March 17 Hysterical Sources

Happy St. Patrick’s Day. Below are the links I think were interesting this week. You blue boys and girls can see what us right wing, pig dogs read when we are not thrashing you all. You will see that the President will soon be doing better in the polls …

...because he probably can't get much worse. The winter is yours, but the spring will belong to us.

Posted by Jack at March 17, 2006 9:58 PM
Comments
Comment #134285

Optimistic to the bitter end.

So, we’ll see what the Spring brings.

The big picture isn’t lookin’ rosy at all.

But, sure…go ahead and tell us how interest rates, inflation, and unemployment are low by historical standards. But, don’t forget to address all of the other factors.

Jack, you do realize that the Democrats are going to take back the house, senate, and executive branch?

While I don’t think that will solve anything, the Republicans totally blew their opportunity.

But, greed got in the way. Corruption still grew.

Republican proved they were no different.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #134319
The winter is yours, but the spring will belong to us.

Au contraire. The GOP controls everything in the winter and will in the spring as well. And such a fine job of running the world and the nation they’re doing, too. Let’s see what new and exciting challenges they’ll bring in 2006. The U.S. so loves the Bush years. Thank goodness we have such a uniter to lead us.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at March 18, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #134320

d.a.n,

I’ve agreed with you on some things in the past
including a few statements in your last post…
but I think the jury is still out on whether or
not the Dems can take back Congress and the
White House. Things could go either way, but
your almost blind optimism is making me want to
call you d.a.n-ial ( as in Queen of ).

Posted by: Dale G. at March 18, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #134328

You know it really doesn’t make much of a difference if the Democrats regain control of all 3 branches of government. It seems as if there is not much difference between the two parties when it comes to helping big business and selling out the people of this Country. I think that until public financing of elections is the law of the land the best we can hope for is a split between the 2 parties that causes gridlock.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 18, 2006 1:29 AM
Comment #134329

I reckon that I’m counted twice in the 22% of Americans that have a relative in a mixed race marriage.
I have a Black brother-in-law and a Black son-in-law. Count the other member of my family twice also and there’s your 22%. Or at least 19.5%. hahaha

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 18, 2006 1:33 AM
Comment #134333

i really admire john mcCain he has that magnetism that reagan had. a vietnam vet and pow of war. he also was on that aircraft carrier forrestal i believe one of his bombs fell off his a-4 plane by accident and started the big mess . he knows the horrors of war, he looks very young for his age.he would garner a large amount of democrats to vote for him this guy is a winner hands down

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 18, 2006 2:42 AM
Comment #134337

Jack,

Really I think what is more likely is that the fall will belong to us in part, especially around November 2nd or so. I’ll take a looksie over the rest of your reading rainbow or what you right-wing pig dogs read in your leisure, noting the Pew research center in it’s piece on the deficits was wrong, both to the left and the right. Sounds like a thorough re-straightening of deckchairs on a certain sinking ocean liner. That issue does have resonance with Americans—quite a bit actually.

Sorry was I being too hysterical? I recognize that if someone doesn’t agree with your take they are considered by you to be “hysterical”. Sort of like that line from the movie Airplane, where the man in the hospital freaks out when he sees his exorbitant hospital bill and the doctor turns to the nurse and says; “he’s obviously crazy”.

Posted by: Translator at March 18, 2006 3:31 AM
Comment #134346
d.a.n, I’ve agreed with you on some things in the past including a few statements in your last post… but I think the jury is still out on whether or not the Dems can take back Congress and the White House. Things could go either way, but your almost blind optimism is making me want to call you d.a.n-ial ( as in Queen of ).

Good one. Dave G., of course no one knows for sure what the future holds. We can only guess. And it’s not hard to fathom, based on a few polls, the talk about corruption, Bush’s falling approval ratings, growing deficits and debt, etc., that Democrats will win back some seats.

Unfortunately, that won’t solve much of anything, except create more grid-lock, which might be a good thing?

Dave G, I used to be Republican, but now am non-partisan. So, parties don’t matter much to me, except that one party with too much of majority seems to breed more corruption. Sadly, grid-lock may be preferrable.

Now, about the denial and optimism. I don’t deny that Republicans might hold on to the majority a while longer, and it really doesn’t matter much to me. And, I’m not hoping (optimistic) for that either. Really. Why? Because, parties are not really the problem. The the problem seems to be too many irresponsible incumbents of all parties.

So, it was just a guess, like others. It simply wouldn’t surprise me if Republicans lose their majority, because that’s simply the way it sort of works. The “In-Party” and the “Out-Party” take turns, and voters keep re-electing incumbents and wondering where they went wrong.

But, more importantly, have you seen the polls on whether the nation “is moving in the right direction”? 62% said No (SEE GRAPH). That’s hard to ignore. Does it mean there will be a shift of seats in Congress? Maybe.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 18, 2006 8:10 AM
Comment #134348

“You will see that the President will soon be doing better in the polls …”

Thank god! Seriously, I was starting to get worried - I know how much these polls mean to you guys.

Posted by: tony at March 18, 2006 8:13 AM
Comment #134349

If things improve in Iraq and the country doesn’t begin a recession cycle then it is likely the President’s numbers will improve. If the opposite happens then not only will the president’s numbers drop but the house and senate may become closer to 50-50. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. GW defined his presidency with a war…he will have to take the good with the bad. Either way, the economy will also come into play.

Posted by: Tom L at March 18, 2006 8:42 AM
Comment #134359
You will see that the President will soon be doing better in the polls
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

The folks on the wrong wing have been saying that for months and months but Bush’s numbers keep dropping. I heard the same line when his rating first fell below 50%, and again at 46%, and again at 42%, and so on and so on and so on.

Just keep saying it Jack. I enjoy a good laugh. And who knows - maybe you can eventually convince yourself.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 18, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #134362

Hey Libs: The only polls that count come in November. The rest you can stick where the sun don’t shine. Manufactured by left wing hacks anyway.

Posted by: nikkolai at March 18, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #134364

“Hey Libs: The only polls that count come in November. The rest you can stick where the sun don’t shine. Manufactured by left wing hacks anyway.”

Word smithed like only the RIGHT can.

Posted by: tony at March 18, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #134366

Tom L,

I agree. However, it’s not likely the mess in Iraq is going to improve much (certainly not fast enough to make a difference). It was sort of an experiment wasn’t it? Noble, perhaps? But, we may learn a very hard, painful lesson.
Nation building is difficult when radical fanaticism fuels civil war. It could work still perhaps, but will take many years (or decades).

It looks grim for someone, since an increasing number of people think we are going in the wrong direction (for two years now):

But who is that someone?
Republicans?
Democrats?
Bush?
All of them?

Seriously, I hope a lot of irresponsible incumbents in all parties that get ousted.
Look at what they do while our troops risk life and limb.
The bar is set so low these days.
Some house cleaning is badly-needed.
Only then, may we finally get some badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms that get debated daily, but are never implemented.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 18, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #134372

The only difference today between Democrats and Republicans is two letters. The common denominators are money and power, any way they can achieve it. Militarily, the Democrats fought their illegal war in Bosnia from 35,000 feet and the Republicans are fighting theirs on the ground. Until we stop thinking like Democrats and Republicans and start thinking like Americans, the politicians will continue to manipulate us for their own purposes.

Posted by: Bill M. at March 18, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #134375

Besides being often hysterical, Democrats often lack a sense of humor or at least irony. When I write that Bush poll numbers will improve … because they can’t get much worse you jump.

Dems do have a problem and I will be kind enough to tell you what it is. The left wing of the party hates Bush. It is a hysterical hate in that it goes beyond reason. Some Republicans felt that way about Clinton. Hate makes you do stupid things, like the censure and talk of impeachment (parallel to the Clinton impeachment). Crazy Conyers tried to censure Ronald Reagan, the most popular president in the last fifty years.

I know you think you are right and justified, but it is too extreme.

Experience is teaching that it is better for the country if we have a divided government. Clinton did better when he had the Republican Congress and the best time for him was 1994-8. BUT in the last two years the Republicans went off the deep end and cooperation evaporated. What I fear is that the Dems are already into the deep waters. If they got a majority in November, there would be nothing but obstruction, fear, hate and loathing.

Crazy Conyers would certainly try to impeach the Pres. He can’t possibly succeed. Remember, you need 2/3 of the Senate. But nothing else would get done.

Posted by: Jack at March 18, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #134379
Until we stop thinking like Democrats and Republicans and start thinking like Americans, the politicians will continue to manipulate us for their own purposes.
Mike M, Thank you, You are so right ! Unfortunately, we are a small minority. It’s understandable. The seductive partisan warefare is powerfully distracting detractor. It wasn’t until recently that I was one of those misguided persons pulling the party lever, wallowing in the petty partisan bickering, blamin’ Democrats, as if all our problems was their party. Needless to say, I feel foolish as hell about it.

But, no more, and never again.

Jack wrote: Besides being often hysterical, Democrats often lack a sense of humor…
Jack, do you really think there’s any difference between Democrats and Republicans? The similarities far outweigh the minor differences. The huge chasm of difference you perceive is an illusion.

Also, hardly anyone here is hysterical.
That seems to be a clever way to deflect attention from our many pressing problems, and how government ignores them, as they grow in number and severity.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 18, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #134380

Sorry, I meant: Bill M. (not Mike M.)

Posted by: d.a.n at March 18, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #134385

Jack,

For the first link: 22% of Americans have a relative in a mixed marriage, how distant are the relatives? How big is the familiy? The title seems engineered to scare people into thinking there are more mixed marriages than there are.

Anyway - good to see you guys are focused on the important things like mixed marriages, and asking the big questions, like “do deficits matter”? You guys really have your fingers on the pulse of America. We’re all wondering - could it be a good thing to be in this much debt?

You know what? America has seen through you and what you can do. It’s called the “hole we’re in” and I wouldn’t expect them to come back to you until the democrats fix it.

Posted by: Max at March 18, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #134386

Why does the word “hysterical” so consistently show up in “Republican” blogs and postings???

Posted by: Lynne at March 18, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #134387

The title seems engineered to scare people into thinking there are more mixed marriages than there are.

==========

why is that scary?

Posted by: tree hugger at March 18, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #134393

d.a.n. just noticed the graph even during the election nov 2 2004 bush had close to 50% wrong direction. just curious rodney.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 18, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #134397

Max

You might look up the sources of the articles and then check out their political leanings. I got a fairly good spread on this one. Pew, for example, is generally liberal leaning.

Of course, I know that the more radical Dems don’t need research to tell them the truth.

And I second tree hugger - why is it scary if there are more mixed marriages? I put that up there because I thought it was good news and a positive trend.

Posted by: Jack at March 18, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #134400

RODNEY BROWN,

Yes. Usually, the norm is just about an even split(i.e. close to 44% Right / 44% Wrong).

The interesting thing about the trend over
the last two years is that never, in the
last 10 years, has the gap ever been
as large as it is now (i.e. 26% right / 62% wrong).

There have been times when the Right percentage has been 72% Right, but never in the last 10, years has the Wrong percentage been as high as it is now, at 62% Wrong.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 18, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #134401

Maybe one or two polls could be slanted, but there isn’t a single poll that shows the approval rate at anything even close to even, let alone favorable.

If conservative-leaning polls could counter this, they’d be over it like white on rice.

Posted by: Kira at March 18, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #134404

Kira

I read (and provided) information from all sides. The polls are not good for our president. Accurate is accurate. But politics (and life) is all about less than ideal choices. When you consider the alternative, it is not so bad. I wrote this before the 2004 election when so many on the blue side were confident they would win. I remember this as far back as 1996 when Republicans thought they would beat Clinton because he was so unpopular.

You can’t win be being the negative of something. Dems don’t produce many positive ideas. The big cheer for Dems was when the defeated SS reform. What did they propose?

I don’t know if you watch Southpark, but they had an episode when the D-bag was running against a sh*t sandwich. I don’t recall which won and I am not sure which one Dems would characterize themselves as, but that it the game we are playing. I wish it was not like this, but the negative campaigning - on both sides - has made it so.

Posted by: Jack at March 18, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #134408

Jack,

I like how you say “what did they propose?” when talking about the dems….they did, actually, have several proposals, including rasing taxes to make up the gap. Okay, not a popular proposal but it was a proposal….why ingore it just because you don’t like it? There are alternate proposals….Repubs should quit listening to party line and the information the white house spews. I like to listen to both left and right news….then make my own mind up….but that’s just me.

Posted by: Tom L at March 18, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #134412
Why is it scary 22% of Americans have a relative in a mixed marriage?

It’s not, but it’s the kind of fact that, for example, Republican candidate David Duke would use to mobilize his base, or that many Republicans use to argue for stricter immigration laws. It’s a scare tactic used on the Republican base (e.g. intolerant xenophobes and racists - how’s that for un-pc) to mobilize them.

Sorry Jack, I realize now you weren’t using it that way, but when I see a fact like that used in a Republican discussion I assume the worst. Usually I’m right.

Posted by: Max at March 18, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #134414

Here’s some DEMOCRAT reading:

The man told Army investigators that he was forced to strip and that he was punched in the spine until he fainted, put in front of an air-conditioner while cold water was poured on him and kicked in the stomach until he vomited.

U.S. task force members used battlefield pseudonyms that made it impossible to identify and locate the soldiers involved. The unit also asserted that 70 percent of its computer files had been lost.

Despite the task force’s access to a wide range of intelligence, its raids were often dry holes, yielding little if any intelligence and alienating ordinary Iraqis, Defense Department personnel said. Prisoners deemed no threat to American troops were often driven deep into the Iraqi desert at night and released, sometimes given $100 or more in American money for their trouble.

Admiral Jacoby’s memo also provoked an angry reaction from Mr. Cambone. “Get to the bottom of this immediately. This is not acceptable,” Mr. Cambone said in a handwritten note on June 26, 2004, to his top deputy, Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin. “In particular, I want to know if this is part of a pattern of behavior by TF 6-26.”

Military and legal experts say the full breadth of abuses committed by Task Force 6-26 may never be known because of the secrecy surrounding the unit, and the likelihood that some allegations went unreported.

NYTimes

You why we lost? At least in part because this commander in chief waged war using disgusting, uncivilized, and amoral tactics that polarized the very people we thought we were helping against us.

