Colombia's vice president is "baffled" by Kate Moss's success following cocaine allegations...

Colombia's vice president is "baffled" by Kate Moss's success following cocaine allegations...

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...

The Rolling Stones cancel a gig in Hawaii and postpone other tour dates as Mick Jagger suffers throat troubles...

Singer George Michael lends the piano on which John Lennon wrote Imagine to an anti-war exhibition...

teen hairstyles asian teens zoo teen sex teen zoo sex anal movies huge anal beads The first stage of a £150m investment in regional museums is praised for boosting visitor numbers...

Madonna says she may adopt another child from abroad following her proposed adoption of a Malawian boy...

Madonna says she may adopt another child from abroad following her proposed adoption of a Malawian boy...

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...

Microsoft and Peter Jackson postpone the making of a film based on the Halo video game after backers pull out...

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...

TV host Oprah Winfrey gives audience members $1,000 (£526) each to donate to a charitable cause...

Pop trio Atomic Kitten will reform to play a concert in support of jailed Liverpool football fan Michael Shields...

Pioneering screenwriter Nigel Kneale, best known for the Quatermass TV serials and films, dies aged 84...

Social networking site MySpace is to block users from uploading copyrighted music to its pages...

KOZ, what about the 100,000 from Foley to other candidates? Fair is fair!

KOZ-

The Republicans suck. The GOP leadership is worthless at best and reckless at worst. Most of the country realizes this now. You are deluded. For the sake of the GOP itself you should vote Democrat this year and let your party pull itself back together again.

KOZ,
The problem with your attitude is that you look at a small part and think its the whole. If Dems with large amounts of cash on hand not being used donated (gave) money to the DNCC/DCCC/DSCC to help other candidates the returns will be huge. By donating a couple 100k they could help take back the house and senate possibly. If that happens, K Street will beat a path to the doors of Dems passing out checks. The same thing works with taxes. Reagan cut taxes and the economy went down. After each of his four tax increases, the economy went up and the deficit went down. The same happened to Bush 41. Unfortunately for him the economy started turning around about two months or so before the 92 election. When the biggest borrower in the world stops or reduces the amount of money borrowed, it leaves more, at a lower interest rate, for business to expand and improve products. It also help the poor and middle classes who then spend the money and guess what??? The wealthy make even more than before. Lowering the taxes on dividends don't help the economy in the long run. Those people would leave there money in the stock market anyway. Cutting taxes on inheritance (or the immoral life sytle continuation act) is just plain silly. If it is going to be done, then assets should be taxed yearly not when they are sold.

KOZ-
I have a real problem with someone saying somebody 'shouldn't pressure somebody else' that's the nature of democracy. MoveON has the right to draw attention to the cash pols are sitting on, just like that pol has the right to NOT give any money up. MoveOn is not asking to change laws or take it by force. When you use that rhetoric, you're barking. Your barking when you say this is a dem thing or has to do with dems wanting to take money or tell people how to live thier lives. That's barking and you know it.
But then, you're really like it if dems didn't redistribute money into 'non-competitive' markets as you described them. These non-competitive markets would be places like Montana and Washington when Dems are making real progress. You'd like us to abandon our 50 state strategy and believe all the BS Richard Mellon Scaife (a far more secretive and divisive person than George Soros) has fed you. Well repubs have for a long time redistributed moneies from incumbents without challengers to those in heated competitions, they're doing it now with Santorum. So when you say this is a crazy, tax and spend liberal thing, you call us losers and you use the most radicalized and divisive of terminology you are being facetious, disingenuous and insulting, which is the textbook definition of Barking. So Bark on, MacDuff.

kingofzouk,

Agreed. Democratic candidates should pinch their pennies somewhat less--but that is hardly MoveOn's fault.

"Borrow and spend" certainly describes the Republicans and their STILL-INCREASING debt very well. Compared to that, "tax and spend" is a perfectly viable alternative.

One in five Americans believes the United States is winning the war in Iraq, according to a poll. The number has dropped by half since December.

About the same number -- 18 percent -- believe insurgents are winning. But the majority, 60 percent, say no one is winning in Iraq.

The poll of 1,013 adult Americans interviewed by telephone found two-thirds -- 64 percent -- of those polled oppose the war in Iraq.

A majority, 57 percent, want the United States to announce it will pull all troops by a certain date. The Bush administration argues against setting a timetable, saying it would embolden the enemy. But the onslaught of daily violence has apparently soured public support for the war.

Conducted over the past three days by Opinion Research Corp., the poll also found increased pessimism for the "war on terrorism." Sixty percent are dissatisfied with the way things are going for the United States in that effort, up from 53 percent in September.

I have mixed feelings on this. Quite honestly, it's the idea of setting a precedent that will come up over and over that bothers me.

This ought to concern pols from both parties. Like it or not, a big part of the system we got (to channel Rumsfeld), not the one we wish we had, is the use of war chests as a deterrent.

It benefits both parties in the long run. Again, let's not debate the rules, we are debating the game. By creating these deterrents against serious challengers, parties end up not having to fund expensive races in ways that will bust the budget (i.e. Hillary Clinton in NY). It also provides for more secure candidates at the top of the ticket--with big GOTV efforts that ultimately help across-the-board for their respective parties.

One would hope that candidates would be willing to "give till it hurts" if they don't have a serious race, but that decision should be up to the candidate, not coercion.

Until there's serious reform of campaign financing, I guess that's the smartest way for the parties to play it.

New on EWM: Freedom Is as Freedom Does, ruminations on a war gone awry. http://www.eyewitnessmuse.com/diary.php?p=238

"they are still politicians at their root -- meaning they are looking out for themselves first, foremost and always."

Now here is the fundamental problem with politics... I thought the job of my elected official was to look after the Constitution, then me (and my neighbors :o) of course).

Can't believe I'm saying this... I agree with KOZ. Safe Candidates should not be pressured to distribute their donations to others.

If candidates feel they need to preserve their warchest for a future election then they should be allowed to do so without feeling like they created some ethics violation.

SOMEBODY'S GOTTA DO SOMETHING!!!

And MoveOn's DONE IT BEFORE...

...all this MoveOn bashing is futile.

But here's the real story today, from Joshua Holland on the Alternet...

"Both independent analysts and officials within Iraq's Oil Ministry anticipate that when all is said and done, the big winners in Iraq will be the Big Four -- the American firms Exxon-Mobile and Chevron, the British BP-Amoco and Royal Dutch-Shell -- that dominate the world oil market...
...(Iraq) stands to lose up to 194 billion vitally important dollars in revenue on just the first 12 fields developed, according to a conservative estimate by Platform (the estimate assumes oil at $40 per barrel; at this writing it stands at more than $59). That's more than six times the country's annual budget.
To complete the rip-off, the occupying coalition would have to crush Iraqi resistance, make sure it had friendly people in the right places in Iraq's emerging elite and lock the new Iraqi government onto a path that would lead to the Big Four's desired outcome."

See part two tomorrow.
http://alternet.org/story/43045/

I have never offered an opinion on gay marriage and have not settled on one personally. but there is a big difference between economic ideas and freedoms (something the Dems suppress) and moral ideas and freedoms (something the Rs suppress). but one could make a good case that moral ideas are certainly subject to debate and democratic methods. Stomping on economic progress hurts everyone though. but can we all agree that porn is not political speech and doesn't belong in my teenagers face everwhere? This is the lack of morals to which I refer.

"My main point, which you still don't seem to grasp, is that the Moveon types (like you apparently) always know what is best for everyone else and wish to make all the decisions."

What, like no gay marriage?

Interesting that you have no qualms about borrowing to support a losing effort also. It must be in your genes. Tax and spend and then borrow and tax.

Will, an objective observer would most likely attribute the barking to you as I have actually offered something to think about and you have offered only insults, probably becuase you are at a loss to originate an idea. don't feel bad, that is pervasive in Dem circles.
My main point, which you still don't seem to grasp, is that the Moveon types (like you apparently) always know what is best for everyone else and wish to make all the decisions. Just because someone has earned something on their own, doesn't make it off limits for thier greedy paws. this is transparent in this idea above as well as the tax policy and the minimum wage. we throw out objective measures of success, such as earnings, and instead substitute the measure the head socialist desires. Now the Dems who don't stand a chance of winning, haven't raised any money on their own and probably shouldn't be running for office should be rewarded with a redistribution of a succesful fundraiser. that is not what I had in mind when I gave $1000 to candidate X.

but is seems clear to me that you know better than the rest of us and SHOULD be making all our decision for us - like retirement savings, medical care, which substandard school to attend, whether to smoke, drink, eat, etc. but the single decision the Dem Government won't meddle in is whether to kill a pre-born baby. Please explain the logic coupled to the total lack of morals.

I appreciate MoveOn getting on board in this effort, but this post is dishonest in presenting that MoveOn has been the one leading this campaign. The legwork, much of the idea and the early success (which you left out) has been done by Chris Bowers at www.mydd.com and repeated on Kos and around the lefty blogs. That said I welcome MoveOn's help. The Bayhs, Clintons and Kerry's of the world need to help the movement and so do the safe incumbents. Tidal Waves don't come that often and we need to maximize this, lest the MSM miss the narrative ... see today's "battle for the ages" post as an example of that sort of shameful journalism.

I think there is a big difference between income redistribution and "lobbying" other Dems to donate to fellow Dems. It's legal to ask, unlike what Abramoff did.

Does MA law prohibit someone from running for president and Senate at the same time? Most states in those situations (e.g. NC in 2004) change the law to allow both. I don't see Kerry leaving his seat in 08.

The blogs have been pushing for this since the 3rd quarter FEC reports came out. I posted a long list of cash on hand numbers for most of the competitive House race both on my blog and at MyDD.com. I strongly agree with the strategy. This is a critical year, and we need to spend every dollar we've got. I even agree with James Carville that it's worth taking out big loans to widen the playing field and win a very large number of seats in both houses to build not just a bare, temporary majority, but a more lasting, functional one. There's no real excuse for politicians without competitive races to be sitting on huge war chests like Marty Meehan is. He already had his chance to run for governor and turned it down anyway. 2006 is an extraordinary opportunity, the biggest wave election for Democrats since 1982 if not 1974. We should not leave any chips on the table. We need to pull out all the stops and win big. If we do, 240-250 House seats, 51-52 Senate seats, and 30 Governorships are not out of the question.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

"those poor Dem candidates need this minimum wage to procure a job. It is the responsibility of the rich to hand over all their money, isn't it?"

You see, this is the part that doesn't make sense, considering Repubs do this as well, it's common business to take donated campaign money and spread it to your caucus when it's needed. You're just barking again because it contained two words that set you off: 'democrats' and 'redistribution'.

Bark bark bark Koz.

Zouk
One difference between wealthy persons giving up money and the safe Dems giving up money: Safe Dems will have no power if they dont have a majority.-I dont disagree with your general argument-just your logic.

The across-the-aisle 'truthiness' of "they are still politicians at their root -- meaning they are looking out for themselves first, foremost and always" is apparently hard for some to accept.

"Maybe I should type slower for you. My point is that Moveon is now insisting that the wealth of the top 1% (the super rich) be spread around according to their whims, regardless of the owner of the money's wishes."

This is of course, an out and out lie. Move on may want to tax the top 1% more that the rest and may have certain ideas of where they want the money to go, but they won't 'take their wealth'. That's baseless slander and fear mongering. You don't have to like MoveON, but don't lie about them.

And it does just reinforce my previous statements that left to your own talking points, your arguments are pretty weak.

Why don't you tell us now how Nancy Pelosi will sell our children to Kim Jung Il for money she can use to buy crackheads free crack? Or how the democrats secret agenda is to destroy all churches. Bark bark bark bark bark, Koz, that's all you do.

' The White House is bracing for guerrilla warfare on the homefront politically if Republicans lose control of the House, the Senate or both -- and with it, the president's ability to shape and dominate the national agenda.'

--guerilla warfare against their own countrymen. We Democrats are the enemy, you know. I hear this all the time. Do you remember there was once such a thing as bipartisanship -- trying to work together do the right thing for the country. But as Grover Norquist says, they think bipartisanship is 'date rape.' There was once at least a nod to minority rights. But now half of the country has been entirely disenfranchised and the R agenda has been shoved down our throats.

I will thank god if Dems win so that the Moron President can no longer 'shape the agenda' to suit the rich.

Maybe I should type slower for you. My point is that Moveon is now insisting that the wealth of the top 1% (the super rich) be spread around according to their whims, regardless of the owner of the money's wishes. this is precisely what they want to do with the tax code. now why don't Dem congressmen go along with this idea? those poor Dem candidates need this minimum wage to procure a job. It is the responsibility of the rich to hand over all their money, isn't it?

Zouk, that was terrible even for you. It made absolutely no sense, and considering that both repubs and dems spread campaign money around, doesn't even constitute a shot at dems. Hmmm, you should go back to Rush and listen until he tells you what to think and say about this one. Left to your own devices your talking points are pretty weak.

Interesting. so wealth redistribution is just fine for individuals but not such a good idea when it is my campaign money. silly Dems - rules don't apply to Congress.

DNC $8.185 M on hand
DSCC $23.060 M on hand
DCCC $35.927 M on hand
TOTAL- $67.172 M on hand

RNC $26.338 M on hand
NRSC $12.061 M on hand
NRCC $39.162 M on hand * includes a $10 M transfer from RNC
TOTAL- $77.561 M on hand

as of 10/20/06

Many of the safe incumbents are not running for higher office in 2008. They are penny-wise and pound-foolish. I'm grateful to MoveOn and the bloggers like DailyKos for shaming them.

Doesn't Hillary have bazillions more than anyone now? Seems like if she's *really* going to run in '08, now might be a good time to start lining up support with some well-strategized cash infusions.

This is a very interesting post, Chris. I've long wished that some political writer would give us a Campaign Finance 101 primer, and explain what money can go where, and with what restrictions. And why *don't* they cross-donate more often, when they are rolling in it? (How long can they horde it for otherwise?)

I think Meehan is running for Senate if Kerry runs for president or not.
The thing is that if Meehan ponied up now that would go over huge for him in the future. You got to spend money to make money as they say.