Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
There's a lonely stretch of grassland in Montana, with gently rolling hills next to a small river, where 132 years ago this June, a battle was fought. More on this in a moment.
Tomorrow, the Democratic primary race will finally be over. Or, I should say, the primaries themselves will be over. At long last, everyone will have voted, unless (Democratic) life is discovered on Mars in the next few days.
USA Today (of all places) has a great page on their site where you can play "call the election." It comes complete with electoral maps back to 1960, for reference (warning: Democrats shouldn't click on 1984 or 1972 unless they're sitting down, preferably with a strong drink handy). It starts you off with what they consider "safe" states already marked (their definition: safe states voted the same way in the last four presidential elections), but you can click "all undecided" to start with a clean slate, if you prefer. The good news: their "safe state" starting point starts at 248 Democratic, 135 Republican.
"I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution," said Obama.
One would think that politicians everywhere would likewise avoid mentioning the word "assassination" -- ever -- on the campaign trail. Especially if it's not even germane to the point you are supposedly making. One would think. One, apparently, would be wrong.
Well, no, actually, I made that up. The Leader of the Free World did not, in fact, quack like a duck. It was the product of a (gleeful) overly active imagination on my part. I apologize for such frivolity.
General David Petraeus, testifying before Congress today (in the hopes that they will approve his promotion), may just have thrown a serious monkey wrench into the Republicans' election strategy, by killing one of their best hopes for an "October Surprise."
Since we are about at the halfway point in the 2008 elections -- with the last dust settling from the nomination race and the general election campaign gearing up -- I thought it would be a good time to talk to Janda again. I am not professionally trained in political science (I just pretend to be, on the internet), so I thought it would be interesting to hear from someone who is.
I personally am of the opinion that more free speech is better than less. Which is why I like the concept of 527s, and why I support their right to speak. It's also interested to see who else is against 527s -- both political parties. Because before 527s were around, these "advocacy ads" came from the party machine, and were coordinated with the candidates. Meaning centralized control over the message. But I don't consider that a good thing at all -- I like the concept of free citizens being able to have their own voices heard in the political debate. Sure, it's messier (with a lot of mud being flung), but true freedom is always a little messy.
Rollins is not very upbeat about Republicans in general, George Bush, Republicans' chances in 2008, or indeed the whole future of the Republican Party. He says the party "has kind of lost its way." He bemoans the fact that young people are flocking to the Democratic Party as a "death knell for the long term." George Bush has to realize "he's no longer on the ballot." As for the Bush administration, "the quicker this page is turned by many Americans, including a lot of Republicans, the better." He later returns to this point, and makes it even more forcefully: "This administration is pretty tired right now and I think even the most die-hard Republicans are ready to move on."