I don't think it works that way, but I'm not exactly clear. Since Congress has power of the purse, I don't believe the President can decide to spend the funds differently than Congress voted to spend them.

IMHO, the line item veto might help fix the first part (pork, although by its nature it would mean the President can approve some pork projects and reject others), but not the second part (members standing in the way of popular reforms). Campaign finance reform is the only way to fix that.

both because it's unconstitutional (Congress and Congress alone gets to write the laws) and because I think Presidents are too powerful already. But I don't see how Obama could veto the defense bill if it includes hate crimes in the final product.

Conference with the House will determine which provision gets dropped. If just the F-22's get dropped (best case scenario), Obama signs. If the F-22's stay and hate crimes get dropped, Obama vetoes. If both get dropped, he'll sign. And if both stay in? I don't know, but I suspect signing hate crimes is a bigger priority than vetoing F-22's. Especially since he doesn't want to upset the gay community any further, and both he and Holder have pushed the hate crimes bill aggressively.

And note that Republicans (and conservative Dixiecrats) couldn't possibly have been concerned about Fortas' nomination for Chief Justice shifting the balance on the Court, as the net effect would have been a staunch pro-civil rights liberal (Fortas) replacing a staunch pro-civil rights liberal (Warren). It was pure politics...they were stalling until Nixon could take the reigns and name a more conservative Chief Justice, which is exactly what he ended up doing.

Roberts was 50 when he was picked and Alito was 55, so that age bracket seems ideal for picking experienced judges who will be there forever. You don't need to go the Clarence Thomas route and find someone under 45, but you just don't want to go much over 55.

I don't care if he picks a judge, politician, or janitor. I would definitely prefer that it be a woman, and ideally a Latina to break some new ground, but if the best choice he finds is a man, so be it. Whomever he picks must be as liberal as Souter is (or more so) and must, must, must be young (55 or under). Clinton chose a 60-year-old in Ginsburg, which was fine except that here we are 15 years later and she is a couple years from retiring while Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are all Boomer generation spring chickens and both Kennedy and Scalia are aging but quite healthy, with no retirement in sight. The Chief Justice is 53 years old! (While the senior liberal is 88 and the sole woman is 76.) So, age is probably my #1 concern.

Wow, he's been Manhattan D.A. longer than Law & Order's been on TV.

Is it possible Obama asked Gregg to avoid the vote in light of GOP game-playing on recent nominations? Considering the hell they've given Hilda Solis over EFCA, you just know they would have used Gregg's dissent from his party caucus as an excuse to put a "hold" on his nomination.

The compass test had me voting for either Labor or Meretz. Big surprise, I know.

Gore also pulled out of Ohio in 2000, a very dangerous sign for his campaign.

I agree, this was THE story yesterday, and it could be the fatal blow to the McCain campaign, even if he gets a mini-bounce from the Palin/Biden debate. Michigan was supposed to be the GOP's best hope at ruining Obama's winning map and snatching the blue-collar vote. Now where exactly does McCain hope to play offense? His campaign says Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Maine (presumably going for CD-2...they must expect that this race will be really, really, really close if they plan to invest funds to win one congressional district).

But Obama is currently cruising in all four of these states. McCain doesn't want to play pure defense, but soon he may have to if the polls don't turn around. Bwa ha ha.

Stark is a UU (Unitarian Universalist), which is a "religion" (if that's what you want to call it) that allows all other religions within it. UUs can be humanists, atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Jews; they are united, however, in being religiously liberal.

The only other UU in Congress is Kent Conrad.

2008 will not be a blowback. If anything, it will be a harsh year for anything establishment. Could be record numbers of Independents elected to office, mostly at the expense of Republicans but with a slight hurt for Democrats.

But I still expect a Democratic Congress in 2009, and very possibly a Democratic President as well.

Fascinating stuff. It has always confounded me why we have Pakistan, currently run by a military junta, as a major non-NATO ally, but not India, the world's largest democracy.

I mean, I thought we were all about spreading democracy.

Is this a Permanent Select Committee, like Intelligence?

1. Caps lock is not your friend.
   
2. John McCain will not accept your offer. I bet $10,000,000 on it, and I don't have that kind of money.
   
3. You are on the wrong site. This is not a Republican site.