Gotta give Bush credit: He made the exact right move at the exact right time. Ditching Rumsfeld, the single most visible symbol of the Iraq debacle short of Bush himself, was perfectly timed. Had he dumped Rummy shortly before the election, it would have been seen as a desperation move. I suppose there's a possibility that it might have changed the outcome, which has been seen as a voter repudiation of the war. But I don't think it's a sizable chance, and probably would have been seen as a case of "too little, too late." In this instance, though, it managed to grab headlines from the Democratic triumph back to the White House. Bush has snared the spin cycle before the election dust has settled. He did the right thing in getting rid of an advisor who has given him nothing but bad advice and been a PR catastrophe on more than one occasion, and he did it at a time when his support base is at an all-time moral low. He has sent a definite message: He's not going to be spending the next two years with more of the same and staying the course, steering the remainder of his presidency into irrelevancy.
With a smartening-up Bush and a newly energized Democratic majority, let's see if the government finally gets on the right track.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at November 9, 2006 07:50 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI guess we'll know who we go to war with next based on who Gates has been photographed shaking hands with.
Given how razor thin the elction was in a few key states I think ditching Rummy a few months agao might have kept the Senate Republican. But I think you are correct that it was feared the move would smack of desperation and, potentially, embolden the bombers in Iraq, as well as damage Republican chances. In hindsight they should have pulled the trigger earlier but hindsight is always wise.
A big clue as to how serious Nancy Pelosi is will be when they start picking chairmen. Ther's talk of putting some joker who's an impeached judge in as head of some important committee--if, after seeing voters name corruption as a major factor in how they voted, she goes ahead and pulls a bone headed move like that we are in for a looooong 2 years. (I have questions about her abilities but I can't believe she'd squander the honeymoon THAT quickly.)
Given how razor thin the elction was in a few key states I think ditching Rummy a few months agao might have kept the Senate Republican.
I agree. This election was all about Bush, and if he'd shown even a week ago that he was intent on making changes to try and improve the situation in this country and Iraq, people might've voted differently; forcing Rumsfeld to resign was definately in the best interest of the world.
Ther's talk of putting some joker who's an impeached judge in as head of some important committee
Well, the first question would be: why was he impeached?
Peter, despite the reputation for being stubborn, the Bush administration had repeated been willing to change course. "Good job, Brownie" and an eyeblink he's gone. They often talked tough then changed course--often redefining said course as not a "change" or "always been an option" or "planned all along".
And that ruthless "brilliance" is likely how he's beat Ann Richard, Al Gore and John Kerry. For all his rep as being stupid because he often isn't articulate. Here in Chicago, Mayor Daley is known for his "Daleyisms" as much as the Bush is known for his "Bushisms"--only Daley has been know for them for the past 16 years elected Mayor.
Altho Daley comes across more knowing the subject he's talking about and grasps the ideas in his head tho stumbling over the words. Bush seems to have trouble on subjects he's not thought about and there's more scrutiny and pressure as POTUS than mayor, so Daley often riffs off the cuff about stuff he's not familiar with.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Not only did Bush dump Rumsfeld, reportedly he overruled Cheney in doing so as well as leaked the fact that he had overruled Cheney. More, he picked Robert Gates, part of 41's administration, formerly persona non grata in 43's administration and ... NON-neocon.
"For all his rep as being stupid because he often isn't articulate."
I agree with Jon Stewart's assessment. I don't think Bush is dumb; I think he talks to *us* like he thinks *we're* dumb.
PAD
Ther's talk of putting some joker who's an impeached judge in as head of some important committee...
Considering the popularity of a certain ex-president, an impeachment might make the top of a number of resumés.
I'm not sure it really did all that much in terms of grabbing the headlines. It certainly got everyone's attention, that's to be sure -- but people are looking at it in the context of a Democratic takeover, not as a separate item distracting from it.
It's certainly a smart move, no question about that -- but I don't know that it's going to distract all THAT much. And while Rumsfeld was widely viewed as "the arrogant SOB who's mismanaged Bush's war," Iraq is still being viewed as BUSH's war, not Rumsfeld's. Unless this personnel change is matched by actual policy changes, I don't know that the electorate is going to say "I guess he really does change things."
(And while I agree that ditching him a month or two back might have kept the Senate Republican, it's hard to tell. Kean Jr. was running a fairly serious anti-Rumsfeld campaign here in NJ and still lost big.)
TWL
Well, I have little faith this will help government run better. What, exactly, was the central position that the Democrats ran on? They didn't like Bush and his policies. I have trouble seeing how this is going to provide for anything other than more extreme partisan squabbling. They weren't for anything--just against someone and his ideas. They have no mandate to do anything but oppose whatever Bush is doing. How will that lead to progress?
As long as both parties continue to be dominated by and play toward their most extreme members, government will keep being dysfunctional. Both parties keep seeing any victories as proof they have support for their extremism, but I think their victories mainly come from moderates switching back and forth as they get sick of whoever is in power. When I vote, I try to vote for the lesser evil, but somehow politicians see my vote as part of a "mandate" supporting their most obnoxious positions.
Except... had Bush 86ed Rummy on Monday, the Republicans would have won on Tuesday.
Well, the first question would be: why was he impeached?
Considering the popularity of a certain ex-president, an impeachment might make the top of a number of resumés.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110906D
Barely two years into office, "Judge" Hastings accepted a $150,000 bribe in exchange for giving a lenient sentence to two swindlers, then lied in subsequent sworn testimony about the incident. The case involved two brothers, Frank and Thomas Romano, who had been convicted in 1980 on 21 counts of racketeering. Together with attorney William Borders Jr., Hastings, who presided over the Romanos' case, hatched a plot to solicit a bribe from the brothers. In exchange for a $150,000 cash payment to him, Hastings would return some $845,000 of their $1.2 million in seized assets after they served their three-year jail terms.
Taped conversations between Hastings and Borders confirmed that the judge was a party to the plot. Hastings was also criminally prosecuted for bribery, but his accomplice Borders went to prison rather than testify against him. Hastings was acquitted thanks to Borders' silence. [Borders was then pardoned by President Clinton, confirming the wisdom of his refusal to testify. In a remarkable display of chutzpah, Borders then applied for reinstatement to the District of Columbia Bar, claiming that Clinton's federal pardon eliminated his local disbarment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit did not agree, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal. To former D.C. delegate Walter Fauntroy, Borders' case had a spiritual quality to it. "Being pardoned by the president is like being pardoned by Jesus," Fauntroy sermonized. Thankfully, the Supremes evidently disagreed with this "theology."]
"Be assured that I'm going to be a judge for life," Mr. Hastings told reporters in 1983 after his acquittal. But the arguments that swayed a Miami jury did not sway the Congress. The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives impeached Hastings for bribery and perjury by a lopsided vote of 413 to 3. Then the Democrat-controlled Senate convicted him on eight articles of impeachment by well over the required two-thirds majority in 1989. Thus Mr. Hastings became only the sixth judge in the history of our Republic (and only the third in the 20th Century) to be removed by Congress. He was, and is, an utter disgrace to the nation and to the legal profession. Among those voting to impeach him were Ms. Pelosi herself, Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip who is likely to become the new House majority leader, and Mr. Hastings' fellow African-American Congressman, Michigan's John Conyers, who took pains to deny that race had anything to do with the removal of the bribe-taking jurist.
Does this guy sound like he should head the intelligence committee?
Peter, despite the reputation for being stubborn, the Bush administration had repeated been willing to change course.
Well, apparently the rest of us have missed this, then.
"Good job, Brownie" and an eyeblink he's gone.
Yeah, because Brownie was really part of that inner circle like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice.
And that ruthless "brilliance"
Brilliance? I'm sorry but that word should NEVER be used in the same sentence with Bush. Ever.
Bush wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the presidency without his handlers, particular Rove.
formerly persona non grata in 43's administration
And when we look back, we'll wonder why it took Bush 6 years before acknowledging that his father had a better administration than he does.
I think the election results are for the best. A clear message was sent to the GOP that no more Delay, Folley and Taft type behavior is acceptable. I hope this steers the GOP back on track, they have no one to balme but themselves and they seem to realize that.
PAD, have to ask in the spirit of "reaching across the aisle" and the election yesterday, can the "Freedom Clock" be removed?
Re: that Hastings guy...past regardless, he's been elected at least twice now to office, and is a high-ranking Dem. Not that voters are smart, and I'd personally not vote for him, but it's not like Pelosi or anyone other than the voters can get rid of him. If he's got the senoirity, or however ranking works, Pelosi pretty much has to abide by that.
I was listening to Bush's press conference yesterday. I've never really listened to a live boradcast before, and until yesterday, it never really struck me just how personable this guy is. If you take away his administration, he's probably a really decent guy, a good buddy, and someone that everyone likes. But since you can't take all that he's done away, I at least have a better understanding of why people are willing to make so many excuses for him.
I'm not sure about the timeline he presented for Rummy's firing...he was thinking about it two Sunday's ago, when asked if Rummy and Cheney would be around for the rest of his term (yes), but he met with Gates after giving that answer, and Rummy tendered his resignation on Sunday...seems a bit contrived (probably because it is). The thing that struck me the most was that Bush all but said he lies in his interviews with the press when it serves his purpose. He didn't want replacing Rummy to be an election issue, for whatever reason. So when asked, 10 days before the election, if Rummy was going to stay, his anwer was "yes." Because that was the only answer that fit his goal of not disrupting the election. Whether it was true or not was irrelevant. And he SAID that...not using all the words I did, but I got his meaning.
I'mnot surprised to learn that Bush (or any leader, for that matter) does this. What did suprise me is that he told people that's what he did. It may have been the first time in 6 years I thought he was being honest.
A lot of talking has gone on in the past 48 hours. I'm hopeful that it leads to more than just talk.
Well, the first question would be: why was he impeached?
Impeached by the House 413-3, convicted by the Senate, both controlled by the Democrats at the time. And Pelosi was one of those who voted for impeachment.
I'd have to agree that he may not be the best candidate for chairing the Intelligence committee. If only for appearances. There may even be a question as to why he is on the committee at all. It's his district in Florida's choice to reelect him every 2 years, but there are a lot of different committees he could be assigned to.
Hastings doesn't have the ranking. The ranking member of the Intelligence Committee is Jane Harmon. However, Pelosi has apparently pledged to force Harmon to step down. Which would make Hastings next in line.
I don't think that requires Hastings to move up. I believe Pelosi can move someone else into the position. It would be an obvious slight against Hastings, but it would probably be a good political move.
And yet more openess and honesty, courtesy of noted proctologist Rush Limbaugh:
"There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves - and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs."
Strangely, the tears do not flow for his plight.
Courtesy of RightwasRight.us:
Now that the election is behind us, and the Democrats control one or possibly both houses of Congress, there's no reason not to admit it: the Right was right about us all along. Here is our 25-point manifesto for the new Congress:
1. Mandatory homosexuality
2. Drug-filled condoms in schools
3. Introduce the new Destruction of Marriage Act
4. Border fence replaced with free shuttle buses
5. Osama Bin Laden to be Secretary of State
6. Withdraw from Iraq, apologize, reinstate Hussein
7. English language banned from all Federal buildings
8. Math classes replaced by encounter groups
9. All taxes to be tripled
10. All fortunes over $250,000 to be confiscated
11. On-demand welfare
12. Tofurkey to be named official Thanksgiving dish
13. Freeways to be removed, replaced with light rail systems
14. Pledge of Allegiance in schools replaced with morning flag-burning
15. Stem cells allowed to be harvested from any child under the age of 8
16. Comatose people to be ground up and fed to poor
17. Quarterly mandatory abortion lottery
18. God to be mocked roundly
19. Dissolve Executive Branch: reassign responsibilities to UN
20. Jane Fonda to be appointed Secretary of Appeasement
21. Outlaw all firearms: previous owners assigned to anger management therapy
22. Texas returned to Mexico
23. Ban Christmas: replace with Celebrate our Monkey Ancestors Day
24. Carter added to Mount Rushmore
25. Modify USA's motto to "Land of the French and the home of the brave"
Does this guy sound like he should head the intelligence committee?
Sheesh, hell no. I'm not even sure what he's doing in Congress to begin with.
Here is our 25-point manifesto for the new Congress:
You know, I could come up with a 25-point manifesto that would describe the last 12 years of Republican control of Congress and the 6 years of Bush's presidency.
But I won't, because I don't need to be depressed. :)
"Now that the election is behind us, and the Democrats control one or possibly both houses of Congress, there's no reason not to admit it: the Right was right about us all along. Here is our 25-point manifesto for the new Congress:"
and here is that world's official comic book:
Bobb, there's no question that Bush knows how to play a room. But there's more to being the President than having a good stand-up act. Whenever I've heard voters say, "He's the kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with," I'm always really tempted to them to look at the other people they drink with, and see if they want any of THEM running the country.
I think if the Republicans had won on Tuesday, Rumsfeld would still be there. I think he was sacrificed so that the heat would be taken off Bush.
"I agree with Jon Stewart's assessment. I don't think Bush is dumb; I think he talks to *us* like he thinks *we're* dumb.
PAD"
Well, i think there's stuff he believes, like Colbert, in his gut, but has trouble articulating a series of reasons for why he believes it. Like someone trying to explain what jazz or porn is. They "know" in their gut even if they have trouble spelling out a detailed list of reasons.
-- Ken from Chicago
"You know, I could come up with a 25-point manifesto that would describe the last 12 years of Republican control of Congress and the 6 years of Bush's presidency.
But I won't, because I don't need to be depressed. :)"
Wrong. You won't because you can't.
I am truly going to enjoy these next two years, seeing what you liberals are going to be like under the microscope.
My bet is that not a whole lot is going to change to any significant degree. As I recall in the debates, when pressed to discuss his goals, were he to become President, with the exception of Iraq, they weren't that different than what Bush was doing.
Good Luck---I think you're going to need it.
When I got up yesterday and saw that picture of Pelosi, smiling, her arms outstretched, my first thought was "My God, that look in her eyes..."
The same kind of look Banner gets just before he Hulks out.
Or when Manson gets an idea.
Good Luck---I think you're going to need it.
Thank you. It'll require a lot of work to repair the damage done in the past six years.
"Wrong. You won't because you can't.
I am truly going to enjoy these next two years, seeing what you liberals are going to be like under the microscope.
My bet is that not a whole lot is going to change to any significant degree. As I recall in the debates, when pressed to discuss his goals, were he to become President, with the exception of Iraq, they weren't that different than what Bush was doing."
I'll honestly never understand the conservative's ability to completely delude themselves. If Kerry's objectives were so similar, what prevented you from voting for him? Oh, wait, it's because his domestic and foreign policy objectives were COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
Wrong. You won't because you can't.
Aww, you're still here?
So, are you going to give us an apology, not only for your utter stupidity, but your insults and your natural lack of Dion Warwick-ness?
Y'know, I found Ben's little link to the Liberality comic amusing at first. Then I found it sad. Finally, I found it offensive. Because this isn't meant to be humorous...I think there are some conservatives that truly believe that any side but their own winning will result in the kind of world portrayed in the book.
It's offensive on two account: first, it represents the scare tactic of "vote for us or ELSE" that's been on display for the past 5 years. Second, if any party's been about making a more repressive state, it's the GOP.
Craig, Warwick-ness? Really? Wouldn't it be Warwickositude? Dionity?
Ken, a leader needs to be able to communicate. "Because I said so" doesn't even work with my five year old. And running a country isn't like defining jazz or porn. They're both ephemeral, whereas leading a country is very specific. "This is where we need to go, this is why we need to go there, and this is the list of souvenirs we're going to pick up on the way." You can't run a country with your gut.
Actually, I thought Rumsfeld's "resignation" was a transparently cynical move. The mere fact that Bush had Rumsfeld's replacement already lined up was a dead giveaway that this had been at least several days in the making.
The way this was handled is emblematic of one of Bush's most glaring flaws. He'll stubbornly stand behind one of his underlings, defending indefensible incompetence, until public pressure is so great that he is forced to cave in. By that time, however, the damage is done and is nigh irreparable, rendering the gesture worthless.
It's really no better than Clinton's spineless habit of letting nominees for cabinet posts and judgeships "twist in the wind" of public criticism before cutting them loose. You know, there's got to be some middle ground! Like, perish the thought, standing behind people who deserve it, and cutting loose those who prove they don't.
Bobb Alfred -
I think there are some conservatives that truly believe that any side but their own winning will result in the kind of world portrayed in the book.
Well, when Bush and other Republicans in office spend several weeks alluding to the idea that voting for a Democrats means supporting terorrism, then it's pretty evident that 'some' is a given.
And yes, the stuff in that 'comic' would be far more accurate if it was portraying the right-wing.
Sean Scullion -
Craig, Warwick-ness? Really? Wouldn't it be Warwickositude? Dionity?
I'm no wizard with the English language (although I consider myself a few steps above Bush), so I just went with the first thing that halfway sounded like it made sense. :)
I agree with Jon Stewart's assessment. I don't think Bush is dumb; I think he talks to *us* like he thinks *we're* dumb.
