Democrats & Liberals Archives

Democratic Ideas

For years Republicans have been pounding Democrats in two ways: They insisted that Democrats had no ideas about governing or they claimed that moderate and liberal Democrats were so divided they were at each other’s throats. Wrong. Wrong. “The Plan,” a new book by Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Reed, two moderate Democrats, makes clear what all Democrats stand for.

"The Plan" is a small book that lists major Democratic ideas:

  • UNIVERSAL CITIZEN SERVICE - Americans 18 - 25 should serve their country for 3 months in civil defense and community service

  • UNIVERSAL COLLEGE ACCESS - College should be free to "those willing to work, serve and excel'

  • UNIVERSAL RETIREMENT SAVINGS - In addition to Social Security, there should be a 401(k) with every job that is transferable when changing jobs

  • UNIVERSAL CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE - This would be available to all children

  • END CORPORATE WELFARE - Get rid of all the loopholes corporations use to pay little or no income taxes

  • TAX REFORM - This includes a 1-page tax form, a corporate flat tax of 35% and a middle class tax that never exceeds 10%

  • WAR ON TERROR STRATEGY - This includes an end to unilateralism, an increase in number of troops, a new GI Bill for returning vets and a counterterrorism force like Britain's M15

  • HYBRID ECONOMY - Achieving energy efficiency and energy independence
The authors are members of the DLC, the so-called establishment part of the Democratic Party. However, if you show this list to the typical liberal Democrat, he or she will most likely agree with all these points.

As a liberal Democrat, I go along with all the ideas listed. But I would like to expand what the authors call UNIVERSAL CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE to include ALL CITIZENS, not merely children.

Furthermore, I believe that there is one issue that transcends all other issues: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. Evidently the authors do not agree with me. Perhaps other liberals may favor another project that is not listed. We all have different opinions. But this is no reason to say that liberals are adamantly opposed to moderates. This is pure Republican propaganda, which, unfortunately, has been picked up by some prominent Democrats.

Democrats are brimming with ideas for making America a better place for all Americans. Since we are all thinking people, we may differ among ourselves in specific situations. But all Democrats believe in working for the common good.

Posted by Paul Siegel at May 9, 2007 5:37 PM
Comments
Comment #219932


Paul,

These are ideas and proposals that even a libertarian like me can latch on to. I like the way this team thinks. There would be just enough government intrusion to level the playing field but not enough to screw things up. That’s only until the politicians get hold of it and start paying back some of the favors they owe.

Just an old cynic, but let me ask you: do you really believe the bought and paid for Congres we have will actually sign onto to this? I’m talking about both sides of the aisle. The idea of getting rid of tax loopholes for businesses will not resonate with big ones and may cause serious financial strain on small ones. Also, if middleclass tax rates never exceed 10%, how much will the”rich” pay and who will define “rich”. Yes, I like the package, but I doubt seriously if it will fly until we do something to bring back power to the voter…something we haven’t had for a long time.

Posted by: John Back at May 9, 2007 5:59 PM
Comment #219933

Paul,

1. Civil service for 3 months? Why only 3? Who will administer it? Another govt. bureacracy? Institute a draft, ok. But this is absurd dribble made to make the collective (oops, sorry, Democrats) feel good about themselves.

2. Universal college access? Who doesn’t have access? Now, you do have to be bright, and dedicated enough, but college is not denied anyone who wants it. Ever join the ROTC?

3. Universal retirement savings? It’s called a savings account!!! Start one, anyone can.

4. Universal children’s healthcare. I suspect that applies to any child who makes it out of the womb without their brains sucked out.

5. End corporate welfare? Since when do corporations pay income taxes? People pay taxes, corporations don’t. Until you understand this, you shouldn’t be writing tax code.

6. Tax reform. Right for once. Wrong approach though. Fair Tax is best solution. Remember corporations don’t pay taxes.

7. War on terror strategy? Hey, I thought you guys didn’t think there could be a war on terror?
If only the U.S. wasn’t causing all the world’s problems, everyone would like us.

8. Hybrid economy. I like this one. Any discussion, not including an increase in nuclear power production, is not addressing the problem comprehensively.

Discuss, please. Remember, as a conservative, I don’t believe the Federal Govt. has much perview beyond the constitution.

Posted by: wkw at May 9, 2007 5:59 PM
Comment #219934

UNIVERSAL RETIREMENT SAVINGS - In addition to Social Security, there should be a 401(k) with every job that is transferable when changing jobs

Paul, will the money used to fund the 401 (k) be placed in Al Gore’s “lockbox” and only be available for the government to squander like SS?
Any idea of how much these programs will cost me?

WAR ON TERROR STRATEGY - This includes an end to unilateralism, an increase in number of troops, a new GI Bill for returning vets and a counterterrorism force like Britain’s M15

Unilateralism? Where did that come from? Apparently our Allies don’t know where they are! Oh, wait, you mean our unilateral “War on Poverty” right?

HYBRID ECONOMY - Achieving energy efficiency and energy independence

All the best ideas to achive this such as nuclear, drilling in proven reserves in the artic, windmills on Cape Cod, shale oil, etc have been shot down by liberals. What were left with is burning our food for fuel and raising taxes. By the way, check how the EU is doing with their carbon offset scheme, it’s a miserable failure.

Posted by: Jim at May 9, 2007 6:04 PM
Comment #219947

Paul,
“Democrats are brimming with ideas for making America a better place for all Americans.”

Oh great, I’m glad they are “brimming”; now, is there anyway they can make those ideas work without taxing us to death and blaming the repubs (particularly Bush) for just about everything?!! Or, I know, to get these “ideas” accomplished, they now have “Speaker of State” Pelosi to “bribe” house members to pass these agendas; just like the “pork” in the War Funding Bill for our troops a few months ago. Nice.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 9, 2007 9:04 PM
Comment #219948

RE the Dems, the DLC has the brains, but the lefties have the energy and - increasingly - the money.


