The Conservative Abyss
Listening to the speeches that John McCain and Mitt Romney delivered to the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday, and the generally enthusiastic whoops and cheers that most of their remarks received, an outsider could get the impression that everyone in the room was celebrating a vindication of their belief system. It was as if absolutely nothing had gone wrong during the past eight years, when a conservative president and conservative Congress pursued largely the same conservative agenda that McCain and Romney proclaimed as the path to a stronger, safer, freer, more prosperous America. Romney never even uttered the name “Bush.” McCain did so only in vowing to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, notwithstanding their failure to produce any of the multitude of promised benefits for average Americans. The past eight years of conservative rule didn’t happen.
Romney drew applause proclaiming, “It is high time to lower taxes, including corporate taxes, and to get out that weed whacker and take it to regulations.” But taxes have been lowered again and again, and public health, safety, and environmental regulations have been whacked to oblivion. And now the U.S. economy may already be in a recession, impelled in part by a failure to regulate the home loan industry – in conformance with conservative ideology. Median wages have stagnated, inequality has soared, and the federal budget has deteriorated, illustrating just how magical tax cuts for the rich continue to be.
Romney again, “Did you happen to see, by the way, that today government workers make more money than the people who work in the private sector? Can you imagine what happens to an economy where the best opportunities are for bureaucrats?” Actually, the greatest squandering of taxpayer money by far has been through the contracting out of services to private providers without adequate oversight from well-qualified, non-political government workers. In conformance with conservative ideology, a far greater share of tax dollars have gone to for-profit contractors under Bush. And the consequent waste, fraud, and abuse has been massively higher than in the past. (Leave aside Romney’s negligence in not comparing compensation of workers with similar qualifications.)
McCain: “I promise you, I know that in this country our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government. But, rather, as Burke warned, ‘it can be nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts.’” This, just moments after disingenuously criticizing Senate Democrats for “blocking an extension of surveillance powers” – powers than have been relentlessly expanded under Bush, sometimes without informing Congress, and inadequately checked by the judiciary. It’s that conservative approach to governing that has been nibbling away at our liberty.
Following the Project for a New American Century’s mindset, McCain also left little doubt that he is willing, even eager, to “seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions.” As though the lesson of the Iraq War is that reckless belligerence produces greater security, when that fiasco has left us far weaker and more vulnerable.
Conservatism is what got us into today’s multitude of morasses. McCain’s pledge of allegiance to the same ideology should be sufficient warning to voters unhappy with what’s happened to the country in the past eight years.
Here is try #3:
I was struck when I watched Laura Ingrahm introduce Mitt, by her demonizing anyone who would do ANYTHING IN A BIPARTISAN WAY. These ideologues really believe that cooperation of any kind with Democrats is a sign of weakness and is morally wrong.
I guess I have known this ever since the K Street Project became public, but it hit me in the face again yesterday. We have GOT to win the Presidency, AND Congress if we are ever going to be able to heal our country. Then we have to nurture relationships with republicans who are not straight ideologues and believe in compromise for the good of our country.
People like Tom DeLay should be hiding in their states, waiting to go on trial, and instead they are interviewed on MSNBC without one word of their drivel being challenged.
February 8, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the duplicate! Is there an edit function, where we can erase what we wrote & just put in "duplicate?"
February 8, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fixed.
February 8, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does one edit a comment, or blog post?
Any progress on the login bugs? Password reset, timeouts, ect?
February 8, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't edit a comment right now, but edit blog posts is something our tech folk will be building as soon as they can iron out the glitches. In terms of the glitches, they're working on it constantly and, well, will have them fixed when they can figure them out. I'm crossing my fingers.
February 8, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get it. I thought you meant you had fixed the problem, but you meant you had fixed Jan's problem.
February 8, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew,
Aside from design and page layout, why don't we go back to what was a very good template to begin with? Karma ratings, comment tracking, previewing, easy threading and choice of views, and easy editing and linking that didn't require programming knowledge, all lead to passionate but civil back and forth conversations in real time. This is what made TPMCafe appealing and drew distinctive commenters.
Okay, I know advertisers and management look to this uniform formatting, branding, and cross-platforming, not to mention low-cost content, which pretends to give power to the posters, as an eyeball-generating project. Maybe you are looking for a new kind of consumer, but is any of this going to benefit the readers and writers who are the backbone of TPMCafe much less the TPeMpire in the long run?
P.S. This has nothing to do with “bugs.” I’m trying to post this for the third time (and hoping it doesn’t triple post). But I know that will be fixed. What I don’t know is whether TPMCafe will ever return.
February 8, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew:
How come when I click on Jared's "Stimulus Update", either the "title" or the "Comments (7)", I see no comments, at all?
February 8, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The link referred to above is the "permalink." Here's the link to the original posting.
February 8, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't see comments there, either.
February 8, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nevermind.
Just go here and scroll down.
Thank you,
Emily Litella
February 8, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
New bumper sticker:
McCain = W's 3rd term
From another blog:
""You can't fix stupid"
That's the epitaph I want to see on the tombstone of movement conservatism after we're done killing the sorry beast."
Enjoy the income from my purchase of your book. You deserve it.
February 8, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome, Gonzone! I hope you enjoy the book!--Greg
February 8, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Conservatism is what got us into today’s multitude of morasses. McCain’s pledge of allegiance to the same ideology should be sufficient warning to voters unhappy with what’s happened to the country in the past eight years. "
And this is the same argument I heard 4 years ago, and yet Kerry lost.
The past is the past. The conservatives have already dissavowed Bush as not really one of them. Except for Judges, he appoints Judges the conservative way, and that has been a boon for our country.
