Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 27, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

EVENING ROUNDUP....A few links to get you through the night:

Kevin Drum 1:03 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (157)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Theme for 2006 comapaigns: "Are you more secure than when Bush was elected? Vote Democrat."
And don't forget: "Republicans--selling your security since 2001."

Posted by: Radio Head on February 27, 2006 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINK

From the link:
"But here's the serious part: there's a lot of fear and trembling going on among Republicans. "

There should be. When we take the country back, they're all going into concentration camps. Malkin first.

Posted by: craigie on February 27, 2006 at 1:50 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, B.S. the Republicans are not going to lose their majority. In California, every seat remained with every party at the state and federal level because the parties are locked in. And this is pretty much the way the rest of the nation is.

And I don't know how much of a bellweather South Dakota is for the mid-West (Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Iowa etc.) but it overwhelmingly just voted to outlaw abortion and this indicates to me conservatives are comfortably in control in the mid-West.

While the Republican Party may not be in the best shape, traditonally conservative areas will stay conservative, voting districts will remain with the party they always vote for (i.e. the majority will go Republican) and the Democrats still do not inspire.

Posted by: Cal State Disneyland on February 27, 2006 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINK

All those whining republicans are traitors and unpatriotic. How ungrateful they can be, even with Bush upping the war bill (defense spending). We are a nation at war, there are lots of terrorists to kill, lots of nations to destroy so that they won't ever to our door again, and these turn about face by whining republicans are something, they are wussies.

Posted by: Mini Al on February 27, 2006 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

Well, I think you are absolutely correct. The Republicans might win the majority.

Posted by: emma on February 27, 2006 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK

1. Bush therefore had German support and had an international coalition....

2. No. The whole of America being a failed state would be worse. Do you mean New Orleans or Iraq, by the way?

3. Cracks, sure. And in the Democrat party..big fucking rifts.

Posted by: McA on February 27, 2006 at 3:15 AM | PERMALINK

A more interesting question might be to ask what the motive is for the leak to the Times. Why is someone giving the Times a classified study of which countries helped the US against the wishes of their own publics?

It seems to me that this is another case of the Bush administration leaking classified information for political purposes (in this case, to spread the blame for the botched war in Iraq ... see, all those other countries were in on it as well). No matter that foreign intelligence relations are exposed; the Bush administration treats politics as much more important than such mundane matters as whether any foreign intelligence service will ever cooperate with the US again.

Posted by: Joe Buck on February 27, 2006 at 3:16 AM | PERMALINK

hy is someone giving the Times a classified study of which countries helped the US against the wishes of their own publics?

Posted by: Joe Buck on February 27, 2006 at 3:16 AM | PERMALINK

And what was the position on Plame Gate and NSA Gate?

I didn't see a lot of concern for leaks then.

Leaks are always wrong and journalists should be questioned. In this case and others.

Posted by: McA on February 27, 2006 at 4:07 AM | PERMALINK

You'll note that all of the Republican hand-wringing was over their electoral chances, not over whether or not their policies had any chance of getting enacted -- or were successful.

Power over principle. Party over country.

Posted by: Kimmitt on February 27, 2006 at 4:50 AM | PERMALINK

I'm confused about what would have been wrong with Germany providing the US with such plans. Even as a war opponent, I don't see any downside to making sure Saddam Hussein lost the war as quickly and completely as possible, given that the war was going to happen. Are Germans angry about this? Would they really have preferred that the US find it more difficult to knock out Baghdad's defenses, and spend more time and waste more innocent lives in its inevitable conquest of the city?

hough I guess I can understand the feeling of annoyance that one's government has associated the country with a stupid venture which you, and most of the country's people, opposed. Hell, I voted for Gore - I spent 4 whole years feeling that way, until the majority of my compatriots went ahead and made themselves look like even bigger idiots.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 27, 2006 at 5:56 AM | PERMALINK

WHITE HOUSE BREAKFAST

Dick Cheney and George W. Bush were having breakfast at the White House.

The attractive waitress asks Cheney what he would like, and he replies, "I'd like a bowl of oatmeal and some fruit."

"And what can I get for you, Mr. President?"

George W. replies with his trademark wink and slight grin, "How about a quickie this morning?"

"Why, Mr. President!" the waitress exclaims "How rude! You're starting to act like Mr. Clinton, and you've only been in your second term of office for a year! ''

As the waitress storms away, Cheney leans over to Bush and whispers..." Umm, Mr. President, it's actually pronounced 'quiche'."

Posted by: Lurker42 on February 27, 2006 at 7:24 AM | PERMALINK

Brook, you're absolutely right, though we were against that military adventure, almost noone here wanted Saddam to have successes during that war. Thanks for making that point.

But I have some doubts if Schrder really made the decision to relay topsecret information ot the WH at that time before the war. There's nothing in the NYT that says that. Pls read it again and you'll notice that any information about who was behind transmitting the data is suspiciously missing. But it mentions that "In February 2003, a German intelligence officer in Qatar provided a copy to an official from the United States Defense Intelligence Agency". Now, just a moment pls, important point here. IF the german dovernment or our intelligence agency BND decided to send informations to the US, whould they have done that via Qatar? Imho, no way. They would hace viewed and double-checked those plans in Pullach (german Langley) first. So the US would have obtained there copy for the intelligence headquarter. And I'm sure they wouldn't have told specifics about the german intelligence operations like the way the documrnts were transmitted, too. Why should they?

NO, all facts mentioned in the NYT lead towards one conclusion: The german BND agent in Quatar is a double agent for the CIA. But another question remains open: Who leaked the war plan info and what is his motivation for it? Remember, this is a leak that doesn't hurt the Bush administration...

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 7:42 AM | PERMALINK

Two other points: The base of this NYT report seems to be a study by the "United States Joint Forces Command". Reporter Michael R. Gordon seems to have gained access during the investigastions for his book that's due in March. When exactly was this leaked to him? This didn't "coincidentally" happen before the german elections in November 2005, no? And why is the source of the Iraqi war plan and the way it took (via Quatar) mentioned in that study, what is the "need to know" here? For me, this smells like a typical Cheney plot to descredit Schrder that didn't work out because Gordon withheld that info to use it as promotion for his book.

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 7:54 AM | PERMALINK

Wildly OT yet again
1) It's Lundi Gras - laissez le bons temps!
2)In the interest of pointing ya'll to some fragments of weirdness in this morning's WashPO

C'est Levee

In the Nawlins Muck, They're Yukking It Up

By Linton Weeks
Monday, February 27, 2006

........
Some of the sort-of-funny moments are intentional. One float in a satirical parade proclaimed: "Buy us back, Chirac!"

Others are unintentional. A tour guide said that she heard a TV reporter ask a New Orleans woman if she was devastated by the destruction of all the churches in the area and the woman replied, "Not really. I eat at Popeyes."

That's a local fried chicken reference. If you don't get it, ask a New Orleanian.

.......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022601295.html

Mardi Gras After Katrina: Laughing In the Face of Fate
By Ken Ringle
Special to The Washington Post
Monday, February 27, 2006;

.......

I try to explain how very, very different Washington is from New Orleans. It's not just the absence of drive-through daiquiri bars in Washington. It's that people in the nation's capital tend to think they'll never die. Or, at least, that the government is working hard on this mortality thing, and that pretty soon we'll be told how if we never smoke or drink or eat sugar or cream or stay out late and have sex, we'll live forever.

New Orleans, needless to say, is under no such illusion. Almost from the moment of its founding nearly 300 years ago, the city has clutched mortality to its Latin-Catholic-voodoo soul. Living perpetually under the Damoclean sword of cholera and yellow fever and floods and hurricanes, New Orleanians understood with an almost terrifying urgency that death was inevitable, but a well-lived life took some effort.

So they dressed up in fancy clothes, setting desserts on fire and otherwise refining their appreciation of what life can offer. Since they couldn't defeat death, they would dance with it. And the laughing defiance of that dance would comprise the sort of existential triumph that philosophers like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche would later attempt to codify in less joyous terms.

Carnival in New Orleans is thus the ritualization of that nose-thumbing at fate."
^^^^^^^^^

Now back to our regularly scheduled doom and troll bashing...

Posted by: CFShep on February 27, 2006 at 8:01 AM | PERMALINK

"As the waitress storms away, Cheney leans over to Bush and whispers..." Umm, Mr. President, it's actually pronounced 'quiche'.""

Ok, I am going to have to steal that one.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on February 27, 2006 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

That Churches/Popeyes joke is a disparaging bit of mendacity. See Snopes.

I just hate to see that sort of thing mucking up an otherwise enjoyable comment post.

Posted by: S Ra on February 27, 2006 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

"That Churches/Popeyes joke is a disparaging bit of mendacity. See Snopes.

I just hate to see that sort of thing mucking up an otherwise enjoyable comment post."

Dang, just another urban myth. And I thought this is a healthy sign that not all americans are crazy about the church :(

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with Memphis, the 'quiche' joke Lurker42 posted was the funniest thing I have read this week.

Posted by: tanj on February 27, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

McAnus: 1. Bush therefore had German support and had an international coalition....

So, conservative claims that "Old Europe" are a bunch of cowards unwilling to help were lies.

Conservative claims that it was lack of help from "Old Europe" that has led to the failure in Iraq are lies.

Conservative claims that Germany was bought and paid for by Saddam were lies.

Consequently, McAnus claims were lies.

Thanks for clearing that up, McAnus!

