One of the big stories right now is John McCain's possible gaming of the public financing system. Democrats are understandably giddy about the prospect of hoisting McCain on his own petard, after all, the law is called McCain-Feingold. However, if McCain is severely penalized, or is forced to abide by the spending limits (no more spending until September). It will probably set public campaign financing back many, many years.

Having lived in San Diego all my life, I'm used to the permanent Republican majority this town supports. One of the silver linings has been that this is still California and underneath the wingnuttiness, there is an expectation of live and let live. Last week the City Council failed to pass a pro same sex marriage resolution, with Democrat Donna Frye voting against because there had not been enough time for the public to comment. This week she decided there had been enough time, and the resolution passed. Mayor Sanders yesterday, was promising to veto (which the Council could have overridden). Cue Flyin' Pigs:

Secretary of State Debra Bowen released details yesterday about an upcoming review of all electronic voting systems used in California. In a contract with the University of California, the testing will have four components: source code review, penetration testing, documentation, and accessibility.

The teams will be headed by Matthew Bishop, Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Co-Director of the Computer Security Laboratory at UC Davis, and David Wagner, Associate Professor in the Computer Science Division at UC Berkeley, with extensive experience in computer security, cryptography and electronic voting. He is a founding member of the ACCURATE center, which is funded by the National Science Foundation to research ways that technology can be used to improve voting. Other well known names include: Ed Felton, Matt Blaze, and Harri Hursti.

We've all heard the debate about the new Iraq spending bill. The Democratic leadership is behind it, but no one seems really content with it. McJoan has pointed out all of the shades of "No" that exist, and I thought we should try to capture the mood around here.

So, the questions of the hour are:

• Yes or No?
• If No, why not?

These Anti-War measures feel good. If you tickle my feet, I'll even admit they're necessary, but everyone should be able to now see that aren't going to get us out of Iraq.

Notice how long it took to get the minimum wage bill done, even stuffed with tax cuts? We had to gut the non-binding resolution and couldn't get a vote. Even if we get it passed it will take so long, and be so watered down that Bush will shrug and say, "The troops are already there, and we're seeing a lot of successes, so I'm going to go ahead with the surge."

What about Senator Feingold's legislation, you say? Getting that one out of the Senate is going to be VERY rough sledding. The Republicans will be yelling about not supporting the troops everytime they open their mouths. As the deadline to appropriate more funds comes closer and closer, it's going to turn into a huge game of chicken. Republicans threaten to filibuster, Bush threatens to veto. Dems threaten to allow the funding bill to fail, but we can't in the end. If we can't get the bill onto the floor, we may have to pass an interim funding bill, or soften the redeployment language.

Remember the hell that Sen. John Kerry took because he had voted for the Iraq War, but was running as an anti-war candidate?  Well, folks, it's going to be ten times worse this time around.  Fast forward 18 months...

Democratic candidate:
Sen. Republican, your party started an illegal war, and you personally supported the only President ever thrown out of office (I can dream can't I?).  How can the American people trust you to solve Iraq?

Republican candidate:
Sen. Democrat, I voted for impeachment just as you did when all the vicious lies Bush told came out. I remind you that you also voted for the war in Iraq, and voted to continue funding the war. Your Party has had two years in the majority in Congress to do something about it, but you've made no progress.

The next thing you know, the unthinkable has happened...