You speak nicely about the "multitude of morasses", but how does that effect me? And how will democrats and the nominee make it better for Me? Feeding a couple of the homeless at my expense won't help me and it won't help this country.
Cutting taxes plays nicely. Bush did it wrong, he increased spending (not a true conservative) but McCain will shrink the budget as well. McCain will work with the Dems so if I vote for him, I get both sides covered, and I don't have to worry about dems taking money out of my hands through more taxes to give to people who won't do anything for me.
What can the democrats offer to move me to vote for them. My salary and economic outlook has gone up nicely the last few years, thank you very much, so I don't see the problem.
The democrats may nominate Hillary, who in the opinion of a lot of independents and Republicans is just another cardboard candidate who denigrates her opponents and doesn't take responsibility for her actions.
If the only thing the Dems have to say is the US is broken, they better hope that the ones who are worse off voted repubican last time. Blaming the republicans may energize the base, but it doesn't expand it.
February 8, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's shocking and appalling that none of the candidates have yet said what they are going to do for You.
When You are part of the problem, it's very difficult to see it.
February 8, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's shocking and appalling that none of the candidates have yet said what they are going to do for You.
When You are part of the problem, it's very difficult to see it.
February 8, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's shocking and appalling that none of the candidates have yet said what they are going to do for You, Kenneth Payne.
When You are part of the problem, it's very difficult to see it.
February 8, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its this line that gets me: "I promise you, I know that in this country our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government. " What the heck was he talking about?
February 8, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
When will people finally understand that placing the economy (or the country for that matter) in the hands of Republicans is like leaving a teenager with a fully stocked medicine cabinet and a stack of credit cards while the parents leave the country for a few years?
I mean really? Blah, blah, blah, cut taxes, blah, blah, blah, deregulate, blah, blah, blah, war, blah, blah, blah, evil immigrants... Enough already. Listening to Republicans is as painful as watching the first wave of contestants on a TV talent show - they're not there because they have any talent at all but rather because they DON'T. There's some morbid entertainment derived from watching talentless people embarrass themselves. And there's no easier way to feel smarter than to surround yourself with idiots. Fine, I'll accept that (although it's not really my cup of tea). But there's an enormous problem allowing this to occur within our government, you know, in real life. This is not a TV show. There are peoples lives at stake. This IS real.
There is something TV related that Republicans DO bring to mind for me though. They remind me of the old TV sets we had when I was a young. They never worked very well, they never gave you a clear picture, and they usually needed a good swift kick once in a while. And even if that didn't particularly improve the performance it did make you feel a little better...
February 8, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Mr Payne,
I hope that this may at least appeal to you on a human level. For better or worse would you agree regardless of income that we are all in this together? What I mean is that we are all paying for each other in some sort of way whether it is through sales Tax, Income tax, buying at the local food store, buying things at wal-mart, going to the doctor etc. We are all part of a big system which is meant to support itself while at the same time allowing for growth and stability in any given time. So whether you are at the top or have done better the past couple of years or you are at the bottom or have hit hard times the past couple of years, in the end we are all still apart of the same system. The problem as I see it is that inequity breeds jealousy, envy and anger. You can not argue with the government economic date which supports the fact that the income equality gap is widening, can you? You can not ignore the fact that many in this country have sacrificed their lives for a War which was waged on bad intelligence, can you? Many of these volunteers have had their benefits and bonuses taken away from them and may never truly be able to rejoin our workforce. Many at the bottom of our economic ladder live in squalor conditions, go hungry, do not get preventative health checks, and many do not have a proper education. These are people who are going to have a hard time being contributing members to our country, but yet they can not go anywhere. If they go to jail, we pay for it, if they go to the emergency room we pay for, if they go to food kitchen then the community pays for it. Either way they are here to stay. The issue is how we want them to stay! I would prefer that we start focusing on rehabilitation programs, WPA style work programs, and work hard to get these people integrated back within our society because in the end they are ours to keep no matter what.
On McCain, he has zero new energy policy. He has said that he is for it but what has he done. And whether or not you think this is a valid issue, I do not believe that you can ignore the fact that our dependence on oil is bad for our energy policy, our foreign policy, our economic policy, and our environmental policy. The reason why is that it puts a substantial amount of our infrastructure and main transportation dependent upon a finite resource. If this isn't bad enough that finite resource lies mainly outside of the US in a region of the world that has little sympathy with our culture and is a hodge-podge of stability to say the least. That means we have to do business with individuals who do not necessarily embrace our cultural values or our economic policies. This also leaves us spending large amounts of capital which will not necessarily ever make its way back through our economy. Bush has not done this either and McCain stated yesterday that he embraces man of Bush's policies in his CPAC speech and the=is has been evident in his rhetoric used on the campaign trail.
I am a fiscal conservative and the best policy I have in my life is one of self-sustainability. The policies that the US has adopted have left many in the US unable to be self-sustainable. To be self-sustainable is in essence I believe a truly fiscal conservative approach. We make sure that they way that we are doing things in the US do not put us in a position where we have to borrow from some other nation. As you have seen in this Economic downturn in the private sector many of our businesses have to borrow large sums of capital from nations like China and India so they can stay afloat. In fact our government has borrowed large sums of capital as well. If America is the greatest country in the world why can we not take care of all of our people and why can we not be bailed out by foreign countries? Because the economic policies and the social policies we have adopted have not been equitable to all American and especially not to America. But for some this has been the good times and they would like to call it a day after that but I am more human than that and I am more American than that.
February 8, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kenneth,
You may have done well economically under Bush. Entirely possible. Even in a famine, flies eat well.