2. No. The whole of America being a failed state would be worse. Do you mean New Orleans or Iraq, by the way?

America is currently a failed state. By your own definition. And Bush is responsible for New Orleans. The majority of Americans agree. You lose.

3. Cracks, sure. And in the Democrat party..big fucking rifts.

In your delusional fantasies. Which is pretty much the prism through which you view every issue.


Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

I take umbrage with the 'just an urban myth' thing from anybody who hasn't actually lived in New Orleans.

It is just exactly the kind of thing you're apt to encounter when a clueless non-local TV, more than likely blond, newsbot sticks a microphone in the face of a local.

It's a pure Ignatian encounter of the third kind.

Me, I'm tempted to make the I-10 trek just for one of those "Girls gone Wild" t-shirts.

Posted by: CFShep on February 27, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with Memphis, the 'quiche' joke Lurker42 posted was the funniest thing I have read this week.
Posted by: tanj

I swiped it before Memphs got outta bed this morning.

It's a thing of pure joy.

"Nous sommes desoles que notre president soit un idiot. Nous n'avons pas vote pour lui."

Posted by: CFShep on February 27, 2006 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

"I agree with Memphis, the 'quiche' joke Lurker42 posted was the funniest thing I have read this week."
I remember having read that before. It's amusing, but I don't think Lurker invented it.

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

"Nous n'avons pas vote pour lui"

Les gens d'origine francais sont trs exigeant. C'est ne pas vraisemblable qu'ils vot pour un idiot.

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

I encourage all of you to continue this outrage over the administration up until '08, when again you will become marginalized. Ms. Nossel's line is what needs to be at the top of the next campaign. Your anger will serve you well in the upcoming elections, just as it did in '00 and '04, and those darn election stealers in Florida moved to Ohio at the precise time, drats foiled again!

Isn't it amazing how the incompetent Iraqi security and military forces combined for calls for peace from the appropriate clerics prevented your wildly anticipated civil war in Iraq? Those incompetent forces were trained by those American "occupiers" that you support so much. Funny how a victory by the left coincides with destruction in Iraq. Ironic isn't it?

So now you would have us believe that Germany had Saddam's post war plans. Really? Hard to believe the administration didn't take that seriously when time after time Germany vetoed any Security Council plans. You're telling me that even with the plans Germany didn't feel comfortable taking out one of America's worst regimes? What more do they need, of course if were talking incompetence, Germany would have to rank up there, I mean the wall was a good idea wasn't it?

And there certainly are cracks in the conservative armor and one day all of you may begin to realize that that is a good thing opposite the group think stemming from the left. The right actually challenges each other as opposed to our freinds on the left side of the aisle who merely toss one off of the reservation when they disagree with the "group", ie: Joe Lieberman. So the minority faction of the minority party here has all the answers and I encourage you to continue to beat that drum all the way into '08. Good luck.

Posted by: Jay on February 27, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

And I don't know how much of a bellweather South Dakota is for the mid-West

South Dakota is a joke. It barely beats out North Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming for population. It is a perfect example of marginally survivable farming and nothing else.

Why they get two Senators is beyond me. I doubt they currently have abortions available anywhere in the state. They barely have hospitals.

Posted by: Tripp on February 27, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

I encourage all of you to continue this outrage over the administration

Thanks. I do wish it was 'all of us' but I guess having 63% disapprove of Bush will have to do for now.

Maybe, to be absolutly precise, you could say "I encourage the great majority of Americans to continue this outrage over the administration." That way you don't overstate your case.

Posted by: Tripp on February 27, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

Sherlock's translation feature is always good for a giggle. Sherlock claims you said:

"People of French origin are very demanding. It probable that they is not voted for an idiot."

There was a minor diplomatic countretemps about that phrase having turned up on the labels of some imported t-shirts shortly after the 2000 election.

It's too early to call my sister - she of the minor in French and no place to go and check this out.

In the mean time, I'm going to get some "Buy us back, Chirac" t-shirts printed up.

Posted by: CFShep on February 27, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

There should be. When we take the country back, they're all going into concentration camps. Malkin first.
Yep, it's terrible we have those fascist Repubs in charge. If we could only reach craigie's kinder, gentler nation.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 27, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

Yep, it's terrible we have those fascist Repubs in charge. If we could only reach craigie's kinder, gentler nation.
Posted by: conspiracy nut

There are refrigerators still sitting out on the curb in Midtown with more wit that Jay/Nut can muster on his best day.

And less toxic, to boot.

Posted by: CFShep on February 27, 2006 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: Hard to believe the administration didn't take that seriously when time after time Germany vetoed any Security Council plans.

The administration didn't take anyone who disagreed with them seriously, even though virtually all their opponents' views were proven to be truthful and accurate.

Not hard to believe you continue to take this administration seriously, either.

I know it's difficult for you to wean yourself from Bush's c*ck, but you really should try.

The head of the FDA says it's very fattening and he should know.

Jay: And there certainly are cracks in the conservative armor and one day all of you may begin to realize that that is a good thing opposite the group think stemming from the left.

Isn't it amazing how the incompetent Iraqi security and military forces combined for calls for peace from the appropriate clerics prevented your wildly anticipated civil war in Iraq?

See, Jay can't type without lying.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

You'll note that all of the Republican hand-wringing was over their electoral chances, not over whether or not their policies had any chance of getting enacted -- or were successful

The policies have been enacted. Tax cuts, Roberts, Alito, Warrantless Wiretaps, etc. My own favorite wasn't covered much. Condi announces restaffing of State Dept amonting to an 80% reduction in European staff to be transferred to Asia along with a revised list of desired languages. Let's just say any high school or college student considering a career in business or diplomacy will not be taking French ir German.

The evil Rumsfeld reducing European troop counts 95% wasn't a shock. But this was the moderate and reasonable Condi Rice.

It's far to day the next President will sit atop dramatically different Defense and State Depts as well as a very different geo-political alignment as well as a significantly more conservative judiciary. None of it according to liberal designs.

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, pls correct your first statement:
"Did Germany provide the U.S. with copies of Saddam Hussein's planned defense of Baghdad? They say no, but the New York Times says yes."

NO, THE NYT DOESN'T STATE THIS!
Instead, it wrote "German Intelligence Gave U.S. Iraqi Defense Plan, Report Says". This is something quite different, there is not a single hint in the story that the german government was involved. And "german intelligence" may have the meaning of "the helm of the BND", but it may only be read as "one german intelligence officer", too. The second meaning would correspond to my suspicion.
Imho you have to read this article VERY carefully (as all stories about intelligence information). It is VERY significant what ISN'T said here! So, pls don't fall into the Trap to assume informations that are not given here and CORRECT THAT STATEMENT!

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Shortly after the "quiche" incident, they changed the name to "Freedom Custard".

Have always preferred Popeyes to Churches - Better flavor - plus Churches decor is sooo bland.

Off thread, but stay tuned for James Lee Burkes new book in Atlantic about Katrina - "Jesus Out To Sea"

And in "honor" of Mardi Gras, "Show your ___s".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 27, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: Germany would have to rank up there, I mean the wall was a good idea wasn't it?

Must have been a good idea, at least to conservative assh*les like Jay.

After all, Bush is building just such a wall right here in the good old USA with the backing of conservatives everywhere.

Don't you just hate it when you become the thing you hate, Jay?

Just like you conservatives are becoming just like the rulers of the old Soviet Union: creating gulags, engaging in torture, spying on your own people to consolidate your political power, changing the laws to consolidate your own political power instead of to serve the public, preaching fear and hatred, using pretext to justify invading countries that haven't attacked us, lying about the dangers those countries pose, turning on allies whenever it suits your own personal partisan political agenda.

The correlation between American conservatives and the old soviet leaders is quite striking.

And you are one of the prime examples.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

Tripp, I didn't realize that a state needed available abortions to be taken seriously. Thanks for clearing that up.

And class, Advocate wins the first silver star of the day properly using the left's timeless defense of personal attacks when he uses the phrase "wean yourself from Bush c*ck", well done advocate. Now can anyone tell me what was missing there that could have earned him the gold star? Anyone? I will give you a hint: it starts with T and ends with roll. That's right. Also, I am not sure anyone noticed but in both CF's and advocates debating points there is zero substance, again job well done! Hey I wonder what Cindy Sheehan is doing?

Posted by: Jay on February 27, 2006 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: Condi announces restaffing of State Dept amonting to an 80% reduction in European staff to be transferred to Asia along with a revised list of desired languages.

There you go lying again, rdw. Delusion is a dish best not served, so you really should quit eating it up like it's candy!

Let's just say any high school or college student considering a career in business or diplomacy will not be taking French ir German.

I hope in any language their grammer, spelling, and logic skills are better than yours!

The evil Rumsfeld reducing European troop counts 95% wasn't a shock. But this was the moderate and reasonable Condi Rice.

There is nothing moderate and reasonable about Condi Rice, unless you think Goebbels was a model of such things.

None of it according to liberal designs.

Thanks God! Who would want to be associated with the rampant failures that conservatives have wrought?


Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

These bits and pieces of news lead to a certain sense of euphoria that the future may not be all that bleak.

But soon the realization of the gutlessness of the current crop of leaders of the Democratic party drenches any hopes about the resolution of the current mess.

Posted by: lib on February 27, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

"Hard to believe the administration didn't take that seriously when time after time Germany vetoed any Security Council plans."

