Showing Liberalism a Way Out of its Blind Alley

Liberalism has been stuck in a blind alley for a generation. Pelosi, Boxer, or Dean cannot lead them out of the wasteland. They dissipate their energy hating Bush. While hatred can energize a base, it is no substitute for new ideas. But we appreciate light, even coming from the left. I mentioned last week the Hamilton Project. Now we have the Euston Manifesto.

There still is a lot of silliness about egalitarianism, but I think it is important what it rejects.

It rejects anti-Americanism (the manifesto is British) and refuses to “understand” tyranny. The authors recognize that the overthrow of Saddam was liberation of the Iraqi people and that liberals should be figuring out ways to help the good guys win rather than pick through arguments used to justify the war.

This is a more muscular liberalism. A liberalism that explicitly understands the occasional necessity to kick some A and not just talk about rights. This is more like liberals used to be, more like Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy and less like Kerry, Reid and Kennedy (the other one).

Posted by Jack at April 22, 2006 11:58 PM
Comments
Comment #142434

Jack,

I amazes me that every time someone mentions liberals they trot out the same 5 or 6 names as if these few represent the entire Left.

You’d think that there were only 3 or 4 states that were blue.

Oh, and BTW, these folks just keep getting elected, so you might think that they have, in some way, satisfied their constituancy.

I’m not saying that I agree with these voices, but isn’t there anybody else in the Democratic party with something to say?

Posted by: Rocky at April 23, 2006 1:14 AM
Comment #142435

I hate to even bother with the clarification of the term “liberalism” but I hate to see it used incorrectly so frequently. Although most people outside of Political Science are unaware, Liberalism is the school of thought flowing from Kant, Adam Smith, etc. People whose views we would associate with Republicans today. So although we use the term liberal to define views held by the left, “liberalism” is something very different altogether.

I doubt anybody will care, but my doctorate in Political Science requires me to be a pain over such issues.

Posted by: Xander Jones at April 23, 2006 1:22 AM
Comment #142436

Rocky,
Feingold.

Jack,
Why should a liberal or ‘progressive’ manifesto buy into the same worldview as the Neocons?

Forget the War on Terror. For all practical purposes it ended three years ago. Since then, it has served as little more than a way of keeping Americans afraid, and willing to accept the huge increases in defense spending, and a foreign policy hinged around the interests of Big Oil.

The War on Terror is Republican. The Invasion of Iraq is Republican. Defending torture is Republican. Gutting the constitution in favor of security is Republican. When you think Terry Shiavo, Exxon, Global Warming sceptic, think Republican. When you think Christian Evangelical/fundamentalist or follower of Reverend Sun Myung Moon, and if you’re accepting the Moonie newspaper “The Washington Times” as your frame of reference, think Republican.

If you favor Human Rights, you’re already with the liberal agenda. Does Global Warming present a potentially catastrophic challenge which requires addressing? You’re already with the liberal agenda. Do you look at war as a last resort? Yes, you’re already with the liberal agenda.

It’s happening already. A good thing is coming. ‘The waiting is the hardest part.’

Posted by: phx8 at April 23, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #142437

Manifestos are great. But what exactly do they accomplish?

I reject some of the thesis of this anti-liberal rant.

It presumes anti-Americanism. I have yet to hear that from the left. I hear reality as compared to flag waving. Certainly there are those that hate America. Some have justification. American policy does hurt some people. I wonder why the right has such a hard time accepting that?

It wants to mute the rage over the lies that led to the Iraqi War. Frankly I don’t think that lesson has been heard by many yet. That someone wishes to mute that argument is a testiment to that. It’s interesting the manifesto wants to accept the Holocaust as a lesson, but not the use of Patriotism as a political football as a lesson.


A way out involves the dimuniniton of corruption that is rampant in Washington by the prosecution of the scoundrels. All of them, Democrat and Republican. Fill the prisons with them, instead of the kids who smoke marijuana that now fill our prisons. Revoke their pensions and corruptly gotten parachutes. Once they get out, make them work for a living like the rest of us.


Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 23, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #142438

Manifestos are great. But what exactly do they accomplish?

I reject some of the thesis of this anti-liberal rant.

It presumes anti-Americanism. I have yet to hear that from the left. I hear reality as compared to flag waving. Certainly there are those that hate America. Some have justification. American policy does hurt some people. I wonder why the right has such a hard time accepting that?

It wants to mute the rage over the lies that led to the Iraqi War. Frankly I don’t think that lesson has been heard by many yet. That someone wishes to mute that argument is a testiment to that. It’s interesting the manifesto wants to accept the Holocaust as a lesson, but not the use of Patriotism as a political football as a lesson.


A way out involves the dimuniniton of corruption that is rampant in Washington by the prosecution of the scoundrels. All of them, Democrat and Republican. Fill the prisons with them, instead of the kids who smoke marijuana that now fill our prisons. Revoke their pensions and corruptly gotten parachutes. Once they get out, make them work for a living like the rest of us.


Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 23, 2006 1:34 AM
Comment #142442

Xander,

Thanks. I get so tired of people misusing that term. I think it started with Michael Savage.

Posted by: Beijing Rob at April 23, 2006 2:18 AM
Comment #142445

What phx8 and Jack Mohammedoff just said.

Jack,
On a personal note, I wonder why do you persist in trying to dish out advice to Democrats (Liberals) on what they need to do, or should want to convey to the American people?
Pardon the pun, but the unvarnished truth of the matter is: you clearly don’t know jack about this subject! ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at April 23, 2006 3:21 AM
Comment #142448

Indeed. What bothers me is the complete lack of guts in the GOP and their Supporters in this Column. They make plenty of pretty speeches about going to war in Iraq and regularly insult the rest of us. Now Iran is a REAL threat and all the rightwing bloggers here turned into surrender monkeys and are begging for help from the UN.

A word of advice: Don’t call people “obsolete”, “surrender monkeys” and “cowards” then expect them to help you later on. People remember hypocrisy even if Republicans hypocrites don’t.

We need to attack Iran. It is disgusting how the Daddy Party has flipflopped on what needs to be done. How can anyone respect such a party of useless shills?

Posted by: Aldous at April 23, 2006 4:26 AM
Comment #142450

>>The authors recognize that the overthrow of Saddam was liberation of the Iraqi people and that liberals should be figuring out ways to help the good guys win rather than pick through arguments used to justify the war.

Posted by Jack at April 22, 2006 11:58 PM

Jack wants us ‘liberals’ to forget HOW we got into this mess, and to cooperate and help get us out of this mess…and the way we should do this is to continue getting deeper INTO this mess…WOW! Ain’t you glad he has such good advice for us ‘liberals’?

Posted by: Marysdude at April 23, 2006 7:08 AM
Comment #142451

All
The truth of the matter is that most of America hovers around the center/slightly right or the center/slightly left.

Problem is,when those folks do pick a side,they end up wearing the same clothes as the lunies on both fringes.

I always said that if there were a three party system,liberal,conservative and moderate,it would be more indicative of America’s composition.

That being said,and knowing the corruption that exists in maintaining the status quo,it will never happen in my lifetime.

If you parse out say,Joe Lieberman and Howard Dean,and you didn’t know better,you would conclude one was a Republican,the other a Democrat.

Same with many others in Congress who have really blurred the lines of identification idealogically speaking.

Even here on Watchblog,I have been amazed to tell you the truth.For example,my pal Aldous has been screaming about attacking Iran now for weeks.At first,I thought they were his usualy caustic posts satirizing what he truly believes.But his posts have been frequent enough and vitrolic enough to make me believe that maybe he does want to invade Iran.

One year ago,he would have been called a neo-con,I think on this site.Accross America,this morphing is taking place time and again with the exception of a few.

Yesterday was the 35th anniversary of John Kerry’s testimony at the Senate armed Services Committee representing Vietnam Veterans Against The War.Yesterday he gave a highly publicized speech at Fanueil Hall demanding withdrawal of all forces by year’s end from Iraq.

He did this the same day that Iraq finally put together,after a four month deadlock,the beginnings of a government.

Coinsidence?

I think not.

Does he reflect the thinking of most Democrats who say that we must stay there now that we “broke it?”

Again,I think not.

I am heartened by yesterday’s events…and so should all of us.The seed of democracy(albiet an Islamic one) is rooting on that barren desert soil.

However,for politicial reasons(read:sheer unbridled power)I know now that certain of our leaders will rail against this and hope beyond hope that it withers and dies.

Now that’s sad.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 23, 2006 7:22 AM
Comment #142455

Its called “Facing Reality”, sicilianeagle. You should try it.

You see… it is reality that makes me want to attack Iran. I carefully weigh the evidence. I calculate the odds. I observe the geopolitical situation. You know what I see? I see an Iran surrounded by neighbors with nukes. I see the mullahs afraid of regime change. I see Iran going nuclear regardless of cost to ensure its survival. It is pointless to negotiate or threaten anyone in such a situation. So I say “War Now” while Iran is unready.

Likewise… it is reality that makes me despair over Iraq. You keep talking about schools being opened and rape rooms being gone. I see children to scared to go to school and women being dragged of the streets to be gangraped. So now you are thrilled about a new Prime Minister. Whoppee Doo!!! You do know they negotiate for Cabinet Ministers, right? Ever wonder how many months THAT will take?

Stop living in fantasy.

Posted by: Aldous at April 23, 2006 8:37 AM
Comment #142456

It’s been a while. I get tired of speaking to those who would not listen and trying to converse with those who have already stated their position that you are a fool. Nevertheless….

When I was growing up in the late fifties and the sixties the Cold War was in full bloom. We considered the Russians evil and posited them as our mortal enemies because they:
a. Held people in prisons and gulags without fair trials and without stating the reasons and without defined sentences.
b. Tortured their enemies physically and emotionally.
c. Lied to their citizens. Made policies and political decisions without the people’s consent.
d. Tried to take control of other countries.
e. Let their people work for pennies while the leaders rolled in the dough and lived with special privileges, all the while talking about the shared service to the motherland.
f. Mismanaged their economy and business so that the citizens became poorer and poorer while the managers continued to live well.
g. Controlled the television, newspapers, and radio.

Now, I’ll say no more as Fox News will list me an antipatriot as Hannity looks disgusted and queries how in the world can I compare **** to those communists. Well, the worm turns. But here in America we still get to vote even if it is manipulated quite a bit.

In 2004 I told my quite conservative Limbaugh/Fox News Republican family that I hoped W would win so that people’s eyes would be opened. That is happening. Read the polls. And the conservatives who espouse now demonstrably destructive policies can just quit trying to pin lies on the liberals. Try to think things through for a few moments. Neither party should be in complete control in D.C. Look at what’s happened. A strong American requires a strong middle class. Policies which keep a working poor class will ultimately fail us. Conservatives, you have been in control of all three branches of government for six years. Your own policy stances have brought the average American closer to wanting a European style socialism than the liberals ever could.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Let’s make policy that works for ALL the people.

Posted by: LibRick at April 23, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #142457

Oh yeah, Jack, speaking directly to your original post: we don’t need more John Wayne type of foreign policy. You CAN see that it is not working, right? Kicking @$$ is a very short term solution… especially since we will be needing your Republican sons and daughters to fight wars for the economic enrichment of the CEO class who now ‘earn’ about 400 times the average employee’s salary while holding golden parachutes.

What happened to risk/reward system? And wasn’t W supposed to be the ‘accountablity’ president?

Posted by: LibRick at April 23, 2006 9:02 AM
Comment #142458

Do yourself a favor, Jack. Go back and read most of the essays in the blue column with the given that we American liberals agree largely with this manifesto already.

This is the irony, really. You look at this and go “Good show!”, yet when you come here, despite much evidence to the contrary, you insist that the bulk of the liberals here are in need of its lessons.