Most people have seen their wages stagnate, good jobs have gone overseas, illegal immigration has driven down working class jobs, the overall situation of most people has worsened not improved. That's just the facts of the matter, it's not open to debate.
Bush presided over the bust of the tech boom. He presided over California's artificial 'energy crisis', he presided over Enron's collapse and now he's presiding over the mortgage crisis and a coming recession. In every respect, he was a disastrously incompetent President.
I appreciate your commitment to cutting taxes. Too bad about that deficit that your children and grandchildren are going to have to pay for. Too bad Bush spent so much, what with the discovery after eight years that he wasn't a true conservative.
On the other hand, what justification do you have that McCain will cut spending? What's he going to cut? I don't think that Bush ever cared much about feeding homeless people, and he didn't spend a lot of money on that. What he spent money on was wars and giveaways to big corporations. McCain isn't going to be walking away from any wars, and he's not going to stick it to corporations.
I dunno, Kenneth. Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life. Even if its working for you now, it probably won't keep on.
February 8, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my view Kenneth Payne brings some necessary political realism into the discussion (although I, too, don't see John "Iraq in 2107" McCain "cutting the budget").
People vote their pocketbooks ("What's in it for me?"). Very few voters were affected by Bush's "incompetence" (I prefer to think he knew exactly what he was doing). And of those voters who were affected, fewer still know that they were.
Demonstrating the harm that comes to the average voter when taxes are cut, regulations are eased, and the "empire" is defended with a $611 billion budget isn't going to be an easy sell.
February 8, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taxes are only cut temporarily. The deficit builds up, that has to be paid somehow. That can be paid by cutting transfers to States, munipalities and schools, but then they have to raise taxes, and they have. Have you looked at state tax rates, property tax rates? They've gone up in most cases, catastrophically in some cases. Or you can cut back. States and municipalities have cut back big time. The Federal government will have to cut back. But you can't cut back enough to cover a nine trillion dollar deficit. So in the end, taxes, all sorts of taxes, will have to go back up... a lot. And they'll be high taxes to service debts, not programs or services. So you'll get the worst of both worlds.
As for 'easing regulations', I think we're already reaping the benefits of that. The Sub-Prime mortgage crisis which will become simply the Mortgage crisis. On a more personal level, poisoned pet food and toxic children's toys sold in stores. 'Easing regulations' just means easing standards, when the family dog, or your five year old daughter is convulsing on the floor explosively shitting out blood... well, that's what 'easing regulations' bought you. There's a huge disconnect between physical blood and guys in suits droning on about 'freeing business to do business', but it traces right back. Trust me.
In the end, any drug dealer can tell you that selling crack is easy. Just get them hooked on the high, and they'll ignore the cost. It can't happen to them, it won't happen to them. But inevitably it does and they wind up on the street selling their ass to buy a ten dollar rock. The Republicans have been approaching government like crack dealers.
They've been selling America the high, getting America hooked. Guys like Kenneth buy into it. They're told there's no price for the high, or if there is, well someone (those homeless guys) will pay it. Republicans have basically been selling America on the notion that we never have to pay for anything.
You're right, Democrats will not have an easy time convincing people that things have to be paid for. But they're going to have to do it. Because wishful thinking won't last forever. If we don't get the house in order, others will do it for us. The world will move, events will take place.
And frankly, the answers of a Kenneth "hey, I got mine so screw the homeless" just aren't meaningful contributions to the discussion.
February 8, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taxes are only cut temporarily. The deficit builds up, that has to be paid somehow.
Actually, it's more usual to grow out of deficits as the economy expands than it is to raise taxes. At least, that's how we've ordinarily done it in the good old U.S. of A.
February 8, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, it would be nice not to spend a half hour researching and writing a post and then have it disappear. I'm becoming seriously tired of the new TPMCafe.
Allow me to simply say, Ellen, that its just not true. Governments have not dealt with deficits by simply growing their way out of them. Bill Clinton raised taxes to balance the budget and start paying down debt. George H.W. Bush before him raised taxes. Ronald Reagan raised taxes. Go all the way back to Woodrow Wilson who brought in the income tax.
Your argument for 'growing your way out of deficits' is a badly distorted version of Keynesian economics, in which deficits are incurred during slack economic times to stimulate the economy, with, presumably, the increased economic activity increasing tax revenues. Alternately, one could argue for catastrophic inflation reducing the relative size of a fixed interest debt.
The United States is not going to 'grow its way' out of a nine trillion dollar deficit, which represents 40% of the GDP any time soon. In particular, the United States is not going to 'grow its way' out of a debt which is increasing at a substantially faster rate than the rate of growth. And finally, the United States is not likely to 'grow its way' out of a deficit in a period of flat or negative growth.
Let's all get serious here.
February 8, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton raised taxes (no argument there) proves only that all politicians are, in Keynes' words, slaves to dead economists.
There is no evidence that their actions reduced the deficit (or as it can be argued, caused the S&L disaster, the 1990 recession, or the painfully slow recovery under Clinton*). As the physicians say, "First do no harm." Goes for politicians as well.
* "People . . . think I raised your taxes too. much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too." Bill Clinton, 10/17/1995
February 9, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, once upon a time there was a man who fancied himself a vampire hunter. He decided his neighbor was a vampire. So one day he broke into his house with the intention of staking him. Terrified, the victim fought him off and rushed outdoors into the bright daylight. Undaunted, the Vampire hunter tackled him on the lawn. Desperately the victim cried out that he couldn't be a vampire. The sun was up, and everyone knew that vampires couldn't endure sunlight.
Startled, the vampire hunter looked around at the bright daylight and glanced at the sun. "What do you know, it turns out I was wrong all this time!" he cried.