Sry, WHAT? My memory is not the best, but you say we vetoed Security Council plans several times? Firstly, we don't have veto rights at the UN, so we could only VOTE against plans. Secondly, when we voted against plans, we were not alone, but in the coalition of the mentally sane. Thirdly, I can't remember that there have been many US proposals we voted against since the Bushies were very reluctant in proposing anything. And they abandoned this whole idea of getting UN backup very fast, even risking to totally piss of their loyal ally Blair. So pls stop faking historical facts here.!

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

"I mean the wall was a good idea wasn't it?"

If you say so. Dang, we germans really should be more economically keen. We should have stored the concrete parts, the fences and the mines. We could make lotsa money now by selling them to the US for the Mexico wall that repubs are stomping for.

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: Also, I am not sure anyone noticed but in both CF's and advocates debating points there is zero substance . . .

You wouldn't know substance if it bit off your leg and shoved it up your ass, Jay, assuming of course it could be shoved up past Bush's c*ck!

In any event, I'd much rather be noted for posting non-substantive points than noted like you for posting lies and logical drivel.

And clearly you don't understand what the term "troll" really means in blogospheric terminology.

Hint: "idiot" and "troll" are not synonymous terms, so it was inappropriate for me to use the term "troll" when referring to you, obliquely as it may have been, as an "idiot".

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

AfG, I like your style and your thougthful comments, but pls remember that it's totally useless to try to have a discussion (in any meaningful sense of the word) with troll "rdw". This guy is just immune to any reasonable thinking, we've learned, right?

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

And in "honor" of Mardi Gras, "Show your ___s".

Posted by: thethirdPaul

LOL.

Not just at the moment. I get my beads by the only legitimate method: I catch 'em fair and square while attempting not to shove any nuns to the ground in the process (there's a purely, you-can't-make-this-stuff-up NOLA story goes with that.)

I'd gladly send ya a G-rated C-Does-Mardi-Gras though.

Tootles. I'm off to compete in today's installment of Parade Barricade Grand Slalom.

Watch out for Abominable Pink Sous Chefs.

Posted by: CFShep on February 27, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

backpeddaling again Gray? The Germans are getting very good at that.
advocate, is that wall in South Dakota, because you compatriot Tripp is concerned that there aren't any abortions available there. Could that wall be preventing them? "South Dakota, tear down this wall?"

"gulags, torture, spying, and fear mongering (that's my favorite)" if any of these were true advocate you may actually have a platform but drats foiled again. Though let's talk fear mongering shall we? Isn't that what the left is doing everyday? Screaming from every podium they can find telling anyone who will listen (btw, not that many)that GW is spying on them and preventing teens from getting abortion on demand? (can you imagine not being able to get an abortion, how absurd?) Wasn't it our ol buddy Gore who screamed vociferously that GW was "playing upon our fears!" If anyone can call the kettle black I guess it would be the left. Again well done!

Posted by: Jay on February 27, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

"You wouldn't know substance if it bit off your leg and shoved it up your ass, Jay, assuming of course it could be shoved up past Bush's c*ck!"

LOL AfG. I'm learning lots of new phrases here :)

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

Gray: . . . it's totally useless to try to have a discussion (in any meaningful sense of the word) with troll "rdw".

Yes.

But it amuses me.

It's like a game: how much drivel, mendacity, hypocrisy, and illogic can I elicit from rdw.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

"backpeddaling again Gray?"
You call this "backpedalling", Hell, you're a really tough guy, wouldn't notice if I shot you straight into your (probably ugly) face, right?
Go hunting with Cheney!
:D

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

kk, AfG, have some fun. But you know that you'll probably end up discussing the strategies of the green berrets in Vietnam and the question if the John Wayne movie is painting an accurate picture?
...sigh...

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Wasn't it our ol buddy Gore who screamed vociferously that

Posted by: Nimer on February 27, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

"Wasn't it our ol buddy Gore who screamed vociferously that"

Wow! There's reason for hope! Another freeper PC crashed before he couldn't post any nonsense. Gr8!

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

Hey I wonder what Cindy Sheehan is doing?


Nice Jay. She's probably mourning the loss of her son in an inane War created by our even more inane leader. Your compassionate conservatism is showing.

Posted by: ckelly on February 27, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Is that what she's doing? I thought she was using her honorable sons grave as a podium to become the hysterical lefts mouthpiece and gain her fifteen minutes of fame. Even her own family has disapproved of her "grieving". Thanks for clearing that up.

Posted by: Jay on February 27, 2006 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

"Hey I wonder what Cindy Sheehan is doing?"

Hmm, about 11:00, probably preparing lunch, or vacuuming the rooms, or shopping, whatever a Hausfrau does at this time of the day. But who cares?

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

"It's amusing, but I don't think Lurker invented it."

Oh no, certainly not. I got it in E-mail. Just thought I would share and start monday with a chuckle.

Posted by: Lurker42 on February 27, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

"US Says Plans to Shift Diplomats from Europe" - Reuters (Washington), 18 Jan 2006

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday she will start this year to shift some U.S. diplomats from Europe to countries such as India and Lebanon to help them strengthen their democracies.

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

Hmm, I may have been worng with my assesment that "13 Days" only attracted an elderly audience. A reciewer states:
"Word on the street is that it's also skewing younger and pulling in a larger audience of viewers like myself (18-49)."
http://www.filmsinreview.com/Film%20Reviews/13days.html

But on the other hand, are Hollywood movies a good way to teach history to a younger audience? The restrictions of this medium lead to a distortion of facts, in this case by adding fictional WH aide Kenny O'Donnell. But at least it raises interest for the topic and some movie watchers may be inclined to check books for the real facts...

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Dang, wrong thread, sry!

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

"Just thought I would share and start monday with a chuckle."

Hehe, you did, Lurker! Good idea!

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday she will start this year to shift some U.S. diplomats from Europe to countries such as India and Lebanon to help them strengthen their democracies.

I really don't think India needs any help from the US in "strengthening its democracy"; Indian politicians know all they need to about vote-buying, intimidating the opposition, and using irresponsible jingoism and anti-Muslim religious innuendo to fire up the base, and India's rollicking democracy has been doing just fine for the past 58 years without any help from us. If they did, they'd be unlikely to want it from diplomats reassigned from Europe, who for their part are surely just thrilled to be heading for Delhi after having spent their entire careers struggling to get to Paris.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 27, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: . . . is that wall in South Dakota . . .

It would be along the Mexican border.

I really didn't expect that you were that ignorant, but I shouldn't have been surprised!

btw, not that many

Nearly 54% is more than "not that many."

But well done with trying to vigorously promote your lies.

Too bad an 'rdw 10-second internet search' so easily proves you a liar.

Isn't that what the left is doing everyday?

It isn't fear-mongering if the fears are true.

WMDs in Iraq?

Not true.

Heightened terrorists alerts by HSA in America?

Proven to have been manipulated and therefore false on many, many occasions.

Bush spying on Americans without a warrant?

Proven true.

Bush administration torturing prisoners?

Proven true.

Bush administration incarcerating people just because they are Arab or Muslim?

Proven true.

Too bad an 'rdw 10-second internet search' so easily proves you a liar.

. . . preventing teens from getting abortion on demand . . .

Strawman and false claim.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Oh no, brooksfoe, don't feed the troll! He will divert you into a discussion about soviet violence against democracy suporters in Czechoslovakia 1968 :(

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

KEVIN! Pls stay by the facts and exchange "Germany" with "german intelligence", ok?

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday she will start this year to shift some U.S. diplomats from Europe to countries such as India and Lebanon to help them strengthen their democracies.

Wow. Especially in the case of India that's astonishingly arrogant.

Maybe, if she believes sending more US diplomats somehow enhances democracy (a dubious proposition for which there is little evidence anywhere), she ought to reassign them to, e.g., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan rather than India.

Or, heck, pull them all out of Europe and send them to China.

India needs US help to strengthen its democracy about as much as a squid needs hiking boots.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 27, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday she will start this year to shift some U.S. diplomats from Europe to countries such as India and Lebanon to help them strengthen their democracies.

And you got the 80% reduction from where?

The same place you got the lie about the administration having "no recent visits" to Old Europe in a previous thread?

LOL.


Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

"shift some U.S. diplomats from Europe to countries such as India and Lebanon"

Imho this is simply evidence that the CIA will concentrate more on Libanon and India. Bad for them, good for us germans.

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

cracks are starting to show in the conservative facade

Only schism can save us from Domionism.

Posted by: Hostile on February 27, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

The "quiche" joke was making the internet rounds 4 years ago.

Posted by: DCNative on February 27, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

"Only schism can save us from Domionism."

Hmm, I have some difficulties in translating. This is about the same as saying "Only the spanish inquisition can save us from atheism"? Unexpected, indeed...

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: Especially in the case of India that's astonishingly arrogant.

This administration has never been short on arrogance.

Bush goes where a push for democracy is not needed.

Bush goes where WMDs are not to be found.

Bush goes where the 9/11 terrorists are not located.

Bush goes where there is no fighting (the National Guard).

A pattern emerges . . . Bush runs from difficult tasks requiring bravery, and instead runs towards tasks that can be made to appear difficult and brave.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

who for their part are surely just thrilled to be heading for Delhi after having spent their entire careers struggling to get to Paris.

Thrilled indeed!

Just think what this announcement meant to the folks at Foggy Bottom. It's turned their world upside down. And they hated Bush before he even took office.

Methinks this was one the benefits (but an after-thought) of the realignment. They're not supposed to be thrilled.