The trouble is, your side has carrying on both sides of the debate for itself, assuming sinister, selfish, and naive motives when our sentiments are actually closer to those expressed in this manifesto.

On certain details, though, this manifesto suffers from its locale. For the Brits, who weren’t the main drivers for the war, and are unlikely to follow it up with further unpopular interventions, the question of the why’s and wherefore’s of this war are somewhat pointless to dwell on.

Here, though, its of great importance. We need to learn that intelligence should shape policy, not policy intelligence. The leaders here insist on this being just a thing of human imperfection, but there were many preventable mistakes. It’s of great importance that we don’t get in the habit of being wrong like this, because such errors can have a chilling effect on the ability of those who see threats to voice their presence and nature to superiors.

We will get things wrong. The question is, what then, what is our attitude towards the correction of mistakes, and more importantly towards our own inevitable ignorance of the whole picture?

So we Democrats in this country insist on more disciplined foreign policy, more disciplined handling of intelligence. The alternative is the paralysis in foreign policy of a country that can neither trust its leaders, nor it’s knowledge of the rest of the world. Our security depends on being able to both confidently and accurately deal with the intelligence out there.

Why does Bush get so much criticism on this? Because he does not seem to absorb the lesson. He treats it like an unpreventable mistakes, as if his administration is not responsible for what happened, for going to war on information they knew was iffy. We cannot afford this kind of irresponsibility.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 23, 2006 9:49 AM
Comment #142461

Aldous
The ultimate irony.The Mighty Eagle arguing for restraint in Iran,and Aldous frothing at the mouth.

I think the Iraq government will be formed quickly and I also think that within 6 months the militia will be folded into the security forces.

Benchmark this prediction.I also think that power,no matter where it is is negotiated and Iraq is no different.

In 3 short years,a despot was overthrown,3 elections took place,a constitution drafted and accepted,an now a government in place…..taking place 4 years sooner than America’s!!!

Plus our own posionous politicial climate hasn’t helped either.

At least consider carefully all the options if we pre-emptively attack Iran(absent them attacking us,that is):If we do attack Iran,we better have an occupation plan in place first,and we better knock out the Syrians too(as well as having an occupation plan there as well).

Then we will have to deal with Russia….Iran is at their southern border.Imagine if a foreign country hostile to America invaded and occupied Mexico.

This time,they have to do it right,but I think Bush will rather deal with Iraq now and leave with that problem fixed,also fixing the immigration thing too.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 23, 2006 10:08 AM
Comment #142464

Jack,

Ted Kennedy wants to kick ass, just the right ass. Look at his voting record. He voted for the war in Afghanistan, but against the Iraq War. I think most Americans would look at those votes and say that in retrospect he got it right.

Incidentally, he also served in the US military (unlike many of his chest-thumping critics).

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 23, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #142468

Nothing changes because parties don’t matter.
Parties don’t matter because both are full of irresponsible incumbent politicians, and they simply take turns.

Problems seem to grow in number and severity because they are.

Since there were no WMD in Iraq, Iran and N.Korea are a bigger threat (not to mention Osama still runnin’ around makin’ tapes).

Most (if not all) of them are irresponsible, and the list of blunders grows ever larger.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 23, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #142475

The wrong wing has only one agenda - “attack the left”. This thread is simply another example of that.

The wrong wing is so totally consumed by their blind hatred for all things liberal that they will go to any - ANY - lengths to see it discredited, disenfranchised, and/or destroyed. They view “liberalism” as their biggest enemy and have confused what is good for the wrong wing with what is good for the country. That’s why they hijacked (pardon the pun, Jack) our national attention from the growing terrorist threat to the Presidential Penis during the late 90’s - because a popular and successful President Clinton was their biggest threat. So they had to take him down at all costs. And one of those costs was the complete and utter lack of focus on the growing terrorist threat.

As for the claim that “liberals have no new ideas”: I find it amazing that wrong wingers can say that with a straight face, when their SINGLE objective is to return this country the the good ol’ days of the 1890’s - an era without social security, without trade unions, without environmental restrictions, and without any of those pesky laws that kept them and their cronies from conducting business however they wanted. Back to the day of the Robber Barons, of conspicuous consumption, when it was considered a good thing to “do business just downwind of the law.”

The wrong wing has no new ideas. All they have are old ideas - ideas that didn’t work in the 19th century, and that won’t work in this one either.

Posted by: ElliottBay at April 23, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #142478

Rocky

Those are the political leaders of the more liberal American party and the more liberal part of that. Liberals and Dems are not the same, but they overlap.

Xander

We have to use the terms people use. Traditional liberalism split in the 1930s, with the economic freedom guys becoming conservative (conserving the liberal tradition) and the rights guys and government planning guys taking over the term. I know that internationally liberal still means something closer to a Republicans and neo-liberal is pretty much what we call neo-conservative. It is confusing, but I have to use the term we have not the term I want.

Phx8

You don’t mention much of a liberal agenda except what they are against. Human rights. What do you mean by that? Do you mean liberals are pushing hard for a solution in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran or N. Korea where hundreds of thousands die each year, or does it mean complaining about Guantanamo where about 500 suspected terrorists are gaining weight on their decent meals? Global warming. Does that mean advocating nuclear power and higher prices, or does it mean signing on to a set of state sponsored programs, like Kyoto, which even proponents admit will postpone (not stop) global warming for a couple of years at great cost?

Jack M

I accept the U.S. policy hurts some people and helps a lot more. Most of the anti-American zealots I speak to could not pass even a multiple choice test about what American foreign policy actually does. Anti-Americanism has become a syndrome. It is a type of racism.

Adrienne

I think we need two strong parties or wings in the U.S. Liberals have not been holding up their end since the middle of the 1970s. I am looking for signs of light in that benighted landscape of the left. I am also trying to find places of common interest between the left and right of the U.S. since we are all Americans. I don’t hate liberals even though some liberals hate people like me (and call me evil and/or stupid).

Marys

I don’t know why it is so important to some people to claim that the president lied. Most leading Democrats said the same things at the time. The decision made sense based on the information available at the time. Now in the light of subsequent events, we can find all the flaws and they seem very clear.

My favorite analogy is stock prices. Many people tell me how we should have seen the market rise, fall etc. In this case we have a bottom line. I always ask them if they got rich off the market. If the answer is no, I smile and understand that they are fooling themselves about their prescience.

As I type this, I am watching a History Channel article about the bulletin of Atomic Scientists and their doomsday clock. These pessimists were constantly predicting the destruction. They just didn’t understand and they didn’t understand Ronald Reagan.

That whole clock idea with a couple of minutes before doomsday is kind of silly. If/when something happens, these guys will never see it coming.

Librick

I bet you were against Ronald Reagan too. Please see above.

Stephen

Your post is reasonable, but you have fallen for the hope over experience problem. Democratic Foreign policy, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, was not disciplined. Intelligence was not better. We live in a complex world. Intelligence is ALWAYS flawed. Decisions are ALWAYS made in a climate of uncertainty.

I hope liberals can contribute some good ideas. So far, I have not seen many. When I do see them, I post.

Woody

It is a misuse of history to believe that Afghanistan was the good war and Iraq was the bad one or that it was popular to go into Afghanistan. The moveon.org folks and the not in my name clowns opposed Afghanistan and many others would have come around. Iraq is convenient for them. Did Kennedy vote to push Saddam out of Kuwait?

Posted by: Jack at April 23, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #142485

是个好网站

Posted by: 公司法 at April 23, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #142487


Aldous: What coalition shall we put together for the invasion of Iran? If no coalition, should we go it alone? Invading Iran will not be nearly as easy as Iraq. Even if we devastate the country with air power first, we will need at least a million troops and two million would be better.
Do we reinstitute the draft and force a couple million (exempt well off liberals and conservatives)(create a whole new generation of anti-war activists and chicken hawks)young Americans into the military?
Before we even consider an invasion Iran, we should have a lot better thought process and alot better planning that we had before the invasion of Iraq. And, we should think long and hard about what the consequences of an invasion will mean to our country as well as the rest of the world.
Considering how world opinion has changed about the United States since Iraq, what will they think about us if we invade Iran. Who will be next, France? After all, France has been a thorn in our side because of Iraq, and they already have nuclear weapons, submarines and all that good stuff.

Posted by: jlw at April 23, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #142493

nice strategy elliottbay—

just take the conservative argument
and flop it back on em!

Posted by: charlie wyckoff at April 23, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #142494

jlw

Now THAT’s a great idea…invading France…I am running low on my Remy Martin XXO cognac with this boycott,but if we invade,I could call it a spoil of war.Bravo on the idea!

Elliot

The only thing I try to keep downwind is when I stand next to one of those lefty greenies who don’t use a good deoderant.

How about throwing one ORIGINAL idea yourself for discussion?Just one.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 23, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #142497

All
I translated that Chinese post above it could mean one of three things:

1.Liberals Dogs must die signed The Chinese Eagle(no relation) or
2.Do you want spare ribs with that won ton? signed the Hungry Traveller or
3.Throw out all the bums signed David’s cousin who has opened a blog in China on dishonest politicians.

My translator can’t figure out which one,but I am close.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 23, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #142505


Jack: I was raised to be a Roosevelt Democrat. I consider myself to be middle of the road/left leaning. If I have to choose between conservative or liberal, I’ll choose liberal even though I don’t agree with some of the liberal ideas.
For instance, I believe in workfair rather than welfare. I belive that everyone should work hard and get paid well.
But, I think that hearing a capitalist conservative say that todays liberals should be more like a Roosevelt liberal is the funniest thing I have heard in quite a while. The capitalists hated Roosevelt and his new deal, even though that probably saved their hides.
Republicans are in control of the government today because of the coalition of voters they have been able to put together but can not possibly maintain.

Posted by: jlw at April 23, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #142506


S. Eagle: I guess you are assuming that the first French nuck won”t take you and yours out.
And by the way, there is no way the Iraq attempt at forming a government can be compared to our own. Does it take weeks to travel by horse back or carriage from Basra to Bagdad,negotiate points,back to Basra for consultation and back to Bagdad for more negotiations?

Posted by: jlw at April 23, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #142508

jlw

History moves and all Americans can claim the heritage of our great leaders. Much of the New Deal worked (infrastructure etc). Much didn’t (didn’t end the depression). Some worked at the time but will not in the future (like SS)

Liberals have lost their way since 1970.

Posted by: Jack at April 23, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #142511

Other than the part where we exercise a more “muscular” socialism, sounds like a great plan. SOCIALISM ALWAYS FAILS.

Posted by: David C. at April 23, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #142513

jlw,
We have the same choice as Europe did in the 30’s. We can fight Iran (see Germany in the 30’s) THERE now, or we can fight them here, there and everywhere later. Either way, people will die.

Throughout history, fewer people die when evil is confronted early on, than die when good men do nothing. Not just sometimes, but everytime.

Posted by: David C. at April 23, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #142520

JLW
Lighten up..it was a joke..although I really like Remy Martin(pronounced Marrr Tan)rolling that r is important to the French.

About Iraq:C’mon…4 months is lightening quick.That’s the key..in this microwave day and age where we want everything now,immediately,4 months is a lifetime.

Really,they formed a government in a blink of an eye and history will show that.

“The Iraqis within a 16 month period held three elections in precarious circumstances…mant risking their lives to vote for the first time in three decades while electing briefly an intrim government followed by a permmanent government.This was done following the ratification of their first democratic constition”.

“Although setiment worldwide then screamed against deadlock and civil war,it was indeed a remarkable accomplishment that a sovereign government was put in place in such a short period of time.”

“American president George W. Bush,under intense pressure from newspapers and magazine writers nationially suffered greatly in the polls.It wasn’t until the prolific Sicilian Eagle came forth from his perch high on Mt. Etna and enlightened the great unwashed liberal element of American society that the accomplishments of the president were appreciated.”