But some of these things, as people wrote above, are unclear. I like the 10% tax, but what do you mean by middle class. The lower 1/2 of the U.S. income group already pays almost no tax.

I like the privatized retirement savings plan.

I have nothing against the universal draft, but I do not think it is worth it for only a few months.

College should be inexpensive, but never free.

Of course, all these things sound good until you get into details and how to pay for them.

Posted by: Jack at May 9, 2007 9:08 PM
Comment #219959

i have a question for john may. how did you get your post in before the trolls?

Posted by: albert at May 10, 2007 12:11 AM
Comment #219962

Here’s something that needs immediate fixing:

Deployed Troops Battle for Custody

This is mind boggling!!

Posted by: womanmarine at May 10, 2007 12:55 AM
Comment #219976
“pork” in the War Funding Bill

Oh, do you mean the actual emergency funds that were specific in the “emergency supplemental appropriations” bill? That’s right, it wasn’t really a War Funding Bill. The war should have been funded through the regular budget process last year, but Bush didn’t want the political fight that happens in the normal budget process, so he left out the war funding to pretend that all the war funding was “emergency” and “unexpected”.

If he had been honest in the first place, the war for this fiscal year would have been funded long ago. Instead, he played political games and tried to make it seem that anything but belated war funding was pork. In fact, much of the non-war appropriations in the bill were the exact types of appropriations that were appropriate for the “emergency appropriations” bill.

And you bought it. Nice job.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 10, 2007 8:44 AM
Comment #219977

Democrats! Can’t live with them, can’t live without them.

Citizen Service. Great idea, badly shaped. One year would be far more appropriate, 2 if they want free college assistance.

Free College: No such thing. College costs! First, find ways to drive down higher education costs without lowering quality. That is job #1. Then, having accomplished that, tie tuition exemption to the Citizen Service plan successfully completed for 2 years.

Universal Retirement Savings. Great idea. Now, how about the details? Employer matching mandatory, or voluntary. Enrollment mandatory or voluntary? But the greatest threat to 401K’s is not the lack of participation, but, our national debt and trade deficits combined with no action on entitlement spending which threaten to tank our entire economy in 20 years. Let’s reform entitlements spending and reverse growth in our national debt, and vastly reduce our 3/4 of a trillion PER YEAR trade deficit. — THEN, talk to me about Universal Retirement Savings when the dollar has a chance of holding its value.

Corporate Welfare and Tax Reform? WRONG HEADED DEMOCRATS. STUPID, STUPID DEMOCRATS! End corporate taxes altogether by reforming federal taxation to a flat tax on individual wealth, with a floor exception for those earning less than 1.5 times the poverty rate. Then there is no reason or excuse for subsidizing corporations, simply fine them when they won’t play ball with the nation that hosts their profitability.

War on Terrorism. OK. Democrats got one 1 out 8 right. But, add this: Our military is not to be used to manage other nation’s civil wars, except as part of a NATO or UN peacekeeping force.

Hyrbid Economy. Cute phrase, no substance, no forethought on how, and utterly bereft of practical ‘economy friendly’ means to accomplish it.

1 out of 8, right. Hmmm…, no better than the Republican IQ when they were in power. They managed to stimulate the economy out of the ‘00 - ‘01 Recession as their 1 right policy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 10, 2007 8:46 AM
Comment #219989

I don’t think the majority of Republicans would have much problems with talking about and working towards a compromise with a list like this.
It’s when liberals start demanding that govt “expands” it’s role and control, that people have a problem with and fear.

True Democrats have more in common with true Republicans than they do with far left liberals.

Posted by: kctim at May 10, 2007 10:32 AM
Comment #219992

kctim said: “True Democrats have more in common with true Republicans than they do with far left liberals.”

Yes, and No. First there is no such thing as a true D or R. - A Dem. or Rep. is a person who associates them self with one or other party, and generally votes for candidates running under the auspices of that party. A liberal more socialist oriented Democrat is every bit as much a true Democrat as a conservative Democrat, and the same is true in reverse for Republicans.

One view within the D or R party does not define the party. The aggregate of the party’s platform, past actions in power, supporter base, and who they take their cues from make up the party.

Yes, in that the differences between moderate D’s and R’s is less than between the far left and right of each party’s wing. But, that still leaves specific chasms. There is even less chasm between conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans.

But, voters are increasingly leaving both parties because neither has a platform or philosophy that they have adhered to. It is often said today that party platform is an anachronism and plays almost no role anymore in elections. While perhaps somewhat overstated, the trend is true enough.

Republicans are waging war with Republicans after Nov’s. defeat, and their party is great disarray. Democrats did not win on any pretense of being consolidated, and thus their agenda is rapidly getting bogged down by the tug o’ war within their own party.

In a very real sense, 2008 and 2010 will be the last opportunities of either party to earn the trust of voters to adhere to sensible problem solving solutions for middle American voters, both short and long term. If they fail to earn that trust through demonstration in office, American voters will move past parties to the individual candidates regardless of party based on their proposed problem solutions.

And that would bring America full circle back to the election of George Washington, which was the first and only election in the U.S. to have not been determined in the most part by the public’s affinity with one or another party.

And that would be an awesome and wonderful thing to happen in American politics. It would spell a future in politics in which voters held politicians accountable and responsible to their campaign promises and solutions proposed. A very positive future that would be, indeed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 10, 2007 10:54 AM
Comment #220003

“Citizen Service. Great idea, badly shaped. One year would be far more appropriate, 2 if they want free college assistance.”
David Remer

How about a free year’s college for every year you serve?

Today just about anyone can go to a two-year Community College and afford it. Serving in the military for only two years would assure everyone a 4-year college education, that is, if one can get through two years of service.

“TAX REFORM - This includes a 1-page tax form, a corporate flat tax of 35% and a middle class tax that never exceeds 10%”
Paul Siegel

What?! You want to shut down every corporation in America with a 35% tax rate? That is more than the exhorbitantly filthy rich pay now! How about a flat tax on every corporation and individual in America never to exceed 10% of their income? And a Mandatory Balanced Budget “Amendment” except in times of War!

