The best thing is that absolutely none of the taxpayer's money has gone to drug companies, oil companies, or other Republican donors. This couldn't possibly have happened, because all Republicans are only public servants, unlike the baby-slaughtering gay marrying grave-robbing terrorists fellating Dems.

He's history's worst monster!

(Yes, I know - not the same James E. Carter. But I had to say it first.)

It's the new austerity program at NR. Cut out the middlemen and let Bush administration flunkies shill for themselves.

In other words, a political appointee in the Bush administration. I wonder why National Review didn't want anyone to know this?

Hah? You're jumping to conclusions. Why would you think that? You were able to find out so why do you think others weren't able to? Besides in the real world, other people can't always do the work for you. Lot of times you have to do things by yourself even though it's hard work. Of course liberals hate hard work and are always waiting for others to pick up the pieces of the messes you libs made. That's why liberals support welfare queens instead of having people accept people take responsibility for their own actions.

National Review is missing the little type at the top of the page that states:

THIS IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT.

C'mon, this is the National Review. That he's on the Bush payroll goes without saying.

(Btw, are you implying they're actually writing about something other than Kerry's joke over there, now?)

Nothing is ever a Republican's fault is it? These shameless people will use any tactic to deflect responsibility or accountability. They want poor and disabled people to be accountable for their actions, but cannot be held accountable for their own. Witness this Ted Haggard creep who opposed gay marriage, while getting serviced by a homosexual prostitute. Of course, he denies everything.

As it relates to the federal budget deficit, I wish these Republican criminals (i.e. Bush and the Congress), would stop stealing from our children!!!

Kevin, why do you hate the troops? Don't you want us to win the war on terra?

Why does Kevin and his windsurfing buddy John Kerry hate America so much?

Well, make fun if you will, but I thought the article by e. Lan Chao for a $2.00 minimum wage was compelling reading. Her research assistant, m. mcConnell did some fine foot noting.

We have a massive public debt and government growth out of control precisely because NR's own policy formulations were followed to the letter by Bush and Reagan.

If a thing isn't auditable it has to be presumed to be of no value, because nothing can be proven of it. Republicans want your vote to be presumed to have no value.

Prove your vote is worthless, vote Republican!

the reason NRO doesn't want to reveal or make it easy to verify Carter's pedigree is simple: it means the administration actually acknowledges being the overseer of the transformation from surplus to gargantuan deficit.

The entire extent of actual commentary on the article: "blah blah blah." That, and Kevin doesn't like the author. Informative, and insightful.

Could this really be true? Maybe he's a "former"?

I'm not being ironic - I just can't believe the Administration would let a political appointee write something (in his area of expertise) without explicit acknowledgement of his position. And even NRO wouldn't be this underhanded.

Something's fishy.

to John H.

witholding Carter's id makes it harder for people to connect the dots ie, the GOP is ultimately responsible for this 3 trillion deficit

hayek - (idiot) - Kevin's filler summary was not the point - it was that this sh/r/ill-rag didn't properly inform of the conflict of interest, and relied on the cheapest name-manipulation trick to obfuscate, however temporarily and flimsily, the writer's true identity. Yet another reason to throw these bums out: this is the sort of bird-cage liner that supports them.

Do I think the war in Iraq is a mess? Good golly, No.

Do I think Donald Rumsfeld should be fired? Gracious sakes, No.

Do I think Donald has done a tremendous job? Heavens to betsy, Yes!

So now they point out the the surplus was a projected surplus. When those of us argued against the huge tax cuts because the surplusses were projections that assumed the economy would keep growing at the dot com rate, we were ignored.

Somehow ignoring this fact isn't supposed to reflect badly on them in having behaved on inflated assumptions. It is instead supposed to excuse their fiscal irresponsibility.

The party of personal responsibility has yet to claim responsibility for one single thing that has happened since they assumed control of all three branches of government.

Sigh.

The names of Elaine Chao, Donald Rumsfeld and Carter have been obfuscated in order to protect the guilty.

Kevin,

It makes me cringe everytime I hear Bush saying "the Democrats will raise your taxes!"

Theres got to be a sensible response to this - something like -

"well, unfortunately, the current administration rang up our credit card bill with, among other things, the purchase of a war. Now its time to start making the payments, and we cant just throw the bill in the trash, can we? democrats - we believe in paying for the things we've bought".

See, any claims that we're trying to hide our identities are just nonsense, see?

Well, the deficit can't be blamed on Bin Laden, we haven't spent more that fifty bucks on finding him for the last three years.

That one is worth stealing, Tomeck.

Today's most hilarious Corner post:


My Deafening Silence [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Why haven't I said anything about Ted Haggard? Because I have no idea what to say other than it sounds bad.

Look! Over there! John Kerry's punching a soldier!!!

foiled again, damn you Kevin...you magnificent bastard.

That's just pathetic. National Review used to be a stalwart of the conservative intelegensia. Now it's somewhere between Fox news and a White house department.

Regarding Haggard, I'm beginning to wonder whether Dobson threw him under the bus. According to the NYT, although Haggard is anti-gay (lol), and anti-abortion, he is also one of the few evangelicals that take Jesus' teachings seriously and is also actively anti-racism, anti-poverty, pro-environment, and pro-affordable health care. He has even acknowledged the reality of global warming. This has all caused him to butt heads with Dobson.

Btw, Haggard has "conceded that some of the accusations that led him to resign are true, a church official said today."

No word on which accusations those would be. AFAICT, there are only three accusations: 1) he had gay sex, 2) he paid for it, and 2) he did drugs. Since (2) subsumes (1), and "some of the accusations" implies more than one but not all, Haggard has either admitted to (1) and (2) or (1) and (3).

I once wrote an editorialist at the National Review to correct his facts on the FISA act. Easy enough to get the legislation and read it. He sheepishly wrote back and said that, well, he was trying to write what they wanted him to write.

Nuff said.

The media seems to have a rule against identifying Bush officials, or ex-Bush officials as such, whenever it can get away with it. It extends beyond overtly conservative outlets, I've frequently seen CNN, MSNBC, and the broadcast networks identify former Bush Administration officials, and even sometimes current Bush Administration officials that aren't in well-known positions where this would be obvious, as former (whatever they did prior to working in the Administration.)

Heck, even Bill Maher always refers to Christine Todd Whitman, when she appears on his show, as "former Governor of New Jersey", but never, despite the fact that she is usually on when one of the focus is environmental topics, "former Administrator of the EPA" or "current energy-industry lobbyist".

Maybe they all put a condition on their appearance that there work in the Bush Administration not be mentioned, I know if I worked or had worked for this administration, I'd want to avoid publicizing it as much as possible.

If my name were "James E. Carter," I'd use a different variation when writing for the National Review, as well.

searp - He actually responded with that to a reader? William Buckley must be getting his coffin equipped with spindles so it will spin more easily when he dies.

In this Haggard story the impressive part is '49-year-old male prostitute'. 49! And you know he's fudging that by about five years.

He must be some kind of genius. How do we nominate him for a MacArthur award?

Perhaps Maher is simply granting Whitman the highest title she has earned in her life. A not uncommon thing?

It is sloppy not to identify a person on the news with his/her present title.

In other words, a political appointee in the Bush administration. I wonder why National Review didn't want anyone to know this?

Well, that's the nefarious explanation.

The innocent explanation is that they just forgot to update the tagline the used from before he was appointed (he was appointed earlier in 2006). See, for example, his tagline in these articles.

You can take your pick of those two potential explanations.

Here's Carter's bio. It leaves little doubt that he is the author of this article.

http://www.dol.gov/ilab/leadership.htm

Did Carter run the Economists for Bush Blog back in 2004? It was about the only thing that made the National Review look smart by comparison. Incidentally, Carter's argument essentially boils down to Bush did not want to honor the commitment to prefund Social Security and the GOP led Congress did not stop his fiscal train wreck. By that logic - as I noted at Angrybear - we can't blame Bush for Iraq either.

Carter did run some sort of economists for Bush operation in 2000 and 2004. I'd be shocked if it put a single vote in Bush's column. But at least it got Jim high level jobs at the Treasury and Labor Departments. I guess whoring yourself pays off sometimes.

andy mellon: I guess whoring yourself pays off sometimes.

...ain't that the truth...

Isn't James E. Carter the former President?

Looks like NR has now noted that Carter is an administration official, stated that it made an error, and apologized to readers for doing so. I for one am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this. Just like they did with John Kerry.

?I wonder why National Review didn't want anyone to know this?

Pick me! Pick me!

They're intellectually dihonest hacks, as one must be these days to push Busah Cultist propaganda?

But then, we didn't need to know about this guy to know that.

Not much of an apology. They acknowledge they screwed up. They linked to washingtonmonthly.com. But they still didn't admit that he's a political appointment or an administration official of any kind ... instead, it says that he "works for the Department of Labor."

And when they say that the "piece now makes note of this explanation/disclosure/apology" - they're really stretching it. They didn't remove the misleading tagline from the article. And they didn't add the identifying information to the article. Instead, here's how it reads:

— J . Edward Carter is an economist in Washington, D.C. PLEASE SEE EDITOR'S NOTE.

Almost integrity from the almost intellectually brave.

Are all liberals illiterate or just buffoons when dealing with economics. The piece clearly states that the surplus was projected and the CBO did not calculate the cost of the three tax cuts for multi-millionaires, the give away to the drug companies, tens of billions to Haliburton, a few hundred million here and there for government PR, outsourcing of the intelligence and security appartus, and general incompetence and mismanagement. If the CBO would have factored in President Bush and a corrupt Repbulican Congress the projections would have been for a 4 trillion dollar defecit. Bush has actually performed better than the CBO would have projected yet liberals have BDS and refuse to give the man any credit.

Republican economist, that was right on the money.

And why do you liberals complain that some of our staff are doing overtime as journalists? We don't pay them extra for it. Remember how you didn't like it when we used to pay journalists to do our PR? Well now we do it ourselves, and it saves the taxpayers money. How can you argue with that?

Taking NR's explanation for what happened at face value, I find it curious that it would publish Carter for many years without having any clue as to who he is. Isn't one's qualifications for writing on a topic such as economics normally an important part of evaluating the quality and truth of the material? Apparently, NR believes that this is not the case at all. As long as one is enthusiastically promoting the party line, it doesn't matter in the slightest. Once upon a time, "responsible" publications like NR acted as arbiters, determining whose views had substance and credibility. Indeed, they even employed fact checkers to uphold such standards. Now, anything goes--some obvious hack can write just about anything without anyone there caring who he is or whether there is an ounce of substance to his argument. Doesn't anyone on the right have any standards or integrity any longer?

Curious is right, there is no change to the article other than a link to JLo's "Belated full disclosure". Adding a non-descriptive link "Please see editor's note" to a disclosure is really not a disclosure at all. It should be right there in the text.

Wait. Who gives a shit, it's NRO. Never mind.

人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 美少女 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 美女裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 写真集 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 性教育电影 同志电影 舒淇写真 写真集 性虐待电影 淫书 人体写真 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 三级片 性爱电影 联通铃声下载 联通炫铃 联通彩铃下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价 戴尔电脑网上订购

Speaking of economic "thought" and the Bush administration, where'd they hide Hank Paulson? I thought he was supposed to have some serious policy role. Or does this administration treat genuine capitalists with the same respect they give genuine Christians?