American History Text,pg 204,copyright 2115

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 23, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #142524

公司,

我明白你的意思。。。你中国人吗? 我觉得不可能,但是我还觉得你在中国。 我的中文当然不太好了!

李小山

Posted by: beijing rob at April 23, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #142526

oops…

Chinese just doesn’t work on this site…d’oh

Posted by: 北京 rob at April 23, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #142529

the character next to rob, is it a one legged man wearing a hat ?

Posted by: john at April 23, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #142536

Jack,

We’re the party of hate??? Well - it’s about time!!! I hope it’s true!!!

You see, I couldn’t believe it when Bush smeared McCain and Kerry’s character. I couldn’t believe the hardball lies and innuendos and most of all - I couldn’t believe how the Democrats took it on the chin and tried to run a class campaign anyway. Kerry showed nice guys do finish last.

Anyway - I can’t wait to be the party of hate, because, well, I hate Republicans. You see, they’ve sacked our kids with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debt, manufactured and selectively leaked evidence to bring this country into war, and screwed up social security, healthcare, education, and, unbelievably, despite pouring billions into it, national security. We’re less secure now than we were on 9/11!

So yeah, I hate Republicans. I’d have to be pretty studid not to considering what I believe, right? After the last 6 years, what did you expect - hugs and kisses? No thanks. If we’ve become the party of hate - I say it’s about time.

Posted by: Max at April 23, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #142537
While hatred can energize a base, it is no substitute for new ideas.

(*cough)Bush the last six years???

Posted by: Max at April 23, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #142539
I hope liberals can contribute some good ideas. So far, I have not seen many. When I do see them, I post.

I see both parties discuss lots of good ideas all the time.

But, that’s the problem.

It’s all talk.

It merely serves to get voters all whipped-up into a frenzy, but little ever comes from all the talk, talk, talk. You’d think we could get much, much better for $2 to $3 trillion per year.

So, that is why our pressing problems continue to grow worse. There are huge lag times with past decisions and policies, but we now may be starting to witness the consequences of the last 3+ decades of fiscal and moral bankruptcy. Voters know it, but don’t know what to do about it. 120 million (of 200 million) voters turned out for the 2004 election, but what did it accomplish? Nothing. And, it’s not all the fault of one person (e.g. Bush). He had an entire Congress of which the majority supported. It seems like the U.S. can more easily justify ways to go to war, than ways to solve tough issues like Social Security, Medicare, illegal immigration, National Debt, corporatism/corpocrisy/corporate welfare, etc.

Look for inflation and interest rates to continue to climb.
The Fed is printing too much money now (because that’s the only choice they have now…defaulting on loans is even more disastrous), foreign investors are voicing concerns of massive debt, interest rates are climbing, inflation is climbing, debt is growing fast, trade deficits are growing, total nation-wide debt (now $54 trillion) is growing fast, median wages have been falling for 6 years, foreclosures have been climbing for 13 months, real estate bubbles are primed for a burst, National Debt (including plundered Social Security) is growing by $4 billion per day!, we are getting closer and closer to the edge of the cliff, and voters just want to wallow in petty partisan warfare, and argue about who is too conservative and who is too liberal, instead of specific problems and how to solve them.

That is why the next recession will most likely turn into the next Great Depression.
Because of corruption, incompetence, and voters oblivious to the problem and/or solution.

Some say our government is Of / For / By the people.

It is a very true statement, since voters have, right under their very noses, the means to remedy the problem, but don’t.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 23, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #142540

The way for all of us out of the “Blind Alley” is the one simple, common-sense, non-partisan, no-brainer, inexpensive, safe, peaceful, logical, and responsible thing voters were supposed to be doing all along. Everything else just pushes that day further into the future.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 23, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #142541

Eagle,

How about throwing one ORIGINAL idea yourself for discussion?
Just as soon as you do, my frend. The truth hurts, eh?

Posted by: ElliottBay at April 23, 2006 5:55 PM
Comment #142542

Eagle,

How does the fact that this is the longest war ever square with your comment about everything in Iraq happening so lightning fast?

Keep them coming. The more posts about how Iraq is the fastest war ever and the economy is in great shape only serve to let the people see the truth: the Republican party can’t face facts.

Posted by: Max at April 23, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #142547

Max

The war is over. The reconstruction is what is taking more time.

The economy is in great shape. If you don’t have a job now, you don’t want one.

Posted by: Jack at April 23, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #142550

Jack,

The war is over. The reconstruction is what is taking more time.

Wow, the utter ignorance of your post is less than amusing. But hey, if thats truly what you believe, perhaps you should enlist in the “ARMY” and go help with the reconstruction. Let me guess, your either too old or uninterested in that lifestyle.

Was the war over when Bush famously told the American people that major combat had ended in what, 2003?

I suppose if you repeat your statement every day for the 2 years, you might actually believe that war is really over.

The economy is in great shape. If you don’t have a job now, you don’t want one.

I take it you get paid to blog here.

cheers!


Posted by: reed at April 23, 2006 6:49 PM
Comment #142554

Reed

I don’t get paid to blog, but I do have a job (don’t you). Actually one big job and several intrests (some that yield money, but most that cost me)

The economy is excellent. It is one of the best ones in our lifetimes.

There is a difference between war and what we have now. It is becoming more like the situation was in N. Ireland. Or if you like it is more like the long war on terrorism we always talk about.

Posted by: Jack at April 23, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #142556

Jack,

wow, by the sheer amount you blog here, I’m guessing you don’t get much work done at your job. I would be fired if I blogged this much at mine. I’m a software engineer by the way.

As far as the economy goes, perhaps you should read some books by Kevin Phillips “who is definitely not a lefty” and see where this borrow and spend “excellent” economy is leading us.

As I’ve said before, mortgaging our future for temporary gain now is not a recipe for success.

As far as the war goes, I think what you are saying is less ignorant and more deceitful. Like a true neo-con, if you repeat a lie enough times, you and like-minded others will eventually believe it.

Posted by: reed at April 23, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #142557

oh yeah, and one more thing. Northern Island? You’re cracking me up now. I take that deceitful comment back. It is ignorance. Do you think we have 125,000+ american soldiers in active duty in NI.

I wouldn’t take that comment seriously if I didn’t think you actually believed it.

We are still at war, we haven’t pulled our troops out and have not signed a peace accord.

I know I will be moderated but get a clue man.

Posted by: reed at April 23, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #142560

Jack,
You say that foriegn policy under Democrat presidents was worse than then the current administration’s, HAHAHAHA!!!, do you really believe that?
Atleast under Clinton’s and Carter’s administration we didn’t invade another country based on faulty information, a country that had NO CORRELATION TO 9/11.
Sure, many democrats voted for the War in Iraq, but this is because our great president fed and brainwashed up with lies to support his own personal agenda.
Another point is that, sure the economy is currently doing well, however this is because of WAR. WAR is the reason the economy is doing great, it’s been shown throughout history, when America is in times of war, the economy does great.
Oh jolly, killing Iraqis and bombing 3rd world villages booms the economy, let’s do it more!!!!

Posted by: greenstuff at April 23, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #142562

Reed

I write fast and I don’t work 24 hours a day. I find time for lots of things. If you don’t, maybe you should read some books on time management and goal setting. I have noticed that people who are “too busy” usually don’t properly control their time.

BTW while I “blogged” today, I took my son to an event, ran 3 1/2 miles, researched some stocks, read the Sunday WP and this week’s Economist, planted a row of trees, dug out the clogged ditch to a rain garden, helped my other son with homework, shopped at my local Safeway, cooked supper and cleaned up. When I had nothing to do, I made blog posts. You have to have the vigor to do all the things you want.

Reed

Why should you be moderated. It is your opinion and it is not abusive.

What I mean is the war on terror will take a long time, like the cold war. We defeated Saddam in a couple of weeks. Defeating terror may take a lifetime.

Posted by: Jack at April 23, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #142566

Greenstuff

Yes, those Dems who served on the intelligence committees for decades, and those who were part of the government until a couple years before and those who had all sorts of briefings were all tricked by President Bush. He must be so much smarter than they are.

Saddam had no operational connection to 9/11 but his regime sponsored terror and his security services had connections with Al Queda. Also remember that when we flushed Zarqawi from Afghanistan, he went to Iraq. He could not have just showed up in a place and started operations if he didn’t have some base.

I know that neither Carter nor Clinton would have invaded Afghanistan, but consider Clinton’s policy in Bosnia or Kosovo. I supported Kosovo,BTW, but it was no more “legal” or illegal than Iraq. Carter’s policy was a general joke.

Posted by: Jack at April 23, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #142569

Jack,

I have 2 young sons of my own and I spend much more time with them than I do with this blog.

I lead an extremely balanced life and am not a workaholic.

What I mean is the war on terror will take a long time, like the cold war. We defeated Saddam in a couple of weeks. Defeating terror may take a lifetime.

These kinds of statements are what is so hard to take from the right. It is inherently deceitful to tie Iraq with the war on terror. Everybody and there sister knows there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11……well, except Cheney and possibly you.

Its called spin Jack. If you say enough times, people will accept it as fact. Terrorists didn’t move into the country until Saddam was disposed. Believe it or not.

BTW - the war on terror isn’t a war at all. Its like the war on drugs or the war on poverty. Its a sham meant to rile people up with FUD(fear uncertaintly and doubt).

also, Iraq reminds people more of Vietnam than Northen Ireland. I guess thats a bit too obvious though.

Posted by: reed at April 23, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #142578

Reed,
Please don’t torrment Jack so much. He has a lot of work to do. He practically runs the Red column all by himself.

Give the guy a break, he has lots of things to write about.

Right, Jack?

Posted by: Linda H. at April 23, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #142579

Jack is right that Iraq was sponsoring terrorism through financial and material aid. There were training camps located in Iraq and there were meetings between Iraqi officials and AlQuida representatives.

The only reason that Saddam was not more involved in facilitating terrorist activities was due to the restrictions his country was operating under since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The UN sanctions and US oversight hindered his ability to take a more active role, but those restrictions were about to be lifted. Saddam maintained the infrastructure to initiate his weapons program and through illegal distribution of the proceeds from Iraq’s Oil for Food program to allies such as France and Germany, he had the connections to procure additional restricted technology.

In short, Iraq was a ticking bomb.

After September 11th, the US had to take a strong position on international terrorism. The attack on Afghanistan disrupted the terrorist’s operation, but the infrastructure was and is a mobile thing capable of existing in any country lacking a government with enough strength to maintain the rule of law. Stopping the US assault after Afghanistan would have merely delayed the infrastructure from establishing itself elsewhere. The US needed to illustrate to the world community that we would definitively oppose terrorist forces whereever they established themselves. As a result of these campaigns, the number of countries willing to host terrorists is greatly reduced.

I think it was essential to take this fight to the enemy considering the devastating impact a single incident within the US had on our economy. I also think that the US did the right thing in freeing the people of Iraq from a despot. I have confidence that the Iraqi’s will suceed in establishing a government and will eventually put the dark years of Saddam’s rule in their past. It will take time. Europe experienced continued resistance from remnants of the defeated axis powers for a decade or more. Iraq will face similar setbacks, but given what is at stake, I think patience is warranted.

Aside from the intrinsic benefits to the Iraqis, the US should count the reformation of the military as a benefit. The outdated model, suitable for fixed battles, wasn’t adequate for the conflict in Vietnam, let alone for modern warfare against irregular forces. We now fight smarter and recognize that a trained soldier is the most valuable resource in any modern army.

The Bush administration, and Donald Rumsfeld in particular, should be credited for revamping the military. That alone is sufficient justification for supporting Bush.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 23, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #142586

Attention all neocons,
Stop spinning the purposes of the War in Iraq, god, all of you are doublethinkers who are willing to swallow whatever the gov’t bueracrats are spooning to you.
First the War was about finding WMDs, well where are they?
After you guys realized you were wrong (well some of you anyway), you said spreading democracy in the middle east is our top priority (Hamas for 2008!!), and now you say that Iraq had some kind of indirect link with 9/11(hmmm…did Spain really attack the USS Maine?).
Wow, do you guys even hear the nonsense you’re spewing, they’re all lies and half baked theories to bury your own failures.

