Democrats: When You Stand For Nothing, You Fall For Anything

Democrats define themselves by what they ain’t and who they hate. They are not Republicans and they hate Bush. We knew that. What are they for? Beyond castigating Republicans and punishing Bush, they are bit hazy, but to accomplish that goal they are willing to humilitate friendly foreign leaders, imply Joe Lieberman is a Nazi and campaign on the issue of impeaching the president. Hate, contrary to my prediction, is selling well among unhinged activists. Democrats may eventually need to stand for something. Let’s find it.

(BTW - the humiliation of Maleki and the attempt to make him look like an American stooge, was perpetrated by Reid, Durbin and Charles E. Schumer. I think that Reid would be Moe. I am not sure if Schumer would be Curly or Shemp, but Durbin is definitely Larry.)

If the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives, their major legislative goal will be to harass the President. Bush haters may now applaud, but other American priorities will be collateral damage. We saw how Pelosi and Reid (or even worse crazy Howard Dean) were blind to potential damage they would cause in Iraq. Give them a hammer and EVERYTHING is going to look like Bush's face on the head of a nail. .

But Democrats are not ONLY negative.

I guess it is sort of a positive message when Democrats assure the American people that they will just do things better than Republicans on spending. If you believe this, you represent the triumph of hope over. The latest pork report was just issued. Yes, Republicans like pork but Democrats are much more likely to belly up to the spending trough. Now that I think of it, I suppose the Democrats would be better at spending, although not in the virtuous way they imply.

What is amazing is that Democrats can win the big spender prizes when the other guys control the Congress. Imagine how much more they could spend if Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid were calling the shots.

I am being unfair. Let the Dems speak for themselves. Read it? Now let's figure it out.

Health care-– they are right about stem cells. Everything else is pretty much BS. Everybody wants to control health care costs. Dems did a good job of that before, did they?

Gas prices - Dems will crack down on price gouging. The investigation they initiated found no evidence of it, but why cloud political expediency with reality. Democrats can come down hard on some poor guy who makes a mistake putting up numbers. During the late 1970s, there was a lot of panic and some actual violence against service station owners. Maybe Democrats can bring back that mob mentality mood.

Minimum wage - the Dems are banging the drums and creating much sound and fury over this wedge issue. Most Americans vaguely favor an increase in minimum wage because they don't think it will affect them. It probably won't. Few people who have been on the job more than a few months still earn minimum wage. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia already mandate a wage higher than the Federal minimum. Most other places, the market has solved the problem. In Northern Virginia (which does not mandate a higher wage) Taco Bell is starting kids at $8.00 an hour. Neither English proficiency nor the ability to count beyond five seems to be among the required qualifications.

Raising the minimum wage would do little harm, although probably no good. If it were up to me I would throw the Dems a bone. But they are having too much fun and are unlikely to give up the issue.

College tuition - Dems want to make it tax deductible. You can already get a TAX CREDIT for tuition. Maybe we should tell Nancy that a credit is better for most taxpayers. She might not know, since her income is too high to qualify. But no matter. A tax deduction is a type of tax cut. If Democrats are serious about cutting taxes, I am for it. I just don't believe them.

Retirement - here we have a difference of opinion. The Democratic plan is to support the status quo or more correctly raise taxes to keep it on life support. They applauded their ability to stop the President's program. I disagree with their complacent tax strategy and their anathematizing any talk of reform. Others like it. BTW entitlement spending is the 500 lb gorilla. Other things are just annoying monkeys in comparison.

Fiscal Responsibility - Please see above. They say they will to restore the responsibility of the 1990s. How will they know what to do unless Newt Gingrich explains it to them? Fiscal responsibility was never manifest when Democrats controlled the House. They would need to specify LATE 1990s AFTER Gingrich and the Republicans took over. The Republicans gave Clinton a line item veto. Republicans fought spending programs. And everybody was lucky to collect the peace dividend in a time of economic growth. Democratically led Congresses just have no track record in controlling spending.

You can read the rest of the Dem promises for yourselves. I am getting tired of it. The second part is their screed where they criticize Republicans. They are good at that. Haters will enjoy it. If you read it twice, maybe three times, and take a drink of Jim Beam with each point, it might begin to make sense. Of course you will wake up with a half a pint of whiskey and an aching head. Sort of like what it will be like if you make Nancy Pelosi majority leader this fall.

Posted by Jack at July 28, 2006 8:51 PM
Comments
Comment #171577

You must give the Dem’s credit for trying to establish a platform before the election. I agree that this is a pretty loose list.

I am surprised not to see something on the Middleast, Immigration, & Culture of Corruption.

The opportunity here for the Dems is to try and make the message stick. Will they put down the gloves and focus on the message?

Posted by: Edge at July 28, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #171579

Democrats: When You Stand For Nothing, You Fall For Anything

Republicans: When you stand behind an idiot, it rubs off.

If you decide to delete this, think about what the article calls “democrats”: ignorant, hating, crazy, alcoholics.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 28, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #171581

Dave1

Not all Democrats are haters, but the leader of the DNC is a self confessed hater.

I didn’t say Dems were ignorant. But clearly Reid, Schumer, & Durbin’s treatement of Maleki indicates either ignorance or malice.

Crazy? Even Dems said that about Howard Dean, then you have those Dems who punch security guards. Most Dems are sane.

Alcoholics - I didn’t call Dems that. My last sentence is a general statement of how one could make sense of Dem proposals. Jack Daniels can make the Dems make more sense, but not all Jack Daniels drinkers are Dems.

Posted by: Jack at July 28, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #171582

I’ve been waiting for almost 20 years for a plan from the Dems that I would like. I don’t think they have a plan yet (why start before September to put one out there) and I doubt that I’ll like the plan (if they ever get one) they will put together after September. In the last 6 years their only plan has been “We would do better.” They had 8 years to do better, but didn’t. They didn’t take care of Social Security, they didn’t take care of stemming the tide of health care costs, they didn’t put the big excess (there never was an excess of tax revenue — it was all on paper about the future) in a big “lock box”, they never did anything about the issues that they now say are so important. (Now is the time for some lib to talk about the deficit — although there was no war to deal with then)

Posted by: Don at July 28, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #171583

Dave1

BTW - I stand by my articles. If you look at the archives, I have more than 250 posts. I don’t take them down. You can read them all if you have the time and a high tolerance of boredom. I am usually fairly nice to Dems. But Howard Dean hates me, so I don’t figure I have to be nice to him.

Posted by: Jack at July 28, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #171587

Moe, Larry, & Curley would still be a big impovement over Bush, Dick, & Colin (Damn! Why did he have to leave? Bush, Dick & Rice just isn’t as funny)

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 28, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #171588

Actually that is kind of funny. Rice is to Colin what Curly was to Shemp.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 28, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #171590

Oops! Visa Versa

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 28, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #171594
Health care-– they are right about stem cells. Everything else is pretty much BS. Everybody wants to control health care costs. Dems did a good job of that before, did they?

Jack,

Here is a proposal that Russ Feingold will be introducing in the Senate. It is a pilot program in conjunction with states.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 28, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #171595

Jack:

“If the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives, their major legislative goal will be to harass the President.”

Sorry, Jack, it’ call checks-and-balances, something that’s been missing from the rubber-stamp Republican Congress. Yeah, Bush would have to answer to Congress, for the first time in his presidency—that could be catastrophic. I see your concern.

“Bush haters may now applaud, but other American priorities will be collateral damage. “

Yeah, like neutering every oversight agency from SEC, to FCC, to FEMA by cramming them with political hacks and good buddies, launching wars of aggression and spritzing them with a pinch of democracy, running up 4 trillion dollars in debt and have the worst job creation record since WWII, presiding over the greatest concentration of power in the executive branch in American history via signing statements, unwarranted wire-tapping of American citizens, sanctioning torture, suspending habeas corpus, creating more corporate pork and tax breaks for already obscenely profitable corporations and wealthy individuals, creating dynastic wealth through elimination of the inheritance tax, thus creating one of the most serious threats to democracy—gee, which one will you miss the most, Jack?

“Everybody wants to control health care costs. Dems did a good job of that before, did they?”

Hey, the costs were a lot less then. What have the Republicans done lately regarding soaring health care costs? Oh yeah, they created a Medicaid bill to help big Pharma that has a big coverage hole right in the middle of it. Par for the course from a bunch of rich white guys that got their health care paid for.

“Minimum wage - the Dems are banging the drums and creating much sound and fury over this wedge issue. If it were up to me I would throw the Dems a bone.”

Don’t worry about it, Jack. That Congress has given themselves seven raises since 1997, the last time the Federal minimum wage was raised, is an excellent advertisment for compassionate conservatism. It’s an excellent, long-standing example of where the GOP stands.

“If Democrats are serious about cutting taxes, I am for it. I just don’t believe them.”

How did I know you were going to mention taxcuts? The one-note samba of the GOP. Inflation is up? Taxcuts. Nine trillion dollar debt? We’ll fix it—taxcuts. A yawning wealth gap between the poor and the mega-wealthy? Taxcuts…uh for the obscenely wealthy, only please. After all, they deserve it, the free market and rich white folks have created everything that is good in America, haven’t they?

Guess what, Jack? I really don’t think the Dems even need a plan at this point—the entire country is so disgusted with the corruption, cronyism and law-breaking of the Repubs, they would probably vote for the Girl Scouts before they would consider the GOP.

Sorry, I just think you guys are going to have to steal the elections, again. It’s big in your party skill tool box. That, and fear. That’s a biggie too. Perhaps a mega-terrorist attack could be staged. Pick some place that would really scare the hell out the citizenry—like Denver, or Atlanta, or even better, make it Des Moines. If your thugs did it right, I truly believe the great unwashed would turn over the rest of their freedoms and liberties, not because the GOP really protects them, they’d just be relieved they weren’t in Des Moines.

And you could then throw them a bone—give ‘em a tax cut. You know, $33.00 for the people making less than 100k/year, and $44,987 for the top 2% that get their money from unearned income they got from their rich mommies and daddys.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 28, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #171599

Jack,

I’ve been floating around here at watchblog for a while now and I have to say I stepped out for a few months as the debate, myself included, degraded into partisan talking points and barbs.

You don’t have to be nice, but accuracy and substance should be the content instead of some flamebait title with often insulting commentary. I checked your profile and your background suggests better. So, you are redeemed if you can state the null hypothesis of the witch scene. Then we can start talking about how a $1000 tuition credit to single moms making less than $50k is helpful but isn’t squat to the whole picture.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 28, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #171621

Dave1, don’t fault Jack for his flambaiting, it’s Howard Dean’s fault.Yeeeaaarrgggghhh!!!

Posted by: gergle"the deaniac" at July 28, 2006 11:17 PM
Comment #171622

jack

Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. It is amazing hutzbah to call the democrates full of hate. No Democrate or left wing liberal spews the hate that comes out of Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michale Savage, Bill O’Reilly and many others. They have taken hate to a new level in politics. They have essentially ended open and honest discussion of issues and ideas.

Conservatives have mastered hate and personal attack with greater skill and orgainzation better than any liberal or democrate can come close to. Conservatives have divided this country between those who agree with you and everybody else.
You are the masters, We are only cheap imitations. Air America Radio was a cheap imitaion. We can never be as good as you.

Posted by: Jerseyguy at July 28, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #171623

I think that all liberals in the USA should go to Canada to recide while we Conservatives here in the USA will accept all the Conservatives from Canada. It would be GREAT.

Posted by: Everett Hatton at July 28, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #171625

Dave1,

Partisan talking points and barbs? Flamebaiting? I’m going to assume that Tim Crow was posting his intelligent debating points about stolen elections and STAGED TERRORIST ATTACKS at the same time you were posting.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 28, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #171628

“In the last 6 years their only plan has been “We would do better.” They had 8 years to do better, but didn’t.”

Actually, they had 40 years to do better and the best they could do was…Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: traveller at July 28, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #171627

Crow,

Why don’t you libs just face it once and for all…. YOU LOST!! If you were so superior to Republicans in every way, like you claim, the elections shouldn’t even be close. You guys should be handing our heads to us. But the FACT of the matter is the American people just don’t like your candidates or your ideas, period. It’s not because you haven’t gotten your “message” out there, either. We got the message (Bush Sucks, Bush Sucks, Bush Sucks, Christian theocracy, terrorists need lawyers, big bad Wal-Mart, anti-black, anti-semite, anti-gay, anti-women Repubs, stolen elections, staged terrorist attacks, Yeeeaaargh!! P.S. Bush Sucks, Bush Sucks etc. etc.) and nobody’s buyin’ it. And don’t count your unhatched poultry until after November, given your party’s knack for self inflicted gunshot wounds to the foot!!!