“WAR ON TERROR STRATEGY - This includes an end to unilateralism, an increase in number of troops, a new GI Bill for returning vets and a counterterrorism force like Britain’s M15”

An end to unilateralism? Does this mean if someone attacks America and the U.N. and other nations don’t want to get involved, we can’t strike back? I hope that isn’t what the Democrats are proposing.

JD

Posted by: JD at May 10, 2007 12:47 PM
Comment #220006

David
I pretty much agree with you.

But when you say: “A Dem. or Rep. is a person who associates them self with one or other party,” I think it is more that they do so based on what the extremes of the other party have done.

The extremes have muddied the waters so much that even great Democrats like Ike Skelton are now considered “Republican lite” because he does not hold hardcore leftist beliefs.

Anyway, when I say true Democrats and true Republicans, I mean the average joe who will look at his idea and your idea and say “lets figure out whats fair and best for all, lets work together for the people.”
THAT, is what the majority of Americans want but do not have.
Instead, we have the extremes who say “this is our idea, IT, is the ONLY way.”

Posted by: kctim at May 10, 2007 1:22 PM
Comment #220015

Yes, kctim, we do indeed agree, that is what the majority of Americans want. But to get it, they will have to vote for challengers to the incumbents who won’t give them what they want, regardless of party.

That day is coming. Just not fast enough for me.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 10, 2007 2:14 PM
Comment #220021

Paul,

“This includes an end to unilateralism”

Uh, did you see how the French just elected a Pro-American President?! This adds to the growing list of Pro-American leaders (Australia, Germany, Canada, England, and now France) Bush has fighting along side the US against Islamic fascism. So, with the exception of Spain and radical Islam, the dems are running out of allies. Ha!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 10, 2007 3:13 PM
Comment #220022

rah…….I think you have it pretty much wrong. Bush can’t count 5 individuals walking with him any more, much less 5 countries. Perhaps their governments can remember, as we do, when we didn’t have this goof to have to apologize for at every turn, and have visions of that happening again SOON !
Bush has done s**t his nest!!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at May 10, 2007 3:23 PM
Comment #220023

Wrong, Sandra! Look at the countries listed; most of them the liberal media and libs for that matter have been lauding (for years) as “American-hating” b/c of Bush. Now, it’s only Spain and the Islamic radicals left to do that. Nice going libs!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 10, 2007 3:34 PM
Comment #220024

I see that everybody has a different point of view. Almost everyone likes at least one idea presented, except for those who have a knee-jerk “NO” to anything a Democrat says.

Since there are so many points of view on this site, why would you expect all Democrats to agree with each other on everything? And what makes David and others think that when all incumbents are gone those in charge will all agree on what to do and how to do it?

Posted by: Paul Siegel at May 10, 2007 3:38 PM
Comment #220025

Ah, rahdigly,

How silly. How naive. Your party is in the dumps. The president you support has almost no support anywhere in the world, and even less in his own country. The incompetence and cronyism of his administration is more apparent by the day.

So, how do you respond? With the tired, insulting, and nonsensical charge that the Democrats are allied with radical Islam.

Merkel can’t stand Bush, Blair is resigning in disgrace because of his association with Bush’s failures, and Sarkozy’s rhetoric is pro-America, not pro-Bush or pro-Iraq war.

But hey, who cares about little things like facts and details when you can accuse over half the country of treason?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 10, 2007 3:40 PM
Comment #220029

rahdigly said: “Uh, did you see how the French just elected a Pro-American President?!”

Yes, it is safer to do now that Democrats are back in control of Congress and will have the White House in just 20 months. They don’t have to worry about future dis’sing of ‘French Fries’, or voluntary embargoes on French wine, just because the French have more sense than to support the invasion and occupation of another nation on baseless grounds and at horrendous expense that will never be compensated.

(Note: I didn’t say safe, I said safer.)

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 10, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #220030

Also David, here’s what Sarkozy said in 2004 when asked why France disagreed with Bush’s war:

In France, history is something that counts. Please don’t be angry with us because we remember what happened to us. Is there even a single country of the world, at any time of history, that was able to maintain itself in a sustained way in a country that was not its own, uniquely by the force of arms? Never, not a single one, even the Chinese.

As the New York Times notes,

That analysis of the Iraq war sounds remarkably similar to the one articulated repeatedly by Mr. Chirac both publicly and during private meetings with Mr. Bush.

“In Algeria, we began with a sizable army and huge resources, and the fighters for independence were only a handful of people, but they won,” Mr. Chirac said in an interview in September 2003. “That’s how it is.”

In other words, Sarkozy’s stance on Iraq seems to be very similar to Chirac’s. Maybe it’ll change now that he’s in power, but (once again) there’s nothing to support rahdigly’s claims.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 10, 2007 4:18 PM
Comment #220032

Despite the limited explanation and the somewhat vauge nature of the proposals, I will give my take on each. I am just glad to see the left putting forth ideas. Now at least we have an ability to meet in the middle rather than just working down from the right.

“The Plan” is a small book that lists major Democratic ideas:

• UNIVERSAL CITIZEN SERVICE - Americans 18 - 25 should serve their country for 3 months in civil defense and community service
If something like this was to ever even be attempted 3 months is an absurd number.

1) The turn over rate would make it nearly impossible to maintain records of who had and who had not done their full 3 months worth and when.
2) Serving only 3 months, with many of the positions (unless it involves only manual labor) once the “worker” was trained in what to do and had gained even the slightest proficiency they would be gone to be replaced by another newbie.
3) You think the IRS is a bureaucratic nightmare, it wouldn’t hold a candle to the Dept. of Civil Defense and Community Service.

