Okay I'm officially doing work now for the Howard Dean campaign. Dean-- the former five term governor of Vermont and a physician by trade who shares a medical practice with his wife, Dr. Judith Steinberg-- has developed an enormous grassroots campaign via the internet, having signed up over 400,000 people nationwide. There is a clear and vital energy to his campaign. I was at a big rally for Dean that took place today in downtown manhattan, prior to the candidates debate which aired on CNBC/MSNBC. Most of the candidates had no visible supporters outside the event location, although there were two or three Wesley Clark supporters and a few Sharpton guys (he's from Brooklyn) But there were maybe five hundred Dean supporters out there in force, waving signs and shouting. Dean is a tremendous speaker and gave a real fire and brimstone speech in which he repeatedly ripped what he called the Bush/Scalia/Kenneth Lay (scandalized head of Enron) right wing power bloc. He vowed to repeal ALL of Bush's tax cuts and accused Bush of being beholden to special interests and irresponsible to the working class by running up the national defecit so his rich buddies like Kenneth Lay can get tax breaks. Dean talked about how he wants to empower the people and, and have a government where people feel a part of what is going on. Which all to often most people DON'T feel a part of what goes on these days. He specifically asked everyone in the crowd who hadn't already to give his campaign workers their email addresses, because they are putting together giant mailing lists and forums and the idea is for everyone to feel connected in one way or another, and that he wants everyone to be able to use the internet to share their input and their ideas with the campaign. Howard Dean is doing something special with his campaign, he is spreading a populist message, a message of inclusion. And I see no other candidate doing that. Most of the other candidates are looking for votes and support in the usual, time honored manners. Union endorsements, local party machines .etc Dean is taking the non traditional approach. He is reaching out directly to people who haven't been involved in the process before, independents and others normally disenfranchised and ignored. He is building a massive support base from the ground up. Every month, on the first Wednesday of every month, in cities and towns across the country, there are Dean campaign sponsored Meetups at local bars or taverns, where you can meet other people who either support him or want to learn more about him. I went to the September meetup, there were eleven different bars/clubs/taverns in the NYC area alone hosting Dean meetings that night. There I met some people who had never been involved in campaigns before, they had connected with the Dean campaign through the internet, through various forums and chat rooms the campaign has. Or they gave their email address at one place or another, and were contacted. There is no fundraising at these meetings, the idea is just to get people to meet other people, with the hope that ideas will be discussed and people will want to get involved. The next Howard Dean campaign National Meet Up Day is next Wednesday, October 1st at 7 p.m. Since I know many of you live in the Ann Arbor area, I thought I'd list the meeting sites in that area. There are three of them, and you can expect big crowds at each location: Espresso Royale Cafe, 324 S. State St., Ann Arbor, MI Crazy Wisdom Bookstore & Tea, 114 S Main St, Ann Arbor, MI Ann Arbor Comedy Showcase, 314 East Liberty Street, Ann Arbor, MI You can go to any of these locations and meet other people concerned about the future of this country, and who want to exchange ideas and maybe work together toward a good, common cause. If you live elsewhere, you can check http://dean2004.meetup.com to sign up and find the location of the meeting or meetings in your area. There are no other campaigns doing anything like this. It is a true populist effort. Dean is ahead in Iowa right now and well ahead in New Hampshire in the latest polls I encourage everyone who's interested to come to one of these meetings. Even if you don't support Dean, you'll meet a lot of good people and you'll get a good, positive feeling for the potential to change the political trends in this country.536 responses total.
(Wednesday, October 1st, is also the first public forum on Ann Arbor Public Schools facilities improvements, a broader approach to the problem of overcrowding in Pioneer and Huron high scools. Seven o'clock, in the Huron High School cafeteria.)
Howard Dean is cool. A friend of his, David Rome, from Vermont, joined us coast to coasters for a week on our cycling tour. At first we all thought he was merely bluffing being at first name basis with mr. Dean. As time progressed I learned a lot about Howard Dean. David considered Howard dean not to be just yet made of Bill Clinton caliber, but with huge potential. Real proof of his friendship with Howard Dean was the letter I received from Howard Dean himself, in which he thanked me, German guy and my friend Martin for 'pulling' David against the headwinds of South Dakota. I can only say wow!, to that. Besides that David promised us coast to coasters to have a video night at the White House if mr. Dean gets elected. I can't wait! Hoeward Dean! Howard Dean! Howard Dean!
and his vote is cheaply bought..
Not really, considering that at least two of the three recipients of that letter are ineligible to vote in US elections.
This response has been erased.
Go How-weird!
(I'll bite: how so, jp2?)
This response has been erased.
(That's what I thought you'd say. Just as there are only 46 States. :)
(jp2 is being technical - the elections of senators, representatives and the president and vice president are done by the People in the States. However he does slip up in not recognizing that the whole process is "sponsored" by the Constitution of the US, so it is the US that is "sponsoring" these elections.)
re3: that was a very unchristian thing to say, cunt.
This response has been erased.
Your're quibbling. It depends on what you or I mean by "sponsored". However it is very clear that elections are *authorized* by the United States Constitution, and some parameters are specified for them.
This response has been erased.
"US elections" in the context of my statement above refers to elections within the US.
'populist'... sounds too lefty for me.
I think Howard Dean is a perfect candidate for the Democratic Party. I also think Wes Clark would make an excellent running mate for him.
I was thinking the other way around.
I am uncomfortable with the idea of electing a President primarily for his military background, and, so far, I'm much less impressed with Clark on other issues; I'd much rather have him as a VP or Sec'y of Defense for Dean than as a President. My other choices for Dean's VP are Powell and McCain, though, so you might not want to listen to me...
Oh my dog! A CENTRIST?! ;)
Not so much centrist as utterly lacking loyalty to any existing party... I guess that could make me a centrist or something.
I like to think I'm pretty well informed, and yet, I know just about nothing about Clark, other than that he's currently leading in the polls. I'm assuming that means most of those who claim to be his supporters are going entirely on name recognition. Dean scares me somehow. I agree with his positions a lot more than I agree with Bush's, but he doesn't strike me as giving his positions a lot of thought. I'm tempted to call him a liberal Bush, although that's probably unfair. Maybe I'll warm up to him at some point. I found this New York Times column interesting: http://www.iht.com/articles/109920.html I think just based on what the candidates have to say, I'm far more impressed with John Kerry than anybody else at this point. But if the most basic qualification to be President is being able to get elected, he doesn't look like he's doing so well in that regard.
It has been reported that Clark has a very bad temper. He once yelled at a bagboy for how he was treating his luggage while loading it into the car. He yelled so much that the manager found it prudent to apologize for the altercation to the entire convention. It has also been reported he ordered an english commander during the conflict in Kosovo to attack the Russians when they siezed the airport. The Brit told him "I am not going top start world war three today." Not a very calm person, and not one I am sure I would want sitting on the nuclear trigger.
as opposed to a retard like dubyuh? lol
If I had retarded children, I wouldn't like someone as disrespectful as happyboy looking after them IMHOP.
you probably WILL have retard children someday.
Just to provide some concrete sources here, the NYTimes' account of the WW3 comment can be read at http://www.zpub.com/un/Clark's%20Military%20Record.h tm (without having to log into the NYTimes).
resp:21 you scored some brownie points in my book.
Clark is a closet republican. He was quoted in today's new york times PRAISING Ronald Reagan as a great leader and president! That kind of talk won't get him nominated by the Democratic party. scg, what exactly gives you the impression that Dean lacks the courage of his convictions? I don't think thats true at all. Remember he's a five term governor of Vermont and has a record to back up his views
Where did I say I thought Dean lacked the courage of his convictions. My fear is just the opposite, really, that like Bush he seems so sure of himself that it doesn't occur to him he might be wrong. This seems to be a common trait among some (but not all) other alcoholics I know as well (Bush and Dean are both alleged to have had alcoholic pasts), and generally strikes me as a pretty big disqualifier for positions in which good judgement is important.
plenty of great presidents were alcoholics...FDR was an alcoholic. Didn't stop him fom being a great leader.
Reminds me of what President Lincoln said of General Grant. :)
I'd like to be proven wrong about Dean, since I suspect he's going to be President. Heck, I'd like to be proven wrong about Bush too, but I suppose it's a bit late for that.
Martin isn't american either. There is no gain here, for Howard Dean but goodwill. I think it's cool of him to write us a letter (even if it was the same letter printed a couple of times). He didn't have to do it. I like this kind of attitude. I will cherish this letter, you bet.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
what's a silly hat? /looks out of corner of eye and slowly hides his muddy mudhen baseball cap.
re: #36...you haven't been looking at the latest polls, Bush has been doing really badly, a couple of democrats poll ahead of Bush and Dean-- with much lower name recognition nationally at this point, is nearly tied with him. Don't think Bush can't be beaten. Remember his father, Bush the elder, was voted out of office, even though he had a war the year before and had been popular. So its happened before. And who beat Bush the elder? a little known governor from a small state...
Why dont you offer to eat a hat if Bush *wins*, richard? That way, no matter who wins, all the rest of us will get to see some putz eat a hat. *snort* ;)
I think it's likely that stuff Bush has done will have disasterous consequences, rather quickly, and I think that will be career ending for Bush. Again, I'd love to be wrong about the first part of that. Therefore, I think if the Democrats put up a good candidate, they will most likely win. Dean, for all his other faults, appears to be a good candidate. I don't think Clark is really relevant at this point. He appears to be the front runner, but nobody knows anything about him. I suspect he will both gain and lose considerable numbers of supporters as people learn more about him (and whether they're liking him or disliking him for the right reasons). Maybe he'll end up a front runner again after that, maybe not.
(A Silly Hat is one that can be purchased with the Silly Hat Fund, of course.)
Clark was a top general, but hardly famous. My impression is that he's rather green and not greatly talented at politics. Rumor is that he's got some personal issues which are probably substantial political liabilities. Eisenhower was a very famous top general, was often more a military politician than a military commander, and had four years to bone up on domestics politics between first being seriously proposed as Presidential candidate and actually deciding to go for it. I'd say that Clark would have to grow really fast and get really lucky to win in the '04 election. My impression is that Dean is an awesome candidate...from the viewpoint of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I have grave doubts about his ability to compete with Bush in the general election, or to effectively govern if he won.
Go, How-wierd!
This response has been erased.
re: #41...slynne why the name calling? why do you think I'm a putz? what did I ever do to you? thats mean spirited if you ask me
That's just slynne. It's not mean spirited, it's mean in a sort of jovial spirit.
I do not see how anyone can beat Bush at this time. His decisions so far, though not always the most politically expediante, show great leadership. And great leaders get followed and elected. You don't like his political or monetary decisions? I don't like all of them either, but has any democrat stood up and offer to lead? Not attack him on a personal or political level, not point to his mistakes, but actually offer a vision of america that we can follow? I didn't think so.
Uh... Pointing out his mistakes *is* offering a vision we can follow. Attacking his politics is also offering a vision, a vision of what could be, rather than what is.
Yep, the Republicans still think of Duyba as their boy.
If I didn't know better, I'd think sentence 2, paragraph 1 of #49 was flamebait. Too bad.
This response has been erased.
Plenty is wrong. Wow, a response from Todd that I strongly agree with! :)
#49: "offer a vision of america we can follow" reminds me of something a friend said a few days ago. In response to a slate.com article about how the Dems are disadvantaged because they haven't presented a clear and coherant plan for Iraq, he asked, "If you're running against Bush, isn't a clear and coherant plan for Iraq just extra credit?" Point being, the Dem's aren't the ones who need a plan; Bush is. The Dems need to present general principles that can be applied to whatever the situation is in 16 months to come up with a clear plan, while Bush needs a clear plan last year. Wait, did I just bite the flamebait?
This response has been erased.
I would, if I could
This response has been erased.
The American electorate remains staunchly inscrutable. From here, it's easy to imagine a November 2004 where GWB gets re-elected by a resounding landslide, or a November 2004 where GWB gets tossed out on his ear. To declare which on is going to happen is about as good as predicting whether it will rain in Ann Arbor on that day. One weak reed to stand on is historical precedent. Everybody likes to compare GWB to his father, and wonder to what extent the son will re-enact the history of twelve years earlier. The Bush team points to Reagan and Clinton, who looked highly vulnerable at this point in their respective first terms. Meanwhile, the Clark forces look to 1952 -- a country mired in war turning to a respected centrist ex-general. Another possibility is the model of GWB as a kind of Republican Jimmy Carter: elected on a very thin margin. A less moderate administration than what the campaign led people to expect. Trouble managing the economy. Grandiose foreign policy goals, but (arguably) poor results. Party ideologues getting impatient. Then, suddenly, the embattled president gets a lucky break: the other parties nominates a candidate from what the White House regards as the extreme ideological fringe. The President and his advisors become arrogant and overconfident: they can't see how they could lose. But they do. The Republican strategists hooting with glee about Dean (as quoted by David Brooks in the NYT, among other places) sound eerily like the Democrats who hooted with glee about Reagan in 1980, before he won.
Re58> Is it a pretty sign?
This response has been erased.
I've never voted for a Democrat for president, but I am troubled by George W. Bush. Specifically, I am troubled by the Weapons of Mass Destruction fiasco. We invaded another country because of that, or so we were told, and we are now very clearly being told we were wrong. This is a very serious issue to me. I don't expect, at this point, to be voting for Bush because I don't expect an explanation which justifies the war despite the lack of WMD. Bush's re-election efforts would probably be helped most by a recovery of the economy before next November. I think it'd be well to be recalling troops from Iraq and Afghanistan by next summer as well, following democratic government taking charge in those countries.
This response has been erased.
Bush is going to get voted out of office because he is widely seen as a foreign policy president who has little clue about domestic policy. The economy is in trouble, unemployment is going up, prices for everything are going up. And all he can say is "lets spend $87 billion on Iraq" That isn't what the people in THIS country, the people who vote in the election, want to hear. The stakes couldn't be higher in this election. As Dean says in his stump speech, Bush is going to stack the Supreme Court in a second term so the courts won't overturn his right wing agenda if congress passes it. Rehnquist is in his eighties and O'Connor is in bad health, both are likely to retire after next year. Stevens is in his eighties. Dean flatly says that if he is elected it means one thing above all other things-- that Antonin Scalia never becomes chief justice of the supreme court.
This response has been erased.
Bush has no clue about foreign policy either.
This response has been erased.