Posted by: Max at March 18, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #134415

Jack has just revealed the fundamental reason American politics is broken beyond repair and why our country’s future gets bleaker with each passing year. Jack is a very intelligent guy, and very well educated. He is likable, and his intentions are the best.

But, Jack reveals he has been suckered into the game that is killing our nation’s future. By Jack’s own words he reveals his underlying value system regarding politics, the Us vs. Them, sports mentality to passionately support one American team losing so your American team can win. That is the heart of the divisiveness that is preventing American politics and Government from performing its one essential and primary function, protecting and defending our nation and her future for ALL Americans regardless of whether they are blue, red, or chartreuse!

Our Founding Fathers never intended politics and government to be a football game that pits Americans against Americans. They even gave this great land a name in total Contradiction to that NFL mentality, the UNITED States of America. But, good folks, best of intended folks, patriotic folks like Jack, in the 100’s of millions have been seduced by the party leadership into this war that absolutely prevents our nation from taking any big steps forward toward a safer, more prosperous, and freer future. They may in fact, be marching us headlong back to the 1860’s when Civil War was inevitable.

We couldn’t be worse off if we put the Hatfields’ and McCoy’s in charge of the country. Welcome to the New and short lived America.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 18, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #134418

David R. Remer,

Yeah. No doubt about it.

I understand Jack, having once been much like him in that respect (not long ago when I was a staunch Republican).

There was a time, not long ago, when what you just said would have gone in one of my ears, and right out the other.

Jack is smart. That is obvious.
But, he, like so many, has been seduced into the clever, divisive, partisan warfare, and believes (by his own words above) that it is the only way. They refuse to see how they are being manipulated. But, what else could explain the wallowing in the partisan warfare?

Of course, he does’t see it that way at all.
He wants desparately to believe we are all hysterical liberals.

But, I can relate as he twists, and winces, and gets all bent out of shape, and tongue-tied trying to explain his party’s negligence.

That fact is, there’s not a huge difference between the two parties. One is a little worse than the other from time to time, but they are basically both so irresponsilbe, the minor differences don’t amount to much.

When people finally take off their partisan blinders, and realize the truth, it is like a huge weight has been lifted from their shoulders. No longer blinded by any detractor, things start to make sense. Then, there is some regret for letting one self ever be fooled. Then, there is some anger at the party that proved to be no better or worse than the other party (or parties). Then, finally, there is a realization that progress, if any, will be ever so slow, unless enough voters finally understand the same thing, and finally decide to vote responsibly, instead of pulling the party lever, instead of re-electing those that are half the problem (i.e. the other half being the voters themselves that tolertate corruption).

The graph above is promising in one respect, and disturbing in another.

It means voters are growing intolerant of bad government. That’s good.

The question remains though:
(1) Will voters simply keep re-electing incumbents? If so, that’s bad.
(2) Or, will voters vote out irresponsible incumbents? If so, that’s good, and it will be history in the making.

Well, maybe not in our lifetime, but maybe someday. Who knows. But, since no one knows, there’s no percentage in not trying, always.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 18, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #134423

David & Dan

That is not what I meant.

First the disclaimer: I tend to be partisan. I think that is my role. I defend the ideas I think are the best. Mostly they are Republican, but if you read the sum of what I write, I think it is clear that most Republicans would not agree with some of what I say.

Re choice. My point is not that we have a Republican/Democrat divide, but rather in everything in life you have the choice among non-optimal choices. I live in a nice house. Is it the best possible house? No. If you asked me to compare it to an ideal house it would be very much below. But if I look at alternatives, my place is nice.

When I look at the Republican Congress, I am displeased. I can think of many things I would like to be different. For example, the Republicans spend too much. But when I know that Democrats proposed even greater spending, I understand that the alternative is worse.

Third parties/getting rid of incumbents
I know you advocate third parties. For me, this is just the triumph of hope over experience. Governing is not as easy as it seems.

I once had the experience of helping found an overseas American school. We were affiliated with a bigger school in the capital. They always oppressed us and I thought they were incompetent. I advocated declaring our independence and going it alone. Other board members, with more experience, asked me to come up with a working plan for running the place without those fools. When I tried to do that, I came to understand that some of what looked like gross stupidity was not. Things were difficult and complicated. Many of my good ideas had been attempted.

I am not saying that things cannot be improved. What I am saying that wholesale revolutionary change rarely leads to anything good.

Of all the revolutions in the history of the world, ours is one of the few that actually succeeded - and that is because it wasn’t really much a revolution as much as a passing of power from distant to established local leaders. Contrary to the many “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” myths, the average man on the street makes a very bad leader unless he gets a lot of experience first. And then he is a politician.

Posted by: Jack at March 18, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #134424

lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

Posted by: Honey P at March 18, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #134426
Third parties/getting rid of incumbents; I know you advocate third parties.
More third parties and independents would be great, but I don’t have anything against any party. Parties are not the problem. Irresponsible incumbents are half the problem, and voters that tolerate it is the other half of the problem.
When I look at the Republican Congress, I am displeased. I can think of many things I would like to be different. For example, the Republicans spend too much. But when I know that Democrats proposed even greater spending, I understand that the alternative is worse.
Yes, Republicans have really screwed the pooch this time. When someone like me, a Republican for the first 47 years of my life was a Republican, grew up in a (once) Republican family, and too, like you, are displeased, you know something is wrong. But, it also helped me realize what the real problem is. It’s not parties. Not really. It is corrupt government by all parties.
I am not saying that things cannot be improved. What I am saying that wholesale revolutionary change rarely leads to anything good.
Jack, all we advocate is voters take off their partisan blinders, and do the common-sense thing they were supposed to be doing all along: vote out irresponsible incumbents.
Of all the revolutions in the history of the world, ours is one of the few that actually succeeded - and that is because it wasn’t really much a revolution as much as a passing of power from distant to established local leaders. Contrary to the many “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” myths, the average man on the street makes a very bad leader unless he gets a lot of experience first. And then he is a politician.

No. Not true.
What about the European Revolutions of 1848?
What about the French Revolution of 1789?
And those are reletively recent too.
What about the Irish Revolution of 1916?
There was also the Polish revoltion of 1849.
What about the English Revolution of 1642?
What about the English Revolution of 1688?
And the Haitian Revolution of 1804 ending slavery?
There are many more.

Sometimes revolutions fail, but that does not always mean it wasn’t a good cause.

I am not saying that things cannot be improved. What I am saying that wholesale revolutionary change rarely leads to anything good.
See above.
I once had the experience of helping found an overseas American school. We were affiliated with a bigger school in the capital. They always oppressed us and I thought they were incompetent. I advocated declaring our independence and going it alone. Other board members, with more experience, asked me to come up with a working plan for running the place without those fools. When I tried to do that, I came to understand that some of what looked like gross stupidity was not. Things were difficult and complicated. Many of my good ideas had been attempted.
Well Jack, I’m sorry for that, but that is one anectdotal experience, and doesn’t really have much bearing. I have encountered many organizations resistant to change. Progress is possible, once you start accounting for the human factor. That can be done with government too. In fact, it must be accounted for. Otherwise, government will contine to grow more and more corrupt.

One more thing; the longer we loligag on this crap, the worse it’s going to be for a lot of Americans, later.

So, why not start now, helping to educate voters.
Take off the partisan blinders that merely serve to convince 78 million voters (the largest group) that voting is a waste of time, and encourage them to study the candidates, study their voting records (most of which are abysmal), and vote accordingly?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Dems and Repubs are so afraid the other party will get the upper hand.

Too bad.

If either party had the courage to start advocating the message of non-partisanship, and stop pulling the party lever, we might get somewhere.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 18, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #134427
You will see that the President will soon be doing better in the polls …because he probably can’t get much worse.

That’s just sad…

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 18, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #134440

If you can say it in 15 seconds, it’s pithy and the Malboro Man says it…..it sells -on Madison Ave. and in politics. Sadly, things don’t work that easily in the real world.

Bush’s UAE deal and his budgets have succumbed to hang on his own political pitard….keep it simple for the common sheep.
His legacy will fall and the Republican Party’s party will end as this modern day “LBJ” (to quote Peggy Noonan) sinks into Iraq’s quagmire.

BTW the Malboro man died of cancer.:)

Gary Cooper and John Wayne made great movie heroes. Bush makes a lousy CEO and POTUS.

Posted by: gergle at March 18, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #134441

“What I fear is that the Dems are already into the deep waters. If they got a majority in November, there would be nothing but obstruction, fear, hate and loathing.”

Hmmm, which is exactly what we have right now.

D.A.N.:

Your insistence that voters vote out “irresponsible incumbents” is intriguing. How does one judge irresponsibility? For instance, what I might find irresponsible, Jack might find the height of responsibility. How is voting out incumbents in and of itself really going to help, if the people running against them are hand-picked by power-driven plutocrats who couldn’t care less about the people’s problems? You could probably spend the next twenty years voting out incumbents, and still be swamped by the national problems not being dealt with.

Just asking.

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 18, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #134442

Dan

The revolutions of 1848 resulted in exiles to the U.S. and a lot of deaths in Europe. The springtime of peoples was not really revolution.

The French revolution was a abject failure resulting in a reign of terror, the establishment of an aggressive dictatorship and then a return to monarchy. They should have stopped with a constitutional monarchy.

Irish Revolution of 1916 was more like an independence movement closer to ours. When did Ireland get its independenc, BTW.

Polish revolution - the Poles are a brave people who I have lived with and admire. They are magnificent and honorable. Palestinians should learn from them. Their heroes, however, are mostly celebrated posthumously. Poland became independent only in 1918.

The English Revolution of 1642 was reversed with the restoration. The 1688 Glorious Revolution was really a coup. It was not a revolution.

Haitian revolution. Haiti did so well after that.

Revolutions fail because they try to be revolutionary. Usually a more gradual change is better.

The only things most revolutions produce are cool songs, compelling images and lots of martyrs.

Why do people think running a government requires less experience than managing a convenience store.


Posted by: Jack at March 18, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #134443

I did not have a chance to read all of these but the last one here stands out. “Bush’s UAE deal” wasn’t Bush’s UAE deal. And I like D.A.N.’s message but his evidence it sketchy. Most of those revolutions ended up in mass murders, massacres, and bloodshed- not a good cause. (ironically, we stopped that as a result of the iraq war, an issue im sure you aren’t in favor of)

Posted by: CommonSense at March 18, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #134445

OH MY GOD JACK WE POSTED ALMOST THE SAME THING BUT YOU ARE LESS LAZY THAN ME WHOA THATS COOL.

Posted by: CommonSense at March 18, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #134448

Tim Crow, in answer to your question: why would voting out incumbents make a difference:

Incumbents currently enjoy a 94% reelection rate regardless of how well the country is doing or not doing, regardless of scandals and ethics violations, regardless of war or peace, regardless of debt or solvency, regardless of whether the economy is running on 8 cylinders or 4. This fact is not lost on incumbents, who are free to disregard the voters, the polls, and the wishes of the American people while focusing on the agendas of those who really matter, their campaign donors, either wealthy individuals, oligarchies, or lobbyists.

Voting out incumbents would serve to put the remaining incumbents and new freshman on notice, that the voters are BACK in the equation, and their majority voice on pork spending, deficits, secure borders and halting illegal immigration, and enforcing our laws for everyone, not just for those we don’t like.

Problems like secure borders, pork spending and deficits, lobbyists legal bribery of our politicians as well as the illegal, would all be solved in one election cycle if the Congress believed the voters would hold them accountable for results on these issues.

But, voters haven’t been holding them accountable, they have been sidetracked into the NFL mentality of believing it is more important which party has control than solving America’s problems which most Americans agree need solving.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 18, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #134457

David:

Thanks for the answer—I’m all for holding the government accountable, but with all the myriad agendas out there how does a representative know that he/she is felled by irresponsibility, or by, for instance, ‘moral values’, or ‘family values’ or not tough on terrorism, whatever? I suppose you can always find a plurality of people pissed off at their congressperson—how is kicking out incumbents really solving the country’s problems?

I guess if you vote against any random incumbent, the chances are good you are eliminating some irresponsibility. It just seems like random dissatisfaction and moaning from the cheap seats if you are not involved yourself in changing the corruption.

I hope you don’t think me obtuse in asking; I just think there has to be a few ‘responsible’ reps out there. The flaw in judgement is the same that got us eight years of Bush—how can you trust the Amercian people to know irresponsibility when they vote for the Clintons and Bushes? What if the other guy is equally irresponsibile?

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 18, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #134473

d.a.n,

as usual, you make alot of sense. I too hope
that the worthless and corrupt incumbents from
both parties get ousted. Both parties need to
be shaken to their cores and wake up to not
only what their voters expect of them, but what
our country needs.

Dale ( Dave ) G.

Posted by: Dale G. at March 19, 2006 1:11 AM
Comment #134488

>>Crazy Conyers would certainly try to impeach the Pres. He can’t possibly succeed. Remember, you need 2/3 of the Senate. But nothing else would get done.


Posted by: Jack at March 18, 2006 11:29 AM

Jack,

Are you trying to say that Clinton was more effective than Cheney/Bush?

Although almost everyone expected Clinton to go lame during his impeachment, he did not, and many good things passed his desk during those most trying times.

Nope…you’re right…Cheney/Bush just ain’t got the cajones for governance…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 19, 2006 2:21 AM
Comment #134490

Jack,

Why do people think running a government requires less experience than managing a convenience store.

This is exactly why I don’t understand why people voted for Bush, who seriously I wouldn’t let count change for me.

Posted by: Max at March 19, 2006 3:08 AM
Comment #134512

Marysdude

Clinton declined seriously during the impeachment. His attention was not on the the economy or Osama bin Laden. It was destructive and stupid (on the part of the Republicans). I didn’t like it then and don’t like it now.

Posted by: Jack at March 19, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #134529
Tim Crow wrote: d.a.n.: Your insistence that voters vote out “irresponsible incumbents” is intriguing. How does one judge irresponsibility?

Tim Crow,

Thanks for asking.

First, I second everything David R. Remer said above.

Now, how do you tell who is responsible, or irresponsible?

The next steps require some work. I’ve done some of that work, and will share it every chance I get.
______________________________
The first measurement is who votes irresponsibly for pork-barrel, while some of our troops don’t have body armor, such as this.
cagw.org is a good place to start. Here is a partial list of politicians for only 2005 that vote irresponsibly for pork-barrel. Ted Stevens is the worst, but Alaskans probably love him. However, other Senators could stand in the way of so much pork-barrel to one state. Why don’t they? Go to cagw.org to see why the following are on the pork-barrel awards lists:

Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Robert Bennett (R-Utah) , Christopher “Kit” Bond (R-Mo.), Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), Henry Bonilla (R-TX), Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss., Senate) , Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Robert Cramer (R-Ala.), John Culberson (R-TX), Randy Cunningham (R-CA.), Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA.), Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), John Doolittle (R-CA.), Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Chet Edwards (D-TX) , Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Bill Frist’s (R-Tenn.), David Hobson (R-Ohio) , Mark Kirk (Rill.), Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) , Tom Latham (R-Iowa), Rep. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), John McCain (R-AZ) ($1 million for the brown tree snake), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), George Nethercutt, Jr. (R-Wash.) , Anne Northup (R-Ky.), John Peterson (R-Pa.) , Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala., Don Sherwood (R-Pa.) , Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Ted Stevens (R-Alaska, Senate) (he is the worst), John Sweeney (R-N.Y.), David Vitter (R-La.), James Walsh (R-N.Y.) , Zack Wamp (R-Tenn.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Chairman Bill Young (R-FL)

Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.), Marion Berry (D-Ark.), Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Robert “Bud” Cramer (D-Ala.), James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.), Sam Farr (D-Calif.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Ernest “Fritz” Hollings (D-S.C.), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) , Mary Landrieu (D-La.) , Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) , Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.) , John Murtha (D-Pa.), David Obey (D-Wis.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.)
______________________________
Second, look to see who is absent. John Conyers had the worst for a while, but ended the year as the next to worst for even showing up to vote.
______________________________
Third, look to see how they vote.
People might be upset if they really paid any attention.
See the following to check voting records:
[] issues2000.org
[] bolson.org
[] projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/
______________________________
Fourth, look to see who rejects reforms, such as the following that rejected an Office of Public Integrity:

A majority of the Senators on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Reform Committee rejected the Collins-Lieberman proposal to create an Office of Public Integrity in Congress. Thank you to Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) for their outstanding leadership. Also, Senator Barak Obama (D-IL) proposed the creation of a Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission, an alternative solution to control our Congress’ unethical actions.

Voted to Support Office of Public Integrity:
Senator Collins (R-ME)
Senator Lieberman (D-CT)
Senator Carper (D-DE)
Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Senator Levin (D-MI)

Voted to Oppose Office of Public Integrity:
Senator Akaka (D-HI)
Senator Bennett (R-UT)
Senator Chafee (R-RI)
Senator Coburn (R-OK)
Senator Coleman (R-MN)
Senator Dayton (D-MN)
Senator Domenici (R-NM)
Senator Pryor (D-AR)
Senator Stevens (R-AK)
Senator Voinovich (R-OH)
Senator Warner (R-VA)

Please make note if your senator is on this list, to help you decide on who you will vote for this November.
______________________________
Fifth, watch your Representatives and Senators.
See if they do any of the following:
[X] refuse to pass many badly needed, common-sense, no-brainer, constructive reforms (e.g. campaign finance reform, election reform, one-purpose-per-bill amendment, balanced budget-amendment, tax reform, etc.).
[X] vote irresponsibly (e.g. pork-barrel, graft, waste, corporate welfare, etc.), look the other way because they lack the peer-pressure to police their own ranks, and continue to grow government and the national debt to nightmare proportions, which is threatening the future and security of the nation. The national debt is so large now, it would take 139 years to pay off the debt if the federal government started now to (a) stop borrowing $1 billion per day, and (b) also started paying back $1 billion per day (slightly more the daily interest alone). It is irresponsible and immoral to be heaping that much debt onto future generations.
[X] are bought-and-paid-for, too beholding to their big-money-donors, and refuse to tackle tough issues for fear of risking re-election, or defying their big-money-donors.
[X] spend too much time and tax-payers money raising more money for their campaign war-chests.
[X] fuel the partisan warfare, and seduce voters into a circular pattern that distracts the voters from more substantive issues.
[X] pressure and seduce newcomers into Congress to conform to the status quo, look the other way, or be shunned and isolated (note: incumbents always outnumber the newcomers to Congress).
[X] Campaign negatively.
[X] Lie.
[X] Pander.
[X] Troll for big-money. See where their money is coming from, and how they vote accordingly.
[X] Accept questionable donations.
[X] Look the other way.
[X] vote themselves cu$hy perk$ and raises.
[X] Somehow still convince many voters to empower the incumbents that use and abuse the voters.

Lastly, in my opinion, few (if any) incumbents are responsible. New comers would like to pass some badly-needed, common-sense reforms, but incumbents won’t allow it.

In my opinion, most (if not all) should be replaced with newcomers that haven’t given up yet, and still want to pass common-sense reforms.

_______________________
Jack,

Even failed revolutions accomplish something.
However, who is advocating revolution?
How did we get down that twisted path?
Clever, and I fell for it.

All I ever advocated was for voters to do was the one simple, common-sense, peaceful, non-partisan, inexpensive, safe, and responsible thing they were supposed to be doing all along: vote out irresponsible incumbents (which is most (if not all)) of them. Peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too; not merely shift power, but balance power between government and the people.

So, all the talk of revolution was a clever detractor. Touche’ .

Posted by: d.a.n at March 19, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #134534

Truth is often a victim of time. I think 100 years from now that Clinton’s inability to keep his pants zipped and Bush’s penchant for lying will be gathering dust in some literary graveyard, alongside Nixon’s tapes and John Kennedy’s little black book.

Posted by: Bill M. at March 19, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #134544
Tim Crow wrote: … I just think there has to be a few ‘responsible’ reps out there.

Tim Crow,
That is a very reasonable assumption.
That very argument is what helps ensure incumbents incumbency.

However, for many months, I have challenged people to list 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible.

As of yet, I’ve only received 9 names, and it was all too easy to prove them to be irresponsible too, because they all do one or more of the following:
[] vote irresponsibly on pork-barrel (an egregious act when we have troops risking life and limb, and some don’t have body armor);
[] vote for corporate welfare;
[] bribe voters with the voters own tax dollars;
[] refuse badly-needed, common-sense reforms;
[] fuel petty partisan warfare;
[] troll for campaign dollars;
[] allow themselves to be influenced by a few that abuse vast wealth and power to control government;
[] lie, pander, campaign negatively;
[] are too beholden to their big-money doners;
[] ignore pressing problems and refuse to tackle tough issues for fear of angering their big-money donors (e.g. border security) or risking their incumbency;
[] prevent newcomers to Congress from passing many badly-needed, common-sense reforms;
[] look the other way;
[] break promises (e.g. “read my lips”);
[] vote themselves cu$hy perk$ and raises, write hot checks, abuse the rules;
[] perpetuate the myth that we can all live at the expense of each other;
[] grow the government ever larger to nightmare proporations;
[] spend, borrow, and spend some more; fiscally irresponsible; grow the debt ever larger;
[] perpetuate an unfair, ridiculously abused tax system, and refuse to reform it;
[] spend much of their time raising money for their next election (and tax payers fund it too);
[] reject term limits; reject many reforms that may limit their power or opportunities for self-gain;
[] decrease transparency, rather than increase it to reduce corruption;
[] pretend homeland security is important, but refuse to do anything about ports and borders;

Part of the problem is senators like Ted Stevens. He brings home a lot of pork-barrel. So, his constituents like that. But, other senators could have stopped it, but didn’t. That’s because they’re all guilty of it. It’s a huge farce, it is irresponsible, and it essentially amounnts to politicians bribing voters with the voters own money.

The bar is set so very, very low.

Politicians have Power by virtue of their office. Power coupled with laziness yields Corruption, because Cheaters can simply create more opportunities for self-gain by simply do nothing, or breeding chaos. Cheaters also get paid hand$omely while doing it on the job, giving themselves more unfair advantages, and making their incumbency more secure and cu$hy.

The voters’ laziness works against them, because their lack of motivation to observe and monitor politicians, and go vote out irresponsible incumbents (always) takes time and effort for the voters, and voters don’t get paid for their time or effort. Also, it requires time and effort for the voters to maintain sufficient levels of Education, Transparency, and Accountability.

Therefore, corrupt incumbent politicians have many unfair advantages.

But, if voters want it enough, voters can restore a balance of power between government and the people, by simply doing the one simple thing voters were supposed to be doing all along: vote out (or recall) all irresponsible incumbents, always, repeatedly, every election, until simple, common-sense, no-brainer, responsible reforms are passed to peacefully force government to be Transparent, Accountable, and Responsible too!

Posted by: d.a.n at March 19, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #134579

Dale G.,
Thanks. Yes, D.C. badly needs some house-cleaning.
Or, should I say, a good flush ?

Bill M.
Yes. Perhaps…in time.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 19, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #134713

>>Clinton declined seriously during the impeachment. His attention was not on the the economy or Osama bin Laden. It was destructive and stupid (on the part of the Republicans). I didn’t like it then and don’t like it now.

Posted by: Jack at March 19, 2006 10:03 AM

Jack,

I know you are smarter than that, so I’ve come to the conclusion that your posts are distracting nonsense. No more responses from me…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 20, 2006 3:12 AM
Post a comment