Posted by: greenstuff at April 23, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #142587

>>The economy is excellent. It is one of the best ones in our lifetimes.
There is a difference between war and what we have now. It is becoming more like the situation was in N. Ireland. Or if you like it is more like the long war on terrorism we always talk about.


Posted by: Jack at April 23, 2006 07:10 PM

>>Jack is right that Iraq was sponsoring terrorism through financial and material aid. There were training camps located in Iraq and there were meetings between Iraqi officials and AlQuida representatives.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 23, 2006 09:12 PM

Jack, the economy is dependant upon our greatgrandchildren’s ability to pay for it…

gkn,

Are you saying that no other nation in the middle east was talking to terrorists? If you are not saying that, why did we invade the least likely to harm us???

Posted by: Marysdude at April 23, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #142588

>>Aside from the intrinsic benefits to the Iraqis, the US should count the reformation of the military as a benefit. The outdated model, suitable for fixed battles, wasn’t adequate for the conflict in Vietnam, let alone for modern warfare against irregular forces. We now fight smarter and recognize that a trained soldier is the most valuable resource in any modern army.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 23, 2006 09:12 PM

And, gkn, just how much more successful has this ‘new way of war’ been???

Posted by: Marysdude at April 23, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #142597

Marys

All economies are like that. We create infrastructure the next generation can use. The next generation does its part.

Think about the deficit as a percentage of GDP. It is about the same as it was in 1995. This is a problem, but not a catastrophe. All current expenditures are paid with current dollars. The government can take that either in taxes or debt. The problem is to cut the total size of the Federal spending. What do you propose we cut?

Since all current expenditures are paid with current dollars, our big problem is entitlements, which will grow out of control in the near future. When President Bush proposed some solutions, he was shot to pieces. Nobody came up with any alternatives. That is a problem. In fact the lack of any proposals on entitlements was one of the problems liberals have with new ideas. They still think it is 1935.

So you fear for the future, but you have to admit that the current economy is great.

Posted by: Jack at April 23, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #142607

Jack,
Okay there was Kosovo under Clinton, and now there is the Dafur crisis under Bush.
Hmmm…what is our great president doing about it, nothing. Colin Powell promised that the U.S. govt would assist the refugees in Dafur, but nothing has happened; if one can blame Kosovo on Clinton, then the Dafur Crisis can be blamed on Bush.

Posted by: greenstuff at April 24, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #142613

president clinton was criticized by the world court for refusing to help stop the genocide in rowanda.

Posted by: jim c at April 24, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #142626
The war is over. The reconstruction is what is taking more time.

The economy is in great shape. If you don’t have a job now, you don’t want one.

Jack,

For the record, I have a job.

The two assertions you repeatedly make, that the war is over, and that economy is in great shape, no one believes. I don’t even have to refute it. It’s common knowledge. I don’t even think Bush or anyone on his staff would have the balls to say it.

Since you brought up the subject, out of curiousity are you paid in any way for your political opinions? This is not an attack - I am just curious. In fact, it’s meant as a compliment, you come across as a pro, and are doing a heck of a job posting. Obviously it’s crossed a couple of minds as a question, and curious minds want to know!

Posted by: Max at April 24, 2006 2:28 AM
Comment #142629

Straight from the dictionary:

lib·er·al·ism n. The state or quality of being liberal. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

Anybody have any Problems with that?

Let’s try another:

pro·gres·sive adj. Moving forward; advancing. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods.

Again, only a fool would call that “bad.”

So, let’s turn things on their heads, to see what a Conservative believes is Good:

Conservatism: “A political theory founded on the natural Evil of humans and the Servitude of the individual, and favoring civil and political Oppression, government by Whim, without the consent of the governed, and with NO protection from arbitrary authority.”

All I did was take the definition of “Liberalism” and substitute Opposite Meanings - and, as any Conservative will tell you: Conservatism is the opposite of Liberalism, yes? So, when you take the very Definition of Liberalism, and apply its Opposites, you get the Above. Funny, huh?

Let’s do it with “Progressive,” shall we? Here’s the Opposite of the dictionary-definition of Progressive (in a Political sense): “Not proceeding in steps; not moving at all: absolutely no change. Promoting the Status Quo, preventing progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods…”

Again, don’t blame me, Right-WingNuts: the very definitions of our language tell us what you support.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 24, 2006 3:00 AM
Comment #142635


David C: So Iran is the next Germany. What fantacy land do you live in? What country will Iran Blitzkrieg first? Do they attack Iraq and take on the U.S. first? Do they attack Afganistan and take on the U.S. and N.A.T.O.? Or , perhaps they go after Russia first. Anyway they choose to go, they will get the hell kicked out of them real fast.

Jack: Yes the economy is just wonderful and there is going to be many more jobs for our children in the Army. And the good news is that the capitalists won’t have to pay for all the wars they have planned in the future. We can raise the taxes on the workers to pay for them.

Dan: I’m afraid it is already to late for the people. The voters are just to busy with work and to preoccupied with entertainment to pay much attention to what their congressman or senators are doing. If the congressman helps uncle Ned get his pension then he is a good guy and deserves to get reelected. And, politics is boaring anyway.
I say it is to late because the government is owned by the corporations and so is the news media. Soon all dissenting voices will be silenced.

Posted by: jlw at April 24, 2006 3:48 AM
Comment #142637


Yes Jack, the war is over. Only 61 of our troops have been killed so far this month. I guess they were all killed in construction accidents while rebuilding the infrastructure.

My best friends son arrived in Faluja two weeks ago on his second tour. My nephew is getting ready to return to Iraq for his second tour. Since the war is over, why are we so worried for them.

Posted by: jlw at April 24, 2006 4:03 AM
Comment #142642

Betty,

Busting out the Ol Webster’s doesn’t do much since it adopts the conventional use of the term, including the bastardized versions. “Liberalism” is strictly defined by Political Scientists (the people who coined the phrase to begin with).

“Liberal” theory was based on the assumption that the economic actions of individuals are largely based on self-interest, and that allowing them to do so without any restrictions will produce the best results, provided that at least minimum standards of public information and justice exist, e.g., no-one should be allowed to coerce or steal.

This implies that the privileges and restrictions should be abolished and everybody should have the freedom to choose a profession, sell and buy, make contracts etc. as long as all participants are voluntary. Every restriction reduces the set of alternatives and thus often forces people to choose less beneficial alternatives.

This is just the quick summary from good ol Wikipedia, and hardly captures the true meaning under Kant, Friedman, etc… which is basically: LET THE MARKET HANDLE IT. That is what liberalism is, means, etc.

Posted by: Xander Jones at April 24, 2006 4:58 AM
Comment #142645

Betty & Xander,

Wait a minute I thought Conservatism was just a ideogogical means by which the wealthy could pump-up their own stock portfolios at our nation’s greater expense.

And secondly as a sidenote: why is liberalism and progressivism in the American sense being equated with socialism? Being that now the right actually has more pork and corporate welfare scams on the table than the left has ever had in their history to date. Not to mention with no will or means to pay it down—genuine conservatism in America is roadkill.

They turn the dollar into shit through tax cuts for the upper 4 percentile and let the people in mid-incomes all fend for themselves in an asphalt jungle—and the right wing denso-illuminaries, deem this all as a wonderful advancement. The higher gas prices were caused by Bush and his treasury poliocies and his mismanagement of our nation and our dollar, for the sake of corporate dividends.

I love hearing these Republican prick-heads defend the rich-right’s initiatives and not know so much as frickin’ half of what is going on.

Okay here’s a clue Jack or whomever: Our labor secretary in the Bush admin. is a millionaire heiress to a Chinese shipping fortune,old money—Our “LABOR SECRETARY”—hello? The right-wingers on this site still don’t get it—this administration is not for you—you don’t have the dinars, dollars or deutchmarks to be part of any of it, so stop being dumb-asses and defending it. Bush is not a man of the people, he is a man of his people and you ain’t one of them—they don’t want you as one of them at all—you don’t have the money to be one of them.

GET IT YET?

Posted by: Novenge at April 24, 2006 5:51 AM
Comment #142649

HEY JACK! Here’s a quiz:

Which part of the new Republican platform is conservatism?

A. Getting rid of the estate tax?
B. Giving out tax-cuts to the wealthy (not corporations but wealthy individuals) you in the mid-incomes aren’t privy too?
C. Billions in pork barrel scams?
D. Billions in corporate welfare?
E. No means of paying down the deficits?
F. Giving as little voice to the pro-life movement as possible?
G. Trying to hand over ports to the Saudis?
H. Illegal aliens from Mexico and South America getting amnesty in the US?
I. Not going after the one who caused the 9/11 attacks?
J. Higher gas prices through a mismanaged dollar value?

The only thing I see is starting a massive war on no actual intelligence (they knew there was nothing) so that government contractors can make a fortune as can wealthy stockmarket investors—do you see that yet? that’s why he got rid of the taxation on dividends when he came in—so he could have a war somewhere and make buku-bucks for him and his friends.

Jack please get a clue.

Posted by: Novenge at April 24, 2006 6:29 AM
Comment #142650

Novenga:

What an eloquent posting! Just drippin with political acumen.

I hate to dispute your points, but …

- Higher gas prices reflect the price of crude which is not a republican decision. This situation is exacerbated by our insufficient refinery capacity also not a republican decision. We’re still playing catch up from industry disruptions caused by Hurricane Katrina, again not a republican decision.

- I’m one of those mid-income folks and I pay less taxes now. True, people wealthier than me got bigger breaks, but they paid more to start with. Unlike you, I don’t feel that the government or the poor own all the money so I applaud it when taxes are reduced.

- The secretary of labor is generally a highly educated professional. Usually, this and other cabinet level posts are filled by people who went to good (read expensive) schools. Not surprisingly, this results in alot of wealthy people occupying these positions. Would you prefer a ditch digger or a taxi-cab driver be selected for this position by virtue of their common man standing? Are you advocating some sort of sweat of the brow test? Under the current labor department we have achieved the lowest unemployment rate in history. Isn’t this a more salient fact when evaluating the performance of the Department of Labor than the personal income of the secretary?

Posted by: goodkingned at April 24, 2006 6:34 AM
Comment #142653

Green

I supported President Clinton in Kosovo. I didn’t like all the details and the execution could have been better. I feel the same way about President Bush in Iraq.

Max

The war is definitional. I don’t mean to say it is not deadly. Iraq is a situation. We won’t know when it is over. One day it will just stop being in the news. And then someone will declare that there is a different problem.

Re the economy. I wish Bush would be more forceful. The economy is excellent. It does not get very much better than it is now. People are naturally troubled by their situations and there are always people who have trouble even in the best economy. That is life. There is an old saying that many people have too much money but nobody has enough.


Re your question about my background. No. In fact my employer would be unenthusiastic about the time I “waste” thinking about domestic politics. My work is in international affairs and that is where I have personal knowledge. I also do forestry so I have some first hand experience there. I volunteered on various campaigns, mostly Republican but not always.

Believe it or not, I am not partisan enough to work for a party. I know you may think that what I say is a Republican Party line, but my thinking is just not disciplined enough for the actual political role. A man has gotta know his limitations.

Re blogging in general - I enjoy crafting these sorts of things. Nobody will listen to me anyone in real life, so I have to inflict it on you all.

Betty

The problem is not with your definitions, it is what you attach them to. Definitions don’t always fit in the real world. Your definitions don’t follow the American parties or politics.

If liberals think people are naturally good, why do they feel it necessary to advocate so many laws and regulations to keep them from being greedy or stupid? Your definition of liberal fits both parties - and neither.

Your definition of progressive sounds just like Newt Gingrich. You should put his picture next to it.

We also don’t have the Manichaeism you seem to believe in. Good and bad, smart and stupid are distributed all over the political spectrum.

If Democrats were liberals or progressives, by your definition, it would be a good thing. When you find some, let us know.

Posted by: Jack at April 24, 2006 7:54 AM
Comment #142658

Good King Ned,

The price we pay per barrel (overseas) is the American dollar value in contrast to other international currencies, the higher the currency value of our notes the less dollars it takes to get that barrel of crude (and visa versa). the cost of a barrel is in ‘value of currency’ not just a show of our greenbacks but what that is actually worth by the amount of debt on it (more debt, less currency value). It is currently now worth about 40 cents of the 2001 dollar value, due obviously to the debts we owe on it.(Capitol Hill over-spending certainly doesn’t help any either).

Now as you are claiming, there may have been a barrel cost increase (no shocker), often the case as there are market fluctuations, such is life, but we are still working with a ‘currency value’ when we are purchasing it—not just dollars but what that ‘note’ itself is worth on the world market.

Now that our US dollar is worth roughly less than half of what it was worth in 2000 it takes more dollars then to purchase that barrel and the price hence translates to what we pay at the pump.

*The crude purchaser, in other words, has to shell out more of those US dollars to buy the barrel at a lower dollar value (due to our deficit)and we catch the brunt domestically. This is John Snow’s export economy theory still in action.

Why is this mismanagement? The rich are not paying down the deficit we owe to the federal reserve. The fiat (the deficit) that we owe is paid to the federal reserve to repump the currency’s value—that’s what taxes are. The dollars in the form of taxes are essentially recalled to the fed and go to payback debt and repump the value of the currency (any social spending comes after when the dollar is worth more after taxtime). Now when the rich aren’t paying anything towards the debt, who then foots the whole of the debt? That’s us—we in the midsection and lower incomes pay down the deficit to the Federal Reserve. So what we are doing now is flooding the economy with dollars (read; pork-spending, tax deferrals and a war) with only half the collateral backing, being there is no one to pay down the debt but us, and not the rich who are, for better or worse, the cash cow. NOW couple that with their loopholes and write-offs anyway, the costs of the war, corporate welfare and the huge pork spending on the Capitol Hill level and whammo!

2nd part:Paying nothing in taxes at the top percentiles is not something I personally see as balanced. My argument has been should they have use of our Justice System, Roads, infrastructure or Police Force then? They paid in more perhaps, Despite their myriad loopholes and writeoffs (that we should obviously have more of IMHO). If you yourself personally pay less in FICA, good for you—wish ya’ all the best.

Also as a asidenote: when someone who makes millions anually versus me or you pays fifteen or more percent in FICA, it hurts us moreso than someone who is not only independently wealthy but ALREADY HAS 100 LOOPHOLES and write offs to where they pay less than apportioned anyway. Why are they getting the taxcuts then? They as rich people have the cuts already in the form of loopholes and as Bush himself has said, “the best accountants money can buy”.

3. The secretary of Labor being a millionairess does not really fit with the job credentials of labor secretary. Shouldn’t it instead be someone who actually knows what labor is, not solely from a white glove position in life? Not a taxi driver per se, but someone who perhaps is from a family that has actual laborers in it maybe? I don’t know but it has a certain irony given all the outsourcing of manufacturing to ‘CHINA’.

Now as for the lowest unemployment rate in history—let me get back to you on that.

Also the insufficient refinery stuff??? Ever been to New Jersey? Texas? We have plenty of refineries it has to do with our buying the crude overseas not our capacity to refine it. we have loads of refineries, that is such an msm red herring. If we needed more refineries we just sign the Corporate loans to build more instantly—no problemo and we could have fifty or 100 more if we really needed them. Like I said that’s red herring nonsense. The EPA isn’t the problem either as all refineries already comply and do very well obviously.

Proof in pudding: Have you ever heard Bush say “We are going to build 20 more refineries”??? Me either, it’s a bullshit corporatized nonsense excuse. The Bushies and their bunch just have alot of money tied up in Mideast crude—that’s the real reason for the high prices. George W. Bush’s company Harken Energy was involved in Mideast crude before Iraq War 1—there’s a definite history there with him alone. Before that his dad with Zapata Oil and another family company (name escapes me). These are oil men first they want the highest price possible for the stock they own. and so do the oil companies that support republican presidential campaigns through the RNC. The spoonfed MSM may buy it I don’t as there is no evidence to it being true or we would do something—the Republicans do have BOTH houses of Congress and The White House, right? And yet they do nothing—hmmm—probably not the real reason for the oil prices—call me a cynic.

Posted by: Novenge at April 24, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #142661


We dont need to go to war with Iran, we just need to blow up those reactors.

Iran might get mad and stomp there feet but they wont do anything more then there doing now.

There already hate america so who cares if they get mad, there already mad.

Posted by: MacIrish at April 24, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #142664

Novenge:

No, I have never been to New Jersey. But I can’t count the number of analysts, economists, and general experts who maintain that America needs more refinerys. The reason that more are not being constructed is that nobody wants a messy, environmentally dangerous industrial complex in their area. The regulatory requirements are hideously cumbersome and the costs for environmental protection compliance are prohibitive.

I shall pay close attention the next time I hear these opinions bandied about and assess their validity. I suggest that you do the same because I bet you a 1970 dollar that I am right.

Regarding your assertion that high earners pay nothing in taxes is just wrong. I know a few immensely wealthy people and even with breaks for investment, charity, job creation credits, and whatnot they pay over half of their income in taxes. I have never observed them using the roadways more than poorer people and as far as I know, the military doesn’t offer them any additional security. They contribute to public education, yet they pay to educate their children privately, no freeloading there. They also contribute heavily to charity. Without the big donations from big earners, charities would fold. It is not possible to significantly expand the services offered by a charitable venture on yours or mine paltry contributions. Indeed, I don’t think that most charities could even maintain their current services with the level of funding provided by low to middle earners.

I agree that the taxes paid by the rich are a smaller percentage of their total wealth. They have more disposable income after taxes, but that is their money, not yours, mine or the governments. They earned more, so they get to spend more. I think that’s fair. I don’t agree with wealth redistribution policies based on equality of results.

One factor that my rich friends have in common is that they work very hard. They show ambition and initiative and they are rewarded with wealth. If I worked harder, I would make more money. If I work less, I receive less compensation. Capitalism works, not in every case, but in most.

Just because someone has more money than you doesn’t mean they are morally inferior or morally superior. Morals and ethics operate independently of wealth or poverty. Your bias against those with more seems as short sighted as the false assumption that poor people are poor because of some deficit in their character.

Anyway that’s my opinion. I will look into the refinery capacity issue and talk to you later.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 24, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #142669

I read your post and used to agree with what you said. Howvever, what have we so called Republicans brought to the table lately. I know you are currently thinking I am a liberal in disguise; however, unlike a liberal I still believe dispite his low poll numbers that President Bush is a great president. It is the other non-acting cowards that call themselves Republicans (no loner conservative) that I am mad at! I am drowning in sky rocketing energy cost but I do not see any leadership from the party in power. We have an ever increasing debt because of spending by so called conservatives for their pork projects. This all means conservatives will not lower the government’s part of the gas & energy problem because they can’t afford the lower revenues from the taxes. I might add that tax revenues on gas have gone up because the price has gone up but what does a Republican lead Congress do, find ways to spend it.

No both sides are at fault for not having any ideas. Liberals will retake power in November, because people like me are going to stay home. It will be the first time I have not voted. I can not bring myself to vote for liberal and surely will not vote for a Republican that forgot what it is lkie to be conservative.

Posted by: conservativeforlife at April 24, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #142670

I read your post and used to agree with what you said. Howvever, what have we so called Republicans brought to the table lately. I know you are currently thinking I am a liberal in disguise; however, unlike a liberal I still believe dispite his low poll numbers that President Bush is a great president. It is the other non-acting cowards that call themselves Republicans (no loner conservative) that I am mad at! I am drowning in sky rocketing energy cost but I do not see any leadership from the party in power. We have an ever increasing debt because of spending by so called conservatives for their pork projects. This all means conservatives will not lower the government’s part of the gas & energy problem because they can’t afford the lower revenues from the taxes. I might add that tax revenues on gas have gone up because the price has gone up but what does a Republican lead Congress do, find ways to spend it.

No both sides are at fault for not having any ideas. Liberals will retake power in November, because people like me are going to stay home. It will be the first time I have not voted. I can not bring myself to vote for liberal and surely will not vote for a Republican that forgot what it is lkie to be conservative.

Posted by: Pat at April 24, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #142672


MacIrish: Iran has plenty of conventional weapons and missles. If we attack their nuclear facilities they could and possibly would retaliate by attacking the oil facilities in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. What impact would that have on our economy, the worlds economy? What would the price of gas go to? 5-10$per gallon.

I don’t think the administration will attack Iran because they desperately need them. The American people want us out of Iraq as soon as possible. This administration has no intention of leaving Iraq. Jack likes to pretend that the war is over and all we are doing there is rebuilding the infrastructure. Well, a major part of the reconstruction is really new construction in the form of huge permanent U.S. bases. The administration needs Iran so they can blackmail the American people and Iraq. This administration will say (If we leave Iraq, Iran will attack.)

Posted by: jlw at April 24, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #142673

Hey Betty ~

I don’t know what dictionary you are using, but CONSERVATISM means:

1 : PRESERVATIVE
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism: of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions
TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
4 : of or relating to Conservative Judaism

There’s nothing wrong with preserving tradition; especially the methods & traditions of the “old days”. If you don’t know what I mean by the “old days” then you don’t have enough tools to understand the ideals, philosophy and morals that America was built upon.

Posted by: Cathy at April 24, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #142682

Jack:
“I think we need two strong parties or wings in the U.S.”

And you think that attacking us is a way to make us strong? Sorry, but I don’t believe that is your motive for the “Blind Alley” title of this article, or the reason your always dishing out your “advice” to Liberals. Instead, I think you must be extremely tired of us people on the Left constantly pointing out what a totally disastrous state your Neocon president and the Republican Congressional majority has put this country in — and you’d like nothing more than to have the other side to blame for all this incompetence and mismanagement we’ve seen over their tenure.

“Liberals have not been holding up their end since the middle of the 1970s.”

Interesting observation, since it was then that your party transformed the term Liberal and the folks who adhere to that concept into a dirty word and made us into a group that your party must constantly disparage. And in reaction to this sad fact, and to Reagan’s election, the Democrats at that time began their move to the right.
In my opinion what is needed for the Left to be strong is for us to once more fully embrace that word, and our concepts, and begin to move back to toward the Left where we actually belong.
Because by now our citizenry should be fully aware that our government in the hands of Neocon Republican’s has been nothing but a calamity, and that the Democrats attempt to become Republican Lite hasn’t been much better (save for finally learning the important lesson of being fiscally responsible managers of our economy, a la Bill Clinton.)
This is what will make Liberalism strong again — true social liberalism paired with a shrewd and intelligent focus on fiscal responsiblity.

“I am looking for signs of light in that benighted landscape of the left.”

No doubt you are. It must be tough to come to grips with the fact that your party has dug us into such a deep pit. I imagine any speck of Liberal light might seem a beacon of hope in this dreary Neocon darkness.

“I am also trying to find places of common interest between the left and right of the U.S. since we are all Americans.”

Addressing the need for fiscal responsibility, environmental protection, global warming, affordable healthcare, outsourcing of jobs, stagnating and falling wages of the middle class, the increasing poverty and growth of the poor, and dealing with the fact that oil companies and other corporate entities have taken over the writing of our legislation are all areas where I see that our common interests might converge — so you might want to start there.
You might also refrain from accusing the Left of being in a “Blind Alley” when your Neocon leaders have dug all of us into such a deep, deep pit.

“I don’t hate liberals even though some liberals hate people like me (and call me evil and/or stupid).”

I’ve told you before and I’ll say it again, I don’t hate you, Jack. I do however hate the things your party is doing to this country. I also find it totally irritating and downright astonishing that you (and others like you) are always so arrogantly and impudently quick to blame Liberals and Liberalism for all of this countries woes, while you alternately ignore, apologize for, and/or dismiss the disastrous and ruinous actions of your own, thoroughly non-conservative, party and leadership.

Let’s face it, whether we look to the Right or the Left, what this country currently needs is to dump these Neocons and have our respective parties each find themselves another Roosevelt — a Teddy for the Right (to deal with the Corporate takeover of govt.) and an FDR for the Left (to protect and uphold our social safety net). We’re aren’t going to get either kind of leader in America if all we keep doing is divide the country further with more and more finger pointing and insulting rhetoric.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 24, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #142683

So, Jack,

Do you agree with the manifesto?
If not, what parts? Specifically a few important examples, please.
If yes, welcome to the intelligent left.

Posted by: Dave at April 24, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #142687

Rocky,
“I amazes me that every time someone mentions liberals they trot out the same 5 or 6 names as if these few represent the entire Left.”

2 of the 3 names Jack mentioned were Pelosi and Dean. Ok, Pelosi is the Democratic House Minority leader and Dean is the Democratic National Party Chairman; meaning they are the top representatives of the Democratic Party and they’re both very liberal. If you don’t want the same liberals being mentioned, then the democrats should make those two wackos step down and put someone in there that represents the views you think they represent. It’s that simple. Until then, those names will be mentioned b/c they represent the party.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 24, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #142689

Hey Dave of the Intellegent Left:

Coming from the Intelligent Right, I will share just one example from the Euston Manifesto that sums up its general flavor.


13. Freedom of ideas
We uphold the traditional liberal freedom of ideas. It is more than ever necessary today to affirm that, within the usual constraints against
defamation, libel and incitement to violence, people must be at liberty tocriticize ideas — even whole bodies of ideas — to which others are
committed. This includes the freedom to criticize religion: particular religions and religion in general. Respect for others does not entail remaining silent about their beliefs where these are judged to be wanting.

I’m absolutely for the freedom of ideas, but hateful, destructive opinions offer no productive information other than intolerence & hate. Who is Euston to “judge” whether a religion is wanting or not?

The jest of article 13 is that only the Left has the right of discernment. Everything is permissable, except the rights of the Christian citizen. The Manifesto claims its right to defame, criticize, and hate the “religious”, but will not allow us the right to speak against sexual immorality, abortion, or anything else that doesn’t “fit” with the do-as-you-please attitude of the Left. You can say what you want about me, but it seems the Person you really want the right to criticize is God, the Creator. So take it up with Him and let Him examine the motives of your heart.

Posted by: Cathy at April 24, 2006 1:43 PM
Comment #142690

I read this blog quite often. The more I read it the more I understand that if our Grandfathers had thought like any of you we would all be under German rule right now.

First, War is a very ugly part of life. It has been around since before Christ was born. It will be here long after our children go to the grave. The main idea behind war is win. You win with a strong military. You don’t worry about some little second rate country that wishes they were on our level to approve of what were doing. You hit them hard and fast. Make sure they don’t come back for more(ask the Japanese). Most importantly. If the going gets tuff, you don’t turn and run(ie…Vietnam).

Secondly I get tired of reading about those mean CEO’s who make so much money. Truth is there is not a one of you who would not traid in your job as a fry cook for a job making about 10 million a year. Lets face it. Only the have nots complain about the haves.

Finally and real simply put, Bush is not perfect. But he’s not Kerry. And that my friends is a great blessing.

Posted by: boughregard at April 24, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #142692

I can see that Cathy has drank the muriatic acid of “theocratic hating of what is not us”.
And that boughregard “traid”ed in his smock for the k-lyte.
Jack, the question is still posed to you…

Posted by: Dave at April 24, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #142695

Jack,

Which is it - is Iraq a “situation” that will someday end without notice, or a long-term “war”. Sounds like silly semantics to me.

Boughregard,

I’ll tell you how you don’t win a war. You don’t first destroy the country you are going to have to pay to rebuild. You don’t indiscriminately torture its citizens. The whole point of this war was to create an exemplary democracy in Iraq and win over the hearts and minds of Arabs everywhere to the American way. They all hate us more now. If it were simply a matter of pulverizing Iraq into dust we could do that.

If someone invaded your country and then tortured your brother for no reason would you ever, ever, ever, forgive them - no matter what their greater intentions? I can’t believe suppossed “Christians” don’t understand this. When you say things like “to win we can never pull out” it shows you don’t live in reality. It’s a little like Marie Antoinette telling her underlings to let the poor eat cake. Great idea, but we don’t have limitless amounts of money to pour into the country ad infinitum. As it is we broke our bank and put our children into debt.

And you know what? Some of us still don’t understand buy the reasons for why we are there, but we’re paying for it…. Can I opt out? Otherwise, guess what - I’m against the war.

Posted by: Max at April 24, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #142698

Jack,

This is a load. Liberalism hasn’t lost a thing. It is just being manipulated into the ground by the information managers controlling the media.

For instance, KERRY was NEVER a waffler. He was soundbited to death by those who used the fact that he supported the notion of doing something about Iraq according to American and international law in accordance with article 1441 of the UN. RATHER than violating law and principal the way we did. When he realized what Bush intended to do he was made to appear to be waffling by those who ultimately tok a contrary form of action. If you fail to see this truth, then you have been successfully manipulated by the media and the GOP. All you have to do to set yourself straight is look up the full versions of those comments the GOP sounbited to death in ‘04.

Standing up for law and principle are hardly blind alleys, Jack.

Posted by: RGF at April 24, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #142701

Hey Dave,

(you wrote)I can see that Cathy has drank the muriatic acid of “theocratic hating of what is not us”.

In true manner, the Left will criticize and poke fun at what it does not understand. It’s much easier to ridicule someone rather than answer the real question.

The last time I used muriactic acid was to clean a concrete floor. Have you been drinking it?

Posted by: Cathy at April 24, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #142706

Jack,

You state that “…liberals should be figuring out ways to help the good guys win rather than pick through arguments used to justify the war.”

Give me a break. There are only two arguments; there is no need to “pick through” others. One, the war was sold to us as a necessity, which it clearly was not based on real intelligence. Two, By waging war in Iraq, which never posed an immediate threat to us, we took our eye off of the real enemy – OBL and al-Quaida.

How convenient it is for GOP sycophants like yourself to blame “blind liberals” for not figuring a way out the Iraq mess when they didn’t get us into it in the first place.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at April 24, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #142707

If you could take your head out of it’s habit you might be able to see how incredibly self serving and hateful your posts are. Once you see that, you’ll know why other people really hate the theocrats who are trying to impose and inflict their own version of morality on everyone. That applies both in Iran and here.

I like the quote you picked:

It is more than ever necessary today to affirm that, within the usual constraints against defamation, libel and incitement to violence, people must be at liberty to criticize ideas, even whole bodies of ideas.

Posted by: Dave at April 24, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #142709

You just don’t seem to get my point, Dave. Now in addition to poking fun, you’re getting angry. I’m not angry, Dave…

I am not self-serving, but I do serve Jesus Christ. I am a sinner whose life was redeemed because of what Christ did on the cross. I live in humility knowing that God grants His grace to all who believe and receive this fact; none of us deserve His grace & mercy, but He loves us still and offers it freely.

This is not about a political opinion, it’s about realizing that we are but small specks on dustball called Earth. We are here for a moment and gone. We are a vapor in contrast to eternity, so it’s prudent that we see ourselves in that light.

I guess your reaction confirms my original supposition: It’s okay to hate Christians as long as it’s politically correct. God is not Left or Right, God is God.

Posted by: Cathy at April 24, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #142739

rahdigly,

“If you don’t want the same liberals being mentioned, then the democrats should make those two wackos step down and put someone in there that represents the views you think they represent.”

If I was a Democrat, then perhaps your point would be valid.

There are other representitives of the Democratic party, yet those are the only voices we hear about.
Surely someone else has something to say.

phx8,

I understand your point about Feingold.

KingNed,

“Higher gas prices reflect the price of crude which is not a republican decision. This situation is exacerbated by our insufficient refinery capacity also not a republican decision. We’re still playing catch up from industry disruptions caused by Hurricane Katrina, again not a republican decision.”

Higher gas prices are also a reflection of the sepeculation on oil traded as a commodity, the same as pork bellies and orange juice.

It’s a stock market thing.

Posted by: Rocky at April 24, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #142741

Well stated, Rocky!

Posted by: Cathy at April 24, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #142745

Thanks

Posted by: Rocky at April 24, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #142749

Cathy,

I’m Christian and as such I cannot condone our government torturing people. How do you square your beliefs with that?

I don’t see this administration as conservative or Christian. Freedom, including the freedom to worship who you choose, is a beautiful thing. Having a government that supports and protects that freedom for all equally is what America is all about. Religious freedom is why our forefathers came here. They had no problem being Christian and American at the same time.

Posted by: Max at April 24, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #142757

Dear Max,

I am proud to be an American and humbled to be a Christian believer. God will judge the nations -not us. We would be hard-pressed to even suggest that an administration, government or nation was exclusively Christian. That’s because our relationship with Jesus Christ is a personal one - each person must decide within their own heart whether or not to follow Him.

This is why we can’t make blanket judgments about any government or judge each other. We can only be responsible to answer the question, “Am I in a right relationship with Jesus Christ?”

The bible says that in the same manner that we judge, we will be judged. There is a lot of “judging” going on in this site, but very little tolerance or even attempts to get to know someone. Emailing and blogging are not the best venues to communicate because we can’t see each other’s faces or hear the tone of our voices.

Thsnks!

Posted by: Cathy at April 24, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #142761

I’ve heard the same BS about Liberals not having any ideas for FAAAAAR too long, now. It’s a crock. It really is.

In the early eighties conservatives had the ideas of reducing the size and invasiveness of government, eliminating federal deficit spending and balancing the budget, paying off as much of the National debt as possible, etc. etc. What happened to those conservative ideas? THEY ARE GONE. EVERY ONE OF THEM BETRAYED BY THE SAME PARTY THAT ADVOCATED FOR THEM.

…In fact, we had a president who put these things to effect in a way that also adhered to the socially responible idealsa of Liberals. He advocated for and administered welfare back to work plan which exponentlially reduced the welfare roles, he managed to achieve peace through diplomacy and earned greater world respect for our country, he saw us through the longest period of sustained economic growth our country has EVER seen. But the GOP didn’t like the label after his name (Democrat). So he will go down in history as the President who got oral sex in the White House.

It seems to me it is the GOP that has become more interested in labels than ideas. You can’t argue with success (Clinton), but you sure can argue with failure (Bush). You can’t very well call this merely bashing when the Dems HAVE had a much more successful turn at bat ALREADY. You accusations are not only false, but they resoundingly ring of the sour grapes of one who is merely disappointed that his FAVORITE LABEL didn’t “GET ‘er DONE.”

-RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 24, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #142765

I’ve heard the same BS about Liberals not having any ideas for FAAAAAR too long, now. It’s a crock. It really is.

In the early eighties conservatives had the ideas of reducing the size and invasiveness of government, eliminating federal deficit spending and balancing the budget, paying off as much of the National debt as possible, etc. etc. What happened to those conservative ideas? THEY ARE GONE. EVERY ONE OF THEM BETRAYED BY THE SAME PARTY THAT ADVOCATED FOR THEM.

