God damnit, I did too nearly run over a jawa last night.

"In the 100 elections that determined the current make-up of the Senate, 200,723,923 votes were cast. The Democratic candidates in these elections received a combined 96,307,088 votes.... The Republican candidates received 94,994,293..."

linky

most pathetic

Avoiding God's Thunderbolt
 

Scott McClellan, growing into his job.

• "This report, which Newsweek has now retracted and said was wrong, has had serious consequences. People did lose their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged; there is lasting damage to our image because of this report."

That Scott mustered this level of righteous indignation about an error resulting in the loss of life and the lasting damage to the image of the United States is a testament to how far the young man has come.

Wasn't so long ago that McClellan's press conferences advocating Administration policies needed the constant safe harbor of Jeff Gannon's questions to avoid being reduced to a small puddle by the press corps. Now, clearly, the man's balls are big and they're brass. Bravo, I say.

Avoiding God's Thunderbolt
 

The best defense is a good offense?

A fairly meaningless quasi-statistical curiousity endeavoring to prove unuseful a compromise that allowed the founding of the nation in the first place.

I would say that it's a quasi-curiousity, suggesting that we agree but that you are paid by the word. Or something.

Trying to keep my post count down, 8k boy.

I was assuming there was a reason for the post, as well as the observation made in the blog. And then respond to it. My bad. But I continue not to get complaints about how the Senate is countermajoritarian (not in the fillibuster part). Duh--that was the idea. If you don't like it, secede, and see what happens.

(And Texas certainly has no beef, since it can get 8 senators by unilateral action)

As the 7th largest economy in the world, I think we'd do okay.

It's a reminder to Democrats that they represent roughly half the country. As Apu famously said, the South shall come again.

On the filibuster, all you need to know is that Frist is planning to change the rules but doesn't have the 67 votes required, so he is pretending that the rules are unconstitutional to do so, even though no one can make this argument with a straight face. Some leadership.


8.001 x 10 to the 3!

Are Pennsylvanians really still willing to vote for this guy?
 

Unfortunately, the rumors are true. Here’s the transcript of what Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum said, just a couple of hours ago, on the Senate floor, during the debate over the nuclear option:

“Some are suggesting we’re trying to change the law, we’re trying to break the rules. Remarkable. Remarkable hubris.

“I mean, imagine. The rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago, and the audacity of some members to stand up and say, ‘How dare you break this rule?’

“It’s the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942: ‘I’m in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It’s mine.’”

On March 1, 2005, Sen. Robert Byrd made an oblique reference to Hitler in a speech about the nuclear option. Santorum lashed out at Byrd for his remarks:

Byrd roused the ire of many Republicans when he tangentially referred to Adolf Hitler during a speech on March 1 defending cloture and the right to debate...Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., asked Byrd to retract his comments, stating they “lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate.”

What a walking embarrassment Santorum is.

Think of the farmers. And the soldiers. And having Barbara Boxer as your highest elected official.

This is funny that you bring this up. I just read an article that said in California the State Senate used to have one representative from each of the 58 counties. Under that system twenty nine counties with less than ten percent of the population could stop any bill in the Senate. These countys were rural, and were therefore conservative, giving the conservatives a lock on the California State Senate. The US Supreme Court decided that allocating the Senate by geographic area instead of population was unconstitutional. The result was that the little countys became insignificant and San Francisco and Los Angeles dominated the state. The writer of the article argued that California, in the sixties, had the best educational system, a brand new highway and water system, and free junior colleges and state school. He argued the infrastructure and the school system now sucks because the liberals took over once the State Senate was changed, and it has been down hill ever since.

post hoc ergo propter hoc!

Does the timing even work? Seems to me the schools declined sometime in the 80s. At the high school and below level, it's Prop. 13. Colleges, the lack of funds available.

Water is from the booming population and an unwillingness to tell the farmers off. Highways because ya'll like your cars too damn much.

Yes it is a weak link. I think assigning districts by Geography is undemocratic. I believe we have such huge farming subsidies because the farming states are overrepresented in the Senate. I was talking to John Thune, when he was out here, and I pointed out to him that a California State Senator represents twice as many people as he does as a US Senator.