I think everyone is being too hard on Mr. Norquist. Like Rove, I'm sure he has the math on this. It's such a bizarre world when even math is made partisan.

Posted at September 20, 2007 5:04 PM in response to The Case of Colorado

I'm not an economist, but it seems as though the case for causality is pretty weak.

Why do the graphs start at 1992? What was CO's GSP increase relative to the national average before TABOR. If Mr. Norquist's implication that TABOR caused the increase as opposed to some preexisting trajectory, we should see a clear difference in GSP growth before and after TABOR. That's not necessarily a proof of causality, but the case would be made stronger if that were included.

What is CO's median personal income growth and how has that changed before and after TABOR? CO's employment growth like before and after TABOR? Mr. Norquist is implying that TABOR was the cause of this but he hasn't shown that and any academic journal would reject his claim based on this data. He may very well be right, but he has not given any credible evidence here.

Posted at September 20, 2007 3:00 PM in response to The Case of Colorado

I think Obama is a reasonable guy and wouldn't have a problem supporting him in a general. But, his whole optimism and changing the way the game is played line is not something really novel. Every candidate from city council to president says something similar. So I don't find it refreshing or inspiring, just old and stale.

I'm not an expert in presidential politics, being just old enough to have voted in three elections, but I remember Clinton espousing much of Obama's game in just as an articulate and charismatic way. But that didn't stop the GOP from killing his health care bill for purely political reason (see Kristol). I want someone who will be a fighter because we have a lot of problems that need to be fixed that the GOP is going to fight to the death. I don't think a fight is the first choice, but we may have to and Obama has not had to deal with tough political situations.

I'll be voting for someone in the primary who has a demonstrated ability of toughness and political will. Neither Obama or Edwards fit that bill. They do have their strengths, but it doesn't matter if they aren't tough enough to stand up to the GOP.

Posted at May 24, 2007 9:34 AM in response to Gore, Obama, And A Coalition Against The Politics of Fear

Election central has an Edwards quote where he said he didn't think that voting for AUMF (not war in Iraq per se) was a good idea but he did it anyway because he listened to his advisors. Of course he should apologize for not doing what he thought was right. Clinton, by contrast, voted for AUMF to help make sure inspectors got in and prove there were no WMD and/or to destroy them--which they were well on their way to doing. Before, during and after, she was a vocal critic of pre-emptive war. Why should she aplogize for Bush's dishonesty if she trusted him? She has admitted that it was wrong to trust Bush, which is a much more forgivable offense to me than what Edwards did.

Posted at May 22, 2007 2:51 PM in response to NATION Unloads on Hillary Inc.

The irony regarding Gore has never been lost on me.

I also love how Clinton nearly closed down the government to prevent some of the GOPs most offensive proposals yet he is considered as weak and without principles.

Posted at May 22, 2007 2:45 PM in response to NATION Unloads on Hillary Inc.

I don't like rating things down, but you state that you didn't read the article in question so don't answer what the post asked. That's fine, but then you go on to claim that Clinton wanted to "invade Iraq himself" with no evidence. The military plans for many different possibilities so claiming that Clinton era military planning is proof that he really wanted to invade Iraq is silly at best.

Posted at May 22, 2007 2:37 PM in response to NATION Unloads on Hillary Inc.

This comment is so bizarre to me. Kurita voted for Republican leadership rather than the Democratic alternative. This is much more than a legislative vote.

You don't have to like Ford or the DLC, but it's absurd to equate voting for a bill supported by the GOP with voting for GOP leadership.

Posted at April 5, 2007 11:31 AM in response to Common Ground Found

Sorry, but calling Hillary Clinton an "uber war-supporter" lessens the credibility of that site, the effort, and your posts. I realize that you are most likely an Obama supporter and it would be nice to disclose such things before linking to a site that is clearly anti-Hillary Clinton. Not that you have to support her, just nice to have a little disclosure.

Posted at March 21, 2007 3:19 PM in response to Sign Petition to Thank Nick Kristof for Great Column on Israel

Do you have any references to the budget shift under Dinkins? That is pretty amazing if true.

Posted at March 8, 2007 2:24 PM in response to Why Rudy Giuliani Really Shouldn’t be President

You're continued reference to the Ellison endorsing Obama post as an attack against Obama is old, stale and getting embarassing. You have to go out of your way to construe it as an attack on Obama and it diminishes your other, more valid points. Not even 2Pac would think that TPM was against him!

Also, comparing obama's treatment to Clinton's is foolish. Eventually, he may receive the same level of hate, but hasn't come close yet.

Posted at March 7, 2007 11:22 AM in response to There They Go Again