jerseyhoya wrote:It's quite a spectacle. Sounds like a good speech too. And to top it all off, I keep taking my headphones off to stop listening to the Phillies game to hear some Obama to make me HAPPIER.

This team is driving me up a wall, and the game thread is a damn abortion.

The SNY guys are saying this is a great game, and in the abstract they're absolutely right. It's fucking killing my digestion, though.

And it does bring home to me just how little I care about politics by contrast.

Woody wrote:The National Enquirer is rarely incorrect or "made up"

Not many people realize it, however.

http://www.slate.com/id/2102303/

dajafi wrote:Thinking about this again, it occurred to me that Richardson almost has to be Obama's VP pick. Hispanic, southwestern, Catholic (I'm pretty sure), looonng government resume. No, he hasn't killed people, that I know of, but he makes so much sense otherwise. The only way I see him not getting it is, one, if he's screwed around in any provable way, or two, if it's determined that Richardson would really enrage the Clintons, which I guess is possible.

I had a Congressional staffer friend who speculated it should be Webb, but this was a month ago. He went through all the names and crossed them off in tiers.

Questions for my young Republican alter ego (j-hoya):

I've been reading a lot here and there about McCain spending a ton of money on TV ads in battleground states--I think, but wouldn't swear by, Colorado, New Mexico, maybe Michigan, maybe Minnesota, maybe New Hampshire, probably Virginia, etc. One theory is that this is why he's starting to see a number of state polls swing his way, as Nate notes is happening here (the polling trend, not the cause/effect).

One, is this true--that McCain has invested much more than Obama in TV early? And two, is his investment sustainable in terms of the money available, or was the idea to try and establish a narrative in less committed voters in those states and then target more narrowly as November gets closer?

dajafi, don't know to your first question whether McCain has spent more than Obama. He can match Obama's spending through the convention, and might well have outspent him up to this point in battleground states, but only because I think he started before Obama. My anecdotal observation is Obama has been outspending him here in DC as of late. Though both are usually good for one 60 second spot a night on Jeopardy, and that's pretty much the only network TV I watch.

We would benefit more from a narrower playing field after the conventions because McCain will be limited to the 85 million or whatever it is. The RNC will be able to help some, but not enough. Colorado and Virginia specifically make sense for early spending because they are the type of states that maybe we can regain our historic advantage to the point where spending in September and October can be cut back some there.

I will poke around some and see if I can find some link that breaks down state by state TV spending. I'm sure it exists.

Thanks.

In case it isn't painfully obvious, I'm trying to get my mind off the Phils. I guess that "work" thing could apply here, but evidently that's not I roll these days...

Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama have appealed to Michigan voters with nearly $6 million in campaign ads so far.

The nonpartisan Michigan Campaign Finance Network said Wednesday that a check of advertising data at television stations statewide shows Republican McCain spent $3.2 million airing ads between May 28 and July 20.

Democrat Obama spent $2.7 million for ads running between June 20 and July 28.

Can't really find anything comprehensive, but this is something. Looks like McCain has averaged about 60k a day in Michigan since Memorial Day or so, Obama about 70k a day, but started a few weeks after McCain.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Don't they need a white guy?

They do, Obama and Richardson both have white parents.

As jersey indicated John McCain has to spend any money he's raised before the convention. Any money left can't go to ads. I assume it can go to other campaign expenses. While Obama figures to raise enough to make the $84 million irrelevant he also has to budget for two extra months.

Looks like I was wrong. A Republican 527 is doing anti-Obama ads. The ads attack Obama on the issues, not personally. So they're not Swift Boating or the weird "John McCain wants my child to die" Moveon.org ads that are personal attacks. Maybe they'll come.

What's interesting is that the Obama camp is jumping on McCain to live up to his word and tell the 527 to stop. Thus they can win either way. The ads stop or McCain isn't a man of his word. Interesting though that the Obama camp can criticize McCain for the 527 but sees nothing contradictory for them to not tell Moveon.org to stop.

At least one Ohio Republican isn't very fond of Mean Jean Schmidt...

Tom Ridge was just on Hardball. I'm only mentioning this because it looked like he may have been wearing a zoot suit

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/07/assemblyman_neil_cohen_investi.html

Oh my. A perverted sex scandal type thing, and the perpetrator wasn't a Republican for once!

My home state really is awesome.

jerseyhoya wrote:http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/07/assemblyman_neil_cohen_investi.html

Oh my. A perverted sex scandal type thing, and the perpetrator wasn't a Republican for once!

My home state really is awesome.

Ick. Somebody's a sick twist.

It's like an endless race to the bottom in that state. If there is a bottom.

A strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably.

This is a bit weird. I got an email from someone I know indicating Barack Obama said this in the Wall Street Journal on June 17. If you look at the interview he never said that. I don't believe he even implies it. In fact, he talks about lowering corporate tax rates and actually shows some sign of understanding economics. He sounds almost Republican.

You get to a point, I think, if you have a participatory income tax, for example, where you might be discouraging work because marginal rates are so high. You might undoubtedly get to a point where the capital gain and dividend taxes are so high that they distort investment decisions and you're weaker economically.

Democrats have a fine line to walk. Their voters are all for helping the poor and don't mind socking it to the rich, but using words "wealth is distributed more equitably" and you're sounding socialist. You're going to lose a lot of people and probably the election. The media never picked up on this non-quote, but the nefarious Republicans could still use it against him.

Edit: I informed my friend that Obama never said this. He said he'd send out a retraction. It's nice when a Republican acts honorably. I'd like to expect it, however, not be pleasantly surprised.

Hearing on Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations

Wish this was getting more coverage in mainstream

Surprised no comment here about this? I caught a good bit of it. Nice to hear after all this time, about 7 years late...

Philly the Kid wrote:Hearing on Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations

Wish this was getting more coverage in mainstream

Surprised no comment here about this? I caught a good bit of it. Nice to hear after all this time, about 7 years late...

Disappointed that none of the discussants here care about the abuse of the Executive branch under Bush and where it has left us, and what it portends for the future...

Philly the Kid wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Hearing on Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations

Wish this was getting more coverage in mainstream

Surprised no comment here about this? I caught a good bit of it. Nice to hear after all this time, about 7 years late...

Disappointed that none of the discussants here care about the abuse of the Executive branch under Bush and where it has left us, and what it portends for the future...

it's been played out. we all know that rove tried to carve the presidency, the entire government for fucks sake, into a permanent arm of the republican national committee. with the redistricting in congress, they tried to make an untouchable majority. with one more republican president in office after bush, they would have had 7 seats on the supreme court, or even better, just expanded the court to 11 justices instead of waiting, since their majorities in the house and senate would be untouchable.


they turned the justice department into a dirt peddler that dealt in the shadows of accusing (and in siegleman's case, prosecuting) democrats that were threatening for gubernatorial or congressional seats. shit, even scott mcclellan admits that they fed a national news channel talking points, so that they could stay on message.

we ALL know this, but there's apparently no depth the government can sink to that would result in impeachment, so it's just infuriating to talk about.

Well put. I agree.

I'd only add that the trend of power accumulating within the executive has held pretty much throughout American history. Perhaps if Obama wins, the Republicans will suddenly rediscover their commitment to fighting against concentrated power. It'd be nice if they did so on principle, of course, but as long as it happens, great.

I was more interested to see if anyone would or did -- listen to some of the hearings. I was very satisfying to hear certain things being 'named' and called out. To actually know that congress-persons could actually describe the abuse of office and manipulation -- many accusing it of being illegal. Kucinich was a witness and made some great points as did others, and to hear the usual patriotic pablum -- mid-directions of a few staunch republicans on the committee.

This is where I totally lose respect for Republicans, because they will say nonsense in the face of facts that overwhelmingly demonstrate abuse of our Constitution, Bill of Rights and rule of law.

I think this is not played out at all and late as it may be, fertile for dialog.

It needs to be added that the executive increased its power because Congress let them. Congress has increasingly ceded its legislative power to the bureaucracy, with rulemaking by unelected bureaucrats now becoming more important than lawmaking.