's funding 10 years later?

Like when he voted against the landmark "motor voter" law?

Like when he voted against the bipartisan civil rights bill in 1990?

Like when he voted against the bipartisan minimum wage increase in 1996?

Like when he co-sponsored a bill to abolish the Department of Energy?

Posted at July 8, 2008 11:44 AM in response to McCain Ad: Empty "Hope" Won't Improve Our Lives

Exactly. There aren't 41 votes against cloture on the FISA bill. That's the bottom line. This isn't worth waging a quixiotic fight.

Posted at July 3, 2008 12:39 PM in response to A Time-line Of Obama's Statements On FISA

Ugh, how many more obtuse diaries will Democrats have to withstand?

Suddenly, FISA has become more important than the 50,000 troops dodging bullets and bombs each in Iraq. FISA has suddenly become more important than the 45 million Americans without health insurance. FISA has suddenly become more important than the 35 million Americans living in poverty.

Please don't be so obtuse, people.

Posted at July 3, 2008 12:35 PM in response to A Time-line Of Obama's Statements On FISA

On the convention idea -- if you shorten the convention by a day, is there sufficient time to get the party's message across in just three days?

Posted at July 3, 2008 9:54 AM in response to Election Central Morning Roundup

Having an African-American win the state that sent Jesse Helms to the Senate for so many years (and Launch Faircloth for six) is much, much more redeeming than winning the state that got Democrats into the current mess.

Posted at July 1, 2008 2:48 PM in response to Poll: Obama Pulls Into Narrow Lead In Florida

PPP got NC right -- or at least more than SUSA and many other surveys.

Posted at July 1, 2008 2:45 PM in response to Poll: Obama Pulls Into Narrow Lead In Florida

Ummm ....

Even Paul Wellstone and Bill Bradley voted for John Ashcroft's charitable choice provision to the welfare "reform" bill that both opposed.

Posted at July 1, 2008 11:28 AM in response to Election Central Morning Roundup

Greg, Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com estimates a 20% probability of Democrats having 60+ Senate seats. It's a possibility, but a long-shot. Who thought two years ago that Democrats, holding only 45 Senate seats and having to defend 18, would unseat 6 incumbent GOP Senators? In 1994, Republicans unseated only two incumbent Democratic Senators -- Jim Sasser (Tenn.) and Harris Wofford (Pa.), who had won a special election in 1991.

Posted at June 30, 2008 11:56 AM in response to Top GOPer Admits It's "Impossible" For Party To Take Back Senate

56 still isn't bad. Democrats were at 45 two years ago. 60 is even better.

Bill Clinton started his presidency with 58 Democratic Senators.

Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight.com estimates there is a 20% chance Democrats will have at least 60 Senate seats. That's a pretty good probability for how ambitious the goal is.

Posted at June 30, 2008 11:52 AM in response to Top GOPer Admits It's "Impossible" For Party To Take Back Senate