• UNIVERSAL COLLEGE ACCESS - College should be free to “those willing to work, serve and excel’
College is accessible to those who truly want it as long as they are capable of meeting academic entrance requirements. I worked 40+ hours per week at night and attended classes as a full time student during the day so, I know it can be done if the student wants it badly enough. Where there is a will there is a way.

1) There is the option of very affordable community colleges for the first 2 years of the education.
2) Work/Study programs, Grants, Student Loans, Scholarships etc. to offset tuition costs.

• UNIVERSAL RETIREMENT SAVINGS - In addition to Social Security, there should be a 401(k) with every job that is transferable when changing jobs

Wait a minute! Wasn’t it the left that said private accounts were too risky and that they would only benefit the Fat Cats on Wall Street?
Actually, I have no problems with this approach as long as it is done with a portion of my FICA contributions and not in addition to. Take some of that money that is being spent by Congress and put it somewhere it can actually earn a rate of return.

• UNIVERSAL CHILDREN’S HEALTH CARE - This would be available to all children
Agree with the concept, would just have to see how they would plan to implement it before I could agree or disagree.
• END CORPORATE WELFARE - Get rid of all the loopholes corporations use to pay little or no income taxes
This is nothing more than a Liberal Boogey Man for the left to attack the right with. It amazes me at the number of people who actually buy into this crock of dung. Corporations do not pay taxes period. The consumers do! Taxes are a cost of doing business for a company just as raw materials and labor are. Companies account for those costs of doing business in the prices they charge for their goods and services. So when you pay for a product or service a portion of the price you pay goes to cover the taxes “paid” by the company.
• TAX REFORM - This includes a 1-page tax form, a corporate flat tax of 35% and a middle class tax that never exceeds 10%
Glad to see the left finally getting on board with a flat tax or the fair tax. Too bad they fought it for so many years.
• WAR ON TERROR STRATEGY - This includes an end to unilateralism, an increase in number of troops, a new GI Bill for returning vets and a counterterrorism force like Britain’s M15
Unilateralism? What an insult to all the allies (34 countries have sent forces to Iraq as part of the Coalition, UNAMI, or NATO) who have supported us both financially and with the lives of their citizens in this war.
• HYBRID ECONOMY - Achieving energy efficiency and energy independence

No problem with this either. We obviously should explore all options to increase efficiency and alternatives. At the same time we should immediately reduce our dependence on foreign sources by fully utilizing domestic resources such as ANWAR.

Posted by: Kirk at May 10, 2007 4:59 PM
Comment #220037

NNWAR has a whole six months of oil at the rate the U.S. consumes oil any more bright ideas.

Posted by: Jeff at May 10, 2007 6:39 PM
Comment #220045

Lawnboy, quite right. Which is why America should NEVER EVER elect a president without a thorough knowledge of world and American history. Bush continues to prove he has neither and we are all paying for his lack of attention or ability in the classroom.

Wouldn’t hurt voters either to be far better educated in world and American history either. We get the leadership our ignorance deserves.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 10, 2007 8:09 PM
Comment #220049
NNWAR has a whole six months of oil at the rate the U.S. consumes oil any more bright ideas.

The quoted “six months” is based on an estimate of the ANWAR reserves of 2.6 Billion Barrels which is far short of the Geological Survey (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.pdf)
estimates of from 5.7 Billion Barrels (at a 95% probability) to 16 Billion Barrels (at a 5% probability). According to USGS, that leaves a Mean Value of 10.4 Billion Barrels. At the usage level used to calculate the “six months” that is actually 4 years not six months.

Imagine that 4 years of no imported oil what-so-ever. Take into account that only about 10% of the US oil imports comes from the Middle East with the rest coming primarily from Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, and several African countries and our period of no dependence on Middle East oil is extended for decades. So, yeah I think drilling in ANWAR is a Bright Idea!

Posted by: Kirk at May 10, 2007 9:15 PM
Comment #220071

David,

“Lawnboy, quite right. Which is why America should NEVER EVER elect a president without a thorough knowledge of world and American history. Bush continues to prove he has neither and we are all paying for his lack of attention or ability in the classroom. Wouldn’t hurt voters either to be far better educated in world and American history either. We get the leadership our ignorance deserves.”


Oh, ok, so now it’s the voters fault?! Not educated enough?!! Right!!! You two are very funny; all over the world people are voting in “American” friendly leaders and all you guys can hope for is that Americans dismiss that and elect libs?! Uhhhhh, oookkkayyy!! The media and the libs have been reporting for years how “Bush has lost credibility with the rest of the world” and the (once) socialist, American-bashing people have (now) been voting in Pro-American (somewhat) conservative leaders; especially France, it was the beacon of weak leadership, socialism and of Saddam lovers. Now, the new leader comes in and will be pro-American and tough on muslim radicals (in his country); and, Lawnboy, your response is that he’s not for Iraq?!!! Sarkosky called the ( mostly muslim) rioters “scum” and wouldn’t apologize for it; not to mention he’s taking a strong position (finally) on muslim immigrants. Love it! And, David, you are correct with the boycott; just purchased two French wines for the first time in years. Viva La France!
:-)


Posted by: rahdigly at May 11, 2007 9:58 AM
Comment #220072
Lawnboy, your response is that he’s not for Iraq?!!! Sarkosky called the ( mostly muslim) rioters “scum”

And that has absolutely nothing to do with his position on the Iraq War. He called people within his own country who rioted over internal matters “scum”. That in no way means that he agrees with the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. There’s really no connection except that Muslims are involved in both. Besides, I quoted to you his statements defending the French position against Bush’s position.

You ignore relevant evidence that shows you’re wrong and instead focus on something completely irrelevant. What on earth do you think you’ve proved? The only conclusion I can reach is that you think the only reason to be fighting in Iraq is that the Iraqis are all scum, but I really hope that’s not what you think. Too bad there’s no better logical interpretation of your silliness.

people are voting in “American” friendly leaders

Pro-American does not equal pro-Bush. Pro-American does not equal pro-Iraq War.

Not educated enough?!! Right!

Thank you for providing a good example for David’s point.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 11, 2007 10:26 AM
Comment #220079

Lawnboy,

“And that has absolutely nothing to do with his position on the Iraq War…That in no way means that he agrees with the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. “

And, “Iraq” has nothing to do with my point that they are pro-American. Nothing! You are the one that brought up Iraq, not me. I don’t care about their position on Iraq; I care that they are pro-American (for a change!). Bush represents America; he’s “leader of the free world”! Get over it. And, after all the Bush bashing over the years, the (once) predominantly socialist countries voted out the spineless, terrorists-coddling (lib) leaders and elected (more) conservative leaders; leaders that are American friendly as opposed to Saddam/ Islamic-fascist friendly. Too bad for your side.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 11, 2007 12:26 PM
Comment #220081
Get over it.

Ok, rahdigly. I’ll get over my habit of using logic and facts and details as the basis of my claims.

You are the one that brought up Iraq, not me.

Actually, you brought up the Islamic radicals. Are you saying that radical Islam has nothing to do with Iraq? Interesting idea.

You’re wrong, of course, but that’s just par for the course.

I care that they are pro-American (for a change!)

Actually, Schroeder, Chirac, etc. were also strong allies and pro-American. They were just anti-Iraq War. I’m sorry that you insist on conflating those two different concepts.

The insistence of the Bush Administration and its supporters that being an American ally requires that our friends consider themselves nothing more than puppets to the White House’s foreign policy is a mistake that will have long-term negative consequences. I’m sorry that you insist on maintaining this bad habit.

As your new hero Sarkozy himself said in his victory speech:

“I want to tell (Americans) that France will always be by their side when they need her, but that friendship is also accepting the fact that friends can think differently.”

Even though he will be an American ally, he will disagree with us. How long before you will myopically turn your back on him for the sin of having a difference of opinion with the White House?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 11, 2007 12:37 PM
Comment #220085

Lawnboy,

“Actually, you brought up the Islamic radicals. Are you saying that radical Islam has nothing to do with Iraq? Interesting idea.”

Oh, no, stay on the subject here; don’t let the a.d.d. kick in. Try answering why these countries, that couldn’t stand Bush, are voting in more pro-American leaders who will not “coddle” (for a change) Islamic fascism?!!

“Actually, Schroeder, Chirac, etc. were also strong allies and pro-American. They were just anti-Iraq War.”

No they weren’t! They were pro-Saddam and they were overtly against Bush and America for that matter!! Where have you been for the past 4 years?!!

“I’ll get over my habit of using logic and facts and details as the basis of my claims.”

Self involved, much?!! Nice try. However, you have to prove that you’re worthy of that merit; dodging questions and lashing out at bloggers is what you’ve been doing and it’s not inching you any closer to your “self-proclaimed” disposition.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 11, 2007 1:26 PM
Comment #220093
No they weren’t!

Yes, they were. The problem is that you define pro-American as never, ever disagreeing with America. That’s not pro-Americanism, that’s being a satellite state.

As your new hero Sarkozy said, friends disagree.

It wasn’t pro-Saddamism that said that the war was going to turn out to be a bad idea, it was hard-headed and accurate realism. It’s unfortunately that Bush and people like you conflated these very different ideas. The people you denigrate as anti-American were trying to save America from the self-inflicted troubles we are in. That’s the action of a friend.

As I said before, Pro-American does not equal pro-Bush. Pro-American does not equal pro-Iraq War. You’re right that Bush represents America, but that doesn’t require our allies to support him in his every bad notion.

Oh, no, stay on the subject here…Try answering why these countries, that couldn’t stand Bush, are voting in more pro-American leaders who will not “coddle” (for a change) Islamic fascism?!!

It’s quite funny for you to accuse others of getting off subject. Anyway, Germans voted for Merkel largely because of a poor economy under the Schroeder administration. Blair is actually from the left-of-center party who is on the liberal side of almost all issues, but has had his popularity decimated because he followed Bush’s lead. Sarkozy was elected largely for local economic reasons, but some liked his anti-immigrant stance, and some probably were uncomfortable with a woman president. The Conservative PM of Canada is leading a minority coalition, elected more because of scandals in the previous administration than for his foreign policy. I don’t know anything about the Australian elections.

So, what we see is a mix of the left and right in these governments, with local desire for a good economy being the biggest motivator, and with support for Bush nearly bringing an otherwise popular Blair down.

Reality is complex, and politics are mostly loyal. Your thesis is too simplistic and not supported by the facts.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 11, 2007 3:08 PM
Comment #220094

And another point about Merkel’s election. She actually became chancellor because the electorate voted more liberally than it had in the previous election. The total percentage of votes for her parties and its natural allies (45.5%) was actually lower in the 2005 election as it was in the 2002 election (45.9%). However, the center-left party that Schroeder led had had a schism in the previous few years, and a group broke off to join a more liberal party. Overall, the percentage of votes for the left side of the political spectrum was still a slight majority (50.1% in 2002, 51.5% in 2005), but disagreements between the divided left party made Merkel’s party the biggest single party in parliament.

She won because some previous members of the center-left party thought it wasn’t liberal enough, not because the ideas of her party gained more traction.

So, what again was your point?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 11, 2007 3:21 PM
Comment #220095

Lawnboy,

“Anyway, Germans voted for Merkel largely because of a poor economy under the Schroeder administration. Blair is actually from the left-of-center party who is on the liberal side of almost all issues, but has had his popularity decimated because he followed Bush’s lead. Sarkozy was elected largely for local economic reasons, but some liked his anti-immigrant stance, and some probably were uncomfortable with a woman president. The Conservative PM of Canada is leading a minority coalition, elected more because of scandals in the previous administration than for his foreign policy. I don’t know anything about the Australian elections.”

Oh yeah, nice try. You are (conveniently) overlooking the real reasons why they were gone; which, in turn, is proving my point. In 2006, conservatives swept Canada; making Conservative Party leader, Stephen Harper, the prime minister. In 2005, pro-American Angela Merkel crushed the (patheticly) weak anti-American chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. In 2004, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, who is both the longest serving Australian prime minister and, by his own admission, the most conservative. Remember, how the New York “Treasonus” Times rooted for his defeat, claiming Australians were frustrated with him for his support of the Iraq war; he won a historic third term. Same with Blair, whom by the way, is not the “lapdog” that the libs so affectionately refer to him as (he liberal himself); he was talking about Saddam and his mad regime back in the late 1990’s, look it up! And, as with all (good) English PMs, he keeps a close relationship w/ America (first and foremost). Oh and, even though he’s leaving office, he’s about to be replaced by a leader from the even more pro-American Conservative Party.

“It wasn’t pro-Saddamism that said that the war was going to turn out to be a bad idea, it was hard-headed and accurate realism.”

It was “pro-Saddamism” to have oil contracts garunteed as long as they voted (in the UN) for him to stay in power. Germany and France both were caught with that. Saddam agreed to give them oil, in return he was given a safe passage. But, you don’t want to hear that. Just keep blaming Bush for everything and respond to everyone else as Bush loyalist and see where that gets you…


Posted by: rahdigly at May 11, 2007 3:40 PM
Comment #220096
In 2005, pro-American Angela Merkel crushed the (patheticly) weak anti-American chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

Rahdigly, this is just another example of how poor your grasp is on facts and reality. Merkel did not crush Schroeder. As I said before, her party did worse in 2005 than it did in 2002. The problem for Schroeder was that some of his constituents didn’t think he was liberal enough and split off to create a new, further-left party. Merkel’s party got 226 seats and Schroeder’s got 222. When 308 seats are needed for a majority, that’s not enough for either to win, and it’s definitely not crushing.

If Schroeder has been willing to form a coalition with the far-left Link party, his coalition would have had 327/614 seats, better than the 306/603 seats his previous coalition had. The left did better in 2005 than it did in 2002, but party rivalries put Merkel in power, not the strength of her party.

In the 2006 Canadian elections, Conservatives did not “sweep” - they got only 36% of the vote! Now, it was more than any other party and more than they had had in a while, but it was far from a sweep.

You are (conveniently) overlooking the real reasons

You’ve stated the reason that you think the elections have gone the way they have, but you haven’t supported it at all. Perhaps the reason you prefer was a factor, but what makes you think it was the “real” reason? Was your favored theory the reason that Merkel’s party was weaker than it was 3 years earlier? Was your favored theory the reason that Blair’s popularity plummeted?

Just because you want your motivation to be the “real reason” doesn’t make it so. Reality is more complex than that.

Remember, how the New York “Treasonus” Times rooted for his defeat,

And by your silly name-calling, you advertise that you wish not to be taken seriously. Thanks for the notice.

he’s about to be replaced by a leader from the even more pro-American Conservative Party.

I’ll bet Gordon Brown is shocked that he just changed parties.

In terms of the last paragraph, we’ve tried in the past to bring up facts regarding the problems with Bush’s poorly planned, poorly executed, and poorly justified war. I’m sorry that we can’t seem to discuss it without hearing that recognizing the sad reality is “blaming Bush”.

And again, Merkel was no more pro-America than Schroeder was anti-America. Merkel is more conservative than Schroeder is; that doesn’t make her more pro-America. It might make her ideology more similar to Bush’s, but continuing to equate conservatism with patriotism/pro-Americanism is false, faulty, and tiresome.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 11, 2007 4:15 PM
Comment #220098

This is off subject here, but thought some of you might “enjoy” taking a look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE
Sorry, Paul, to re-route everyone for a minute…it’s interesting to see that even though we’ve experienced unparalleled losses, there are some who seem to be feeling guilt pangs and feel the need to express themselves. This clip is just another example of the idiocy that’s been shoved down our throats.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at May 11, 2007 4:36 PM
Comment #220103

Lawnboy, it’s clear that you are the one that has been bent out of shape over the fact that the rest of the world; whom the libs have been championing for years as the proof that Bush has turned into America-haters, have (actually) been throwing out the weak “terrorist-coddling”, Bush-hating (lib) leaders and replacing them with pro-American (somewhat) conservative ones. And, you have clearly strayed from my original comment by equating those countries leaders being “pro-American” and tough on “Islamic Fascism” to their firm stance against Iraq. Then, you have the audacity to say that Sarkosy is for “dissent”; uhhh, ok. You’re like a boxer that’s getting beaten to a pulp and then (all of a sudden) throws a punch or two before he’s knocked out. Yikes! “Down goes Fraiser!”, “Down goes Fraiser!” :-)


I’ve always been a firm supporter of “dissent”; you, Rocky and Stephen ought to know that better than anybody on this blog. I’ve said (a number of times) that dissent is good; it’s the hatred that’s wrong and has to go. These leaders are (more or less) “dissenters” that beat “haters”; that’s what so important and relevant to their victories and our country. Those foreign leaders, so admired by liberals for hating George Bush and loving Saddam Hussein, have now been replaced by rulers who pledge their friendship to the United States. Hip-hip, hooray! Now, who can the libs turn to?! You guessed it: Spain, Venezuelea, Cuba, N. Korea, China and the rest of the radical Islamists. Way to go libs; nice (friggin) company you keep.


Posted by: rahdigly at May 11, 2007 6:13 PM
Comment #220106

rahdigly,

I didn’t say you were bent out of shape about anything. I just said you were wrong on the facts when you made a quick, broad generalization of a complex topic.

been throwing out the weak “terrorist-coddling”, Bush-hating (lib) leaders and replacing them with pro-American (somewhat) conservative ones

This is just wrong on the face. Here are the five countries you mentioned. How many of them fit this profile?

UK - nope. No one was thrown out.
Australia - nope. No one was thrown out.
France - nope. The same party kept the Presidency, and the new President defends disagreeing with the U.S. just as much as the old.
Germany - barely. There was a change in power, but the old party is still in the ruling coalition, and the new leading party is weaker than it was in the previous election.
Canada - Yep.

Wow. 1 out of 5. I’ll give you 1.5 out of five. And even in Canada, the election was about local scandal, not about “pro-America”. Great numbers you got there. In addition, you completely ignored Italy, where Berlusconi was kicked out. Why?

I’m responding to rhetoric with facts. That you respond to these facts with just more rhetoric, bad analogies, and made up claims (I never used the word “dissent” to describe Salkozy - that’s an invention. Instead, I merely quoted him. Do you deny his quote? On what grounds?) shows the weakness of your argument.

And, you have clearly strayed from my original comment by equating those countries leaders being “pro-American” and tough on “Islamic Fascism” to their firm stance against Iraq.
No, I’m not straying from your point. I’m trying to explain that your concept of “pro-American” is flawed.

Additionally, I have no idea what the debate about Islamic Fascism is about if not about Iraq. After all, Chirac agrees with the U.S. that Islamic terrorist and Al Qaeda should be opposed. What he opposed was mis-applying that motive into an unrelated attack on Iraq. France agreed with us on “Islamic Fascism”. So what on earth are you complaining about if it’s not their disagreement on Iraq?

In the second paragraph, you just repeat your claim that I’ve demonstrated is flawed and not supported by facts, and then you take a stupid pot-shot at liberals. You’re the one grouping us with those countries, not us. Don’t convict us of guilt by association, particularly when the association exists nowhere but in your mind.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 11, 2007 6:39 PM
Comment #220109

Yeah, well how about this video?

Black and Right

Posted by: Kirk at May 11, 2007 7:04 PM
Comment #220119

How about that video, Kirk?
What’s your point? and how does it relate to the set-up for corporate scamming that my link portrayed?

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at May 11, 2007 9:14 PM
Comment #220122

Memo to self: never argue with Lawnboy, you’ll get your knickers ripped. :-0

Posted by: Tim Crow at May 11, 2007 9:56 PM
Comment #220124

“Pro-American does not equal pro-Bush. Pro-American does not equal pro-Iraq War.”
Lawnboy


“rahdigly said: “Uh, did you see how the French just elected a Pro-American President?!”

Yes, it is safer to do now that Democrats are back in control of Congress and will have the White House in just 20 months.”
David Remer


So, let me get this straight. Being Pro-American does not mean being Pro-Bush, according to Lawnboy.
But, since the Democrats are in Congress, being Pro-American means being Pro-Democrat, according to David Remer.

Funny how you libs always want to have it both ways!!!!!

JD

Posted by: JD at May 11, 2007 10:26 PM
Comment #220132

You guys just amaze me.

We had world wide support for the the war on terror in Afghanistan, and much less for the invasion of Iraq (and not just the countries that were making money off of Saddam), and some of those have new elected leaders. Blair is gone BECAUSE of his support for Bush’s gambit in Iraq, and the screw-up in Lebanon. In July of last year Blair had a 27% approval rating, according to some polls, and as of yesterday 44% of those polled thought Blair had been good for Britain.

All of these newly elected leaders will be around long after Mr. Bush is gone.
Frankly, it sounds to me like all these new guys are hedging their bets.

Oh, and rahdigly,
How soon can we expect all of the new “Bush supporting” leaders to have their own “surge” of troops in Iraq?


BTW, on NPR, during an interview, a British newspaper columnist estimated that there were nearly 3 times more Blackwater private security (mercs), than British soldiers in Iraq.

Posted by: Rocky at May 12, 2007 12:33 AM
Comment #220141

Also, rahdigly, if your concern is really (as you claim) about supporting the United States in the battle against Islamic radicals and not about supporting the United States in the war in Iraq, then your insults against our allies makes even less sense.

If your focus is where you claim it is, then we should look at the contributions of the Chirac-led French government and the Schroeder-led German government in Afghanistan. After all, that’s the only place where we really went to war against the “Islamic radicals” and “Islamic fascists” that attacked us in 2001.

So, what do we find? Chirac sent over 4,000 personnel to the fight in Afghanistan, and Schroeder sent over 2,500 personnel to the fight. That’s a combined total commitment nearly equal to the size of the American contingent in Afghanistan. That’s significant direct support of the Americans fight against the Islamic radicals that attacked us, and it’s the exact opposite of the coddling you claim.

Chirac and Schroeder showed direct significant support of America in our fight against the terrorists that attacked us. That sounds like the pro-America support of friends and allies to me.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 12, 2007 7:58 AM
Comment #220149

Kirk,
Black and Right.”

Amen!!!! Great f*cking clip!! I am in total concurrence; that’s exactly how I feel about that issue. Some of the anti-Bush/War nuts (who don’t have a.d.d.) should take the ten minutes out of the day and watch this.

God Bless America.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 12, 2007 11:10 AM
Comment #220150

rahdigly,

“Amen!!!! Great f*cking clip!! I am in total concurrence; that’s exactly how I feel about that issue.”

What a simplistic load of hyperbolic baloney.

Perhaps the media doesn’t publish body counts of the enemy because the Pentagon refuses to give them out.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101956,00.html

“RUMSFELD: Well, we don’t do body counts on other people. And we have certain rules on people we capture, in terms of exposing them to the public, Geneva Conventions and the like.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/03/MN98747.DTL

“The world will never know how many Iraqis died in the war to oust Saddam Hussein, in part because the United States adamantly refuses to estimate the number of people it kills in combat and because gathering accurate numbers is all but impossible after the Iraqi government’s chaotic collapse.
What Bush administration officials do say is that the U.S. operation in Iraq included unprecedented efforts to minimize civilian casualties. That humanitarian stance has increased pressure on the Pentagon to abandon its long- held refusal to publicly offer numbers of civilians or enemy military personnel killed, as a way of showing if the use of precision-guided bombs and missiles and rules designed to avoid civilian targets have reduced so-called collateral damage.

“We don’t do body counts,” Gen. Tommy Franks, who directed the Iraq invasion, has said.”

It is the simple things that some people latch onto as truth, whether they are true or not.

The American soldier didn’t make the mistakes in Iraq that have lead us to where we are.

Those who’s job it is to know better (after all Bush did say he knew what he was doing), have put those soldiers in jeopardy, not the Congress, and surely not the American people.

Posted by: Rocky at May 12, 2007 12:04 PM
Comment #220152
Some of the anti-Bush/War nuts (who don’t have a.d.d.)

I see that you had time for a repeat of this random meaningless insult against me, but I’m waiting for you to respond to the factual challenges I’ve lodged against your claims. Are you going to step up? Or should we accept that your reliance on insult instead of argument is an admission that your rhetoric has nothing real to support it?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 12, 2007 12:24 PM
Comment #220305

Speaking of Democrat Ideas, I see the democrats are leaving in all the bribe money (pork) in their cut N run defense bill.

I thought them dems had this idea about getting rid of pork, earmarks, and corruption. Then they spend billions of dollars in bribes to buy votes from their own members. Talk about your culture of corruption. And I hear Feinstein got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. She was just following Reid example, right? And maybe they will both keep their ill gotten gains in their freezers in their capital hills office, where good democrats keep their bribes.

Yup, the democrat Idea of corruption is alive and well in Washington

Posted by: StephenL at May 14, 2007 4:46 PM
Comment #220325

StephenL,

I discussed this above. This bill is not a defense bill. It’s an “emergency supplemental appropriations” bill. The war should have been funded through the regular budget process last year, but Bush didn’t want the political fight that happens in the normal budget process, so he left out the war funding to pretend that all the war funding was “emergency” and “unexpected”.

If he had been honest in the first place, the war would have been funded for this fiscal year as part of the budget process. Instead, he played political games and tried to make it seem that anything but belated war funding was pork. In fact, much of the non-war appropriations in the bill were the exact types of appropriations that were appropriate for the “emergency appropriations” bill.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 14, 2007 7:39 PM
Comment #270720

just a thought, how is the american public going to pay for this in a ressision?

Posted by: smith at November 20, 2008 9:48 PM
Comment #294957

. Experts have talked about this before. How many times have you read about the importance of ‘adding value’ for your audience? How many times have you read about ‘building trust’ with your readers/prospects?
Many, many times. You know it well. Every marketing guru has spoken about this topic. I’m sick of hearing it. But it STILL bears repeating.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Posted by: somaie at February 2, 2010 4:17 AM
Comment #344742

paul…….umadbro??

Posted by: Sam at May 17, 2012 4:59 PM
Comment #350176

“•UNIVERSAL CITIZEN SERVICE “

Makes sense, because 3 months for anything is like training for a job and then leaving the paperwork involved would take 3 months. What group is going ot head this ding ding ding.. More gov’t expansion = more $$

“•UNIVERSAL COLLEGE ACCESS - College should be free to “those willing to work, serve and excel’”

Are you serious? Last thing I want is a bunch of “free-loaders” dumbing down my college and hey if they gov’t is going to foot the bill then why wouldn’t a college increase costs? They have increased costs ever since the gov’t gave anybody a college loan. These colleges are businesses obviously democrats are not business people. If the gov’t is going to foot the bill and I am running a business with a bunch of freeloaders. what do I do hmm tough one. I would ‘dumb-down’ the classes so EVERYBODY EXCELs! in everybody’s second year (they get it for free still remember)I increase tuition by about 20% ha ha my college looks good and I am rolling in the dough.

“•UNIVERSAL RETIREMENT SAVINGS “

Yeah, Just another way to tax somebody when they need $$ good one democrats hidden taxes once again.
if you want me to explain that one I will but I think it’s self explanatory.


•UNIVERSAL CHILDREN’S HEALTH CARE - This would be available to all children

Sounds great, but why would I want to foot the bill for all the sick children, Personally I am not going to pay some gov’t slob for a job to handle the tax $$ I spend to help out children that are very sick because healthy children for most of there yound life will not need health-care that much.

I would rather donate the $$ (that has statistics on how much of there $$ goes directly to the kids) and not hire some more people in the gov’t some B’Obma can say he helps decrease the unemployment rate and half of the money is going to the new program and not the children F That plan.

•END CORPORATE WELFARE - Get rid of all the loopholes corporations use to pay little or no income taxes

HA HA HA, I don’t even want to get involved in this one let’s just say everything that is said there is up for debate.
The best is when you say “get rid of ALL”
ALL the tax loopholes… We can’t wave a magic wand my dear friends that is like saying I am going to make every server unhackable. That kind of stuff exists in Fairy-tale land. But hey we can all dream I guess….


•TAX REFORM - This includes a 1-page tax form, a corporate flat tax of 35% and a middle class tax that never exceeds 10%

Corporate taxes are just a way to charghe the consumers more.

If Ford has to pay 35% in taxes they will get that money back buy spiking their prices. They corporations aint dumb.
Well maybe GM ha ha
But in all seriousness, this would be great, But you are forgetting one little problem, Your tax refund this is where the gov’t can make interest on your money that you OVERPAID on your taxes for but hey you get it back.

SO, I actually agree with this but the gov’t should take around 20% or so, and collect interest on it and then when tax time comes around give us the $$ back but then they would have to keep than DAN IRS agents.. ugh well no world is pefect I guess at least 88,000 people wouldn’t all lose there jobs.


•WAR ON TERROR STRATEGY - This includes an end to unilateralism, an increase in number of troops, a new GI Bill for returning vets and a counterterrorism force like Britain’s M15

Sorry this topic is waaaaaay over my head to discuss. I have no freaggin clue.


•HYBRID ECONOMY - Achieving energy efficiency and energy independence

too tired to answer this one too I don’t know if it would be good or bad.

Posted by: you retarted at August 7, 2012 12:45 AM
Post a comment