Posted by: Duane-o at July 28, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #171630

I love to hear republicans rail against dems who would “sacrifice the peoples needs for some bush bashing”. Thats a funny statement coming from a group who’s idea of dealing with gas proces is too fail to pass a gay marriage amendment, or instead of helping the 46 MILLION uninsured Americans in the country, pass a law against lawsuits involving the pledge (I cant remember the last one by the way, but this is the party of pre-emptive strikes.)

You say you stand for something, I believe it, it’s called “pissing off the liberals.” While I have to agree that dems dont have a great strategy, the republicans arent much better, they’re just louder.

Posted by: lucas at July 29, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #171631

-0:

I heard a rumor that there’s an election coming up. Let’s see what happens, okay?

Oh, and to stay on message, Bush sucks!!:-)

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 29, 2006 12:01 AM
Comment #171633

Jack, You were starting to sound a little bitter towards the end of your post there. It was as if you were foreseeing the upcoming elections and didn’t like the results. What do you know that we dont?

Jack wasnt it The Newtster himself who started the name calling as a strategy, that you now blame the Dems for. You are smarter than that and really should rise above it otherwise your posts will suffer from a lack of credibility.

Jack, The bushworshippers have had a real opportunity to prove their ideology the past 6 years but have failed to do so. If only budget deficts were as important as well gay marriage or flag amendments they couldda been somebody.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 29, 2006 12:19 AM
Comment #171634

Well, thanks, Jack. It’s people like you and attitudes like yours that make me not really care what government the masses of the ill-informed give themselves. My liberal wife and kids have amassed enough savings and incurred so little debt, that we can likely survive whatever comes that money can defend.

I’m sick of trying to reason with the unreasonable (folks like my conservative family). Knowing how they feel (and they are basically well intended “Christian” people) and how little they inform themselves, I guess I’m resigned to writing off convincing others to care about living a life that takes the welfare of ALL people into account.

I’ve gotten to the point where the posturing and stating others’ platforms for them (thanks, I didn’t know that I was without a position on most issues, and you told me where I stood on selected issues). Yep, we’re idiots, so I’m handing it over to you and the fools that follow your drivel.

Good luck fixing things! Your heros in this administration (White House, Congress, AND Judicial System) have put us right where they wanted us. Now what? Just don’t ask me or my children to go to war for your misguided ideals. You think conservatives are in the majority… get them to continue fighting for our vital ‘National interests’ (read OIL).

BTW, who’s are next president?

Posted by: LibRick at July 29, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #171635

I suppose I really ought to preview my posts. Sorry for the half sentence and the unintended insinuation that my wife and kids have amassed our savings! I do earn money! Bleeding heart liberal though I am.

Posted by: LibRick at July 29, 2006 12:33 AM
Comment #171636

LibRick

You almost had me believing you until the “(read OIL”). Once and for all, if we needed oil Saddam would have sold us as much as we wanted and it would have cost us and the oil companies much less. But it does look good on a bumper sticker.

Posted by: Keith at July 29, 2006 12:37 AM
Comment #171637

Everett,

I think that would be great, too! Only where would Red States like Montana get the surplus tax money that they receive each year (tax dollars received over tax dollars paid) when Blue States like New York, New Jersey, and the rest of the Northeast go to Canada. Those ‘liberal’ states pay more in taxes than they receive. Good luck with what I’ve seen of Conservative government. We won’t stick you too badly on the interest payments we’ll charge when you need to borrow money!

Posted by: LibRick at July 29, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #171638

Tim Crow,

We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. You do know that in each of the last 3 years, tax revenues are up 15%.

Posted by: Keith at July 29, 2006 12:42 AM
Comment #171640
I think that all liberals in the USA should go to Canada to recide while we Conservatives here in the USA will accept all the Conservatives from Canada. It would be GREAT. Posted by: Everett Hatton at July 28, 2006 11:27 PM

Why should liberals go to Canada? Who would protect the U.S. Constitution if we went to Canada? Personally, I think you should all take that country your leader is holding under colonial occupation and make it into a conservative paradise for yourselves. It would be GREAT! Gasoline will be dirt cheap for you, because you’ll have such a huge surplus (we won’t need it, our cars will run on water and sunlight) Nope, this liberal is not going anywhere!

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 29, 2006 12:55 AM
Comment #171641

j2t2,

“If only budget deficts were as important as well gay marriage or flag amendments”…

…or brain dead women and blastocyst-americans. :)

It’s always amusing to listen to Republicans whine about the Democrats when they have all the power. Relax y’all. I really don’t think that the democrats are going to make any significant gains come November ‘cause even though people are annoyed with congress in general, the vast majority like their incumbents will probably re-elect them.

Then again, what do I know? November is still a while away…

Posted by: Nikita at July 29, 2006 12:56 AM
Comment #171643

Keith:

“We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. You do know that in each of the last 3 years, tax revenues are up 15%.”

What’s this ‘we’ Kemosabe? Hell, if you want to split hairs on semantics, we actually have a GOP problem. Who knows, maybe the victory margins will be so wide that even the elephants can’t steal it.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 29, 2006 1:13 AM
Comment #171648

Jack, the Neocon-lead Republican party has FAILED this country — in every way they possibly could.
By the tone of your article, you’re extremely bitter and angry about this fact. You should be.
I certainly am.
Democrats can do better by this country, and we will. That is assuming of course, that we can somehow manage to get them elected on electronic voting machines that can be hacked by one person, in about a minute, and without a trace.

If the Dems can’t win in November, the Republicans will no doubt have a chance to fail the country some more. Maybe that will make you happy again.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 29, 2006 1:50 AM
Comment #171650

Keith,
“… In each of the last 3 years, tax revenues are up 15%.”

Too bad Bush is in his 6th year of office. In 2001, tax revenues collected from individuals was @ $972 billion. For 2005 it was @ $922 billion.

The latter number is from memory. Hope I got it right. Anyway, I am sure we are still below where we were before the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. The problem is both excessive spending and inadequate revenue.

The really shameful thing about the Republican borrow and spend attitude is that we have nothing to show for it. If all that debt had been racked up in some sort of Great Society program to decrease poverty, or a mission to Mars, or something, for crying out loud, well, at least there would be some consolation. But no. The money has been squandered. Hard to believe we were running budget surplus under Clinton. Criminy, what happened? What criminal incompetence pissed it all away?

Democrats have already pledged pay-as-you-go economics in the legislature should they win this fall. It is just common sense.

Posted by: phx8 at July 29, 2006 1:59 AM
Comment #171651

Gee, Jack, I guess Democrats do suck and Republicans are great. Thanks for making it so clear. I thought all along that it was the Republicans who lied, distorted, and idiotically got us into the wrong war, who nominate half-wits instead of genuinely capable people, who pretty much say anything as long as they get their precious tax cuts, who don’t mind cozing up to religious wackos because it’s politically expedient, who dominate our airwaves with venomous spewings, who love to run up deficits just so vital domestic programs can be slashed, who care little for future generations as long as they get theirs now, who really don’t give a shit about increasing the gap between the haves and have-nots, who, you know, love to call thoughtful debate about the war — what was the word? oh yeah — treason.

Ya don’t think just maybe you’ve suffering from partisan bias? Nah, you’re not a hater.

Way to raise the bar on debate, Jack!

Posted by: Trent at July 29, 2006 2:02 AM
Comment #171653

By the way, can anyone explain why Maliki was even in the spotlight? That was one of the most inept, ill-timed diplomatic blunders we have seen in a while. Hezbollah, Dawa, and SCIRI all started as terrorist groups at roughly the same time. Dawa and SCIRI are now in charge of Iraq, and they made their hostility to Israel very public last year.

So who the hell put Maliki on stage just as the US backs Israel in a war against Hezbollah, and the demolition of Lebanese democracy? What is Maliki supposed to say or think?

Will someone please, please, please take away the Bush administration license to practice foreign policy. They have no idea of what they are doing, no idea, none.

Posted by: phx8 at July 29, 2006 2:13 AM
Comment #171657

Is this article really helpful? It just seems to be nastiness directed at the imagined enemy. Really beneath you, Jack.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at July 29, 2006 2:40 AM
Comment #171658

Trent,
You are witnessing the new GOP strategy. Ya see W is really not a conservative and now they are not sure he is a repub. Now followe this…. You see its the dems and libs fault for all the problems cuz W is actually a democrat/liberal. So with the Fox/Talk Radio propaganda machine spinning this it wont be long until every one beleives it actually was the dems. Because as you know the repubs would never elect any one as bad as that.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 29, 2006 2:45 AM
Comment #171662

The President is Republican, the Republicans control Congress and Jack is worried about the agenda the Democrats may or may not have. Hmm, seems like he is forgetting who is setting the agenda for America. Then perhaps he isn’t, the Republicans haven’t been able to pass one significant bill in the past 6 years. They have managed to get the US bogged down in a war. And they were able to run record budget deficits, not bad for the party with a plan. Of course, how can we forget President’s Bush foreign policy; with a policy such as his, who needs peace? I’m sure glad the Republicans have a plan though, can you imagine how messed up things would be if they didn’t.

Talk about howling at the moon. Of course if the Republicans actually accomplish something before November, they wouldn’t have to worry. Look at how well they tackled Social Security, and border Security/Immigration,and Bin Laden. They are the party united, lol, okay who am I trying to fool.

Posted by: Cube at July 29, 2006 3:25 AM
Comment #171663

I think Jack and some of the other rightie bloggers here need to take a moment to read this letter written by former Republican Congressman from California, Pete McCloskey:THE NEED FOR A DEMOCRAT MAJORITY IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN 2007

Posted by: Adrienne at July 29, 2006 3:31 AM
Comment #171664

Wow Adrienne, That was a powerful post by McClosky. Should be required reading for anyone that considers themselves conservative.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 29, 2006 3:52 AM
Comment #171665

“Wow Adrienne, That was a powerful post by McClosky. Should be required reading for anyone that considers themselves conservative.”

REQUIRED?….It should be REQUIRED reading?

and just who would REQUIRE it and enforce it? You might enjoy the letter but REQUIRING it to be read is outright silly and wrong.

Posted by: Tom D. at July 29, 2006 5:07 AM
Comment #171670

Jack,

You know when you say any word over and over again it starts sounds strange and meaningless? That is how I feel when I read “hate Bush” in one of these columns on the right. Try making the same point without using the word “hate” sometime. I bet you’ll find you didn’t have one.

Beyond castigating Republicans and punishing Bush, they are bit hazy, but to accomplish that goal they are willing to humilitate friendly foreign leaders, imply Joe Lieberman is a Nazi and campaign on the issue of impeaching the president.

The second two points (Lieberman, impeachment) are not supported by the links. The first point is more accurate, but it’s totally hypocritical. You guys dump on foreign leaders whenever it suits your needs.

Re the minimum wage: Don’t box yourself in corner, because Republicans are talking about raising it by $2.00. I guess you can praise them for being strategic.

Dems want to make it tax deductible. You can already get a TAX CREDIT for tuition. Maybe we should tell Nancy that a credit is better for most taxpayers.

Pelosi is right. The tax credit is very limited. It would be better for students if they could deduct the whole amount.

But then, Republicans just cut student loans, so what is better for students is obviously not their concern.


Everybody wants to control health care costs. Dems did a good job of that before, did they?

The worst medical inflation was during the Reagan-Bush era. You can look it up.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 29, 2006 7:50 AM
Comment #171672

Pointless point of view!

Life goes on no matter who is wrong or right, is it worth the fight. No!

Just because you guys are miserable, do you have to try and make everyone else miserable also?

All I see when I read theses blogs from Dems and Reps is pointless bickering, like of couple of brothers or sisters who can’t get along. Quit touching me, quit looking at me. I’m right, You’re wrong. What is the freaking point of all this!

Posted by: mem beth at July 29, 2006 7:59 AM
Comment #171673
They say they will to restore the responsibility of the 1990s. How will they know what to do unless Newt Gingrich explains it to them? Fiscal responsibility was never manifest when Democrats controlled the House.

Based on the empirical evidence, the Republicans need Bill Clinton to explain it to them.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 29, 2006 8:01 AM
Comment #171674

Adrienne
Maybe you and the other leftie bloggers might want to read this—WRITTEN BY ONE OF YOUR OWN—-
Here’s a little information on the columnist:

Peter Beinart—The writer, a monthly columnist for The Post, is editor-at-large of the New Republic and author of “The Good Fight: Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.”

He also writes a monthly column for The Washington Post—-He has also written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe. He appears regularly on a variety of shows on CNN, including “Paula Zahn Now,” “Newsnight with Aaron Brown,” “Anderson Cooper 360,” “Late Edition,” “Inside Politics,” “Daybreak,” and “Wolf Blitzer Reports.” He provided commentary for CNN from the 2004 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

He appears regularly on a variety of radio shows, including NPR’s “Morning Edition,” “Weekend Edition,” “The Connection,” “To the Point,” and numerous local NPR affiliates. He has a regular slot every three weeks on Air America’s “The Al Franken Show,” and appears every Thursday on “The Hugh Hewitt Show” on the Salem Radio Network.

Domestically, the current version of The New Rep. supports policies first associated with the Democratic Leadership Council and “New Democrats”

Pander and Run

By Peter Beinart
Friday, July 28, 2006; Page A25


After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept. 11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It’s called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine sensitivity to America’s allies and propounds a broader, more enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay. It’s jingoism with a liberal face.

Laughing All the Way to the Bank

http://WWW.washingtonpost.Com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701222.HTML

Posted by: Mary Williams at July 29, 2006 8:10 AM
Comment #171675

I apologize for not being able to direct anyone to this article from the web site—
I have posted the entire article for those interested

Pander and Run

By Peter Beinart
Friday, July 28, 2006; A25

After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept. 11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It’s called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine sensitivity to America’s allies and propounds a broader, more enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay. It’s jingoism with a liberal face.

The latest example came this week when Democratic senators and House members demanded that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki either retract his criticisms of Israel or forfeit his chance to address Congress. Great idea. Maliki — who runs a government propped up by U.S. troops — is desperate to show Iraqis that he is not Washington’s puppet. And the United States desperately needs him to succeed because, unless he gains political credibility at home, his government will have no hope of surviving on its own.

Maliki took a small step in that direction this week when he articulated a view of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict quite different from that of the Bush administration. His views were hardly surprising: Iraq is not only a majority-Arab country; it is a majority-Shiite Arab country. And in a democracy, leaders usually reflect public opinion. Maliki’s forthright disagreement with the United States was a sign of political strength, one the Bush administration wisely indulged.

But not congressional Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid demanded that Maliki eat his words or be disinvited from addressing Congress. “Your failure to condemn Hezbollah’s aggression and recognize Israel’s right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East,” wrote Reid and fellow Democratic Sens. Richard J. Durbin and Charles E. Schumer on July 24.

How, exactly, publicly humiliating Maliki and making him look like an American and Israeli stooge would enhance his “leadership” was never explained in the missive. But of course Reid’s letter wasn’t really about strengthening the Iraqi government at all; that’s George W. Bush’s problem. It was about appearing more pro-Israel than the White House and thus pandering to Jewish voters.

Reid’s letter is not an anomaly; it is part of a pattern. In February Democrats (and some Republicans) slammed the Bush administration for allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to take over operation, though not management, of several U.S. ports. Democrats insisted that they were standing up for homeland security, but in fact homeland security experts overwhelmingly said the move did not represent a security risk. The principle animating the Democrats’ attack was not security, it was politics. The Bush administration, playing against type, argued that America’s long-term security required treating Arab countries with fairness and respect, especially countries, such as the UAE, that assist us in the struggle against jihadist terrorism. One might have thought that the Democrats, after spending years denouncing the Bush administration for alienating world opinion and thus leaving America isolated and weak, would find such logic compelling. But what they found more compelling was a political cheap shot — their very own Panama Canal moment — in which they proved they could be just as nativist as the GOP.

Then, in June, the media reported that the Iraqi government was considering an amnesty for insurgents, perhaps including insurgents who had killed U.S. troops. Obviously the prospect was hard for Americans to stomach. But the larger context was equally obvious: Unless Maliki’s government gave local Sunni insurgents an incentive to lay down their arms and break with al-Qaeda-style jihadists, Iraq’s violence would never end. Democrats, however, rather than giving Maliki the freedom to carry out his extremely difficult and enormously important negotiations, made amnesty an issue in every congressional race they could, thus tying the prime minister’s hands. Once again, Democrats congratulated themselves for having gotten to President Bush’s right, unperturbed by the fact that they may have undermined the chances for Iraqi peace in the process.

Privately, some Democrats, while admitting that they haven’t exactly been taking the high road, say they have no choice, that in a competition with Karl Rove, nice guys finish last. But even politically, that’s probably wrong. The Democratic Party’s single biggest foreign policy liability is not that Americans think Democrats are soft. It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the party’s behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to understand why.

Posted by: Mary Williams at July 29, 2006 8:26 AM
Comment #171676

Mary,

Democrats are democratic that way. We allow for open discussion.

You and Jack don’t mention why the Democrats were mad at Maleki. He sided with Hezbollah against Israel.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 29, 2006 8:26 AM
Comment #171680

Who is more foolish the fool(Bush) or those that follow him(Republicans)?

Posted by: KT at July 29, 2006 8:59 AM
Comment #171686

I will take advice from the Republicans on not being gullible when they stop to recall:

a)That the president campaigned for many of their current representatives and senators on disarming Saddam Hussein, not spreading Democracy and Freedom in the Middle East,

b)That Bush never said anything about a Flypaper strategy (we fight them here so we don’t have to fight them at home) until he had to explain why he had let the security situation in Iraq go to hell,

c)That despite having been told that revenues would go up because of taxes, they’re still not at the levels that this tax-cut fundamentalist president had them before he started his administration,

d)We’re still waiting to get Osama Bin Laden, almost five years after the fact- dead OR alive, and that Bush has quietly shut down the unit that was dedicated to capturing him;

e)That despite all the propaganda to the opposite, the Republicans, including this president, have become the biggest spenders of all time, not to mention the largest runners of deficits;

f)That despite all the brave men in lawnchairs patrolling our borders, more illegals are getting in now than ever before, and fewer employers are being investigated or going to jail for using them;

g)That Bush’s Guest-Worker plan only intends to legalize this status quo of underpaid, non-citizen competition, institutionalizing the kind of second-class citizenship that has worked wonders for Europes social problems with their immigrants;

h)That an agency that recieved high marks for Disaster relief under Clinton, became the single greatest obstacle to relief under Bush, despite a new and improved plan;

i)That not one post-Gulf War, functional WMD or Weapons program has been found, nor any evidence that the weapons were taken to Syria;

Et Cetera, Et Cetera, Et Cetera.

All president lie, make up stuff. This President, though, seems capable of little else. One person after another has come out of that administration, and said that there is essentially only fluff, no stuff, to this administration. It’s all politics, all about scoring points with Republican voters can keeping everybody in line with The Message.

The Message is what this Administration is about. The Message is about communicating all is well when its not, that danger is everywhere, when it’s not, that the economic plans of this administration are working, when they’re not, that our tax policy is the only sane one, when it’s decidedly insane. It just goes on, and it counts on Republicans not to examine what they’re told, to eat up the talking points and participate in the mass media experiment that is dittohead politics.

That, friends and neighbors, is coming to an end, because this society has had enough of the hypocrisy, the lies, the rationalization- essentially had enough with all the bullshit they simply say to get your vote, and keep you from choosing the competition.

I’d say the Democrats have lost over the past few years because they’ve tried the same course without the power behind it to prop it up. While delivering effective communication is important to any politician, any politician who relies on message alone relies on the unstable ground of thought and imagination, instead of dealing with the facts of situations, which send their own, often stronger message to people.

As long as politicians neglect realities to deal with perceptions, they will find themselves the unfortunate victims of the perceptions those neglected realities create.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #171707

Hello Jack -

It seems we need to continue our discussions on ASSUMPTIONS.

Please, why the sole focus on Democrats? I know your opinion of Democrats, and I know you are biased, why should anyone expect anything to be gained out of a discussion like this? You are not a Democrat, and anything you say about DEMs is an assumption, filtered by your political bias. Why not focus on how Republicans are better? I have no idea what you might find to prove this, but that’s your party, not mine.

You keep bringing up Dean, but you forget his job. He is a cheerleader for the DEMs - that’s it. He does not make policy, he has no voting power or control in the Government. The same issue can be brought against your side - but you need to simply see things as they are. REPs and DEMs both have their cheerleaders, and the other side will almost always find them obnoxious. Who cares - they do not control the government. Isn’t that where our focus should be?

“Democrats define themselves by what they ain’t and who they hate. They are not Republicans and they hate Bush. We knew that. What are they for?”

You actuallly assume to tell me how I define myself? Seriously?

Again - bold-faced assumptions propped up solely by your political bias. Why? I think on this we will have to agree to disagree, but I would like to understand why you support who you support. I do not care why you hate who you hate.

Posted by: tony at July 29, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #171714

Tom D,
You are so right, What was I thinking to say REQUIRED reading. My most humble apologies go out to you and to any one else that may have been offended by such “gun in your face” verbage.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 29, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #171718

Such fun to see what the money-grubbing GOP “assigns” to the Democrats…funny, we Democrats know what we stand for and we don’t need to give the GOP any plans, since they so greatly have exhibited the lack thereof since the mid-90s. We also have the exhibit of your so-called president and his lack of diplomacy and economic plans to make the US better…in fact his lack has plunged this country on a path to economic and diplomatic ruin…

Posted by: Lynne at July 29, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #171720

Lynn -

i think it’s hystercal that a group who has so completely failed on basically every single level of their duty - comes to us and says “hey, if you win the election, here’s what I think you should do.”

Ummmm… no thanks.

Posted by: tony at July 29, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #171721

Librick

Let me explain this one more time. People pay taxes. States do not. Even if you break down states into counties, you see that the richer counties tend to go Republican, while inner cities are so solidly Democratic that they negate the advantage. I have no doubt that Republican taxpayers are paying more than Democratic taxpayers. Don’t Dems always say we are the party of the rich? And you know that the the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay about only 4% of the Federal taxes.

Take a look the map. Good luck with all that tax money you will be getting from the shanty towns of south Texas or the projects in Chicago or New York. The liberals of costal California or Manhattan will have to pony up a lot more to carry them w/o the help of the productive parts of the country.

JayJay

Liberals should not move to Canada But if you look back at this blog and other statements before the 2004 election, many prominent liberals promised to leave the U.S. if Bush won. As far as I can see, they were not telling the truth.

Tim & Keith

Of course you are both right. We spend too much. Republicans did it. But if you look at the pork rating I linked in the original post, you will find that DESPITE their minority status, Dems managed to be bigger spenders. Who would have even thought that was possible? Imagine what they would do if they were setting the agenda.

Phx8

Revenues are at all time highs because of the surge in corporate taxes. If we spend what we did in 2000, we would be in surplus. Republicans have spent too much. Democrats record is worse, see above.

I wrote a post about Paygo. It is a chimera because it does not affect automatic increases in entitlement programs. It works reasonably well in a stable entitlement situation. That is NOT what we will face. When entitlements rise, paygo acts more like a ratchet to RAISE spending.

Trent

ALL of the links (except those that merely provided background information) were from Democrats and Democratic sources. Peter Beinhart, who is a prominent liberal Dem, is the one who wrote in the WP about Dem pandering.

I am a reasonable guy, but I do not believe in unilateral disarmament. Dean says he hates me and all I stand for. Pelosi calls policies I support grotesque. Reid tries to make the Iranian prime minister look like a stooge. Conyers accuses us of crimes and election rigging. Kennedy says we took our country to war to profit Halliburton. I have to keep on explaining to people why this makes no sense, while giving geography lesson about the red/blue states. All I did in this post was counter the Democratic talking point attacks. If Democrats are surprised, they might consider why it is so easy to point out their mistakes, lies and distortions.

BTW re the Romans. Of course the Barbarians adapted to Roman strategy. It is the nature of all life to adapt to challenges. I have been trying for three years to explain to people that of course our adversaries are smart and they change in response to our actions. That is why not every setback is evidence of an American blunder. Something the other side gets one on us. If I play one-on-one basketball with Michael Jordan, there is a good chance I will score at least on shot. Does that mean he is screwing up?