"Vampires CAN walk around in daylight!" And drove the stake through.
The thing to do when holding an idiotic theory confronted by evidence, Ellen, is to abandon that theory, not rewrite the evidence.
Or if you must indulge nonsense, go work on perpetual motion or something.
Your original argument is that the US doesn't pay down deficits by raising tax revenues, it grows out of them. I then point out that American governments have actually paid down deficits by raising tax revenues rather than growing out of them. Your answer is now that they *could have/should have* growed out of them and shouldn't have raised taxes?
The conversation is over.
You have made me suffer, and I do not do it gladly.
February 9, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . confronted by evidence . . . .
You're pretty good at the confrontation thingy; it's the production of evidence thingy which appears to baffle you.
February 9, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a nice civil discussion. This is nice to see. I am still curiout about my question.
February 8, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
" . . . in this country our liberty will not be seized by nefarious, bleeding heart, limp-wristed liberals." Or something like that.
February 9, 2008 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "not" above was supposed to have been struck through. Apparently, "" is deprecated (whatever the hell that means) under this HTML version.
Anyone know what the tag for a strikethrough is?
February 9, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, that's precious. The strikethrough tag doesn't do anything except, as above, it vanishes (it's still a tag) when you write it out by itself as I did between the quotation marks -- without the spaces.
February 9, 2008 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
HA! Doesn't "will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government" mean 'not'? He said it. I don't get that. Did I miss the memo?
February 10, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Valdron missed the point(s).
JoshQ, maybe if come November the democratic nominee can make your points, the democrats will have a point. Unfortunately, most democratic politicians sound more like Valdron then You.
If you can't talk to people who disagree with you without calling them fat, drunk, and stupid, you won't win. If you can't acecpt that people have a self-interest, then you aren't talking to them, you're lecturing to them.
The truth is, a lot of Liberals turn my stomach, almost as much as the far-right, but we have to live with them. The only way to marginalize them is to educate them and everyone else, and the democratic party, which should be leading in this endeavor, just isn't.
It's easy to make fun of the Conservatives, it's hard to convince them. The sad thing is, for the most part, the Democratic party has given up trying, if they ever did try.
February 8, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its hard to convince Conservatives of anything they don't already know; the definition of a Conservatives is someone who is unwilling to accept new ideas. In any case why would Liberals try to get conservatives to agree with them? That doesn't make sense politically. Instaed, it makes a lot more sense for Liberals to try to get Moderates and Independents on their side. Conservatives would try top block Liberal efforts; Moderates might try to change them.
February 9, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
After having abused the economy, the Constitution, national security, and the American people for seven seemingly interminable years, the Republicans claim that the cure for the damage is more of what they've already done.
Does cyanide cure arsenic poisoning?
February 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee whiz, Kenneth. Did you have a point? Seriously. Was there a point in there anywhere?
Your argument was that you had personally done quite well under Bush. And you personally didn't want your tax dollars going to feed some homeless people. And you like tax cuts.
Fat, drunk and stupid is a fair assessment.
What else did you bring up? Bush isn't a real conservative? After eight years, this is a shocking discovery.
Your argument is that McCain is a real conservative and will cut spending? Based on what? You're just blowing wind. You're blowing dishonest wind.
"The truth is a lot of liberals turn my stomach". Well Gosh, you know, that was pretty obvious from the start. Was that one of the points you were trying to make? Well, you made it, I responded. Now go cry to your mommy.
February 8, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know; there is such a thing as a reply button.
February 8, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blame the TPMCafe software that eats 3/4 of our posts, logs us out randomly, and deposits replies wherever it feels like, Ellen.
February 8, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt MR Payne but what has MR McCain told you or shown you that is going to move America towards progress? I guess what I mean is that what has McCain said during his election campaign which tells you that he is going to do something different than what GWB has done(obviously as you said you have been doing well)?
Can we not agree that the economy is not as stable or robust as it should be?
Can we not agree that the income equality gap is increasing?
Can we not agree that we are tired of our jobs going oversees?
Can we not agree that our dependence on foreign oil leaves all of our eggs in one basket?
Can we not agree that our image in the world has been damages by the events of the past 7 years?
Can we not agree that we are tired of sound-bites and gotcha 'dirty' politics (Of course this has been around as long as America has been)?
Can we not agree that education is important yet the budget that GWB just proposed actually cuts overall spending in education while at the same time expanding spending for the Pentagon?
Education can not just be superficial politics and you are right that the Dem's have done a poor job articulating their messages. On the other end our security and defense can also not be superficial politics! So both as well as the infrastructure of this country, our energy policies, our foreign affairs policies, our economic policies need addressing. I just don't see anyone on the Republican side addressing all these pressing concerns? Maybe you do, so please if you do then share, only then can we have discourse.
February 8, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, attempt #2:
Josh, I have a request. Please break your comments into paragraphs. You have lots of good comments, but it is hard to follow the way they are presented.
Just a suggestion, because I'll bet you don't get the readership you deserve as is.
February 8, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that Kenneth has chosen not to respond to JoshQuasimoto's civil approach inviting him to real dialogue.
Instead, he's chosen to be offended. Perhaps his entire purpose in posting was to play a wounded victim, to reassure himself that Liberals who turn his stomach are mean and nasty.
February 8, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Val, actually, I have a job that required my attention before leaving for the day. Now I'm going to log off to work on my computer.