We can at least agree a continued large diplomatic presence in Western Europe is rather pointless. US commercial and diplomatic interests are expanding geometrically outside Europe. It normally takes the diplomatic corps a couple/few decades to follow commercial interests. Intel now gets 60% of it's sales from Asia and just announced intentions to build a plant in Vietnam. This is where we need diplomats. Not because they need our help. We need their markets.

BTW: This wasn't intended to poke a stick in the face of the French. It wasn't about them. They're just not important. It re-affirms the fact West Europe is solely responsible for its own security but that was already clear. The bottom line is the next administration will inherit a vastly different foreign policy apparatus.

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Leaks are always wrong and journalists should be questioned. In this case and others.

Jawohl, mein Herr!

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 27, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: We can at least agree a continued large diplomatic presence in Western Europe is rather pointless.

We can at least agree that a large diplomatic presence in India to promote democracy is a waste of resources that could be better used, as cmdicely points out, to promote democracy in places where Bush is actually hindering it - pretty much everywhere it doesn't already exist!

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: This wasn't intended to poke a stick in the face of the French.

Of course it is.

Your obsession with hating the French is well-known and constantly on display.

Indeed, your hatred of all things French exceeds even your own claims (false though they may be) of liberal hatred of all things Bush.

The bottom line is the next administration will inherit a vastly different foreign policy apparatus.

Which it should, and hopefully will, immediately change in order to mitigate the failures of Bush-Rice incompetence.

Methinks

Youdon'ts.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. Especially in the case of India that's astonishingly arrogant.

cmdicely,

This was reported by Reuters. If you see them or the AP or the NYTs it's been spun. That's not at all what Condi said. Here's the link if you are interested.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/59306.htm

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Yep, it's terrible we have those fascist Repubs in charge. If we could only reach craigie's kinder, gentler nation.

Aw, whatsamatter, is craigie's comedy pee-pee bigger than your comedy pee-pee? Like Godzilla to a gnat?

(Wait, was Godzilla even male? If not, sorry, craigie, baby.)

This thread is a hoot. Everyone telling jokes, having a good time, except the Unbefriended Ones who make hilariously inappropriate comments about kinder, gentler nations and Cindy Sheehan. Boys, your act's a flop. Fire Mehlman and start fresh.

Posted by: shortstop on February 27, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

"There should be. When we take the country back, they're all going into concentration camps. Malkin first."

Yep, it's terrible we have those fascist Repubs in charge. If we could only reach craigie's kinder, gentler nation.

Aw, gee, don't you guys recognize satire when you read it? Or is it only funny when Rush and Ann do it?

Posted by: craigie on February 27, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Ha! High-fivin' craigie, my spiritual Siamese twin. If we were, you know, spiritual.

Posted by: shortstop on February 27, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

"A pattern emerges . . . Bush runs from difficult tasks requiring bravery, and instead runs towards tasks that can be made to appear difficult and brave."

I just love your statements, AfG! Simple, to the point, gr8 :)

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Which it should, and hopefully will, immediately change in order to mitigate the failures of Bush-Rice incompetence.

They can't change it easily. That's why it's started 3 years out. The most important message was to the change of desired languages. There's a small army of high school and college students considering State Dept careers as well as those recently hired. The message is clear. If you have ambitions forget Western Europe.

It's also obvious once new positions are created and space found in India it won't be shut down. Once positions in Western Europe are removed and the space returned for productive use it will be impossible to 're-expand' in Europe. If Hillary wins it will be on deficit reduction you know.

The bottom line is that Condi is correct. The USA needs more diplomatic talent in Asia to assist our commercial needs. This really isn't about France. It's about Asia.

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

I am truly humbled to be mentioned in the same fractured sentence as AoG.

Even in the context of it having been written by someone for whom 'clueless' would be a step up the evolutionary ladder.

Posted by: CFShep on February 27, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

We can at least agree that a large diplomatic presence in India to promote democracy

Let's not be dense. We all know they're there to promote commerical interests. We have 1.1B Indians with a huge middle class and GDP growing 7.5% per year. We are dramaticallly increasing trade to the region and we need diplomatic talent to keep the road open.

No diplomat would ever say that. They're too sophisticated ad nuanced!

We have Asia averaging 6% GDP growth with 3B or so people and we have Western Europe averaging 1.5% GDP growth with about 300M people. Gee, I wonder where we want our diplomatic resources?

Is this really all that hard?

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Here's the link if you are interested.

Linking to liars and document forgers is not a sound debating tactic.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Re. the renewed emphasis on India.

The last time they did this, they put a senior member of the Indian cabinet on the CIA payroll in exchange for minutes of high level meetings.

Indians should be very afraid of any revitalization of American diplomatic efforts in the region.

Posted by: lib on February 27, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK
And they hated Bush before he even took office.Posted by: rdw
Thereby proving their prescience and their patriotism. Posted by: Mike on February 27, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Ha! High-fivin' craigie, my spiritual Siamese twin. If we were, you know, spiritual.

Indeed! Synchronicity! oooeeeeooo! and all that!

Posted by: craigie on February 27, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Holy crap all the trolls are out today,Bye,This blog is going to stink today. see ya another day.

Posted by: Ahmadd Bacrad on February 27, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: No diplomat would ever say that.

Translation: rdw and Condi lied, but they did it because they are too nuanced to state the truth.

BTW, why do conservatives like rdw and Jay keep lying about the ports issue . . .

The argument that "port operators" such as P&O don't actually, y'know, operate ports, and in particular that having a company owned by a country whose rulers used to be Osama's hunting buddies couldn't possibly pose any actual security threat an argument I was willing to take seriously when Helen Delich Bentley made it, and which some media outlets are reporting more or less as fact seems to be false.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Fear and hate is a vicious combination, each feeding off the other, like a well-built fire.

-- Josh Marshall

Bush has built a really, really big fire. On purpose. Because conservatives thrive in an environment of hate and fear; so, they create one.

Mike: Thereby proving their prescience and their patriotism.

And since in rdw's world, prescience and action are the same thing, liberals have become, again using rdw's own definitions, victorious over conservatives.

It is good that rdw and we can agree that conservatism has been defeated by liberalism through the action of prediction!

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

It is good that rdw and we can agree that conservatism has been defeated by liberalism through the action of prediction!

I had no idea. So John Roberts and Samuel Alito were liberal victories? Could you arrange for a few more of these?

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

craigie
Satire requires an object to lash out at. But if you want to claim humor, my advice is to keep your day job.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 27, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: So John Roberts and Samuel Alito were liberal victories?

Remember, rdw, we are using your definition of victory, not the real one.

Try to keep up with your own terminology.

I know its hard to keep up, what with all the contradictory lies you tell, but please, please at least try.

I had no idea.

Pretty typical that you have no clue.

That's why you are referred to so often as "clueless."

Didn't you get that?

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate for God: a country whose rulers used to be Osama's hunting buddies

That's it! A brilliant plan to eliminate OBL. Deadeye Dick's "accident" was just a "proof of concept".

Posted by: alex on February 27, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

"Holy crap all the trolls are out today,Bye,This blog is going to stink today. see ya another day."

Hey, come on, it's mainly blog clown rdw. Where's your sense of humour?

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

Kudos to craigie for causing the CN's head to explode.

Posted by: lib on February 27, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

BWA! How pathetic does a troll have to be to argue that craigie isn't funny? I'm in tears over here!

Posted by: shortstop on February 27, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

My God, I can't stop laughing. That was truly the lamest troll remark ever posted. Ooooooeeeee (did craigie start that in my head, or was it the Confederacy of Dunces confab from the weekend?).

Posted by: shortstop on February 27, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't you get that?

No,

but

I do understand John Roberts and Samuel Alito. That's easy.

I do understand Condi Rice when she tells State Dept hacks where their future lies. That's easy too. Western Europe understands as well.

I do understand what it means when Big John McCain supports tax cuts. It means he aims to be the next President of the USA and knows what it takes.

I do understand what it means to union jobs and blue state electoral votes when the big there announce they're cutting 100,000 jobs. I do understand what that means to Democratic fund raising and voter registration efforts.

I do understand what it means that Hillary Clinton is a lock to win the Democratic nomination. Another liberal. You can't help yourself.

I do understand what the judiciary will look like when pro-life conservative President Big John McCain 'retires' in 2016.

I do understand the Iraqi civil war so hoped for by the liberals and terrorists isn't happening. I do understand the US military is doing a great job training the Iraqi military and US Troops will stand down at a steady rate.

I do understand the economy is doing very well and unemployment will drop lower than 4.3% by year end. I do know the 3-yr period after the supply-side tax cuts will be the strongest GDP growth since Reagan.

I don't know everything. But I know many things.

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Cliff Clavin: I don't know everything. But I know many things.

Oh dear me. I'm afraid the fever has now spread to his brain.

Posted by: Stefan on February 27, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

Get used to this as 1st Qtr GDP > 5%.

Lowe's jumped $3.24, or 5 percent, to $68.76 after reporting earnings that beat Wall Street profit forecasts by 7 cents per share. The company also issued a very strong outlook for future earnings that came in well above analysts' forecasts.

This 37% increase in corporate profits will obviously bode well for corporate taxes not to mention hiring.

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, this guy aspiring to 'clueless' is sort like fish aspiring to send their hatchlings to Cornell.

Posted by: CFShep on February 27, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

He knows the right questions, but his answers are as realistic as those you'd get from a junkie on crack.
Waste of time.

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Gray, no. Atheism was never a threat to freedom of religion in Catholic Europe or to any other freedom. Atheism has never had an organized conspiracy to usurp political power, as far as I know. On the other hand, schism of Christian authority, the Reformation, saved Europe from continuous Catholic Inquisitions. My comment about schism was about the conspiracy of Domionism, which seeks to establish a state religion in America and prohibit other religious or nonreligious expression, but, fortunately, even the Domionists cannot agree on fundamentals of dogma. I have long advocated intervening clandestinely with the Dominionists' goals. For example, school prayer: Domionists want to force school prayer on our children. They can agree on that, but should the children kneel while praying, should the children finish the prayer with "in Jesus name we pray" or not, etc? It is these little things that drive the Domionist conspirators apart, and we should do everything we can to encourage sectarian differences between those who would force us to obey their beliefs, because if we do not, we will return to the ways of our Puritan forefathers, and be forced to go to church on Sundays. Or should that be Saturdays?


Posted by: Hostile on February 27, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Hmm, Hostile, thx for the verbose answer, but I really only tried to make a joke. Kk, I admit, I'm not good at that.
Good points, but I really don't want to discuss problems of the 16th and 17th century now. OK, they still are hotly discussed in the US, but for europeans this is just mindboggling ridiculous.

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: This 37% increase in corporate profits will obviously bode well for corporate taxes not to mention hiring.

Even Jane Galt recognizes that "tax cuts will pay for themselves" is a conservative myth with absolutely no basis in truth and history.

That you continue to lie about this is, well, pretty much your SOP drivel.

BTW, a lot of things you "know" are either delusions or falsehoods, but don't let that stop you from making a fool of yourself!

And remember "understanding" something is not the same as "knowing" something.

You have a real problem understanding the terminology you use, constantly equating terms that are not equivalents and constantly misusing terms to mean something other than what they really mean to the rest of the world.

I guess you are a product of "Every Child Left Behind" Bush re-edumacation (sic).

You can't help yourself.

Obviously, neither can you!

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Demand your Congressperson start a commission to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and settle this religious dispute once and for all.

Posted by: Hostile on February 27, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

This 37% increase in corporate profits will obviously bode well for corporate taxes not to mention hiring

No, it really is obvious. It's very likely we'll get another 15% increase in corporate profits and a 15% increase in corporate tax payments. This is much higher than forecast in the deficit estimate.

What we know from supply-siders is if you tax more of something you get less of it. If you tax less of something you get more of it. This will be the 2nd consecutive year of 15%+ tax receipts.

What really matters is the economy come 11/06 and 11/08. Lowe's is saying it's looking pretty good. They are already understaffed and need to expand hiring further.

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: It's very likely we'll get another 15% increase in corporate profits and a 15% increase in corporate tax payments.

Again, this hasn't happened historically, so you can pretend all you want. It is neither likely nor realistic. But you never were very good at either history or economics, something you prove over and over.

What we know from supply-siders . . .

is that their policies fail. Time and again. Trying to rewrite history to prove otherwise is yet another way you waste your time away.

If you tax less of something you get more of it.

Uh, no you don't. You may or may not, depending on many other factors, but this is just plain stupidity coming from you.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Lowe's is saying it's looking pretty good.

Hey, isn't rdw one of those who was saying we were going to find "massive stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq?"

Or "the war in Iraq will pay for itself?"

Or "there isn't any abuse going on at Abu Ghraib?"

Or "there are no innocent people locked up at Guantanamo or in our concentration camps in Iraq?"

Or "the levees will hold?"

Or "that the Bush administration didn't know the levees had failed?"

Yeah, thought so.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Lowe's is saying it's looking pretty good. They are already understaffed and need to expand hiring further.

Hey, I saw a "Dishwashers Needed" sign in the window of the diner down the street! That's conclusive proof that GDP growth under Bush is the strongest since Reagan.

- More net jobs were created in Clinton's second term than in the entirety of Reagan's two terms.
- The US economy finished Bush's first term with 750,000 fewer private sector jobs than it had when it started.
- The longest peacetime expansion in US economic history took place under Clinton, not Reagan.
- The median wage grew under Clinton; it has fallen under Bush.
- Tax receipts in 2005 finally climbed back to roughly the same level as tax receipts in 2000, in constant dollars, after years in the dumps. Since the economy grew 16% in the meantime (partly under Clinton, partly under post-recession Bush), that means tax receipts are now effectively 16% lower than they were in 2000. And since government spending has exploded under Bush, we now have a monstrous budget deficit. In fact, it's government deficit spending that is fueling the economic recovery that has at least gotten taxes back up to 1999 levels. The whole thing is built on sand. This is the Enron presidency.
- In the 5 years before the Bush tax cuts (1996-2000), the economy grew 19%, while in the 5 years after the tax cuts, it grew 16%.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 27, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Now, since he's been provided with real facts, rdw will become utterly confused and start ranting about how Bush's focus on Asia is the wellspring from which all good things will flow, including whirled peas, all the while ignoring the historical trend showing tax cuts kill economic success for the vast majority of Americans and that what little growth does occur with tax cuts obscures the fact that such growth, being confined to the few, creates a high risk volatile economic environment that must eventually collapse under the weight of its own pretensions.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

In the 5 years before the Bush tax cuts (1996-2000), the economy grew 19%, while in the 5 years after the tax cuts, it grew 16%.

The Bush supply-side tax cuts were in 2003. Since they took effect 7/1/03 the economy has had it's strongest period of sustained growth since Reagan.

This is why the unemployment rate and GDP at the time of the election(s) are so important. We can play dueling stats all day long. 99% of the public loses interest after 2 minutes.

They do understand unemployment and 4% is very, very good number. They do know what it means when every store you walk into has a help wanted sign in their front window or in many cases help wanted on the lawn.

You need good bullet points, short, to the point easy to understand. Strongest sustained GDP growth since Reagan is perfect. Median income or average income is meaningless.

Comparisons to Clinton are negatives as well. The only reason for that would be to push Hillary. Yet if you nominate Hillary you've already lost. Hillary means McCain. Conservatives don't care for him but they'll get over it to beat Hillary. McCain beats Hillary by 100 electoral votes.


Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

tax cuts kill economic success

That explains why McCain just voted to extend the tax cuts. That explains why no politician since Mondale has run on tax increases. That explains why Mondale lost 49 states.

And to whom did Walt lose too? Mr. Supply Side himself!!!

You are stuck with these tax cuts. Not that it matters. The people you try to stiff with high tax bills never pay them anyway. They're the same people who can afford tax accountants.

The good news is there are some very good soundbites of Hillary speaking of the wisdom and justice of higher tax rates. Of course she never said this on a campaign trail but by the time the campaign is half over you'll think her 1st objective is raising taxes.

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

I've already determined elsewhere that the institution which granted an 'MBA' to rdw also gave extra credit for drawing the pirate real good.

Posted by: CFShep on February 27, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

CF,

Widener is a fine institution.

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: 99% of the public loses interest after 2 minutes.

Translation: rdw loses interest in a subject once contradictory evidence is brought to bear at which point he maintains, despite arguing earlier and most vociferiously otherwise, that such evidence is irrelevant.

That explains why no politician since Mondale has run on tax increases.

This explains why people know you as a liar and an unclear thinker.

Being opposed to tax cuts ia not necessarily being for tax increases.

That you opine that it is is another demonstration of your ignorance, mendacity, inability to form logical arguments, or all three.

Strongest sustained GDP growth since Reagan is perfect.

Lies as bullet points . . . nothing really new here for the GOP.

Sorta like "Iraq - greatest threat to whirled peas since the Soviet Union."

The public is starting to recognize GOP lies for what they are.

Since I know you will certainly agree that this is a good thing, celebrate rdw.

They do understand unemployment and 4% is very, very good number.

They will also understand that they are making less and less discretionary income because of Bush's support for lower wages, Bush's moving economic assets overseas, Bush's cuts to other compensation systems such as health care and student loans which result in less actual take-home pay for workers, Bush's support for credit card companies and banks which puts what assets workers have at great risk, the high debt Bush has used to create the appearance of (limited) growth) which effectively reduces each workers paycheck, increasing inflation and higher interest rates which means more money going to interest payments rather than principle further reducing the effective amount of wealth for American workers, and a host of other ill effects which you mendaciously ignore.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

The public is starting to recognize GOP lies for what they are

IS that why there are more GOP congressmen now than at any time since 1928?

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Comparisons to Clinton are negatives as well. The only reason for that would be to push Hillary. Yet if you nominate Hillary you've already lost. Hillary means McCain. Conservatives don't care for him but they'll get over it to beat Hillary. McCain beats Hillary by 100 electoral votes.

Comparisons to Reagan are negatives as well. The only reason for that would be to push McCain. Yet if you nominate McCain you've already lost. McCain means Hillary. Liberals don't care for her but they'll get over it to beat McCain. Hillary beats McCain by 100 electoral votes.

See, rdw, predictions and puerile prognostication is easy, if I were to really opine as above.

What is not so easy is actually getting predictions right, something you and Bush have been particularly ineffective at, such as the predictions of massive stockpiles of WMDs and the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East.

You've also failed with Every Child Left Behind and the Roadmap to Nowhere.

On the other hand, predictions by liberals of problems in Iraq have come true (the real predictions, not the predictions you've made up out of whole cloth that liberals never made), as have predictions about problems with FEMA, problems with so-called Social Security reform, problems with our allies, problems with the prescription drug program, problems with the conservative economic agenda (producing reduced wages for the majority of Americans), problems with the national debt, etc, etc, etc.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: IS that why there are more GOP congressmen now than at any time since 1928?

Most of whom are trailing in electoral polls.

Or are you going to repeat one of your earlier lies, such as, if I recall correctly, the one about Strickland being behind all GOP contenders in the Ohio gubernatorial race, when in fact he was ahead of all such contenders according to Rasmussen, the pollster you yourself claim is the most accurate?

Never forget, we will recall your previous lies, just as we will Bush's.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: IS that why there are more GOP congressmen now than at any time since 1928?
^^^^^

Is it only me or is it particularly scary that rdw would choose 1928 as a benchmark? On purpose?

Can it be that he actually does not know what happened in 1929?

Bet he'd be have been telling everyone how great the economic outlook was then, too.

Posted by: CFShep on February 27, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

ill effects which you mendaciously ignore.

Not I!

I don't ignore any of them. I merely point out what is effective as a political matter. Economics can be extremely confusing and for 99% of Americans, even more boring. Talk of discretionary is a waste when everyone buying lightbubs at Home Depot sees them begging for workers.

They understand strongest GDP growth in 20 years and they understand high per capita GDP. Tell a conservative per capita GDP is growing 3x's the rate of French per Capital GDP because of tax cuts and you've got dedicated converts for life.

Tell someone under the age of 40 per capita GDP in the USA has surged since the Reagan tax cuts of 1981 versus Western Europe and you've got lifelong supply-siders. Tell these same people US per capital GDP is 40% higher than French per Capita GDP and will be 100% higher by 2025 all due to lower tax rates and you'll never hear a politician run on tax increases.

The key here is simplicity. GDP and Unemployment beat anything labeled discretionary or median or average or from some bizarre year. Per Capita is a very simple concept. Comparisons with France are both simple and fun.

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Economics can be extremely confusing

Serves up a nice juicy fat one - slow, low and inside - just the way we like 'em.

rdw: Talk of discretionary is a waste

Discretionary what? Discretionary is an adjective, not a noun, you disingenious wanker.

Posted by: CFShep on February 27, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Economics can be extremely confusing

Serves up a nice juicy fat one - slow, low and inside - just the way we like 'em.

rdw: Talk of discretionary is a waste

Discretionary what? Discretionary is an adjective, not a noun, you disingenious wanker.

Posted by: CFShep on February 27, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Is it only me or is it particularly scary that rdw would choose 1928 as a benchmark?

Just happened to look back on a table and it jumped out. Although I just looked again to see the actual numbers and I was wrong, as far as the house anyway. In 1949 there was a strange blip which I guess was the famous Truman eleciton 'upset'. The House in successive elections went from 190 to 246 to 171 GOP members. The Senate went from 38 to 51 to 42.

And we think this era is volatile.

This is why GWB has such loyalty. The last 3 elections:

House GOP: 221, 229, 232
Senate " : 50, 51, 55

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Please excuse cfs for Double Post. Things hung up there for a while.

Posted by: CFShep on February 27, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Discretionary what?

Discretionary ANYTHING.

As soon as you use it outside a room of economist it loses meaning. It can mean anything. In a campaign where you have two sides with money coming out of their ears for commercials everything remotely complex gets distorted, spun and rendered useless.

Further, those who do understand also already know who they're voting for. As a political 'tool' the more complex any stat is the more useless it is.

The DNC is in trouble when it comes to the unemployment rate and GDP. They are in the position of hoping for a continues energy crises although the market is working and prices could easily drop 25%. They absolutely have to use the deficit but GWB has wisely used much higher estimates than we'll actually see. The January budget report was 'Better than expected due to higher tax receipts'. We may see that 10x's before the election. The DNC also has to be careful. If they want to run on the deficit
they can't proposed more spending.

The bottom line is these twits couldn't take advantage of 6.4% unemployment. It's going to be

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: They understand strongest GDP growth in 20 years and they understand high per capita GDP.

First you say average Americans don't pay attention to statistics and then you say they do.

What is clear is that you don't understand diddly-squat and are quite willing to prove it by making contradictory statements.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Tell someone under the age of 40 per capita GDP in the USA has surged since the Reagan tax cuts of 1981 versus Western Europe and you've got lifelong supply-siders.

No, someone under 40 will say "Reagan who" and "per capita what?"

But tell them that the last president to "cut taxes" created a huge budgetary deficit that required him to ask for and sign tax increases to correct his irresponsible actions, and they will listen.

Tell them, truthfully, that the economy on average has performed better under Democratic presidents than it has under Republican presidents, and they will listen.

Supply-side never worked.

The proof is in the real history all of us lived, not the delusionally rewritten history that infests your mind!

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: . . . prices could easily drop 25% . . .

Prices could easily rise 25%.

Damn, now that would really suck for GOP electoral chances, eh rdw?

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Can it be that he actually does not know what happened in 1929?

Bet he'd be have been telling everyone how great the economic outlook was then, too.

No but I expect the DNC to go back to 1929 at some point or another. This is very consistent with everything the party does. You are constantly living in the past. If you are not going back to 1968 you are going back to 1992. You are never the party of the future. You are always tearing down. It's never morning in America. You've got a generation of voters under the age of 45 with no recollection of 1968 and at most a grand-parent familar with a depression they cannot conceive of. They know what a crash is. It's when stocks go down for 2 years and you wait for them to bounce back.

We've seen with the Summers fiasco liberalism does not resonate with the young. What was Clooney thinking in going back to Joe McCarthy and using CBS as the 'good guys'? To anyone under 45 CBS is Dan Rather and this computer literate crown knows how pitiful those frauds were. Joe may have been a bad guy but he was anti-communist and they think communism is he dumbest system every invented. To them communism is Fidel with his 6 hour speeches, gulags, 56 chevy's and shoot to kill orders for anyone trying to take a vacation. Fidel is a fool. How can anyone defend socialism?

What was Clooney thinking? He might garner 18 emmys and oscars. He'll be world renowned as an 'artiste'. But no one is seeing the movie.

It's not just a matter of keeping the concepts short and easy to understand but they're also go to be relevent. Joe McCarthy is not relevent and socialism is very, very unattractive.

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

No, someone under 40 will say "Reagan who" and "per capita what?"

Reagan is a surprisingly dominating figure. If you watched any of the week long ceremonies you had to notice many of those paying their respects upon his death were not old enough to vote for him.

It's quite a shocking experience for someone to get their 1st paycheck and see how much Uncle Sam takes out. They are not even a little bit happy. Tell them tax rates were over 70% before Reagan lowered them to 28% and you can see the immediate admiration. Remember, they also know socialism was a disaster.

People under the age of 40 and especially 30 have a vastly different outlook on taxes and welfare programs. At age 52 I remember when poor meant hungry and homeless. Today homeless and hunger are often the result of drug or alcohol additions. Some are victims. Many are not. They are not particulary anxious to pay more in taxes to pay the tab for someone else who chose drugs or made other bad choices.

It's a much different world.

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

Prices could easily rise 25%.

Damn, now that would really suck for GOP electoral chances, eh rdw?


Absolutely!

What must it be like to hope for high enery prices in order to get lucky in elections?

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: The DNC also has to be careful. If they want to run on the deficit they can't proposed more spending.

Of course they can, if they propose cuts elsewhere, among other things.

The first place to cut: the president's use of taxpayer dollars for his campaign appearances and GOP compaign publications, not to mention Cheney's hunting trips.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

For all those who are just switching to this discusssion, I want to remind them that rdw is a lying troll who unsrupuloulsly mixes facts and fiction so they fit into his dreamworld. Check his "facts" and make your mind up.

Posted by: Gray on February 27, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

A for G--you not only lack any substance(fact based on reality), you lack CLASS, man. no class.

Posted by: charlie w on February 27, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: You are constantly living in the past.

This from someone who obsesses about Carter, Clinton, and the French during WWII.

You just couldn't write fictional hypocrisy any better than the real stuff from rdw!

But no one is seeing [Good Night and Good Luck].

Let's see, gross receipts are $28,190,802 for the movie, which was produced at a cost of around $7.5 million.

Not only are people seeing it, but a sizeable profit looms for Clooney.

No one can lie quite like rdw!

Don't you just hate how a 10-second internet search can prove you a liar, rdw!

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: What must it be like to hope for high enery prices in order to get lucky in elections?

I dunno, what must it be like to hope for more American deaths from terrorists and insurgents to get lucky in elections?

You must feel like sh*t, since that is exactly what happened to the GOP: they wished for deaths of American soldiers and they got them. In spades.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

charlie w: A for G--you not only lack any substance (fact based on reality), you lack CLASS, man. no class.

Well, if you say it is so, then it must be!

I'm humbled by your belief in your own superiority.

Your arrogance is truly astounding and something we should all aspire to.

Not.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

I'm speachless, you're sooo smart.

Posted by: charlie w on February 27, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, did you have a...you know...dream about George Clooney? You are freaking obsessed with him, dude. It's not normal.

Posted by: shortstop on February 27, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

charlie w: I'm speachless, you're sooo smart.

Obviously, you are not speechless (or even speachless), or in this case keyboardless.

Which is what I find so amusing about, and presumably you qualify, conservative commentors on these threads.

They continually tell us how much they hate this blog, yet they continually return.

They continually tell us they are through with a thread, disgusted, and are leaving, then they return.

They continually tell us they won't respond any more to particular posters, then immediately respond to that poster.

Now, you tell us you are speechless, yet you speak!

And with poor spelling to boot, you sarcastically refer to our intelligence!

In the infamous words of Fat White Lie . . .

I LOVE IT!

shortstop: [rdw is] freaking obsessed with [George Clooney]. It's not normal.

Well, he is a pretty man, or so my girlfriend tells me.

But rdw is too busy fawning over Bush to be distracted by Clooney for too long.

Pretty soon he will again be telling us how Bush is one of the greatest presidents ever, despite the fact that Bush barely ranks above Carter in popular opinion polls, can't even touch Clinton, and so far behind Clinton's record approval ratings upon leaving office (higher than Reagan's) that Clinton's ass is a speck on the horizon.

rdwIt's a much different world.

Yes, truly, it is a much different world that you live in from everybody else!

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Republican governors are openly worrying that the Bush administration's latest stumbles -- from the natural disaster of Hurricane Katrina to those of its own making on prescription drugs and ports security -- are taking an election-year toll on the party back home.

Gee, they must know something that rdw doesn't!

I guess it says something that rdw believes he's smarter than all the GOP governors combined!

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, did you have a...you know...dream about George Clooney

No dreams, no obsession. Hollywood trails only academia and the French as a terrific target for conservatives. It was hard to pick an MVP from 2004 between Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Barbara Streisand, George, Ward Churchill, etc.

I happen to respect George. He at least had the sense to tell Kerry he would not join him on his campaign because he knew he'd be a net negative. Sean Penn is a moron. George is not a moron. Sean is all about Sean. George really wants to do well for people. I can respect differences of opinion in someone sincere.

Where George went off the track is in the obvious liberal pandering of Goodnight and Good Luck as well as Syrianna. Given his background one can hardly blame him for being a liberal and having a special affinity to Hollywood/Network history. His father is a TV news guy and I am sure suffered badly over the Dan Rather fiasco. Their glory days were decades ago and libs just can't let go of Joe McCarthy. It was two-fer for George to revive network honor AND the spector of Joe. He just didn't appreciate the very narrow appeal. He got about 3M viewers which is about 2% of the voting public. Most likely 95% of those 3M are very left of the spectrum already.

George will make out fine in terms of hollywood. He'll get at least one Oscar and possibly several. He's had zero political influence however.

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see, gross receipts are $28,190,802 for the movie, which was produced at a cost of around $7.5 million.

Not only are people seeing it, but a sizeable profit looms for Clooney.

Sales are up to $30M but at $10 a pop that's only 3M customers.

Of that amount over 50% goes to distributers and movie operators. If it cost only $7.5M that means the actors worked for nothing. Very possible but the media rollout cost at least that much.

Two things:

1) I hope George did very well. He seems to be a fine human being. I disagree with him politically. He's not my enemy.

2) He wasn't remotely concerned about money. He gets over $20M a film and is already a very wealthy man. If it was about money he would have been working for someone else. This was about restoration. In that he failed.

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

Pretty soon he will again be telling us how Bush is one of the greatest presidents ever, despite the fact that Bush barely ranks above Carter in popular opinion polls, can't even touch Clinton, and so far behind Clinton's record approval ratings upon leaving office (higher than Reagan's) that Clinton's ass is a speck on the horizon

Bush and Carter will never be mentioned in the same sentence. Carter was pushed around for 444 days BY students.

I enjoy Slick Willie. What a character. Both breathtakenly brilliant on one hand and a total twit on the other. When Bill was elected the GOP had 43 Senators and about 175 Congressment. IN the very next election we had 52 and 230 and haven't looked back. We are looking at a period of 16 years of GOP control of the WH and Congress thanks to Bill and Hillary.

Over the next 3 years I get to watch Liberals in agony GWB is their President and terrified that Hillary will be their 2008 candidate. They know in their bones she can't be stopped in hte primary and she can't win a general election. The really smart libs recognize how imortant this election is because of what they lose with the 2010 census. As the election nears and these 'facts' become more prominent we'll see real angst.

Does it get any better than this?

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

Of course they can, if they propose cuts elsewhere,

Slick Willie cut from defense. Hillary won't have that option.

Posted by: rdw on February 27, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

Bush and Carter will never be mentioned in the same sentence.

Too late. They just were.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 27, 2006 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

The key here is simplicity. GDP and Unemployment beat anything labeled discretionary or median or average or from some bizarre year.

rdw, I wasn't talking to the average voter; I was talking to you. If you find the concept of median income too confusing, then I'll try to put things more simply for you:

Most Americans are making less money now than they were in 2000. So if you're not as flush this year as you were in 2000, it's no accident. You're a typical American, and typical Americans are doing worse under Bush.

Now, for more sophisticated readers, who may or may not include rdw: the reason for this, as has been stated so numbingly often over the past few years by so many economists that only a cretin could refuse to acknowledge it, is that a tiny and greedy elite has seized all the GDP growth over the last few years for itself. This is part of a 30-year trend, but it's gotten far, far worse under power-hungry, money-hungry Bush and his cronies.

Since 1972, the average earner's income has grown 34%, while GDP growth has been much higher than that. So what happened to the rest of the money? The elite sucked it away. If you're in the 99th percentile, your income rose 87%. If you're in the 99.9th percentile (making $1.6 million or more), your income rose 181%. If you're in the 99.99th percentile, your income rose 497%.

And how did this happen? Well, I guess that one-in-ten-thousand guy must be working 240 hours a week, instead of the 40 he worked in '72! Good for him! Keep it up! Oh, no, that's right, we have to factor in productivity gains. He's probably just working 120 hours a week then.

Or maybe he just used his position at the acme of the economy's financial pyramid to suck out all the money? Greed is good!

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 27, 2006 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: This was about restoration.

Your projections and reality often diverge.

No surprise there.

But people don't act from motivations you impose upon them, but motivations that arise from within themselves.

You've offered no evidence to support your proposition except your own political biases, equally unsurprising.

In any event, conservatives made no movies with a political message, so they reached no one.

Since Democrats have and use every other medium to reach voters that Republicans do, Clooney and the Dems are 3 million up on conservatives in terms of people influenced.

Three million to zero.

Pretty good scorecard.

You're just too stupid to realize it.

Carter was pushed around for 444 days BY students.

No he wasn't, but it is little use pointing out your lies to you. You will continue to repeat them ad naseum.

We are looking at a period of 16 years of GOP control of the WH and Congress thanks to Bill and Hillary.

Get back to us in a couple of decades if the GOP ever reaches the type of control that the Democrats enjoyed in Congress over the last fifty years.

The GOP's record is fairly pathetic to date, with small majorities and few years in control under their belt.

As usual, you exaggerate the GOP record of electoral success.

. . . terrified that Hillary will be their 2008 candidate.

First liberals are delighted that Hillary will be the nominee, then they are terrified. As usual, you proffer contradictory descriptions of what liberals are thinking, again showing yourself to be a mendacious political analyst.

rdw: As the election nears and these 'facts' become more prominent we'll see real angst.

Not as much angst as the GOP governors expressed this week.

Again, you clearly fail to understand what "angst" means or when it applies.

Does it get any better than this?

Since you live in a dream world, it would be hard to answer.

Your delusions could continue to expand, thus making it better for you, or they could be burst at any time by reality, which will result in a very distressing emotional breakdown for you.


Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

To be clear . . .

" . . . so they reached no one [through this medium].

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 27, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

Most Americans are making less money now than they were in 2000. So if you're not as flush this year as you were in 2000, it's no accident. You're a typical American, and typical Americans are doing worse under Bush.

I am well versed in economics which is why I never haggle over economic stats for political purposes unless they matter. Median and average income stats are a and basis for any economic because they are simply flawed data. It only measures one facet of income and it does that poorly. Economist have made these arguments among themselves in 10,000 word essay's. It's well over the capability of this blog to grasp.

There are two economic stats which matter above all others from a political perspective and they are GDP and the Unemployment. Inflation is a distant 3rd and Greenspan did a decent job making it clear CPI sucks. He didn't use it.

As far as flush as 2000 we've had tremendous a real estate boom. A great many people have traded up and live in properties they never dreamt of and everyone who owned a home in 2000 now has one worth 2x's as much. Incomes and wealth are not going to be a good economic issue for Democrats.

If you are lucky Oil will remain tight. Unemployment and GDP will favor the GOP. You'll need gasoline over $2.50.

Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 7:01 AM | PERMALINK

Since 1972, the average earner's income has grown 34%, while GDP growth has been much higher than that. So what happened to the rest of the money? The elite sucked it away. If you're in the 99th percentile, your income rose 87%. If you're in the 99.9th percentile (making $1.6 million or more), your income rose 181%. If you're in the 99.99th percentile, your income rose 497%.

Class warfare doesn't work. This is why you cannot raise taxes. Your party relies on victimology no longer valid. The elite are people like George Clooney, Oprah, Michael Jordan, Snoop, etc. People don't want to punish successful people. They're not evil. There are few real victims. We've decided having kids too young doesn't make one a victim. We've decided making bad decisions regarding drugs and alcohol does not make one a victim. In a world with 4.7% unemployment where non-english speaking immigrants can find gainful employment refusing to work does not make one a victim.

Those under 40 have grown up in a very different world. They've never seen 10% unemployment or high inflation. They can't believe Jimmy Carter had 70% tax rates. The concept of giving kids more money for having kids is preposterous. They know of socialism as an abomination and it's beyond belief anyone really thought it could work.

My daughter and son-in-law, a nurse and carpenter, will make over $110K not counting side jobs and are very, very unhappy they have to pay higher taxes than some of their peers who chose to take it easy. They worked their asses and are under the illusion they've earned every penny they make.

What is so cool here is they are 26 and 27. This is great for the GOP. These college kids aren't there to dodge the draft. They're serious. The Democrat are going to have a hard time convincing them they should pay up because they're hard working. This is so not 1968. They're not advantaged. They didn't win life's lottery. They worked hard. You can't sell that 'unfair' nonsense.

BTW: That 99.9% percentile stuff is a loser too. It looks as if you are targeting Bill Gates. Old Time liberals hate him but not the Computer generation. Especially not after his Time man of the year stint. They all know what microsoft millionaires are and how this Harvard drop out did so well for himself and so many others.

Democrats absolutely have to retool their message.

Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK

rdw, you're so full of it, bet your eyes are brown.

You're just bat shit nuts.

Posted by: CFShep on February 28, 2006 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: Incomes and wealth are not going to be a good economic issue for Democrats.

That would be true if even half the drivel you wrote was true, but it isn't.

Class warfare doesn't work.

Then why do conservatives practice it?

Your party relies on victimology . . .

This from the party that relies on the victimology of 9/11 for everything.

What a hoot!

Those under 40 have grown up in a very different world.

Those under 30 have grown up in a very different world - a world of Bush lies, Bush incompetence, GOP lies, GOP incompetence, Bush corruption, GOP corruption, Bush broken promises, GOP broken promises.

These college kids aren't there to dodge the draft.

But Bush taught them it's okay to dodge the draft.

So, if they aren't dodging the draft, they aren't listening to Bush!

Poor rdw.

Your beautiful theory destroyed by ugly facts.

Old Time liberals hate him but not the Computer generation.

You have no clue how much the "computer generation" (and how stupid is that phrase!) hates Gates for producing buggy, expensive, security-hole-riddled software that limits consumer choice.

The fact that you don't shows you don't talk to people in the "computer generation" or you ignore what they say.

That's what happens, though, when you live in a world of delusion, like rdw.

Democrats absolutely have to retool their message.

Advice from an opposing assh*le is as valuable as pig sh*t on Pluto.

They can't believe Jimmy Carter had 70% tax rates.

That's probably because they've been lied to about what that actually means. By you, no doubt.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

Troll: Class warfare doesn't work.

AforG: Then why do conservatives practice it?

I swear you've got a backhand that would make McEnroe froth at the mouth from envy.

In awe.

I've seen bowls of Fruit Loops who could outthink rdw.

Posted by: CFShep on February 28, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

cf,

please!

Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Seriously, rdw, why do conservatives practice class warfare?

Liberals merely draw attention to the class warfare that conservatives engage in.

Exposing class warfare is not practicing class warfare.

Conservatives have declared war on American workers - that is class warfare.

Conservatives have declared war on American liberals - that is class warfare, by their own definitions at least since they (falsely) claim that liberals claim to be a class of elites.

Conservatives have declared war on America's elderly - that is class warfare.

Drawing attention to a fight that is already going on is not engaging in class warfare - its trying to put a stop to it.

In other words, liberals are fighting against class warfare and conservatives are fighting for it.

I merely ask the simple question: why are conservatives engaging in class warfare?

Why do they hate their fellow Americans so much?

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/sex-toys.html - sex toys http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/sex-toys.html
http://www.it-phytz.com/cheerleader.html - cheerleader http://www.it-phytz.com/cheerleader.html
http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/peeing.html - peeing http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/peeing.html
http://www.it-phytz.com/babes.html - babes http://www.it-phytz.com/babes.html
http://www.cb-demopolis.com/sex-toys.html - sex toys http://www.cb-demopolis.com/sex-toys.html
http://www.it-phytz.com/group-sex.html - group sex http://www.it-phytz.com/group-sex.html
http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/big-cock.html - big cock http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/big-cock.html
http://www.it-phytz.com/pornstars.html - pornstars http://www.it-phytz.com/pornstars.html
http://www.cb-demopolis.com/bdsm-sex.html - bdsm sex http://www.cb-demopolis.com/bdsm-sex.html
http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/shemale-sex.html - shemale sex http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/shemale-sex.html
http://www.cb-demopolis.com/bbw-sex.html - bbw sex http://www.cb-demopolis.com/bbw-sex.html
http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/drunk-girls.html - drunk girls http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/drunk-girls.html
http://www.cb-demopolis.com/cams.html - cams http://www.cb-demopolis.com/cams.html
http://www.cb-demopolis.com/gays-sex.html - gays sex http://www.cb-demopolis.com/gays-sex.html
http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/bisexual.html - bisexual http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/bisexual.html
http://www.it-phytz.com/peeing.html - peeing http://www.it-phytz.com/peeing.html
http://www.cb-demopolis.com/shemale-sex.html - shemale sex http://www.cb-demopolis.com/shemale-sex.html
http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/cumshot-sex.html - cumshot sex http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/cumshot-sex.html
http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/MILF.html - MILF http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/MILF.html
http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/movies.html - movies http://www.commonwealthconnect.com/movies.html
http://www.cb-demopolis.com/Celebrities.html - Celebrities http://www.cb-demopolis.com/Celebrities.html
MEkAoTZridfyqHhjC

Posted by: fhIOBwAaNP on March 1, 2006 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK

Arts & Entertainment articles
Celebrities articles
Humanities articles
Humor articles
Movies articles
Music articles
Poetry articles

Business articles
Advertising articles
Article Marketing articles
Careers articles
Customer Service articles
Entrepreneurs articles
Ethics articles
Home Based Business articles
Management articles
Marketing articles
Networking articles
Public Relations articles
Sales articles
Small Business articles

Communications articles
Broadband Internet articles
GPS articles
Mobile Phones articles
Satellite Radio articles
Satellite TV articles
Video Conferencing articles
VOIP articles

Computers articles
Computer Certification articles
href="http://www.articlesweekly.com/category55.html">Data Recovery articles

Games articles

href="http://www.articlesweekly.com/category57.html">Hardware articles



Networks articles

Software articles


Disease & Illness articles

Breast Cancer articles

Colon Cancer articles

Leukemia articles

Mesothelioma articles

Multiple Sclerosis articles

href="http://www.articlesweekly.com/category65.html" >Ovarian Cancer articles



Prostate Cancer articles

Skin Cancer articles


Fashion articles

Clothing articles

Jewelry articles

Shoes articles


Finance articles

Credit articles

Currency Trading articles

Debt Consolidation articles

Fundraising articles

href="http://www.articlesweekly.com/category75.html">Insurance articles


href="http://www.articlesweekly.com/category76.html" >Investing articles


href="http://www.articlesweekly.com/category77.html" >Leasing articles



Loans articles

Mortgage articles

Mutual Funds articles

Personal Finance articles

Real Estate articles

Stock Market articles

Taxes articles


Food & Beverage articles

Coffee articles

Cooking articles

href="http://www.articlesweekly.com/category87.html" >Gourmet articles



Recipes articles

Wine articles


Health & Fitness articles

Acne articles

Alternative Medicine articles

Beauty articles

Cardio articles

Depression articles

Diabetes articles

Exercise articles

Fitness Equipment articles

Hair Loss articles

Medicine articles

Meditation articles

Men Issues articles

Muscle Building articles

Nutrition articles

Supplements articles

Weight Loss articles

Women Issues articles

Yoga articles


Home & Family articles

Babies articles

Crafts articles

Elderly Care articles

Gardening articles

Hobbies articles

Holidays articles

Home Improvement articles

Home Security articles

Interior Design articles

Landscaping articles

Parenting articles

Pets articles

Pregnancy articles


Internet Business articles

Adsense articles

Affiliate Programs articles

Auctions articles

Audio-Video Streaming articles

Blogging articles

Domains articles

Ebooks articles

Ecommerce articles

Email Marketing articles

Ezine Marketing articles

Ezine Publishing articles

Forums articles

Internet Marketing articles

ISP's articles

Podcasts articles

PPC Advertising articles

RSS articles

Security articles

SEO articles

Site Promotion articles

Spam articles

Traffic Generation articles

Web Design articles


Politics articles

Commentary articles

Current Events articles

History articles


Product Reviews articles

Book Reviews articles

Consumer Electronics articles

Digital Products articles

Movie Reviews articles

Music Reviews articles


Recreation & Sports articles

Biking articles

Extreme articles

Fishing articles

Gambling & Casinos articles

Golf articles

Hunting articles

Martial Arts articles

Running articles


Reference & Education articles


College articles

Homeschooling articles

K-12 Education articles

Language articles

Philosophy articles

Psychology articles

Science articles

Sociology articles


Self Improvement articles

Attraction articles

Coaching articles

Creativity articles

Goal Setting articles

Grief articles

Happiness articles

Innovation articles

Inspirational articles

Leadership articles

Motivation articles

Organizing articles

Spirituality articles

Stress Management articles

Success articles

Time Management articles


Society articles

Dating articles

Divorce articles

Marriage articles

Relationships articles

Religion articles

Sexuality articles

Weddings articles


Travel & Leisure articles

Aviation articles

Boating articles

Cruises articles

Destinations articles

Outdoors articles

Travel Tips articles

Vacations articles


Vehicles articles

Boats articles

Cars articles

Motorcycles articles

RVs articles

Trucks-SUVS articles


Writing & Speaking articles

Article Writing articles

Book Marketing articles

Copywriting articles

Public Speaking articles

Writing articles


Article search

Free articles

Publish your article for free

FREE Article content
Posted by: articles on March 2, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly