Third Party & Independents: Archives

Ah yes, let’s look at a single poll and talk about how independents are leaping pell-mell into the Kerry column. Instead of Zogby’s five point claim, why don’t you try to fit your analysis around ABC’s poll that shows Bush two points ahead after being previously behind? I guess then your post would have to read something like “Sick of Kerry’s flip-flopping and weaknesss on national security, independents flock to Bush.”

Or how about the latest CNN/Gallup polls which show a 5 point lead for Kerry shrunk to 1 in recent days. Honestly, I don’t know what all this mean at this point, except that you’re basing a whole lot of something on a very thin slice of what might actually be nothing.

Martin, if you are going critique, at least read what was said correctly. Republicans left the Bush column and moved to the undecided, NOT INDEPENDENTS!
There is significant difference. I know, its late… catch ya tomorrow my favorite nemesis.

Kerry’s speech as written was a 10, his delivery an 8, I think he did what he needed to do. As we watch the movement in the polls, let’s remember Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes. The electoral college is what matters, not the popular vote. If we look at the breakdown of the electoral college I think it’s a safe bet that this election will be won or lost in Ohio and Florida. Bush carried both in 2000. I think if Kerry wins either he’s in, if Bush carries both, Bush wins.

David, I was basing my comments on the link you provided to the Zogby poll, which says nothing about
Republicans moving to the undecided side. In fact, I just looked at it again and have no idea where you’re getting that from. The problem is that I have read what you’ve provided—not that I haven’t.

Sorry, Martin, you are not reading too good. Look at the table provided in the link. 3% of Republicans moved between the two polls to the undecided column…

I see what you’re referring to—three percent migrated from Bush Cheney to undecided—but am I really not reading good if I don’t read things that aren’t there?

You said those 3 percent were Republicans. How do we
know what their party afflilation is? For all we know, they could be independents or even Democrats who planned to vote Bush before and are now undecided. In any case, 3 percent is the margin of error and your analysis if fairly premature.

You are free to vindicate your opinions in any manner you wish Martin. That is one of the wonderful things about the Bill of Rights. Thank Buddha we have the ACLU to protect them, eh? :-)

Jeez, atheist that I am, I was going to say “Thank John Ashcroft we have the Department of Homeland Security to protect them.”

But to each his own.

Atheist? I can respect that. I was one too before discovering Buddhism in 1967. I was proud to have Buddhist entered on my military records. I was a one of a kind in my barracks doing my breathing exercises getting high on air and quietly repeating my mantra (Don’t ship me to Viet Nam) over and over again. The guys in my squad took an instant like to my oddities. And Buddha must have heard my mantra, I spent 72 to 75 at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas. I count myself extremely fortunate.

BTW, Martin, I got a fractured maxillo-facial bone boxing in Basic Training. They didn’t give me a purple heart. So, I don’t think they were handing those out for just anykind of injury. I shoulda’ got one though, you should have seen the muscles on the guy that gave me the haymaker. Come to think of it, I should have gotten a bronze star just for daring to get in the ring with him. But alas, good conduct, marksman badge, and National Defense medals were all I earned. I am proud of them nonetheless.

Personally, it’s what I breathe instead of how I breathe that makes me high. Another reason I love W—a man you could really pass a joint with. Not like Kerry, who probably babbles on and on about Vietnam and hogs the Doritos.

A Buddhist, eh? A fighting Buddhist? A Buddhist in the army? Yes, that is odd. It also explains your pacifism, I suppose. I’m all for pacifism, and hope we can return to it once all those who want to kill us are pushing up daisies.

Martin commented on being a fighting Buddhist. I entered the Army asking to be a laboratory technician. They made me a combat medic instead, after I signed the papers. Hence, my mantra. Besides I hadn’t yet attained enlightenment! Come to think of it, I still haven’t! But its the journey toward enlightenment, don’t you know, that is just as important.

Eric Benjamin, that is as good a call as any prognosticator at the moment. I think the polls will reflect more accurately the horse race after the Republican convention.

Well, here’s to your journey towards enlightenment, David! When it’s completed, where do we send the Republican registration card?

A nice laugh to go to sleep on. Thanks, Martin. That bit of humor was truly appreciated. Have a good day my friend.

The same poll showed Bush at 44% job approval (excellent/good).

I had a good laugh at Martin and David’s interchange, especially that it continued until 5:56 in the morning. To both of you, the path to enlightenment often includes rest.

I’m expecting a Kerry bounce after the convention. We havent seen much of a bounce due to Edwards’ selection as VP, or certainly not as much as was hoped for.

I dont think we’ll see a huge bounce now either—and I think it will be shortlived. Kerry opened the door, as David pointed out, to be shot down in the area of fiscal responsibility, which will force him to nuance his position.

I dont understand the money issue in this election, where Kerry is now subject to the $75 million public funds, while Bush has until the Rep convention to continue spending his money. This does not auger well for Democrats, since there is ample time for the Repubs to position themselves.

Lastly, I thought Kerry’s “challenge” to Bush was disingenuous at best. Ater months of scathing anti-Bush rhetoric from the Democrats, especially during their primary, Kerry NOW wants everything nice and civil. That’s sort of like David, after entering the boxing ring during his military service, hit the big lummox across from his with a low blow, and then suggesting that they follow the rules from thereafter.

Actually, David, that might not have been a bad idea for ya.

I thought the Kerry speech was excellent, and the “tearing down” process going to the right of this column is all too expected, and well, sad. Sad form them, sad for us, sad for America. The Bush-Cheney team has clearly taken this country in the wrong direction. Those blessed with enlightened minds and unselfish hearts can see it, those with closed minds selfish hearts cannot or will not for fear of how it might reflect upon them to have backed the cow with the tainted milk.

There comes a time when loyalty to Party must be superceded by loyalty to country and an enlightened eye on the future of our nation. Bush/Cheney—well Cheney really—have ruled as if they were monarchs and we the peasants subject to their will. Cheney is in it for power and money, and Bush just because.

The state of the nation is disgraceful, and will remain so as long was Bush the Unwise rules from his seat of insensible ignorance masquerading as compassionate conservatism. No more foolishness, no more lies, no more half-truths, no more pointless death, no more pointless wars, no more inept leadership, and a little less catering to big business concerns without concern for the American citizen.

Its time for a change…the Right no longer has the interest of America in the forefront of it agenda…

All things considered, I’ll wait a week for responses to this convention. Most of the stuff I’m seeing on Polling Report looks to be at least a week old.

jbod said “That’s sort of like David, after entering the boxing ring during his military service, hit the big lummox across from his with a low blow, and then suggesting that they follow the rules from thereafter.

Actually, David, that might not have been a bad idea for ya.”

Then I couldn’t have been as proud of my Good Conduct Medal. I’d trade a broken face for a Good Conduct Medal anyday. Small price to pay for legitimate pride. Besides, it only hurt when I blew my nose. :-)

Mr. Martin, you are right, in my opinion. Bush needs to go. And we do need a change. We need a President who can manage this huge ship of state and add 2+2 as well. Kerry has a lot of strengths, but, fiscal policy does not appear to be one of them.

Time for Nader or Badnarik for four years to set our books on a path out of the RED!

Mr. Martin, reminds of that old phrase, “I’d rather be dead than red!” Given that Communist USSR fell as a result of red ink, it kind of gives the phrase a whole new meaning for America! The same thing is going to happen to the U.S. with the burgeoning technology, service, and export growth in places like China, India, Taiwan and Japan. If we don’t set our fiscal policy to right, we could see the bottom fall out from under us as well.

Stephen, the potential for bounce I think for Dem’s will come gradually, now that I think about it, as Kerry-Edwards get last night’s policy provisions and goals out to the undecideds over the course of the next couple months. Many undecideds will not even be aware enough of their message until the debates, (should Bush muster the cajones to engage in one).

BTW, the Dem’s have a great comeback againt Right wing attacks on his economic policy. Bush says the economy is getting better, to which Kerry replies, but, it is still no where near where it was when you took office, Sir! Where were your priorities, Mr. President, in Iraq?

David:

I’m glad you chose the Good Conduct Medal—I’d expect nothing less from you. By the way, I’d do the same thing. I try to teach my kids that winning is very important, but so too is winning right. Winning wrong aint that big of a deal.

Now, to my point about Kerry…..he chose, along with the other Dems, to lambaste Bush for months during the primaries, and after the primaries to call Bush a liar etc. And only NOW does he suggest a new civility.