Woody

You are reasonable. I cannot understand how you can look at the link that shows Nazis, Bush and Lieberman and not see that it is a implication that Lieberman is a Nazi. It is a simple transitive. And the impeachment thing is directly what Conyers says. I think he has a book about it.

Mem Beth

This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed whom.

Tony

If you are a convinced, yellow-dog Democrat, I am not trying to reach you, just like Paul Siegel on the other side is not writing to me (although we do agree on Hezbollah). I am writing for reasonable people who may change their minds. I am not trying to tell you what you think. I am trying to tell other people what you think, or more precisely what your actions and words indicate about your opinions and the results that will produce.

BTW - I don’t hate liberals. I have only been responding to the attacks. Dean says he hates me. He says it a lot. Many Democrats cheer him on. I just assume they are telling the truth about what they think.

Re bias - I am not fair and balanced like Fox News. I write for the red side. You should not expect balance. I am an advocate. I do not write things I believe to be false and I never disrespect honest debate, but I do advocate from my position and I do not apologize for doing that. Those who really find what I write inane or worthless need not read it. I get paid the same (nothing) whether you read or not.

Posted by: Jack at July 29, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #171722

I keep reading the posts for some glimpse of a PLAN by Dems… a strategy… something that they think they can do which will bring any substantive change to any issue. NOTHING! Their solution: “Vote us in, that’s all the change you need. We AIN’T Bush!”

Give me something to vote FOR.

Posted by: Don at July 29, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #171723

Jack,

Why not tell us what the GOP supposedly “stands” for…so far they have demonstrated complete lack of respect for the Constitution, the working class, the poor, the handicapped, the elderly…and have completely fallen in line with corporate and personal greed to the detriment of their own country and its population.

So, what does the “GOP” really stand for…what are its plans to make the USA fiscally responsible…to ensure economic stability…to increase real wages and buying power of those who actually work for a living????

Posted by: Lynne at July 29, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #171724

With respect to the minimum wage, I thought one of the tenets of Christianity ( only Republicans are Christians ) , was that “ I am my brother’s keeper “ . ( Especially those that work ) However, if it might affect the “ net “ bottom line: It is anathema. The market place heals all; pretty much the gist of it ? Why won’t those lower classes just suffer in quiet and make do … Curse those do gooders . die Zeitgeist !! But of course , if the Democrats were to win back the congress , there are those such as John Conyers ( who I admire ) that would want to hold this oval office to task via hearings : Realpolitik dictates that it won’t happen. But to imply that only one side of the aisle practises demagoguery is sheer nonsense ; after all, it is demagoguery that gets politicians elected, and re elected . Especially during times of war when they contrive to show who can wrap themselves in the biggest flag .

Posted by: Eisai at July 29, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #171725

“I am not trying to tell you what you think. I am trying to tell other people what you think…”

And that’s exactly why I keep telling you about ASSUMPTIONS. You DO NOT know what Democrats think. You only know what you think (and I’m guessing that is REP…???) Why should anyone take what you say about Democrats as anything other than biased political ranting? Isn’t there something better for you to spend your time? (Of course I’m assumming a lot here…)

Posted by: tony at July 29, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #171726

Teddy Roosevelt said American should speak softly but carry a big stick. The Democratic platform and it’s adherents put this adage on it’s head. Speak loudly, often, and for heavens sake don’t play with sticks, someone could lose and eye!
Many of their “ideas” remind me of the commercial for Fed Ex. The management team sits around a table asking for thoughts on how to save money. The answer comes from around the table, use Fed Ex to save on shipping. Everybody pauses, then the head honcho says, “how about this, we sign up with Fed Ex to save money”, and the syncophants around the table proclaim the genius of the honcho and “his idea”.

Posted by: JR at July 29, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #171727

Eisai wrote -
“With respect to the minimum wage, I thought one of the tenets of Christianity ( only Republicans are Christians ) , was that ⠉ am my brotherⳠkeeper ⠮ ( Especially those that work )”

What do you know about Christianity?

Until the illegal alien problem is resolved it makes no sense to raise the minimum wage. (Please re-read that first sentence). Increasing the minimum wage before stopping the border crossings will merely increase the number who want to cross the border. It is a stupid time to talk about raising the minimum wage! Stop the illegals crossing FIRST! This has nothing to do with Christianity.

Posted by: Don at July 29, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #171728

Jack:

Never mind telling us what the GOP stands for, Pete McCloskey, Republican of California, has already answered that question:

At the outset, let me say that in four months of campaigning I have learned that Jerry McNerney is an honorable man and that Richard Pombo is not. Mr. Pombo has used his position and power to shamelessly enrich his wife and family from campaign funds, has interfered with the federal investigation of men like Michael Hurwitz, he of the Savings & Loan frauds and ruthless clear-cutting of old growth California redwoods. Mr. Pombo has taken more money from Indian gaming lobbyist Jack Abramoff, his associates and Indian tribes interested in gaming than any other Member of Congress, in excess of $500,000. With his stated intent to gut the Endangered Species and Environmental Protection Acts, to privatize for development millions of acres of public land, including a number of National Parks, to give veto power to the Congress over constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court, his substantial contributions to DeLay’s legal defense fund, and most particularly his refusal to investigate the Abramoff involvement in Indian gaming and the exploitation of women labor in the Marianas, both matters within the jurisdiction of his committee, Mr. Pombo in my view represents all that is wrong with the national government in Washington today.
Posted by: Lynne at July 29, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #171729

Tony

Biased political ranting is one of my hobbies.

Of course I cannot know what you really think. Nobody can know the truth. I judge what you think by what you do and to a lesser extent what you say.

I am sure you have developed some opinions about what I think. I might even agree with you. But our methods would be very different.

Re being a Republican - why do you think I write on this side? Read my bio. I would be insulted if anyone mistaked me for a Democrat.

Posted by: Jack at July 29, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #171731

Number of workplace arrests made by U.S. immigration authorities in 1997: 17,554

Number in 2003: 445

I think I see a large issue. Why do you think the number dropped so drastically since the population of illegal immigrants continues to rise?

Posted by: tony at July 29, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #171732

Lynne

He wrote critically about one man, and not even a very prominent one. Does William Jefferson, with his freezer full of cold cash, speak for all Dems? Or do they all favor hitting security guards?

Posted by: Jack at July 29, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #171733

Tony -

That would be a good starting place for Dems PLAN. Unfortunately, their recent record regarding their position on illegal aliens is incredibly poor. I don’t think they want to send illegals back or build a fence, etc. They are too interested in getting the illegals to VOTE for them.

Posted by: Don at July 29, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #171736

I’m not sure how illegal immmigrants could vote. If this does exist, it should stop.

I think the DEMs want to find a solution to the immigration problem tha would focus on real world solutions. Focus on businesses that employee illegal immigrants. Also, find a way of making good potential citizens legal. We will not be able to send the est. 12 million people back to their homelands, but we can try to sort them out and find those who need to go home and focus on sending those home.

I also think we need to work with our southern neighbors to raise their quality of life so that people can live there.

We also need to find equitable solutions for legal immigration. Right now, that process costs far too much and it far too corrupt to ever work properly. One of my employees just moved back to the US from Ecuidor. He has dual citizenship, but his wife needed a work VISA to move here with him. It took $5K in fees and bribes, and took 2 years. In a country where the average worker makes $87 per month, how is anyone except the rich suppose to legally come to the US. The point is that people make dangerous trips to the US and live in horrific conditions because it is much better than where they came from, and they are willing to make sacrifices to provide for their families. I simply want to find a way to allow them to legally enter the US and track them while they are here. Keep the good ones here - they add so much to our lives and economy, send the bad ones home.

Posted by: tony at July 29, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #171737

Dems have no plan. They do have the ability to say they aren’t Republicans. That’s it. Kerry is a good example of Democrat “planning” in action. He voted for the war before he voted against it. He never gave a plan for Iraq nor for anything else. He turned the election into a referendum on Bush and lost. The Democrats are now trying to do the same thing again for the 2006 elections. It may succeed this time around, but thier complete lack of a plan, coupled with the fact that they’re almost certain to do nothing but hold investigations and hearings if they do get a majority, will keep them from holding on to anything they do gain.

Jack,

I don’t think it’s fair to say the Democrats don’t stand for anything. They’ve certainly “stayed the course” on baby murder.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 29, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #171743
I guess it is sort of a positive message when Democrats assure the American people that they will just do things better than Republicans on spending. If you believe this, you represent the triumph of hope over. The latest pork report was just issued. Yes, Republicans like pork but Democrats are much more likely to belly up to the spending trough.

Hmmmmm…but which party is the most “bought-and-paid-for” ?

Both assertions are ridiculous.

See how far we have sunk ?

These days, we argue about who is most corrupt.

The partisan brainwashing is difficult to overcome, as evidenced by this blog. You can see it here on this blog every day. Some just love to stir it up. They just love to demonize the other party. They love the petty partisan warfare. It is a great distraction, which is why politicians love it and fuel it. That is the lazy way. Laziness is normal, but it is immoral to surrender to it completely.

But, once you finally reject the programming and petty partisan warfare, it will be like a load of bricks lifted from your shoulders, because logic and reason will begin to flourish, and you will no longer have to twist and spin the facts to demonize the other party, and try to find ways, no matter how flimsy, to rationalize the unacceptable deeds of your own party.

Maybe, then, some problems might actually get solved, instead of growing in number and severity.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #171744

Tony -

Illegals were encouraged to vote in a California election last year. The Democrat who ran, lost, but went to a immigrant protest event to speak and answer questions. When asked what the immigrants could do for her, she said they should vote.

Dealing with illegal immigration should not be a political issue. It seems to me that Dems and Reps both would benefit from a properly administrated program to reduce illegal immigration. Obviously, we cannot round them all up and send them home. That would cause our economy to flounder. However, it seems logical to follow a simple step-by-step program aimed at reducing border crossings, reducing incentives for crossing the borders, reducing the number of employers who will hire them, and exporting “bad” illegals.
Step 1: Reduce border crossings by building a fence, increasing border agents, and other security measures.
Step 2: Do not increase the minimum wage until step 1 is completed. Also, I am willing to entertain some thoughts on restricting MAXIMUM wages for anyone who doesn’t have a green card. (ie., They cannot earn over $10/hr…any person or business paying more than that shall pay a fine.) The point is to remove some of the incentive for coming here illegally.
Step 3: Go after employers who hire illegals.
Step 4: Immediately send back any illegal is convicted of any crime (even those who only get probation).

As for helping Mexico increase its ability to keep its own people… we’ve been helping them for decades.

Posted by: Don at July 29, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #171746

By the way. Republicans have the majority. So, why are things worse now than before ? Care to spin that ?

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #171747
As for helping Mexico increase its ability to keep its own people… we’ve been helping them for decades.

1) NAFTA did nothing to help Mexican workers…in fact it has made their situation worse.

2) Mexico is much like the US…the rich run everything.

Posted by: Lynne at July 29, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #171748
He wrote critically about one man, and not even a very prominent one. Does William Jefferson, with his freezer full of cold cash, speak for all Dems? Or do they all favor hitting security guards?

McCloskey may have been writing about one man, but if you read the entire article he was writing about how that one man demonstrated what most of the GOP was doing…and he made that quite clear.

You are equating one-time incidents to a long-time pattern of behavior…apples & oranges.

Posted by: Lynne at July 29, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #171749

D.A.N. -

“Hmmmmm…but which party is the most “bought-and-paid-for” ?”

Your link is useless. It only shows how much money each party raised. It does not show how much came from special interests and PAC’s.

Please post a link that shows which party is the most “bought-and-paid-for”.

Posted by: Don at July 29, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #171750

Jack,
Although I dont pretend to speak for the dems nor the repubs, IMHO, it does seem the dems have a plan. It seems the dems are doing the Rove thing that has proven to work so well in getting his people elected. And why not, whilst it is indeed the lowest of the low road it is effective. Why bother with any plans beyond that the repubs dont. They just seem to want to attack but without a “plan” they have to settle for attacking sound bites. This very same method has proven successful for the repubs in the past, the problem appears to be they now have a record of, well for lack of a better word, achievement that is out in the open. With this strategy it seems the playing field is made a little more level, causing perhaps closer elections this November. It appears that might be causing some on the right to worry a little more, thereby causing them to keep pleading for a “plan” to attack. What say you?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 29, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #171751

“He voted for the war before he voted against it.”

OK, please explain this one. I remember exactly what happened, I’m wondering if you do. Go for it: show me what I don’t know.

“They’ve certainly “stayed the course” on baby murder.”

Actually, I’ve cut down on baby murder… it’s not as fun as everyone makes it out be. Besides, it was cutting into my gay agenda time.

Posted by: tony at July 29, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #171753
I’m not sure how illegal immmigrants could vote. If this does exist, it should stop.

Yes, it exists, and it is growing.
And with elections as close as some we have seen, voter fraud is no laughing matter.

But, there’s no mystery here.

Democrats want voters, and

Republicans want cheap labor.

And the U.S. citizens get used (as usual).

Both are bought-and-paid-for, since a tiny 1% of the U.S. population donates 83% of donations (at the federal level; source: Center for Responsive Politics: www.crp.org ). How can the remaining 99% of the U.S. population compete against that?

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #171756

“When asked what the immigrants could do for her, she said they should vote.”

And if you actually had watched the video, and heard her, you would’ve known it was a joke… stop allowing people to spoon feed you information. It’s like the DEM from Florida who “likes to do cocaine because it’s fun.” (And before you start running with it, it was on the Colbert Report and was in an interview segment known as “Things I can say that will make me loose an election” - kind of odd fill in the blank thing.) Both were intended as jokes, but both were also completely stupid things to say.

Do you think her statement actually encouraged illegals to vote? How do you think they would accomplish this?

Do you think she was wrong to go and speak at this rally? Why?

Posted by: tony at July 29, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #171759

Don,

You obviously don’t like what you see?
Eh? No need to get so hostile.

You might see better without those partisan blinders?

Don’t you know how to do your own research?

Oh well, here you go.

(1) PACs
(2) Donors

Enjoy (you may need to click on a few things here and there to see more … but it’s not hard … just move your mouse and press the left button … you’ll discover a wealth of information that you are obviously missing).

So, who is the most bought-and-paid-for ?

Of course, both are bought-and-paid-for.

But, that’s where we are at these days … debating who is the most corrupt.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #171761

“Michael Scanlon, the former aide to Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX), provided the perfect description of the methodology used by groups ike the National Rifle Association (NRA) to tap into this subculture. Scanlon, who misused Indian tribes’ money to further his political schemes, describes the process perfectly.

“Our mission is to get specifically selected groups of individuals to the polls to speak out against something. To that end, your money is best spent finding them and communicating with them on using the modes that they are most likely to respond to. Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole things slip past them. The wackos get their information form [sic] the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet, and telephone trees.”

Yup…he really called them ‘wackos’…now we know who the real base of the Republican party is …

Posted by: Lynne at July 29, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #171762

“How can the remaining 99% of the U.S. population compete against that?”

GRASSROOTS! Money buys broadcast ads, grassroots buy you people. It also buys your real issues and real connections to voters.

As far as illegal imigrants voting, it seems to mme thaat we have a very good system here (NC) When you show up to vote, you must have your name on the approved voting list. They then remove the sticker with your name from the voting rolls, so you can not vote again. I knwo that people could just try to vote using someone else’s name, but that’s only a safe option as long as so few people actually go to the polls to vote. How about this for a GOTV slogan - “Vote, or someone else might vote for you.”

Posted by: tony at July 29, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #171763

Lynne

You know got I can’t think of the last time I got a job from a poor person.

Posted by: Keith at July 29, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #171764

Jack:
“He wrote critically about one man, and not even a very prominent one.”

Ah, you didn’t even read it, did you Jack?
Fine, I’ll do the Cliff-notes version for those too lazy read the entire letter.

the Republican House leadership has been so unalterably corrupted by power and money that reasonable Republicans should support Democrats against DeLay-type Republican incumbents in 2006.
I have decided to endorse Jerry McNerney and every other honorable Democrat now challenging those Republican incumbents who have acted to protect former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who have flatly reneged on their Contract With America promise in 1994 to restore high standards of ethical behavior in the House and who have combined to prevent investigation of the Cunningham and Abramoff/Pombo/DeLay scandals. These Republican incumbents have brought shame on the House, and have created a wide-spread view in the public at large that Republicans are more interested in obtaining campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists than they are in legislating in the public interest.


appalled at the House Republican leadership’s decision in early 2005 to effectively emasculate the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct by changing the rules to protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay. DeLay had been admonished three times by the Committee for abuse of power and unethical conduct. It was our hope to persuade Speaker Hastert and the Republican leadership, of which Northern California Congressman Richard Pombo and John Doolittle were prominent members, to rescind the rules changes and to act in accord with the promise of high ethical standards contained in Speaker Gingrich’s Contract With America which brought the Republicans majority control in 1994.

Then, only a few weeks ago, the House leadership refused to allow even a vote on what could have become an effective independent ethics monitor. Instead of repudiating the infamous “Pay to Play” program put in place by DeLay to extract maximum corporate campaign contributions to “Retain Our Majority Party” (ROMP), DeLay’s successor as Majority Leader called for a continuance of the free luxury airline trips, mammoth campaign contributions to the so-called “Leadership PAC” and the continuing stalemate on the Ethics Committee. Strangely, even after the guilty pleas of Abramoff, Duke Cunningham and a number of former House staffers who had been sent to work for Abramoff and other lobbyists. The Republican House leaders don’t see this as corruption worthy of investigation or change. That their former staff members and Abramoff were granted preference in access to the legislative process is not seen as a problem if it helps Republicans retain control of the House. It reminds one of the contentions of Haldeman and Ehrlichman long ago that the national security justified wire-tapping and burglary of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office and the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate.Republicans are happy with this new corporate lobby/House complex, which is far more dangerous that the Industry/Defense complex we were long ago warned about by President Eisenhower.


it is in the best interests of the nation, and indeed the future of the Republican Party itself, to return control of the House to temporary Democrat control, if only to return the House for a time to the kind of ethics standards practiced by Republicans in former years.


There is another strong reason, I believe, for Republicans to work this fall for Democrat challengers against the DeLay-type Republicans like Pombo and Doolittle. That is the clear abdication by the House over the past five years of the Congress’ constitutional power and duty to exercise oversight over abuses of power, cronyism, incompetence and excessive secrecy on the part of the Executive Branch. When does anyone remember House Committee hearings to examine into the patent failures of the Bush Administration to adhere to laws like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or to the arrogant refusal of the President to accept the congressionally-enacted limits on torture of prisoners? When can anyone remember the House’s use of the subpoena power to compel answers from Administration officials? Why have there been no oversight hearings into the Cunningham bribery affair or Abramoff’s Indian gaming and exploitation of women labor in the Marianas?


The checks and balances of our Constitution are an essential part of our system of government, as is the public faith that can be obtained only by good ethical conduct on the part of our elected leaders.


If the Republicans in the House won’t honor these principles, then the Democrats should be challenged to do so. And if they decline to exercise that privilege, we can turn them out too.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 29, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #171765

Lynne

Pete McCloskey is a RINO. If you have followed his career at all you would know this. Does anybody really believe that a republican can come out of Palo Alto.

Posted by: Keith at July 29, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #171768

D.A.N. -

“Oh well, here you go.

(1) PACs”

Did some research which you recommended. The PACs site you gave showed that the Dems received 83% more in PAC money than the Reps. I don’t see how this helps your point.

Posted by: Don at July 29, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #171771

Everett Hatton:

That would be GREAT! If that would happen, our standard of living would be better because we would have less tax money taken out. We would be a no-tolorance country that would deal out harsh sentences for our criminals and our enemies would know their place. Abortion and Homosexuality would be illegall. Alaska would be a better place to live for both people and animals because we would be drilling the oil there.

The only down side to an all-Conservative America would be deciding on who to vote for.
Decisions…decisions…

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 29, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #171772

D.A.N. wrote:

“You obviously don’t like what you see?
Eh? No need to get so hostile.

You might see better without those partisan blinders?

Don’t you know how to do your own research?”

1) I don’t see anything but blubbering foolishness. And I wasn’t hostile. I was merely pointing out that your link didn’t fit with your statements.

2) I know how to do MY research, but you may not know how to do yours. Your linked sites rarely fit your statements.

3) Partisan blinders? What party am I part of, do you think?

Posted by: Don at July 29, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #171773
tony wrote: GRASSROOTS! Money buys broadcast ads, grassroots buy you people. It also buys your real issues and real connections to voters.

Yes, grassroots, and education

Also, one obvious, common-sense, no-brainer solution is right there under the 99% of the U.S. population who only contribute less than one sixth of polticians donations … just stop re-electing irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, corrupt incumbent politicians.

Of course, that’s the catch.
People can’t see the one simple thing right under their very own noses (stop re-electing irresponsible incumbent politicians), because of their partisan blinders. They have been seduced into the petty partisan warfare, and thinking they should keep re-electing incumbents, no matter how bought-and-paid-for they are; no matter how little they truly represent their interests; no matter how much they are lied to. The voters surrender to their own greed and laziness too, instead of thinking it through, and realizing that any government that is FOR SALE, like ours, can not possibly have their best interests, or the nation’s best interests in mind, which is why our pressing problems continue to grow in number and severity.

Adrienne,
Good article.
The Republicans have done a terrible job.
Possibly worse than the preceding administration.
I even agree partly with the statement:

it is in the best interests of the nation, and indeed the future of the Republican Party itself, to return control of the House to temporary Democrat control, if only to return the House for a time to the kind of ethics standards practiced by Republicans in former years.

What would truly be in the best interest of the nation is for voters to stop re-electing irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, corrupt, greedy incubment politicians who are incapable of self reform.

Don wrote: Did some research which you recommended. The PACs site you gave showed that the Dems received 83% more in PAC money than the Reps. I don’t see how this helps your point.

Don,
Good. That’s good. Hurray!
However, I never said who received the most PAC money.
The truth is, both are bought-and-paid-for.
I simply asked a question (above: who is the most bought-and-paid-for), and you, on the defensive (and Republican blinders) erroneously read something else into, rather than see the truth, and pounced on it. It’s all too clear where loyalties lie, and no amount reasoning or logic is likely to change it. Loyalty is good, until it clouds your judgement.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #171777

Don -

d.a.n. wants them all gone… can’t say I really blame him. This isn’t a “look at my side, it’s better” thing - it’s a “look, my side sux less than you side does” thing.

Only one way to fix that - any thing that sux has to go. immediately.

Everyone feels we all vote for the candidate we hate less - but i think it’s more that we vote for our party, even when it goes against our own self interest. Now, I know a lot of people think you should look outside of your sphere for how things are, and I agree with that. When I say “self interest” I’m saying, vote for what you truly want to happen… and immediately disregard anything that comes from a political party. They all have an agenda, and I doubt if you or I are part of that agenda. Talk to your friends and neighbors - look at things locally and regionally, and then nationally.

Posted by: tony at July 29, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #171779

tony,
Thank you.
No one could have said it better.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #171780

D.A.N.

Wrong again!
I’m not a Republican.

Plus, every politician (based upon your theory) is “bought-and-paid-for”. Your solution is what??? Anarchy?

Posted by: Don at July 29, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #171783

Don,

My apologies. You certainly sounded Republican on many occassions. My bad. So, what are you?
: )

Anarchy? Of course not.
Power must be balanced.
You mustn’t strip all power from government to accomplish anything.

No. The simple answer is to merely stop re-electing irresponsible incumbent politicians.
Keep the good ones.
Know of any?
See issues2000.org and look at the voting records.
Can you name 10, 20, 50, or 100, or even 268 (half of 535) in congress that are responsible and accountable.
If not, the problem is widespread (as is the case now).

Vote for someone more responsible.
What’s wrong with that?
And, if they continue to be irresponsible, vote them out and vote for someone more responsible.
What’s wrong with that?
Isn’t that what we were supposed to do all along?

  • Never, were voters supposed to lazily pull the party lever, or vote strictly along the party line. That is how irresponsible incumbent politicians fool and control voters, by fueling the petty partisan warfare, while the nation falls apart right before our very eyes.
  • Never, were voters supposed to wallow in the petty partisan warfare. What good are parties if irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians in both parties just take turns using and abusing everyone ?
  • Never, were voters supposed to empower the very same irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians that use and abuse us.
  • Never, were voters supposed to be so blinded by the petty partisan warfare, that they are oblivious to our serious problems as they grow in number and severity.
  • Never, was government supposed to be FOR-SALE, where too many bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians are too beholding to a few big-money puppeteers with vast wealth and power (instead of the voters).
  • Never, were voters supposed to ignore their government, as they do now, because that invites abuse and breeds corruption.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #171784

Tony -
Thanks for your explanation… I was starting to see the pattern anyway, tho’.

I agree we should vote our beliefs, not a party. However, when I vote I look at national interests first, regional, then local. What is best locally is seldom what is best nationally.

When my state was looking to change the tax system a few years back, I knew it would hurt me personally to change. But it would benefit most people in the state. I voted for it.

Posted by: Don at July 29, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #171786

D.A.N.

Independent. I vote my beliefs, never my pocketbook or a party. Often my beliefs coincide with the Republican party best (since I’d probably be best described as a conservative). Thus, I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.

I do know some extremely decent politicians. There is one who is campaigning in southern Michigan right now for House of Representatives against Joe Swartz. Tim Walberg is honest, fair, and not bought by special interests. His views never have been influenced by money. I’m not able to vote for Tim because I’m not in his district.

Posted by: Don at July 29, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #171800

Don,

So, as a conservative, you align with the Republican party, mostly? Betty Burke would love you.
That’s OK.
Heck, I used to be Republican, myself.
Now, I belong to no party.
Parties are not the solution, since all of them consist of too many irresponsible incumbent politicians.

But, that helps explain your comments above about Democrats and PAC money, despite the fact that I never alleged which party got the most money, since both are bought-and-paid-for.

So, you think you know someone that is honest? Joe Swartz (MI-R, 7th Dist)?
But, is he responsible?
Have you looked at his voting record?
Of the few things he as voted on, there are a number of things in Joe Schwartz’s voting record that I take issue with:

  • Joe Schwartz Voted YES on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006) (is that responsible, when we have troops risking life and limb, $8.4 trillion National Debt {now 69% of GDP, up from 33% in 1980; never been worse since WWII}, $12.8 trillion Social Security Debt, trillions of unfunded Medicare liabilities, PBGC $450 billion in the hole?)
  • Joe Schwartz Voted YES on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006) (of course; more evidence that the two main parties want to block access for 3rd parties and independents to the ballots, debates, and the democratic process).
  • Joe Schwartz Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006) (no mystery here, as government grows increasingly oppressive, spying on its citizens)
  • Joe Schwartz Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)

Tim Walberg (a longtime pastor whose Christian ministry has taken him around Michigan to mobilize Christians to make a difference) is running for Joe Schwartz’s seat (MI-R, District 7). Joe Schwartz is the current front runner (no mystery there … incumbency has its unfair advantages).

Personally, if it was my district, I’d vote for anyone but Joe Schwartz or Tim Walberg. Partly because Republicans need to be taken down a notch or two, to balance the abuse of power a bit. And, I used to be Republican. So, if one exists, I’d probably vote for a non-Republican for that seat. But, the main thing is to stop re-electing irresponsible politicians.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #171803

Wow, I can now see the purpose of these blogs. It is a clever plan by Progressives and Independents to show just how ineffective and dysfunctional the Democratic and Republican parties have become.

Posted by: mem beth at July 29, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #171805

Ooopssss. This item (above) is OK. The vote was against the tipping off …

  • Joe Schwartz Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)

  • But, it is amazing that some in our government are proponents of tipping off the illegal aliens.
    Amazing !?

    Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 3:05 PM
    Comment #171809

    D.A.N.

    Do you not read? (Please re-read my post.)
    I wasn’t talking about Swartz being honest. He’s not. I don’t like Swartz at all.

    You do not know Tim Walberg. The blurb you read is from a short info piece about him. You SAY you want someone who will be honest and responsible. Then you attack that person based solely upon their political party affiliation. Make up your mind! Now I know your political blinders.

    Walberg’s site is www.walbergforcongress.com. (Sorry, I can’t link). Check it out!

    Posted by: Don at July 29, 2006 3:13 PM
    Comment #171824
    Don wrote: D.A.N. Do you not read? (Please re-read my post.) I wasn’t talking about Swartz being honest. He’s not. I don’t like Swartz at all.
    Don wrote: I do know some extremely decent politicians. There is one who is campaigning in southern Michigan right now for House of Representatives against Joe Swartz. Tim Walberg is honest, fair, and not bought by special interests. His views never have been influenced by money. I’m not able to vote for Tim because I’m not in his district.

    Don, can’t you read your own writing? How was I supposed to know that? Nowhere above did you say that Schwartz was dishonest? You simply said Tim Walberg is running against Schwartz. No need to be so combative.

    Don wrote: You do not know Tim Walberg.
    Never said I did.
    Don wrote: The blurb you read is from a short info piece about him.
    And ?
    Don wrote: You SAY you want someone who will be honest and responsible.
    We all should.
    Don wrote: Then you attack that person based solely upon their political party affiliation.
    Where did I attack anyone based on party affiliation? The unwarranted, and unsolicited sarcasm and nastiness is interesting.
    Don wrote: Make up your mind! Now I know your political blinders.
    Like I was saying (above).

    At any rate, you seem quite upset about anyone who has any criticism of the Republican party. You might call yourself an independent, but you certainly don’t sound like an Independent.

    I’m non-partisan, so I have no partisan blinders, and simply believe both parties just take turns abusing power, and the evidence of it is overwhelming.

    So, you see. That’s why no one can name even 10, 20, 50, or even 268 (half of the 535) in Congress) that are fiscally and morally responsible. It doesn’t exist. Most look the other way. Most are bought-and-paid-for. 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most. Incumbents have many unfair advantages (many at the tax payers expense). The system is too corrupt, and getting worse. That’s what happens occassionally. Corruption is always trying to grow. A lack of Education, Transparency, and Accountability breeds Corruption, and Power amplifies the problem.

    That’s all.
    No grand schemes.
    No vast conspiracies.
    Just a little common sense.

    Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 4:07 PM
    Comment #171920

    What do I stand for?

    Freedom. Without it, our wars would be a joke, and our peace would give us no peace.

    Defense, but in a sensible manner. We should not be afraid to be generous with our resources when it comes to fighting war; those who devote only enough resources to get the job done have no room for error in an enterprise where error is guaranteed! At the same time we should not be reckless or exceedingly quick to resort to war, for the very reason that there is a limit to how much war we are able to fight effectively and do everything else we want to do. If we pick our fights, we may not have to enjoin so many struggles to get the best results.

    A Helping Hand. I don’t believe people should become dependent on the government, but in a time of need, or with folks who have no alternative, the Government’s help should be available. I guess you could call it a hybrid engine of economy. That said, I’d rather people be running on the more energetic fuel of employment, if they can. Republicans should realize most people would prefer that as well. There are lazy folks out there, but most people want better than that, and are willing to work for it.

    Sensible fiscal policy. We don’t like taxes. Who wants to lose money? Thing is, though, we lose money every day to gain the things we want. We can talk all we want to about being able to do better with our money ourselves, but that’s not the point, actually. This being a Democracy, it’s ultimately our choice how this money gets spent. If the politicians screw that up, we smack them down. But whatever we ask them to do with our money, we should be inclined to ask them to do it with money on hand.

    Debt Financing is more expensive for us in the long run and is in essence the illusion of cheaper government. Were we running a surplus, our tax cuts would truly be money given back. What we have here instead is prosperity borrowed from the future. That to me is rather foolish, and I stand against it. I may want government to do more for me, but it should do so for me at lower cost and long term liability.

    Regulation. I believe that proper regulation is a necessity for a complex technologically and culturally advance nation like ours. I know enough about the complexities of the real world to recognize that regulation can’t dictate everything, nor can it be enforceable along those lines. Finding the right balance takes discipline, but it’s most decidedly not going to come from a panicked insistence on government controls after a disaster hits, or the laissez faire sensibilities that often precede it, permitting the disastrous actions that rightly concern people. I would have us strike the right balance, to minimize the degree to which these cycles of restriction and unleashing carry on. The key to striking the right balance is a reasoned, educated understanding of what’s being regulated, not a devil may care pro-business ideology. The Market can mollycoddle stupidity much as it encourages innovation. It just has to be in fashion.

    That is a selection of my beliefs, my stands. I don’t just oppose Bush because of some emotional impulse. I oppose him because he opposes what I stand for, in terms of honesty and integrity in government, in terms of responsibility, and yes, in terms of the policies. This notion that we stand for nothing is an ill-informed talking point, and like intentionally so. It’s something to be repeated until even Democrats forget that they actually stand for something. But we do, and given a little push, we can tell you want we believe in with little problem.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2006 10:23 PM
    Comment #171921

    Stephen

    Most of what you say is Republican. If Democrats stand for that it is okay. In time you will probably come around to see the light.

    Posted by: Jack at July 29, 2006 10:30 PM
    Comment #171939

    The partisan warfare never ends.

    Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 11:41 PM
    Comment #171946

    Jack-
    Most of what I stand for is common sense, shared by intelligent Republicans and Democrats alike! The trick, of course, is always in the execution. I guess that’s why I find compromise, properly done, to be the prefered course of action.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2006 11:53 PM
    Comment #171977

    Librick—

    “It’s people like you and attitudes like yours that make me not really care what government the masses of the ill-informed give themselves.”

    Typical liberal attitude about the average American…if they (we) choose a government YOU don’t like, it must be because we are so ill-informed…the implication being that if we were better informed we would all agree with you and your liberal buddies, because you are so much smarter than we are and care so much more for people than we do.

    I truly apologize for being so damn ill-informed about the “facts” (I do after all listen to Rush and Fox news, so as we all know I am totally out of touch with the “truth). Maybe you could use the time honored liberal tactic of suggesting some great book or article that I could read which would set me straight and lead me down the path of liberal enlightenment (that is of course assuming that I am not too ignorant and uneducated to read, being a redneck, uneducated, bigot conservative and all)!!

    Thanks in advance for whatever advice you can give me which will make me a better human being (ie: liberal).

    Don’t forget to check my spelling and grammar and correct me if I goofed anything up.

    DaveR

    Posted by: DaveR at July 30, 2006 3:45 AM
    Comment #171978

    Mental—

    “Is this article really helpful? It just seems to be nastiness directed at the imagined enemy. Really beneath you, Jack.”

    Oh yeah and the people who write for the lib blogs NEVER resort to this kind of tactics do they?

    Amazing how any subject you libs don’t really want to address is just a non-issue for you or “imagined”. I think Jack addressed quite a few important issues and as a blog, by it’s very nature, is an opinion driven forum, he is entitled to write however he wants. You certainly don’t have to read or participate, if it offends your delicate sensibilities.

    DaveR

    Posted by: DaveR at July 30, 2006 3:53 AM
    Comment #171980

    Lynn—

    He wrote critically about one man, and not even a very prominent one. Does William Jefferson, with his freezer full of cold cash, speak for all Dems? Or do they all favor hitting security guards?

    “McCloskey may have been writing about one man, but if you read the entire article he was writing about how that one man demonstrated what most of the GOP was doing…and he made that quite clear.

    You are equating one-time incidents to a long-time pattern of behavior…apples & oranges.”

    WHATEVER!!! One time incidents? So you honestly believe that the William Jefferson thing is an isolated incident? Dems have been caught with their hands in places they don’t belong before. It isn’t apples and oranges….they take bribes and sell votes and use taxpayer money to finance their little excursions same as any Republican ever has (remember the Clintons and the Arkansas land fraud deal? Remember Travelgate)? I am from Ohio where one of the most crooked politicians in the last 20 years is mob-linked DEMOCRAT…James Traficant!!! You can’t even be serious about trying to claim that William Jefferson is the first Dem to be caught with ill gotten gains. He is just the latest.

    Sorry babe…Dems are definitely NOT exempt from being greedy, bought-off crooks.

    DaveR

    Posted by: DaveR at July 30, 2006 4:30 AM
    Comment #171989

    “Dems have been caught with their hands in places they don’t belong before. It isn’t apples and oranges….they take bribes and sell votes and use taxpayer money to finance their little excursions same as any Republican ever has “

    OK - here’s an idea. You guys clean your side of the House and we’ll clean ours. Jefferson is the first to go, and I think he should have to ride the bus home (don’t want to pay for his airfare.) He robbed us and lied to us and screed the donkey for cash. I’m still curious as to Reid’s connection to Abramoff, so I’ll keep an eye on that.

    Now, any takers from the REP side? Anyone want to step up and start knocking away at those elected officials “humping the elephant” - the ones you supported? Doesn’t it bother you have to defend your party’s honor from idiots who knew better but still rode you for all it was worth? I don’t expect people to admit guilt until after their court case, but they could at least apologize for the embarrassment they’ve caused the very people who put them in power.

    It’s not about doing what’s considered legal, it’s about doing what’s right! If we continue to complain about the “other guys” but never demand better from our own, we will always get what we have now: crooks in power pandering and lying for money (and votes.)

    Posted by: tony at July 30, 2006 8:26 AM
    Comment #172006

    PHX8
    A column from John Stossel in December of last year, since then ALL NUMBERS ARE STILL UP.

    The media regularly distorted tax issues, treating the federal deficit as though it is inherently bad. In reality, it is a fact of federal accounting, and when viewed in context, the 2005 deficit came in at just 2.6 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By comparison, the deficit in 1985 amounted to 5.1 percent of GDP.
    A repeated media call for the repeal of tax cuts ignored the economic boom America has enjoyed since the cuts took effect in 2003. GDP has grown by more than 3 percent for 10 straight quarters, the unemployment rate has fallen to below 5.0 percent, and job growth has been positive for 30 consecutive months. Add to that the fact that government revenue grew and the deficit decreased by $96 billion from fiscal year 2004 to FY 2005.(And continues to decrease)But the media refused to give credit to the tax cuts - in part, because they refused to acknowledge that the economy is on solid footing.

    So PHX8… having read your dire predictions of a failing economy for over a year now, replete with boring statistics and other equally tiresome references to charts and graphs, what happened?
    We just continue to roll along. Someday you’ll be right. Now is not that time.

    After reading the above do you still want to say there is inadequate revenue? Revenue to the Fed is at record levels….after the tax cuts. Spending is high. but at a lower rate compared to GDP. Try and prove that wrong with your beloved search engine posts.

    Nice poke at the ‘Great Society’ How did that work out for LBJ and the poor? I’ll save you the time of looking it up…it has failed miserably. After trillions spent on “the poor” there is the same percentage of poor as there was 60 years ago. Nice work. Or did you mean we should try it again? Sorry if I misinterpreted. ha

    Run along now and play with the others. (Nicely please)

    Lynne
    Please respond to when the last time was that you got a job from a poor person? What a world we would live in if the economies were run by ‘the poor’. I always ask for a loan or business development money from a street person. I’m sure you do as well.

    To all that call Bush names and include libertarians and conservatives as fools and idiots for not joining in the cat calls, where are your degrees from Yale and Harvard? Please step up to the plate and tell us how you have those on your wall and can fly a fighter jet as well. He is a real dunce that Bush… Try a new approach, please. Anything is better than the tired worn out nonsense about his lack of intelligence.
    Disagree all you want, but calling him names does nothing for your credibility.

    Stephen Daugherty

    You want the government to do more for you? Explain please, and while you’re at it, at whose expense should the government do things for you?

    Posted by: Libertarian3 at July 30, 2006 10:44 AM
    Comment #172007

    Tony,

    The problem with government in general is that they write the laws. Its not illegal if they make it so. How else could accepting free first class airfare all over the world for “fact finding” paid at the expense of corporations and lobbyists not be accepting a bribe? How is being a Congressman and having your wife or son on the board of a corporation that bids for governement contracts not seen as a conflict of interest? Its fairly simple, they write the laws so it isn’t. Both sides are guilty to the point of making me sick.

    Posted by: 1LT B at July 30, 2006 10:49 AM
    Comment #172010

    1LT B

    Agreed. Those that write the laws benefit most. Pandering to the poor while keeping them poor. The poor have no one to blame but themselves in most instances. The poor in the U.S. would be considered rich around the worlf. Anyone who travels knows this to be true. And I mean low to the ground travel. Having been to 85 countries in the last 15 years, (proof on request) I feel it is safe to comment on what I have seen. You don’t know poor until you have been to India.
    Our efforts since FDR and LBJ have done little. It all ends up with what you see in the mirror and the choices you make. If you want something, you can complain about not having it, or you can go and get it. Simple enough.

    Posted by: Libertarian3 at July 30, 2006 11:08 AM
    Comment #172013

    Does anyone remember - after Delay got busted for the way he fillled his travel plans (relating to trips with Abramoff) over 200 Congressmen ran to the travel office and resubmitted their travel forms to make them “safe”?

    OK, so many people traveled on these types of trips, and tehy obviously knew it was wrong because they instantly knew they could get into trouble… and the way they covered thier tracks was to resubmit their travel forms? And this was considered acceptable practice? If I rob a bank, can I resubmit my robbery note as a withdrawl slip?

    Does anyone remember how, after Abramoff was busted, everyone who received money from Abramoff gave that money to charities in hopes that it would “hide” their past actions and associations with Abramoff? Did anyone suddenly feel better and have more trust in their Congressmen for this? Do you think they fooled us? If so, do you think they will make it SOP?

    Posted by: tony at July 30, 2006 11:17 AM
    Comment #172016

    Let’s think of running the country this way:

    If you are a parent, and you wait for end of period grades to focus on your child’s education, everyone will be dissapointed and no one gains anything. I think most parents understand the need to be contiuoulsy involved and working with and guiding our children’s education.

    Why can’t we/ why shouldn’t we do this with running our country?

    Let’s consider elections the same as end of period grading. There’s a very limited number of seats available - so anything less than a solid B means it’s time for someone to go home. But inorder for us to be happy with the way things are, in order for no one to be surprised with the grades/votes they get, WE (all citizens) must be engaged on a daily basis.

    Parents - do you trust the opinions of others over your own opinions regarding your kids? Do you simply rely on the limited information you get from the teacher?

    NO CITIZEN LEFT BEHIND!

    Posted by: tony at July 30, 2006 11:35 AM
    Comment #172024

    Libertarian3,

    Right on brother. That’s a lot of travel, are you in the military by any chance? I heard an intersting saying once that relates to what you said. America is the only country where you drive to the poor house. Our poor aren’t starving unless they choose to, there are plenty of shelters etc. I’m not as against the original goals of FDR, but I do think that the continuance of Social Security along with the entitlements of LBJ are going to completely financially ruin this country if not put in check.

    Tony,

    Good posts.

    Posted by: 1LT B at July 30, 2006 12:12 PM
    Comment #172032

    Dan,
    I believe, in a rather sideways fashion, you have intimated that I am a atheist, agnostic, heretic , or whatever? ( What do I know about Christianity ? ) Now I do not know if you are a Christian; nor do I care. It is truly none of my business. However, in this nation, being thy brothers keeper is the lynchpin - birth of so many laws and legislation : Public and Foreign policy alike.

    Look, to believe that it is a very complicated matter to close the US borders is sheer nonsense. This is truly , though rare in life, one of those black and white issues . Businessmen like - prefer cheap labour, nothing new here. It’s been in practise since the beginning of time. Washington has chosen to attack the supplier instead of the demand. It has chosen to ignore a dual pronged attack. It has allowed this matter of immigration to be laced with brown versus white … Subtle invectives. It has chosen to ignore what any law enforcement agent would tell you ; cut off the money and the problem is neutralised. Perhaps, businessmen and conglomerates alike , should be fined, proportionate to their size ( financial ) , or do what the Government does to most criminals … Give the IRS carte blanche and deliver the coup de grace . Just throwing out some possibilities, but, at the end of the day, it all comes down to money…Money! Immigrants are seeking financial betterment for themselves and family ; one of the very reasons why this country was founded and prospers . And businessmen have an insatiable appetite for cheap labour .

    So at the end of the day, good hard working Americans, be they trying to work themselves up the ladder , pay their way through high school , college , or just trying to survive , are to be denied because this matter of immigration is a faux “ Gordian Knot “ ?

    Posted by: Eisai at July 30, 2006 12:45 PM
    Comment #172058
    Dan, I believe, in a rather sideways fashion, you have intimated that I am a atheist, agnostic, heretic , or whatever?

    Huh? I think you mean Don ?
    A person’s religion matters nothing to me.

    At any rate, I will comment on your comment.

    Irresponsible incumbent politicians created the illegal immigration problem, by failing to enforce the law, failing to secure the borders (even though many border states begged for it), forcing states to accommodate illegal aliens, and forcing the net losses of over $70 billion per year onto U.S. tax payers (which does not even include the untold cost of increased crime rates, disease, and 2.3 million displaced American workers).

    Republicans want cheap labor.
    Democrats want votes.
    U.S. citizens get the bill.

    Irresponsible incumbent politicians believe we can immigrate our way out of our fiscal/demographic problems.

    But, one of the most low-life things that dastardly, bought-and-paid-for, irresponsible incumbent politicians ever did is what they are doing now … pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other.

    Like the petty partisan warfare, politicians use this and other hot-button issues to distract voters from the irresponsibility and malfeasance of incumbent politicians.

    But, the voters keep re-electing them ! ?

    Posted by: d.a.n at July 30, 2006 3:09 PM
    Comment #172059

    Jack,

    Apparently what the ad says is “Bush’s Republican Congress - and Joe Lieberman - held no hearings on the neo-Nazi cancer in our military.”

    I don’t see how you get from there to “Joe Lieberman is a Nazi”. Bush didn’t want to hold hearings on 9/11, but I don’t think he is a member of Al Qaeda. I have to agree it is a pretty nasty ad, but it doesn’t imply that he is a Nazi in any way.

    As for Conyers, the link shows him saying he doesn’t have enough information to call for impeachment. The whole point of the link is to bitch at him for not promising to impeach Bush..

    Considering that the Republicans actually impeached Clinton, this looks like the pot calling the kettle black to begin with.

    Posted by: Woody Mena at July 30, 2006 3:21 PM
    Comment #172078

    Jack, Im a democrat but first of all Im an AMERICAN. If you truly believe what you are writing I feel very sorry for you. You are a blind man who does not care about finding a cure for his blindness. If after all of the stuff that is occurring everywhere you still believe Bush is the right man for the presidency sorry there’s nothing I can do to help you. The TRUTH is so obvious now that arguing about it is a waste of my precious time. If you are an adult who still believes in Ann Coulter or Santa Clauss there’s nothing for me to say. Keep writing stuff that I will never read.

    Posted by: Elephants are mean at July 30, 2006 4:37 PM
    Comment #172085

    WOody

    Look at the pictures that go with the article. Consider the implications. Bush and Lieberman did not call for hearings about a problem they did not think merited them. It is definitely a low blow. The test for fairness is always if you put it on the other foot. Did ANY democrats call for hearings. So show Barbara Boxer or Teddy Kennedy with those same Nazi friends. WOuld that be fair.

    Elephant

    Your time cannot be that precious if you really think it well spent to write to someone who is either blind or bad. You don’t like Bush. Consider that elections are packages. Many people did not like Bush in 2004, but they liked him better than Kerry. When I consider that the alternative to Republicans are Democrats, I think we got the better choice.

    IF you don’t want to read what I write, I don’t care. I get paid the same either way. I have lots of others to cast pearls before.

    Posted by: Jack at July 30, 2006 4:58 PM
    Comment #172093

    Jack,

    I don’t know which is more unfair, the original ad or your description of it.

    It seem to a political rule that if someone says something tacky their critics have to twist their words to to make them even tackier.

    Posted by: Woody Mena at July 30, 2006 5:54 PM
    Comment #172108

    I believe that the Democrats stand for nothing but the re- acquisition of power, no matter how destructive to the country. If all the Democrats look forward to is to punish everyone for all the issues they disagree with, then Terrorism will gain some very affective allies. Maybe if the democrats recruited Islamo- Nazis to vote, they could win an election.

    Posted by: George at July 30, 2006 7:14 PM
    Comment #172112

    George:

    “I believe that the Democrats stand for nothing but the re- acquisition of power, no matter how destructive to the country. “

    I hate to break it to you, George, but this up-coming election in November, fairly or unfairly, really has nothing to do with what the Dems stand for. It is a referendum on the GOP and the Bush administration. The Republicans can twist, contort, do a gig, and squirm and squeal, but, it still remains largely an up-or-down vote (to use an administration term) on Republicanism.

    In 2008, with everything wide open, it will then become what the Democrats, and Republicans to a lesser extent, stand for.

    Posted by: Tim Crow at July 30, 2006 7:25 PM
    Comment #172123

    Tim

    That is exactly the point. The Dems are presenting no alternative. They want to focus on the faults of Republicans. It is always easy to point out mistakes others made, much harder to have ideas of your own.

    Woody

    I guess we see it differently. But ask yourself if you would call that a similar ad aimed at Kerry or Gore fair.

    Posted by: Jack at July 30, 2006 8:21 PM
    Comment #172146

    Jack:

    And that is exactly my point—after six years of a Republican presidency that even Republicans are running away from, and an even longer majority in Congress, it’s time to take stock of who is in charge and how they’re doing. This is as it should be.

    Republicans can whine about the Dems not standing for anything, being whusses, and fiscally irresponsible—but they’re essentially fabricating a straw man from past campaigns. That doesn’t make the upcoming elections any less about what the Republicans have, and are, doing. They are standing on their record, and made to defend it.

    In 2008, the Deomocrats will answer the country’s questions about what they stand for. If they don’t, or if it isn’t what the majority of the voters want, they will lose, again.

    Posted by: Tim Crow at July 30, 2006 9:55 PM
    Comment #172147

    Tim

    So we agree. The Democratic strategy is to NOT be Republicans and hate Bush.

    We disagree that the Dems should actually stand for something. Will it be negative campaigning to point this out? Or should Republicans only talk about the low unemployment, good economic growth etc.

    Posted by: Jack at July 30, 2006 10:02 PM
    Comment #172148

    I also think it is wrong of Dems to do things that hurt their country, such as dissing Maleki, talking down the economy, making a bigger deal of every U.S. mistake or generally spreading hate and fear.

    Posted by: Jack at July 30, 2006 10:05 PM
    Comment #172156

    Jack:

    Read my proverbial lips—the Democrats don’t have to stand for anything, they don’t even have to provide an alternative. Because this election, whether you like it or not, has become a plebiscite on Republicans running the country. If the Democrats had had power for the last eleven years in Congress, and the last six years with the presidency, it would be about the Democratic track record, unless some larger issue dominated the scene.

    This isn’t about hating Bush, and you insistence on this reveals a nervousness about GOP prospects, I do believe. This is about RepublicanPOLICY and what has been happening under Republican leadership. Your Rovean pitbull mentality insists it has to be about hate and fear. Understandable. It’s worked so well in the past.

    If the voters think the Republicans have done a good job, they will be reelected, no matter how much hate the Dems spew. If the voters think the Republicans suck, then they’ll throw them out. If they don’t know what to think, they’ll stay home, or move to Albania.

    You’re frustrated as hell that the Dems aren’t tipping their hand to the voters, because you’re absolutely convinced that if the voters know the ‘truth’ about the Dems and their policies, they’ll vote GOP.

    I believe the Dems do have a plan, they do have some main ideas they want to impliment if they regain control. But, because the political scene really doesn’t demand them to ennunciate such plans, and more and more the trend and mood is becoming an up-or-down vote on Conservative governance, you’re mad as hell.

    It’s frustrating to be sure. I sympathize.

    Posted by: Tim Crow at July 30, 2006 10:35 PM
    Comment #172157

    Tim

    I agree with you that it is the Dem strategy to sell us a pig in a poke. We just disagree whether or not it is a good thing and how it will work.

    I rarely get mad as hell. No victory is ever permanent.

    But you are right that I am certain if the Dems were open and truthful about their goals and proposals they would not win the election. My goal (in my small way) is either to get them to reveal their true natures or make sure everyone knows they are afraid to do it.

    Posted by: Jack at July 30, 2006 10:43 PM
    Comment #172158

    Jack:

    Let me add something, to clarify what I’ve just said. I believe a political party should always be upfront about what it stands for—always. I think the obfuscation that voters see from the the Democrats is not only not desirable, it’s cowardly, and one of the many reasons why I have left the party.

    But I also understand political expediency and cynicism. The Dems don’t feel they need to expound on their values, because the Republicans have made a hash of it, and the polls indicate the voters agree. Why open your mouth when Republican alibis for incompetence and criminality is so persuasive to your cause?

    Frankly, I think the Dems should have been kicking the Bush administration in the ass since 2002, loudly and long, with no hesitation. In a lot of ways we agree—but for different reasons. I think the Dems are wimps because they don’t stand up for what they supposedly believe by exposing the mendacity of neo-con brand of conservatism. You think their scallywags for who they are. I’m way over there, you’re here, but the election is next door.

    Posted by: Tim Crow at July 30, 2006 10:50 PM
    Comment #172170

    So, the only issue thats important for the democrats is to find fault with the republicans and offer no other plan then to blame and run? That doesn’t sound like a strategy, it sounds like a con job.

    Posted by: George at July 31, 2006 12:01 AM
    Comment #172173

    George:

    “So, the only issue thats important for the democrats is to find fault with the republicans and offer no other plan then to blame and run? That doesn’t sound like a strategy, it sounds like a con job.”

    No more so than the Iraq con-job, the supply-side
    con-job, the Medicare perscription con-job, the “no surveillence without a warrant” con-job, this country doesn’t torture con-job, New Orleans will receive a new Marshall Plan con-job, the “Harriet Meiers is the most qualified jurist in the country” con-job, the “insurgency is in it’s last throes” con-job, “these tax-cuts will create 1.5 million new jobs in the next fiscal year ” con-job, the “your doing a heckuva job, Brownie” con-job, the “Bankruptcy and Consumer Protection Act” con-job, the signing statements con-job….

    Posted by: Tim Crow at July 31, 2006 12:17 AM
    Comment #172222

    “When You Stand For Nothing, You Fall For Anything”
    Is this not what happened when the repub elected Bush into office!

    Posted by: Roger at July 31, 2006 7:48 AM
    Comment #172251

    Tim Crow,
    Good list.

    Roger,
    True, but you can’t fool the sheople all of the time. That’s one reason, after 28 years, I’m no longer a Republican.

    What if Democrats and Republicans truly considered each others’ criticism ?

    Have you ever noticed that members of both parties are often split on the same issues?

    Are the incumbent politicains of the parties really that vastly different? They say different things, but do they actually do different things. Look at the vast number of similarities of the incumbent politicians of both main parties.

    Is it possible the voters only perceive differences that really doesn’t exist?

    Are Democrats really for the working man/woman?
    If so, what’s up with the minimum wage, and falling incomes for many years? Why does it take two incomes where one was once sufficient? What went wrong?

    Are Republicans really for smaller government?
    If so, why has government grown drastically in the last 6 year? Many of the jobs created (140,000 between 2000 and 2004) were in the federal government. How is that smaller government, when it continues to grow to nightmare proportions?

    Could it be politicians of any party really care any more?
    Are incumbent politicians really concerned about the welfare of the nation? If so, why does it seem as though they are mostly interested in finding opportunities for self-gain, padding their golden parachutes, and securing their cu$hy, coveted seats of abused power?

    Why do voters have such a dismal view of incumbent politicians?
    Is it deserved? And, if voters aren’t happy with the incumbent politicians, why vote to re-elect them? Why empower the very same persons that are cheating you, defrauding the tax payers, writing hot checks, squandering and wasting tax payers money, eroding tax payers savings with constant inflation, and ignoring the nation’s problems growing in number and severity ? Are voters being controlled ? Afterall, 83% of all money from federal campaign contributions come from only 1% of the U.S. population. Is that fair to the remaining 99% of the U.S. population? And, while those that abuse vast wealth and power have the advantage of money, that does not diminish the truth that voters don’t have to re-elect those irresponsible incumbents, repeatedly.

    So, perhaps we already have a government that is truly Of / By / For The Sheople.

    I seems some people are destined to control, and some are destined to be controlled.

    Posted by: d.a.n at July 31, 2006 10:02 AM
    Comment #172452

    I think people are looking to the Democrats for an alternative, like a car owner that goes to the dealership for a test drive. Because of Republican Dominance and the fact that some of our politicians are… well, politicians, we haven’t had much of a chance to demonstrate what we’re about, and the Republicans have been loud as hell about what we are (at least in their eyes.)

    But something’s happened in the meantime: the Democrats have found plain issues to dominate the consensus on: the war, the environment, fiscal discipline, effective government, and so on, and so forth. Republicans mistakenly believe that we’re about anybody but Bush. Reality is, we’re about repairing the damage done by Bush, or putting a stop to it. We want to be a check on Bush’s power, and a ton of other Americans agree with us. That’s what we stand on. The nations wants somebody to get in Bush’s way, to end the far right’s dominance.

    Of course, that can’t remain our course forever, but it’s a hell of a good start at this point.

    Dave R.-
    Libs. It’s what Republicans call us when they’re dragging out the stereotypical slanders, and they don’t want to be bothered addressing us with anything but a diminunitive.

    The William Jefferson thing is isolated, unlike the Jack Abramoff affair, which is the gift that keeps on giving. The difference between isolated incident and part of a pattern is that the events are related by circumstance. Whitewater (to the degree anybody can prove anything funny about that), James Traficant, and Jefferson are not related.

    Unfortunately, the Republicans right now are a different story. With the K Street project, Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, and all the shrapnel victims around them, we’re really seeing some institutional problems going on with the GOP.

    The Democrats can be corrupt scuzzballs. Nobody’s trying to claim any different. Thing is, you don’t hear a majority of Democrats jumping to William “Frozen Assets” Jefferson, or James “Beam me Up” Traficant’s defense. Even if we are not pristine, we have better hygiene concerning the dirty politicians in our midst. Anybody know how much luck DeLay’s having in cutting himself lose of his primary victory?

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2006 11:07 PM
    Comment #172457

    Libertarian3-
    The Bush Administration gains from it’s debt-financed spending spree are effectly still record deficits, compared to all that’s come before, and the economy is still nowhere near as good as it was under Clinton. Stossel likes to see the bright side in a lot of conservative and libertarian thinking on these matters, but the Budget numbers are only unremarkable if you’re immersed in the middle of the Bush administration, and don’t look at anybody else’s record. You should read Ron Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty. Paul O’Neill and Alan Greenspan, between them, quite calmly do away with many of the myths of the Club For Growth. Five words: Reagan Raised Taxes Three Times. And there’s a reason.

    I think the most important factor in our economic growth is technological efficiency. That’s been carrying everything else on it’s back, enabling both the steady growth of productive business, and the speculative highs and lows of all the different markets. Without computer streamlining of business and just plain streaming of information from outside, we could not keep this pace.

    As for LBJ and the Great Society, perhaps you should be less quick to gloat. Reason being, you have a president who just added a huge, bloated entitlement, and who is just now fighting an expensive war off budget, running up huge amounts of debt. Bush is committing just the kind of errors that sunk our economy for the next two decades and ended the prosperity of the 60s.

    As for getting jobs from the poor, tell me the last time somebody was able to run a consumer economy strictly from masses of poor and a few idle rich. The Middle Class are the people through whom the most money flows, who buy the mass produced products and services that keep most Americans, and quite a number other people employed.

    As for your direct question to me? I think I made myself clear: let’s stop kidding ourself about our so-called free lunch here. We’re funding the current tax cuts on deficit spending when we should be mitigating our deficit spending with tax revenues. How libertarian can you really be if you buy the notion of deficit spending being an economic stimulant? At least when I want more from the government, I’m willing to pay for it, and pay for it now.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2006 11:35 PM
    Comment #173334

    What they’re not and what they hate? Hey, that sounds like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, two people who have made mad fortunes by attacking “libs” for years!!

    Posted by: edhead at August 4, 2006 2:55 PM
    Comment #174137

    Why are repubs eternally angry? You’ve had it your way for the past 6 years; controlled every part of the government and yet the defining characteristic of conservative blogs, talk shows, and newspaper columns is rage. Rage against Clinton, rage against dems, rage gainst anything you choose to label liberal. You never stop blaming dems for all your failures.

    Please. Instead of constantly repeating that bogus Rovian talking point about how dems have no agenda, define the repub agenda, because I can’t divine it in the chaos that prevails in the world today. Name one thing this administration has accomplished that you can point to with pride. Just … one … thing. You’ve certainly had enough power and plenty of time to accomplish something. Name it.

    Posted by: pianofan at August 8, 2006 10:53 PM
    Post a comment