Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Jack, thanks. I got a real chuckle out of this. The hysteria is enormously humorous if I put aside the large costs of a divided nation.

I usually get my daily dose of humor from political hysteria from C-Span’s call in show, Washington Journal, where you can listen to the most absurd right and left extremists spout out how the other side is destroying our nation.

Sad fact is, however, both sides have their extremists and they are harming our nation in complicity with the media by commanding media resources as if extremism is what America is about. America is not about extremism, it is about concensus. Concensus lies at the core of our political system and system of governance. What is truly harming our nation is this one party federal government which is bringing out the extremes on both sides.

Hopefully, this is a situation that will be remedied in November.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 20, 2006 03:29 AM

Jack, you need to wean yourself from right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institutute.

For a challenge, try to make the same point using articles from left-wing think tanks like the Center for American Progress. :)

As for this article, it’s a prime example of how pessimistic Republicans are. After the Golden Age of Clinton, it’s obvious that America can do better than it is right now. Why don’t you want America to be better, Jack?

Here’s a good Democratic idea: start by eliminating the deficit like President Clinton did. Lots of good things happen when America is on solid financial ground.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 20, 2006 04:36 AM

Golden Age of Clinton?? Well, all I can remember from that Golden age is how much money was being hacked out of my pay check each and every week. Since tax reductions (am yes, I am middle income) I have actually be able to invest in the stock market and have seen huge gains in my savings.

I believe these Liberals are ruining the country as I just heard Bill Press say that it is OK for Al Gore to be over in Saudi Arabia apologizing for the round up of Arabs in America after 9/11. He actually said that all Americans should apologize for that. WOW, I wonder what the families of the victums of 9/11 think of that statement??

Posted by: Everett Hatton at February 20, 2006 05:00 AM

Everett, I saw my paycheck quadruple during the Golden Age of Clinton. Good times…

So are you saying that balancing the budget is a bad thing? Just curious.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 20, 2006 06:30 AM

Trillion dollar deficits
Iraq War
Gas/oil/energy prices at new highs
Tax-deferals for the ultra-wealthy
Consumerism down but CLI going up 12%
Cuts in education
Cuts in environmental
Selling off National parks
Selling off ports to the UAE
Illegals running wild
Phony Medicare that is pork
No balanced budgets
Free Trade fascillitating outsourcing
Lame duck dollar causing outsourcing
Trickle down economics causing Lame duck dollar
High tarrifs
Corporate welfare through the roof with extentions instead of pay-backs

Meaningless stimulus packages
Half-assed appointments (although I like Roberts)
Bush giving same speech for last five years
Rummy—senile
Cheney, Scooter and The Fitz
Jack Abramoff and there will be more
Tom Delay
Hughes and Rove—just plain nasty
Ken Mehlman human scorpion

Cuts in every needed program should Neo-cons have their way but first they have to destroy the budgets with spending.

No child left behind leaves entire schools and school districts behind
We are going to turn into a third world country if we don’t do something
Lack of competitiveness with other countries
Being called unpatriotic and even un-American for not supporting this rediculous misadventure of a war.

Any dems have the rest of this list?????????

Posted by: Translator at February 20, 2006 06:59 AM

I’m not surprised at this topic. The liberal postings have been exceptionally pessimistic of late. I feel that America is strong in many areas, particularly when viewed in context with other nations. I also think that America has accomplished some unbelievable achievements during the Bush administration such as aiding Afghanistan and Iraq to establish freely elected governments and breaking the impasse in the Israel/Palistinean conflict.

There are still many problems ahead and there will be missteps, but at least we don’t have the same laudry list of global problems. Diplomacy, prior to Bush, had become a stalling measure implemented primarily to prevent unacceptable situations from eroding. We can argue about the next step, but at least we aren’t standing at the same spot on the road as in 2000.

Since it seems impossible to deny any positive developments, I decided to examine the progressive resistance to any sort of silver lining and I discovered a secret energy source being developed and tested in liberal think tanks, bushhate. Bushhate, a self-regenerating fuel is currently powering many of the negative sentiments expressed by progressives. Bushhate is very versatile and can be used to operate any type of liberal vehicle, from heavy weights, like global warming or the growing deficit, to light weight romp-arounds like Chenygate.

Early research has indicated two problems with reliance of bushhate are that it is totally addictive and the ultimate source is endangered. Unlike Carter, when President Bush leaves office he will not go about fomenting discontent and supplying bushhate precursors. Bushhate is the binding agent for a diverse mix of progressives. I wonder what will happen to this interesting coalition when Bush isn’t around to oppose.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 20, 2006 07:05 AM

K street run amock
Chinese Debt for war
Asian debts also
Pakistan still growing nuke stockpiles
North Korea still has Nuclear stockpiles
Horror Show in Sudan
Civil war potentiality with Iraq
Hamas takes Palestinian elections
Inability if we have to have a real war to be able to defend our nation
Lame duck dollar making costs of Procurement double the cost
Military procurement from Chinese companies
US Manufacturing drying up
Gm and Ford in hard straits

I’ll think of more

Posted by: Translator at February 20, 2006 07:19 AM

You talk about Liberals being pessimistic about the public school system, and yet you support the party that demands NCLB, and vouchers, two programs supposedly meant to salvage a system in shambles.

You talk about our pessimism about the economy, but is it unwarranted to question the apparent growth when so many of us feel no more prosperous in our lives? Economies can be top heavy, you know, at it seems much like that to people like me who don’t see growth in our purchasing power.

You talk about pessimism about jobs, but how do you expect many to feel good about unemployment rates that low, when those rates don’t consider those who only have work part-time, who are working for less than their education could afford them, or who have simply fallen off the unemployment rolls?

As for the Crime Rate, who are the ones continually appealing to such fears by telling people they’ll be tough on crime? Who was it who saw fit to declare a war on drugs?

Let’s go a step further. Who is it who continually tells the American people that their defenses will be dropped and America will be betrayed if Democrats get into office? Who is it who says that any change in plan in Iraq will ruin everything, despite the fact the public doesn’t believe them? Who is it who thinks that somehow people will drop thousands of years of tradition about heterosexual marriage if gays are allowed to marry?

Who is it who continually worries about secular humanism, and who sees the far left as trying to take away their religious rights?

To be frank, both our sides play on fears. That’s politics, always has been. When things are good, the politicians have the most motivation to say things are going downhill.

What worries me is that they’re not telling us when certain things are getting worse, or when they bullshit about it. Taxes and the war, for example. It’s hard, if not impossible to get these people to admit that they’re policies are causing problems.

Worse yet, I have to listen to one Republican post after another not critiquing some position, not analyzing policy needs, not even trying to come up with some new analysis of events, but rather kicking the liberals in the ass again about their being liberal and telling us on the left that we’re inferior citizens.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 20, 2006 08:23 AM

I used to get angry—now I try to stay amused. BDS has rendered the course of our debate into new territory. And that is not a good thing. But in less than 2 years, Bushitler McChimpy HaliburtonRoveCo. will smirk off into the history books. History will judge him. I’m guessing very favorably—kinda like the Gipper.

Posted by: nikkolai at February 20, 2006 08:37 AM

Jack, very good post! You provided good examples for the “hysteria” that the anti-Bushies have displayed. You’re right, we do have serious issues that face this country and we need to address them and come up with a solution. War on Terror, energy dependency, military, taxes, social security, etc. are all serious issues that the dems haven’t shown any backbone or any solutions to. Now, I don’t particularly care for some of the solutions the Repubs have brought forth with some of those issues; however, they’ve at least took a stance and offered a solution. Yet, when it comes to attacking the Bush Administration, the dems are first in line. Ridiculous! And, the ones (bloggers) that have been defending this behavior ought to be ashamed. I’ve been leaning right and I wouldn’t (and didn’t) have attacked Clinton when he was in office. Just get the job done!!

Posted by: rahdigly at February 20, 2006 08:45 AM

Translator,

Thanks for making Jack’s point. I don’t know how you get up every morning.

AP,
“Why don’t you want America to be better, Jack?”
I laughed my ass off. Great stuff.

I agree we need to balance the budget. I have a feeling we would go about it in totally different ways.

Posted by: JimmyRay at February 20, 2006 08:52 AM

I need to find Jack’s email address. It looks like Eric Simonson hacked into his account and posted as Jack.

Not good.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 20, 2006 08:57 AM

Translator

This one stat thrumps all of your lists by a factor of twenty:

ZERO

That’s how many attacks have taken place on US soil since September 11,2001.

Chew on that for a while.

Posted by: Sicilianeagle at February 20, 2006 09:14 AM

SicEagle, as many years spanned between the first attack on the Twin Towers and the second. Chew on that for awhile. Doesn’t mean anything. Certainly doesn’t mean we were prepared for the second despite the first one, now does it? Lapses between attacks of that kind of years preceded 9/11. So, there certainly does not appear to be any evidence on that basis that Bush has made us any safer.

Plain truth is, if Bush wanted to protect us he would have done what any 10th grader would tell you to do, secure the borders. Nah, protecting us is prima facia not a high priority on Bush’s list.
I had a greater chance of dying of an auto accident before 9/11 than from a terrorist attack, and the same is true today, even with unsecured borders.

Since security is the only leg Bush’s poll numbers are currently standing on, it kinda begs the question, are our unsecure borders unsecure for political reasons? Certainly is no rational and logically defensible reason in the aftermath of 9/11 and the Commission’s recommendations.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 20, 2006 09:44 AM

Unfortunately, the definition of “dealing with reality instead of false pie in the sky” has been lacking for years in Republican’s education.

Pessimism as defined by the Republicans is merely the rest of us attempting to deal with reality…of course, fake terrorist alert colorsthat fill the right-wing followers with fear are the only “real” that Republicans can seem to see in their blinded position.

Posted by: Lynne at February 20, 2006 09:45 AM

Democrats are in a nearly constant state of hysteria.

Do you have any evidence for this?

Conversatives bitch and moan at least as much as liberals: activist judges, liberal media, Hitlery, liberal media, unions, liberal media, radical professors, liberal media… To hear you guys talk, you would think you were surviving in a cave while liberals tyrannize the country. At least some of us have the excuse of not being in power.

Consider the title of Bernard Goldberg’s latest tract: 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. Why does he think America is so screwed up? Doesn’t he realize that this is a great country? Why are conservatives so full of negativity?

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 20, 2006 09:56 AM

Stephen:

You talk about pessimism about jobs, but how do you expect many to feel good about unemployment rates that low, when those rates don’t consider those who only have work part-time, who are working for less than their education could afford them, or who have simply fallen off the unemployment rolls?

Has the method for determining unemployment rates changed, or is the method the same as it has always been? If its changed, could you please link something so I can read up on it.

If the method has not changed, then its accurate to compare today’s unemployment rates with past unemployment rates, since both numbers will contain the same variables.

Thanks for the help.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 20, 2006 10:18 AM

So if I may sum up this article:

Of the biggest problems you cite facing our nation: out of control spending, an increasingly costly war of which there is no end in sight, terrorist threats, it’s the Democrats’ fault.

The real victims here are not the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis who are enjoying our freedom, are not the millions of people suffering with cuts in education, are certainly not the veterans enjoying less governmental assistance, are not the thousands of troops who are being shot at as we speak (with less and less combat pay), are not the thousands of minorities abandoned in NOLA, it’s you and George Bush who are sick and tired of all this whining and no plan. Maybe someday the GOP will grace us with theirs? Democrats just need to fall in line and know their places like good house negroes. To speak out is disgracing the memory of Coretta Scott King. Why can’t dems figure this out?

I have to admit I was wrong. When the Republicans gained control of the senate and the house, the Whitehouse and the courts, I told myself, “At least they’ll have no one else to blame.”

Posted by: Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout at February 20, 2006 10:22 AM

joebagodonuts:

If the method has not changed, then its accurate to compare today’s unemployment rates with past unemployment rates, since both numbers will contain the same variables.

You must realize that 4% of today’s population (and 4% is the norm of unemployed during “full employment”) is a much larger number of unemployed
people that 4% was 10 or 20 years ago…as a population grows, a percentage that holds steady is actually growing in actual numbers of people that that number represents.

4% of 10,000 = 400
4% of 100,000= 4,000

That fact never seems to break into the discussion.

Besides, the number of unemployed isn’t a “number”, that “number” represents a real person and real families.

Posted by: Lynne at February 20, 2006 10:43 AM

David

Let me get this straight:

Since no attacks have occurrred in 4 and a half years,it is no lomger an issue?

You’re kidding,right?

WTC 1 and WTC 2 are mega-light years apart.Last I knew,after the first incident they 2 building still were standing plus 3,000 weren’t killed.

The second issue has legs,though.Securing the borders.

How?

Shall we hunt down the Mexicans who come here looking to survive?Are they the enemy?

Shall be put up a wall..or have a Mexican turkey shoot by West Texans?

I think not.

I happen to agree with the president on this one.There are economic….vast ecomomic considerations here,and a balance has to be struck.

That being said,letting the UAR control our ports is beyond assinine and gives new defination to the dolt who ok’d that one.

Prediction:Within 10 days or so,a new entity will be formed to act as a buffer between the UAE corporation and the port issue.

One more thing,David.Why don’t you support having 3 parties….conservative….moderate…and liberal….as opposed to our present system?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at February 20, 2006 10:44 AM

>>I also think that America has accomplished some unbelievable achievements during the Bush administration such as aiding
Afghanistan and Iraq to establish freely elected governments and breaking the impasse in the Israel/Palistinean conflict.

gkn,

Aiding? Did either country ask for us to democratize them? Forced democracy is not freedom. That’s just more Rovean Spin for nation building. I think Canada should invade the U.S. and force parlamentarianism on us. I’m sure they’d think we would be better off.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 10:54 AM

Translator
When you get cured of paranoia I would like to see your list. Until then it is just occupied space.

Posted by: tomh at February 20, 2006 11:08 AM

Thanks to Translator for giving an example of the hysteria. Do you really believe that times are so bad now? I wonder about your frame of reference.

Re Golden Age - We are talking about the 1998 until about March of 2000. The individual most responsible for the good times was Alan Greenspan. But we are mostly talking about technologies coming on line, seemingly (turns out not true) benign international security environment, the benefits of corporate restructuring of the late 1980s, and favorable demographics. We also had the dot.com bubble that pushed the euphoria to unsustainable levels. So we have a combination of a couple of things. One the one hand, we have the sprint at the end of a race and we have the feeling you get after drinking a couple beers. But you can’t sprint a whole marathon and after those beers come an hangover.

So it is disingenuous to make roughly 22 months of irrational exuberance with a little bit of froth the minimum standard. We may well achieve that sort of thing again, but it also won’t last and if you are only happy with these conditions, you better be prepared for misery.

We will never solve all our problems at the same time. But in order to solve any problems at all, you have to recognize where you are today – that means recognizing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

Our strength is a sound economy, low crime, good environment. Our weakness is growth of entitlements and growing debt. Our opportunities are changing the balance in the Middle East and developing new technologies. Our threats are global environmental problems, terrorism and stagnation.

If you see nothing but strengths and opportunities, you will be squashed by the weaknesses and threats. But if you don’t see the strengths, you will be perpetually poor and unsuccessful. And maybe hysterical most of the time. Losers are like that. If you want to be that, it is easy to accomplish.

I expect we will have many hysterical liberals giving us the long lists of things they think are going wrong. I have noticed an autocorrelation (autoeroticism?) among many of these lists.. Thanks in advance. We promise to give them the consideration they deserve.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 11:10 AM

Goodkingned… that was inspired. However, I fear the hatred may well be transferrable.
Sarah… why would we give you our plan? It’s quite a big part of our secretive nature. And its our plan, not your’s. Just giving it out to anyone would certainly ruin our reputation.
Frankly… I like the Dem plan. Captain Kirk couldn’t have said it better. “There IS…(dramatic pause) a better way.”
Finally… It seems that those who most often act hysterically are not predisposed toward logical problem solving and are incapable of comprehending their current situations. Lashing out at others uncontrollably is also an unavoidable consequence of this condition. The only solution for this I can think of is constant heavy drinking. Cheers!

Posted by: Doherty at February 20, 2006 11:15 AM

The libs hysteria is born out of one signicant problem they are out of control of the government. In addition they can not find an agreed coherent message except as previously stated they are anti Bush. Will Rodgers said it well ” I am not a member of an organized political party, I am a democrat.” I allmosts wish the D’s could get it together so that there could be a real debate on the issues. The D’s and libs are now nothing more than the party of No.

Posted by: Bud at February 20, 2006 11:26 AM

Jack,

Regarding your original article, thanks for the links. Some interesting stuff there. It makes me wonder why your message sounds so hysterical. It’d be much more convincing if you could point to truly influential liberals who are making the arguments you say they are. Until then, I think perhaps you need to talk yourself down.

I doubt it’s the toothless liberals who are making you so nervous. And if they actually are, you can look to the so-called conservatives (an Orwellian use of the term, of course) in Washington for your balm, as they control all branches of government. Unless, of course, it’s the gang who literally and figuratively can’t shoot straight that is actually the source of your hyperbole.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at February 20, 2006 11:38 AM

Reed:

All you have to do to find an example is to channel Howard Dean. He’s said that Cheney needs to resign. That’s a bit over the top, but even more so, its stupid.

IFFF Cheney resigned, Bush gets to pick his VP and basically set the guy up with a three year head start for 2008. That would be a good thing for Republicans, assuming Bush picked a good candidate. Of course the scandal would hurt, but people tend to forget about such things.

So, if you want examples of hysteria, just follow Dean. There are many other examples—-Cindy Sheehan, Pelosi, Clinton etc, but you can’t do much better than Dean.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 20, 2006 11:59 AM

Strange, but discussing the issues of the day, and complaining about ineffective leadership, warrantless searches, raging national debt, ineffective and illegitimate war, lying and dishonorable, and corrupt officials, become hysterics when Democrats do it.