Seems to me he isnt deserving of the Good Conduct Medal that you won.

jbod, I agree. Though, I thought it was a very clever political ploy. Hypocritical yes, politically saavy, yes. And afterall, this is politics, the game of winning over followers by hook or crook and both sides are know the rules and how to break them with equal proficiency. That is one of the reasons I am so enamored of Nader’s platform. It has principle and idealism as a cornerstone tugging away at the conscience of at least a few percent of the voting population.

Want a bounce? Need to attract independents.

Independents care about:

- Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and prisoners held at ‘undisclosed locations’. Not mentioned!

- Tax exemptions and special deals given to Halliburton, energy and Pharma companies. Not mentioned!

- Declining real wages and climbing executive pay. Not mentioned!

- Prohibition on photos taken of coffins arriving in the US from Afghanistan and Iraq. Not mentioned!

- Exactly why do they hate us so much in Muslim countries? One huge topic here, Israel and Palestine. Subject not touched!

I hope Kerry will bring all those topics up, but I am afraid he is too calculating. That’s too bad, because independents would rather be persuaded to vote for Kerry than stay at home for lack of a decent choice.

Bush has given people good reason for criticizing him. It’s not merely a matter of ideologies being wrong here, but real life results. Pointing out those results does not constitute a breach of civility.

MOntana, Darn good call there about issues that Indies would like to see specifically addressed, although Edwards and Kerry did indirectly hit on tax exemptions and the loss of real wages. I have just read the Socialist criticisms of Kerry’s speech, and they accused him of directing it at Media Moguls to reassure them he will be able continue the Iraq war indefinitely as well as maintain the aggressive military posture so loved by Murdoch by doing a better job as Commander in Chief. Although I think that’s unsound reasoning, it’s the kind of attack that could peel off enough voters for Nader to hand the election on a platter to Bush, yet again. Of course, Dems outraged by Nader should not forget that Ross Perot crippled Bush the Elder for them.

Kerry went through a litany of spending programs which while popular, were unmatched by even a remote plausibility of being able to pay for them on a pay as you go basis which he touted.

Do you have figures to back that up, David? Bush’s tax cuts for the rich cost about $2.5 trillion. Fully funding NCLB would be a couple hundred million. Kerry’s health care program is mostly incentives to streamline, close drug patent loopholes, and cut costs - shouldn’t be too expensive. His energy program is potentially expensive, but it will create new jobs and business, so tax revenues will mitigate some of the seed money - and it’s a vital defense initiative.

I don’t know. If Kerry can’t can’t pull that off with $2.5 trillion, then this country is screwed anyhow.

But if you have figures to actually back up your claim, I’d love to see at them.

Hey Montana,

Tax exemptions and special deals given to Halliburton, energy and Pharma companies. Not mentioned!

As Kerry said, “Go to johnkerry.com.”

Declining real wages and climbing executive pay. Not mentioned!

Go to johnkerry.com.

Exactly why do they hate us so much in Muslim countries? One huge topic here, Israel and Palestine. Subject not touched!

Go to johnkerry.com.

A. Pundit, cut the deficit in half in 4 years equals roughly 2.25 Trillion dollars in spending cuts.

That takes care of the Rich Tax increase. Now where does the money come from for all the rest of the program increases, not to mention the tax cut for the middle class?

It does not seem to add up!

David,

Perhaps looking at Kerry’s spending proposal will definitely shed some light on this topic. Otherwise what would be the point of licking your chops with all those tax increases on the “WEALTHY” as it is called these days.

Don Lambro - Washington Times
July 12, 2004
Sen. John Kerry’s campaign proposals would result in $226 billion in higher spending in the first year of his presidency, including an additional $115 billion in social welfare, foreign aid, and environmental and energy costs, according to a study of his budgetary recommendations.

The study by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF), which will be released later this week, finds that Mr. Kerry’s budget proposals, which he says would slash the deficit in half over four years, would increase spending well beyond his estimates.
>
>
>
Since he announced his presidential candidacy, Mr. Kerry has made 70 policy proposals that would affect spending, five of which would reduce spending.
>
>
“Overall, Senator Kerry proposes spending $770.6 billion over five years to fund his projects, while suggesting just $35.99 billion in budget cuts,” the study says.
>
>
“This leaves $734.62 billion unaccounted for and presumably passed on to American taxpayers in the form of increased taxes or suffocating debt,” the study said.

David, American Pundit and others,
I invite you all to check this out thoroughly before you go gleefully laughing in the night over those poll numbers, This information will definitely get out, unlike Kerry’s suppressing of his Senate record during the Convention.

I have heard of some estimates that put his tax increase savings at approximately $600 billion and his spending increases at the tune of 2 or 3 trillion. I suggest all of you Kerry supporters check this out. If you choose not to, then hold on to your pockets…..

And to save you the trouble of searching for the NTU and the NTUF here is the link.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=30

Tax and Fiscal Information on Senator John Kerry

MAW, those guys are a full-on Republican organization. I’ll wait until Kerry presents his plan and the CTJ has a chance to look at it before I form a solid opinion.

David, what can I say. Kerry thinks he can do it. We know that Bush can’t (or won’t).

Obviously politicians make a lot of promises in an election year. Clinton didn’t implement some of the programs he said he would, but he did balance the budget. And Kerry was one of the Democrats who supported him from the start on fiscal responsibility.

Of course they are Republican organizations. Where do you think you get your Democratic thought police information?

You can enlighten me on one thing, what or who is CTJ?

And of course my dear, Clinton didn’t balance the budget until Republicans got into office and forced him to reform welfare and slash all those coushy projects. That is when the budget got balanced. I’m a little older than that and remember it myself so I don’t need a Republican organization to check it out, I lived it.

I’m off to the movies now, will check later. Going to see “The Village” I think.

Good posting.

MAW, Clinton had a veto pen and showed his capacity to use it. The Republican Congress didn’t force anything upon Clinton, Clinton read the will of the people and to the best of his ability complied with the people’s will - not that of the GOP.

If fiscal responsibility was such a hallmark of the GOP, why are we growing a 10 Trillion dollar national debt now?

David,

The Republican Congress didn’t force anything upon Clinton, Clinton read the will of the people and to the best of his ability complied with the people’s will - not that of the GOP.

He was dragged kicking and screaming over three government SHUTDOWNS, to fiscal responsibility. That is not exactly an eagerness toward fiscal responsibility. All this crap about “he read the will of the people” is spin on the fact that the Congress was putting pressure on him not to spend so outrageously. And so yes, as a result of bucking to such force, the budget DID get balanced on Clinton’s watch. Hurray for Clinton, right?

I’m just wondering why Republicans in Congress aren’t similarly pressuring Bush to do the same.

No, Ciggy, you were watching Parliament on C-Span. The government shutdowns were due to Clinton’s veto pen in large part. Congress passed pork, Clinton vetoed, and they were back to square one. They hated Clinton because he was helping them control their purse strings - they didn’t like that much, no they didn’t!

MAW, while you are quite correct that Congress refused the Clinton’s massive overhaul of the health care system (a move 10’s of millions of Americans now regret), your view is very one sided. One of the brilliant tactical wars between Gingrich and Clinton was that Clinton vetoed GOP pork and other bills, forcing the GOP House to wheel and deal with him. He gave them some, they gave him some.

The proof of how effective it was is in the historical record of our economic situation at the end of Clinton’s office. Rail all you wish, the historical facts are on record for all to see.

Were it not for the tech bubble bust, we might never have gone into recession, only a slowed GDP growth for a couple years due to lack of exports due to the world wide recession that took place at the same time.

Few President’s wielded the veto pen as adeptly as Clinton did. And what did the GOP do to the man responsible for fighting for fiscal responsibility named Gingrich? They all but orphaned him from the party. Relegated him to conservative think tanks and out of the public eye. Amusing really, in light of the fiscal mess the GOP has created today.

David, this is what prompted the shutdown:

Passed 237 to 189 along party lines, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 would cut $270 billion from Medicare for the elderly, $163 billion from Medicaid for the poor, $82 billion from welfare and lesser amounts from farm subsidies and student-loan programs.

That’s $515 billion of spending cuts proposed by the Republicans, and that first time around Clinton managed to make the Republicans look evil for wanting fiscal responsibility, yet at the same time, eventually pass a compromise proposal and then take credit for “balancing the budget”. Clinton was forced into plagiarizing from a budget-balancing handbook where, if he were left to his own devices by a yes-man Democrat Congress, he would have sent deficit spending through the roof, with handouts upon handouts with which to buy votes (the Democrat raison d’etre).

While I am sickened that Bush is similarly loose with the purse-strings, that doesn’t make me admire Clinton’s approach to budgeting.

The proof of how effective it was is in the historical record of our economic situation at the end of Clinton’s office. Rail all you wish, the historical facts are on record for all to see.

The historical fact is that we had a FALSE BUBBLE of an economy. Business was in its own deficit spending binge, quite independant of government action, but it made everyone buy into the lie that the government had somehow spent its way into a booming economy.

And what did the GOP do to the man responsible for fighting for fiscal responsibility named Gingrich? They all but orphaned him from the party.

Gingrich later started to get petty and power-mad about the fight. He tacked on extra harsh demands onto budget proposals simply for being led out the back of Air Force One instead of the front. Junior Republican Representatives were getting highly ticked off at him, and he increasingly became a pariah for straying from the real business at hand.

Seems to me the real business at hand was balancing the budget in a manner that would hurt the fewest number of people in this land. That was Clinton’s intent, certainly not the GOP’s.

Clinton was no political fool. He knew a balanced budget could be achieved without gutting social programs. The proof is now a matter of record. Balanced budgets plus surpluses with minimal harm to the fewest number of Americans, compared to the GOP plan. I still contend this is irrefuteable as a matter of recorded history.

David,

Seems to me the real business at hand was balancing the budget in a manner that would hurt the fewest number of people in this land. That was Clinton’s intent, certainly not the GOP’s.

If you think you can “help” this generation by showering it with a flood of handouts and free money growing on trees, bought with deficit spending, and NOT hurt FUTURE generations thereby, I think you misunderstand the basic concept of how budgeting works.

Of course, hideously costly wars are no help either, so I’ve got the GOP equally in my cross-hairs these days, for critique.

Clinton was no political fool. He knew a balanced budget could be achieved without gutting social programs. The proof is now a matter of record.

While that is true, he never would have INTENDED to balance the budget had it not been for Republican pressure. He would have merrily bankrupted future generations to put an extra crack pipe in every ghetto pocket, and buy extra votes thereby. He would have gutted our future.

Yes, military spending was bloated, and Clinton trimmed it down. I helped him trim it, so I know. It would have been nice had he authorized a reduction of mission load on the military, but that’s a separate issue.

David,
Hey, I am not please with Bush’s spending either, nor his seemingly unwillingness to protect the borders. As a former Texas Governor one would think that would be paramount. I don’t like his position on stem cell research along with a few other things that annoy me. But when I look at Mr. Kerry’s populist approach to his campaign, I get concerned, very concerned. It scares me.

Along with the Tech bubble that exploded in the late 90’s and the stock market decline in the early 2000 that led to the recession that started in 2001. Combine that with Corporate Scandals and 9/11, I have to give the guy a break. Why don’t you.? Let me guess, Iraq, right?

I hear all the time about the great economy under Clinton until I could stick a finger down my throat. Clinton’s had little to do in creating that economy with one exception, he had the sense enough to keep Greenspan. So if Clinton is going to take credit for the economy that was handed to him. The he should certainly take responsibility for the economy he left. But he wants it both ways and you guys fall hook line and sinker into the trap of giving it to him.

That’s just my opinion folks!

See ya.

Ciggy said: “If you think you can “help” this generation by showering it with a flood of handouts and free money growing on trees, bought with deficit spending, and NOT hurt FUTURE generations thereby, I think you misunderstand the basic concept of how budgeting works.”

Ciggy, you know very well from my previous writings that that is NOT what I think. In fact, that is my chief complaint about this Administration on fiscal policy.

MAW said:>

Hey, I am not please with Bush’s spending either, nor his seemingly unwillingness to protect the borders. As a former Texas Governor one would think that would be paramount. I don’t like his position on stem cell research along with a few other things that annoy me.

We are in total agreement on these issues.

Along with the Tech bubble that exploded in the late 90’s and the stock market decline in the early 2000 that led to the recession that started in 2001. Combine that with Corporate Scandals and 9/11, I have to give the guy a break. Why don’t you.? Let me guess, Iraq, right?

No. I don’t hold Bush responsible for the economic decline. In fact, I give him credit for the middle class tax break which allowed the consumers to sustain the recovery with increased disposeable income. I would have liked to seen him give less to the very wealthy and more to the middle class as that would have increased consumer demand even more. But that is where right and left can honestly disagree on the effects of capital investment as a boost to economic GDP. Bush obviously believed capital investment would help.

As for your last paragraph, his use of the veto pen in assisting the GOP to work toward a balanced budget and surplus was as instrumental as the GOP’s rhetorical demand for the same. Nothing argues truth like reality. GOP Congress with Clinton, balanced budgets and surpluses. GOP Congress without Clinton’s veto pen, 10 Trillion dollar national debt by 2010, only 5 years away. I grant 200 billion for the wars, and another 75 billion for 9/11 responses. But, hey, that does not add up to 455 Billion dollar deficit this year, MAW. And three years running in huge deficits. Sorry, the only explanation for that is the lack of veto pen in office.

David,

Ciggy, you know very well from my previous writings that that is NOT what I think

Then why is it what you wrote? You have repeatedly announced that policy should be what helps the greatest number of people (or hurts the least), but in your advocacy of deficit spending to generate vote-getting handouts to welfare cases, you may have forgotten the hurt that puts to our children’s future.

I have written what I thing for a year now here. It is on record. I am not going to take the time to rewrite for you. Look it up. CF is right, in regard to this converation, you have gone a bit over the deep end and are no longer making rational argument but simply unsupported hyperbole!

I will let my comments in our thread end here, since, you are wont to put words into others mouths instead of quoting them, and attribute your thinking of what they think as their thinking. That is not debate - that is a rant!

I never claimed to be likeable. I never suck up to a political ideology out of solidarity. I just calls ‘em as I sees ‘em, and I’m just as likely to piss off Republicans when I go off on them for that stupid gay marriage ban or WMDs in Iraq, or the abortion stance.

Anyway, there always comes a point where the fanatical partisans in one of the two binary unreasoning parties just can stand me anymore, and they give up on discussing anything with me. And they wonder why I won’t vote their party.

David,
I hold on to the belief that if Bush gets re-elected he will indeed practice the fiscal responsibility I would have hoped he would have exercised the past few years. I believe that the spending came in an effort to take away any issues the Democrats would have during an election year. But they keep on finding them. And in a lot of cases they make them up.

Given that the cost of Iraq will eventually go away one way or another, unlike the prescription Medicare program et al, which will go on forever, there is a slim possibility that Iraq could pay us back with oil revenues. Call it wishful thinking, but it still plays on my mind.

The $4+ trillion national debt in the early 90s at one time bothered me, but maybe I have become callous since then. As Reagan said, don’t worry about the debt, it’s big enough to take care of itself. So the spend and borrow attitude of the Republicans bothers me a lot less than the spend and tax attitude of Kerry. It is simply the lesser of 2 evils. And the later in my opinion, and to this I totally agree with Ciggy, which are Kerry’s promises, scare the living hell out of me.

Furthermore, Kerry plays to the populist in that Health Insurance for everyone, free education, minimum wage increases, 10 million jobs are all just promises that he can not keep. At least not without a Democratic Congress that gives him everything he wants. But I can’t help believe that if he has been in Congress for 20 years he could have at least sponsored some legislation for these programs. Even if they did not get through the process, he could have had a record that showed he tried. But alas, there is nothing, nothing at all to point to.

His record showed fiscal responsibility only when it came to military and intelligence spending. Those programs, he voted to cut. So how does anyone feel safe when he consistently is found on the wrong side of issues, military issues in particular? This is why I am frightened. Not because I rally around the Republican flag, but because there are just too many things about him that I put in the negative column.

Polls indicate that men by far are in favor of Bush than women. This disturbs me also. Being a woman, I would hope they would use common sense when choosing a President. Anything but the hunk factor. Sorry, couldn’t help but throw that in.

Ciggy, I will dicuss all and any matters with you like as long you promise to join the noble cause of reelecting Bush. :)

When I see your posts, actually, I think you look like an abolutist fiscal conservative and America-firster whose beliefs are pretty close to George Bush’s own, but not in line with the actual actions that pretty extreme circumstances have pushed him to.

Ideological purity, however, doesn’t let you admit that you have to sometimes compromise principles to get from point A to B. Bush has had to soujourn in many swamps not to his liking to seek a long term resolution to America’s security and economic concerns.

Democrats complaining about Bush’s spending—what a sight. Note that we never hear, except for Iraq (not even close to the bulk of our expenditures) what spending they’d like to see cut instead of expanded.

So what is it? Education? Aid to those effected by 9-11? Health care? AIDS research? The bail-outs that kept the aviation industry afloat after 9-11?
Oh, I remember now. The Democrats don’t want to cut spending—they just want to position themselves to the right because that’s where they know most Americans are.

Hey, I know what. Why don’t the Democrats seek deep and dramatic tax cuts—that would put a real crimp in Bush’s free-spending ways.

Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, wrote a really good book, “In an Uncertain World”, chronicling Clinton’s economic policy. At the beginning of his term, Clinton decided that no one would take social programs seriously unless he balanced - not just reduced, but balanced - the budget. That was his policy from day one.

Clinton and Gore cut hundreds of federal programs and reduced the size of the federal government back to the scale of the Eisenhower administration (Reinventing Government). And they put a small tax on gasoline. Then Clinton wielded his veto power to get the Republicans (and many Democrats) to cut the pork, and retarget the Republican “tax cuts for the rich” budget to include some social programs.

This whole thing about the Republicans forcing Clinton “kicking and screaming” to fiscal responsibility is just silly.

From Clinton’s radio address on the eve of the first shutdown (I get an error when trying to put the following address in an a href tag),

http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/debt_limit/11-11/clinton_radio/clinton_trans(remove me).html

This budget debate is not about whether we will balance the budget. Both parties support that. It’s about whether we will balance our budget in a way that is consistent with our fundamental values — our responsibility to our parents and to our children, our determination to provide opportunity for all Americans to make the most of their own lives through good jobs in education and technology, our obligation to protect the environment, and to keep America the world’s strongest force for peace and freedom, democracy and prosperity.

And the second shutdown,

http://www.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/12-16/transcript(remove me).html

Let me be clear: As I have said from the beginning, I very much want to work with Congress to get a balanced budget. After all, working with the previous Congress in my first two years as President, we cut the deficit I found when I became President in half; we reduced the size of the federal government by 200,000. We ought to finish the job. We shouldn’t leave a legacy of debt to our children. But neither should we leave the next generation a legacy of neglect.

Martin,

When I see your posts, actually, I think you look like an abolutist fiscal conservative and America-firster whose beliefs are pretty close to George Bush’s own, but not in line with the actual actions that pretty extreme circumstances have pushed him to.

I am forced into a fiscal responsibility corner and an America first corner, largely by left wing partisan arguments that demand America to be last, and to throw fiscal responsibility to the four winds in favor of handouts to the lazy.

When the left-wing rhetorical wind isn’t at gale force, I actually find many points of disagreement with the more staunch conservative Rush Limbaugh approach to government finances. One main disagreement is that I do see value in public assistance, not as welfare for those who refuse to work, but as a reward for those who WILL. Compassion has its place for seniors and the handicapped, but in other areas PA should be seen as a carrot at the next-higher step on the economic ladder, to encourage people to take that step and be a grown-up for once in their lives. Many on the right (perhaps too many) would eliminate PA altogether, throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, and losing a valuable tool for cultural reform.

When it comes to America first, that is a more genuine sentiment on my part, and it’s consistent with some of the slightly more protectionist attitudes I have about trade than either of the mainstream binary parties. (It’s also one of the major sticking points I have with the Libertarian Party.)

In a way, “Green Hawk” is a tongue-in-cheek label I give myself, because “Green” was the result of an online political litmus test which didn’t have any foreign policy subject matter in it. On reading the official website of the Green Party, I see plenty not to agree with there, and wonder where the online litmus test must have gotten their material.

Ideological purity, however, doesn’t let you admit that you have to sometimes compromise principles to get from point A to B.

There are times for the pragmatic compromises to be made, but not all the time, the way they are in mainstream binary politics. Suicide isn’t merely half as bad if you only commit half-suicide, because magically, you’re still just as dead.

AP, I believe you are half right. Clinton did cut military pork. I saw it being cut, and most of that was gratifying to see, from within the DoD. At the same time, though the Republicans wanted to cut social pork, and Clinton refused to do any of that. Hence the government shutdowns. It’s in that area where you’re employing an historical revisionism which won’t bear out to objective scrutiny.

No revisionism here, Ciggy. I think those quotes make your point (though not the spin) clear. The Reinventing Government initiative did reduce government programs and wasteful spending. Clinton shut down the government to enforce a balanced budget that didn’t endanger Social Security, Medicare, and education.

I had a problem with some people propagating the “kicking and screaming” myth, and I wanted to address it. I hope I was successful.

to enforce a balanced budget that didn’t endanger Social Security, Medicare, and education.

That’s a nice way of saying he wanted to increase spending on social pork and the Republicans wouldn’t let him, so in a temper tantrum he shut the government down.

Ciggy, that is one of the messy things about democracy. One person’s pork is a majority’s mandate for a compassionate society. Definitions, some of them can be very fluid.

That’s a nice way of saying he wanted to increase spending on social pork and the Republicans wouldn’t let him, so in a temper tantrum he shut the government down.

That’s the not so nice way of saying it. :)

You left out the part about balancing the budget and to be fair, temper had nothing to do with it. Clinton was protecting things which I elected him to protect.

David,

One person’s pork is a majority’s mandate for a compassionate society

Sell “compassion” at the expense of future generations all you want. It’s really just a ponzi scheme.

AP,

You left out the part about balancing the budget

Thanks to what was properly known as the “Peace Dividend”. It was America’s paycheck for not having to be ramped up and ready to fight the USSR at any given moment.

Clinton was protecting things which I elected him to protect.

More robbing from your grandchildren to give to your “poor unfortunate neighbors”. Gee. Was I supposed to be impressed?

Well, this thread is degenerating into far more sarcasm than even I care to participate in. You win, Ciggy. You’ve made me see the error of my ways. I’m switching to Green Hawk.

I assume the Green Hawks have a plan for allowing me to live out my twilight years with dignity. Or do I have to work as a greeter at Wal-Mart until I die to keep a humble roof over my head and see a doctor every once in a while?

Well, this thread is degenerating into far more sarcasm than even I care to participate in.

Hmm… I guess it’s not. :)

Seriously, Ciggy. This subject crops up here all the time, but I’ve never seen a counter proposal that doesn’t put millions of families back into the cycle of poverty that Social Security helped them escape.

AP,

I assume the Green Hawks have a plan for allowing me to live out my twilight years with dignity.

I’d prefer to see the next generations coming up being able to live in their prime without having to pay for the profligacy of the geriatrics that ran up the debt.

If you wanted dignity, maybe you shouldn’t have voted for all that pork.

I’ve never seen a counter proposal that doesn’t put millions of families back into the cycle of poverty that Social Security helped them escape.

Actually the venting and catharsis in my lines above are not fully accurate with what I support. I believe in replacing Social Security with generic public assistance for retirees, although the retirement age should be a parameter to the budget, set by whether the Congress is being fiscally disciplined or not. If enough Wal-Mart greeters get angry at having to work, maybe they’ll impress upon their representatives to tone down the pork dial a bit.

But everything was hunky-dory under Clinton. We had plenty of surplus cash and a social safety net.

Lying to Pollsters: Well, as for me, I’ve had enough polling until the one true poll… the national election. If you’re with me (or agin me) visit my site and register your opinion. (No personal data… just a bit of fun.)
www.lietothepollsters.com

Ciggy, your belief about replacing Social Security has a stroke of genius embedded in it. Good Show, tying benefits to budgets and surpluses.

AP,

But everything was hunky-dory under Clinton. We had plenty of surplus cash and a social safety net.

The part you’re refusing to understand is that the economy was in a bubble of false prosperity, spurred on by a fit of stupidity in Venture Capital firms in trusting pony-tailed internet hucksters with enormous sums of investment cash. When it was “booming” like that, income tax revenue was off the charts, because any programmer who could think up a domain name and put “-ient” at the end would suddenly be a millionaire overnight. And while they were just criminal enough to scam the VCs out of their money, they weren’t quite criminal enough to scam the IRS.

In a normal economy, having corrected back to normal levels from the credit-driven bubble of the ’90s, there are actually hard choices to make in the budget. And the choices are:

1) Rob from your grandchildren
or
2) Not rob from your grandchildren

Republicans and Democrats both are opting for #1 in various ways (military or social brands of pork).

What’s actually needed for our economic survival is option #2.

It’s quite possible the public is too full of idiots to see that. Or maybe not. It’s worth a try to get the word out though.

David, admittedly I’d be holding seniors hostage to the discipline of the Congress, but in a way I think that’s justified. They were the ones who cast the most votes over time, to run up the pork-laden debt, after all. Let the birdies come home to roost for them, and at the same time give them a real reason to flex their activist muscles.

It’s quite possible the public is too full of idiots to see that. Or maybe not. It’s worth a try to get the word out though.

Well, your heart’s in the right place, anyhow. Keep up the good work. :)