Opera singer, blogger, lawyer. You can reach me by email at david [at] bluemassgroup [dot] com.

Person #2: 4083 Posts

Recommended: 487 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. I had forgotten about that one! (0 Replies)

    My God, we are all so witty. Or, at least, we were back then.

  2. The comments are still attached to the posts. (0 Replies)

    They just aren’t available on your author page.

  3. No, unfortunately. (1 Reply)

    That’s part of the transition that never was completed.

  4. How to win friends and influence people ... not (1 Reply)

    “for those few BMGers interested in policy done right”

    That’s kind of a fuck you right there, wouldn’t you say?

  5. On this issue, anyway, (1 Reply)

    CAP appears to be in with the Wall Street crowd. Call it what you want; doesn’t seem like a good way forward to me.

  6. That won't happen, but (2 Replies)

    having her in a leadership position only two years into her first term is a huge, huge deal. Especially a position newly created for her, which seems to be what they are talking about.

  7. I mean both. (1 Reply)

    Non-rudeness is of course required by our rules. And we have always encouraged constructive contributions from those whose views on some issues differ from the majority on the site. It’s a big part of what makes this place better than, say, RMG.

  8. We get it, (1 Reply)

    you’re not a fan of question 2.

  9. I kind of think this is a BS Politico story. (2 Replies)

    In the last couple of hours, I’ve gotten fundraising emails from several Senators asking me to send money to Landrieu’s runoff effort. So it doesn’t sound to me like they’re ditching her. Maybe the DSCC is, but really, they suck anyway.

  10. “I guess the voters thought the other person was a better choice.” (0 Replies)

    Of course you’re right, but you’re begging two important questions: which voters showed up, and why they made the decision they did. That’s what we’re trying to get at. These are complicated and interesting topics; just shrugging your shoulders and saying, well, I guess “the voters” liked the other guy better is not.

  11. "you say it’s because people saw some TV commercials." (1 Reply)

    Please – I didn’t say that. I didn’t write this post, and while I think the role of money is important, I’m not convinced it’s determinative. I do, however, think it’s a question worth thinking about carefully.

  12. 7% of voters decided on election day, (1 Reply)

    at least according to WBUR’s latest poll. Even if that overstates the number somewhat, it does seem that more than enough voters to change the result in this particular election decided on a candidate at almost literally the last minute.

  13. Don't forget about term limits. (0 Replies)

    The current Speaker is term limited by House rules to serve only through 2016. Unless, of course, they change the rules.

  14. Still, (2 Replies)

    would you agree that the election where the candidate on whose behalf less money is raised/spent nonetheless wins is the exception? The pattern is fairly striking, after all. And if so, why is that?

  15. "I don’t see Dunks bags and wrappers piled ankle-deep." (2 Replies)

    You’re not looking. I see plenty of them. Why I routinely remove them from my front yard because some asshole drives by and tosses them out his window.

    I don’t know about “used tissues,” but they would certainly degrade a lot faster than a plastic water bottle.

  16. I actually agree (0 Replies)

    that the indexing was an unnecessary and foolishly controversial idea that should never have been included. A nickel has worked well for decades; it was dumb to get overly fancy by indexing it so that it’s 7.32 cents in a couple of years.