
Not bad, eh? Makes me want to ask Jon Meacham if we're really and truly a center-right nation. Much more eye candy at the source. Thanks, Cody, for the link.

You have worked hard for a cause and I hope that it all goes well for you (and the rest of the world) as we need the change even here in New Zealand. . . it is a real shame that Obama's gran did not get to see what will be one of the biggest changes in US political history. I am in Australia at the moment and it is big news here too.
Anything to add?I have to say I am once again uncontrollably excited about things going on in your house which I have no say in. I do trust that this time we won't be in for a scare result. That Obama man is just so convincing he only makes you feel good about the future.
Meanwhile, it sounds like a veritable who's who list over at the OMB.Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining.
Makes perfect sense to deregulate our Homeland Security rules because they're inconvenient for shippers. Will this at least mean that I can finally quit taking off my shoes and belt at the airport? Because that's really inconvenient and not worth a damn, whereas inspecting shipping manifests is just inconvenient.According to the Office of Management and Budget's regulatory calendar, the commercial scallop-fishing industry came in two weeks ago to urge that proposed catch limits be eased, nearly bumping into National Mining Association officials making the case for easing rules meant to keep coal slurry waste out of Appalachian streams. A few days earlier, lawyers for kidney dialysis and biotechnology companies registered their complaints at the OMB about new Medicare reimbursement rules. Lobbyists for customs brokers complained about proposed counterterrorism rules that require the advance reporting of shipping data.
CitizenshipAccording to Denver Elections officials, those are the only three reasons a voter may be challenged. Interestingly enough, Secretary of State Mike Coffman's "Voter Challenge" form includes a fourth: "Other." Denver Elections officials instructed a group of about forty of us to disregard that "Other." It's the Secretary of State's form, said course supervisor Tom Mann. "We don't like it." Here's the law, he went on: citizenship, residence, or age. Those are the only reasons a challenge may even be considered. Of course, this isn't the first Coffman-designed form that has raised questions and eyebrows in the state.
Residence
Age
Yeah. I think I know that feeling, albeit minus the spectacular history that must accompany it in a state like Florida and a county like Duval, where the article points out some 26,000 ballots were tossed in 2000. The article goes on to note that as many as 40% of Democratic votes from precincts surrounding Jacksonville were disqualified during that election.[I]n conversations with about a dozen Jacksonville residents in cafes, outside churches and at their homes over three days, Mr. Jones and many of his black neighbors worry anyway, unable to put aside the nagging feeling that somehow their votes will not be counted.
. . . “They’re going to throw out votes,” said Larone Wesley, a 53-year-old black Vietnam veteran. “I can’t say exactly how, but they are going to accomplish that quite naturally.”
Nice. I feel reassured already."Fact is, Colorado is much better prepared than the 2006 election," said Coffman, a Republican. "These groups have an obvious agenda, and the timing of the report is definitely suspect.
That's McCain making zero sense at the top of the quote, because how taxing benefits works out as "more money" for Americans under McCain's plan is a complete mystery to everyone, including I think the candidate. But John McCain also revealed a telling tendency to trivialize huge issues. People who get transplant coverage--or people who want transplant coverage--are the lucky ones, the ones who have or want more than they need. They're the ones who get gold-plated Cadillac insurance policies. For "cosmetic surgery and transplants and all those kinds of things."Now, 95 percent of the people in America will receive more money under my plan because they will receive not only their present benefits, which may be taxed, which will be taxed, but then you add $5,000 onto it, except for those people who have the gold-plated Cadillac insurance policies that have to do with cosmetic surgery and transplants and all of those kinds of things.
Turns out it's not satire. The McCain-Palin campaign has seriously issued a Troopergate report that relies on evidence from a blog post in Alaska to exonerate Sarah Palin from any wrongdoing.In all sincerity, I saw this headline this morning, "Palin pre-empts state report, clears self in probe," and assumed it was satire. Those under investigation don't get to clear themselves. I have this image in my mind of Nixon, in July 1974, issuing a statement: "I've looked into this whole Watergate thing, and I've decided I've done nothing wrong. Time to move on."
The goal, I suppose, is to preempt today's release of the report of the independent investigator in Alaska. Special investigator Stephen Branchflower's role in all this remains murky, as it is tough to tell whether or not he'll issue a decisive comment on the abuse of power investigation since he never actually subpoenaed Sarah Palin to testify."It is tragic that a false story hatched by a blogger after drinks with Trooper Wooten led the legislature to allocate over $100,000 of public money to be spent in what has become a politically driven investigation," the 21-page report concludes.
Take a moment to read this one straight from the source. It's a doozy.John McCain: In 2000, as a lifelong Republican, I worked to get you elected instead of George W. Bush. In return, you wrote an endorsement of one of my books about military service. You seemed to be a man who put principle ahead of mere political gain.
You have changed. You have a choice: Go down in history as a decent senator and an honorable military man with many successes, or go down in history as the latest abettor of right-wing extremist hate.
. . . Stop! Think! Your rallies are beginning to look, sound, feel and smell like lynch mobs.
John McCain, you're walking a perilous line. If you do not stand up for all that is good in America and declare that Senator Obama is a patriot, fit for office, and denounce your hate-filled supporters when they scream out "Terrorist" or "Kill him," history will hold you responsible for all that follows.
Ah, to have been a fly on the wall. Stay tuned.Clarkson, who was up first, didn't speak long before the justices began firing questions at him.
Justice Daniel Winfree asked how Clarkson figured his clients had any standing to sue based on the notion an unconstitutional investigation violates the individual rights of others, chiefly Palin's.
Because this is a case of "public significance," Clarkson replied.
"Is this one of public significance or just one of public interest?" Winfree shot back.
"It's both," Clarkson said.
Later, Justice Robert Eastaugh asked, "What are we to make of the fact" that a bipartisan panel voted unanimously to conduct the investigation?
. . . As with Clarkson, justices soon were questioning Maassen.
"Who's doing this investigation?" Winfree asked. Is it the Legislative Council, which ordered the probe, the Senate Judiciary Committee that issued subpoenas to the governor's husband and aides, or who exactly?
The legislative branch, Maassen replied.
Maassen argued that if the governor's rights or those of other people were somehow violated, it's up to them to go to court for protection, not the Republican legislators acting as citizen taxpayers.
. . . Clarkson acknowledged he's also working with, though not receiving payment from, the McCain-Palin campaign.
"Have I talked to them? Sure. Do they tell me what to do? No," he said, adding: "Sometimes they don't know what they're talking about."
Very. Interesting. Makes me wonder how much integrity there is to any of the "undecided" polls. Also puts me in mind of this article from the LAT six weeks ago. How many truly undecided voters are there, really?Sunday before last, I received a call from the Gallop Poll [sic]. They asked a few questions regarding my choice in the Presidential election. They asked who I would vote for. I said most likely I would be voting for Barack Obama. They followed with, “is there any chance that you would change your mind“? I said “Of course anything is possible.” They then asked me as an uncommitted voter would I like to participate in the Town hall debate. I said “Of course!”