I guess the only sane, intellegent discussion is by the rightie robots who spout the faithful Cheney/Bush crap?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 12:17 PM

Lynne:

Of course I understand that….but what’s your point. We were talking about statistics, not individuals. We can care about individual anecdotes, but you can’t make policy based on them. Otherwise, the unemployment of even ONE person would force us to change our employment laws because that person is an individual.

The point you seem to have missed is that in the 90’s, many people claimed that the unemployment rate was very good. Now they look at similar numbers and find reasons to not consider them good. To use your idea that the actual number of unemployed grows even though the percentage stays the same would hold true in the 90’s as well. There were more people therefore more unemployed in the 1990’s than, say, in the 1890’s.

By that kind of logic, one can never actually consider a level of unemployment acceptable, even though everyone with even a middling understanding of economics recognizes that there will always be some unemployed in society.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 20, 2006 12:17 PM

Forced Freedom?

Well I think we can call a spade a spade.
The disinformation about the true nature
of this war. Is summed up here
http/www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=59774
This also explains why we have so many
Iraq people saying we are not there to
free but to occupy. It only begins to
address where some of the missing billions
have disappeared to. It also dumbfounds me
that besides handing UAE our ports we are
also selling them Butt loads of Military
weapons. Dispite the fact that the UAE were
one of the few countrys who recognized
Alqida as a legitimant goverment.
Could this have something to do with the
amount of oil they produce daily? YES
once again our leaders show who rules them.
The long term money train. Not the voteing
public.

Posted by: Honey P at February 20, 2006 12:23 PM

>>To use your idea that the actual number of unemployed grows even though the percentage stays the same would hold true in the 90’s as well. There were more people therefore more unemployed in the 1990’s than, say, in the 1890’s.

joe,

The gap between Wealth and poverty is spreading, and the middle class is shrinking, and those who fall through the cracks and are no longer counted are more abundant. Figures can say almost anything you want them to say. During the ninetys things were improving, unemployment were on the way down, folks had more spendable money in their pockets and they felt good about life. What has changed?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 12:29 PM

Reed

Re whose hysterical - Joe already mentioned Dean. You cant get much more hysterical than Howard Dean. But how about Al Gore’s speech to the Saudis where he talked about how the big round up of Arabs that never happened? How about all those people calling their President a criminal. Or the fevered reaction to the VP’s hunting accident.

You don’t have to go far, however. Just look at the comments on the blue side. When I wrote my lead paragraph, I was merely repeating some of the things I saw there.

Let me ask a question to my liberal guests. I was being ironic when I wrote about our country, economy, and environment being the worst. If you saw that post on the left side, would you think the author was being ironic?

Consider this for a blue side column.

Bush’s Debacle
Republicans just cannot accept that we are living in the worst country, with the worst economy, worst unemployment rate , and worst leadership, We are breathing the worst air, suffering the worst educational system, beset by the worst crime rate and it is going to get worse because of their monkey president.

There’s your sign. If you find yourself actually agreeing with this, you could be hysterical.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 12:50 PM

David Remer,

Last I remember the nation was incredibly divided in 2000. Now, if little ole stupid GWB did that all whilst he was governor of Texas … Wow!!! Maybe he’s more capable than you thought!!!

The Democratic Party: The Party of “Wahhhh!!!”

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 20, 2006 12:52 PM

Jack,

This post only serves one purpose….DIVISION…

Yes, there are liberals who hate everything this congress and this administration does. There are equally (I would like to think many more) of us left leaning folks who see some things this administration has done right.

Please stop painting with such a broad stroke. Clinton did some things I disagreed with and I made them known at the time. He did some things I agreed with and I silently shook my head with pleasure.

The extremes of both parties are driving a wedge between the two parties that is severly dividing the country. The problem is the moderates of both parties are standing by a letting it happen. Dems and Repubs have never totally agreed and never will. That’s why there are two parties. However, there was at one time a respect for one another. The dems abused power when they controlled both houses in congress….this is true. I voted for several Repubs because I got sick and tired of having a second minority party (that I agree with on some issues) totally shut out. Now I see the Repubs are no different.

Most of your posts are well tought out and I enjoy reading them even if I sometimes disagree with your post. I will continue to respect your opinion….but let’s get out of the mud slinging and back into debating issues.

Regards

Posted by: Tom L at February 20, 2006 12:56 PM

uh, just me, or slippery slope?

Posted by: dbpitt at February 20, 2006 12:59 PM

Just once I wish I could read a discussion from Dems that actually had something constructive to contribute. All I ever hear is whine, whine, blame, blame, complain, complain and whine a little more.

If you have all the answers then show up with your running platform instead of blaming the current administration for the weather & accidents. Now that would be a challenge!! I come from Minnesota…land of great ol’ Dems like H. Humphrey - he had enough class to have original ideas without backbiting his opponents.

I can’t say I’m particulary proud of our current state Dems, but I’m trying to find solutions to our problems rather than complain about those in power!

Posted by: Cathy at February 20, 2006 12:59 PM

Translator’s list is accurate and short. What about:
Cronyism
Cutting FEMA Immediately when Bush took office
Configuring FEMA to be inept to natural disasters
Blaming FEMA and Brownie for the Katrina response
Failure to get Bin Laden
Torture
Earmarking at all time high
VA underfunding with so many injured veterans
FOX news out of control
There has to be more, keep it coming.

Posted by: Shawn at February 20, 2006 01:05 PM

Marysdude,

What has changed? . . you ask. Well, for one, people in higher numbers and even higher percentages than ever before … you know what they did? They went out and bought a house.

Now, I for one think it’s “junior high school” silly to think the President has an immediate and momentous impact on the economy. Any of their policies they put forth may have an effect . . but in my view and analysis the effect is anything but immediate. I’m more in the line of thinking that the economy ebbs and flows. Investment and retail spending ebb and flow. Interest and inflation rates ebb and flow. It’s all more of a product of human nature combined with capitolism which produce these cycles in my mind.

But, if you want to blame GWB for a horrible economy, I would direct you to extremely low unemployment rates, extremely high home ownership rates, very decent job growth, and very very controlled inflation rates … all just a handful of years after 9/11 and our stock market suffering a 35% hit.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 20, 2006 01:06 PM

Shawn,

Ah yes, FEMA. The organization which was never meant to be a first responder now deemed a first responder by the media and liberals. I guess when you have control of most media outlets you can do things like that.

And I understand why you’re so upset at FOX news. They did absolutely nutty things like also point out the errors at the mayoral and governor level as well. DAMN THEM FOR THEIR ALL-ENCOMPASSING REPORTING!!! WHAT ARE THEY THINKING GOING AGAINST THEIR LIBERAL ORDERS FROM ABOVE?!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 20, 2006 01:13 PM

But how about Al Gore�s speech to the Saudis where he talked about how the big round up of Arabs that never happened?

That didn’t happen? Wow, the MSM has been lying to us!!! I thought that the US government detained close to 1000 people after 9/11. That’s what the newspapers say anyway. I got it just shows what the liberal media will make up to make America look bad.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 20, 2006 01:22 PM

MORE LIBERAL/DEMOCRAT COMPLAINTS:

1. GWB and his family are responsible for hurricanes. I’m sure his ancestors had something to do with that horrible invention, the reciprocating engine. Ughhhh!!! Now, if I could only find my SUV car keys so I can head to that “WE WOULDN’T HAVE GLOBAL WARMING WITHOUT GWB” rally.

2. GWB and Bush 43 inserted and used WMD in Iraq back in the 80’s. They then convinced Saddam to yell “Death to America” every other minute. They then prodded Saddam into invading Kuwait. They then tricked him into not living up to the surrender agreement or 14 UN Resolutions. Why?! Because GWB loves war!!! He loves everything about it … the death, the blood … everything!!

3. GWB and his staff pretend a hunting accident isn’t an enduring national news story.

4. They didn’t cut and run as soon as we had a war that got difficult. What happened to the unwritten Gulf War I and Afghanistan rule which said: “We either win in a month or two or we go home!”

More later … I’m just too worked up to write anymore right now …

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 20, 2006 01:26 PM

Tom L

I appreciate your comment, but I do occasionally need to poke at the other side. If you notice my response post just above, you see that I am only paraphrasing the other side and turning it back.

I really do wonder about the Dem point of reference. What do they think is normal? It reminds me of a story.

This guy goes to NYC for the first time and takes a short cab ride. He doesn’t know the customs, so he asks the drive, “What is a normal Tip?”

The driver responds, “$50”.

The guy gives him the fare and the $50 tip and says, “With tips like this you must make a fortune.”

The driver responds, “No, this is the first NORMAL tip I ever got.”

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 01:30 PM

Picking up 1000 people on visa violations is not a round up. And picking up 1000 people in a country of almost 300 million is not a big round up no matter what the reason. Al Gore pandering makes me really happy he isn’t president.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 01:32 PM

Ewwww, Woody, really? We detained 1000 people for questioning after little ole 9/11? Questioning 1000 people with the murders of 3000 on our hands … you and Algore are right! Those poor, poor people having to answer all of those questions!!!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 20, 2006 01:33 PM

“Conversatives bitch and moan at least as much as liberals: activist judges, liberal media, Hitlery, liberal media, unions, liberal media, radical professors, liberal media… To hear you guys talk, you would think you were surviving in a cave while liberals tyrannize the country. At least some of us have the excuse of not being in power.”

Now, that’s a classic line: “At least were not in power”, that’s our excuse!!! Ha! Uhhhh, yeahhh! The dems aren’t in power and that’s b/c they don’t have an agenda to these complex problems. Maybe (just maybe) they could stop blaming republicans and start campaigning on issues that they’re about?! Why is this so hard for the dems?!

And, instead of blaming conservs for complaining about the unfair and balanced media and these outrageous (and out of control) judges and professors; you might want to point your fingers at the people responsible. I mean, if liberalism is so good and conservatism is so bad, then why do you have to have a bias media, supreme court and college professors to get your ideology across? Can’t the libs just tell us what they really believe and that’ll be enough?! Think about it.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 20, 2006 01:40 PM

Whatever you think about the state of our economy and our relationship to the rest of the world, one has to admit that come 2008, with the presidency 8 years to the republicans, the house 13 years to the republicans, the senate 6 years to the republicans and a court system primarily overseen by republican judges, that the economy, our justice system, and our foreign policy will be one that has been primarily created by republicans. It will not be a pretty picture. Regards

Posted by: charles Ross at February 20, 2006 01:41 PM

Frankly,I thought this post was a little hysterical.
I don’t know any “Liberals” who think we have the worst Anything.Well,maybe president,but what did you expect?
But I know many who think things have gotten worse under this president,this administration.
Having said that,many of us look about and wonder why all our capital is going overseas,we worry that our children will not have a good jobs when they seek them.We worry that the world’s perception of us as “The Good Guys” is over,with severe economic consequences by the way.We worry that our retirement is disappearing,that our soaring debt will also force us to work forever.
I am not optimistic about the path this administration has taken.
Oh,and Mr Gore also asked that someone do something about the Hyper-Corruption in the ruling elite in Tehran,and also asked that the Arabs stand up to the impending Iranian nuclear threat.Funny,the conservatives only saw the “We treated Arabs badly” part,which is arguably true.

Posted by: Terry......... at February 20, 2006 01:41 PM

Lawnboy:
“I need to find Jack’s email address. It looks like Eric Simonson hacked into his account and posted as Jack.

Not good.”

Lawnboy, Jack is now Eric’s hero. Eric said so in this recent thread.

This is because Jack desperately latched onto this statistic:

“Reductions in major pollutants (such as a 29% drop in SO2 and a 10% drop in NO)”

thinking that this somehow proved that Bush is a champion of the environment and that he’s been making things better.

The problem with that bogus claim is that if Bush’s “Clear Skies” initiative (which was to replace the Clean Air Act) had been passed by the Senate, we’d have seen an enormous increase in those particular power plant emissions.
The other problem with this claim is that Bush has been aiding his big polluter buddies anyway by lowering EPA pollution standards and by pushing back-door strategies through the regulatory process — things like weakening emissions controls and changes to the New Source Review provision in the Clean Air Act (so that the pollution spewing older power plants can be rebuilt without modern pollution controls).
On top of that, last March the EPA took power plant emissions completely off the list of toxic pollutants, and created a pollution trading scheme, so that some of the worst offenders can continue to poison the air in various locations across the country yet allow the overall statistics to appear as though pollution remains low.

Liberals are somehow “hysterical” for pointing things like this out.
But they’re the hysterical ones — hysterically inept at trying to argue against the uncomfortable fact that Bush only represents his friends in Big Business, rather than We the People.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 20, 2006 01:42 PM

Adrienne

I got those “bogus” numbers from the source you provided. I since looked them up on the EPA site and linked it in my original post above.

Your protestations remind me of the old Groucho Marx statement.

“Who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes.” In this case, I prefer the numbers to the words.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 01:52 PM

“GWB and his staff pretend a hunting accident isn’t an enduring national news story”

It isn’t!!! Do you think it is? Even better question would be, do you think that a Vice President accidentally shooting someone on a hunting trip should be a National news story over a Vice President going to the Middle East and spouting off nonsense about our treatment of Muslims after 9/11?!!

Posted by: rahdigly at February 20, 2006 01:54 PM

“I got those “bogus‎ numbers from the source you provided.”

The numbers weren’t bogus, just all your arguments on the subject.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 20, 2006 01:57 PM

In response to: “Bush’s Debacle
Republicans just cannot accept that we are living in the worst country, with the worst economy, worst unemployment rate , and worst leadership, We are breathing the worst air, suffering the worst educational system, beset by the worst crime rate and it is going to get worse because of their monkey president.”

Here’s a stellar idea! Why don’t all of those who actually believe this crap move to Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea, or some other MUCH BETTER country and hold their squawk sessions there? SHEESH!

I, for one, am proud to be an American, to live in America and to be a “righty”, and I’m certainly not alone in my pride…

Posted by: Tanya at February 20, 2006 02:00 PM

IM NOT FOR TELLIN THE ENAMIE WHAT WE ARE DOING AND IF YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT YOUR PHONE BEING TAPED THEN YOU MUST BE A TALABAN SIMPATHIZER AND IF YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT I FEEL SORRY FOR YA YOU KNOW HOW TO CREATE PROBLEMS WITH NO IDEAS HOW TO FIXEM SO IF YOU CANT DO BETTER FINE GET OFF YOUR APOLOGETIC BUTT AND TELL MR REID TO PAY BACK THAT 46000 HE GOT AND I JUST WONDER WHAT PLANTATION HILLARY GREW UP ON PROBLEMS HAVE SALUTIONS THIS IS AMERICA IF YOU DONT LIKE IT LEAVE IT!

Posted by: ALLEN STEPHENS at February 20, 2006 02:06 PM

jbod,

here are some real numbers for you, straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

When Bush took office, we had 131,785,000 people employed (total non-farm payroll, the basic measure of employment). Today, we have 133,463,000, for a net gain of 1.678 million jobs.

When Clinton took office, we had 108,726,000 employed. During his presidency we had a net gain of 23.059 million jobs - thats 1374% more jobs than under Bush.

The next worst president in job creation was daddy Bush. And I am not talking about percentages - simple raw numbers. Even Eisenhower created more jobs than either Bush. Given that we had half the number of people employed in the 1950’s, it should be twice as embarassing.

Are these numbers real enough for you?

Jack, do I sound hysterical?

The economy is strong - for some. Let’s talk about poverty for for a moment and let’s see if I sound hysterical while citing statistics.

At the end of 1992, When Clinton took over, we had 38.014 million people living in poverty, 14.8 percent of the population. At the end of 2000, we had 31.581 million in poverty, 11.3 percent of the population.

We have lost ground every year under Bush Jr. As of the end of 2004 (2005 numbers have yet to be released), we had 36.997 in poverty, 12.7 percent of the population.

But Bush is only the second worst modern president for the poor. Guess who was the worst president, who saw 6.269 million additional people move into poverty under his watch? That’s right, daddy Bush.

Do I sound even remotely hysterical? Yes, the economy is sound - corporate profits are up, CEOs and senior executives are making more than ever. Sounds like the rich getting richer - something we manage to do regardless who is in office. But if more people are not getting by - how is that a sound economy?

And here is the punchline for me - neither poverty nor the economy are on Jack’s list of things that have to get better.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 02:14 PM

>>I, for one, am proud to be an American, to live in America and to be a “righty‎, and I’m certainly not alone in my pride…

Tanya,

I, for one, am proud to be an American, to live in America and to be a “Leftie‎, and I’m certainly not alone in my pride…and, i’m proud enough to lay it on the line when America seems to be going astray…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 02:23 PM

Good post CPAdams, you ought to do it more often…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 02:29 PM

Oh, and Jack,

I am proud to be an American, I don’t wish to live in another country. I am proud to be free to disagree with the actions of my government. In spite of the left-right rhetoric, this government is accountable to me, is it not? What if I didn’t vote for Bush - as a citizen, is he not accountable to me?

Is it unpatriotic to question why one in five hispanic people live in poverty? Or one in four black people? Or three out of ten women who are the head of their household live in poverty?

Your partisan divide, which you feed with vigor, simply gives you an excuse to ignore the people whom this government has failed and the people who are willing to demand accountability.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 02:31 PM

Marysdude,

Thanks, I post when I can, work permitting.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 02:35 PM

Ken Cooper,
FEMA under Clinton was an effective agency which Bush dismantled and underfunded.
If you know your history Sadaam used chemical weapons on Iran and subsequently was visited by a smiling Rumsfeld and given 90 million in aid by the US and Britain. I guess WMD’s aren’t so bad if their used on the right people.
Osama is the one who attacked us with plenty of warning that Bush and company ignored, though he never tried to assinate Bush 43 like Sadaam.
Bush promised us he would get those responsible, yeah right.

Posted by: Shawn at February 20, 2006 02:47 PM

Do you know what fuels some of the problem-hunting (i.e. those that only seem to dwell on problems ?

Majority-party (which ever the in-party is at the time) hacks saying things are “very good”, and pretending there are no problems, and calling anyone who points out problems “doomsdayers” and “pessimists”.

The optimist has an advantage over the pessimist.
People don’t like pessimists.
So, anytime you point out any problem, you are labeled a pessimist.
It does not matter how valid or true anything you say is.
You are a pessimistic doomsdayer. You are un-American.

Of course things are not “very good” now.
It’s not hard to find a few cherry-picked positives.
The economy at the moment is merely stable.
Interest rates are increasing, inflation is increasing, trade deficits are increasing, debt is increasing, Debt to GDP is up to 67% from only 33% in 1980, entitlements are troubled, the PBGC and pensions are $1.6 trillion in the hole, foreign investors are starting to reduce exposure to the falling dollar, forclosures have increase for 13 months straight, median incomes have fallen for 4 years straight, the U.S. got richer, but it more of it went to the wealthiest 1% of the American population.

So, to say things are “very good” is as silly as saying the sky is falling. Neither is true.

The bigger question is the long-term outlook and how prepared are we to deal with the next, inevitable economic downturn?

So, there are many valid reasons to be concerned about the future. Blind optimism or party-image protectionism is dangerous.
Since there will be another recession some day.
Therefore, if we are too irresponsible now, then the next recession could easily turn into a depression.
And, there is a real potential for that.

Ignore the majority-party hacks making fun of your perfectly justifiable concerns.
We can and should be doing much better to recover from the next economic downturn. There are many badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms that can make things better now, and better prepare us for later, when we may need it most, so that recovery will be faster and less difficult.

Even if it is just a recession, many irresponsible things being done now, and many problems are being ignored now, that will make any recovery more difficult and painful.

This list of pressing problems has the real potential to make things more difficult later.

Even if things were actually very good or even just OK, the following should not be ignored, because these five things alone have the real potential to make recovery from the next recession more difficult and painful.
These five main things could easily turn a recession into a depression:

• FISCAL IRRESPONSIBITY: $8.2 National Debt and $40.2 total nation-wide debt, decreasing options, lost opportunities, falling dollar (not backed up by real value), potential inflation, trade deficits, and the failure stop the debt from growing ever larger, and increasingly corrupt government too incompetent to deal with it;


• GENERATIONAL STORM: 77 million aging baby boomers (that all vote), making less, spending less, pay less tax, expecting to draw from already troubled Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, & welfare.


• ENTITLEMENT SHORTFALLS: The looming Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, & welfare deficits and short falls, and decreasing number of tax-payers per entitlement recipient.


• LIMITED GROWTH & INCREASING FOREIGN COMPETITION: The limited capacity for growth due to declining quality of education, a generally less educated population failing to develop new technologies, coupled with a steady increase of foreign competition.


• ENERGY VULNERABILITY: Of all the responsible, insightful things government could have done, they failed miserably to research and foster alternate energy sources, more energy efficient homes, automobiles, etc.

There are many factors, and no one knows where it will all lead. But, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to suspect the following are valid reasons for concern:
[] based on historical norms, Debt to GDP percentages have never been higher since WWII.
[] The Debt (adjusted for inflation) has never been higher (there has been growth in GDP too though).
[] The size of the government has never been higher.
[] The trade deficits have never been higher.
[] The amount of wealth belonging to 1% of the population has never been higher since the Great Depression.
[] Foreign competition has never been higher (and increasingly better educated).
[] Global Corporatism has never been higher.
[] The troubled entitlement systems and dependency on government has never been worse, and likely to get worse, with huge deficits in Medicare already.
[] Not, to mention all of the rest of the pressing problems (see link above), growing in number and severity;

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 02:55 PM

CPAdam

Not hysterical, just misinformed. A few questions.

When a president takes office, when does his first budget take effect?
How long do you think any policy takes before you see the effects?
Is employment a lagging indicator?
Is poverty a lagging indicator?
Does the President create jobs anyway?

When you answer these, I have another.

If the numbers started to go bad the very year Bush became president, do you think it was the Bush policy that did it?

You probably have to add about two years to presidental term to understand the effects. You can start blaming Bush around 2003 and you can keep blaming him until about 2011. Of course, no president really has such complete influence.

You can demand accountability, but first you must know who is accountable. If you want to check the economy, you will find that it started to go up in March of 1991 and started to go down in March of 2000. Now check who was president during those respective years and then figure in lag times.

This is not like a football game where you start with a blank scorecard and a level playing field. In addition, the president is not in the job creation business, although he tends to be in the taking credit business.

A persistent problem with all analysis is that is doesn’t take into account the effects of time, lag time, and change in general.

Think of it like this. If a woman meets a man three months before she is due to have a baby, and they get married the day before she delivers, is that man the biological father?

Lag time between cause and effect and the fact that the U.S. is much more than its president is the source of your error.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 02:56 PM

LawnBoy,

I need to find Jack’s email address. It looks like Eric Simonson hacked into his account and posted as Jack.

Not good.

No one has a monopoly on the truth. It’s not my fault that the truth sounds remarkably like my writing. Jack is free to tap into that if he wants to. ;)

AP,

Here’s a good Democratic idea: start by eliminating the deficit like President Clinton did. Lots of good things happen when America is on solid financial ground.

The budget was balanced under Clinton for two reasons: 1) military cuts, 2) an economic upswing. The only federal budget items that have been cut in the last 40 years, rather than having their rate of growth slowed, are military items. Clinton did not balance the budget by cutting overspending. He cut only the military.

The left is fond of calling a 5% increase rather than a 10% increase, for social programs, a cut. The military had actual budget cuts. True, this was started by Bush 41.

Before Bush took office the internet bubble had burst and the economy was starting a downswing. Revenues fall in downswings and rise in upswings. Then we had 9/11 which had a huge negative economic impact. As a result we had to increase military spending. There was also the airline bailout (something we probably shouldn’t have done). Yet all along we have never cut any other items of the budget.

As a liberal what social programs would you volunteer we cut?

Posted by: eric 'on the payroll' simonson at February 20, 2006 02:57 PM

Rah,
Hey - it’s me again - one of the ones you love to hate. I just wanted to remind you that Cheney is our CURRENT Vice-President, whereas Gore is no longer a Vice -President, simply a citizen. So the basis of your post is is incorrect. As for the accident, it doesn’t appear that the VP did anything illegal, just stupid, and that type of accident apparently is not rare. Maybe the NRA should take their gun lessons a tad more seriously.

Honey,
I tried your link :
http/www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=59774
But got no where. Would you please check on it again?

As for the ‘Democrat hysteria’ - I don’t think there is such a thing. Both sides have their crosses to bear. The Democrats have Dean, and the Republicans have Delay.

Democrats are simply looking towards the future - and worry about losing more of our freedoms. Wiretapping is a serious crime - and I don’t care WHO tries it. Two wrongs still do not make a right.

Bush got caught. And the country is upset. Johnson didn’t. But I believe he was just as wrong. He merely got by with it.

It does appear however that Reps do seem to get caught more often than the Democrats (NOT a good thing, just an observation).

Most of my problem with the Bush Administration is the fact that we INVADED another country without honest and true facts. I do wish he had checked the facts a lot more carefully. We have never invaded another country until now. It is no wonder that many of the Moslems are afraid of us - and consequently hate us.(more so than ever) We changed our behavior in mid-stream, changing the entire image of the U.S. In one move. Maybe that is good - and maybe it isn’t. History will be the only way to tell.

I also do NOT APPROVE of the Patriot ACT. In the mist of confusion I can see why it passed - but I would have hoped that cooler heads would be prevailing now - and we still have most of it. Making decisions from a fear mentality does not necessarily mean they are GOOD decisions.

As for the plans that Republicans say Democrats need to state - I ask why? The Republicans are not offering their plans up for scrutiny - they just get mad when they suddenly try to force them down the throats of others, and then wonder why they lack support.

As for whether Bush’s security changes are working - it is entirely too early to even think about that. For all we know, maybe the terrorists figure our own reactions will be enough to ensure our down-fall. They may be sitting back watching and laughing at us. Running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Or maybe they haven’t really really tried anything major since 9/11. There could be numerous reasons why we have heard nothing from them. Who knows maybe they believe we will get complaint.

I maintain, and will always maintain that until both groups join together and discuss their differences and jointly find a way to work together instead of against each other, we will continue to be divided. Compromise is good, division is not.

Sorry for the lenght…

Posted by: Linda H at February 20, 2006 03:11 PM

You can demand accountability, but first you must know who is accountable.

Forget the blame game and the circular partisan warfare,
Everyone is culpable.

Corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, FOR SALE incumbents in government are 51% culpable, and the voters are 49% culpable.

However, only the voters can remedy the problem now, or suffer the consequences later.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 03:12 PM

Jack,

I understand all the distinctions you pointed out. However, it was you who said our economy was strong and doing well.

You cannot tout low unemployment without being questioned about low job creation. You cannot talk about a strong economy without being questioned about increases in poverty.

You cannot take the economy off the table for discussion when criticized or questioned while taking credit for its success at the same time - it’s thoroughly dishonest.

As for the lag effect that you mentioned, from your logic I will assume that you credit CARTER with the economic improvements we saw in the early 80’s and blame REAGAN for the sinking economy we saw under daddy Bush.

I will also presume from your silence on the topic that you really don’t care whether five million more people are poor today than five years ago.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 03:16 PM

Here we go again. The Cons attempt to paint liberals in a certain light with no basis in reality. Kinda like how Rush Limbaugh went on and on for days about how liberals we obsessed with talking about “Cheney’s gotta gun” incident. Problem was that when I turned on the liberal talk radio station they were not talking about Cheney at all, they were talking about the sale of American ports to a country that supported the 9/11 terrorists, and about union busting. It seems to me it is the right that gets obsessed with trying to make the left look like doom and gloomers.

I guess if you only listen to the Cons then you would think that the liberals are all doom and gloom. Sure we are going to talk about the serious issues facing this country. But I guess the Cons would prefer we do like they do and pretend that everything is all roses and sunshine. Cheney shoots his friend in the face- Well isn’t that wonderful! A terroist organization that wants to wipe Isreal off the map is elected to run Palestine- best news I’ve heard all day! Bush sells our ports to a country that funded terrorists- Well its about time the President sold us to the terrorist, best move ever!

So libs, the next time the prez sends us down a river without a paddle, don’t worry, just slap on your rose colored glases, put back a few shots of cheap vodka and be happy!

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 20, 2006 03:22 PM

eric,

I’ve posted my budget thoughts before, but I will repeat them, not just which social programs I would cut.

I would phase out the Bush tax cut, rather than letting it expire, accelerating the revenue generation. Let those who have benefitted the most from the recent economic upturn give the most back.

I would accelerate our troop reductions and lean hard the UN to take up the slack, reducing our military red ink.

I would repeal the royalty break that oil companies got and dare them to sue the governmen.

I would restructure the tax code to force American companies who benefit from our market to pay there fair share of taxes and to keep jobs here. I would punish American companies who try to hide their profits.

I would freeze expenditures across the board for 2-3 years.

There you go, a budget solution that affects everyone, including the poorest who depend on entitlements.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 03:33 PM

CPAdams

I am not taking the economy off the table. On the contrary, it is good. Job creation has been very good since 2003, about the time you can begin to blame Bush. 4.7% unemployment is the envy of the developed world.

But as a conservative, I understand that government does not create jobs. At best it can help create the conditions for job growth, but one of the best things government can do is provide infrastructure and rule of law and then leave productive parts of the economy alone.

I don’t have a problem with President Clinton’s economic stewardship. On the other hand, I don’t make that much of it either.

BUT if you want to credit or blame the president, you don’ have a complaint coming against George Bush for this one

Re history (Once again with the caveat of limits to presidential power), I hold to my rule of thumb that it takes about two years for a president’ policies to have an effect. I would credit Carter with the early 1980s. I suggest you check on the economic situation of 1982/3 before you celebrate, however. The recession of 1990 was shallow and short. I don’t expect perfection.

Re the poor, poverty is a lagging indicator too. As the economy improves, so will the condition of the poor. I believe strongly in opportunity, but equality of results is not one of my concerns. You can be outraged if you like. I have been poor and it wasn’t that bad. But I didn’t like to stay that way so I stopped.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 03:37 PM

Jack,

Don’t you guys on this side have anything better to talk about? Why do you care so much about what liberals think anyway?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 20, 2006 03:39 PM

d.a.n.:

I keep hearing that the solution is to oust all the incumbents. Assuming we did so and muddled through with totally novice lawmakers until they became marginally competent at managing the complicated procedures for creating legislation, would you then suggest that we start all over again when they did something that some voters didn’t like?

If we treat our lawmakers like replaceable temp workers, then we are doomed to have no long term planning. That is already a critical weakness in our governmental system with politicians afraid to institute long-term plannings. Instead our planning is geared to the election cycle. Some cultural problems are inherently intergenerational and can only be solved with long term plans.

What are your thoughts on this problem?

Posted by: goodkingned at February 20, 2006 03:40 PM

hey JayJay,

don’t go criticizing the prez when he’s revving up that economic engine. Selling those ports is just one of them economic stimulous programs. If the terrorists are going to hurt our economy, we might as well let them pay for it.

And I didn’t want to reveal this top secret security initiative, but by selling the ports we reduce our risk in the airports and at the border. I mean, from now on, where do you think the terrorists are going to try to enter the country? [wink, wink]

sshhh, I’m hunting wabbit, hehehehehe

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 03:40 PM

Hysterical moaning is mostly characterized by lack of constructiveness. Read through this string counting complaints and subsequent solutions. The numbers are a bit lopsided. If you have no better ideas, then fold your hands and quit typing.
I believe the yawning chasm between the parties has its roots in the fact that one fourth(roughly) of the country believes that fully one third(again roughly) is completely insane for trusting their very lives and those of their children to what, in the mind of the colletive one fourth, amounts to a figment of the imagination. Imagine meeting someone who based their decisions on what they believed the tooth fairy would want. You would look at them as mentally defecient nut cases, and most likely treat them as such; which is to say without courtesy or respect. This is how the progressive left looks at the religious right. Now imagine that these tooth fairy acolytes ran your country for you. This is where the disdain, if not hatred, comes from.

Posted by: Doherty at February 20, 2006 03:43 PM

JayJay

How precious. You guys have made an industry attacking the president and you wonder why I want to comment on what liberals think. Read the blue side. I am really trying to understand. I honestly don’t understand the wellsprings of the vitriol. In one of my response posts above I redid the post to make it fit the blue side. Do you think you would be really surprised if you saw that paragraph leading something by Paul or Andre?

CPAdams

A British firm is selling the management company to an Arab firm. A foreign firm already manages these ports, but we trust the Brits. Maybe those who say we should not trust Arabs are right, but they might be a little more precise in their statements.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 03:58 PM

goodkingned wrote: d.a.n.: I keep hearing that the solution is to oust all the incumbents.

No. Just the irresponsible incumbents. Do you know any responsible incumbents? Any that don’t vote on pork-barrel. Any that don’t look the other way?

Assuming we did so and muddled through with totally novice lawmakers until they became marginally competent at managing the complicated procedures for creating legislation, would you then suggest that we start all over again when they did something that some voters didn’t like?

First of all, you can’t vote them all out at once. Senators have 6 year terms with staggered elections every 2 years, and no term limits. Representatives have 2 year terms with elections every 2 years, and no term limits. Executive branch has 4 year terms, a 2 term limit, and elections every 4 years.

Second, voting out irresponsible incumbents, always, every election, is what voters were supposed to be doing all along.

If voter do this one simple, common-sense, non-partisan, inexpensive, peaceful, and responsible thing they were supposed to be doing all along, you will suddenly see a lot of problems getting fixed, and a lot of badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms being passed.

If we treat our lawmakers like replaceable temp workers, then we are doomed to have no long term planning. That is already a critical weakness in our governmental system with politicians afraid to institute long-term plannings. Instead our planning is geared to the election cycle. Some cultural problems are inherently intergenerational and can only be solved with long term plans.

We are already doomed to no long-term planning (as you say yourself). The object is to retain responsible incumbents and oust only the irresponsible incumbents. Unfortunately, for some time now, few (if any) are responsible. You are right. There is already no long-term planning. Something we need now, to be prepared for the next recession so that it does not turn into a depression.

What are your thoughts on this problem?

goodkingned, I and others have put a great deal of thought into this for years. And, in the end, the answer boils down to simple common-sense.

We, the voters have succumbed to The Cheaters’ Dialectic . This scam is nothing new. It has been going on for many thousands of years. Still, its longevity should tell something about its powerful effectiveness. I too once succumbed to the petty partisan warfare, and it distracted me for years from reality. It finally (better late than never) occurred to me that incumbents (from all parties) are just taking advatange of The People. Newcomers would like to pass reforms, but incumbent politicians won’t allow any reforms or changes that will reduce their power or opportunities for self-gain. You’ve seen it. No reforms can ever get passed. Congress can not eliminate the marraige penalty tax, but they can vote themselves raises, perks, and cu$hy retirement plans in a heartbeat.

Here is the Problem and Solution.

The solution depends on voter education.
The voters will someday resolve the problem.
However, the question is:
(a) Will it be the responsible, peaceful way,
(b) Or, the hard, painful way (again).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 04:04 PM

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!! Utterly and woefully wrong.

Those of us on left ARE for many things that have become left ideas. You mention air quality, econimc stability (for ALL of our sakes). There is more. The right wing has seen fit to attack the legal profession with the same sort of hateful vigor that is typical of truly paranoid. Now the left has the support of those who most understand and respect American law and the REAL foundations of our country. That DOES NOT mean we believe this is the worst country. Far from it. It means we recognize that we are moving in the wrong direction. If we hated the country, we would take up arms against it, not work to change it from within. The change we are working towards is directly in line the values that were triumphantly espoused by our FOUNDING FATHERS! Which means, in a nutshell, it is the ‘left’ that is busy working to ‘CONSERVE’ This country while the reactionary right wingers are working to undermine the constituion, set us up as world police, establish an American EMPIRE (Something our founding fathers understood as abhorant and undesireable), defend corporate interests over the rights and freedoms of individual citizens, etc.

We only SOUND reactionary because the right wing is, tragically for us all, getting away with far too much of it.

We on the left are NOT just the UNBUSH!!! have you forgotton the tens os MILLSIONS spent by KEN STARR in a witch hunt which ultimately only proved that Clinton had personal problems to deal with? Have you forgotten that KEN STARR was initially appointed to investigate the WHITE WATER scandal and only came up Monica Lewinski tangentially, as a character witness, to show that Clinton was CAPABLE of lying even though it could NOT be shown he lied about White Water?

I continually argue that it is those of us on the LEFT who ACTUALLY beleive in this country and all that it stands for while the right undermines, subverts and destroys the very foundations of our democracy! Which makes the waving of the flag by those who don’t even UNDESTAND AMERICA, that much more offensive to us. It isn’t the flag, or America we take issue with. It is much like those who were angered by the direction that NAZI Germany was going in. It wasn’t that they hated their country. They only hated the direction it was be forced into by those who were misguided and dangerous who had subverted German patriotism into something it should NEVER have represented.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 20, 2006 04:05 PM

goodkingned: The Problem and Solution.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 04:05 PM

Jack,

If you do not believe that our future political stability depends on the conditions of our least fortunate, then you are as myopic as you are callous. I am glad that being poor wasn’t a big deal for you. Try it with one income and a house full of children.

And I grew up poor. My folks absolutely pulled themselves up out of poverty by strength of will, but also because they caught a few breaks where many didn’t. There was no ‘equality of opportunity’ - a phrase on my top ten list of lies - rather success in spite of the cards stacked against them(both minorities with little education plus my mother succeeding in a male dominated workplace).

I know my parents succeeded inspite of cultural attitudes towards the poor and the ‘I got mine, you are on your own’ mentality of the upper class. CPAdams, thanks for the stats. Jack, did you know that in 1959 one half of single women and 55 percent of black people were poor?

Posted by: fed up in CA at February 20, 2006 04:07 PM

Linda
type in www.tomdispatch.com
scroll down to Permanent Basis for withdraw?

Posted by: Honey P at February 20, 2006 04:24 PM

Fed up

You mistake causes and effects. I believe in opportunity. We should help the poor stop being poor. The best way to do that is to create opportunity and the best way to create opportunity is through economic growth. Clinton didn’t do anything special to help the poor. In fact, spending on poverty programs is up 39% during the Bush administration. Poverty dropped in the last years of the Clinton Administration because it was the tail end of an economy that began to grow in 1991. It is very likely that poverty will drop again this year or next as the effects of low unemployment are felt.

Your story about escaping poverty is a common one. I hear all the time people saying that they got out of poverty but that they were given no help or that they were the exception. Actually not. Success is supposed to be possible, not easy.

And don’t mistake equality for opportunity. They are very different and sometime mutually exclusive.

The other assumption you seem to be making is the need for a government solution. The worst thing we did to the poor was to take away their independence during the great society and one of the best was welfare reform in the 1990s.

There also are choices. I waited to have kids until I was financially able to care for them. Had I chosen to start five years earlier, we would have required assistance. Because of good decisions, my daughter is not eligible for financial aid. We should encourage these good decisions.

Posted by: jack at February 20, 2006 04:26 PM

RGF,
They’ve got you fired up a bit. Nothing wrong with that.
And there’s nothing wrong with rejecting their labels (hysterical, liberal, doomsdayer, pessimist, whiner, etc.), but the best way to fight the propaganda is to find and show the facts to disprove it.
There’s a lot of cherry-picking of a few positive facts, and “very good” and rosy outlooks that can not possibly add up to their conclusion that everything is “very good” and Republicans are the ones to thank for it.
And, have you noticed, if they ever concede to a problem, it is Clinton’s fault and it started before Bush got into office. Or, presidents get to much credit and focus.

No, avoid all those clever tangents, and stick to the most important issues, and what you think it all adds up to.

Then, think about the solutions. Voter education is the key.

Voters would like to not have to deal with this so much.
Voters would like politicians to just fix it.
However, that is not how it works.
Voters have forgotten their duty.
Voters must always, every election, do the one simple, common-sense, non-partisan, preaceful, and responsible thing they were supposed to be doing all along: vote out (or recall) all irresponsible incumbent, always, every election. It’s that simple. But, difficult to convince voters to reject the partisan warfare. Thus, voter education is needed. Voters must learn to do their duty always. Not just once in a great while (like in 1958, 1978, and 1994). Otherwise, corruption, which is always trying to find a foothold, will start to grow again. The longer it is allowed to grow, the harder and more painful it will be to undo it.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 04:26 PM

Jack,

the vitriolic was started by Gingrich against Clinton and never let up his entire presidency. Now you resent partisan rancor in the face of divided public opinion about policy and majority concern about the economy (that means some Republicans are concerned as well).

Under current conditions, it won’t happen. Look who consistently complains about the partisan Democrats - Bush, Rove, Cheney, DeLay, Frist, Limbaugh, FoxNews, James Dobson, RNC Chair Ken Mehlman.

You took the first shot and now you want the last word, using some misguided appeal to a liberal’s sense of fairness.

Remarkable. Funny. And unlikely.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 04:27 PM

I am not appealing to a sense of fairness, which I don’t expect from liberals. I am do not even think you will stop. I am just pointing out how stupid it is.

Since you mention Newt, I will point out that you need a Newt. Whether you like him or not, he is an idea man. That is what Dems are lacking - ideas. I may have missed it, but do you (Dems) have anyone in the Newt postion, someone who is recognized as your intellectual leader, someone who can articulate an alternative you can mostly get behind? Serious question, cuz if you do I would like to know who it is.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 04:32 PM

Jack, you managed to do it again. You follow Republican SOP: Don’t explain Republican actions. Demonize liberals.

Instead of explaining the culture of corruption that has seized the Republican Party, telling us why we must tear apart our political freedoms to keep us safe, or giving us a reason why huge deficits are OK, or describing what Republicans plan to do about the Iraq War, you just unload on the liberals.

Republicans are in power. You can do what you want. Why are you still screaming against liberals who today do not have any power? Could it be you do not have much good to say about the current Republican administration?

Posted by: Paul Siegel at February 20, 2006 04:40 PM

Hey Jack,

success is easy if you are born into wealth. Why don’t you Conservatives tell poor people the truth when you are asking for their vote? You want their vote, but you offer neither assistance nor will you try to level the playing field. But you can’t retain power without their help.

It’s their own fault for being born into a poor family. There education will be substandard, but you are still entitled to critique them for making choices that will keep them poor. Their healthcare will be much worse than yours and that’s OK, because those who can pay for it deserve it more.

Those who want to succeed will have to work many times harder than your daughter will ever have to and if they should fall short, tough luck and stop whining - it’s not your problem.

It’s called Social Darwinism, Jack. The idea that the poor are inferior and less deserving than the wealthy. It was an idea that encouraged economic exploitation and, many argue, led to fascism last century.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 04:42 PM

I am do not even think you will stop. I am just pointing out how stupid it is.

Stop what Jack? Pointing out the lies and failings of this administration?

If there is any intelligent action here, it is consistently pointing to what I think is wrong with the administration - you see, I did learn from Newt. I learned from Newt that being relentless moves the electorate, even if you are lying(it’s Rush Limbaugh’s formula too).

Except I don’t need to lie and go off on a Whitewater or Monica witch hunt- I have the American economy, Iraq, Guatanamo, the deficit and wiretapping.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 04:52 PM

CPA,

And you call Republicans “fear mongerers”?!!

“Conservatives hate the poor!”

“You can only be a republican if you’re rich by birth.” (Never mind the fact that only 0.5% of the millionaires in this country got their wealth through an inheritance.)

“Conservatives want to steal all of your health care and shove it down a Texas oil well.”

Nice objectivity! How about looking at the facts that GWB has out-spent Clinton on social spending? … or are you just going to continue your fear mongering ways?

And with the rich Californians, New Yorkers, Chicagoans, and all of the affluent New Englanders leaning overwhelmingly towards Kerry in the election … isn’t amazing that Bush got more than a few votes with just us middle class and poor folk left?

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 20, 2006 04:54 PM

You mistake causes and effects. I believe in opportunity. We should help the poor stop being poor. The best way to do that is to create opportunity and the best way to create opportunity is through economic growth.

That’s hard to do when the rich are getting richer:

• wealth for a mere 1% of the U.S. population, highest gap since the Great Depression.
• median incomes have been falling for 4 years straight.
• foreclosures have been rising for 13 months straight, nation-wide (not a historical high).
• The total nation-wide debt is now at an all time high of $40.2 trillion. National Debt is now $8.2 trillion. The interest on $8.2 trillion represents another $38 trillion in interest alone if we started paying it down now, which would require us to stop borrowing or printing $1 billion per day, and also pay back $1 billion per day, and 139 years to do it, and that is if interest rates don’t go any higher than now.
• $8.2 trillion National Debt, highest Debt to GDP percentage since WWII
• Debt to GDP percentage is now 67% (up from 33% in 1980)
• Trade deficits have never been hihger.
• Troubled entitlement systems have never been in worse shape; Medicare has all time high looming shortfalls.
• The PBGC and pensions have an all time high shortfall of $1.6 trillion; many pensioners are also being ripped off by greedy corporations;
• Interest rates are rising (not at a historical high)


• Inflation is rising (not at a historical high)


• We still continue to lose manufacturing to foreign competition


• Never has foreign competition been higher.


• Foreign competition is increasingly better educted, while we are not;


• There is a brain drain, and it will grow worse as the economy grows worse. And technology won’t save us with the decreasing quality and sky rocketing cost of education;


• We have a nation that graduates more lawyers than engineers and scientists, where lawyers are in league with bought-and-paid-for government that are perverting the laws to do the very things they were originally supposed to prevent


• the size of government is at one of the all time highs, and growing fast to nightmare proportions;


• There is an increase of legal plunder; just from 1998 to 2002, there have been over 10,000 cases of nation-wide eminent domain abuse, and the Supreme Court cleared the way


• Tax Payers are being ripped off and the tax system is severely abused; Do you wonder why Congress likes it the way it is ? Wonder why they refuse any type of tax reform ?


• Future American generations are being ripped off and burdened with massive debt.


• Bought-and-Paid-For governments are pandering to corporations, giving rise to the ugly side of capitalism and elitist government;


• government is fiscally and morally bankrupt


• We have lost untold number of opportunities due to crushing national and private debt, reducing our options, even threatening national security


• It may already be too late, but that’s no reason to hasten it, making it worse for us and future generations, or making recovery from the next recession more difficult;


• We can not grow, immigrate, or tax our way out of the debt or pressing problems that are growing in number and severity, and increasingly ignored by bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians, who are constantly trying to distract us from their miserable behavior.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 05:02 PM

Paul

If you follow the links, you will find all the statistics that show how good things are. I don’t need to say it; the numbers do it for me. I just agree.

CPAdams

The poor may have to work as hard as I did. My daughter has an easier time than I did when it comes to money. What is your solution to that? She benefits from my saving and not pissing away my money on cigaretts and whiskey and wild,wild women. You could maybe equalize that. But she also benefits from my experience. I have been able to advise her to make the right moves in ways my father (HS dropout) never could. How do you equalize that?

We need to work on public schools. I am entirely the product of public schools. So are my kids. Poor kids suffer from poor schools becuase they don’t have choices. That is why I believe in vouchers, but that is a different subject.

BTW - my father got a medical exam in 1945 when he left the army air corps and never saw a doctor again until he died in 1998. I go more often than that, but not much. How would you equalize health (not health care)?

I am also just over six feet tall (good), but I am bald and not great looking (bad). Does that equalize it for you? I had a girlfriend who was rich, but really stupid. She has not done so well. Is that fair? My poor but smart was worth more over twenty years than her father’s money. Equality is hard. That is why we can’t do it.

So provide good opportunity. Not equality.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 05:04 PM

The Republicans have gotten too use to measuring things by abstract achievements (like growth in GDP) rather than real world gains. Our economy can grow for reasons that later contribute to collapse. The Golden Age at the end of Clinton’s second term was a bubble, created by dishonest accounting. If you looked at growth alone, you would see they were doing something right. But if you peered behind the scenes, you would begin to have your doubts.

Things aren’t always as they seem, nor are they always positive. It becomes easy for those who would benefit from a positive image of current conditions in the economy and elsewhere to simply block out negative issues to keep their reputations pristine for election day. But that doesn’t take care of the problems, and eventually the the problems overwhelm our illusions of real progress.

We need skeptics. We need people who are willing to say no when everybody else is saying yes, if they have good reason to do so. What we don’t need are the Republicans viciously attacking everybody who speaks poorly about their performance. The Republicans need to go beyond the unconvincing arguments they’ve come to rely upon, and look for themselves how their country is running and their plans are unfolding.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 20, 2006 05:05 PM

Paul S.,

This comment made me chuckle, thank you.

“Jack, you managed to do it again. You follow Republican SOP: Don’t explain Republican actions. Demonize liberals.”

You see democrats don’t do that, do they? Of course they don’t. Well, let’s be honest, they do half of it . . they demonize republicans. But, without question, no one expects you to explain the actions of liberals seeing how there are no actions to speak of, are there?

You have some efforts at non-action, like calling in filibusters from a ski slope … but I certainly don’t expect you to explain that. Nor do I expect you to explain Algore in Saudi, or Carter saying “Bush lied about WMD! Bush lied about WMD!” when his democratic successor talked about it ad nauseum. Nor do I expect you to explain Murtha’s Iraq plan of “over the horizon troops” in Okinawa. (Now that’s one helluva a horizon!!) I mean, who could explain it? You also don’t have to explain the liberals plan to fix social security … again, it’s hard to comment on “empty set”.

So, if you work on not demonizing republicans you can then say “We don’t demonize anyone and there’s nothing explainable that we haven’t already explained” … for all the reasons mentioned above. Congratulations on this potential moral high ground.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 20, 2006 05:06 PM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: We need skeptics. We need people who are willing to say no when everybody else is saying yes, if they have good reason to do so.

Good point. I agree completely.
Skeptics should not be ignored.
Especially when they armed with the data.
The reality is that there is sufficient data, history, and stats to justify concern.

But, I don’t have any of those rose-colored glasses they hand out in the rose-colored column.

Not to knock Republicans only.

Their rosy outlook is partisan motivated, and backed up with cherry-picked stats. For every positive they find, I can find other stats of more weight to discount it.

There is definitely cause for concern.
There is definitely cause for suspicion when some always want to portray everything as “very good”.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 05:14 PM

Charles Ross,

your quote,

“Whatever you think about the state of our economy and our relationship to the rest of the world, one has to admit that come 2008, with the presidency 8 years to the republicans, the house 13 years to the republicans, the senate 6 years to the republicans and a court system primarily overseen by republican judges, that the economy, our justice system, and our foreign policy will be one that has been primarily created by republicans. It will not be a pretty picture.”

Yeah, damn that government for the people by the people stuff … it’ll never work!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 20, 2006 05:19 PM

Ken,

I am saying that Conservatism, as espoused by Jack, favors someone who is already affluent. I won’t contest your millionaires quote, but I know that the last study on economic mobility supports my point:

The greatest predictor, by far, of social class at death is social class at birth. It says that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, much more so than fifty years ago.

So what? Well, other studies say that being poor means you will exercise less, be fatter, smoke more, have more children, have inferior healthcare, live closer to toxic waste, commit a crime or be the victim of a crime, be less educated, have less educated children and die younger.

I am saying, Christian values and common sense morality aside, it is smart to work to reduce poverty. I am saying that making more poor people with less opportunity threatens to destabilize our country and is the source of future societal ills, including crime and terrorism.

I am also saying that the party that claims to have the inside track to God and Jesus Christ shouldn’t be dismissing the poor or claiming that the government should have nothing to do with it. You seem to want the government involved in religion and religious groups to get government contracts, yet you deny any responsibility to the poor?

Do you not see the way your stands contradict themselves?

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 05:29 PM

You guys have made an industry attacking the president and you wonder why I want to comment on what liberals think. Read the blue side. I am really trying to understand. I honestly don’t understand the wellsprings of the vitriol.

I guess you think that liberals are not allowed to say anything about the President, unless we are heaping praises upon his feet, like the Cons do. This President already thinks he’s a King becuase you p%#!&*s on the right won’t stand up to him. The Presidential attack industry was invented by the right during the Clinton years. Perhaps, you are just mad because you lost your vitriol monopoly.

I do read the blue side, and try to get through the liberal bashing on the red side without laughing. Out of the last 10 posts on both sides, I would only classify 1 on the blue side as being an attack on the right, and then only partly. On the red side I would call 4 posts an outright attack on liberals. I think it is time to knock the hollier than thou right off their soapbox.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 20, 2006 05:29 PM

sorry, holier-than-thou

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 20, 2006 05:37 PM

Touche JayJay. Its an eternal mystery why Cons (big generalization here) on these boards dish it out but can’t take it. Oh, I forgot. That’s because they are right eternally. :) NOT!
Regards.

Posted by: cp at February 20, 2006 05:38 PM

You just cant help yourselves.
You whine about Bush Bashing
Yet you put down Dems and Libs.
All that anyone ever seems to
come away with is the HATE
you have for any person who
does not agree with your Views.
Its all clear now according to
Repubs anyone not Republican is not
American.

Posted by: Honey P at February 20, 2006 05:41 PM

We have real challenges in this country. We are not sure of the real cost of the Iraq War, we have a looming crisis of entitlements, Federal spending is on a steep uptick, and of course the unknown terror threats. We don’t ignore these problems.

You don’t ignore them. You cause them.

Now let me get this straight. The Republicans have totally what they want. You guys are in power. You have made a total mess of things. And your complaint is that the Democrats haven’t fixed it? Your problem is that we haven’t stepped in taken control? This is the same party that bitched and moaned about how it would fix everything if only it was in charge during Clinton’s administration?