February 8, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Valdron, whether or not Mr Payne is as you say he is, I would hope you would prefer a Dem victory in November. Whether or not either of us or someone else can convince him or any independent/conservative/moderate to vote for a Dem in this election is not going to happen by pointing out there faults. I am not saying we should bite our tongues and sing a koombaya but can we not have discourse. I believe that Mr McCain provides the Dem's with a real competitor in the general regardless of his bona-fides with conservatives. He is pandering to that base as the election goes on despite the fact that he ahs been seen largely by the Republican Party as somewhat of an outsider except in military and foreign affairs. He is likeable in the independent community and is likeable in the moderate Republican community, so he is very much a real threat. Sorry but I am not expecting a huge Dem victory in November no matter who the Republicans choose! I hope though! Unfortunately for us the travesty that has been the Bush admin. is not front page everyday like it seems to me, many Americans are more concerned with the economy, American idol, and being entertained. Surely the election will grab their attention come November, but if they have not done any research on the issue and the candidates background, they might think, "hey I voted for Bush and my life is going OK, and that John McCain guy seemed pretty moderate before, and I would rather vote for him than a Clinton or this other fellow I know nothing about!" I remember both 2000 and 2004 being very close regardless of the 'hanging chad' the elections were split. We can not have that this time around, Bush and Co continues their assault on our government and the people everyday. In fact just last week the Bush admin is representing the VA in court against providing coverage for returning soldiers health issues. And yet he continues to have the audacity to say, "He supports the troops!" What did the Republicans do about Walter Reed; I remember a democrat and military officer's bringing this to the attention of the Whitehouse? What did the Republican's do when the Humvee's were not armored enough; they waited for the business community to sort it out! What did the GOP do when the body armor was not substantial for the soldiers, Oh the American people stepped up and footed the bill! What did the GOP do about Katrina, they waited a couple of days then brought armed soldiers down to the ninth ward where a general had to remind his troops to never point there guns at the civilians! What did the Bush admin do about the Sub-Prime when many senior economic experts said that there was going to be pain down the line, he said we have our economist you have yours!
What this election is about is not about who has the right people but rather who is tolerant and willing to listen to all parties to come to the best solution which moves us forward!
Come on Lady's and Gent's let's put progress first, let's get to work!
February 8, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, this is rich! I just got a message that my last comment couldn't be posted because I have sent in too many comments in too short a time!
Does it matter that for every comment I have had to try for 3, 4, or 5 times?
OK, here is try #3 for this one:
Josh, I have a request. Please break your comments into paragraphs. You have lots of good comments, but it is hard to follow the way they are presented.
Just a suggestion, because I'll bet you don't get the readership you deserve as is.
February 8, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, this is rich! I just got a message that my last comment couldn't be posted because I have sent in too many comments in too short a time!
Does it matter that for every comment that has appeared today (3) I have had to try for 3, 4, or 5 times?
OK, here is try #3 for this one:
Josh, I have a request. Please break your comments into paragraphs. You have lots of good comments, but it is hard to follow the way they are presented.
Just a suggestion, because I'll bet you don't get the readership you deserve as is.
February 8, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh, I think you understand my point exactly.
Point in fact, I voted for Kerrey and Gore. I didn't vote for them because they were democrats, or not Bush. Actually, I voted for Gore for that reason, since them, I've actually come to like the guy.
I don't believe any president without charisma and a willingness to listen to the actual constituents will do much domestically. The big ticket items won't get done unless you can convince the legislature that they need to be done. The tax rate, while important, is small potato's compared to the bigger issues, but that is the item, whether you like it or not, that people can easily identify with. Reagan raised taxes. Bush Snr, raised taxes. I believe John M will raise taxes if he gets in.
I'm voting on who can convince the country to do what best for the country, and it takes more than saying the Bush republican's did it wrong, don't trust them anymore.
The democratic party can't even get their primary system in order, why should I trust they can get the country in order?
Yes, there are liberal snobbish elitists jerks who believe they know what's right for the world without considering that anyone without a phd or serious credentials in their field is worth listening to, never mind you want to alter their lives, potentially dramatically.
I actually believe Bush is an anomoly, but what he represents I see in the Clinton's. A belief that their views are better than anyone else's.
I have looked extensively into their proposals and a bit into each of their backgrounds. I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary, and do like him, respect him, and wish he'd stop pandering to the right.
A large part of the electorate didn't go to college, doesn't know how to use the internet, or more importantly factfinder or other excellent organizations that publish truthful information on the net, and they definitely don't have time to go to the library and research macro economics.
They aren't stupid, but misinformed, and by dissing the republican party, you are disenfranchising a greater part of the American public and simply proving that you don't really care about them, but about your own sense of self-worth.
I speak to the Democratic party in a hope that they can get their act together, but I doubt it. They have too often shown themselves to be spineless, attention seeking, wh*res. And while I don't believe that the republican party is any better, the Democrats trumpet how much better they are. I repeat, the DNC can't even get it's primary right.
You asked in an earlier post if I saw the same problems you do. I do. And no, McCain hasn't given a satisfactory plan for them. I Don't believe Obama or especially Hillary has either, so in my mind that's a mute question.
Their health care doesn't adequately address the raw cost of health care. It doesn't reign in insurance companies or help businesses. I could be wrong, but the couple people people I talked to in the business, brokers and actuaries (I'm one, though not in the health arena), and the media, don't see any real costs savings or caps on the actual costs of coverage. So if Hillary's plan goes through, there's every chance that taxes will go up for all, so will premiums, which will again increase taxes (not a good solution, or solution at all) At least with Barack, he can get an infrastructure together so when people see costs continue to go up, the American people are harmed. A piffy let's raise taxes so we can put in an ineffectual plan doesn't get my vote.
What does get my vote is Barack in the SC debate bringing up helping the elderly and increasing taxes to spend on education and infrastructure. It's not enough, but at least it's in the right direction. My tax dollars doing something for the country.
You asked about jobs going overseas. I might have missed it, but I haven't seen Clinton apologize for Nafta. I haven't seen her apologize for no child left behind. I haven't seen her apologize for voting for IRAQ. If her judgement is so sound, why are we ignoring what she's supported in the past that's failed and she's not taking responsibility for.
McCain voted for the war. A war I disagree with. But he's consistent and hasn't been caught up in scandals. I respect that. He's been talking about and trying to get campaign reform and other cost savings measures through for years. He's gone a bit crazy this year trying to pander, but in the end, it's a question of a candidate that doesn't stand by what she's been involved in who's policies are a bit closer to what I actually want, and a candidate that's been a bit off of what I want but I actually trust will follow through with what I believe in.
Hillary said in one of the 18 debates she'd approve torture in time sensitive death situations, like the ticking bomb in one debate and when asked later if she'd okay torture in that situation she said no.
She said in a debate that social security wasn't that much of a problem and that it was simple a republican scare tactic. Wrong. I am a pension actuary and friendly with some of the people who do the projections. The republicans had the wrong answer, and used fear mongering to try and ram it down our throats, but it is a mounting problem, that the longer we wait on, the worse it will be. I'm again disinclined to take her seriously or believe in her.
I believe that if you want real solutions you have to have everyone on board at the start, something I believe Obama will be much better at than either of the other two. One person won't solve them. And one party won't either, especially a party that again can't even get it's primary's straight. I'm not alone in believing that the presidency is more about the person than the party. The Reagan democrats didn't vote democratic in the their congressional districts.
Social security is a long term problem. Global warming is a long term problem. Education, health care, post-retirement health care, aging, are all long term problems.
But if I don't see a candidate, or party willing or able to actually do anything about it, so I'm disinclined to care that much.
The electorate is upset with government, not any specific party. And JoshQ, I hope to god that the party elders are more aligned with you than with Valdron, because if people like him are in charge, and the democrats win, especially Hillary, the only things that will actually get fixed are small things. And compared to the problems this country are facing, the tax rate is small. This country needs it's leaders to start leading again.
February 8, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, like a dog licking its own vomit, the troll sneaks back.
Bit of a right wing talking point there. The Democratic primary system isn't in order? Is it in disorder? Compared to what?
And they wear Birkenstocks, and they have trust funds, and they smoke grass and name their children Moonbeam, and drink Lattes and they all live in New Hampshire or California. Any time you're tired of the standard right wing cliches, you go ahead and take a rest. Phone it in, save yourself the load.
Me, I started working when I was 12 years old, fixing flat tires at my Dad's garage. I have worked all my life. I know a poser when I see one.
Note that its subjective touchy feely assessments. It's emotional. Kenneth has looked into their souls.
Oh, and because Bush is now in process of being disinherited, it's now okay to taint him with the Democratic stain. Turns out that Bush was actually a 'Liberal' all along. Kenneth has just discovered this. In a couple of years, Kenneth will recall Bush as Democrat President. He'll be shocked at the suggestion that Bush was a Republican. Yeah, yeah, right.
Having explained to us how sick and tired he is of Liberals who think that they know better than the rest of us... Kenneth now explains how he knows better than the rest of us.
Jesus H. Christ on a crutch Kenneth, did you even bother to read this crap before you inflicted it on the rest of us?
Kenneth's feelings are hurt. It's okay for Kenneth to take a great big shit all over Liberals, because after all, they turn his stomach. But he feels that it's hurtful for Liberals to diss Republicans.
Kenneth believes that we should all get along. Republicans should kick Liberals cause they deserve it. And Liberals should say thank you, or they'll hurt Republicans feelings.
Smell the condescension in the air. It smells like... horseshit.
Sadly, Congressional Democrats fit that description.
Because repeating a lie makes it TRUE!!!
Moot.
As long as no money goes to homeless people, because Kenneth wants them to starve.
Except when he does an about face on immigration, torture, the religious right, etc. etc.
Except... you know, for that whole Keating Five thing.
ROTFL. There's a recommendation!!!
Enough of this.
Kenneth, you're beneath contempt. I'm going out to a movie.
February 8, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for saving me the trouble of responding to the trollishness, Valdron. Especially glad you cleared up the whole mute/moot thing. That bothered me, too. Kind of like when people say/write "begs the question" when they mean "raises the question." Begs the question is a term in formal logic that has a particular and specific meaning and does not mean what so many assume it does. Those who area curious could look it up.
ALso, this was particularly delightful:
Heh.
February 9, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh, I appreciate your comments. But let's face it - a guy who says 'what's in it for me, let homeless people starve, and liberals turn my stomach'? What is there to talk about.
He's come here to shit on us. My first rule of discourse is talk to people who will talk to you. A big F-U is not talking to you, and trying to talk to someone like that gets you nowhere. He's not interested in dialogue, or he'd have been talking to you. He's interested in self pity and gratification, that's why he chose to respond to me.
I suspect John McCain will win the American election, for no better reason than that even the most degraded crack whore still keeps crawling back to her dealer to buy another high. Yes, he is superficial and likeable, he's glib, he's said the right things and he comes across as intelligent. He has had enough run ins with the right wing lunatics of his party that we can fool ourselves into believing he's his own man... notwithstanding his current pandering to them.
He's a foreign policy lunatic, remarkably ignorant and unskilled in that front, and committed to Iraq. But most Americans see foreign policy as theatre.
He's ignorant of economics, as ignorant as Kenneth perhaps. But that's okay, he's not responsible for the current economy. He'll just inherit it. And meanwhile, the Republicans will keep on selling political crack until the bottom drops out.
I dunno. As far as the Kenneths of the world goes, life is too short to try and talk sense to guys who whine "Well, crack is *good for me*." He can call me when the bottom drops out.
February 8, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mind-candy best describes the content of the conservative/Republican pitch.
McCain yesterday, "government is to protect the liberty and property of the individual," to which I added except if she wants to exercise her liberty to abort an unwanted pregnancy or he wants to exercise his liberty and control his life by dying.
"Low taxes and a strong defense" they'll plant money trees outside the OO.
"Free-market solution to affordable health care," redundant, the free-market's solution is already in place and working quite well for the "free-market."
February 8, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another thing Mr Payne is missing....
the republicans have no platform other than fascist corporate control. All the stuff they say is window dressing, their core action is cementing power for corporations and their pet politicians. They are not truly trying to be responsible, or be fair, or grow the economy for all of us.
So please, stop coming at us with the cleansed, non-toxic conservative talking points. Even if they were true, and the goal of the republican party....they are highly suspect and have NEVER proven to work. You should recognize that those sanitized talking points are the furthest thing from Dick Cheney's mind. He's the one that said "Reagan proved that deficits mean nothing". What he means is, Reagan proved you can shove all your debt on the poor, and you won't get thrown in jail or beheaded by the masses, they are too stupid to know what hit them.
February 8, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
To seashell,
You don't win elections by alienating the voters. And while what I said may not be pleasant to your ears, that is what a good portion of the electorate thinks.
So you have a choice. Convince me I'm wrong, or marginalize me. A good politician convinces me I'm wrong.
And that is ultimately the point I was trying to make. The near flames shows me that people aren't willing to listen and work to solve problems, they want to fight and prove themselves better than their neighbors. Which is one of the things that is ultimately killing this country.
Your words may satisfy yourself that you're right, but they haven't moved anyone to concensus, they've just driven people away.
It is difficult to see out own problems, isn't it?
February 8, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you have a choice. Convince me I'm wrong, or marginalize me. A good politician convinces me I'm wrong.
I'm not a politician.
How do you know that your salary and economic outlook won't do even better under a Democrat. Traditionally, most people have done better, and so has the market when Democrats are in charge.
You don't win elections by alienating the voters. And while what I said may not be pleasant to your ears, that is what a good portion of the electorate thinks.
Actually, I don't think a good portion of the electorate does think this. According to all the polls, people feel they will do better under Democrats.
February 8, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
[i]I'm not a politician.
How do you know that your salary and economic outlook won't do even better under a Democrat. Traditionally, most people have done better, and so has the market when Democrats are in charge.[/i]
The whole point was that bashing republican's and the conservatives, isn't going to win an election.
I don't know what would have happened had something else happened independent of me. I only know how I'm doing and how I feel.
And as I and most of the electorate aren't up on the economic statistics of the country under comparative presidents, I don't see many people buying it.
[i]Actually, I don't think a good portion of the electorate does think this. According to all the polls, people feel they will do better under Democrats.[/i]
And while polling is only a good guess, the time poll has McCain tied with Hillary, while Obama is leading. So I think that quite a few American's actually care more about the politicians than the party.
February 8, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, when Americans are asked according to party instead of candidate, they have opinions that differ from yours. A few of this month's polls:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2008. N=1,249 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
"Which political party -- the Democrats or the Republicans -- do you trust to do a better job handling?"
The economy. Democrats 52% Republicans 33%
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll. Jan. 20-22, 2008. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults).
"When it comes to [see below], which party do you think would do a better job: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or both about the same?"
"Dealing with the economy." Democratic Party 43% Republican Party 25%
"Reducing the federal deficit." Democratic Party 42% Republican Party 20%
"Dealing with taxes." Democratic Party 36% Republican Party 31%
Fortune Magazine poll. Jan. 14-16, 2008. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Regardless of which political party you support, which party -- the Democrats or Republicans -- would do a better job of keeping the economy healthy?"
Democrats 45% Republicans 35%
February 8, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seashell, please don't bother Kenneth with the facts. It will only serve to make him even more irrational.
As the great philosopher Mary Bono said, "Think of the children."
February 9, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
True, mjshep. But how many kids grow up thinking they want to become a 'pension actuary'? :-)
February 9, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, this is rich! I just got a message that my last comment couldn't be posted because I have sent in too many comments in too short a time!
Does it matter that for every comment (3) I have had to try for 3, 4, or 5 times?
OK, here is try #6 for this one:
Josh, I have a request. Please break your comments into paragraphs. You have lots of good comments, but it is hard to follow the way they are presented.
Just a suggestion, because I'll bet you don't get the readership you deserve as is.
February 8, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, this is rich! I just got a message that my last comment couldn't be posted because I have sent in too many comments in too short a time!
Does it matter that for every comment I have had to try for 3, 4, or 5 times?
OK, here is try #3 for this one:
Josh, I have a request. Please break your comments into paragraphs. You have lots of good comments, but it is hard to follow the way they are presented.
Just a suggestion, because I'll bet you don't get the readership you deserve as is.
February 8, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really cute, that error message.
Still waiting for this place to recover.
February 8, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh might be experiencing a winkling of his format. I submitted on this thread with proper paragraphs and it got squished together when displayed.
The mystery of code.......
February 8, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Kenneth Payne
It's shocking and appalling that none of the candidates have yet said what they are going to do for You.
When You are part of the problem, it's very difficult to see it.
February 8, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Kenneth Payne
It's shocking and appalling that none of the candidates have yet said what they are going to do for You, Kenneth Payne.
When You are part of the problem, it's very difficult to see it.
February 8, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Kenneth Payne
It's shocking and appalling that none of the candidates have yet said what they are going to do for You, Kenneth Payne.
When You are part of the problem, it's very difficult to see it.
February 8, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Anrig said:
The mindset being referred to here is not conservatives believing that an advance in security has been achieved by eight years of the present administration operating in Iraq. The idea here is that no shortcomings or failure to reach stated goals has reduced our power or level of influence in the region. McCain's narrative of a good war badly executed is not a promise that the goals the Bush team failed to reach will be attained. The real message is that there are no negative numbers to deal with. Whatever mess has been made needs only the proper corrective action and progress can me made right away. It is sort of a pooper-scooper approach to foreign policy. This makes me think that the great divide of the coming presidential election will be over the single question of whether we as a nation are seriously inarrears or not. If enough people think we can fail an incredible amount and still come out on top, then we will truly become a neocon nation.February 8, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to quibble with the statement "Conservatism is what got us into today’s multitude of morasses."
What has gotten into the morasses are the asses in "MOVEMENT" conservativism, which bears little resemblence to Conservatism as preached by Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan, and Andrew Sullivan. MOVEMENT conservatism is not about fiscal responsibility or limited government, two pillars of Conservatism. MOVEMENT conservatives want the government out of economics but in your personal life, to a horrifying extent, while they crow about freedom. Most liberals want the government in the economy but out of folks' personal lives, except a few that want to ban vices like smoking and such. Old-time conservatives generally want the government out of everything except defense, roads, and foreign and monetary policies.
I just want to clarify the language.
February 8, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Conservatism" -- much like socialism and Christianity -- cannot be said to have failed because it has never been tried?
February 8, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Kenneth, you're not a politician. What you are is a condescending little prick. You've decided to come in here, shit on people, announce that Liberals make you sick, repeat bullshit lies in the hopes that it will be true. You contradict yourself, you evade, you play rhetorical games. Then when people don't immediately fall down and kiss your ass you lecture and play the victim.
You know how you're among liberals? Because they tolerate this stuff from guys like you. They endure your contempt because they have this foolish idea that they can reach you, that they can talk to you and get through your armour of fatuous ignorance.
What's your latest shtick? In some previous post you bragged about having studied all the candidates, your detailed knowledge of all the different positions and policies. Yeah, you're quite the student. But then, how do we explain this little bon mot?
So much for being a careful student and observer. You're big on facts and details... except when you can't be bothered. It seems that when you are confronted with facts you don't like, you just pull in your head and retreat into that mass of the great unwashed, the ignorant who don't have the access to information that you do, who don't read like you do, who aren't trained actuaries.
Hypocrite.
If you took took crap like this to a conservative site, they'd rip you new ones so fast your head would spin.
February 9, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you took took crap like this to a conservative site, they'd rip you new ones so fast your head would spin.
From what I hear, they would just permanently ban him.
February 9, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans can't win in November no matter what.
They have a central platform (war) that will be soundly rejected by voters. Recession worries will expand that sentiment because people see billions of their tax dollars being poured into Iraq that will not do one thing for Americans at home. The conservative base won't save McCain because it is too restrictive in its demands to give McCain the latitude necessary to appeal to a broader constituency. McCain can't change the direction of the party on its war stance without acknowledging how seriously Bush, and thus McCain himself messed up the response to 9/11. Lastly, McCain won't be able to fully resolve the fractures in his own party. Try as he might, it can't be done.
Those are just the major obstacles McCain is facing. When you add in all the other screwups of Bush and republicans it equates to them having no chance. No other outcome is even remotely possible. Americans can be ignorant on occasion but this time around there is too much light being shed upon republican transgressions to have ignorance be a factor. Those transgresions will only add to republican woes between now and November. And you can depend upon Hillary and or Obama keeping a strong fire going on the boiling pot that will cook the republican goose.
February 9, 2008 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to believe you, 'thepeoplechoose', but I have three objections.
1) The Democrats are perpetually compromised, they're owned by much of the big money and corporate interests that own the Republicans and may not represent a real shift.
2) As part of this, the Democrats have evolved into perrenial losers. They've become the party of Emmanual Goldstein. Election after election they consistently throw away their opportunities and snatch defeats from the jaws of victory. America is evolving into a one and a half party democracy.
3) There's a possibility that the Republicans are so worried about accountability for actual crimes that they simply will not allow power to be lost. They've already cheated their way through too elections, with Democratic acquiescence and endorsement by the Supreme Court. Why not this one?
February 9, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, Valdron"
February 9, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron,
You make some good points.
Your #1 is the most problematic. Thats the state of politics and we have equilibrium so it may be moot. This may never change short of a bloody revolution.
Your # 2 is different this time. I disagree because democrats are far mmore energized than I've seen in some time. Primary turnouts indicate a lopsided ratio relative to republicans. It was 3 or 4 to 1, something like that.
Your # 3 is a tough call. 2000 and 2004 have troubled a lot of people. I think the FEC is compromised. Howard Dean may have something to say about this before its over. The jury is out on this one. Local control of the process is too easy to interfere with. As far as involving the judiciary in post election litigation, Bush has done his best to corrupt the entire legal system. We're stuck with that and have to fight tooth and nail in that arena.
February 9, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: There's a possibility that the Republicans are so worried about accountability for actual crimes that they simply will not allow power to be lost.
Um, wasn't that the argument in 2006? Yet the GOP somehow lost control of Congress. Apparently they aren't as good at rigging elections as some people dread.
February 10, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: There's a possibility that the Republicans are so worried about accountability for actual crimes that they simply will not allow power to be lost.
Um, wasn't that the argument in 2006? Yet the GOP somehow lost control of Congress. Apparently they aren't as good at rigging elections as some people dread.
February 10, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink