It sounds worse than it is. I think in my area, challengers and observers are really the same thing and they can be placed in a precinct by the parties or organizations. They have to register beforehand.

If a challenger thinks a voter is not who they claim to be, they speak with the head judge who then consults with the other judges and the voter to determine the status. There are three judges and they must be unanimous to deny the voter (or make them cast a provisional ballot).

It is also illegal to disrupt or impede the voting process, so if the challenger or observer is making baseless challenges or intimidating voters, the judge is with their rights to remove the challenger from the precinct.

One of the reasons something like this might be needed: One of my workers would not ask to see ID or a voter reg. card from the people she knew (neighbors). I don't allow that. You have to present the correct ID or (in TN) fill out a form afirming your identity. No exceptions.

Also, in TN anyone in the polling place legitimately (see Elephantman's list) may issue a challenge, so one voter may challenge another.

The reason you don't get a receipt when you vote is simple. Party operative comes to someone and says "I'll give you $10 to go in there and vote for Joe. Just show me the receipt and I'll give you the $10." Or in a slightly less kind location "Get in there and vote for Joe. If you don't show me the receipt, I'll kill you."

In our system now you can (illegally) pay someone to vote, but except with an absentee ballot, you can't know HOW they voted.

This running tape that the writer advocates is not without problems either. Generally you know (through accounting or otherwise) what order people voted on in a machine or you can figure it out. If you also have a running receipt, a persons vote is no longer secret.

I don't know how much the mid-terms had with his decision. There are other reasons he'd have trouble:

1) Allegations of insider trading with HCA

2) Watching paint dry is more exciting than watching him speak

3) Terry Shiavo

4) In that vein, he seems to have had his social-conservative reawakening very recently. No one really thinks he is serious, just a panderer

As for how well panderers from Tennessee fair, see Harold Ford.

Exactly right. While the Iraqi army may not have been much, it did at least seem to have the ability to get from point A to point B and get their vehicles there with them. It was almost certainly a better base to work with than 250K raw recruits.

I really found the recent "Phase 3" articles in Salon interesting because they pointed out that even though the army was dispersed when Bremer came in, there were negotiations going on to bring it back piece by piece. I hadn't realized that before. And, as far as I know, they were still being paid (something like $20/month).

Bolton got a committee vote. He did not pass. Voinovich voted no. Since then Voinovich has said he would vote yes, but now Chaffee says he will vote no. With all the Democrats voting no, Bolton couldn't pass the comittee, then or now.

Dear Lord, please help George to see the truth.

Please help him to understand that his actions have killed a hundred thousand people in Iraq. Please show him that his abstinence only programs have killed thousands in the third world and condemned many in America to the lower rungs of society. Please help him understand that cutting off funds for the UNFPA has killed thousands of women in Africa and left thousands of others with severe injuries. Please help George to understand that his attempts to lower air quality standards in the United States means that thousands more children will have severe health problems.

Dear Lord, please help him to stop.

If they had switched to reporting things the way the ISG suggests, then a 22% increase would have actually corresponded to a huge (~90%) drop in violence. Conversely, if they do switch to the ISG recommended criteria next month, "Attacks are up ten-fold this month" will not be a valid conclusion from those numbers.

In order to draw any conclusions about progress or lack thereof, you need to keep what you are measuring the same. If you want an accurate picture, they are going to have to continue to report attacks under the old criteria and perhaps add a new category of "Unsuccessful attacks" which, as I read the ISG, is what I would call those other 900 or so on that day.

Why do people insist on calling this a surge? More troops for 18 months basically means for as long as they are needed. This is an escalation, not a surge. Over the weekend, I think Russert was the only media person calling a spade a spade. Even the Democrats on the Sunday shows were going along with "surge" instead of escalation.

I heard her interview on NPR this morning. She, like every other democrat, get's asked the question "The president says if you don't like his solution, you should propose one of your own."

Hilary's response, like every other democrat, is to shift into "Senate mode" and carry on and on with a bunch of words that don't really say anything.

The correct response is "We have done exactly that. The Iraq Study group has done exactly that. The president just refuses to consider any other option." Hilary did finally manage to get to that last point, but in general she still sounded like "we don't have to provide a plan."