…In fact, we had a president who put these things to effect in a way that also adhered to the socially responible idealsa of Liberals. He advocated for and administered welfare back to work plan which exponentlially reduced the welfare roles, he managed to achieve peace through diplomacy and earned greater world respect for our country, he saw us through the longest period of sustained economic growth our country has EVER seen. But the GOP didn’t like the label after his name (Democrat). So he will go down in history as the President who got oral sex in the White House.

It seems to me it is the GOP that has become more interested in labels than ideas. You can’t argue with success (Clinton), but you sure can argue with failure (Bush). You can’t very well call this merely bashing when the Dems HAVE had a much more successful turn at bat ALREADY. You accusations are not only false, but they resoundingly ring of the sour grapes of one who is merely disappointed that his FAVORITE LABEL didn’t “GET ‘er DONE.”

-RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 24, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #142766

I’ve heard the same BS about Liberals not having any ideas for FAAAAAR too long, now. It’s a crock. It really is.

In the early eighties conservatives had the ideas of reducing the size and invasiveness of government, eliminating federal deficit spending and balancing the budget, paying off as much of the National debt as possible, etc. etc. What happened to those conservative ideas? THEY ARE GONE. EVERY ONE OF THEM BETRAYED BY THE SAME PARTY THAT ADVOCATED FOR THEM.

…In fact, we had a president who put these things to effect in a way that also adhered to the socially responible ideals of Liberals. He advocated for, and administered, a welfare back to work plan which exponentlially reduced the welfare roles, he managed to achieve peace through diplomacy and earned greater world respect for our country, he saw us through the longest period of sustained economic growth our country has EVER seen. But the GOP didn’t like the label after his name (Democrat). So he will go down in history as the President who got oral sex in the White House.

It seems to me it is the GOP that has become more interested in labels than ideas. You can’t argue with success (Clinton), but you sure can argue with failure (Bush). You can’t very well call this merely bashing when the Dems HAVE had a much more successful turn at bat ALREADY. Your accusations are not only false, but they resoundingly ring of the sour grapes of one who is merely disappointed that his FAVORITE LABEL didn’t “GET ‘er DONE.”

-RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 24, 2006 6:49 PM
Comment #142786

Bill Clinton was a good steward of the economy. But not the only one.

You recall, however, that the economic upturn began in March 1991 and ended in March 2000.

He also didn’t do well until 1994 when he got the Republican Congress.

Welfare reform was a good thing. It would not have passed w/o Clinton, but it passed with a MINORITY of Democratic votes over the objections of the party’s liberals.

What made Clinton good was his coopting conservative ideas (NAFTA, Welfare reform, advocating free trade, business investment etc)

Where he failed were in things like Hilary Care were the liberal side.

Posted by: Jack at April 24, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #142789

Jack, I’m still waiting.
You referenced the manifesto. I’m asking you directly. Do you agree with the substance of the manifesto, or not? As for your faulting of the left, it’s unsupported. Although not unexpected.

cathy,
The points are:
1- Your God has no right to be in my government. The influence of faith on a person must be kept distinct from that person’s effects as an instrument of the government. What makes me laugh is the martyr wails of the evangelical right. The incompetance of your leader Bush is what makes we cry. I don’t hate Christians, I “hate” anyone who wants my country to make it’s laws equal to those of their religion. Your religion, my religion, anyone’s religion, I don’t care which one.
2- If you can’t stand criticism of your religion or beliefs it doesn’t seem that either is particularly robust.

Posted by: Dave at April 24, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #142805

Jack,

Hillary Care? That’s more gobbledy-gook.

What we have now is a situation where 40 million Americans have no care program at all.

When absessed teeth go into ER’s for emrgency care surgery, I gotta ask myself…wouldn’t it be MUCH easier and less expensive to have a 50-100 teeth cleaning?

Rising health care costs are almost entirely the cost of extortionistic practices by greedy health care coverers and med-mal insurance coverers. I’ve outlined this truth in many, many previous blogs in the past which I know you must have read. Why is it that we are the only first world nation, the only western democracy, that doesn’t value health care and education for its citizens? I understand not wanting to grow government or subsidize people at tax-payer expense, but the way we have it now is ultimately EXPONENTIALY more expensive for us all…we just hide it from ourselves. Perhaps it is being hidden from us by those businesses who profit from selling us on paranoia about lawsuits or socialized medicine. The only solution is to REALLY look long and hard at the issue and realize what’s really going on.

How much less expensive do you suppose preventive care for 40 million would be compared to subsidized emergency care for 40 million? Those are our choices. The companies selling to the popular vote on this are quite literally invested in our not figuring that one out, Jack.

Doctors are even profoundly confused about the real source of their run-away med-mal costs while the very companies selling them on the idea that it is the result of ‘lawsuit-abuse’ …are themselves reporting record level profits!!!

WHEN, Jack? WHEN are these folks going their heads out of their backsides and look around?

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 24, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #142810

The Dems will take the house and senate this year. Wait and see. It is now our race to lose.

Posted by: mary at April 24, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #142812

Jack,

You’ve got a lack of sight here. You are falling into the trap of hidden costs. You don’t like the ideas you hear from the left but you haven’t come to the realization of the hidden costs you are paying for that the left is trying to adress and the right playing ostrich about (because the right is being supported and funded by those profitting from those hidden costs). Health care is one of those hidden costs.

The really big idea that idea the Dems have and the GOP has completely shived under the carpet…is the BIG PICTURE idea. The inefficiencies of the status quo are costing us more and more every day while the GOP’s advocates continue to profit. The real growth potential in this country is in the expansion and success of the middle class, and that can best be acheived by cutting the fetters, like the cost of emergency-only health care for 40 million Americans, that hold them (all of us) back.

The big picture in this case is that:

PREVENTIVE CARE IS CHEAPER!

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 24, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #142818

All economies are like that. We create infrastructure the next generation can use. The next generation does its part.

Jack, I spoke of the debt coming generations will have to pay off, and you come back with this? You don’t even want the infrastructure rebuilding done to New Orleans, and you come back with this? You can’t give me even one example of infrastructure building or rebuilding that has gone on during this administration, and you come back with this?

Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will pay and pay and pay because of a ‘no tax but spend’ policy of a run-amok Republican President and a rubber-stamp Republican Congress.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 24, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #142832

The current generation of Americans is consuming too much. You can tax the current generation all you want, but you cannot save for the future except through economic growth of infrastructure improvements. You can invest, but you cannot save. We should make our country more competitive by cutting the size of the government. That is true.

What matters is the size of the government in relation to GDP. Whether it raises the money through taxes or debt is less important than the size of the government.

Re New Orleans, it is not that I don’t want to spend the money. It is that the money would be poorly spent. Some parts of New Orleans can be easily saved. We should save them. But we (the U.S.) made a big mistake building levees for generations. We protected land too low for reasonable habitation. Katrina showed taught us a lesson. We should learn it.

It is not like this was a surprise. Ever since I was a kid (a long time ago) I have been reading about and seeing documentaries telling us that New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen. After 30+ years of predicting, should we be surprised? And why make the same mistakes.

Re preventive care – yes. Let’s do it. But we need to ration care, as they do in Europe. We need to get the lawyers out of the process and we have to tell the fat people to drop those donuts.

Most of the preventive medicine we could do today. Every fat boy is making his own fate and costing us money. How do we convince them to do the right thing for themselves and us?

Dave

I mentioned the parts I liked. I have problems with some of the details of redistribution, especially in points 4&5


Posted by: Jack at April 24, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #142850

Jack,

…lawyers out of the process???!!!???

Please, please, please can it with the attacks on lawyers, the American legal system, judges, etc. etc.

We’ve been over this a thousand times before in blogs over the last two years I have been blogging alone. It’s not conservative, it’s anarchism to continue such rediculousness.
I’ve offered evidence about how lawsuits work for all here to read and understand. I’ve brought out evidence of the REAL facts of various popular suits such as the McDonald’s hot coffee case with Stella Liebeck in Albuquerque. I’ve talked about the REAL effects of the limitations put on lawsuits.

It’s ALL A BUNCH OF HOOIE, JACK.

The only purpose served by continued misguided attacks on lawyers and lawsuits is to remove the liklihood that GENUINELY wronged plaintiffs might find a just remedy at law. The tort reform passed in Texas in 2003, and the federal move which followed and was blocked, only serve to change the bottom line for certain companies at the expense of LEGITIMATE claims while actually INCREASING the liklihood of profitability for the illegitimate cases. We can talk more about that at legth sometime.

Right now I just want to communicate that I consider it tantamount to calling for an armed rebellion when I here lawyers and the American legal system under such uninformed and misguided attack.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 24, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #142852

Novenge and Adrienne: *Awesome*! *Stellar*!


Jack:

The problem is not with your definitions

You damn betcha there’s no problem with them!

Tell me something I don’t know…

Your definition of progressive sounds just like Newt Gingrich. You should put his picture next to it.

Newt Gingrich defined Catsup to be a Vegetable for the purposes of School Lunches, remember? Him? a Progressive?!?!? HAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahhahahahhah!

That is honestly one of the silliest things you have ever said, Jack - and that’s saying something!


Cathy:

There’s nothing wrong with preserving tradition; especially the methods & traditions of the “old days”.

You mean such as Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism, and Slavery, right? Yes, I know: and Conservatives fought valiantly to retain those Traditions when they were first being phased out by the Progressives of their day. We even have an Historical Record of it with regards to Human Sacrifice (Old Roman Kingdom-to-First Roman Republic) and Slavery (Conservatives in the American South, and in fact in every nation where Slavery was outlawed, fought to retain it). For an Historical Record of how Conservatives fought to keep Cannibalism, you would have to ask the Cavemen who were around at the time - but I’m sure it happened, just as it did with Human Sacrifice and Slavery.

You espouse a morally-bankrupt philosophy, which flies in the face of everything Ieshua of Nazareth tried to teach us. He was the world’s first Socialist Philosopher, and just as Liberal as he could possibly be. Thou hypocrite! Seek not to remove the Mote that is in thy brother’s eye until thou hast first removed the Beam that is in thine own! For only when thou hast removed the Beam that is in thine own eye, may thou seest clearly enough to remove the Mote from thy brother’s.

Here endeth the Lesson.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 24, 2006 11:58 PM
Comment #142855

Uh….Betty…

Just for the record, it was Reagan who redefined catsup as a vegitable in order to get a cheaper method of compliance with the requirement that school lunches be balanced and healthy.

Lately Newt has been saying some rather astonishing things, like:
“The Republicans are proving themselves unfit to govern.”

I never thought I’d say it but, I like what Newt has to say these days.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 25, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #142865

ummm RGF Newt is running for president…he’ll say anything populist.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 25, 2006 1:33 AM
Comment #142877

Wow. Jack,

Take pride in these posts and your contributions. Even though you may have been hit hard during this post, and even though, honestly, I think you hold the opinions of a last believer, this site is engendering real, intelligent discussion. Kudos!

Posted by: Max at April 25, 2006 3:59 AM
Comment #142912

It seems to me that the Democrats are the ones with no new ideas, other that to destroy the President. National security? Hundreds of Americans died or were wounded, not to mention two attacks on the World Trade Center, in the ninetys, while Pres. Clinton mostly sat on his hands. Now, our Senators are leaking sensitive, classified information to discredit this administration. This will, and has, led to making Americans and our soldiers less safe. The War on Terror is real and must be waged for our future. If a Democrat president is elected in ‘08, expect terrorists to have tea in the Rose Garden, in the name of “peace” (remember Yasser Arafat?). In todays world - Tapping phones of suspected terrorists is called out to be wrong, but Sandy Berger stealing documents from the National Archives to protect Pres. Clinton is not. Income is up, real GDP is up, revenues are up in spite of the tax rate “cuts”, but Sen. Clinton is telling people that her party will take that money back out of my pocket?
I do not agree with everything that this President has done, but I feel he has a world view that is larger than our Democrat friends.

Posted by: LLE at April 25, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #142972

BETTY WROTE:You mean such as Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism, and Slavery, right? Yes, I know: and Conservatives fought valiantly to retain those Traditions when they were first being phased out by the Progressives of their day. We even have an Historical Record of it with regards to Human Sacrifice (Old Roman Kingdom-to-First Roman Republic) and Slavery (Conservatives in the American South, and in fact in every nation where Slavery was outlawed, fought to retain it). For an Historical Record of how Conservatives fought to keep Cannibalism, you would have to ask the Cavemen who were around at the time - but I’m sure it happened, just as it did with Human Sacrifice and Slavery.

Whoa, Betty…

Stop putting words in my mouth. You absolutely do not have a clue to what I meant by tradition. Your response is ridiculous and mean-spirited.

Posted by: Cathy at April 25, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #142977

Jack,

I actually voted for Ronald Reagan for his first term. I am a fiscal conservative though a social liberal, meaning that I believe ALL must share in the economy or our country weakens. There’s nothing fiscally conservative about the Republicans it turns out. Voting for Reagan was a Big Mistake. I learned more and more about Reagan and his support for the violent and murderous death squads in South America. The days of John Wayne - shoot ‘em up diplomacy are over. We can only kill so many of our enemies. His tough talk regarding the Soviet Union was basically meaningless. The Soviets were in a tailspin. Reagan declared, “Mr. Gorbachev (sp?), tear down that wall!” Now look where your party is… preparing to build a wall.

Just as I awoke to the false promises and the facade of patriotism by the conservatives who are just out for their own economic gain, so will millions of Americans this year.

The Democrats and liberals have their own issues and problems. I realize that Socialism and Communism have basically failed. Only a fool would have expected them to succeed. But so will unrestrained Capitalism. There are only so many resources to exploit, torch, and burn. Servicing people and accounts that do not pay is not profitable so there will always be the threat of revolt and resistance.

But I feel the liberals are open to new ideas. The conservatives seem so ideologically tied to solutions… solutions that may or may not work. They seem not to be working.

If I called your party xenophobic, homophobic, self-serving, and shameless about spending our children’s money you’d think it an unfair representation of your ideals. Yet, you and other conservatives have no qualms about assigning motivation and equally vitrolic characteristics to PEOPLE like me.

I don’t hate the Republicans or the Conservatives, but I think they are terribly wrong and are destroying the best chance the U.S. and the world has for a bright future. Don’t I at least get a voice in the discussion regarding the direction of our leadership. The current adminstration has put great effort into denying me such a right. Is that what you are trying to do by catagorizing me and writing off anything I have to say as Liberalism.

Posted by: LibRick at April 25, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #142996

LLE,

Your comment is so completely one-sided and intentionally blinded I can’t imagine anything like meaningful debate with you. You’re just wrong, LLE. VERY dangerously so.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 25, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #143064

Jack Mohamedoff,

Regardless of Newt’s reasons for saying what he has been saying…

I agree with him, nonetheless.

Posted by: RGF at April 25, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #143067

Just bringing your attention to another article.

The Nation
Tue Apr 25, 10:56 AM ET


The Nation — Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (news, bio, voting record) was Jack Abramoff’s best friend in Congress. The two were so close that Rohrabacher was the only member of Congress to sign a letter asking a federal judge to give Abramoff a reduced sentence.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Over many years, I’ve known a far different Jack that the profit-seeking megalomaniac portrayed in the press,” Rohrabacher wrote. “Jack was a selfless patriot for most of the time I knew him.”

But when President Bush visited Rohrabacher’s Orange County locale yesterday to pitch immigration reform, the OC Congressman wanted nothing to do with W.

“I don’t want to be behind him looking glum and not applauding,” Rohrabacher told the LA Times. “So as not to be rude to the president—-which I think is inexcusable—-I think I’ll just be staying away.”

Wow. Is Rohrabacher insinuating that Jack Abramoff is less toxic than President Bush?

As political scientist John Pitney said of the White House: “I’m not sure they had their OC antennae up.”

UPDATE: Also see New York Times today: “Once Boon, Ties to Bush May Be Bust.”

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 25, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #143295
Dave

I mentioned the parts I liked. I have problems with some of the details of redistribution, especially in points 4&5

Posted by: Jack at April 24, 2006 10:41 PM

Jack,

I re-read section 4 & 5. I didn’t see anything about “redistributing wealth” What exactly are you reffering to? It seemed to talk about government and society respecting all it’s members, not allowing corporations to be the next version of government, and helping ensure that the benefits of globalization aren’t limited just to the coporations and their owners.

I’m guessing you’re against fair pay for workers as a goal since that would reduce profits?

Posted by: Dave at April 26, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #143323

RGF:

You are absolutely correct: I appear to have been thinking about Marian Wright Edelman’s famous Quote about the Contract On America, and conjoined Newt with the School Lunch Catsup in my mind. Thank you for the correction. Still, I may be forgiven: the Crypto-Fascists have committed so many Offences, it’s hard to keep straight where one Crime Against Humanity ends and another one begins!


Cathy:

No, my post was absolutely accurate: it was the Conservatives of their day who fought to retain Human Sacrifice instead of converting to Animal Sacrifice (Romans) - and it was the Conservatives of their day who fought to retain Slavery (many nations, including the United States).

It was the Conservatives of their day, a hundred years later, who fought to retain Segregation and against Civil Rights legislation.

And it is the Conservatives of Today who are defending Torture, War Crimes, and Illegal Domestic Spying on Americans.

GET THE FACTS: YOU ARE IN DENIAL!

There has never been a Nazi - of any sort: classical, neo-, or crypto- - who has not been a Conservative first. It is a requirement of Fascism that one must be Ultra-Conservative first.

There has never been a Liberal Racist: it is a requirement of Racism that one must be a Conservative first.

It does not mean that one is doomed to be In Error forever: one may WAKE UP and OPEN ONE’S MIND and “convert,” like the Prodigal Son, from Evil and Corruption into Compassion and Truth. Good examples of this include Arianna Huffington, Robert Byrd, and Morton Downey, Jr.

But it is Conservatism that has driven the world’s greatest Evils since the dawn of time; and you simply look foolish when you deny it.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 26, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #143403
Betty Burke wrote: But it is Conservatism that has driven the world’s greatest Evils since the dawn of time; and you simply look foolish when you deny it.
Betty, such blanket statements don’t work.

Especially, since it misses the mark.
You are after the wrong bunch.
They are not conservatives.
It’s not quite that easy.
The problem exists in varying degrees everywhere, in every party, in every organization, in every society.

True, ultra-Conservatives, ultra-liberals, or many things for that matter, in extreme, usually is a bad thing.

But, the extremists are a minority.

As with many things, the best policy is moderation.

There are many moderate conservatives, liberals, etc. More people are centrists than are extremists.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 26, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #143412

Dan,

Suprisingly enough I was just up from and to the left of both centerlines.

Go figure.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #143451

That’s good. Centrist. Moderate. It fits. You certainly don’t sound like an extremist (fascist, libertarian, left, or right).
Mine was -0.5 (left) and -3.8 (down), which is still fairly Centrist, leaning libertarian, since I prefer smaller and less government intervention.

I wish they could add a 3rd ethics dimension to the test. However, it would be difficult to get people to answer the questions honestly.
For example, you go to the ATM to get $20 bucks, but it accidentally gives you $200. Do (did) you return it to the bank? How does the fact that there is a camera at ATMs affect that answer? Some way to measure of ethics and morals would be more useful in many ways. One’s history or track-record can be an indicator. Only a few people are difficult to corrupt to any degree, but the numerous temptations and opportunities in our congress has the power to corrupt most, because of the lack of transparency.
One might be tempted to keep the $200 if it we not for the camera at the ATM. That reveals the importance of transparency.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 27, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #143466

jlw, sicilianeagle,

Considering how world opinion has changed about the United States since Iraq, what will they think about us if we invade Iran. Who will be next, France? After all, France has been a thorn in our side because of Iraq, and they already have nuclear weapons, submarines and all that good stuff.

Hey, beware, before considering France invasion, you should weight seriously that, beside nukes, we also have:
- Huge stockpiles of stinky cheeses,
- No baths. None. Really.
- Empty Cognac stock (sorry).
- Riots. Every first week of each month.
- Strikes. Every second week of each month.

Have a great France invasion aftermath planning, guys!
:-p

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 27, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #143468

Dan,

“For example, you go to the ATM to get $20 bucks, but it accidentally gives you $200. Do (did) you return it to the bank? How does the fact that there is a camera at ATMs affect that answer?”

It doesn’t matter.

We have to live with ourselves. Call it karma, or whatever.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #143485

Jack,

Defeating terror may take a lifetime.

More probably eternity.
Fear is part of human nature. An essential one, part of its built-in survival kit.
How one could *definitively* eradicate it and why one would want to?

However, defeating fear policy may take a lifetime. Indeed.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 27, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #143504

goodkingned,

Saddam maintained the infrastructure to initiate his weapons program and through illegal distribution of the proceeds from Iraq’s Oil for Food program to allies such as France and Germany, he had the connections to procure additional restricted technology.

Oh, like these weather balloons sold by UK? No? Well, okay, again, which “restricted” technology are you talking about?

In short, Iraq was a ticking bomb.

Every nation could be. In fact, in the meantime both North Korea and Iran were/could be actually a far more deadly “ticking bomb”.

The US needed to illustrate to the world community that we would definitively oppose terrorist forces whereever they established themselves. As a result of these campaigns, the number of countries willing to host terrorists is greatly reduced.

Unfortunatly, US had illustrated themself that you would definitively do whatever you want whereever you want, even when the world community is not believing why nor following you anymore. As a result, the number of countries willing to follow the former great world leader is greatly reduced.

I also think that the US did the right thing in freeing the people of Iraq from a despot.

Hey, I actually agree with you on this point!

We now fight smarter and recognize that a trained soldier is the most valuable resource in any modern army.

Hum, but what’s about these stories about interrogation 101 coming from Abu Graib and Guantanamo?
Please, define “smarter”.

The Bush administration, and Donald Rumsfeld in particular, should be credited for revamping the military. That alone is sufficient justification for supporting Bush.

If he was *only* US army chief. But… IIRC, wasn’t Bush your president too? Doesn’t its presidential mandate and program included non-military duties and objectives?
Doesn’t people free to choose on which action they want to give (dis)credit their president (lack of) actions anymore?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 27, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #143632

Philippe:

Examples of restricted technology made available to Saddam from Russia and Germany include jamming technology to be used against targeting systems, battle gear such as night vision googles, and missile technology.

The world community has not supported US initiatives since the ’80s. America and the EU are competing for resources and do not have the same objectives. No matter who leads America, there will be conflicts of interest between US and the world. Bush will be out of office soon enough and it will be apparent then that the EU is not just anti-Bush, the EU is pro-EU. Our elected leader will not change the legitimate issues that divide us.

In my assertion that the US is fighting smarter, I was referring to the use of technological advances made in remote sensing, communication and munitions development. Your reference to Gitmo and Abu isn’t related to this issue.

As to your final comment regarding giving credit or discredit, of course it is your right to evaluate the President’s performance as you see fit. It is my belief that the reformualtion of the military is a valuable legacy for the next administration. I also believe that the US economy has rebounded admirably from recession and the effects of September 11th under the Bush administration. You may hold a different belief and that is your right.


Posted by: goodkingned at April 27, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #211245

Unfortunatly, US had illustrated themself that you would definitively do whatever you want whereever you want, even when the world community is not believing why nor following you anymore. As a result, the number of countries willing to follow the former great world leader is greatly reduced.

Posted by: Denis at March 9, 2007 6:04 PM
Post a comment