Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Interesting that they should bring up Kerry’s votes against individual weapons systems, considering CHENEY was the single largest proponent of axing the DoD budget while he was a Senator in 84, saying that “if Reagan doesn’t really cut defense, he becomes the No. 1 special pleader in town.”

You’d think that, since they’re good christians, they’d have the biblical definition of hypocrite memorized!

David—-interesting ad.

Gaelen: Two issues for you…

1) You might want to go to FactCheck.org to check out what they have to say about Kerry’s record. They do a pretty good job of showing where the Bush ads are correct and where they overstate issues.

2) I dont see a rationale for bringing religion into a political discussion, unless your intent was just to make an arbitrary, intellectually simple and easy jab. You seem to be making the claim that all Republicans are Christians—which we know is not the truth.

Looking at many of the comments in many of these threads, I dont see that Republicans have ANY lock on being hypocritical. Democrats do an equally fine job of that as well.

And another thing that ticks me off… we’re now spending more on building our nuclear arsenal than we were at Reagan’s height! And before you protest, those are inflation-adjusted numbers.

Or take the current incarnation of the Star Wars program, a missile-defense system that has almost no chance of protecting us from missiles, and no chance whatsoever of protecting us from nuclear attack. Did you know that no subsystem of the current weapon platform has ever been tested, and yet we’re steadfastly deploying it in September? The only time previous incarnations have succeeded in hitting their targets was under the following circumstances:

1) The test was conducted in daylight.
2) The target missile was traveling slower than normal.
3) There was only 1 target - there are no systems for detecting decoys.
4) The target missile had a homing beacon in it.

And that deserves 10 billion dollars a year in development? To protect us from what imaginary madman? What kind of moronic nuclear power would decide to attack us that way? The obvious way to launch a nuclear attack is to smuggle the bomb over our boarder (in a shipping container, perhaps?), thereby avoiding the vast technological hurdles that a missile-based delivery system would entail, as well as making it possible to obfuscate the point of origin of the weapon. If you were Mr. North Korea, and you knew the physical meaning of the word “ballistic,” would you choose a ballistic, or a truck-based delivery system? Ballistic is simply not an option in the world I live in.

Don’t you think that our national security would be better served by putting some of those vast billions to work inspecting shipping containers to secure our ports? We’re spending 221 times more money on faith-based missile-defense than we are on port security. It blows my mind.

So you’re damned right that some defense spending should be cut and re-allocated to programs that stand a chance of actually defending our country. What we’ve got here is pork-barrel defense systems, and that infuriates me. It’s my family’s security we’re talking about!

Joe -

You’re right, bringing religion into the discussion adds nothing, and just makes me look silly. I’d edit it out if I could.

It’s just that seeing someone critisize for somethign they’ve done in spades sets me off. I’ve seen democrats do it, and I treat it the same way. I just don’t see why consistency is so difficult for people.

Gaelen:

Much agreed on the difficulty for so many out there (including me, I’m sure) to be consistent. Seems to me our politicians in the US have become consumed with the process of getting re-elected, rather than doing what is best for the country.

We know Kerry has flip-flopped gratuitously for political purposes; we know too that on the Republican side, Dick Cheney recently reversed his course regarding state vs constitutional control in the gay marriage issue.

This is to say that both sides do it. No one wants to be held to their words anymore—perhaps its always been this way, and just our ability to quickly access what someone said years before makes it seem to happen more often.

By the way, agreement also on your missile defense issue regarding pork barrell. The hard thing is to anticipate all possible means of attack, and to select the right area to fund. In today’s political climate, even if you select the most likely area, get full bipartisan support for it, but end up being attacked via another method, you would be politically vilified.

Which begs the largest question of all…..why would ANYone actually WANT the White House job?

Free airfare, leverage for deals with foriegners, and tons of money for your privatization chronies.

Why do we insist on calling “changing positions” flip-flopping?

Is it truly impossible to take a fresh look at a position, legitimately change one’s mind, and not be criticized for doing so?

ceejayoz, good point. Flip flopping for political expedience - BAD! Flip flopping because new or different information leads to a better policy or agenda - Good!

I prefer a flexible President who can adapt to changing conditions, information, and priorities. An inflexible President, as we have learned, is a very dangerous prospect.

But, how could either party refrain from the use of the term “flip-flopping” when political parties have only one purpose, defeat their opponent and alter reality in the minds of voters about their opponent?

ceejay and david:

While I’ll admit to being biased, I do see Kerry as someone who wants things both ways. His tortured syntax gets the better of his good nature sometimes. Consider his position on SUV’s:
At a meeting in Detroit, he professed his love for them, the power etc. At another instance, he professed to not even owning an SUV, later altering that to admit that his family owns one, but he does not.

That my friends is a flip flop. Its playing directly to what the audience wants to hear, and its patently misleading. That particular instance is a minor issue, to be sure. But it is just one of many instances where Kerry is seen in that light.

I want a President with a backbone, not one whose speech I have to parse in order to get the real truth. And we have seen that before as well.

JOe, my impression of Bush is that he’s a plainspoken liar, but still a liar. It’s so bad, that even the firefighter who was part of that 9/11 wreckage photo op as Bush made that impromptu speech with the Bullhorn has turned against him. He says plainly that he will support those in uniform, but then he fails to come through, or he does the exact opposite of help them. Either he is not in control of his people enought to put these things through, or he simply doesn’t care about keeping those promises, honoring those committments.

joe, one only need review the 2000 Republican Platform upon which Bush ran and compare it to his actions to see the greatest flip-flopper of all time. Smaller government - right!, lower taxes for the working person and homeowner, with his transfer of fed taxes to state taxes ? - right!, reduce government spending? Medicare Bill ring a bell? - Colonies on the Moon, cold war star wars technology? right!

I will grant he did not flip flop on everything in the 2000 Republican platform - but, I perhaps he just needs another 4 years to succeed. :-)

I want a President with a backbone, not one whose speech I have to parse in order to get the real truth. And we have seen that before as well.

Then there’s no way you could vote for Bush. First he talks about mushroom clouds over American cities, then comes out with a semantic argument that makes Clinton look like an amateur, “I never said ‘imminent threat’, I just said ‘growing threat’. If people want to interpret the phrases ‘mushroom clouds over American cities within months’ and ‘ready to deliver biological weapons to terrorists next week’ as an ‘imminent threat’, well, they’re entitled to their opinion.”

Or my favorite, when asked why he was switching his emphasis to WMD programs instead of actual WMDs, he says, “What’s the difference?” Is he really that stupid? Or does he just not care? Hard to say…

You know who I miss? Ari Fleischer. When Bush would say something stupid, Ari was always there the next day to say, “What President Bush meant to say was…” McClellen has so far failed to provide that service. Too bad.

David:

Since you bring up the Republican platform of 2000, I’d dare you to also bring up Democratic platforms. In fact, I’d bet that if we looked at both parties platforms for the past 10 elections, we would find that not a lot of the platform actually gets voted into law or action.

Its a great strawman that you brought up, as a way of attempting to show that Bush is not a good man or president. But your point would be just as true when pointed at a Democrat, though I know you would be loathe to do so.

We all know there is a difference between flip flopping and “adapting”. And we all know there are those who are skilled enough in the use of language to portray one as the other.

I did notice that no one bothered to show how Kerry did NOT flip flop on his SUV comments. While insignificant as an issue (I couldnt care less if he drives SUVs, minivans, trucks, farm equipment, sports cars or whatever), it does show his desire to be liked by all sides. And that leads him to say the diverse things he does.

We all know the guy at the office, or the guy from the neighborhood who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Its not lost on me that those in here who are supporting Kerry do so by saying in effect—-“well Bush does it too.”

That is a pretty lame way of saying your candidate is better. At best, it sounds like you are saying your candidate is no worse. And that, dear readers, is a losing argument.

David:

By the way, GREAT line on how Bush might be successful if given 4 more years. I do enjoy good humour regardless of who it is used against, and that line deserves much applause. Well done.

Joe, the side point about the SUV thing maybe somewhat indicative of a guy who doesn’t have his story straight, but what do you think Kerry’s energy policy is going to be compared to Bush’s? Kerry may be dancing around the SUV subject, but the Bush Administration has been dancing around who they invited to shape our policy for quite some time, even going so far as to file a lawsuit that was damaging to congressional oversight to do it.

Right now, your plain-spoken president is pumping hundreds of thousands of barrels into the strategic reserve, artificially taking oil off the market. Commodity traders have speculated the price of barrel of oil up to 40 dollars a barrel and from reports I’m hearing could be pushing them up to fifty dollars. This is my source on that: hedge fund speculation. The question is, was this on the table, or something related?

Throughout Bush’s administration, he has railed against government interfering with the market, but again and again, he’s cut regulations, and failed to enforce others that ensure that the businesses themselves don’t use their economic muscle to artificially manipulate the market.

When Enron was manipulating energy prices in California, it wasn’t operating by market forces. Market forces, left to their own, would have kept prices cheap in the energy-rich West Oodles of supply, millions of willing customers, an elastic market, therefore, prices are cheap.

But Enron decides to intervene, to become a middle man, bidding up the price and artificially cutting down on supply by keeping generators off, and by laundering energy through other states so they can charge an arm and a leg for California’s own cheap domestic supply. They in essence became a parasite on a working market.

So much of business nowadays is about manipulating the market, not functioning within it. Perhaps some of this serves a function, but a lot of it is just those with economic power concentrating more of it to themselves, without regard for the conseqences of the wealth of the nation as a whole.

Good point, Stephen. A bonus from the California energy scam for Bush was the installment of a Republican governor.

Maybe that’s what Lay promised in Cheney’s secret energy meetings, “Give me a free hand in California, and I’ll set up conditions for Issa to buy a recall of Davis.” You’ll remember that the FERC had evidence of manipulation at the time, but sat on it and denied it existed until much later.

I can see where Cheney’s arguement, that making the meeting notes public would keep advisors from speaking freely, might hold water. That would be conspiracy, fraud, and possibly treason. :)

Lee:

Nice job of creating a conspiracy theory there. A point you missed is that the citizens of California—-yes, the PEOPLE of California—-set up the conditions for the recall of Davis. It was and is California law, and has been for a long time. In fact, it was law in California before Enron was even incorporated.

If you are going to develop theories about potential conspiracies, at least do them the justice of having at least some of the facts correct. Otherwise, rebutting your theories becomes little more than shooting fish in a barrel.

I’ll say as I’ve always said that it was a bad law, but nonetheless, Californians voted it in. I hope they see how bad a law it was and change it.

Well joe, we agree that the referendum system needs to go. I’d also like to see Schwarzenegger consider rewriting some of the legislation that was passed through the system to remove the mandatory funding requirements which would give the state more leeway in balancing the budget.

Schwarzenegger had a mandate to change the way government works in California, but it looks like he’s pissing it away by following the same “borrow the money” strategy Davis was. The only difference being, instead of the car tax, we got higher education fees and cutbacks on day care services and first reponder funding.

As for conditions for the recall, it was the phony “fiscal mismanagement” issue that Issa and the conservative media kept pushing. It was successful because the state’s budget was busted paying outrageous prices for energy the previous year. Prices that were artificially inflated by Enron and other companies. Manipulation that Bush’s FERC was aware of but didn’t act upon.

BTW, whatever happened to Schwarzenegger’s promise to open up the books so that Californians could see the millions in wasted tax money? He sure got quiet on that issue pretty quick. It turned out there wasn’t any significant wastage, didn’t it. So Governor Schwarzenegger had to resort to borrowing the money and doing some creative bookkeeping to “terminate” the state deficit. Just like Davis proposed.

Lee:

Nice left turn. You went from speculating that Ken Lay and Dick Cheney worked up the recall issue in California, and moved on to why Arnold is a bad governor. Oh and you managed to blame Bush’s FERC for the California budget woes. Of course, you neatly forgot to mention that California’s budget woes were not the product of just the last couple of years, meaning they started prior to Bush even being in office.
But why let a little thing like a fact get in your way, when you are on a rant.

Lee, my original rebuttal to you was regarding your shameful conspiratorial theorizing about Ken Lay and Dick Cheney. You used that as a springboard to badmouth Schwarzenegger. I dont care to discuss that, since I dont know much about California.

I do know that the people of California had the opportunity to freely elect the person they wanted as governor. They chose Schwarzenegger.
We can all agree that he entered office saddled with many economic and budgetary problems. The test of his governorship will be how he handles them.

joe, let me draw you a map.

Ken Lay meets with Dick Cheney to discuss energy plans they refuse to make public (even though all previous administrations have done so.)

Enron then starts gaming the system in California, causing the state to spend tens of billions in emergency funding for overpriced energy.

Bush’s FERC knows about the illegal manipulation, but does nothing and hides the evidence for over a year.

I’m speculating that Bush and Cheney’s appointees to the FERC were told to look the other way as Cheney and Bush used the phony crisis to push for their energy plan drafted in collusion with “Kenny Boy” Lay.

Did Lay and Cheney work out a deal to scam California while the FERC looked the other way? Only the disclosure of the meeting transcripts will answer to that.

And I can’t take credit for the speculation. That’s a question that many Californians are asking. Why did the administration do nothing while we were getting screwed? That’s why the Supreme Court is involved. I can’t take credit for that. :)

I dont care to discuss that, since I dont know much about California.

For someone who freely admits they don’t know much about California, you sure do talk a lot about your version of the California energy crisis. I’m a California resident. I was there. I looked at the evidence Representative Waxman collected. I think there may have been some hanky-panky going on.

Motive: Give Bush bankroller Ken Lay a free hand in California. Use resulting energy “crisis” to spotlight imminent danger of not passing Cheney’s energy bill, and blame it on Ca. Democrat’s “evil” regulation of utilities.

Means: FERC is a Bush/Cheney appointment. All it takes is a quiet conversation and the evidence of manipulation gets “lost” until the commotion dies down. When it’s finally “found”, the energy companies make a partial settlement with the state, but nevertheless deny any wrongdoing and escape any legal consequences.

Bonus: The resulting fiscal crisis (Ca. ran budget surpluses previous to “energy crisis”.) and preception that “evil” regulation prohibited new power plants (totally untrue - Ca. has adequate capacity and there are several new plants coming on line) results in a GOP-backed recall initiative, which initially falters until Issa pumps in millions of his own money to hire signature collectors and fund a media blitz. Issa is then frozen out of the recall by the GOP because he’s not electable, and is replaced by McClintock. When McClintock does poorly in the polls, Schwarzenegger makes a surprise announcement to run. McClintock is sidelined and Schwarzenegger is propped up by ex-Governor Wilson’s advisors.

We can all agree that he entered office saddled with many economic and budgetary problems. The test of his governorship will be how he handles them.

Yup. He’s already got his budget. Borrow $15 billion and replace the car tax with higher education costs, cut programs for the homeless, and underfund police and fire depts.

Schwarzenegger had a mandate from the people of California (contrived as it was) to change the way business is done in Sacramento. He replied with business as usual. Tested: Failed.

Lee:

Please… please. Thats all I can say. Its clear that you simply want to blame Bush—and will use any means to do so.

How bout this for a fact: January 8, 2001 California governor Gray Davis calls Enron and other energy companies “out-of-state” profiteers” during the 2000 California energy crisis.

Lee, you will note that Gray Davis was calling Enron a problem, and George Bush was not even in office yet. But I can of course see how you will spin that into it being Bush’s problem.

Enron’s growth occurred under Clinton, yet you blame Bush. How convenient.

So, with all your petty little facts, you see conspiracy about Bush, yet you arent willing to face the fact that Enron was a problem BEFORE BUSH TOOK OFFICE. Now, you could say that Bush was controlling things from Texas, but thats a pretty high compliment to Bush—-that he could actually control the national economy, or even just that of another state, while he was a mere Governor.

Note that I havent said Enron wasnt a problem, nor have I excused them for their misdeeds. but to blame Bush for things that occurred BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE is just plain stupid.

Hmm… I don’t recall blaming Bush for Ken Lay’s greed. Nice try, though.

I stand by my last post. Get back to me when you want to rebut it, rather than just put words in my mouth.

Oh, Hell. Here, I’ll help. Why don’t you try proving there was no gaming of the energy system? Why don’t you attack the connection between the money Davis had to pay for energy and the busted state budget? Why don’t you try to provide evidence that “evil” regulation of utilities was to blame for the energy “crisis”. Why don’t you try to argue that Bush & Cheney had nothing to gain from an energy “crisis”? Why not try to prove there was no collusion between the administration and the FERC?

All these arguments you could have tried joe, but you had to fall back on the “Bush hater” argument [sigh].

Lee: Below are YOUR comments about your “speculations”. And when I address them as mere speculation, you attack me for calling you a Bush hater. Hey, if the shoe fits….

“joe, let me draw you a map.

Ken Lay meets with Dick Cheney to discuss energy plans they refuse to make public (even though all previous administrations have done so.)

Bush’s FERC knows about the illegal manipulation, but does nothing and hides the evidence for over a year.

I’m speculating that Bush and Cheney’s appointees to the FERC were told to look the other way as Cheney and Bush used the phony crisis to push for their energy plan drafted in collusion with “Kenny Boy” Lay.”

Lee, I agree there was gaming in the system, and that was part of the budget problem. My sole point was that much of this happened before Bush ever took office. Since Bush was not even president when this took place, and you still blame the Bush administration entirely for it, I have solid reason to suspect that you are just looking to blame Bush.

You ignored the fact that on January 8, 2001—-which that year was before the presidency was even decided—Gray Davis was already pointing the finger at Enron.

So the ultimate question for you is this: Why would you blame Bush for something that occurred PRIOR to his presidency? Chew on THAT for a while, and lets see how you spin your answer to that question.

Ahh, I see what you’re saying. You’re absolutely right that the conversation speculated upon would not have included starting the scam. Thank you for pointing that out.

Lee:
Glad to see your agreement with my position. It really is silly to blame Bush for things that happened prior to his presidency. Did Bush know about the Enron shenanigans??? There’s no proof to it, but its easy to think that he did. Was Bush responsible for the massive Enron growth in the 90’s, or the California problems that occurred before 2001, according to Gray Davis? Of course not.

I dont mind people blaming Bush for things that he does, but to blame him for things that he COULDNT have impacted (ie national issues during the 1990’s when Bush was a state governor) is simply specious.

Glad we can agree on things. Thanks for the post.