shotbanner.jpeg

May 30, 2006

Still Curious

I've been asking the same question in this space for years, now.

I'll ask again.

Democrats: What do you stand for?

Your leaders can't articulate anything, and haven't for decades. We know you're against the President - fair enough.

What else?

And I don't mean the sort of pie-in-the-sky, feet firmly in the clouds BS that could just as easily come from a Green or an Independence Party loony.

No, give us specifics. If you get into the White House, or get a majority in either or both houses, what can the nation expect?

Leave a comment. BS will be taunted without mercy.

Posted by Mitch at May 30, 2006 07:05 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Considering your options?

Posted by: angryclown at May 30, 2006 07:34 AM

I think he's asking a serious question.

Posted by: Kermit at May 30, 2006 07:47 AM

A loaded one, to which he already thinks he knows the answer. Or did you just start reading this blog yesterday?

Posted by: angryclown at May 30, 2006 08:02 AM

Nothing loaded about it.

I mean, I'll vigorously question things that don't add up to me - I mean, did you just start reading this blog yesterday? - but no, there is nothing loaded about the question.

At least, *I* am not loading it...

Posted by: mitch at May 30, 2006 08:05 AM

I've got to hand it to assclown and his ilk.

It's got to take incredable fortitude (or a botched frontal lobotomy) for him to get up every morning and resist the urge to open a vein..I mean check it out, the poor sucker is forced to repeatedly admit that his political hero's haven't got a clue but he'll still be present and ready for his spaghetti-O's tonight.

Posted by: swiftee at May 30, 2006 08:19 AM

This blog nicely demonstrates the difference between the two ideaologies. Conservatives have no problem finding their philosophical roots; they simply look towards 50s propoganda films, Victorian morals, and pre-Enlightenment religion in order to find answers that appeal to them. We liberals have a more complex problem: we are proposing the future, morally, economically, technologically, and educationally, to a population that has been too-often duped, denied education, slandered, and used by a cynical "We Know Better than You" conservative movement dating back to the turn of the last century.

What do we represent? The Future, and that's why you're so terrified of us.

Posted by: rambam at May 30, 2006 08:33 AM

Even a loaded question can be answered IF you have the courage of your convictions. As we saw the other day when I asked for a definition of "Wingnut" you suffer from a dearth of specifics and prefer acrimony to discourse.

Posted by: Kermit at May 30, 2006 08:34 AM

I couldn't agree more. But the problem is on both sides. We have no real conservatives nor real liberals. Bush is a disaster, a catastrophe.
The Democrats are devoid of ideas and leadership. The Republicans are shameful and corrupt business whores who manipulate the ignorance hatreds of the supersticious to keep power.

We need a party of true fiscal Conservatives, allied with social progressive, both commited to sane management of our self-made environmental crisis. We have to figure out as many win-win solutions and innovations as we posibly can, and then make the tough choices we can't avoid, with an eye toward sharing the hardships.

There are insanely regressive forces loose in the world right now, and we need to figure out the best way to manage the problem. Obviously brainless force applied to a culture we have no understanding of will not work. That doesn't mean the military has no role, but it does mean that it be used properly, by people who actually know what they're doing.

A true Conservative, true liberal, true green alliance party- imagine that. Let's call it the party of those with their heads screwed on straight. In this party, we'll have fierce debate about what to do, then decide, then do it. God (if you believe in God) or whatever you want (if that's your choice) help us.

Alan Weissburg MD
Providence RI

Posted by: alan weissburg at May 30, 2006 08:38 AM

I couldn't agree more. But the problem is on both sides. We have no real conservatives nor real liberals. Bush is a disaster, a catastrophe.
The Democrats are devoid of ideas and leadership. The Republicans are shameful and corrupt business whores who manipulate the ignorance hatreds of the supersticious to keep power.

We need a party of true fiscal Conservatives, allied with social progressive, both commited to sane management of our self-made environmental crisis. We have to figure out as many win-win solutions and innovations as we posibly can, and then make the tough choices we can't avoid, with an eye toward sharing the hardships.

There are insanely regressive forces loose in the world right now, and we need to figure out the best way to manage the problem. Obviously brainless force applied to a culture we have no understanding of will not work. That doesn't mean the military has no role, but it does mean that it be used properly, by people who actually know what they're doing.

A true Conservative, true liberal, true green alliance party- imagine that. Let's call it the party of those with their heads screwed on straight. In this party, we'll have fierce debate about what to do, then decide, then do it. God (if you believe in God) or whatever you want (if that's your choice) help us.

Alan Weissburg MD
Providence RI

Posted by: alan weissburg at May 30, 2006 08:39 AM

Okay, Mitch, I'll bite. Here's what I think the Democrats stand for:

1. Fiscal Responsibility. Actually paying for programs as you go along, not charging everything and hoping our kids can pay for it. Balanced budgets, taxes at a level commensurate with the level of spending required (and yes, that may mean higher taxes; if Americans want higher spending, then it's going to have to be paid for somehow.) And yes, this does mean some new programs--I think some sort of health care plan would be in the offing. But honestly, I'm not sure how government intervention in health care could make things worse, at this point.

2. Social Tolerance. Are you gay? Fine by us. Want to get divorced? That's your decision. Atheist? Catholic? Jewish? Muslim? Whatever. Your decisions are your decisions. Plan B safe? Let's get it on the market. Condoms help prevent AIDS? Great, let's get them out there. (And yes, there's nanny-statism in the Democratic party--but there's plenty of nanny-statism in both parties. I'll worry about smoking bans when you start worrying about warrantless wiretapping.)

3. Realistic Foreign Policy. More multinational coalition-building, using carrots and sticks when appropriate, talking when talking's warranted, going to war only as a last resort.

4. Increased respect for civil liberties. An actual belief that little Constitutional protections like the right to free press, the right to habeous corpus, and the right to privacy are bedrocks of our democracy, rather than inconvenient speedbumps.

As for Iraq--the elephant in the room--we're screwed no matter who's in power. There are no good options there. Pulling out now would likely spur all-out civil war; gutting it out ensures that Americans are killed right up until we ultimately pull out--at which point there will probably be all-out civil war anyhow. We're pretty much damned no matter what we do in Iraq, which is why it's always a good idea to think through invading a country, especially when you don't have to.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at May 30, 2006 08:40 AM

"What do we represent? The Future, and that's why you're so terrified of us."

Most Americans see through the core "plan" of liberalism, which is why most of their candidates continue to lose elections and are not trusted with national security.

To quote Lawrence Auster from FrontPageMag, 2004:

"Therefore the real debate that we conservatives must seek to join with our “liberal” adversaries is not between their alleged support for equality and tolerance and our alleged bigotry and hatred. The real debate is between their desire to dismantle our traditional morality, institutions, and culture, and our desire to preserve our traditional morality, institutions, and culture—indeed our very freedom and existence as a people."

Posted by: Nancy at May 30, 2006 08:45 AM

You mistake Angryclown's role, Kermit. (Swiftee mistakes that and several other things, including: the identity of his father, the technicalities of Minnesota's anti-bestiality statute and the difference between a coherent political philosopy and brain-damaged ravings brought on by decades of sterno drinking.)

Angryclown is not here to defend the Democrats or any other political viewpoint, Kermit. Angryclown's role is to highlight and mock the abundant stupidies that find expression on this blog. Hope that helps.

Posted by: angryclown at May 30, 2006 08:50 AM

I find it hard to believe the question is serious. Right-wingers may not like Democratic principles, but they know perfectly well what they are. I'll add three specifics to Jeff Fecke's thoughtful list:

5. Progressive taxation, most particularly including an effective estate tax.

6. Abortion rights.

7. Environmental regulation.

Please don't take me as saying that all Democrats would apply these points to an extreme degree. For example, "progressive taxation" does not mean "confiscatory taxation." And not all Democrats would sign on to all of these points. There are some pro-life Democrats, for example.

