Linda, exactly which commenter are you referring to here? You're quoting "babies," but nobody seems to have said that.

Posted at December 4, 2007 11:12 AM in response to What A Turning Point Looks Like

Well, yeah... upper middle class liberals often don't take the line on economic issues that you'd like. A lot of fairly reliable Democratic votes come from the old liberal Republican bloc.

So what do you propose to do about it? The Democrats simply can't be a majority party anymore without those votes. You can keep a lot of them just by being the party of sensible social policy, but will that be enough?

Posted at June 24, 2007 2:39 AM in response to Friday Movement Blogging

Indeed. I know a couple of guys who have taken up smoking since the ban, because it makes meting women easier.

Posted at June 21, 2007 4:17 AM in response to The Bloomberg Bubble

Why are we trying to stop chain migration, wquine? Umm... you do know that chain migration is kind of unpopular, right? I don't see any way to do an immigration bill without something like this; you'd lose too many Republicans and conservative Democrats.

If you don't like this bill, I think the status quo is probably the best alternative.

Edit: I didn't mean to imply that this is or should be a real issue; given the current 15+ year wait it's just not.

Posted at May 17, 2007 10:33 PM in response to What Looks Like a Crappy Immigration Deal

Who says that voting Democratic = wanting more domestic spending? A lot of the people I talk to want the Dems in charge because they'll actually try to match revenues to expenditures, not because they want to keep flinging out the pork. If I thought a Democratic Congress meant big increases in discretionary domestic spending, I'd have stayed home.

Edit: that wasn't clear. My real point is that there's no reason to expect that a narrow Democratic majority means there's any constituency for increased domestic spending without bringing in populist Republicans. Which would have all kinds of unfortunate consequences, no?

Posted at April 9, 2007 10:05 AM in response to WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE? (WHERE'S HAROLD??)

Wasn't the total breakdown in supervision itself a surprise? Or perhaps the deliberate dismantling of supervision would be a better way to describe it.

Posted at February 4, 2007 9:29 AM in response to NeoCons Trash George Soros in Attempt to Distract from Their Complicity in Iraq "War of Choice" Disaster

Umm.....Bev, dearie, 49 % of discretionary spending doesn't mean 49 out of every 100 pennies people send to the government. You do know what "discretionary spending" means, don't you?

Posted at February 1, 2007 9:31 PM in response to REPUBLIC ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN

Frankly, I think that conviction is a fantasy. But since it's not going to be put to the test, we can't prove anything one way or the other, so let's not argue the point.

Regardless, saying "Democrats in Congress are putting themselves above the welfare of the nation" is inaccurate, unless you just mean it as empty rhetoric. The Democrats think an impeachment attempt would hurt their re-election chances, sure. But they also think that the attempt would be bad for the country at large. KJ raised the spectre of "McCain in the White House with a revitalized Republican Congress." If you really believe that would be the most likely outcome of attempted impeachment, then impeachment simply isn't good for the country.

Posted at January 15, 2007 2:28 PM in response to Why We Can't Win Militarily in Iraq

Lord, lord, lord... I haven't seen so much wishful thinking packed into a post this short in a long time.

Why anyone would think that Saddam was still relevant is beyond me.

Posted at January 12, 2007 2:12 AM in response to Bush’s Iraq Speech: Analysis On Its Own Terms

Stop ducking the question. Exactly how will our continued involvement avoid the catastrophe? We can postpone it as long as we want to keep spending blood and treasure, but whenever we stop, the situation will be right where it is now. Is it that much better to have things collapse in 2009 as opposed to 2007?

Posted at January 7, 2007 2:31 PM in response to Is This Simply a Case of a Mismanaged War?