Funny that [the Ledger is writing about this interview *again*][1] -- and trying to figure out if the Times-Picayune made it go viral. No, the news cycle did. It went viral back in June/July when it came out as well. Then about a week ago, some national reporters found it and started tweeting it again, then several political blogs followed, and now it's blown up. Of course, that is all about timing -- during the election season with so many people talking about the "war on women."

I appreciate the (female!) blogger linking it, though. I guess they've lifted the ignore-the-JFP policy as many times as they've mentioned us in recent months. Hat tip.

[1]: http://blogs.clarionledger.com/alexmcda…

Actually, I haven't really argued for anything more specifically than you're saying there on gun regulation--but you are definitely more liberal than a lot of gun folks based on that comment.

Would you apply the same standard for parents who have no record of irresponsible behavior?

Of course, there is the problem that "responsible" gun owners commit crimes and suicides with guns--so I'm not sure how that circles back to your original logic that if it saves one life (or child), then we need a blanket regulation.

I'm not taking a position on the finger scanning, by the way: I can see it from a variety of angles. I'm more interested in whether or not your logic is consistent. Call it a brain exercise.

Darryl, good point. That's the exact same logic that people use for gun regulation, by the way.

notmuch, thanks for the convincing argument that Obama is a closeted Muslim although he's a practicing and clearly devout mainline Protestant. Someone not willing to use his own name to trash the president of the United States who says he is quoting unnamed Muslims you know who have it on authority that the president is one of them. Meantime, you don't even care that you are implying that "Muslim" is a slur.

Oh, I got it. He's actually a Cylon and won't wake up into his Muslim ways until he hears some sort of un-American music in his ears and suddenly drops on his knees and starts doing Muslim prayers. He's then go push Biden out an airlock and declare Sharia law on the whole wide world.

With due respect, you're ridiculous.

To provide a bit more perspective to this piece, these were the deficits for Bush and Obama fiscal years, which run from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30 each year with administration it is attributed to:

Fiscal Year 2007 (ended 9/30/07)/Bush - $161 billion
Fiscal Year 2008 (ended 9/30/08)/Bush - $459 billion
Fiscal Year 2009 (ended 9/30/09)/Bush/Obama* - $1.434 trillion
Fiscal Year 2010 (ended 9/30/10)/Obama - $1.293 trillion
Fiscal Year 2011 (ended 9/30/11)/Obama - $1.3 trillion
Fiscal Year 2012 (ended 9/30/12)/Obama - $1.1 trillion

Who's responsible for that $1.4 trillion 2009 record deficit? It's complicated, but Bush and Obama share it even thought the deficit was blowing up when Obama took office. Don't take my work for it; [read what Business insider had to say about it. Here's some of that article:][1]

> So, what actually caused these
> deficits?
>
> The chart below provides a look at
> federal receipts (taxes) and spending
> during the same period. (The deficit
> is the difference between them).
>
> Republicans howl that President Obama
> has exploded the size of federal
> government spending in his short
> tenure as President, and it is true
> that he has increased it. But
> President Bush actually increased
> federal spending by more than 2X as
> much as Obama has. So it is unfair to
> lay the explosion in spending at the
> feet of President Obama: Both
> presidents are responsible.
>
> The increase in government spending,
> meanwhile, is actually NOT the only
> factor that has caused the deficit.
> The other factor--equally if not more
> important--is the fall-off in
> government revenue (tax receipts).
>
> This second and larger factor can be
> blamed on two things: First, the Bush
> tax cuts, which reduced revenue, and,
> second, the weak economy, which has
> reduced the incomes and capital gains
> upon which most federal taxes are
> based.

Regardless, it is very good news that the deficit did not grow this year and is starting to shrink--as AP says above:

> A stronger economy meant more people
> had jobs and income that generated tax
> revenue. Corporations also contributed
> more to federal revenue than in 2011.
>
> The government spent less on Medicaid
> and on defense as U.S. military
> involvement in Iraq was winding down.

So what happens if Romney is elected, doesn't let the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy expire *and* cuts taxes 20 percent across the board *and* raises the military budget (or doesn't let it shrink due to the war drawdowns, as Ryan said they wouldn't do in the veep debate)?

I'll leave all of you to do your own arithmetic.

[1]: http://articles.businessinsider.com/201…

Well, it looks pretty bad that Ms. Lane is calling other women (who disagree with her, of course) "diabolical." But that clip doesn't have the worst of what she said. Here is a transcript of the interview:

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/20…

She says this right before that recording started:

"Lane: I'm really going to set you back here. Probably the biggest turn we ever made was when the women got the right to vote.

#What do you mean?

#Lane: Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting. There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women. They are diabolical in how than can skewer a person. I do not see that in men. The whole time I worked, I'd much rather have a male boss than a female boss. Double-minded, you never can trust them."

Scrappy, you're seriously linking to the Tea Party to prove that Obama is a Muslim or something. You're going to make the Tea Party look bad.

Of course, they did that themselves here:

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/videos/…

Ah, but notmuch, people who want more gun regulation use your same argument: It doesn't matter whether "common sense" (or even actual studies) show that more guns mean more deaths; they don't want regulation of a sacred right.

What is common sense to me, and also kind of an American principle, is that we don't regulate voting in any way without actual evidence that it's needed.

Meantime, the attempts to combat "voter fraud" are not focusing on the actual voter fraud. I'm really surprised that doesn't bother you and others more. And it shouldn't matter whether you're a Republican or not.

Meantime, there is evidence on video that Republicans think voter ID will get Republicans elected. See above video. Please don't treat Americans like we're stupid. You can't say you don't want unnecessary and expensive regulation while supporting unnecessary and expensive regulation. It's hypocritical.

As for the links you have about voter fraud: Should I assume they're not about the kinds of voter fraud that voter ID would actually target? I'm guessing you'd post them if not -- unless they're from one of the crazy-people sites that no one on here but scrappy would believe.

I never said Dems wouldn't commit voter fraud. Clearly, there are stupid people in all parties (which is why I don't ascribe to one, choosing people and positions over party platforms). The problem is that Republicans hankering for voter ID cannot, or will not, present evidence that there is a real problem that needs legislation like voter ID instead of better enforcement.

And I'm sure you realize that voter ID presents a whole new level of enforcement (poll delays, etc.) problems, considering the folks who volunteer to run many of the polls. It adds the potential for voter suppression beyond showing the ID itself, as its strongest supporters well know.

Yeah, that's weird, scrappy. You've got to be able to do better than O'Keefe. Nobody believes him but crazy people.

notmuch, no one including you or Mr. Hosemann has demonstrated that voter ID will help stop actual voter fraud in Mississippi. However, it will be expensive, both in legal resources and in ensuring that people have right IDs, etc. It is a poll tax on voting. That's just a fact.

It's interesting, considering that you present yourself as a Republican, that you are calling for expensive unnecessary regulation (of voting, no less!) just in case people start using fake names to vote instead of t[he actual voter fraud that the Republican Party was caught paying for last month][1] in F lorida and California, which wouldn't be stopped by voter ID.

I suspect you agree with the Pennsylvania lawmaker who said outright that voter ID will get Romney elected, but of course you won't admit that.

Because, no other motive makes sense for an actual conservative.

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EuOT1bRYdK8?ve…"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EuOT1bRYdK8?ve…" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Also, if you have a video of Mr. Hosemann in a press conference or a press release he's sent out ensuring that everyone knows we don't need ID this election, so don't cause mass poll confusion over it, please feel free to post it as well.

[1]: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/vot…