Posted by: Former Republican at May 30, 2006 09:10 AM

You can see for yourself the democratic platform here: http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

Personally, I would settle for single payer health care for all citizens, and not attacking countries that posed us no threat.

Posted by: Peter at May 30, 2006 09:16 AM

Dear Nancy,

I do not take issue with this quote --
"The real debate is between their desire to dismantle our traditional morality, institutions, and culture, and our desire to preserve our traditional morality, institutions, and culture" -- in fact I think it sums it up nicely. We just want to dismantle morality, institutions and culture that represent a pre-Enlightenment, Imperialist culture that lacks a true moral center. Thanks for that, I'll quote Lawrence often.

Posted by: Rambam at May 30, 2006 10:15 AM

Interesting. 14 responses. Two of them actually answered my question; the rest were intellecually lazy slurs and the same old paranoid carping that makes so many people tired of the Democrats.

Jeff:

1. Fiscal Responsibility - Allowing that Bush's major crime against conservatism is having been a huge spender, the notion that the Dems - the party of LBJ and Tip O'Neill and Teddy Kennedy - can claim "fiscal responsibility" with a straight face is laughable. They should label it what it is: "Feeding government first, the people second". Since they won't, I will. But fair enough, it's an idea.

2. Social Tolerance- less an issue with most Republicans than the Democrats want to admit, I think. (And Jeff - do you actually want to address "warrantless wiretaps" seriously? As in, back to their Clinton administration roots?)

3. Realistic Foreign Policy - Interesting that you say "go to war as a last resort". What do you think Bush did?

4. Increased respect for civil liberties - So you'd favor rolling back the Clinton-era abuses that gave *precedent* to whatever "abuses" you claim Bush has carried out? And does this mean you'll take seriously all TEN amendments of the Bill of Rights, including the Tenth (to say nothing of the Second)?

To add on Former's thoughtful points:

5. Progressive taxation, most particularly including an effective estate tax. It is, indeed, an idea. Please, please please please use it front and center in your campaign.

6. Abortion rights. A big winner for 20% of the people. A showstopper for 20% more. A snoozer for everyone else. Go with it!

7. Environmental regulation - when the costs of this "regulation" are explained, I'm confident that it'll be a net loser for the Dems.

Posted by: mitch at May 30, 2006 10:24 AM

Rambam: in all honesty, I HOPE you are the future of the Democrats. Your comments are nothing but fever-swamp cant; you didn't answer the question, because I suspect you can't.

Posted by: mitch at May 30, 2006 10:25 AM

rambam--

Your post above, defining liberalism vs. conservatism, is the funniest thing I've read in quite some time.

Please bear with me whilst I blog it.

Thank you.

Posted by: Pete (Alois) at May 30, 2006 10:35 AM

An Imperialist culture? Ah yes, America, the Evil Empire. Forcing our will on Japan, Germany, Italy, Mexico, France, and Spain.
To the victor go the spoils!

Posted by: Kermit at May 30, 2006 10:53 AM

I forgot Great Britian! We beat them twice! That must be why they speak English now....

Posted by: Kermit at May 30, 2006 10:54 AM

So -

I see this all the time on RW blogs:

"What do the Democrats stand for?" "Nothing!"


Tell me then, what reason do we have to keep the current Republican Congress and to continue to support the President's ill conceived foreign and domestic policies? I guess 29% of people probably have an answer to that.

I can give you textbook answers on what "liberalism" is or what the core beliefs of the Democratic Party are, but all you have to do for that is a Google search.

What does the Republican Party in its current incarnation stand for? What are they articulating?

Posted by: KC at May 30, 2006 10:57 AM

Note KC's classic trick o' rhetoric: Deflect the original question by asking the questioner the same question.

Mitch asked y'all to clarify the liberal stance, which is not unreasonable.

He is more than welcome to visit Kos or Atrios to articulate the conservative stance (if that's allowed).

Just sayin'.

Posted by: Pete (Alois) at May 30, 2006 11:11 AM

Dang it Mitch beat me to it in countering Jeff Fecke's slander about nanny-state republicans wanting to tap telephones phones while the overly compassionate democrats want people to quit smoking.
Let me add to Mitch's list --
-Clinton had echelon, of course, but he also had a wicked habit of intimidating people who he thought were threatening to him. Anthony Pellicano, anyone?
-Jimmy Carter reinstated registration for the draft. Every male high school senior had to give the Government updated information on there location or no student loans.
-Johnson used the cia and the FBI to spy on his political opponents.
-Roosevelt personally signed the executive order that sent American citizens of an unpopular ethnicity to concentration camps.
-And Wilson? Well, Wilson had Eugene Debb's. Labor unrest could not be allowed to slow down the economy during _that_ elective war.

Posted by: Terry at May 30, 2006 11:24 AM

No trick at all there - I think it's a fair question, and if this offers me any qualifications, I NEVER read Kos or Atrios.
We're going to go to the polls in November. I would like to hear the Republicans' stance on the "major issues" aside, of course, from Iraq.

I think it's interesting to look at the typical memes and talking points coming out of the GOP these days. All's I see is them defending themselves against charges of corruption, and asking what their opponents are proposing.

And btw - in case you don't get out of your echo chamber much, different Democratic candidates have made their positions perfectly clear. If they have what you call "differing viewpoints", and don't all bow to a centralized propaganda machine like the Republicans are so good at doing - you accuse them of not "standing for anything." It's calleed nuance, and one day it will mean something again.

But then, do you really need to say anything except "I stand against everything for which this administration stands." to sound legitimate?

Posted by: KC at May 30, 2006 11:25 AM

Sadly, I agree with your assessment that most of our Dem leaders are woefully inept when it comes to being for something instead of just being against.

I cannot speak for all Dems, just as I would be surprised if any conservative could speak for all Republicans. Speaking for myself, as a lifelong and dedicated liberal, I am for some form of national health care. I acknowledge that there are natural inefficiencies in any form of this model, but feel that these distortions are more than counteracted by the societal costs of poor health care, the costs of late-term caring for the uninsured, and in the competitive disadvantage our corporations face in the global marketplace when competing with countries that have such a system in place. GM is an example on both sides of the equation - on average, GM spends more than $1,000 per car on health care. That's a huge cost advantage for companies like Toyota. On the employer side, you can look at GM outsourcing jobs to Canada, where their healthcare system makes it cheaper to hire workers.

I am for programs that support families. That includes paid leaves for either parent, and incentives for companies that encourage flexible working arrangements for both moms and dads. Again, I recognize that there are costs. I just believe that the benefits of helping parents be with their kids outweigh them. Sometimes being more efficient isn't the most important thing (at least to me).

I could go on. I have an economics background, so I know all the arguments against these things from a free market perspective. I feel that, when one weighs all the costs, not just the ones on the corporate bottom line, that it makes sense to help one another succeed.

Posted by: Gracie at May 30, 2006 11:31 AM

-Clinton had echelon, of course,

I see this a lot. No, not the mention of Clinton on RW blogs - sure as hell see never see him mentioned on "liberal" blogs, but the allusion to "echelon".

Please elaborate on what it was - in case you've ever really read up on it. Then compare it to the current program. Be sure to remember FISA.

Oh, and BTW - I was against echelon too, but when confronted with possible wrongdoing by any Rebublican Administration, there's always "But CLINTON....!!!"

Posted by: KC at May 30, 2006 11:32 AM

Gee Mitch, guess I was wrong to think you were simply asking the question so you'd have a bunch of points to knock down with your predermined view on things. It turns out that, after you carefully weighed the points made by their defenders, Democrats are actually wrong about everything. Wow, glad I had a ringside seat for the give-and-take, Socrates!

Posted by: angryclown at May 30, 2006 11:34 AM

Actually, KC, people who say "I stand against everything for which this administration stands" don't sound legitimate--they sound like assclowns.

And there's far too many of 'em.

I won't purport to speak for Mitch, but all I get from the bevy of Democrats Who Would Be King is an endless recycling of John Kerry's "I have a plan." Well, is that right? Let's hear your plan--including specifics! And, as Mitch said, preferably without "feet-firmly-in-the-clouds-BS" like free healthcare for all Americans which will be funded by enormous tax increases on the wealthiest ten percent of Americans (and if you don't understand why this last proposal would be a bad thing, may I suggest an elementary course in economics?).

"I'm not Bush" doesn't cut it. But that's about all I'm getting from the current crop of Democrats.

Posted by: Pete (Alois) at May 30, 2006 11:36 AM

Terry forgot to include FDR opening private mail during WWII. He was a Democrat, right?

Posted by: Kermit at May 30, 2006 11:47 AM

Gracie, I'm with you on the health care isuue. The Dems could actually gain some momentum if they quit dancing around the issue and offer some solid ideas...oops! That was the original question.
I've got one I'll give them for free: Get the insurance companies out of the perscription medicine business. If patients could deal directly with the physician and we removed one giant pig of corporate institution granny could get her heart pills for a lot less than $500 per month.

Posted by: Kermit at May 30, 2006 11:53 AM

"I'm not Bush" doesn't cut it. But that's about all I'm getting from the current crop of Democrats.

Unfortunately, it does "cut it" in the minds of many Americans. And Bush gives us no shortage of policies to oppose as an M.O.

But what exactly are you looking for? What does the GOP stand for this November, other than banning gay marraige, staying in Iraq, and the right of the President to do whatever he deems necessary, including possible violations of the law in the never ending (wanna bet we'll be talking about this in 40 years?) GWOT?

Posted by: KC at May 30, 2006 11:53 AM

KC, puh-leeze.

This isn't about what I'M "looking for," it's about what YOU'RE "offering as a solution." What I'm "looking for," for the record, is victory in the GWOT, affordable (not FREE, affordable) healthcare for all Americans, and a major cleanup of our educational system. But that's just me. I want to know how YOUR candidates intend to approach these issues... and I'm sure many of my fellow (semi-)conservatives want to know too.

Posted by: Pete (Alois) at May 30, 2006 11:58 AM

Pete,

And you took the words (sort of) right out of my mouth. I can rattle off what I'm looking for right now too, but that isn't what was asked. So I simply referred anyone looking for the platform(s) of Democratic candidates to do a web search.
Forgive me for being tired of the tired line "Democrats don't have a platform..." I could easily argue that the Republicans don't either except to shill for their big money donors who have managed to convince the likes of some people here that the Estate tax will ever affect them(it won't unless you're in the top 1%), that Tort Reform will lower healthcare costs (hasn't yet), and that we are doing the right thing in the "GWOT" - hint: we aren't.

But what I've run across lately is honesty on the RW blogs. You guys are opposed to ANY taxes, ANY time. Period. It's about choking off all social programs and building up the war machine, prison system, and police force. Hey - at least THAT'S honesty.

P.S. - why was my post initially denied for "questionable content" for the word "on_line"?

Posted by: KC at May 30, 2006 12:11 PM

I think this is a more complicated issue than just "What're the Democrats proposing?"

And for the record, I don't think they're doing a great job of getting their platform out there and heard.

However, as I mentioned before; you conservatives are going to have knee jerk opposition to anything resembling a rollback on Bush's tax cuts (which disproportionately benefit the extremely wealthy), Tort "reform", a more collaborative approach to foreign policy, cleaning up corruption in Congress, etc.

So what would you LIKE to hear the Democrats say? Or rather, what could they say that you'd actually listen to?

Posted by: KC at May 30, 2006 12:20 PM

KC--

I would support ANY tax increase (notice I said "increase," meaning above and beyond the considerable amount I already pay in taxes) if it would mean that we would win the GWOT, get the insurance companies and hospitals out of bed with each other (and therefore attain reasonably affordable healthcare for all Americans), enforce our immigration policy, and kick CAIR and other fronts for the Wahhabi Lobby out of our country.

Again, speaking only for myself (and some of my co-religionists) here.

As to your query about questionable content, haven't you ever received an unsolicited e-mail having to do with engaging in a certain c*rd game?

Posted by: Pete (Alois) at May 30, 2006 12:22 PM

Mitch - To answer your answers -

1. Fiscal Responsibility - Allowing that Bush's major crime against conservatism is having been a huge spender, the notion that the Dems - the party of LBJ and Tip O'Neill and Teddy Kennedy - can claim "fiscal responsibility" with a straight face is laughable. They should label it what it is: "Feeding government first, the people second". Since they won't, I will. But fair enough, it's an idea.

Mitch - check out www.cbo.gov. Which Presidents presided over the fasted growth in National Debt? - Reagan, Nixon/Ford, Bush and Bush. Which presided over the slowest growth in National Debt - Clinton, Kennedy/Johnson and Carter. Your case is pure Republican dogma, baseless and factless. Bush is just another gutless big spender - like every other Republican of the last 40 years.

2. Social Tolerance- less an issue with most Republicans than the Democrats want to admit, I think.

Mitch - Who is pushing social intolerance? Ask yourself, if you were gay, or non-white, or non-Evangelical Chrisitan, or female, or poor, would you feel more comfortable in a room full of Limbaughs, DeLays, O'Reillys and Tancredos, or Pelosis, Obamas, Clintons and Frankens? The more hate-based your agenda becomes, the smaller your base.

3. Realistic Foreign Policy - Interesting that you say "go to war as a last resort". What do you think Bush did?

Mitch, Mitch, Mitch. Have you fogotten so soon? - Bush pushed for war with Iraq, Bush lobbied for war, Bush ejected the UN so he could go to war, Bush lied for war, Bush practically drooled to go to war. You can turn a blind eye to the twisting of intelligence, the lack of WMDs, the corruption, and the failures, but he sure as hell did not go to war as a LAST resort.

4. Increased respect for civil liberties - So you'd favor rolling back the Clinton-era abuses that gave *precedent* to whatever "abuses" you claim Bush has carried out? And does this mean you'll take seriously all TEN amendments of the Bill of Rights, including the Tenth (to say nothing of the Second)?

Mitch - Huh? I guess that the Republican platform must precede all planks with "It's Clinton's fault if we screw it up" and you think that lets you off the hook. Sorry - BUSH is wiretapping us, BUSH is ignoring the FISA law, BUSH is claiming he can lock us up without trial, BUSH is claiming he can ignore the Geneva Conventions. Not Clinton. Take responsibility for your own party, man!

To add on Former's thoughtful points:

5. Progressive taxation, most particularly including an effective estate tax. It is, indeed, an idea. Please, please please please use it front and center in your campaign.

Mitch - simple - Do we continue giving Paris Hilton tax breaks, or do we fund our chilren's schools? Do we tax Bill Gates' investements less than the greeters at Wal-Mart or do we fund health care? Republican protection of the rich as a special class won't play when greedy CEO's take hundreds of millions in retirement packages and Joe Sixpack can't afford to fill up his car.

6. Abortion rights. A big winner for 20% of the people. A showstopper for 20% more. A snoozer for everyone else. Go with it!

Mitch - When your leading "moral value" issue includes the government forcing rape and incest victims to carry pregnancies to term, as in South Dakota, Go with it! It's NOT a trivial issue for 50% of the population.

7. Environmental regulation - when the costs of this "regulation" are explained, I'm confident that it'll be a net loser for the Dems.

Mitch - Another bit of baseless Republican dogma designed to protect Big Oil. Environmental controls have actually fueled (pun intended) more economic growth than the corrupt destruction of our environment by Bush's Big Oil puppet masters. The CAFE mileage rule of the 80's led to major innovations in engine technology that nay-sayers like you predicted would destroy the family auto. Now - what do you think middle class Americans will want to hear from their politicians - justification for record oil company profits, or a credible energy policy based on renewable fuels and conservation? Democrats win again.

If you can't do better than Clinton-bashing, you're heading for a major defeat this fall. Go for it!

Posted by: liberalpercy at May 30, 2006 12:33 PM

Are Democrats against the President but stand for nothing?

Not at all. I'd even be for the President if he was for anything that remotely resembled honorable goals for America.

No, I against gutting, ignoring and destroying the Constitution.

I'm against members of our government pursuing personal profit at the expense of the national interest.

I'm against welfare for corporations with "entitlement mindsets".

I'm against any policy which puts a corporation ahead of any citizen.

I'm against killing our neighbors when we should be looking after them.

Posted by: Fiskhus Jim at May 30, 2006 12:35 PM

I'm against killing our neighbors when we should be looking after them.
------------------

You must be referring to the unborn.

Posted by: JB Doubtless at May 30, 2006 12:58 PM

notice I said "increase," meaning above and beyond the considerable amount I already pay in taxes

How much of that is Federal tax? Be honest: how much less will you pay annually with Bush's tax cuts vs. a couple of years ago? Tell me how to take advantage of them as a mid-high 5 figures salary earner, 'cause I sure would like to know.

Posted by: KC at May 30, 2006 01:00 PM

Now, Clown - where did I say I wasn't going to push back?

I'm asking for a vision, not donating ad space.

Posted by: mitch at May 30, 2006 01:11 PM

"No, I against gutting, ignoring and destroying the Constitution."

Me Too! Can we quit pretending it's a "living document" and agree that what's written down means what it says?

Posted by: Kermit at May 30, 2006 01:21 PM

What Kermit said.

And Democrats? When you talk about gutting the Constitution, why do you always cross your fingers re the Second and Tenth Amendments?

Posted by: mitch at May 30, 2006 01:23 PM

Hah, the tenth amendendment has really taken a body blow under the Bush administration, what with the feds stepping in every time a state sees fit to legalize medical marijuana. You conservatives are all about the tenth amendment when it comes to preserving a state's right to deny basic civil rights to minorities, but it ends there.

Just as common-sense regulation of our freeways and other modes of transportation does not seriously hamper our constitutionally gaurunteed freedom of movement, common-sense regulation of the sale of firearms does not seriously hamper our second amendment right to legitimately bear arms. Those who are second amendment absolutists are no less out-to-lunch as those who advocate wholesale banning of all firearms.

Posted by: Randy at May 30, 2006 01:37 PM

Are the regular conservative bloggers on this site receiving money from the Bush Administration, like Armstrong Williams? I always wonder that when I read a crazy right wing blog. You probably should write some sort of disclaimer and then publish tax records so people can be sure.

Posted by: silly question at May 30, 2006 01:43 PM

Sure Kermit. The Constitution means what it says. Blacks are private property and women can't vote. Sure, the founding fathers allowed for Amendments, but conservatives of today know they only meant it so that gay marriage could be banned.

Tell me, which Congressional Democrat again is pushing a bill to repeal the 2nd Amendment?

Democrats in November stand for raising the minimum wage, allowing the Medicare-D plan to negotiate prices with drug companies, and a repeal of the tax cuts for Billionaires to counteract the rampant debt the Bush Administration has created.

Which part of that plan do you not understand? Or do you simply choose not to because it goes against your desperate, empty spin?

Posted by: Renne P. at May 30, 2006 01:56 PM

"The Constitution means what it says. Blacks are private property and women can't vote."

Um, we fought a war and had an amendment process to fix both of those.

" Sure, the founding fathers allowed for Amendments, but conservatives of today know they only meant it so that gay marriage could be banned."

Re-read that, Renne. Give me a reason not to declare it the stupidest slur in history.

"Tell me, which Congressional Democrat again is pushing a bill to repeal the 2nd Amendment?"

At the moment, none, because (thank God) it's politically untenable. But highly-placed Democrats have broached the subject in serious conversation; Ted Kennedy among many others once advocated it.

"Democrats in November stand for raising the minimum wage, allowing the Medicare-D plan to negotiate prices with drug companies, and a repeal of the tax cuts for Billionaires to counteract the rampant debt the Bush Administration has created."

In other words: putting more poor and young people out of work, engaging in endless wonkery re another entitlement program, and resorting to the sort of class warfare that got them where they are today.

"Which part of that plan do you not understand? Or do you simply choose not to because it goes against your desperate, empty spin?"

Um, yeah. That last bit. That must be it.

Sheesh.

Posted by: mitch at May 30, 2006 02:05 PM

Sure Renne, convince me of your intelligence with such forceful rhetoric as "Blacks are private property and women can't vote."

You might want to take a gander at the document, Ren. It has all these sections in the back with numbers on them. They're called Ammendments. A-mend-mendts. They are an honest to gosh part of the Constitution, Ren. And yes, if we get enough of The People (you know, that whole government by, for and of thing) to say that marriage is, always was and always will be between one man and one woman then the process works!
Even if you don't like it.

Posted by: Kermit at May 30, 2006 02:10 PM

I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt they will deliver no taxes except in cases where they decide they can make an exception. Of course those wouldn't be considered new taxes due to the fact they fit the criteria of self defined critiria.

Posted by: mike grimes at May 30, 2006 02:10 PM

Mitch-

When you asked "Please, please please please use it front and center in your campaign" did you mean Democrats should campaign for *progressive* taxes or for *higher* taxes? There is a distinction. For example, a progressive tax reform could cut Social Security tax and raise the top income tax brackets, while being revenue-neutral overall.

Campaigning for more progressive taxes may well work, politically. Take a look at the polling results shown in http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm. The Newsweek poll of May 11-12 reports that 67% think that "upper income people" pay "too little" in taxes. 70% think that corporations pay "too little." I'm cherry-picking, of course. There's plenty of stuff in the polls to support an anti-tax political strategy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you were implying that *higher* taxes are suicide, politically. You may well be right. In fact, I'm afraid you are right. If so, that's a terrible problem. The country needs higher taxes; cutting spending (on the necessary scale) is a fantasy. I have to hope that sooner or later the country will come to its senses on this. We can't continue the wastrel policies of the last five years. If we don't stop them, the world financial markets will. If that happens, it's likely to be very unpleasant.

Posted by: Former Republican at May 30, 2006 02:18 PM

"I'll ask again.

Democrats: What do you stand for?"

Who here really believes that you give a rats ass?

Posted by: Angryflower at May 30, 2006 02:21 PM

Angryflower (geez, we've got angryclowns AND angryflowers now... lotsa anger on that side of the aisle...):

"Who here really believes that you give a rats (sic) ass?"

Which, of course, is yet another very tired Democratic way of dodging the question Mitch asked.

Posted by: Pete (Alois) at May 30, 2006 02:32 PM

Flower

"Who here really believes that you give a rats ass?"

Anyone that knows me, for starters?

Who here believes that you, Angryflower, are capable of a rational discussion?

Because that's what I was shooting for...

Posted by: mitch at May 30, 2006 02:40 PM

Saying that raising the minimum wage will put more poor and young people out of work is just more of the same empty spin, which is trotted out every time this is brought up. The sky hasn't fallen when the minimum wage was raised in the past and it won't fall if its raised now. What truly hurts the poor and young people is the practice of hiring illegals at rates below the minimum wage and the rewarding of corporations by giving them tax breaks to send American jobs overseas.

Calling the negotiation of fair drug prices for the ill-conceived Medicare-D program wonkery is stupid to the extreme and hardly merits a rebuttal. I think our seniors and taxpayers in general are smart enough to know that they aren't getting a good deal. This line of reasoning is a big loser for you Republicans, who seem so obsessed with winning and losing.

Calling the repeal of the massive tax cuts for the rich class warfare is also pretty bogus. Class warfare is on and has been since the 80's, when Reagan decided to squeeze the middle class by wrecking the unions. To quote Warren Buffet "It's class warfare and my class is winning." Once the majority of Americans begin to snap out of their stupor and realize that Republicans only represent the interest of the top 1%, it's over for the conservative revolution. It looks like this day may be coming soon.

Posted by: Randy at May 30, 2006 02:41 PM

Randy sez: "Once the majority of Americans begin to snap out of their stupor and realize that Republicans only represent the interest of the top 1%, it's over for the conservative revolution. It looks like this day may be coming soon."

Geez, Randy. Even if we grant that you're right about the Repubs representing the interest(s) of "the top 1%"--and then y'all suddenly seize power--who's gonna pay for all this new wonderful stuff? The unions? Corporations? The "top 1%"? 'Cause enquiring minds want to know!


Posted by: Pete (Alois) at May 30, 2006 02:48 PM

"The sky hasn't fallen when the minimum wage was raised in the past and it won't fall if its raised now."

Strawman. It's not about the sky falling. It's about squeezing incrementally more people off the bottom of the pay scale.

And the simple fact is, the minimum wage is window-dressing: it's a sop that lets politicians *say* they've done something about poverty, when in fact they've done nothing. Improving education, especially vocational education for adults, is the REAL way to fight poverty, not noodling with the minimum wage.

But not a word from the Democrats on that. Hmm.

"What truly hurts the poor and young people is the practice of hiring illegals at rates below the minimum wage"

Right. So let's close the border!

With me on that one, Democrats?

" and the rewarding of corporations by giving them tax breaks to send American jobs overseas."

So let's cut corporate welfare. I'm in full agreement.

"Calling the negotiation of fair drug prices for the ill-conceived Medicare-D program wonkery is stupid to the extreme and hardly merits a rebuttal."

No, your ill-informed ad-hominem in place of a rebuttal you can't issue is stupid. Negotiating drug prices is a very good thing. It is also hardly a campaign issue. As far as it goes, I support it (which is not to say that drug entitltments are a good thing - merely that negotiating prices is).

"Calling the repeal of the massive tax cuts for the rich class warfare is also pretty bogus."

So say you.

"Class warfare is on and has been since the 80's, when Reagan decided to squeeze the middle class by wrecking the unions."

Which is why the middle class has grown since 1980?

"Once the majority of Americans begin to snap out of their stupor and realize that Republicans only represent the interest of the top 1%, it's over for the conservative revolution. It looks like this day may be coming soon."

Read: "Once Americans stop being stupid and see things MY way..."

Puhleeze. The wealthiest states are all Democrat, the lowest-per-capita income states are mostly GOP.

When I ask for ideas and vision, I mean stuff that's NOT recycled from Atrios.

Posted by: mitch at May 30, 2006 02:49 PM

What wonderful stuff are you talking about pray tell? It seems to me that for big-spenders, the Republicans pretty much take the cake. The difference is that your people are loathe to spend money on anything that might possibly help people.

Posted by: Randy at May 30, 2006 02:52 PM

By the way, a lot of Democrats are for strict border enforcement, myself included. Sadly it's closing the barn door after the proverbial horse has left the barn. This issue truly doesn't break on party affiliation.

"The wealthiest states are all Democrat, the lowest-per-capita income states are mostly GOP."

These people low-income Republicans are the sleeping giant. So far there's an been unholy alliance between the old-guard business Republicans and the southern social conservatives. Issues like illegal immigration and affordable health care could end up splitting this alliance and ending the Republican party as we know it. (Well, a guy can hope anyway.)I wish there was a strong opposition party waiting to take the reigns, but at this point any Democrat will do.

Posted by: Randy at May 30, 2006 03:03 PM

Randy, they're spending a ton 'o cash on highways and bridges. Last time I checked people use those. They get jobs working on them too.
Persuing anti-inflationary policies help people. Of course it's not the same as getting a gummint check in the mail, but us little guys appreciate it.

Posted by: Kermit at May 30, 2006 03:03 PM

Randy--

In the first place, I'm not a Republican. I'm just certifiably to the right of wherever you are.

Now what I wanna know is what y'all want to spend money on that "might possibly help people." And please don't suggest things like welfare or throwing money at Third World governments or the Great Black Hole of education (unless you've got radical ideas to overhaul education, and if so, I for one am all ears).

I'm more than happy to spend this money, if need be, even if it makes me sound Minnesota Nice. But I want some bang for my buck. What kind of people are we helping here, and how?

Posted by: Pete (Alois) at May 30, 2006 03:04 PM

Mitch informed: "Puhleeze. The wealthiest states are all Democrat, the lowest-per-capita income states are mostly GOP."

True. People who live in red states are lazy and must be supported by taxes on the smarter, more industrious blue staters.

Posted by: angryclown at May 30, 2006 03:14 PM

This is perhaps just a little off topic...

I decided this winter to take a crack at being a liberal, to the extent of taking a mindless knee jerk approach to the events in the news.

With that, I took a new approach to watching sporting events. In games in which there were no teams from Minnesota, I started rooting for the team from the red states (Florida in the NCAAs for instance) or red areas of blue states (the Anaheim Mighty Ducks in GOP-dominated Orange County).

Now, I don't have to think about what teams to root for. I just emote. Like a mindless, knee jerk liberal.

Posted by: Jack Bauer at May 30, 2006 03:14 PM

And the simple fact is, the minimum wage is window-dressing: it's a sop that lets politicians *say* they've done something about poverty, when in fact they've done nothing. Improving education, especially vocational education for adults, is the REAL way to fight poverty, not noodling with the minimum wage.

OK - let's hear your idea for how this is supposed to happen. B/C I agree, but I think it oughtta be taxpayer funded and not some kind of voucher/faith based program.

How about really investing some money in alternative energy research, instead of standing around and giving subsidies/rolling back or stalling better fuel economy standards to the likes of GM, Ford, and Chrysler who are too busy cashing in on the huge profit margins on high horsepower giant engined luxury cars and SUVs. Meanwhile, the Germans and Japanese are focusing on high tech efficient vehicles again putting them years ahead of the curve - anyone remember the 80's and how Japan stole a huge market share b/c they offered a superior product? Get ready to see more American companies lay more people off.
Then you have the absolutely unnecessary subsidies going to the oil companies when they're reaping record profits, refusing to build any new refineries, and funding astroturf groups and think tanks to spew out false science and deny global warming.

Ya see, investing in research is something the Bush administration would never do. That's why Cheney's SECRET energy policy meetings didn't include any real scientists, but did include oil industry execs. The big whigs at the Big 3 and the Oil industry execs made out like robber barons, and now the rest of us get to pay the price. Why?
Cheney. Period.

How? The RW media's war on Gore back in 1999, 2000. You know what false stories of which I speak.

Sorry for the rant, but that's just ONE thing that I'd do differently: Stop paying lip service to our energy independence, and actually start making it happen. That will never happen under the current administration, and you all know it.

Posted by: KC at May 30, 2006 03:20 PM

Pete & Mitch: Out of curiosity both of you have bemoaned our educational system....how would you guys fix it?

Fulcrum

Posted by: Fulcrum at May 30, 2006 03:23 PM

Fulcrum--

As to the educational system... I'm reviewing material for an article on that right now.

And as to easy answers, only one leaps right out of the woodwork:

Abolish teachers' unions.

Other than that, I'm still working on the magic bullet. Having parents who gave a damn about their kids wouldn't hurt either.

Posted by: Pete (Alois) at May 30, 2006 03:30 PM

I am also a "Democrat" for lack of a better party with which to affiliate, and believe in strict border enforcement. My representative is the ex head of this region's Border Patrol HQ, and is also for strict border security.

So add that to my stance on energy independence, building global coalitions to fight the "GWOT" - invading Iraq DID NOT make the world a "safer place", and UH-OH - here it comes: THE DECRIMINALIZATION of several drugs. B/C let's face it: the "war on drugs" is a joke.

Now, good luck finding any Democratic politician to say that, but I'm offering my views now.

Posted by: KC at May 30, 2006 03:31 PM

"Who here believes that you, Angryflower, are capable of a rational discussion?"

Fair enough, my assumption was that your original question was just a reframing of the "Dems/Libs have no ideas" talking point, which I find not very rational.

My ideas? Tax money to the benefit of the community, be it public health care, military defence for peace keeping, public servants i.e. police/fire. Basically take care of your own before setting off to spread democracy.

I agree with what George Bush has tried to do in Iraq and I think a lot of progressives don't get it. People won't become religious extremists (as often) when they have McDonalds and Walmart, and NASCAR and pro football and celebrities and all the other things the western world has to keep them sedated. Making Iraq safe for Walmart is the best defence against terrorism I can think of - converting all islamic extremists to soccer fans who continually need new crap from the local mega store.

Truly, spreading the American Way.

Too bad it completely rapes the earth in the process.

Posted by: Angryflower at May 30, 2006 03:31 PM

Fixing the educational system: there are two different answers to that, depnding on whether your question is really "How would I save our current system" or "how would I make education work".

If it's the former: implement fairly radical school choice measures, including education tax credits, and measures up to and including privatization. I would not abolish the teacher's union - merely let it survive in the free educational market. Abolish the Department of Education. Push control of education as far down to the districts as possible. Remove "education degree" as a requirement for teachers.

The latter? That's a bigger story.

Posted by: mitch at May 30, 2006 03:37 PM

"Having parents who gave a damn about their kids wouldn't hurt either"


I agree with you again!
And how do you plan to legislate that into existence? Ban abortion? Ban gay marraige? Force people to go to church?

Seriously, just wondering.

Posted by: KC at May 30, 2006 03:39 PM

Fixing Education: Stop the dependence on standardized testing. Last I checked, it wasn't teachers' unions hell bent on implementing them. Teaching to the test is no way to get ahead, and unfortunately when teachers are being graded on how well their students do on meaningless tests that's what's going to happen.

Aren't there more creative ways to implement standards?

Posted by: KC at May 30, 2006 03:44 PM

Well, KC, at this juncture it turns into something of a chicken-and-egg question.

The kids would be a lot better off if the schools returned to those tiresome old-school ideas of teaching civics and a thorough grounding in American history, including founding-fathers-and-other-white-folks American history instead of the "only people of color contributed anything of value to this country" version that my son and daughter learned in public school.

We learned (I'm 49) to love our country in school because by God, we had BETTER. Oh yes, I'm perfectly aware of the analogies to present-day Iran and the former Communist nations. But there's a difference: We have a much better country, and our country is worthy of love and respect. The time to learn to question your government and the nature of your nation is as a young adult, not a child. Yet our kids are being taught to question every single thing their government does as kindergarteners and first-graders. That's inappropriate.

Now: If there is a way to "legislate" having parents be more responsible for their offspring, I certainly haven't figured it out. Short of fear of draconian punishment, which would never fly.

Posted by: Pete (Alois) at May 30, 2006 03:50 PM

"Abolish teachers' unions."

I'll go you one better: Abolish public employees' unions. No competition, no union.

Posted by: Kermit at May 30, 2006 03:52 PM

Pete,

You said: "The kids would be a lot better off if the schools returned to those tiresome old-school ideas of teaching civics and a thorough grounding in American history, including founding-fathers-and-other-white-folks American history instead of the "only people of color contributed anything of value to this country" version that my son and daughter learned in public school."

My parents are about 10 years older than you, making me about 15 years younger than you. When did your children attend public school? I live in a minority dominated community, and was taught the same things you were in elementary, middle, and high school.

Please tell me what it was (and is) that they're teaching kids these days. Are you really saying that multiculturalism has taken such a huge chunk out of the traditional lessons on our history?

Further, while we have a lot to be proud of as a nation, do we also not have a lot to be ashamed of? Is there a reason NOT to teach these things too? Slavery, Native Americans, Segregation, Iraq etc?

Posted by: KC at May 30, 2006 03:58 PM

"Fixing Education: Stop the dependence on standardized testing."

I agree.

" Last I checked, it wasn't teachers' unions hell bent on implementing them."

True. Partly for good reason, partly because it would result in accountability for them.

"Teaching to the test is no way to get ahead, and unfortunately when teachers are being graded on how well their students do on meaningless tests that's what's going to happen."

I agree.

"Aren't there more creative ways to implement standards?"

Not sure if "creativity" is what is needed (or, for that matter, that standards are an answer to anything but determining return on "investment"), but you are correct.

Posted by: mitch at May 30, 2006 04:01 PM

KC--

You are lucky because you grew up in a minority-dominated community. Especially if it was a small-city or small-town environment, I don't doubt that you learned a much more accurate picture of American history than my kids did.

The worst communities are those where the school boards are dominated by well-off white people (like Madison, Wisconsin, where my kids went to school). Unfortunately, that describes probably at least a plurality of school districts in this country.

A small part of revisionist history has come from minority assclowns like McKinney, Sharpton, Rev. Jesse et al. But MOST OF IT was put in force by well-to-do white folks whose white guilt has dogged them from infancy on. And it is from teachers like these (and the textbooks in their hands) that my kids learned that white people are responsible for everything that's wrong with America.

And yes, I do agree that kids should be taught the bad stuff too (segregation, slavery etc.). But I'm not going to let you slip "Iraq" in there without a fight. Sorry.

Posted by: Pete (Alois) at May 30, 2006 04:07 PM

"Calling the negotiation of fair drug prices for the ill-conceived Medicare-D program wonkery is stupid to the extreme and hardly merits a rebuttal."

Contrary to popular demagoguery and DNC talking points, Americans as a percentage of their income pay less for prescription drugs than citizens of most industrialized countries and we create more new prescription drugs than nations like Canada.

The two phenomena are actually both a result of our quasi-free market system because we allow marketplace competition rather than price controls (which is what Canada has when its Medicare system has the government “negotiate” prices), we preserve the market system which lead to a competitive GENERIC drug market. In other words, we pay more for name brand drugs because we let companies recoup the cost of their R&D which also means that we actually have companies who create new drugs rather than driving them out of business or overseas AND when the patents expire, we have enough companies in place to enable us to have lower generic prices through competition.

Medicare Part D (flawed as it is because Medicare itself was a bad idea) wisely decided to work with a system of competing companies so that it (unlike Canada’s Medicare system where the government negotiates/controls prices) doesn’t kill off the golden goose that develops new drugs and the generic drug system that makes the prices lower in the aggregate.

If you want to make a serious suggestion about reducing spending on Medicare including Medicare Part D, direct your ire at Senate Democrats who threatened a filibuster during the debate when Republicans proposed introducing means testing. I guess they couldn’t give up the thought of taxing lower and middle income people to pay for Warren Buffet’s prescription drugs.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at May 30, 2006 04:24 PM

"But I'm not going to let you slip "Iraq" in there without a fight. Sorry."

Hahah. I thought that might ruffle some feathers. I think in the future, it may rank up there with the aforementioned comtemporarily rationalized fiascos - but probably not yet.

Posted by: KC at May 30, 2006 04:41 PM

3. Realistic Foreign Policy - Interesting that you say "go to war as a last resort". What do you think Bush did?


Mitch, are you really arguing with a straight face and knowledge of all the facts that Bush went to war in Iraq as some kind of last resort? I don't believe it.

As for education, how about a 50% cut in the defense department to go toward teacher salaries, so the brightest kids don't go into banking or law right out of college but can afford to teach and live a good life. The quality of teachers out there is the biggest problem in education, mainly becasue we value our teachers less than we value garbage men. Good teachers matter, and money is what will bring good teachers into teaching.


And I'm pretty sure the tired old excuse that raising the minimum wage hurts labor and costs jobs has been debunked on many different occasions. I'll posts the articles if I have time.

As Clinton proved, putting money in the hands of consumers is a far more effective way to stimulate the economy than some kind of trickle down. The number of abject poor we tolerate in our country should be a source of great shame, and many of those are working for minimum wage.


As for spending all those new progressive tax dollars, how about the number one expense: paying down our national debt. Cause the way thing are going now, my kids taxes will be paying off Chinese banks interest payments. That is a sad thing. Then after the national debt, how about we spend money on regulating coproate America with some substantive oversight, so no tragedies liek Enron are allowed to happen. Regulating on the back end after harm has been done is far more costly than regulating on the front end.

The how about we subsidize and spend on health care. The infant mortality rate of our country should give even the most conservative thinker some pause, not to mention the number of children without health insurance.

Conservative like to say they are for eqaulity of opportunity, not outcomes, but I must take exception when it comes to both health care and education. Vouchers will do good for a few select kids, but will punish far more than its helps.

Posted by: lazerlou at May 30, 2006 04:42 PM

Didn't Kerry have a plan?

Posted by: Ryan at May 30, 2006 04:46 PM

"A small part of revisionist history has come from minority assclowns like McKinney, Sharpton, Rev. Jesse et al. But MOST OF IT was put in force by well-to-do white folks whose white guilt has dogged them from infancy on."

I just find that to be an untenable theory. I mean, what are some examples? What is it that they taught your kids? While I don't feel guilty to be white, or think I owe anyone anything besides mutual respect, I think this country(especially the south) profited immensely from slave labor, and after that from substandard wages paid to African Americans. For this reason, there is a class heirarchy in place today, whether one chooses to see it or not.

I think the trappings of slavery/segregation still exist in the south (where I live), and that programs like affirmative action ARE necessary in some cases to redress the ongoing effects of past greivances. I DO think that it needs to be implemented more creatively, and if you want to talk about fixing the educational system, how about distributing tax dollars evenly throughout public school districts?

Fact is the minority dominated schools in larger districts generally have more single parent families, lower property tax revenues, and crappier schools (and test scores) as a result. I know throwing money at problems doesn't always solve them, but anyone who denies a huge disparity in public school funding is deluding themselves.

But I really am curious about what your kids were taught, and am interested in some examples - b/c the textbook mfg.s are making a killing either way.

Posted by: KC at May 30, 2006 04:50 PM

KC--

I am (obviously) going to have to paraphrase here. But this is a Madison School District Short History of the United States:

1) Some white people came over from Spain (and later Britain and France) and killed off most of the Native Americans, who had a singularly beautiful culture the likes of which the world has never since seen.

2) The descendants of these Bad White People brought slaves over from Africa (where, in bygone years, they had invented mathematics, science, and the arts). They subjected these slaves to unspeakable cruelties.

3) The Good (Token) White Man, Although Conflicted: Abraham Lincoln

4) George Washington Carver

5) World War II: The Tuskegee Airmen and the Interrment of Japanese-Americans

6) Hitler (w/o the Holocaust)

7) Cesar Chavez

8) Pretty Swell White Americans Who Fought The System: The Sixties Radicals

9) The Black Panthers and Malcolm X

10) America as Failure: The Rise of Chimpy Bu$Hitler and the Neocons

There it is: American history in ten easy lessons!

Posted by: Pete (Alois) at May 30, 2006 05:39 PM

The bush tax cuts cost the US treasury ~150 billion a year. Currently the deficit is running over 300 billion/year. I wish one of these 'fiscal conservative' democrats would tell me exactly where he or she would trim the budget after they repeal the tax cuts. Education? Entitlements? The military?
Anyone who thinks the current deficits are the result only of the Bush tax cuts and not over spending by congress will never convince the electorate that they represent the face of fiscal conservatism.

Posted by: Terry at May 30, 2006 06:15 PM

When you begin your challenge by stating that one of the two major parties in this country has no ideas, you immediately relegate yourself to laughable partisanship, so I wasn't inclined to enter your phony fray. But, you answered one of the Dems that attempted to make a case this way:

"3. Realistic Foreign Policy - Interesting that you say "go to war as a last resort". What do you think Bush did?

There is just no way to carry on a meaningful conversation with a person who still clings to the pleasing tale that Bush didn't want to go to war. We've got all the evidence we need to draw the conclusion that Bush did indeed want to go to war from the beginning. If you're still clinging to this myth, what's the use of even engaging in this pointless exercise.

Posted by: Bluedog49 at May 30, 2006 06:26 PM

Bluedog49 wrote:
"Interesting that you say "go to war as a last resort"
And followed with the claim that Bush "wanted to go to war" from the beginning.
Saying that Bush "wanted to go to war" is not a material response to the statement that Bush went to war as a last resort. A goal can be desirable without being neccessary or it can be neccessary without being desirable.
In other words, even if Bush was rabid-dog-in-the-hot-sun crazy to go to war with Iraq, it would neither validate nor invalidate his arguments that war was the option of last resort.
This is not imperial Rome. The Senators and Congressmen who voted to authorize the war (HJR 114) did not do so because they feared Caesar's pique.

Posted by: Terry at May 30, 2006 06:56 PM

mitch,

The costs for environmental protection are just that.
Costs of doing business. I have to pay for the labor my workers perform. It'd be cheaper for my business if I didn't, but its a cost of doing business.

If you can't afford to run your business because of these costs (which others are paying through their health, etc), then close shop and go home.

If there's a market for your goods, someone else will step into your spot who pays all the costs of doing business.


Posted by: Robert at May 30, 2006 07:37 PM

I couldn't let this piece of abject stupidity go unaswered:
"As Clinton proved, putting money in the hands of consumers is a far more effective way to stimulate the economy than some kind of trickle down."

I'm just amazed at the lack of memory being displayed. It wasn't just the fact that B.J. gave us the largest tax increase in U.S. history (1993, remember?), it was two years later when we had that vaunted surplus and B.J. Said "well, we could give it back to the people, but we can't be sure they'll do the right thing with it".

Lazerlou, I wont even get into the vouchers topic, because you haven't got a friggin clue.

Posted by: Kermit at May 30, 2006 08:51 PM

"Anyone who thinks the current deficits are the result only of the Bush tax cuts and not over spending by congress will never convince the electorate that they represent the face of fiscal conservatism."

Terry, you are so very close. Tax cut don't "cost" anything. April 2006 tax revenues were the second largest in U.S. history. How is that possible if tax cuts cost? Wouldn't those receipts be lower? Hmm. Maybe tax cut increase revenues? Could it be? That's what happened in the 80s. If only Reagan hadn't had that spendthrift Democratic Tip O'Neil Congress to deal with.
Piece of history most of you just don't know: Congress overrode multiple Reagan vetos of spending bills. The truth sucks if your a lib.

Posted by: Kermit at May 30, 2006 08:59 PM

Kermit-
when you change the tax load in a dynamic economy the results can hard to analyze definitively. Most economists, including the CBO, work on the simplistic assumption that if we cut taxes by, say, 100 billion and we do so at a time when we are running 300 billion dollar annual deficits, the 'cost of the tax cut' over five years is 500 billion + interest on half of that money for five years. The CBO caculates this cost without looking at any increase in overall revenue over the half-decade. I picked the 150 billion/year number because it's a middle of the road position. the Citizens for Tax Justice (a liberal group) puts the costs to the treasury at 2.6 trillion over a decade. You can see the PDF at http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf
Even if you accept their highish number of 2.6 trillion over a decade, you ain't gonna eliminate the deficit by eliminatng the Bush tax cuts.
Federal budget as a percentage of GDP is probably a better way to analyze the 'costs' of a tax cut. I'm a conservative; if a decade after the tax cuts the GDP in real dollars is 40% higher but governemnt revenues have only increased by 30% that's a GOOD thing.

Posted by: Terry at May 30, 2006 10:12 PM


- Pete (Alois)


"But this is a Madison School District Short History of the United States"

I know you qualify this as a paraphrase, but what is it a paraphrase of ? Is there a detailed policy statement out there along these lines you can refer me to ? (web-available preferable)

Your remarks in that post and an earlier one seem to state that just such perspectives dominate the civics (or whatever) texts used in your community's school. What books were your kids using ? The titles, authors (etc). I mean, if what you say is true, I'd agree that that is horrific. So, help me judge the truth by giving some references. Please.

And were complaints made to the school boards? I can't imagine that the sort of nonsense you mention could have passed without some strong opposition.

Thanks.

Posted by: dgf at May 30, 2006 10:46 PM

To respond to two of Terry's comments:

"I wish one of these 'fiscal conservative' democrats would tell me exactly where he or she would trim the budget after they repeal the tax cuts."

We cut the military's budget. Not politically a great move, but I bet cuts can be made there. And oh yeah, the Democrats & Republicans should play it straight with the US citizens and include the cost of the Iraq War in the Budget.

And as to your comments about the War in Iraq, the administration wanted to go to war in iraq the day Bush appointed all of his staff...many from the Project for a New American Century.

Fulcrum

Posted by: Fulcrum at May 31, 2006 10:11 AM

So, if I'm understanding the purpose here, some dumbass like me wanders in from Salon.com, posts something, and others weigh in to call it total crap and declare that the original proposition is still true. Game on!

Mandatory disclaimer: I doubt that this is what the Democratic party stands for, but these are some things I would do if I were in charge.

Environmental policy: Promote clean power plants for baseline energy supplies. Promote microgeneration for localized solutions that make sense for the geographic area in question, such as solar or windpower. (Has the benefit of focusing on maintaining rather than extending infrastructure, spreading economic benefits more locally, and reducing security vulnerabilities). Keep gas prices at $3 / gallon for regular (the only thing that Krauthammer and I agree on, not that he would care). Permit business tax deductions for large vehicles which are genuinely connected to the business -- no more deducting Hummer H2s for dentists, they can pay market prices if they want one, but carpenters and plumbers should be able to have a panel truck as needed.

Education policy. Set national core curriculum, especially in math and science. Decrease emphasis on multiple choice standardized examinations as it's a good way to produce people who can't think at all. Promote vocational education to increase supply of skilled workers. Discontinue vouchers. Set a maximum administrator to teacher ratio for any school receiving federal funds. Direct federal funds to local schools which desire to specialize (e.g. magnet schools) or to expand capacity so as to increase local market alternatives. Provide incentives in poor-performing school districts for students and parents to pay attention -- use as an example scholarship program for students at neighborhood schools as undertaken by the University of Southern California.

Foreign Policy. Focus on tiered approach to dealing with threats to US. For instance, provide funding to local schools to counteract madrassas, while also tracing genuine terrorist cells. Known terrorists who have acted against the US subject to capture / assassination. Ramp down presence in South Korea -- if they want to embrace Kim Jong Il, let 'em. Re-orient Pacific Command to more effectively deter Chinese (e.g. different surface and submarine fleets, as appropriate). Reduce presence in Europe. Rationalize weapons programs by putting approval under the control of a bipartisan panel that makes binding recommendations to Congress, who can't be trusted not to lard military spending. Direct savings to pay increase for line troops. Focus on low-cost aid programs designed to foster local economic initiatives and growth at local levels, rather than large scale programs that only enrich local elites. Write down international debts in exchange for conversion back to local crops rather than international commodity crops.

Economic policy: single payer health care system to spread the cost of health care over the broadest possible group of people; focus on preventive care and catastrophic care. Permit insurance companies to sell supplemental insurance beyond base single payer plan. Promote self-employment through micro-lending schemes, as small localized businesses should be the lifeblood of the community -- they're less prone to exporting jobs for a start.

Tax policy: the current tax standards are grossly inefficient and are an ill-concealed jobs program for accountants and lawyers. Maintain an overall progressive tax structure but at significantly lower overall rates - roughly equivalent to the neutral overall rate of 19% of GDP per recent study -- I think by the Cato Insitute. Correspondingly, all income taxed at same rate, except exemption of dividends. Exempt Transferrance of small businessnes via estates not taxed, to remain consistent with goal of fostering small business.

General civic engagement: two years of national service in either the military or some kind of public service capacity. Instead of arguing about what version of history to teach, have people actually work with / for one another for the common good.

Public morality. This is a state's issue, but I would simply discontinue recognition of all religious marriages for legal purposes, and replace it with civil contracts that can be signed between any two consenting adults. I don't care to be involved in the minutiae of variations in marital sacraments. If churches don't want to marry same-sex couples, they needn't, but the social benefits of stable two-person households are too compelling to ignore completely.

Posted by: CM at May 31, 2006 10:17 AM

Fulcrum-
I sincerely urge all democratic candidates to mention frequently and loudly that upon being elected they will cut the military budget and investigate the New American Century conspiracy.

Posted by: Terry at May 31, 2006 11:28 AM

Terry: I didn't say they were politically tenable, I am just saying that invading iraq was in the wings since the late 1990s so it can be no surprise we are there now.

I also find it ironic that conservatives take up the mantle of being fiscally conservative..but turn a blind eye to the military and the amount of money being "lost" in Iraq.

Fulcrum

Posted by: Fulcrum at May 31, 2006 11:47 AM

CM, you are my new hero!

Posted by: Gracie at May 31, 2006 04:32 PM

Mitch,

I'm curious; What exactly is the point of this thread?

Are you seriously interested in an answer or are you just interested in recycling more "Clinton did it first" crap?

And another thing... Bush went to war as a last resort?

Do you honestly believe this?

Posted by: Doug at May 31, 2006 11:03 PM

Fulcrum wrote:
"And as to your comments about the War in Iraq, the administration wanted to go to war in iraq the day Bush appointed all of his staff...many from the Project for a New American Century."
And then Fulcrum wrote:
"I am just saying that invading iraq was in the wings since the late 1990s so it can be no surprise we are there now."
Terry says:
Bush didn't take his oath of office until January of '01. The sooner the left realizes that the Iraq war is not a Bush thing, but instead an American thing, well in line with American ideals, the sooner it will be finished.

Posted by: Terry at June 1, 2006 02:16 AM

Terry said,

"The sooner the left realizes that the Iraq war is not a Bush thing, but instead an American thing, well in line with American ideals..."

So now, a pre-emptive war based on highly dubious (and now proven false intelligence) is an American ideal?

Somewhere in Pakistan, bin Laden is laughing his ass off.

Posted by: Doug at June 1, 2006 09:24 AM

from Wikipedia...

In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argues that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to US interests.

The Terry said: "The sooner the left realizes that the Iraq war is not a Bush thing, but instead an American thing, well in line with American ideals, the sooner it will be finished.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention the reason we are still fightin in Iraq is that the left didn't agree with this war...must be the same reason we lost Vietnam.

Fulcrum

Posted by: Fulcrum at June 1, 2006 02:25 PM

Mitch, you inspired me to produce the DNC PSA. You can find it at http://personal.stthomas.edu/dbass/DNCPSA.mp3.

Posted by: Douglas at June 1, 2006 03:43 PM

Douglas,

Wow. That's weak. I'm embarrased for you.

Posted by: Doug at June 1, 2006 07:06 PM

Oh this is priceless... Douglas W. Bass, Assistant Professor, using his St. Thomas Account to distribute political material. I wonder what St. Thomas will say...

http://personal.stthomas.edu/dbass/

Saved

http://personal.stthomas.edu/dbass/DNCPSA.mp3

And saved...


Posted by: Doug at June 1, 2006 07:42 PM

Ah don't go and threaten to embarrass the guy with his employer, Doug. That's not cool. You're right about the content though. Pretty sad. Douglas should stay away from comedy and rock and roll entirely. Both are anarchic modes of expression that can't be mastered by most right-wing kooks.

Douglas, content yourself with being one of the townsfolk from Footloose. Attempts to break out of that role only induce douche-chills of embarrassment.

Posted by: angryclown at June 2, 2006 09:03 AM

AC said,

"Ah don't go and threaten to embarrass the guy with his employer, Doug. That's not cool."

That's what I said when it involved Eva Young and everyones favorite stalker, Swiftee...

My favorite part of Douglas's brilliant comedy bit its this...

"I helped the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them that laws don't matter..."

Laws like FISA laws eh there Douglas?

Posted by: Doug at June 2, 2006 11:11 AM

Preved Medved

Posted by: caribbean villa rental at July 1, 2006 09:22 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi