I'm going to take $10 billion away from a lot of these industries,

And $10B is what?  About what we're spending every week or two in Iraq?  Wake me when she's willing to take about $200B away from Bush's next "supplemental".  $10B is chump change.

I thought from the headline this was a garbled Darmok reference.

You didn't see a single "pundit" or reporter dwell on this because they don't like to do the hard work of actually researching and coming up with some background to flesh out this story. No one wants to write about issues in a campaign, they want the easy work of writing about the campaign - what the candidate wore, what they wore yesterday and what the reporter thinks the clothing worn means, how many pancakes they flipped and what that says about the campaign - because they sit in the plane or the bus, bored to tears, yakking about this crap, this crap becomes important to them. They lack the discernment to know when something they think; that if the candidate wears a blue tie tommorow then he's going to make an important statement, is in actuality a fact. It's a conceit that most reporters/pundits have - they think it, it must be so.

This is why when a candidate actually does make an important statement on policy, it goes completely over their heads. An example would be during the 2000 debates, when Bush said he would topple Saddam, it was lost in the stories about Gore sighing, or Gore's suits and what that means for the campaign. I remember reading one story in a national rag that reported on the food fed to the reporters by the campaigns - Gore gave reporters turkey sandwiches everyday, Bush gave them nice deli platters, which made him the better candidate.

Senator Clinton has made this kind of statement several times - she wants to slow the oil industry's rampant greed, the defense industry is out of control and needs to be reined in, the HMOs are dictating your healthcare not you, she wants troops out of Iraq and so forth and so on which if reporters want to report it, they have to learn something about it.

This is why we have profoundly dumb questions and assertions from debate moderators - "social security is insolvent what are you going to do about it, say something mean about the person next to you, do you believe in UFOs, will you meet with foreign diplomats" and on and on until utter stupidity becomes the political discourse.

Militarism is now such a large part of the US economy that no viable candidate can challenge it. Some may truly believe that a muscular foreign policy is in the best interests (read that as cheap oil) of the US. Some may believe in a neo-Keynesian argument that we need to keep funding this sector to provide jobs. Perhaps some are even being intimidated by supporters into keeping the gravy flowing, it impossible to tell.

Even blackmail is not beyond a possibility. The FBI under Hoover had the dirt on many politicians and, apparently, used it on occasion. Given the much more sophisticated and pervasive surveillance that exists nowadays, whose to say what is being held over some people's heads?

People like Chalmers Johnson have laid out in painful detail just how much influence the military has and how the citing of bases and defense plants can be used to win the support of legislators. It is now the military/industrial/congressional complex. He sees no way to reverse things and cites both the English and Roman Empires as warnings.

One way to see how much is determined by militarism is to look at the true spending picture. Here's a nice chart that does that.

Federal Pie Chart

I'm getting increasingly tired of hearing the squabbling about the Dem candidates. First, we've got a year to go. Second, it only provides ammunition to the GOP which they will use later and third, any Dem is going to be better then any Republican, so how about directing the criticism at them instead?

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Looking at that pie chart, I saw this title and was perplexed:

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,387 billion
MILITARY: 51% and $1,228 billion
NON-MILITARY: 49% and $1,159 billion

What do the and's mean behind the percents for military and non-military does anyone know? Is this simply the remainders in Dollars?

Todd, I think you're looking for something that isn't there -- that throwaway statement looks like boilerlate anti-special interest rhetoric to me. Clinton is running a campaign based on competence and experience, not based on any agenda. The only issue she can be depended upon to push is healthcare, and once that's defeated (the Republicans would commit mass suicide rather than allow a Democratic administration and Congress to enact legislation that will win long term popularity, public good be damned), she will settle into a tactical, reactive mode, much like her husband did after his own healthcare setback, and the resultant drubbing of '94. She's already maneuvering to stick it to the Palestinians in the ME, so you might see some kind of deal made there, and other than that, she's just going to take things as they come.

After eight years of Bush, it wouldn't be bad to have someone in office based on their competence, but I think the nation needs an ideology that can compete with the belligerent, nationalistic warmongering that the right offers, and we ain't gonna get it from Hillary.

Crooked cops, crooked lawyers, crooked judges, crooked politicians, crooked doctors, crooked scientists, crooked clergymen -- but no crooked journalists. An amazing record for an amazing class of people.

"but I'm not 'voting' for Queen Billary, not on your life, not on a bet"

Well, then, impeachtoday, what will you do? Presuming Sen. Clinton is the Democrat's nominee, will you campaign against her? Will you just sit home on election day or just leave the top of the ticket blank? Or write in Ralph Nader or Donald Duck? Or is this an empty threat?

Please don't take it personally, I've been asking this of s number of "I'll never vote for..." because I am truly curious. I'm a Republican (Eisenhower variety) and "I'll never vote for" any of the top tier candidates for dogcatcher it would be too mean to the dogs. (I didn't vote for Bush 43 either time) I shall vote for the Democratic candidate. I have my preferred Democrat, but I shall pull the lever or push the button for whichever one is nominated - better that than another 4-8 years of this insanity. I really feel that this is a duty to my country.

The attention has once again been spun in Clinton;s favor---all we can talk about is the audacity of someone wanting to have a clear answer to a question and off we go to discussing whether or not someone is picking on her or ganging up on her or ad nasauem,
I have truly given up on the public and the polls --it seems that everyone is too lazy and ill informed to just take five minutes to really look at this woman--the least progressive,most pro war, largest recepient of dollars corrupt corprations, not to mention years more of the same crap we have had this week and for 8 years.But do let us have the coronation for the first woman regardless of the fact that she is the least qualified.

"People like Chalmers Johnson have laid out in painful detail just how much influence the military has and how the citing of bases and defense plants can be used to win the support of legislators. It is now the military/industrial/congressional complex. He sees no way to reverse things and cites both the English and Roman Empires as warnings."rdf: See p.279 of Chalmers Johnson's latest book, Nemesis.  He does believe there is a way to reverse things and get out of our present dilemma - drop our empire.

"If the Dem nominee is unacceptable (read: Hillary), I will vote for Russ Feingold. I cannot countenance nor support the continuing drift -- did I say drift?" When will angry people get that electing Republicans doesn't stem the drift.  It increases the pressure to move right.  They tried it in 200. Can't people learn anything? There's no treating politicians like punishing small children. In fact, there's considerable evidence that punishing children excessively breeds either passive idiots or callous monsters, but we'll leave that debate to psychiatry. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

I'm pro-choice, but I think you're rather narrowly focused there and even at that look at how the Democrats chose the pro-lifer Harry Reid to soften their pro-choice stance and Casey to run for the Senate in PA. Democrats have been caving all over the place on the abortion issue. Would President Hillary pick a strongly left of center justice or a "centrist"?

Still, that's not the most important issue today. War is the issue and the impact of war on other domestic priorities. Rich women will always be able to get an abortion, but poor women may not be able to get health care of any kind unless we elect a President who is more concerned about passing a health bill than she is about expanding the size of the army, going to war with Iran, and feeding the military industrial complex.

In what way, bluebell? It looks to me so far that Sen. Clinton is running to represent moderates of all persuasions, as are the other candidates, except Kuchinch who is endearing in his leftward tack and important to remember.

When will angry people get that electing Republicans doesn't stem the drift. It increases the pressure to move right. They tried it in 200.
I confess that even at my advanced age, my memories don't stretch back to the election at the end of the Second Century, so I can't comment on that part. That was AD, not BC, right? (:^}

However, with regard to your first sentence, are you suggesting that a) Al Gore was too liberal to be elected? He WAS elected! b) Al Gore was too liberal in any sense? He was the darling of the DLC! c) the Dems have not been moving steadily to the right since McGovern?

Sorry, to get my vote, a candidate will need to say, "I'm going to see to it that the most powerful agency on earth, the Federal government, stops screwing the bottom 90%," rather than, "I'll see to it that you get better lube and stronger anesthetics so that you don't feel it going in."

Give me an opposition party, not a collaborationist party.

There's no treating politicians like punishing small children.
That's for sure. If it were a matter of punishment, I would agree with you. But punishment has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of representation. You want us to vote for someone who doesn't represent our philosophy in order to avoid someone else whodoesn't represent our philosophy. What do you suppose the chances are of that happening? Why don't YOU do it?

there's considerable evidence that punishing children excessively breeds either passive idiots or callous monsters, but we'll leave that debate to psychiatry.
But you couldn't resist inserting it into the argument, could you?

Look, the Dems took over both houses of Congress last fall, in large part because they were successful with very conservative candidates. How's that working out in terms of stopping, or even slowing down, or even reducing the acceleration of the march to new wars, new incursions into civil liberties, or new depths in the status of America's solvency?

John, I admire your writing and agree with much that you publish here, but on this issue I (and many of us, I perceive) will not be moved. We've done the research, we see the matter as having been decided, as, apparently, you have done as well.

"As far as I'm concerned defending our country is the primary job of the federal government ..."

Some of us go with "promote the general welfare" not the particular well-being of corporate special interests.

If you want a hawk, vote for Hillary. I won't vote for a hawk.

I guess I better define what I mean by "defending our country". I mean a federal government that is responsible for seeing that no one starts shooting at us period. That does not mean a federal government that attacks anyone who looks cross-eyed at us but whose policy is defensive.

Look at the recent (past hundred years) history of our involvement with the Middle East. It's no wonder they are angry at us. Look at Iran. Who overthrew the duly elected Mossadeq in the 50's? No one but us and why? He nationalized the oil field. Well, gee whiz. I do believe that those fields were within Iran's boarders which we helped establish in 1914 or something like that.

I love my country, but our leaders do some really stupid things early and often. And we make lousy neighbors.

What would our reaction be if, for instance, China decided to overthrow our current administration and replace it with a puppet so they could control our rather massive resources (given the current administration this may not be the best example, but you get the idea)?

I'm a pacifist and if one were running and had a viable plan to implement that philosophy, I'd be there in a heartbeat. But there isn't one and it's not realistic internationally anyway, so I make do with what we've got.

Bush and his neocons are hawks. Don't forget that many of the neocons were Scoop Jackson hawks in the 60s and there is a huge difference between what they thought/demanded and what is presented to us in the Democratic field now.

I could go on in this vein for pages, but let me sum up by saying that defense of the country (I just refuse to call it the "homeland") is more or less passive - make sure we're not shot at. I don't think this is a particularly hawkish position. I think I'll address "promote the general welfare later".

OK, sorry I misunderstood you. I just figure Hillary made her choice. She's chosen to position herself as a hawk and to give as much aid and comfort to the defense industry as possible. I don't see much difference between her and the neocons. She's less reckless than the delusional paranoids but she'll not get us out of war either and she'll not give back the liberties handed over to the "unitary executive" by the spineless Congress. Her heart is not in the right place on war.

=== It looks to me so far that Sen. Clinton is running to represent moderates of all persuasions, ===

Any candidate who has any sense will give themselves maximum flexibility when it comes to policies. Kennedy ran on the missile gap and when he became president it disappeared. Bill Clinton beat up on George W. Bush's China policy and then pretty much followed it.

She is a centrist who wants to promote economic expansion. While not committing to specific actions in Iraq or Iran it sounds like you wants to rebuild a global coalition that favors stability and economic cooperation over either America go it alone or forces of instability being allowed to act without being opposed.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

You are a Republican? Well, Hillary's your gal!

Not easy to be hilarious and absolutely truthful at the same time but you managed. Congratulations.

Lady Hawk's motto: Me and Bill are stronger than dirt.

Best, Terry

"I do wish you had explained your claim that the Dems tried moving leftward in 2000 and lost as a result." I didn't make that claim, and while I don't see it, I apologize if something I said gave that impression. I said that those who thought that voting against the Democrats, punishing them by a loss, would move them to the left was crazy then and is crazy now.

It's as if having moved them to the right, instead of apologizing we'd now revel in it. See those SOBs? Kill them! Oops, there are more SOBs. Kill them! Actually, that reminds me of Bush rationale for fighting terror by invading Iraq and then "staying the course."

"Your vote will also be one to move the Dems even further to the right." A vote for Clinton in the primary might or might not do so, but that vote sure won't come from me. A vote for the nominee in the general election will not, while allowing the far right to remain in charge surely will move them so far to the right that I'd again have strongly to consider if there's any way to leave the country. But hey, Tankard, I promise I won't blame you for driving me out.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

"...the hijacking of the Democratic party by corrupt rightwingers like Hillary,"

Please tell me what makes Sen. Clinton rightwing? Take Pat Buchanon as as example and please tell me how you can compare her to him.

And also, please back up your corruption charge with some specific examples

"corrupt rightwingers like Hillary,"

IMO, that statement puts you in the "part of the problem" category not part of the solution. HR Clinton may be a lot of things that irritate me but she is neither a rightwinger nor corrupt.
Hanging around this site, at times, makes me feel like I'm livinng the pc wars of the 70's all over again

Jack

Points of correction:1) There was no missile gap even though JFK said there was. We had many more nukes than the USSR did in 1960.2) George H.W. Bush was president before Bill Clinton. George W. Bush is the president after Bill Clinton.

I know that that it was the older Bush, G.H.W. Bush who came before Clinton. As for Kennedy that was my point exactly. There was no missile gap and once Kennedy took office he did not try to act as if there was.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Berlin Crisis, Cuban Missile Crisis, escalation in Vietnam - when you have to prove you are a hawk, you tend to acquire opportunities to do so.

I said that those who thought that voting against the Democrats, punishing them by a loss, would move them to the left was crazy then and is crazy now.
This must be another one of those alternate reality things.

I know of no one who voted against the Dems in 2000 whose motive was punishment. I know of no one who voted against the Dems in 2000 in order to cause them to lose except Republicans. I know of no one who voted for someone other than Al Gore and did so with the intention of moving the Dems leftward.

But if you know people like that, I agree with you: they must have been crazy then and probably still are.

I promise I won't blame you for driving me out.
If the elected portion of the Democratic Party moves any further to the right, John, we can drive out together.

I understand what you mean, Bluebell, but I do see huge differences between her and the neocons. Go read this: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Now that's neocon thinking and not Sen. Clinton.

I also think back to the campaigns or Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi. They all had to sound quite belligerant lest they be accused of being too soft 'cause they were "girls". How they governed was a different issue.

As to giving back power, I have the feeling that between the President, whichever Dem it is, and Congress this will be worked out and back in balance again - maybe not without some rhetorical blood being shed, but worked out, nonetheless.

On the third hand, I think there will be such a Democratic sweep in '08 that just by numbers Congress will re-develop its spine.

I do not remember how this problem was solved after Nixon - I'll have to look it up.