The unemployment rate has been climbing since January 2001. See http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&se rie s_id=LNS14000000 The 12-month % change of wages in private industry has been increasing. See http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&serie s_id=ECU10002A
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Re %69: the second graph shows that wages are climbing - the plot is of the percent change over 12 months (previously), and it has been steadily positive. The first graph, however, shows the serious increase in unemployment during Bush's term: the monthly fluctuations go up and down, and one must wait to see how the future trend, which has been increasing unemployment, goes.
I don't believe a president can affect the economy that much, either, but guys who preside over the country while the economy rises win re- election; those who don't are not re-elected. If the stakes are as high as richard says, then a lot of right-wingers are going to be very active. They key in on Supreme Court justices like nothing else. That's probably a lot of how Bush got elected in the first place.
new report on the WMD's suggest tha the people running Saddams program were fakeing it. They told him how well the program was going, and how they needed more money, and all they did was run a minor program and pocket the money.
Also, as Dean regularly points out, Bush must be held accountable for all the huge defecit spending that has been doing on. Under Clinton, the national debt was paid down, they even turned off the national debt clock that was keeping a running total of the national debt over on sixth avenue. But three years of Bush and we now have a huge, record national defecit. Bush has put us deeply in debt? And why? Because he pushed through huge spending progams for the military and homeland security, and at the same time promised tax cuts. How do you spend money AND cut taxes at the same time? Same way Reagan did it, go DEEPLY into debt. Dean says flatly that as President, he will push-- as he did in Vermont for years-- for balanced budgets and to pay off the national debt. This is why he is promising to reverse Bush's tax cuts-- those tax cuts were irresponsible, they only really helped those in the very high income brackets, while for the rest of us the benefits were minimal, and the consequences-- this huge debt-- could be crushing in years to come.
So How-weird is gonna to repeal the tax cuts and use the $$ for health care? What's he want to cut, then, to balance the budget? Like all those other Dems, their only policy is to criticize the current admin.
But justifiably, right? Do you REALLY approve of the enormous deficits that are being run up? You'll be paying for them in the long run (or your progeny). They will prevent having many needed domestic programs. Do you like the US National Parks? They are being heavily deprived of needed maintenance. I don't see why you WANT such huge government payments for nothing but interest on the national debt.
Is there anyone who thinks that a Democratic candidate who's message amounts to "Bush is bad. I'm not Bush. [repeat]" has much chance of beating the President, his savvy campaign managers, his large and dedicated organization, and his huge pile of money in the '04 general election? I don't. In spite of how poorly a similar strategy worked in '02, i think it's all too likely that the Democrats will nominate such a candidate.
Actually, no, I don't think that will, or should, be enough to get elected.
#77...i, it worked in 1992, george bush's father, with just as savvy campaig managers, just as much money, and just as large and dedicated an oranization, was BEATEN. He was voted out of office. By a small state governor that a year before the election, few people outside of political circles had heard of. It has happened before.
The candidates won't just say "Bush is bad". They will say that Bush is both incompetent and dangerous, and lay out the enormous number of reasons why Bush and his administration are causing ruin to our nation and insults and deprivations to our people. I presume you know the word for "right-wing authoritarianism": fascism.
Re: #79 I seem to recall Clinton having a great deal to say about his visions, plans, policies, programs, etc. in '92. To judge by the Democrat's big mid-term gains in the House & Senate in '02, that sort of stuff just might matter to potential voters.
Re #49: I think Bush definately has a good chance, but I don't think it's a given anymore. He's polling behind at least two of the Democratic candidates at the moment. Unless he does some really brilliant stuff in the next year, he's going to have an uphill battle in the campaign. Yes, he has a big war chest, but money isn't as important in Presidential campaigns as it is in other races because you get so much free media coverage.
re: "#80 (rcurl): The candidates . . . will say that Bush is both incompetent and dangerous, and lay out the enormous number of reasons why Bush and his administration are causing ruin to our nation and insults and deprivations to our people. I presume you know the word for "right-wing authoritarianism": fascism." Fortunately, however, we are confident most Americans know enough to reject such "arguments" (particularly that over-the-top bit about fascism).
Enough Americans get laid off, they'll start to accept reality. If not, there's always the Nixon option - massive landslide, eventual disgrace.
Fortunately, Mr. scott, BLS data, you'll be glad to know, show
employment trending up and unemployment trending down.
Quarterly
averages Monthly data
__________________________________________July-
Category 2003 2003 Aug.
__________________________________________chng
I II June July Aug.
______________________________________________________________
HOUSEHOLD DATA Labor force status
Civ labor force. 145,829 146,685 147,096 146,540 146,530 -10
Employment.... 137,430 137,638 137,738 137,478 137,625 147
Unemployment.. 8,399 9,047 9,358 9,062 8,905 -157
This response has been erased.
You really are dense, if not mentally blind, klg. The site I gave shows clearly that unemployment went from 4.1% on 1 Jan 01 to 6.1% on 1 Aug 03. The numbers you are only willing to look at are local monthly blips in the rate - the "noise" in the data - not the overall effect of the miserable Bush economic policies over his term in office.
Re #86: add to that list the suppression of peaceably assembled opponents at public forums, the holding of "enemies" in secret and without charges or access to legal representation, and more etc etc etc.
This response has been erased.
GWB and company think they have this election licked. They have a lock on the South, the military, the money, and the powers of incumbency. Gore had at least a claim on each of those things; most of the current crop of Democratic candidates have none. But one of the things about having a two-party system is that each party offers an alternative to the other. At some level, it hardly matters to voters what the "out" party stands for. The obvious way to vote "no" on the "ins" is to vote for the "outs". History shows that opposition parties have a way of coming back from the dead, and showing unexpected strength in elections, even opposition parties that advocate preposterous things like outlawing the Masons or taking Quebec out of Canada. Money and organization can take you only so far. There is absolutely nothing the Bush campaign can do to increase GWB's name-ID. My rule of thumb is that the more money a political campaign has, the higher the percentage that is wasted: the campaign eats better food, stays in more expensive hotels, takes lots of anxiety-relieving but otherwise useless polls, and so on. And now suddenly we have the Valerie Plume scandal, which looks like it might bring down Karl Rove. GWB without Karl Rove is going to be as helpless as his father was without Lee Atwater.
In a combination of your "the current crop has no claim on the military" and "a vote for the 'out' party is a 'no' for the 'in' party", I think that I have a lot of conservative (for religious reasons) relatives who may be switching to the Democratic ticket because of the reservists in the family. Obviously, reservists can't expect complete safety from being called up, but when GWB has the troops holding down two countries already and is saber-rattling at at least three more (Syria, Iran, NK), the likelihood of a reservist dying gets to be much much higher than the likelihood they had in mind when they signed up. Already our forces are strained, high school recruiters are worried, reservists and National Guardsmen are dying, and nobody knows when their family members are going to come home--I'd say the Dems can make a pretty strong case that Bush has misused the military.
Uh, it's certainly not absurd to take Quebec out of Canada, and when the PQ was elected a huge number of people agreed with their platform; it wasn't simply that they didn't like the other party whatever that was.
We all know what the democratic platform is (in general). Yes the president has run up the defecit, but it was due to the condition the economy was in when he was elected. He had to give back money to the people via tax cuts, or we would have been in one hell of a recession.
I question that. Why would we be in more of a recession than we are now? The *recession*, such as it is, began after Bush took office. The tax cuts also do not seem to have had any important effect, probably because they gave most of the money to the rich, who don't spend it the way money given to the lower end of the pay scale gets spent. Also, tax cuts are just another euphamism for the *government printing more money*.
Kulak.
resp:94 - I agree with you that as far as fiscal policy goes, the Bush tax cuts and deficit spending have not improved the economy. However, tax cuts arent really a euphamism for "printing more money." The government increases the money supply by having the Fed Open Market Committee buy treasury bonds.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
I consider the government spending more than its income to be equivalent to "printing more money", even though the money is created through debt. The effect is similar - there is more money in circulation without a growth in collateral.
This response has been erased.
Answer: "#94 (rcurl): I question that. Why would we be in more of a recession than we are now? The *recession*, such as it is, began after Bush took office. The tax cuts also do not seem to have had any important effect, probably because they gave most of the money to the rich, who don't spend it the way money given to the lower end of the pay scale gets spent. Also, tax cuts are just another euphamism for the *government printing more money*. " Question: How many untruths is Mr. rcurl able to stuff into one response? Furthermore, Mr. rcurl, it is rather well-documented that the recession for which you blame Mr. Bush was well under-way during the Clinton presidency. Also, we believe there was that matter of September 11 - or, perhaps, you are a adherent of the Germanic belief that the attacks were planned under the direction of Mr. Bush. All-in-all, Mr. rcurl, we find your arguments rather disappointing, to say the least. Do try to improve. Thank you.
Where did the first money come from, jp2?!
I've said it once and I'll say it again: Bush is not responsible for the sudden disappearance of the surplus. The surplus was a fiction based on the continuation of the bubble economy; when the bubble burst, the surplus disappeared with it. Bush had nothing to do with that. The bubble economy was at least partly due to the shenanigans of promoters of stocks with no visible means of turning a profit (which, remarkably, people bought anyway) and outright crooks like Kenneth Lay. Clinton has to bear some of the blame (yes, I said BLAME) for this; the loose standards in the Oval Office hardly made him an effective spokesman for tight accounting and disclosure requirements. But the worst was yet to come... On the other hand, Bush is clearly in the pocket of Kenneth Lay and his corporate ilk. The only cure for the economy lies in fairness and transparency, and the only power I see going after the miscreants right now is Elliot Spitzer. People are still afraid (justifiably) of having all their hard earned money disappear into the pocket of some scammer or self-dealing corporate CEO; to really get things cleaned up so we can go on, we need real watchdogs in Washington. Bush is never, ever going to do this because it means turning on his main supporters and the source of his own fortune. He IS the problem, and he's gotta go.
This response has been erased.
One of the reasons for the tax cuts, and to some extent the war too, was to avert deflation, which was being threatened. Acts to avert deflation are by their very nature acts to bolster inflation. Which is what increasing the money supply does.
Re #93: His tax cut was not very well tailored to improve the economy. This is hardly surprising, considering he pitched it for other reasons originally, then later switched to calling it an economic stimulus package when that seemed politically expedient. Normally in a recession you cut taxes for low income and middle class consumers, since they're the most likely to pump that money back into the economy. You also generally provide aid to the states, so they don't have to raise taxes and cancel out the effect. Bush hasn't done either of these things to any significant extent, and the result has been the slowest economic recovery in decades. Re #103: > The surplus was a fiction based on the continuation of the bubble > economy; when the bubble burst, the surplus disappeared with it. > Bush had nothing to do with that. I'd say he aggravated it with an expensive tax cut for the rich. We would have a deficit now anyway, even if he hadn't cut taxes, but the deficit would be smaller. Also, he's cut taxes so far that we will now have a deficit even after the economy recovers. This only makes sense if you follow the neoconservative "deficits don't matter" philosophy.
Thank you, Mr. Keynes. But you ought really to more carefully examine the extent to which the tax reductions (via the creation of the new 10% bracket, elimination of the marriage penalty, and expansion of the child care credit - for examples) have drastically reduced the tax burden upon the tax-paying lower & middle income groups. (Additionally, you may wish to consider the facts that (1) the tax changes had to be negotiated with anti-tax reduction Democrats who had significant input on the final version and (2) the tax reductions have actually increased the burden upon the "rich" in terms of the percentage of tax revenues taken in by the federal government.) As for Mr. rcurl's lesson in economics (a.k.a., a little knowledge is a dangerous thing), increasing the money supply does not necessarily result in inflation, if, for example, output expands at an equal or greater rate.
I am sorry, but I don't know where else to put this gem from yesterday's opinionjournal.com "(G)et a load of this report from Wired magazine, on a Clark campaign appearance in New Hampshire, where he boldly went where no candidate has gone before: "'I still believe in e=mc2, but I can't believe that in all of human history, we'll never ever be able to go beyond the speed of light to reach where we want to go,' said Clark. 'I happen to believe that mankind can do it.'" (I may be switching from How-weird to Clark-weird.)
resp:98 - When the Fed buys treasury bonds, where do they get the money to do that? Think about it. If they were buying bonds from you, they would write you a check for the amount the bonds are worth. Do you think that money comes out of some "Fed checking account"? Trust me, it doesnt. When the Fed writes a check for some bonds, they have just increased the money supply by the amount of the check. And since the Fed is part of the government, it is fair to say that the government has an effect on the money supply. resp:99 - You might consider the government debt as something that increases the money supply but I cant think of any economists who would agree with you. I see what you are getting at. But if the government werent spending that money, the people they are borrowing from probably would be. There is no change in the money supply from government spending. This doesnt mean that the tax cuts and deficit spending that is going on right now is OK. In fact, it is probably going to cause some long range economic damage. But the damage is different from the damage that could be caused by a huge increase in the money supply that you suggest has happened. resp:105 - Increases to the money supply do cause inflation. But I think that even the Bush folks know that inflation without growth is meaningless. I dont think the tax cuts were designed to cause inflation nor was the war. I mean, if that was the goal, they could get to it in much easier ways. Frankly, simply printing more money would do it but they could also put some pressure on the Fed.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
RE#111 -- I don't think you mean to, but the way you just described it makes it sound like a Ponzi Scheme.
resp:111 I never said that the Fed buys Treasury bonds from the government. They buy them on the bond market. Hence the name the "open market" committee. And yes, the Fed writes a check on itself which increases the money supply. And the Fed *is* a part of the government. Maybe you dont know what is considered "the money supply" but I am talking about your typical demand deposits, saving accounts, currency, etc (I guess I tend to think in M2 but what I have been saying applies well to M1 and M3). Here is a link where you might be able to learn something - http://www.ny.frb.org/pihome/fedpoint/fed49.html
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Jamie, you seem to have no idea how the Fed adjusts interest rates. They do it by buying and selling treasury bonds. The money *does* come from nowhere. The money that the Fed has is for lending to banks. The money used to buy bonds is not part of M2 (or even M3). Your comment that the FRS is privately owned is a common misconception. It is, in fact, part of the U.S. governent. See http://www.federalreserve.gov/faq.htm#frsq3 if you dont believe me.
This response has been erased.
fine so I laughed.
OH, SO YOU DO COME DIRECTLY FROM WORK SOMETIMES AND NOT JUST MONKEYHOST
slip
This response has been erased.
;)
This response has been erased.
Damn! Jamie, you must be the smartest guy the Fed has ever had as a janitor!
*ahem* you mean "gay coffee boy", i think.
_The FED_, by martin mayer (c) 2001 - "the insie story of how the world;s most power financial institution drives the markets." eye-popp0mg, chin-dropping amazing read! isbn 0-684-84740-X (in case youa re intersted) the fed is a creature of congress - teh federal reserve act of 1913. as for clark, he is wayyyy too brittle for politics; and as teh valedictorian of his west point class, far to used to being a damn general rather than a politician. besides, he is on record as seeing the supreme court's role as 'implementing his agenda' for the country .. BZZZT!! wrong! thankxx for playing, next? dean may con enough poeple to get nominated, but i hope not, dubb-ya needs some competent competition. teh wmd 'problem' also bothers me, jep, and i havne't quite resolved it to my own satisfaction yet. at least, as thigs stand now. on one hand, teh *greatest* wmd was the saddam regime itself - now gone, phew! and quoting, "Those who argue that deposing Saddam was wrong are the equivalent of apologists for Hitler. One has increasing difficulty telling the difference between Gov. Dean and Prime Minister Chamberlain, between Gen. Clark and his role model, Marshal Petain," Ralph Peters, author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace." remember, please, hitler never attacked us either - and fdr went for him first. gassing jews and gassing kurds and iranians are too similar to let the parallel go un-noticed. of coures, clark was leading teh salvation of bosnia, et al., so he at least has cred for unprovoked intervention. but wait, oh, that was clinton as prez so it's alright. (and to repeat my conversion, clinton was *right* to goto bosnia.)
This response has been erased.
It's shocking that someone can work for the Fed and still be so clueless. SHOCKING! You should tell them that even the coffee boys should have a chance to know how things work. ;)
This response has been erased.
HAHAHA. I was going to ask you the same question. I cant believe that you can actually work for the Fed and yet be so clueless. I have not talking about any theory of economics (other than agreeing with rcurl about some things). I can if you would like but all I was talking about was the money supply in the United States and how the Fed manipulates it. I was thinking of M2 but what I have said applies just as well to M1 and M3. You are the one making all kinds of false claims. Go talk to some of your co-workers about how the OMC works. Dont make me look up the treasury stats that show that the the US treasury prints more currency now then they did 50 years ago. I have to call bullshit that 1/3 of the US currency is forged. By all means, provide a cite for that and I will admit I am wrong about that.
This response has been erased.
Re #131:
We *do* have inflation, and precious little growth at the moment. Prices
overall still go up on quite a few things. The proof is as close as your
nearest supermarket, gas station, and real estate broker.
resp:133 - darn it that I didnt say good cite or well respected source. Oh well. ;) Ok, I am wrong about the 1/3 currency thing.
slynne is in a wheelchair?
This response has been erased.
until recently it was the inflation of goods ans services that occurred when teh money supply outpaced teh growth of gdp. now (!!) there is an inflation of asset values sted goods and services. more correctly put, wehn the fed injected massive quantities of dollars into the banking system (that *is* wehre it goes, btw) teh economy ddi strt to turn around, slowly. why slowly withsuch an infusion? welllll, it seems that 'all that extra cash bought securities instead of goods ans services. [so,] instead of *consumer price* inflation (emp added) teh united states got an *asset price* inflation" more commonly called a stock market boom. 'thre reamins a mystery to haunt the dreams fo central bankers, because nobody know why monetary stimulus becomes *consumer price* inflation in one country and *asset price* inflatoin in another.' of course the trasury has been printing more and more little green pieces of paper (now to be peach or some other vomit-color [another argument]) but that has *nothing* to do with monetary policy except to *reflect* teh hand-to-hand liquidity we need. and also, please recognize, that federal reserve notes are a CLAIM ON A BANK, not a claim on the government. teh gummint is insulated! silver certificates (with the blue seal) are a claim on the government. and to mask some of teh illiquidity that exists every night, even teh federal reserve notes are un-traceable now! bills used to have teh bank-of-issue on teh obverse side, to the left of the portrait. teh singles in-hadn now still do (series 2001) fed reserve of philidepphia adn fed reserve of san francisco (to identify two) however teh 5s and 10s ans 20s now *simply state* 'united states federal reserve SYSTEM' so you don't know where teh hell teh damn thing came from (also series 2001)!
Actually, federal reserve notes aren't a claim on a bank, they're merely
"legal tender", which is a very different animal. Silver certificates
aren't a claim on the bank today either, 'cause the feds won't honor
that claim today. They are, however, worth something considerable to a
coin collector so if you find one by all means enjoy the windfall.
Since all federal notes have a serial number they certainly aren't
untraceable. In fact, if you'd like to trace the cash you spend, you
can register it at
http://www.wheresgeorge.com/
and find out.
This response has been erased.
the 1s have teh fed bank adn letter - the 5s, 10s, etc no longer do.
This response has been erased.
Re #108: klg is again "out of touch". Transmission of information at greater than the speed of light has been demonstrated in the laboratory (well- as far as several kilometers). This is the phenomenon known as "nonlocality" in quantum physics. It was originally a prediction of quantum physics that Einstein called "spooky action at a distance", but it has since been verified as a fact. Since the speed-of-light barrier has been cracked for information, I would refuse to make a categorical claim that it can't be for materials.
Re #137:
What I want is to know that a given quantity of dollars will always buy
at least the same quantity of food, gasoline, housing, or anything else I
might want any number of years from now as it does today. What I *really want
is for the price of everything else in the economy to do what the price of
computers and other electronics has been doing over the past couple of
decades, and to the same degree.
And it would be nice if interest rates were significantly greater than
inflation.
This response has been erased.
There is no functional difference between a federal reserve note drawn upon San Francisco or Kansas City. They are worth exactly the same amount, circulate in exactly the same way, and probably roll off the same printing presses after being printed on the same paper with the same ink. At best all that it is is an inventory/production tag; important to the people who bail the stuff up and send it out to the first bank, but completely irrelevant to how money functions in the economy. This is, of course, even supposing that actual paper cash is really all that important to the economy in the first place - which is surely getting less and less true. When you pay for something using a credit card funded via an electronic fund transfer from an account that gets filled up with "money" you earned and arranged to have direct deposited; does it matter what's printed on the green stuff some people still use for incidental expenses? Besides "federal reserve notes" and "silver certificates", I ran across mention of "united states notes". These seem to have been in circulation from 1862 through 1923, and may have been briefly issued during the Kennedy administration too. There were also "Gold certificates", which came in a large size and a small size. Some of the issues of gold certificates reached general circulation, others were only circulated between banks. For while, it was actually illegal to own a gold certificate.
... as well as gold, for a while ...
Re #143: You're wrong, Rane. The non-locality principle cannot be used to transmit information.
This response has been erased.
Learn to write, jp2.
Haha. jp2. YOu dont embarrass me. You convince a few people who are more stupid than you that you are correct. But that doesnt embarrass *me*. Keep trying.
This response has been erased.
AAhahaha
152: you act as though hanging out with other could possibly be a bad thing...
It's true private banks "own" stock in the FRBs. But! The US government apoints the top officers and determines all policy. And! The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as a security for a loan. Owning the stock is in fact a condition of membership in the system; it is in essence a required loan to FRB and nothing more. Also, does anybody here seriously think the feds would let just one FRB default on its own? I should think they'd move heaven and earth before allowing such a situation to occur.
(Seems to me that the Federal Reserve Banks are private in the same sense that United States Postal Service is private.)
This response has been erased.
This is from the NY Fed's web site. I am sure that jp2 will continue to spout his bs but I imagine that most folks will trust The Fed itself over jp2. Jamie, I hope you will consider reading the entire FAQ before you make more of a fool of yourself... http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/faq.html#link24 Are the Federal Reserve Banks private companies? Federal Reserve Banks, created by an act of Congress in 1913, are operated in the public interest rather than for profit or to benefit any private group. Member banks hold stock in their regional Reserve Banks, but do not exercise control over the Reserve Bank or the Federal Reserve System. Holding this stock does not carry with it the kind of control and financial interest that holding publicly traded stock allows. Fed stock cannot be sold or traded. The member banks receive a fixed 6 percent dividend annually on their stock and elect six of the nine members of the Reserve Bank's board of directors. So, who owns the Fed? Although it is set up like a private corporation and member banks hold its stock, the Fed owes its existence to an act of Congress and has a mandate to serve the public. Therefore, the most accurate answer may be that the Fed is "owned" by the citizens of the United States.
This response has been erased.
The feds also appoint 100% of the members of the federal reserve board, which appoints 1/3 of the directors of the district banks and has final say over the discount rate set in each district. Additionally, the profits from the federal reserve system, past whatever is necessary to pay expenses, are paid to the US treasury system. Presumably congress could, at any time, choose to alter how the FRB is structured, or even abolish it altogether, if they should so choose. I don't know what you think "private" means, but FRB clearly derives its authority and acts in a manner that is unique in the US; it is a public institution, and at every level of its organization is so structured to serve the public interest, at least as its designers saw the public interest.
This response has been erased.
It seems to me that if the federal government appoints the Fed's officers, then the government at very least *controls* the Fed (at least indirectly) since anyone who doesn't act the way the government would like can be replaced. You can argue that this doesn't make the Fed *part* of the government, but that's a pretty finicky distinction if the government has effective control of their policies.
This response has been erased.
no one has brought up the considerable competition and differences betaeen *fedearlly* charetered and *state* chartered banks - nor teh bank holding companies which control some of each. as for the ny.fed to try to state that they are "operated in the public interest rather than for profit" is mroe than just a tad twisted. i';ll grant that they are not the piranha, vulture profiteers that the member banks are (both fed ans tate chartered).
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Isn't that what running a for-profit business is all about? ;>
Only if your for-profit business derives its revenue from selling vultures...
I'm quite interested in which private for-profit institutions the president of the united states appoints directors. I had always thought it was traditional for the stockholders to appoint the directors, and nearly as traditional for the stockholders to sign proxies for the incumbant directors except in case of major malfeasance, usually with an escape clause in case the stockholder then decides to appear in person. Most of the private corporations I can think of aren't even incorporated under federal law but instead under the law of some particular state. The feds absolutely have the right to "just print more money" if they so please. The constitution so grants them this right, and in absence of any amendment altering this, they retain that right to this day. But just "printing more money" creates more problems than it solves, so as a matter of policy the feds don't do this; instead they use another related mechanism, deficit spending, or in plain terms "borrowing". There's another term related to all this, "seigniorage", which is basically the increase in value of newly minted money over its raw materials. For traditional precious metals, this increase in value was strictly limited, but for modern paper money, the difference can be dramatic.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Could you explain what the difference is betweein "coining" and "printing" money?
This response has been erased.
OK. Current coins have very little inherent value, being mostly zinc, so I'm not sure there's really much of a distinction anymore.
This response has been erased.
So, how's that Presidential campaign going?
This response has been erased.
I think we should have considered having POTUS appoint grex's directors.
This response has been erased.
Only if the Grex membership gets to appoint POTUS first.
I nominate janc.
re #178: only if there's some sort of "blue ribbon panel" involved..
back to the topic at hand .. congress abrogated (as can be read in several screeching texts) its twin responsiblilties of *monetary* and *fiscal* policy back in 1913. both were too much for any political body to consider simultaneoulsy. sicne, it seems, they fscked up monitary policy in mroe gross terms tha fiscal policy, they opted for removing monitary policy to professionals. one can only hope thay would sluff of fiscal policy as well given their abject failures since 1913. house of representatives doesn;t understand *numbers* let alone arithmetic. (forget mathematics - dont' even go there.) remember, please, *ALL* fiscal operations MUST be drawn in HR.
Not entirely correct: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. (Art. I, Sec. 7)
'originate' si the key. what teh senate does or doesn't do seems to matter little.
sheesh..talk about OFF topic. let me steer this thread back on course. DEAN IS A LIBERAL PUPPET AND HE SUCKS. That loser will make Mondale look like a liberal victory *snicker* You could give Dean a head start by awarding him NY and Ca. That is all he would win.... Why don't you liberals back someone that has a snowflakes chance of winning? The only votes he will get are from the fags and feminazies...perhaps a few lotus eating hollywooders will vote for him also.
This response has been erased.
Re 186. I think you have some surprises coming.
This response has been erased.
Isn't Dean polling ahead of George W. Bush?
This response has been erased.
What is the theory behind that?
This response has been erased.
Pee Wee's Big Adventure Syndrome.
re#187 - I must have missed that request.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Are you talking about authoritive proof that the fed is part of the government? All I have is the stuff from the NY Fed's website that I posted earlier.
This response has been erased.
Bush is right where most presidents are at this point in their presidency. Whatever the democrats are doing is of little consequence at this point.
So you are saying that the Fed's own website is wrong? Fair enough. That is all I have. That and a blurb from a Macroeconomics text book and what my Macroeconimics professor told me and from what my father told me. Frankly, for me, what two Phd's in Economics, one person with a master's degree and the New York Fed's own web site are enough for me especially when compared against YOUR word.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
(You could put it in a file in your www directory and post a link to it here.)
This response has been erased.
RE#190 WHAT!!!! You stupid mother. Do you live in bubble or is it that you have taken a pychotic break from reality.This truly is a liberal dungeon of mostly idiots. gull...where did you hear that from? Are the "voices" speaking to you? Have you taken your daily dose of melaril lately? As I said before NO_ONE but faggots,femanazis and STUPID grexers will vote for Dean. That moron is so far to the left if he goes any further he will do a 180. You idiots have the nerve to diss Bush? You commie pukes. I wish you would take a page of Johnny Depps book and move to France. I guess living in Ann Arbor gives you a false sense of reality. You actually think Dean is ahead of Bush in the polls. MUHAWHAW. Who did they poll. The ACLU? The NAACP? The Gay rights activists? Because they sure as hell didn't poll a true cross section sample of America. Get ready for another four years of TOTAL republican domination.
Hmm. OK, the most recent poll I can find does show Dean trailing Bush by 14%. Clark is only a few percentage points behind, however, almost within the poll's margin of error.
This response has been erased.
Especially when one person is very prominant and other hardly at all.
To put it more broadly, political campaigns are wrong, since nothing a candidate says during a campaign is really reflective of what they'll do if elected. You have to look at past records for that.
This response has been erased.
Ok, lemme rephrase: "...nothing a candidate says during a campaign is *reliably* reflective of what they'll do..." It doesn't mean they won't do what they say, but you have no way of knowing, and the best way to judge is by reviewing their prior record.
This response has been erased.
I'd vote for G.Bush before Howard Dean. And I'm looking for a reason not to vote for Bush.
This response has been erased.
he's probably a strict missionary feller... (not that his wife is likely aware of him) i wonder what sort of hypnotic meds he and cheney are feeding laura "stepford wife" bush to keep her looking like such a *good little lady* in public. gawd, i miss hillary
Me too!
This response has been erased.
Heck, I wanna know what happened to those hot, hard-drinking Bush daughters.
This response has been erased.
Thanks!
Wesley Clark is apparently going to skip the Iowa Caucus and concentrate on primaries he's more likely to win. McCain tried this same tactic in 2000.
This response has been erased.
"Weasley" is not "likely" to win any primaries, as far as we can tell.
This response has been erased.
(We have no pets.)
This response has been erased.
HEY SABRE I WENT TO ARBORNET AND HACKED RYAN`S ACOUNT I DIDN`T THINK I COULD DO IT BUT AFTER FINGER IT GAVE ME SOME clues and woolah it was hacked his account has patron privleges so its cool to telnet to differant sites.. talk to you later.......
We just wanted to make certain that everybody has seen the tremendous news about our economic recovery. It appears the Bush haters have lost another issue: "U.S. economic growth surged in the third quarter at the fastest pace in nearly two decades, the government said today, coming in much stronger than economists expected. Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at a 7.2 percent annual rate in the quarter after growing 3.3 percent in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported." Four more years!
Oh man, I hope not.
(It appears you have much more confidence in the Democratic candidates thatn seems warranted. Perhaps you have not seen the recent debates.)
The Democratic debates make more sense than Bush's news conferences.
Re233 - Heh. Well. I have to admit I havent seen the most recent debates. Still, I cant think of a worse person to be president except for certain Mnetters/Grexers but they arent running. Whew. I was just listening to an interview with Senator McCain and all I could think was that things would have been sooooo much better if he had won the nomination. Oh well.
Great numbers! Now where are the jobs, klg?
re #231: Excellent. Now that all our economic problems are solved, it must be time to lower taxes again!
Mr. mcnally- You seem to have it backwards. As we are seeing demonstrated, tax reduction solves economic problems. Not the other way around. Mr. scott- It is a well-established principle that employment is a lagging economic indicator. The jobs picture will surely keep improving.
If there's a problem with the policy I mockingly put forth, that's because I was sarcastically stating the Bush administration's apparent reasoning on tax policy. I happen to agree with you that their logic is pretty backwards but I'm frankly surprised to see you admit it on the record..
This response has been erased.
#231-- an economic "recovery" on paper doesn't mean anything to voters. What has happened is that companies have shed so many jobs and laid so many people off, and downsized so much, that they aren't bleeding as much and their bottom lines are looking better. But that doesn't translate into jobs. If they add jobs, the bottom line will look worse again. So it isn't about how the economy looks "on paper", its how the economy looks to the average working person. The fact that fortune 500 CEO's ad their accounts are breathing easier doesn't mean much to the rest of us. The jobs aren't there. And you can't call an economy healthy anyway when we are running a huge national defecit, a defecit that was all but paid down by the end of the Clinton years. The economy was healthier before Clinton left office than it is now and thats a fact. These last hard years have been during the BUSH administration and thats what the voters will remember. Voters, the majority of whom, voted against Bush last time anyway. Or did you forget that Bush LOST the popular vote in this country in 2000.
a nearly 7% growth rate is the highest in nearly 20 years. Cars and housing sales at record highs and an increase in exports. Hopefully the jobs will follow.
Housing sales are due to low interest rates which are due to a poor economy.
I'm glad the economy is improving, and I hope the job market gets better too. But I'm not holding my breath. There are still massive layoffs and cutbacks going on. Compuware recently cut some salaries by as much as 50%.
50%? I find that a little hard to believe.
This response has been erased.
jp2, Bush lost the popular vote. That is a fact. Since he lost the popular vote, that means more people voted AGAINST Bush-- meaning didn't vote for him-- than voted for him. More, even if its one person more, is a majority. In this case it was actually several million more people who voted for Gore than for Bush. Bush won the electoral college, he lost the popular vote. Those are the facts JP2
Jamie is being deliberately disingenuous by being ambiguous in his use of the phrase "voters". It's true for several reasons that a majority of potential voters didn't vote against Bush. The first, of course, is that in our system you don't cast votes *against* people, you cast votes for them (or for an elector who is supposed to vote for them.) The second is that given the huge number of potential voters who chose not to vote, neither major party candidate had a majority of voters who voted against them (or rather, for their opponent.) He also deliberately confutes the terms "deficit" and "debt", which would be a curious oversight for one who seizes any opportunity to accuse the rest of us of ignorance while lecturing on trivial details of the structure of the federal reserve system, were it not so obviously a deliberate attempt to invent a pretext to attack Richard..
This response has been erased.
Re #245: Most of the workforce is facing 6%-10% cuts, but salespeople who aren't meeting their quotas are getting a 50% cut, according to the article I saw. To me it sounds like a way to reduce workforce size without overtly laying people off.
Jp2 is *partly* right in #246. There has never been a truely balanced budget in decades, when you take *all* government output and input into account; and the economy started tanking as early as *1997*. What looked like a good economy was dot.com mania and Y2K hype, neither of which produced anything of value. However, deficit spending cannot be good for much of anything, as it erodes the purchasing power of money.
re #249: > Must you ruin my fun? Must? No, it just turns out that ruining your fun *is* my fun.
This response has been erased.
Richard does a fairly good job of providing pretexts all on his own...
Re #231: Richard, you're completely wrong about the Clinton deficits. The deficit was still there, just masked by factors including: 1.) The dot-bomb bubble, and 2.) The hidden "off budget" deficits, like Medicare. If you add the mounting unfunded liabilities in programs like Medicare and Social Security, and also add the unfunded mandates in programs like Medicaid and special-ed which push costs down to the states, the deficit would have been roaring along during the entire period 1993-2000. Right now, it looks to me like Dean *might* be the only candidate ready to restructure those programs so they don't kill us. We need something like a statutory limit on the fraction of the populace which is allowed to be retired, with the retirement age going up automatically as people live longer. We need similar measures in other mandates so that costs are contained, and that includes all costs of things promised but not yet paid for. (Only a Republican could go to Communist China; it will probably take a Democrat to fix the errors of the New Deal and Great Society.)
You cannot raise the retirement age unless you also reduce ageism and increase health support for the elderly. It should be kept in mind that *nothing* has been done to stop aging. Only early death and late illnesses have been reduced. People age as they have since man evolved.
Agreed with Russ that the federal budget surplus didn't really exist. However, it's also true that the deficit, no matter how measured, declined substantially in 1993-2000. Richard is also incorrect in saying that Gore got "several million" more popular votes than GWB. The actual margin was about half a million. America would be better off if the generally accepted retirement age were 70 instead of 65.
Technology fields are particularly rife with ageism, from what I've seen. Older people with good skills go unemployed, while the companies complain about labor shortages and ask the government to allow more visas.
Re 258. I almost brought that up, but I was in a hurry.
Mr. richard- You truly are getting tiresome with this "popular vote" obsession. When presidential candidates run their campaigns they are likely to be aware of the rules of the game and adjust their strategies accordingly. You seem to make as much sense as a football fan who would contend that his team won the game because it accumulated greater total yardage than the opposition, despite the incidental detail that it was outscored. The strategy ought to be based on scoring points, not simply gaining yardage. Despite your constant complaints, yards don't matter; points do. klg We read that Karmanos is taking a 69% pay cut. Is he trying to get rid of himself? We wonder how one would keep older employees in physically demanding occupations in the workforce - as well as those in jobs requiring fine motor coordination as the effects if aging become apparent. Raise your hand if you wish to be a passenger on an airplane with a 70 year old pilot.
This response has been erased.
Karmanos could take a 200% paycut and do just fine. I would have no worries about flying with a 70 year old pilot, as long as he or she has passed all his or her medical and competency tests. While average aging of humans has not changed, there are long-lived, healthy and very mentally competent individuals. While I recognize that GWB did not win the popular vote, and I think he is almost totally incompetent as president, I support the electoral college system, which retains some State federalism along with popular democracy. I think this is a useful "check and balance".
(We see he's got you fooled.)
I also would oppose abolition of the Electoral College. However, I would support a small change in the system, that one electoral vote from each state would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote. That would retain every advantage of the electoral college, while avoiding the problems that would be created by getting rid of it, and reducing the risk of an election like 1888 or 2000 when the popular vote winner isn't elected.
At first blush this proposal may appear to be reasonable; however, there is at least one readily-apparent unintended consequence. To wit, in an extremely close election, a la 2000, would not this modification serve to increase the amount of litigation by the candidates since each candidate's vote counts, even in those states where the outcome was one- sided, would be elevated in overall importance? As a result, the outcome of the election may not be determined for months (if ever).
This response has been erased.
Of course there is - just the sums of all votes. It doesn't *count* for anything, but it exists.
Why should people in small states get bigger votes per person?
Re #260: I'd happily ride in an airplane with a 70 year old pilot, assuming he'd passed the required medical exam. Of course, it won't happen because airline pilots are required to retire at 55 regardless of their medical condition, a rule that's unlikely to change for political reasons. A side effect of this rule is that if you want to have a decent career as an airline pilot, you have to start early -- so a lot of pilots in lower-seniority positions are very young. Re #268: Why not turn the question around? Why should small states (or, to be more accurate, ones with small populations) not get a say in who is elected?
Re 260: Gosh, I had Republicans all wrong, it appears. I had thought that they viewed people by their merits, not trying to legislate what jobs people are allowed to have. I say if a 70-year-old person wants to perform physical labor, and is capable of so, who are we to tell him/her otherwise?
The idea of multiple states was originally that each state would for the most part run its own show, and that there'd be competing systems of government and sets of laws. People were supposed to be free to, collectively, make whatever rules they want, and individually, "vote with their feet" for whatever society they like best. Having "larger votes per person" was to give some protection to the smaller states from being overrun in the Federal legislatures by the more populous states. Thus a section of Congress based on constant number of votes per state as well as one based on individual representation. The Electoral College system is an attempt to reflect this compromise in presidential elections.
This response has been erased.
Re #268: they don't - but each *State* gets two additional votes by virtue of being a member of a federation of states. This is called "State's Rights", which are protected by the Constitution. There are many institutions in our nation in which the votes are of the States, not of the individual citizens. The votes in the Senate are a prime example. Are you opposed to the existence of the US Senate because it does not give representational voting in accord with the populations of each State (as in the House of Representatives)?
Mr. scott- The question was whether to raise the retirement age, thus forcing those older workers to continue in their jobs - not to allow them to continue working; however, allowing 70 year old pilots to continue flying commercial passenger airplanes is, in a word, risky. klg
This response has been erased.
No.
This response has been erased.
Re 274: Ah, so you're saying that there will be sweatshops full of 68 year olds, forced to work instead of being able to retire on handouts from the government? I'm impressed; you're sounding more like a liberal every day.
We're all just killing time until we get old enough to score a cushy job as a Wal-Mart greeter. ;>
(Keep calling me a "liberal" and I may just do something drastic.)
(Since no real conservative would argue party-line points with such dogged idiocy, you *must* be a liberal.)
klg is obviously an intelligent person with dedication to his ideals so he must, by definition, be a liberal!
(Anyone around here know the definition of "liberal"?)
Ask rane. He's the expert.
liberal (adj). 1. Possessing or manifesting a free and generous heart; bountiful. 2. Appropriate or fitting for a broad and enlightened mind. 3. Free from narrowness, bigotry, or bondage to authority or creed, as in religion; inclined to democratic or republican ideas, as opposed to monarchical or aristocratic, as in politics; broad, popular, progressive. illiberal (adj.). 1. Not liberal; not generous in giving; parsimonious. 2. Narrow-minded. 3. Lacking breadth of culture; hence, vulgar.
dean combines teh best of mcgovern and mccarthy in a siingle loser-pac. how amazing that the far-left-radicals still how so much sway. cut-n-run and raise taxes .. in your face. what a dolt. here's to mcdean ... enjoy disintigrating yuor democrats, it's you yoru alst chance. ,
(It appears that the "enlightened mind" "generosity heart" stuff doesn't apply when it's Iraqis who're being slaughtered by the 1000s, huh. Must be only us narrow minded bigots who care about that. Oh, well.)
..how amazing that the far-right conservatives still have so much sway...
Re 287: Ah, so that's why you're constantly agitating for a liberation of the Congolese people, who are suffering from continuing civil war, with atrocities including torture and gang rape?
re286:
*hic*
(Hey. Just found out that was our job. We previously thought that's what the liberals are for. Who knew?)
You previously thought that your job was pretending to care about civil rights when the pretexts for the action you support are all demonstrated to be false?
Read How-weird's Lips: "Before he was so flush with cash, Howard Dean was an ardent and passionate supporter of the matching-fund system," said Jim Jordan, manager of Kerry's campaign. "Now that his situation has changed, of course, so have his views on that system. More flip-flops, more politics of convenience, more politics as usual." (Mark Z. Barabak, "Dean Taking Poll On Funding Question," Los Angeles Times, 11/5/03) WAS SO COMMITTED TO PUBLIC FINANCING, WARNED OTHER DEMS NOT TO BACK OUT March 03: Let There Be No Doubt. "Howard Dean committed Friday to taking taxpayer dollars to finance his presidential campaign Former Vermont Gov. Dean said he has already met the requirement." (Sharon Theimer, "Dean To Take Public Financing For Presidential Campaign," The Associated Press, 3/7/03) March 03: Watch Yourself, Dean Tells Dems. "He promised to make it an issue in the Democratic primaries if any of his rivals decide to skip public financing "It will be a huge issue," Dean said. "I think most Democrats believe in campaign finance reform." (Sharon Theimer, "Dean To Take Public Financing For Presidential Campaign," The Associated Press, 3/7/03) June: 03: And If You Don't Believe Me, Read My Letter. "As a candidate seeking to become eligible to receive Presidential primary matching funds, I certify and agree to the following provisions [I] will not incur qualified campaign expenditures in connection with my campaign for nomination in excess of the expenditure limitations "(FEC Website, www.fec.gov/finance/2004matching/dean_docs_001.pdf, Accessed 11/5/03) "Howard Dean is planning to poll his supporters in an unusual online survey this week about whether he should become the first Democratic presidential candidate ever to abandon the 30-year-old public-financing system in the primaries. While Dr. Dean^ s aides said his campaign would abide by the vote, a draft of his Wednesday speech all but urges supporters to vote to opt out." (Jodi Wilgoren, "Dean Considers A Plan To Forgo Public Financing," The New York Times, 11/5/03)
The retirement age for pilots in the US is 60 BTW.
Re 265. On a national scale, it was not a "close election" in 2000: the difference in vote totals was some 550,000. The candidates can "litigate" all they want, but that kind of difference is colossal in recount terms. Re 266. The national popular vote has no legal significance now, but it would if the Constitution were amended to base the awarding of 50 electoral votes on it. So, yup, the list of candidates for president would be at least partially federalized (though there's obviously a range of options here). After I came up with this idea, I discovered that the blue-ribbon bipartisan commission to study the Electoral College, back in the 1970s, came up with an even more radical version: TWO electors per state, which would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote. In other words, a national plurality would be worth 100 electoral votes, out of the 270 needed to win. I prefer the 50 vote plan.
why not simply have it that to be elected president of the United States, one must win BOTH the electoral college AND the popular vote. If no candidate wins both, as happened in 2000, you have a runoff one month after the general election between the two top vote getters. In this case, it would have been a runoff between gore, the winner of the popular vote, and bush, the winner of the electoral vote. no other candidates. Someone would have won both contests in all likelihood. And klg, you are a hypocrite. you know full well that if bush had won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote, and gore was president with a minority of the actual vote, you would be bellyaching right now. So stop acting so snobbish. You don't even care that Bush received fewer votes than his opponent, you just don't care because a democratically elected president is less important to you than having one who is righteous and conservative.
Would the number of votes needed in the Electoral College remain at 270, if another 50, or 100, electors were added? The current number needed is a "majority of the whole number of electors appointed." Instead of the current 538 electors, we'd have either 588, requiring 294 votes, or 638, requiring 320 votes. Of course, either number would lower the number of the current electors needed: 294 minus the 50 'popular' electors is 244, instead of 270. Adding 100 makes it even smaller, 220.
This response has been erased.
(My, my, Mr. richard. We are crushed!) A runoff election within one month?? How would Mr. richard assure, for example, that active duty servicemen outside of the U.S. would have ample time to receive, execute, and return absentee voter ballots? (Or would he just as soon disenfranchise them, a la Algore in 2000?)
(It's necessary to strictly follow the rules if it means disenfranchising regular Florida voters, but it's okay to bend the rules to avoid disenfrachising overseas servicemen. One of the many things I learned from watching the Republicans during the 2000 election.)
This response has been erased.
Re 296. No, no, let's not schedule additional elections. We ask a lot of our voters as it is. The focus of national political attention is on the single November presidential/congressional election date, and additional elections on other dates will only draw a smaller and less representative turnout. Re 297. I had in mind that some of the existing electors would be redesignated. But, whatever, obviously the math would be a little different if the number of electors were changed. Re 298. Why, exactly, would it be "a terrible idea" to federalize the list of candidates for President of the United States? I did say that there is a range of options available, including doing nothing about the candidate list. Doing nothing would require that the candidates and parties conform their state by state nominations so that their votes would all "count" correctly on the federal level. An example of failure to do this is George Wallace's candidacy in 1968. Because he didn't have a VP nominee in time, his Michigan VP candidate on the ballot was an unknown placeholder. Strictly speaking, the votes for Wallace & Placeholder shouldn't be counted in the totals for Wallace & LeMay.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
It does? Tell that to the leader of the Republican Party, who also happens to be the head of the federal government.
Unfortunately (for you Democrats, that is) it appears that some excellent news on the economy was released earlier today: November 7, 2003 CNN/Money NEW YORK - U.S. payrolls grew in October for the third straight month, the government said Friday, trouncing Wall Street expectations . . . Unemployment fell to 6.0 from 6.1 percent in September, the Labor Department reported, while payrolls outside the farm sector rose by 126,000 jobs after rising by a revised 125,000 in September.
wow - trickle *through* works .. whoda thunk it?!!!
Re 304. Excuse me, but that wasn't the question. Please try again.
This response has been erased.
re #306: Job numbers going up just as the holiday retailing season begins? Boy, that Bush fella must be a real magician to pull that off.. Surely this unprecedented and unexpected news is enough to discredit his critics..
Mr. mcnally, For your edification, please be informed that unemployment statistics are adjusted to take into account normal seasonal variations. Also, as noted in the response, the statistics are for the month of September. It is rather unlikely that hiring for "the holiday retailing season" begins at such an early date. It appears to us that if anyone is discredited here, it is you, sir. klg
A friend's brother just lost his job. My brother has not yet found one. Perhaps skilled jobs are in short supply but there are more unskilled ones?
Re 309. Since you refusd to state any, I conclude that you don't actually have any good reasons against the federalizing of the list of nominees for president and vice president of the United States. Just your pretended "federalism".
resp:311 - I work for a large retail company. The holiday hiring starts in August and really heats up in September. They try to have all the people they are going to need for the holiday by the end of September.
We did not know that. But, we ask, are you referring to hiring or to actual active employment? If the new employees are put to work immediately, what sort of items are they selling more than two months in advance of the traditional Thanksgiving start of the holiday shopping period? You, of course, would concur with the assertion that unemployment data are adjusted to remove the effect of normal seasonal variations, would you not?
The biggest number of extra holiday help comes from the temporary stores we set up. Basically, if there is empty space in a mall, we try to rent it out just for a few months from august-sept until january- february. I *think* we set up around 800 of those every year. That is, btw, just about double the number of Waldenbooks stores. They need a lot of staff for those sites. But, the sales actually start increasing in the fall anyway so they also hire additional staff for the year round stores too. There is a lot of work that needs to happen during October just to prep for the holidays. They stock a lot more books and generally get ready. My department in the corporate office hires extra seasonal help too for tech support. Those people are hired in August and September. I think my team's extra help was hired in September. October is a very busy month for us because all the stores dust off all the equipment they dont use for the rest of the year and a lot of it is broken. I dont know if the specific data that is being discussed has been adjusted for normal seasonal variations or not. I suspect it has not been. They say specifically that there has been an increase since last quarter. A real data point would be if there has been an increase since this same time last year. FWIW, I think that there has been but I imagine that it isnt as large as some people might claim. The economy is clearly improving. However, that could be just a normal fluctuation. I am interested to see how this fourth quarter turns out. If it is significantly better than last year, the news will definately be good for Bush. However, the improvement will have to continue at least through the first quarter of 2004 and preferably (for GWB) through the second and third quarters as well in order to really help him in the election.
I think the seasonal adjustment of employment data is probably pretty good. I don't quarrel with the assessment that the economy is actually improving.
I have seen Christmas lighting, and Christmas decorations for sale in the stores, since about November 1 this year. Also Christmas craft sales at local churches. We even stopped by one recently. Perhaps the loss of daylight savings time triggers the lighting instinct around Halloween.
Ms. slynne, The Bureau of Labor Statistics does, indeed, adjust its Unemployment Rate for seasonality; however, the jobs statistics are raw data.
So a figure such as "payrolls outside the farm sector rose by 126,000 jobs after rising by a revised 125,000 in September," would be based on that seasonally-affected unadjusted raw data, and the change in the adjusted data you report in #306 would be just the 0.1% fluctuation in the unemployment rate?
Re #307: Actually, I ahve to wonder if the economy is recovering *because* of Bush's policies, or in spite of them. It's been one of the slowest recoveries on record. (Not that it will really matter, with Rove spinning the data like crazy.)
Small changes in the economy will be swamped by the debt from the war and the tax cuts for the rich.
resp:319 - Thanks. That is good information to have. Honestly, I think people generally think that presidents have much more control over the economy than they actually do have. While there are things that they can do which can have an effect on the economy (either in the short term or the long term), the truth is that presidents can only control certain aspects of things. I am not convinced that Bush is responsible for either the recent recession or the recovery. The war debt and tax cuts for the rich probably wont really have an effect until Bush is long gone. I am sure some other president will get blamed for economy when those things really start to have an effect.
This response has been erased.
Please be mindful that (1) the recession began before Mr. Bush was inaugurated (that other guy was still president as the recesson started) and (2) every person paying U.S. income taxes received a tax reduction (particularly the lower and middle classes).
This response has been erased.
Republican tax cut: Here's $300.00 of your tax money back. Oh, by the way, your out-of-pocket expenses for all those program we cut to give you your $300 and that cool Iraq war thing ar gonna be about $3000. Enjoy the tax break. Aren't we great?!
(You have facts to back that up, Mr. other? Or is that merely your partisanship showing?)
From The Wall Street Journal - Review & Outlook, November 10, 2003 Howard Dean's weekend decision to forgo public campaign financing is playing as a big deal, but all this did was kick dirt on an already dying system. The men really on the cutting edge of political fund raising these days are George Soros and Harold Ickes. Mr. Soros is the billionaire hedge-fund operator Mr. Ickes was at the center of the Clinton fund-raising scandals of 1996. Thanks to campaign-finance reform, these two men are fast becoming the Democratic Party's most important power brokers. Mr. Soros has long supported campaign finance reform. By helping to limit those gifts to the two parties, the billionaire has cleared a path to make himself the biggest bankroller in Democratic politics. He's already pledged $10 million to America Coming Together (ACT), a new outfit dedicated to spending an unprecedented $75 million to defeat President Bush next year. He has also reportedly chipped in $20 million to the Center for American Progress. . . Ickes is attempting to raise $50 million for TV ads to attack Mr. Bush next year. . . While never charged with a crime, Mr. Ickes was called the "Svengali" of the Clinton fund-raising operation And now thanks to campaign-finance reform, Mr. Ickes is back in business. His donors can give as much cash as they desire. . . Dean has described his decision to give up federal matching funds as a "declaration of independence from special interests." But if he wins the nomination, he'll be the main beneficiary of the Soros-Ickes soft money spending barrage. . . Dean would owe far more chits to Mr. Soros than Cheney has ever owed to Halliburton. Dean can gather all of the small-dollar Internet donations he wants, but in the end he's still going to be relying on the Soros-Ickes machine to get him to the White House.
Can I just state for the record how much I love the absurdity of the statement: " While never charged with a crime, Mr. Ickes was called the 'Svengali' of the Clinton fund-raising operation"?
Another absurdity is klg drigging up this dirt while Bush sits on a reelection chest of 200,000,000 of his political buddies contributions.
We report. You decide.
yeah its highly hypocritical for klg to not care how Bush raises his money, but then get judgemental about how Dean is. And for the record, the article is incorrect. Dean isn't taking large donations, he has raised enormous sums over the internet of $250 or less.
This response has been erased.
That's a ridiculous statement - the Dem candidate has to compete with BUSH. What do you want Dean to do, if nominated - lose? The slime, incidentally, started from Bush, who set the lowest possible standard, and "bad money drives out good".
re: "#333 (richard): yeah its highly hypocritical for klg to not care how Bush raises his money, but then get judgemental about how Dean is.".............. Unlike How-weird, President Bush has always been up-front regarding his fundraising intentions. (Go How-weird!!) "And for the record, the article is incorrect."........ Call the WSJ & tell them.
Last time I checked the election went to the man with the most votes, not the most dollars. (Hmm.. 2000 presidential elections excepted.. You know what I meant.) Money is a powerful tool in presidential elections but at some point the additional utility of each dollar diminishes. Dean (or whoever gets the nomination ultimately) should be able to compete against Bush without having to have as much money.
Except: The money Bush is raising is to be spent during the primary season. Who is running against him for the Republican nomination? What's that you say? No one? Right. So what is he going to spend all that money on? Trashing Democrats, right? So to start on a level field in August, the Democrats really need to be campaigning against Bush in the primary season, too, as well as campaigning against the other Democrats. And that takes money.
"To start on a level playing field in August the Democrats really need to" first find a credible candidate. Where, we don't know. Apparently, they have no idea, either.
The democrats could nominate Charles Manson and I'd vote for him over Bush.
Just as we indicated. Apparently nobody has any idea of any credible Democratic candidate.
This response has been erased.
So, you would prefer that Dean "kill" it for himself, instead? And, why can't Clark join in the new game as well as Dean?
This response has been erased.
I thought Dean was raising his funds through internet sites. Clark could do the same thing. They don't have to sink as low as Bush is willing to.
This response has been erased.
Re #337: I disagree, really. I think it's naive to ignore how much money drives politics. It's all about how much ad time you can buy to smear your opponent, now.
This response has been erased.
#346..yeah Dean is doing the vast majority of his fundraising through the internet. His current fundraising advantage is directly attributable to 500,000 people on the internet contributing $35-$75. Dean HAS NOT had $100,000 a plate fundraisers like Bush has, or anything of the like. It is much more of a grassroots effort. No other candidate has ever harnessed the potential of internet fundraising before, and the Dean model is going to be used by campaigns for years to come. It is taking power OUT of the hands of rich donors. And klg has yet to answer why Bush needed to raise $200 million for a primary campaign where he has no opponent. It is excess just for reason of excess. And because Bush has rich friends who EXPECT to give large sums of money because they EXPECT and DEMAND preferential/special treatment and extra influence. Bush is the candidate who is owned by special interests.
(Thank you. Were you, Mr. richard, aware that historically the Republicans have a much better grass roots fundraising capability - both in terms of participation and amount raised - than the Democrats? Probably not. The Democrats prefer to use union and trial lawyer money, in addition to the mega-contributions such as the $15 million so far this cycle from the likes of Mr. Soros. Fortunately, these are not "special interests," are they??? Furthermore, so long as you Democrats make "Hate Bush" the basis of your platform, we Republicans should not have much to fear a year from now. Go How-weird!)
Hate Bush? Withering Hates? Ba-Bush-ka? Don't Give Up, Cos I believe there's a place where we Democrats belong?
This response has been erased.
klg you still HAVE NOT answered the question--- why does Bush need to raise $200 million for a primary campaign where he has no opponent? That is primaries money, not money that can be used in the general election? The answer, and you know it, is that he doesn't need to raise so much money, but he does because people want to buy favors and have influence. He is selling the White House to fat cat oil men in Texas and CEO's of rich and corrupt mutual fund companies. And klg you don't even care. That is where your morality leaves you. You don't care. You don't. So long as a conservative republican gets elected, you don't care particularly how he does so or how many people he's selling himself to. It just doesn't matter. Admit it.
What do you suppose President Bush is going to do with all of that money? He's going to promote himself. He's going to use it for campaign advertising, to give himself as much of an edge as he can for the election. This is the same thing that President Clinton did when he and Al Gore raised record amounts of money in 1994 and 1995 for their re-election campaign. I believe you were here then, Richard. Where was your moral outrage then? Did you care?
Actually, I agree that, by the time September-October-November roll around, the cost of a marginal vote for a presidential campaign is essentially infinite, or very close to it. Because media coverage is intense, density of interest is high, and everybody is talking to everybody else about it, the campaigns can do little but stir the pot. The campaigns have no control over the situation. The other truism about political campaigns: the more money a campaign has to spend, the higher the proportion which is wasted. A well-funded campaign stays in better hotels, eats better food, has a more spacious headquarters in a nicer neighborhood, has lots of paid staff, and does lots of useless tracking polls. None of these things make the slightest difference to the outcome. Shoestring campaigns beat well-funded campaigns all the time -- presuming that the shoestring campaign DOES have a basic threshold of enough money, and spends it wisely. The object is to get the message out, and depending on the situation, that doesn't necessarily cost a fortune.
maybe shoestring campaigns do better because they are closer to the people who wear shoestrings ... sted loafers.... ????
TS, your reverse-shoe-elitism is starting to get on my nerves.
Re #354: The Clintons weren't trying to get people morally outraged about the amount of money other campaigns were raising while raising more money themselves. That seems to be what the Republicans are doing at the moment.
Where is that happening? I haven't seen any republicans showing moral outrage at whet the dems are raising?
Then take klg off your twit filter..
This response has been erased.
Do you think they are waiting for the right moment in the campaign to do that?
This response has been erased.
I believe that GW Bush, Inc. would do *anything*, and I mean *anything* (murder, treason, lie, cheat, steal, etc.) to get him re-elected. So I find it easy to believe that they could be holding Sadam or Ossama until just the right opportunity.
I don't think they could keep something like that quiet. Too many people would have to know about it.
Outraged???? Who said that we were "outraged," Mr. mcnally? Even if Mr. Soros succeeds in his campaign to make the Democratic Party his wholly-owned we, quite frankly, do not care - so long as it is done in broad daylight. Among the problems of those who have a myopic concern with campaign fundraising is that they believe it is possible to solve the "problem" through legislation. In reality, it is not. First, because U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to donate their money as they wish. Second, despite whatever laws may be passed, human ingenuity is such that they will be circumvented. Thank you.
This response has been erased.
And the U.S. would leave when Saddam is found? I doubt that.
Oh, Mr. rcurl!! You again disappoint us. Where is your liberal compassion for the people of Iraq???? And on the mega-buck contribution front, the Democrats again score big. Seems like their passion for fundraising limits only applies to Republicans. From The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer By Stephen Koff Plain Dealer Bureau Chief November 12, 2003 WASHINGTON Peter B. Lewis, the Cleveland- based insurance billionaire and philanthropist, has pledged more than $12 million to try to oust President Bush from the White House.
re resp:364: I think it's only possible to believe that if you're so firmly against Bush that, no matter what he does, you're going to regard it as wrong. A few people really do believe that way (about the same number who felt the same way about Clinton, I would guess), but they're not who I would go to if I wanted reasonable opinions about politics. It seems to me more of an indication of the divisiveness of modern American politics than of realism about what a particular politician might do.
A $12E6 donation to the democrats is a drop in the bucket compared to the $200E6 in Bush's bucket. It is the Republican's passion for fundraising that requires the opposition's efforts. Why didn't Bush accept the original fundraising limits? Greed?
Perhaps the notion that he could do better in the election if he didn't accept those limits?
I doubt that all the republican money came from one source.
re #371: > A $12E6 donation to the democrats is a drop in the bucket compared > to the $200E6 in Bush's bucket. $2E8 / $1.2E7 ~= 17 I've never seen a bucket which only held 17 drops..
... re 371, 374 .. carter arithmetic, of course ... it is good that two (maybe three later) capitalists donate their 'winnings' to the downtrodden politicians who have no vision nor policy nor concept of 'new europe', teh 'new world', the better way. facing abject failure is terrifying. it *seems* taht democrat cantidates, aside from liberman and kerry, have not moved past 9/12/2001. of course having kennedy barzenly lable black, female judges as neanderthal helped the cause. did he burbble anything about hispanic nominees? probably, but i missed his slur.
Casting Kennedy's 'neanderthal' remark as a racial slur is prima facie evidence of a political agenda, if only because I know you, TS, are insufficiently ignorant to actually believe that it was one.
Re #371: It's an apples-to-oranges comparison anyway, since the contribution wasn't to a specific candidate. I bet the Republican party has raised a lot more money than just the $200 million Bush has.
Imagine how indignant we'd all be if a single donor had given $12 million in "soft money" to the Republican party and earmarked it for the upcoming presidential campaign. Call me a fool but I'd like to believe there's still room in politics for people who believe standards are something you expect your own side to abide by, not just your opponents.
You're a fool. "(i'm joking, but I do fear you may be being optimistic.)
Re #378: > Imagine how indignant we'd all be if a single donor had given $12 million > in "soft money" to the Republican party and earmarked it for the upcoming > presidential campaign. I'm guessing that's already happened, many times.
re #376 ... you are correct .. any balck female judge who escapes the clutches of the democrat-welfare enclave/slavery *must* be soemting of a neanderthal - a vicious poitical agenda not worthy of america.
so, kennedy should announce this on espn?
Been listening to Rush, eh?
sounds like you must be too!
" ... as i was saying ......"
The (other) "illegitimate" president who lost the election, cut taxes, and took us war. Oh, the outrage! JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL A Minority President: George W. Bush "lost the popular vote." So did JFK. Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:01 a.m. . . . The effect of potential vote stealing on the outcome of the (1960) election was not the only historical argument cut short by Kennedy's assassination. . . . But was Kennedy, like George W. Bush, actually a "minority president," elected without a popular-vote plurality? . . .(I)n Alabama, JFK's name didn't actually appear on the ballot. Voters were asked to choose between Nixon and a slate of "unpledged Democrat electors." A statewide primary had chosen five Democratic electors . . . pledged to JFK (and) six who were free to vote for anyone. The Democratic slate defeated Nixon, 324,050 votes to 237,981. In the end, the six unpledged electors voted for Sen. Harry Byrd of Virginia, a leading Dixiecrat . . . When the Associated Press at the time counted up the popular vote from all 50 states it listed all the Democratic votes, pledged and unpledged, in the Kennedy column. Over the years other counts have routinely assigned all of Alabama's votes to Kennedy. But scholars say that isn't accurate. "Not all the voters who chose those electors were for Kennedy--anything but," says historian Albert Southwick. Humphrey Taylor. . . (I)n Alabama "much of the popular vote . . . that is credited to Kennedy's line to give him a small plurality nationally" is dubious. "Richard Nixon seems to have carried the popular vote narrowly, while Kennedy won in the Electoral College," he concludes. Congressional Quarterly . . . (r)eporter Neil Pierce took the highest vote cast for any of the 11 Democratic electors in Alabama--324,050-- and divided it proportionately between Kennedy and the unpledged electors who ended up voting for Harry Byrd. . . With these new totals for Alabama . . . Nixon has a 58,181-vote (nation- wide) plurality, edging out Kennedy . . . Remember this the next time a Democrat complains that President Bush "lost the popular vote." . . . . Copyright 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
this is not news.
I'd never heard it before.
"Anything but..." Yeah, right. If that was the case, then why didn't they vote Republican?
Don't they still refer to the 1960 vote as the closest in american history?
Now wait a minute. The term "highest elector" implies that Alabama voters in 1960 could vote for any combination of up to 11 elector candidates. That means that anyone who didn't want to support JFK could simply withhold their vote from the five elector candidates who were pledged to support him. Hence, the vote for five Kennedy electors could plausibly be a measure of support for JFK. On the other hand, I suppose that voting for one elector (in a state with eleven electoral votes) is casting just one-eleventh of your vote to them. But what if you were a 100% Kennedy supporter voting in Alabama? Better to vote for Byrd candidates to keep Nixon from getting those electoral votes. The analysis quoted above would count you as 6/11 for the unpledged slate. Up to about 1930 or 1940, every state's ballot listed individual electors, and no presidential candidate names appeared on the ballot anywhere. In West Virginia in, I think, 1916, the state ended up with a split electoral vote because one of the candidates on the dominant slate withdrew, and the message to substitute another candidate didn't get out to every county. Because the votes were split, the substitute candidate lost, and the top candidate on the minority party slate was elected. It just goes to show how complicated this electoral college business can get.
Particularly when one attempts to "divine" the "intention" of a voter, rather than objectively counting the actual vote.
Or when voting officials are too stupid to empty the chads out of punch-card machines, making it impossible to actually punch out a hole.
(You mean the stupid Democratic voting officials?)
I was unaware of any dispute over what the vote totals were in Alabama in 1960. Rather, there is a question as to how to interpret those votes. People think of voting for president in the same terms that they think of a simple local election for mayor or sheriff. But presidential elections don't work that way, and the further back you go in history, the less well they match that model.
Re #394: Incompetence does not respect party lines. ;>
Yeah, you're telling me. I called up this escargot service for some sea whores, and they sent me a fucking fish.
'Fat Tony, I thought you said Troy McLure was dead!' "That's not what I said. I said he sleeps with the fishes."
Conservative columnist endorses Dean over Bush
http://sierratimes.com/03/12/05/ar_carlworden.htm
From The Sierra Times, "An Internet Publication for Real Americans"
President Howard Dean
Carl F. Worden
When I wrote, "Another One-Termer Like Dad?" several months ago, I
began my treatise with the words, "If the Democrats play their cards
right, and if President George W. Bush extends the federal Assault
Weapon Ban that was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton,
then I am going to predict that George W. Bush will be a one-term
war-hero president just like his father."
Well, whether by hook or crook, and whether intended or not, the
Democrats are playing their cards right. That article and my
predictions were right on the money, even to extent that I foretold,
"If the Democrats do something truly stupid, like run a raving liberal
like Al Gore or Hillary Clinton for president, then Bush 43 has maybe
an even chance. But if the Democrats run a moderate, southern pro-gun
candidate who promises not to use the Constitution as toilet paper,
then I can predict with complete confidence that a Democrat, or
possibly even a third-party candidate, will occupy the White House
after the next presidential election."
Get ready for President Howard Dean. No he's not a moderate, southern
pro-gun candidate. Instead, he's a former Vermont governor from the
north. Everything else falls right into line: He is a moderate
Democrat who is also a pro-gun candidate who promises not to use the
Constitution as toilet paper.
Dean is adamantly against the war in Iraq. Dean is conservatively
pro-gun. Dean is soft on abortion and he is a moderate Democrat
socialist to the extent that he believes government is responsible for
taking care of those who are either mentally or physically unable to
care for themselves. In that light, he's the perfect candidate to take
residence in the White House following the coming November elections.
Unless Howard Dean screws up in some spectacular way, or unless Dean
dies in another suspicious airplane accident, Howard Dean will be the
next president of the United States. Mark my words.
Dean is the perfect candidate for election in 2004. George W. Bush has
divided the Republican Party into two distinct groups. They comprise
the phony and fascist Neo-Conservatives who mistakenly embraced the
perpetually wrong philosophy that the ends justify the means, ala
Clinton. To them, if Clinton could get away with it, why shouldn.t
they? Their error has manifested itself via a disastrous war on Iraq
that was never constitutionally declared by Congress, and the
blatantly and irrefutably unconstitutional Patriot Act.
Both the moderate Democrats and the true American Christian
conservatives have found themselves in surprising and stunning
agreement on these issues.
If you leave out religious conviction ala the abortion debate, which
is entirely the province of the judiciary at this time anyway, and
hone in on constitutional principle only, moderate Democrats and
right-wing, true Christian conservatives, are in unexpected agreement:
We have yet another Viet Nam on our hands, and our kids are being
unnecessarily killed as a result of it.
History will prove those kids died in vain, just like all those 58,000
kids killed in Viet Nam: Viet Nam is still a communist nation, and we
have reinstated full diplomatic and trade relations with them. In that
light, every one of those kids died for NOTHING, and the same will be
said of those being killed right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The true American conservatives who once commanded the Republican
Party, are horrified by what Bush has done, and many of them,
including myself, have vowed never to support Bush again, even if we
have to vote for a third party candidate that has little chance of
winning.
To the truly committed, truly Christian conservative, George W. Bush
is a traitor, a completely phony Christian, and just another
politician who placed his left hand on the Bible, raised his right
hand to God, and swore to uphold and defend a Constitution he had
every intention of violating -- if the "situation" warranted it.
If there is one thing that true conservatives share, it is their solid
and unwavering conviction to do what is both lawful and right, both
under the law, and in the eyes of our God. In that light, our current
president is woefully unfaithful, and in fact, treasonous to our
Constitution.
A president who personally declares a United States citizen an enemy
combatant, ineligible for legal counsel or to face his accusers and
their evidence against him, even though he was arrested on U.S. soil
and never carried a weapon against U.S. forces or their allies, is a
domestic enemy of the people of the United States. True Christian
conservatives understood that the moment he issued the order.
True Americans with solid constitutional convictions were outraged by
that, and they immediately knew they had a problem in the White House.
I don't know what Howard Dean's religious convictions, if any, hold
to. But it doesn't matter in this case. Here we have a pro-gun
candidate who is against this disastrous war in Iraq, and he is a
candidate intent on principle to uphold he personal convictions. I
like him, and for the first time in my life, I will vote for a
Democrat, Howard Dean, to be my next president next November.
If he's still alive.
Carl F. Worden
Same "Carl Worden" as mentioned in this 2002 item the Anti-Defamation League did on "militias?" If so, nice try, but no cigar. The Militia Movement ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Origins: Mid-to-late 1993 Prominent leaders: John Trochmann (Montana), Ron Gaydosh (Michigan), Randy Miller (Texas), Charlie Puckett (Kentucky), Mark Koernke (Michigan), Carl Worden (Oregon), Gib Ingwer (Ohio) Prominent groups: Kentucky State Militia, Ohio Unorganized Militia Assistance and Advisory Committee, Southeastern Ohio Defense Force, Michigan Militia (two factions using the same name), Southern Indiana Regional Militia, Southern California High Desert Militia-and many others Outreach: Gun shows, shortwave radio, newsletters, the Internet Ideology: Anti-government and conspiracy-oriented in nature; prominent focus on firearms Prominent militia arrests: Multiple members of the following groups have been arrested and convicted, usually on weapons, explosives, or conspiracy charges: Oklahoma Constitutional Militia, Georgia Republic Militia, Arizona Viper Militia, Washington State Militia, West Virginia Mountaineer Militia, Twin Cities Free Militia, North American Militia, San Joaquin County Militia.
When you get wayyyy out on the right, out past most of the GOP and into the libertarian fringe, political party loyalties get hazy and don't work quite the way you'd normally expect. That's why I find right-wing political shortwave broadcasts so fascinating.
This response has been erased.
And having their silver-amalgam fillings removed.
haw! you people have NO IDEA. /closes the curtains, shuts off the light & hunkers down with bru to lissen to the police scanner while cleaning our guns
I'm scared
RE#403 -- Could you elaborate? (I thought silver-amalgam fillngs were a good thing to have replaced..)
Algore has issued his presidential endorsement. "I've seen a candidate who has what it takes to reach out to the independent, mainstream Americans who will make the difference . . . particularly in the South," Gore said. "He's going to send George Bush packing and bring the Democratic Party home." (It didn't seem to help a lot when he said that about Michael Dukakis in 1988. Any reason to think it'll be more use to Dean this time around?------By the way, at least in 1988 he didn't stab his loyal, former runningmate in the back.)
Be sure to put that in Al Gora.
Re resp:406: A lot of fringe types believe that the mercury in silver-amalgam fillings is dangerous. They also won't get vaccinated because of mercury-based preservatives used in some vaccines. I'm not aware of any mainstream medical science backing up those claims.
This response has been erased.
Shucks!
#410..tod why do you say that? I think Gore's endorsement only helps Dean. Gore got 500,000 more votes than Bush in the last election, he won the popular election. He is the uncrowned champion. His endorsement carries a lot of clout within the party. That said, Dean didn't really need Gore's endorsement, he was already doing just fine without it
(Certainly it must, Mr. richard! Look at how effective Gore's endorsement was in the 1988 election. Didn't Mr. Bush lose that election, too?)
(Fifteen years ago, Gore was just another senator. Things have changed a bit since then.)
This response has been erased.
A Clark vs. Bush race would be interesting. Or Lieberman vs. Bush. I've always wondered what would happen if two Republicans ran against each other for President.
Interesting, anyway. Lieberman tends to rub me the wrong way for some reason, but not as much as Bush. Dean or Clark would be interesting.
This response has been erased.
Lieberman is too sanctimonious for me. He is less so, though, than Bush.
The problem is that Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt are traditional democrats. They symbolize the Democratic leadership in Congress in the nineties when the Demcrats became the minority party there. They do not inspire any passion. People don't care about them, they see them as politics as usual, and I do not think they will vote out Bush in favor of someone who represents the same-old same-old Dean inspires a great deal of passion, particularly among younger voters. Gore recognizes this. He recognizes that the party can't beat Bush without a candidate they can get passionate about. They can't get passionate about and aren't getting passionate about these others. It is Dean that has the grass roots movement behind him and that means it is Dean who has the best chance to beat Bush. General Clark is the only alternative IMO and I think there is too much distrust of the military among the party's rank and file to nominate a general. But what does that leave for the strongest ticket, the ticket that could inspire the most independent voters, and the most new voters, logically a Dean/Clark ticket. Face it, if Gephardt or Kerry run against Bush, a lot of voters won't care. They'll stay home. They'll see the same-old same-old. Why replace Bush with one of the Democratic leadership in Congress when many voters think both sides have failed in recent years? To win, to beat Bush, the Democrats must give the voters someone different, someone outside Washington who has shown political skills and the willingness to get right in Bush's face and stare him down. That is Howard Dean.
According to a story in today's New York Times, Bush's advisers are now assuming that Dean will be his opponent in 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/politics/campaigns/11REPU.html?hp
I'm assuming America will be his opponent.
rotflmao. How true.
(We can hope...)
One word for Mr. richard: George McGovern (Go, How-weird! Go, Weasley! Our "dream ticket.")
Don't you wish.....
So which word was it Mr. Klg, "George" or "McGovern"?
(Hey. We ought to know. We campaigned for him.)
(Yet more confirmation of my long-standing observation that ex-liberals make the most tiresome conservatives. ;-)
Not surprising. The most annoying and overly evangelistic religious people are always the freshly converted, as well.
(We gotta make up for the foolishness of our youth.)
(and for the foolishness of those who do not realize theirs)
Have you made up for Christopher Hitchens's?
I am curious about the reasons for Kerry's switch.
1. McGovern ran a poor campaign, and had a disastrous convention, and then three weeks later his runningmate Thomas Eagleton had to resign from the ticket when it was revealed he'd had electroshock therapy. 2. McGovern ran out of money, went completely broke. That won't happen with Dean, his campaign is and will continue to be extremely well funded. 3. Dean isn't as liberal as McGovern. Dean is a fiscal consevative who is a strong advocate of balancing budgets instead of defecit spending. Also as a governor of a rural state, he takes the view of his Vermont constituents that gun control laws are a state issue. Consequently the NRA gives him a pretty good rating, which tells you he's no McGovern. 4. McGovern's opponent was Richard Nixon, who broke laws and went to all extents legal and otherwise to win (Watergate-- sound familiar?) Dean won't have such slimeball tactics done to him. Oh wait, then again, Dean would be running against Bush and his right hand men, Karl "The Hatchet Man" Rove and "Dirty Dick" Cheney, so you never know right...
1. The backbone of Dean's campaign is younger neophytes. If/when the pros want to take over, it is likely to get messy. 2. The campaign may have been poorly funded, but even that doesn't excuse the final electoral count. 3. The country has shifted to be more conservative than it was back then. 4. McGovern was, at least, consistent in his stands. For example, he didn't (as How-weird does) claim to have been against the war "from the start" when the facts show otherwise. 5. McGovern was a war hero. He was no Dean. 6. No matter how often you repeat your childish/outlandish/untrue accusations against President Bush and his staff, the country won't believe you.
5... are you planning on putting Bush's war record up for debate, klg? I didn't think you had the guts, or were that stupid.
I read 6. as a cry of desperation.
Re: 438. Heh heh heh, heh. MWAHAHAAAH!
re: "#437 (scott): 5... are you planning on putting Bush's war record up for debate, klg? I didn't think you had the guts, or were that stupid." (Come, now, Mr. scott! You really do think we are that stupid.) But, actually, it was in response to Mr. richard's comparison of Messrs. Dean & McGovern. President Bush's service is not involved. re: "438 (rcurl): I read 6. as a cry of desperation." (Illiteracy is a terrible thing.)
I'm not sure being consistent in your stands gets you anywhere in a campaign these days. Bush clearly doesn't think so.
nor does Howard Dean apparently after his foreign policy speech today...
Dean has never been inconsistent in his opposition to the war in Iraq. He was never against removing Saddam Hussein, he was against the means used to justify the ends. Is there a cost that is so high that something isn't worth doing? This is an excerpt from Dean's foreign policy speech he gave yesterday: Howard Dean: "I want to talk about Iraq in the context of all our security challenges ahead. Saddam s capture offers the Iraqi people, the United States, and the international community an opportunity to move ahead. But it is only an opportunity, not a guarantee. Let me be clear: My position on the war has not changed. The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost. An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam s ouster, to then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk. As our military commanders said, and the President acknowledged yesterday, the capture of Saddam does not end the difficulties from the aftermath of the administration s war to oust him. There is the continuing challenge of securing Iraq, protecting the safety of our personnel, and helping that country get on the path to stability. There is the need to repair our alliances and regain global support for American goals. Nor, as the president also seemed to acknowledge yesterday, does Saddam s capture move us toward defeating enemies who pose an even greater danger: al Qaeda and its terrorist allies. And, nor, it seems, does Saturday s capture address the urgent need to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the risk that terrorists will acquire them. When I become president, addressing these critical and interlocking threats terrorism and weapons of mass destruction -- will be America s highest priority. To meet these and other important security challenges, including Iraq, I will bring to bear all the instruments of power that will keep our citizens secure and our nation strong. Empowered by the American people, I will work to restore: The legitimacy that comes from the rule of law; The credibility that comes from telling the truth; The knowledge that comes from first-rate intelligence, undiluted by ideology; The strength that comes from robust alliances and vigorous diplomacy; And, of course, I will call on the most powerful armed forces the world has ever known to ensure the security of this nation. " Everyone's applauding Bush now that Saddam's captured, and even the other Democratic candidates are mostly saying they agree with him. What did Dean say in above excerpt yesterday, "The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost." Dean said that a year ago, six months ago, and yesterday, the day after Saddam's capture. Dean has not changed his view and, unlike his opponents, he is still speaking out.
And klg, cut the "howeird" crap, you know that nobody, especially not people who live their life making speeches and taking positions every day, is going to end up being 100% consistent. You are asking for clinical perfection, you don't want a human being as president, you want a robot. Bush the Sr. and Reagan and Carter, Clinton, Nixon and all previous presidents had inconsistencies in their record. Sometimes it just signified they changed their mind on a view, which is their right to do. It could have signified that their views matured as they matured and gave more consideration to matters. It is one thing to ask for total consistency in your religious leaders, to whom you are asked to give your faith, and that as we've found is increasingly unrealistic too. But we are electing a president, not a Pope or a minister. What we need to look for is not clinical perfection, but for what kind of a person this is and whether we are comfortable with their overrall views and who they seem to be as a human being. That is more important than whether you agree with a candidate on every single view, or whether a candidate's views have evolved from what they were in the past. Heck, Bush's father, Bush the Sr., used to be a pro-choice Eisenhower Republican. The Reaganites hated him. But he changed views, he became more conservative. That was his prerogative. That didn't mean it was necessary to start calling him George H. Weird Bush did it? So drop the crap klg, and keep the debate focused on the issues. This is a presidential campaign, not a debate team event.
Oh, yeah, Mr. richard??? "Never inconsistent"???? What say you to this: Thecarpetbaggerreport.com December 11, 2003 Exactly how anti-war was Howard Dean? . . .Dean's statements about the war in Iraq warrant a closer look. . . Dean's record is not as clear as the conventional wisdom would have us believe.. . . On the September 29, 2002, episode of Face the Nation, Dean said, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." Then, in February 2003, Dean agreed with Bush that the Iraqi threat was real. . . Dean said, "(H)e has tried to build a nuclear bomb.. . . So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given." A month later on Meet the Press, Dean said he believed that Iraq "is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons." Dean may have thought there was "no question" that Hussein was a threat before the war, but looking back now, his hindsight is telling him the opposite. Just this week, for example, Dean mentioned at the DNC's New Hampshire debate "that there was no serious threat to the United States from Saddam Hussein." . . . (T)he New York Times reported today that Dean said, plainly, "I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States, ever." In light of the Face the Nation quote from 2002, we know that's just not correct. While Dean has repeatedly emphasized his belief that war efforts should be pursued through the U.N., Dean has also appeared willing, at times, to accept unilateral war in Iraq. As recently as February 2003 . . . Dean appeared to accept a unilateral approach in Iraq as a necessary evil. According to an interview with Salon's Jake Tapper . . . Dean said . . . (i)f the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm . . and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice. . . . (A)ccording to a Des Moines Register report on October 6, 2002, Dean said, "It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally [in Iraq], but that should not be our first option." On January 31, 2003, Dean told the LA Times' Ron Brownstein that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization." Since then, however, Dean has insisted that unilateral war is wholly unacceptable. . . . . . But before the war, Dean was far more receptive to the possibility that Bush deserved the benefit of the doubt. . . . U.S. News & World Report's Gloria Borger asked Dean in September 2002, "Governor, what exactly does the president then have to prove to you [regarding Iraq]?" Dean, who now argues that he saw through Bush's charade from the beginning, said . . ., "I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it." . . . (H)e told Roll Call earlier this year, "I would be surprised if [Hussein] didn't have [chemical and biological weapons.]" Appearing on Meet the Press on March 9, 2003 . . . Dean spoke with some certainty about Hussein's dangerous arsenal. . . . Dean said he believed that Iraq "is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons." . . . (Dean)endorsed a congressional effort . . . that was very similar . . . to the resolution that passed both chambers in Congress. . . The Biden-Lugar resolution authorized Bush to use force in Iraq -- unilaterally, if necessary -- if a diplomatic solution could not be reached at the United Nations. Dean has argued that Biden-Lugar would have forced Bush to return to Congress . . . to seek congressional support for a military invasion. . . Actually, Biden-Lugar doesn't appear to have made such a condition at all. The resolution . . simply required Bush to "make available" to Congress his "determination" that the Iraqi threat "is so grave that the use of force is necessary." . . . Dean . . . publicly endorsed it, despite the fact that it allowed Bush to pursue war in Iraq, without U.N. support, and without a second congressional resolution. As Ryan Lizza noted last month in The New Republic, "[T]he war resolution Howard Dean supported would probably have led to exactly the same outcome -- a unilateral war with Iraq." . . . (T)he important point to be learned, as far as I'm concerned, is that Dean's record on Iraq isn't too-terribly-different from that of Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Clark. (Go How-weird!!)
(Note: Go How-weird!! was not in the original article.)
Re #446: what seems to be overlooked in all that is that prior to the war Dean was responding on the basis of what Bush said about Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons, and definitely having WMD, were true. Why should he have assumed then that Bush was lying? We only learned afterward that Bush had been lying. I think this post-factor hesaid/shesaid argumentation is rather irrelevant. Before the war not only Dean but everyone was not only largely in the dark about what the administration knew or thought they knew, the administration was actively lying. That's much worse than any tentativeness Dean might have had about the situation.
So, in response, Dean lies about his previous position?? Someone worthy of Mr. richard's vote should at the very least be honest about his flip/flop. But we certainly won't let that get in the way of our enthusiasm for his candidacy for the nomination. (By the way, Mr. rcurl, we would appreciate you not stating that President Bush lied until after we have positively determined whether he, in fact, did so. Thank you.) (Go How-weird!!)
We know he did. Even if Iraq does have hidden WMD that will not change the fact the Bush did not have incontrovertable evidence he did, as he said he did. In any case, why don't you apply your criticism of Dean, for flip-flopping, to Bush's flip-flopping? Bush's prevarications are certainly MUCH more serious than any mistatements from Dean. Bush took us into a war killing people on the basis of his lies.
You keep forgeting that teh previous administration believed he had those weapons as well. Why do you keep forgeting that Clinton thought Iraq had WMD? That the Clinton intelligence officers passed that information on to the Bush administration? That Hillary Clinton just this week addressed the Council on Foreign relations adn Supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. "We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the president, to our intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam," she said. "Now he will be brought to justice, and we hope that the prospects for peace and stability in Iraq will improve." said Mrs. Clinton
It's not Bush's fault he deliberately deceived the country to get us to go to war. It was those "Clinton intelligence officers." Is that really your explanation, Bruce?
bru, Don't forget, also, the congressmen who were shown the same evidence as the President and who came to the same conclusion. (Do you understand what Mr. rcurl is saying??? "If the evidence the President saw was correct, it cannot be incontrovertable"?? --This man calls himself a scientist?)
Again, the reason for removing Saddam was that he was said to have weapons of mass destruction. He did not turn out to have them. Either the information was wrong or Bush lied. But regardless of that, the real question is whether the ends justified the means. Bru and klg do not seem to care how many hundreds of billions of dollars it cost and how many american lives it cost (and will continue to cost as the troops are still over there) and how many countries we have relations with that we pissed off. The means don't matter to them, only the "ends" They are like Hitler, who told the German people that he would make them great again, that was the "end", and the means, exterminating the jews, wiping out other countries, just didn't matter. Well as the German people found out, the ends DON'T always justify the means. Sometimes the cost is too high. Dean said he would have supported the removal of Saddam unilaterally IF and ONLY IF there was an imminent threat to national security, such as we were about to be attacked. This was not the case. So even though we all wanted Saddam out of power (and I think everyone agrees on that), the end wasn't going to justify the means unless it happened the right way. This was NOT the right way to go about it. But Bru and Klg don't care, they simply don't. They don't care how much blood was shed or what the longterm diplomatic damage was. There will be longterm repercussions because of this. And we are now running a huge national defecit again. But Bru and klg don't care. They just don't. Because to them the end ALWAYS justifies the means, whatever those means are.
re #453: > Again, the reason for removing Saddam was that he was said to have weapons > of mass destruction. He did not turn out to have them. On what do you base this evidently firm conclusion? As they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Whether or not Hussein had WMD or not is a separate issue from whether or not the Bush administration had the "proof" it claimed to have (but could not show us) regarding WMD. But while there might be many reasons why the Iraqis might have hidden or destroyed any forbidden weapons in their possession it's much harder to imagine reasons why the Bush administration can't produce evidence of WMD despite the proof they claimed to have before the war. > Bru and klg do not seem to care how many hundreds of billions of dollars > it cost and how many american lives it cost (and will continue to cost as > the troops are still over there) and how many countries we have relations > with that we pissed off. Again, I'd love to know how you reached this surprising conclusion. The fact that they don't set the decision point at the same place you do doesn't give you license to assume that they don't recognize any limits at all. > The means don't matter to them, only the "ends" They are like Hitler, > who told the German people that he would make them great again, that > was the "end", and the means, exterminating the jews, wiping out other > countries, just didn't matter. They disagree with you, therefore they are like Hitler. Way to win the argument, Richard. Can we all take a deep breath for a second and think about how pathetic it is to compare an opponent in a BBS argument to Hitler? <pause> Thank you. We now return you to your regularly scheduled drivel.
I vote that if jp2 is going to use 'How-weird', from this point on Bush shall be referred to as 'The Shrub' in this item.
"matter to them, only the "ends" They are like Hitler, who told the German people that he would make them great again, that was the "end", and the means, exterminating the jews, wiping out other countries, just didn't matter." well, seig heil to you too! Nice of you to bring up hitler though. Would you rather we had waited until SAddam rebuilt his army, massed his weapons, adn moved on Isreal by cutting through Jordan with the support of Syria to liberate Palestine thus bringing the entire middle east into war? Should we have kept on appeasing him as we did Hitler until millions of innocent people had died, the world economy collapsed, adn people started tossing nuclear weapons around? Now wouldn't that have been fun. I mean, we would have won, certainly. But how many billions would have died and how much would we have lost? Would that have made you happier richard?
It would have been easier to just say "we are going to depose Saddam". at least then you would only have broken international law, instead of breaking international law, lying through your teeth, and leaving the generations alive today wide open tothe charge of imperialism in the future.
I don't object to Saddam being removed, but I wish the Shrub had given us the honest reasons for doing so instead of a series of trumped-up justifications.
Re: 458: This guy reads my mind.
Herr bru- Did you see dat Herr richard tinks vee are like der Fuhrer??? Und vee don't even speek Gehrmann! Iz dat a joke? Unless Herr richard can show dat ze quote in response 445 are incorrect, den he looks pretty foolish. No? (Herr doctar Dean beleift dat zhee Iraquis vere an "imminent threat", jah??) (Go, How-veird!!)
Mazel tov.
Gesundheit.
Well *somebody* here sure looks foolish...
re #464: the word "somebody" seems inappropriately singular..
Hooray for the gifts of humor and laughter (laghter?)
Gut *jemand* hier sicheres Aussehen unklug. . .
ja mein heir.
(Mike, your response is recursing...)
s/464/463/
Re #467: "Ja, mein Herr."
klg in #445, you quote Dean as saying there was no question Saddam was a threat. But as Dean has said, he would never have supported such drastic action unless he was an IMMINENT threat. There is a difference between a "threat" and an "imminent" threat. An imminent threat means we are about to be attacked and we are vulnerable to that attack, which we were not attacked nor were we vulnerable to such attacks. Iraq HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Get that through your head. They had none. Therefore Bush lied, Cheney lied, and we went to war under false pretenses. And klg, you did not answer the question I asked, which is WHAT COST IS TOO HIGH? IS THERE EVER A TIME WHEN THE ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS? You don't care, you just don't. Thats why I compared you to Hitler. When you hate so much that no price is too high, when you hate so much that you'll mortage your children's futures or do whatever else is necessary to get to the "ends", that is when you border on irrationality. Which is what happened with Hitler
<sigh>
/agree jmsaul.
Herr richard: (Loosen your shorts.) And explain to us which of Dean's statements about making war on Iraq we are supposed to believe, the ones where he for it or the ones where he's against it. (In either case, we hope he wins the nomimation.) (Go, How-veird!!) Re: "And klg, you did not answer the question I asked, which is WHAT COST IS TOO HIGH?" Here is what somebody else might answer, Herr richard: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." John F. Kennedy "There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction." John F. Kennedy "The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission." John F. Kennedy
Being against Saddam doesn't mean being in favour of that particular war, or against it; or the reverse. It's a new concept (in some quarters), and it's called "subtlety".
As in "subtle liar," Mr. tweenex?
No.
http://www.peoplecanchange.com/
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, while it was really believed that Iraq actually did have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, the countries around Iraq--even Kuwait--did not think that Saddam was an imminent threat. Perhaps the known track record of Saddam to kill his own country's population emboldened them. More likely, the countries around Iraq relied on Saddam to refrain from acts that would very likely compel France and Russia to side with the US.
Perhaps. For those who limit their thinking to the short term. With the consequences being that thereafter Iraq - known to have made a deal with North Korea for the purchase of missiles and being assisted in nuclear technology by Russia - would have the wherewithall to blackmail the world just as North Korea has done successfully. (Is it just us, but are not the first two sentences of the response immediately preceeding totally contradictory?)
I wonder...if Saddam was a white anglo-saxon, would this have happened? I seriously think that the racial issue plays a factor in making some people in this country more uncomfortable with some leaders than others. One of the more damaging fallouts from this conflict and a whole host of post-9/11 actions, is that many many muslims in the middle east (most of them in all likelihood) think the U.S. is racist and imperialistic. I commend Howard Dean for saying bluntly that capturing Saddam HAS NOT made america safer. Because in fact the whole process of doing so has caused a greater number of people in the world to hate us than ever before
Well... Milosevic is a white guy. Slavic, but white and english-speaking and everything. Our government *is* imperialistic. The neocons don't even bother to deny it. Racist? Not exactly, but certainly culturally biased. That said, the cultures of the Middle East have a lot of bad attributes too.
ok culturally biased, but admit that more people now hate us than ever before. How does that make us safer? Hate breeds more hate
There's no country in the world which is undemocratic and has a Caucasian majority.
Re resp:480: I'm surprised you're still willing to argue that Iraq had a nuclear program. Where is it?
re: "#482 (jmsaul): . . .Our government *is* imperialistic. The neocons don't even bother to deny it. . . ." Mr. jmsaul, Don't be silly. Which neocons do you have in mind? re: "#483 (richard): . . . but admit that more people now hate us than ever before. . . ." Herr richard: No. More people hate us today than the day before Saddam was captured?? Prove it. (Go How-veird!!)
re #484: patently false, as I can think of several obvious counter-examples to your claim. Of course it becomes a bit harder if you choose to stretch your definition of democracy beyond reason. If the Pope is elected by the College of Cardinals, does that make the Vatican a democracy?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Re: #484: If true, that's probably got to do with the fact that their isn't a single country in the world that has a Caucasian majority and where people living anywhere above the breadlne aren't filthy rich compared to the average in the rest of the world - i.e. the middle=classes effectively represent the largest or moot powerful class.
This response has been erased.
Whether it be or no, I don't think Isrealis are classed as Caucasians, sicne they are related to the Egyptians the Berbers of North Africa, and the Arabs. Caucasians the world over have a nasty habit ;-) of speaking Indo-European languages natively.
News flash: In a surprise move today, Colonel Qaddafi of Libya, to show his growing hatred for the U.S. and his desire to make us less safe, announced he is dismantling his nuclear weapons program and allowing the entry of international inspectors. Lefties are now quaking in their beds since this is a clear reaction to the U.S. quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq. How-weird Dean (Go, How-vierd) in close consultation with his buddy Herr richard, caught with their shorts down, have, to our knowledge not yet issued a statement critical of the Bush administration's handling of this crisis. But one is expected shortly.
Lots of people in this country who are not 'Caucasian' speak English.
Re #486: The ones who wrote the position paper about preventing the growth
of regional superpowers.
Yes, but a hefty proportion of those who speak Indo-European languages in its home area are Caucasian, excluding immigrants from countries where non-Indo-European languages are spoken, and thos in the Indian sub-continent, and Iran. There are also still many many rural places in Africa where, although the whites speak Indo-European languages and many middle class native Africans do, the rural indigenous populatrions do not speak it at all, let alone natively. This is possibly also true of some isolated places in Australia.
Re 493: Excellent news. I hope that Pres. Bush won't kick out the inspectors the way he did in Iraq...
(There are many dark-skinned Caucasians in India. Iran, too, I think.)
My understanding is that "Caucasian" does not include dark-skinned Indo-Europeans. If it does, then you can delete "and those...Iran" in my response above.
And my understanding is that it does, on theory that the migrants from the Caucusus Mountains adapted to the more-intense rays of the sun in other climes.
Or interbred with the native people that they conquered, such as Dravidians.
Re. 487: The Vatican isn't nation-state in the traditional sense. You've yet to provide a single example of an undemocratic nation-state with a Caucasian majority.
Belarus.
This response has been erased.
Or, if you prefer, Monaco.
Andorra (upto the late nineties). Luxembourg/Liechtenstein (one of the two, can't remember which). Most of South America until the 90s. Britain, if you believe democracy can't exist independently of republicanism (in the wide sense, not the American political sense).
(Liechtenstein is a hereditary constitutional monarchy on a democratic and parliamentary basis. Luxembourg is a constitutional monarchy.)
/scratches chin. I'm sure I'd heard that one of the two was about to become a mediaeval style mnonarchy again, on the basis that if it wasn't, the monarch would leave and go live in Austria. Mustn't have happened.
Re. 503 & 505: Both of those states are democratic by any measure.
Perhaps I'm confusing Belarus with another ex-Soviet Republic. I was under the impression they had a Communist-remnant government that had cancelled scheduled elections when they seemed inconvenient. Is the People's Republic of China a democracy according to your rules? Not that it fits your other criterion, but I just want to know whether it's worth playing your definition-of-democracy game.
Yes, Rand, you're probably confusing it with South Africa or another primitive state, like China, which, of course, is not a democracy.
Is it not a democracy because it's not predominantly "Caucasian" or is it not a democracy because its "elected" leadership is installed in a sham process and not really by the will of the people? Because if the latter is your objection, maybe we should revisit Belarus' qualifications, or some of the other ex-Soviet republics'.
Re: Libya - even if the war in Iraq did scare Qddafi, the war is still illegal. And the end still does not justify the means. Beyond that, this raises a few questions. We know now that Libya has weapons of mass destruction. We know now that they are going to dismantle them. What we don't know is (a) Why the Coalition dfidn't attempt to invade Libya in order to force it to ive up its WMD; (b) Whether there was collusion between the Coalition of the Warmongering and Libya to announce that Libya was going to dismantle its WMD after the invasion of Iraq; (c) if neither (a) nor (b) is true, why didn't Western intelligence know about Libya's WMD?
Re. 512: It's not a democracy because it's racist: do you know anything about the way China treats its minorities? Racism excludes democracy.
Apparently, the US, Britain and Libya have been negotiating for nine months. The difference between Iraq and Libya is that Qaddafyi negotiated.
re 514--by that standard, then, the USA is not a democracy.
Just what I was thinking would be alleged.
I count it as a "democracy" if the government has representative legislative bodies elected by the public in free election free of harassment or intimidation (much less violence) and the heads of government are chosen by the public or by representatives of the public, with the same conditions. This does not exclude, of course, "racism", or other undesirable conditions. The quality of a democracy in regards to individual freedoms of access to social structures is not in itself a necessary property of a democracy, but it should possible to advocate it freely.
514: no. The US does not have systemic racism and, indeed, has systemic kerbs to racism. 518: systemic racism makes it impossible to have a fair electoral system for all races, including the ones which are undemocratic.
If "systemic" means present throughout, then the US has systemic racism. It isn't universal, and it is largely outlawed, but *people* still have attitudes that they put into effect in ways that escape the laws to discriminate against members of other groups. This is, in fact, the flaw in the anti-affirmative-action drives: eliminating affirmative action removes elements of favoratism toward mostly discriminated against minorities, but they do not remove the discrimination.
By SYSTEMic, I mean as far as the SYSTEM goes.
Systemic has both meanings (which rather limits its use unless context can indicate which is meant).
Re resp:493: So basically, the Bush Administration is cutting the same sort of deal with Libya that they've been calling Clinton a traitor for having made with North Korea?
Basically, no.
Or rather, yes.
re #523: While I think that the Libya deal is basically grandstanding, I disagree with your characterization as (a) I am unaware of any instance of an official of the Bush administration characterizing Clinton as a traitor while acting in their capacity as a member of the administration, and (b) the deal with Libya is supposed to include an inspections regimen if I understand it correctly. It's too early to tell whether the inspection plan will be any more successful than the one that North Korea was supposed to abide by. Also (c) as far as we know Libya is not getting its payment up front for this change, the way North Korea did under the so-called Agreed Framework.
Unlike N. Korea, which is already well-armed - possibly with nuclear weapons - Libya does not have a major population which it can hold hostage in a standoff. This would, basically, allow the U.S. to handle it as we handled Iraq. There is, therefore, little reason to presume that we would succumb to N. Korean-type blackmail. Is there?
(Assuming, of course, that neither How-weird or Weasly is elected.)
Re. 522: Please, please, leave the definitions to the more than capable Mister McNally.
I leave the definitions to the even more competent ODE.
OED?
ODE - Oxford Dictionary of English
Thanks. :)
Er, OED is correct.
It certainly is.
This response has been erased.
You have several choices: