Having Obama win a two-to-one margin in the caucus on the same day that he loses a primary in the same state undercuts *every single one of his caucus victories* because Hillary can say "I would have won those too if they were fair!!!"

Wow, Ryan, that's the most astute thing I've heard or read all night. The Clinton campaign should 1. blast that message every day from now till Denver, 2. Make Mark Penn buy you a car.

I don't even like Hillary, but damn, your frame is a thing of beauty.

Posted at March 5, 2008 2:12 AM in response to Why it's worse for Obama than you think...

Fabooj is absolutely right. I think a lot of folks here are glossing over how offensive the anti-Catholic statements were and how big a political impact it could have if McCain doesn't (as the saying goes), come to Jesus on this one. If he doesn't apologize and denounce, he's leaving a big opening for Obama.

Let's not forget there are a LOT of "us Catholics" in the US, 60 million as best I can google, compared to 3 million Jews and 40 million African-Americans (with some overlap among black Catholics and black Jews).

What's more, while Jews and blacks are pretty consistent Democratic voters and white Evangelicals are a strong GOP voting bloc, Catholics are more likely to be swing voters, Catholics trended towards every popular vote winnter since 1972.

So this is a great issue for Democrats to hammer McCain with. The upside is they're defending a large swing voting bloc against religious bigotry. The downside (such as it is) is pissing off voters who aren't gonna vote for a Democrat anyway.

As for who's going to run with this story? That's easy, MSNBC. It would be amusing to watch Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Pat Buchanan, Bill Press E.J. Dionne and Peggy Noonan to hash out whether anti-Catholic bigotry is a good thing or a bad thing. They could bring in Brian Williams to moderate, oh wait, he's Catholic too.

Posted at February 29, 2008 2:13 AM in response to Farrakhan's Support For Obama? Hugely Controversial. Hagee's Backing Of McCain? No Problem.

As Thoreau put, there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.

Bravo BVD for being that one who paid attention to what's important. Sadly, I have no idea who she is either.

Posted at February 13, 2008 12:06 AM in response to Early Exit Polls: In Virginia, Obama Has Big Lead Over Hillary -- Among Women

Well I did throw that "financial genius" caveat in there. :o)

Posted at June 8, 2007 10:31 PM in response to our own Jessica Valenti on Colbert

Short flabby guys do not run the country. Unless he's a financial genius, the average captain of industry (and most male politicans) are at least 6' and above average in appearance, by "average" for the entire country-- not for TV land.

It was a good interview with Colbert, he threw softballs so Jessica could make her points. And I took her point about Girls Gone Wild to not be about exhibitionism (the world would be a poorer place if some women didn't have that interest), but she's dubious that women are turned on by appearing in soft core porn for free. One suspects there's a diminished capacity (age, alcohol, drugs, duress) issue in many of those signed releases.

A law professor of mine summarized the Invasion Of Privacy tort as, you have to pay someone if you want to take pictures of them naked. Joe Francis (is he still in jail?) made a fortune with finding a "beads" loophole to this general rule and I don't think that's a good thing.

Posted at June 7, 2007 8:27 AM in response to our own Jessica Valenti on Colbert

sorry if that link doesn't work, might be easier to cut and paste to this:
http://www.nbc.com/Video/rewind/full_episodes/friday_night_lights.shtml

Posted at April 11, 2007 6:53 PM in response to Imus & "Friday Night Lights"

You're right about FNL, I can't remember watching a better TV series. It is sooooo damn good. Even if you don't like football or Texas or mankind in general, every episode will bring tears to your eyes. Even the minor characters are beautifully written and acted.

The show never lets you forget that everyone in life is fighting a great battle, so maybe try to be a little kinder. For anyone who hasn't watched it before, NBC has the entire season archived online for free. So click on the link below, sit back and try out the pilot. I bet you'll be hooked and if you're not-- you can always go back to wasting the evening reading blogs. :o) http://www.nbc.com/Video/rewind/full_episodes/friday_night_lights_01.shtml

Posted at April 11, 2007 6:50 PM in response to Imus & "Friday Night Lights"

A reasonable point (that a retiree on a fixed income might be priced out of their home by high property or net worth taxes). Besides giving a generous minimum threshold (if not a $1 million, you could raise it higher), you could also let retirees accrue property taxes as a lien on the property. That is, as long as they lived in the house (likely until their death), they don't pay any taxes but once they sell their house (or their heirs inherit) then the tax will be due.

That will likely mean the heirs (or if there's a will, devisees) will be forced to sell to pay the property tax. But better that adult children sell for tax reasons than the elderly parents.

Posted at February 14, 2007 11:51 PM in response to What About Progressive Property Taxes?

Before the Georgists jump in on how land should be taxes and not improvements. I would note that you're missing the big picture. Property taxes should be broadened to include more kinds of property but should be imposed on only high net worth residents.

Real Estate is just one form of property, there is also personal property, of the tangible (jewelry, cars) and intangible (stocks, bonds, saving accounts) variety. The sum of these (minus your liabilities) is your net worth. Property taxes currently don't account for mortgages, perhaps its more fair to tax only the equity (the part you own free and clear of the mortgage).

Either way, why not set a minimum threshold (say a $1 million in property value or net worth) and tax all property-- both real and personal and impose a wealth tax?

The real property is already assessed locally and personal property (assessed by some states already) can be assessed by insurance and financial records. Even a 1 or 2 percent rate would raise a LOT of revenue.

For constitutional reasons, the federal government can't easily (or perhaps ever) collect a wealth tax, but individual states could. If Congress really wanted state wealth taxes , The Feds could strong arm the states into doing so the same way they did with state inheritance taxes-- mop up taxation, a federal tax imposed only if a state chooses not to tax something. If the IRS collected a 15% surtax on any resident of state that didn't impose a wealth tax... every state would impose one.

Finally, the greatest land reformer of them all (he also gave women voting rights, reorganized the economy, legalized trade unions and introduced universal health care) was Douglas MacArthur. Its astonishing how decent a ruler he was of Japan.

Posted at February 14, 2007 11:45 PM in response to What About Progressive Property Taxes?

Actually, JFK's 50% solution would be "landing a man on the moon."

I'm sure if we hadn't sweated the second 50% ("and returning him safely to earth"), we could have landed a man on the moon sooner than than we actually did.
:o)

Posted at January 30, 2007 11:44 PM in response to Half-way-ism Is Not a Philosophy