anyone pan the audience in the Knesset to see who might have been holding up the Queen of Spades?

Posted at May 16, 2008 7:43 AM in response to Let's call out Bush's act for what it is: treason

Being a lifetime progressive does not give one a free pass to break the law and self deal in a nonprofit. It is not a grant of immunity. With a few more lifetime progressives like these, we might not win in November. If they are so partisan they don't make their "studies" public they should not be a 501(c)(3), or am I wrong.

I've met plenty of lifetime progressives who are also hacks.

Posted at May 2, 2008 6:10 PM in response to Update: Group Promised to Change Calls in February

There is always a danger of a lifetime progressive turning into a hack.

Posted at May 2, 2008 6:07 PM in response to Update: Group Promised to Change Calls in February

In an apparent response to my "show me the groundbreaking study" post, women's voices women's votes has posted a purported study. First problem, its dated April 2008 (nice and honest of them, not to backdate), all 28 double spaced pages of it. Next problem, instead of being authored by independent experts, it is seemingly authored by none other than Page Gardner and John Podesta (guess they slapped this one together overnight on the kitchen table). No footnotes, just a cut and paste policy document. You ask yourself, is this a 4 million dollar project? Do you think the Carnegie Foundation got its money's worth?

Now, where is the study of voting habits they ostensibly did? I think there are only two possibilities. 1) Most likely: it doesn't exist, they were lying, they've been caught out. 2) They did a study with money donors sent them but either Mr Rosenblitt is using it to boost his private consulting business or it is being used for partisan purposes rather than for the purposes of this ostensibly nonprofit organization. Otherwise, why not make it publicly available?

Posted at May 2, 2008 7:43 AM in response to Update: Group Promised to Change Calls in February

Not all muck is Republican. There are three essential probematical things that are already obvious about this outfit, and two questions that should be answered. Three essential problems:

1. Notwithstanding the kind words their board members have for them, there is no evidence they've accomplished anything that would legitimize their nonprofit status. Exhibit 1: their website makes reference to some groundbreaking study on voter habits, but no such study is posted on their website. There is no evidence they have ever registered a single voter.

2. This charity begins at home. The president gets $100,000 a year for her services, while her husband's company gets $800,000 with no available documentation as to how much of that $800,000 lands in the joint bank account. The website hasn't got a whole lot to say about what hubby does for his $800,000.

3. From its stated premise of focusing on unmarried female voters to its genorosity to Maggie Williams to its smarmy activities in Virginia and North Carolina, this is a partisan outfit from stem to stern. Some things are obvious. Its not Watergate, they haven't hired burglars, but it is pretty damn close.

Now for the two questions some intrepid researchers need to answer:

1. since the contributions they've had from household names like the Carnegie Foundation don't nearly amount to the 4 million they'd amassed and then spent in 06, who is their big donor? The Clinton Foundation? Someone should ask.

2. What did Ron Rosenblith do for his $800,000?

3.

Posted at May 1, 2008 8:30 PM in response to Update: Group Promised to Change Calls in February

1. Is Sarah Johnson a real person.

2. Who is making donations to this outfit, does it have a major patron or patrons

3. Is there any evidence of coordination with the Clinton campaign. Assuming these folks are for Clinton, are they pure freelancers.

Ronald Rosenblith used to work for Kerry and hasn't been much heard from since.

Posted at April 30, 2008 7:34 PM in response to North Carolina AG Opens Investigation of Robo Calls

the issue is, how many of the clinton supporters who would vote for mccain if obama is the nominee plan to also vote for mccain even if clinton is the nominee, they prefer her to obama but mccain to her did the survey ask that question, i.e., where are the reagan democrats headed

Posted at April 10, 2008 10:02 AM in response to Poll: Clinton Ahead By Six Points In Pennsylvania

I think what may be skewing this particular Survey USA result is that 25% of the sample is over 65. Even given the fact that Pennsylvania is an "old" state, I think that overrepresents that demographic. Plus, with the small size of the sample, half those people could really be over 80. Just anecdotally, the weather last weekend was awful but despite that, an unusual number of people were out and about in their cars for some reason. So those left at home to answer their landlines may have been unusually old and frail. HRC's constitutency. I'll take the Survey USA Quinnipiac average: HRC up by twelve.

Posted at April 9, 2008 8:23 AM in response to SurveyUSA: Hillary Ahead By 18 Points In Pennsylvania Primary

What makes HRC think she can possibly win the general without the black vote? Am I wrong, or didn't more white people vote for Bill Clinton's two opponents than for Bill Clinton?

If I were her, I'd do the math and stop wasting money and dividing the electorate.

Posted at March 13, 2008 6:38 AM in response to Ferraro Resigns From The Clinton Campaign

my armchair psychoanalysis: it isn't strictly about needing sex with prostitutes. I always sensed something fetishistic about the way in which Spitzer (who I've voted for every time he's run for anything, the very first primary included) went after white collar criminals. It seems to me he likely has and has always had a neurotic obsession with cheating and getting away with things which leads him to both go after cheaters and to cheat himself, obviously in ridiculously circuitous and elaborate ways that end up creating a trail rather than obscuring one. If I am right, then this is probably not an isolated incident.

I never saw the point of prostitution being illegal but in this instance, when you have a career in law enforcement at the highest echelons, you can't break the law, even a dumb law. He's got to go.

Posted at March 10, 2008 8:44 PM in response to How The "Emperor's Club" Probe Started