No arrest, no threat. The Secret Service (and they should drag the Republican leadership along) should point out how dangerous this is. AND they should point out that it is not working. The data is there. It is not generating the numbers. McCain needs a new tack. And Sarah just needs to stop her "not like you and me" shtick. It is beyond offensive.

Posted at October 10, 2008 2:28 PM in response to The Secret Service Should Act Now!

Ya know, (except, of course, it no longer seems okay to use a cliche like that -- Palin has made it seem so cliche!) that whole "pay for the rape kit" issue is really a big deal. You would think it would come up somewhere. Has anyone asked her about it, anywhere? WHY not? She basically demanded the support of women voters by quoting Albright, but here is evidence that she does not support the most fundamental of women's issues, the right to prosecute those who assault them, and somehow it just doesn't seem to be getting through.

Sorry, frustration rant.

Posted at October 6, 2008 9:59 AM in response to A Special Place in Hell Indeed

Airspace or no airspace, I'm having trouble connecting what Pelosi -- or for that matter, Barney Frank and John Boehner -- did with anything in Sam Rayburn's playbook.

Posted at September 30, 2008 11:02 AM in response to Republican Reaction to Bill Failure: Nancy Pelosi Didn't Use the Right Tone

I don't think she can go. It would require blinking.

Posted at September 26, 2008 12:20 PM in response to Conservative Columnist Kathleen Parker Calls for Palin To Drop Out

I am far from expert in this area, but over the last century there have been 3 (am I missing one?) major financial failures, the Depression in '29, the Savings and Loan scandal in the '80s, and now this. I am not sure of the causes, but the striking thing about all of them is that Republicans were in office each time. Only Ike's 8 years seem to be free from this type of collapse (perhaps because of residual effects from the war? or just a very big economy in relations to the rest of the world? I don't know).

What I do know is while Democrats are hardly blameless in these events, they do seem to aim to correct them in ways -- good and bad -- that rebuild the American economy. And whenever Republicans find they have enough administrative time in office to mess with financial structures/protections, they manage in one way or the other to grab/swindle/steal/loot/fleece -- pick your verb -- the system. It is never the same method, but the taxpayer winds up propping up the system to keep everyone, including, alas, the culprits themselves, afloat.

How do we avoid this? How do we protect the homeowner who bought into the system? We bought houses in 80, 86 and 2004. The first two required 20% down and would only go 2 and 1/2 times our income, the last we could have gone with less down and much more than 2 and 1/2 times. We stuck with the old model because we didn't like anything higher, but other homeowners, new to the system maybe or happy with their new higher house price bracket, obviously bought in. Are they really the ones to blame? How do you protect them from a flawed model for determining their loan size?

Anybody got an answer? Anybody else believe it?

Posted at September 26, 2008 10:59 AM in response to McCain Flails, WaMu Fails

There must be some way to get the MSM to begin designating these events as either "open to the general public" or "ticket only"? My impression of Grand Rapids -- wasn't that where she was speaking? -- is that it is serious Republican territory. Her appearance there did not represent much of a threat in terms of tough questioning. But viewers will come away with the impression that she handled herself very well answering "real people" questions, not understanding that they were set up to be softballs.

I think TPM should really start hammering home what these events are, so the public understands who the audience is. Maybe that will get the MSM to get on board.

Posted at September 18, 2008 10:44 AM in response to Sarah Palin's Staged Townhall Meeting, Another Pretend Moment!

Thank you, that was very helpful I am sending this on.

Posted at September 15, 2008 1:53 PM in response to Attention & Alert

I think this is a good idea, but I really don't understand exactly what Gramm's bill did. Could you provide a simple explanation so that if I end up in a discussion on this I won't sound like an idiot? -- not an unlikely outcome when discussing economics.
Also, are Democrats complicit in this in some way? Anything that can come back to haunt us if this does start to dominate the Wall Street/election conversation?

Posted at September 15, 2008 10:48 AM in response to Attention & Alert

It's not there. Did TIME pull it? Does anyone have it anywhere? Maybe it was "un"authorized? If so, congratulations and best wishes to whoever is about to lose his/her job.

Posted at September 12, 2008 3:49 PM in response to TIME posts mocking video of Palin. Is this fair game?

(Also posted this in response to another post.) I remember reading in Royko?? . . . T. White?? . . . somewhere that Dems in Chicago expected a lot of trouble with voting machines on the southside during . . . I can't remember if it was about Jack in '60 or Bobby in a primary. Their solution was to train and certify vending machine repairmen as voting machine repairmen. At that time these machines operated on the same principle. Whenever the machines "broke down" they were able to send someone to fix them quickly before voters gave up and left.

So, is there anyway to have non-partisan voter assistance booths near those voting places where voter challenges are likely? I don't know who . . . lawyers? . . . Community organizers? People who can help voters from both parties who are maneuvered out of casting a ballot to get back in there and vote? If this is an anticipated tactic, is there any plan to counter it? Anybody? Anywhere?

I think it was about Bobby, and I think it was in "Boss."

Posted at September 12, 2008 10:56 AM in response to The Type of Voter Suppression Scheme We can Expect on November 4