Oh, I think it's a step further, PAD - I think Bush talks to us like that out of a good, ol'fashioned sense of paternalism stemming from his religious convictions. It's not that he necessarily talks to us like he thinks we're dumb, but like we're sweet children who don't know what's best for ourselves, but DaddyBush does and he'll take care of it, we don't need to know the details.
More than once, he's reminded me of some very old, trained in the heyday of paternalism, doctors I know.
Wrong. You won't because you can't.
Aaw, a challenge! Anything to avoid Heidegger... shall we turn it into a fill-in-the-blank-fest, fellow PAD-readers? I'll start us out,...
A 25 Point Republican Manifesto for the Past 6/12 Painful Years:
1. Mandatory heterosexuality
2.
3. Introduce the Defense of Marriage Act [ed: sometimes reality is scary/sad enough]
4. Build a border fence along Mexico, but don't worry about the illegals coming in from Canada. It's just the brown ones we don't want. Consider moat with flame-proof crocodiles, too.
5.
6. Expand Axis of Evil to Parallelegram of Evil
7. English language enforced as national language
8. Ditch all arts classes, music, drama, or anything else that's creative and thus cannot be empirically tested.
9. All taxes to be tripled - if you make less than six figures.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15. Fight for the sanctity of all life! Except the lives in jail, everyone knows there's nothing sanctuous there.
16. Comatose people to receive more free medical care than the conscious poor - great publicity, and the comatose can't vote!
17. All women of child-bearing age must be medically treated like they're intending to/just become pregnant.
18. Make Christianity the national religion.
19. Dissolve judicial branch - our president knows the truthiness of the law.
20.
21.
22. If we can't block Mexico, maybe we can conquer it...
23. Ban non-Christian holidays
24. Reagan added to Mount Rushmore
25. Modify USA's motto to "Judgin' for God since 2000..."
Surely other people have suggestions. :)
8. Ditch all arts classes, music, drama, or anything else that's creative and thus cannot be empirically tested.
Or . . .
8. Ditch all science classes that are not approved by Creationist evangelicals and/or the oil industry.
A 25 Point Republican Manifesto for the Past 6/12 Painful Years:
11 - Corporate welfare only
13 - Highway funds to be replaced with vouchers for private jets
21 - Cop killer bullets & plastic handguns for everyone
Re: that Hastings guy...past regardless, he's been elected at least twice now to office, and is a high-ranking Dem. Not that voters are smart, and I'd personally not vote for him, but it's not like Pelosi or anyone other than the voters can get rid of him. If he's got the senoirity, or however ranking works, Pelosi pretty much has to abide by that.
And that's the attitude that keeps things from working as well as they should.
Regardless, he isn't next in line--someone Pelosi doesn't like is in line. So this will be a good indication of how she may lead.
I am truly going to enjoy these next two years, seeing what you liberals are going to be like under the microscope.
Good Luck---I think you're going to need it.
*******************************************
I can only hope that "us liberals" can un-do a lot of the damage that has been done. One good thing has come of it so far though: The world is no longer laughing at us. They're hopeful that America has finally woken up and that something can be done these next few years to right some wrongs.
No, the next 2 years won't be easy, but the focus will hopefully be to build relationships and not tear down. As Pelosi said, "Democrats are not about getting even. Democrats are about helping the American people to get ahead." And your comments, Ben Bradley, prove that you conservatives are the complete opposite.
2. Repeal all Congressional ethics rules and institute a pay-for-play policy.
5. Allow Congress to pass a law requiring the head of FEMA to have actual emergency planning experience - then issue a signing statement saying you're going to ignore it (Yes, reality is scarier).
10. Pass legislation to authorize construction of a border fence that covers less than half the length of the border, but don't allocate any funds to pay for it (Hey, I know where we can get some cheap labor!).
11. Spend money like there's no tomorrw, because the rapture is a-coming!
12. Remove all pretzels from the White House!
13. Pretend you know who Albert Camus was.
14. Jam the Democrats' phone bank, issue phony fliers in black neighborhoods telling them that the polling places have moved or the election was postponed, and institute robocalls.
20. Oppose the creation of a 9/11 Commission and the Department of Homeland Security, then change your mind.
21. Portray your opponent as a flipflopper.
The fact that Gates was nominated about 3 seconds after Rumsfeld's resignation was announced is proof that this was in the wings for weeks now as Bush was vetting possible successor. Which of course, means he was lying just last week when he said Rummy would stay to the end of his term.
I don't know if an earlier departure would have helped the GOP this week. Maybe in the Senate, but I think the House was already lost.
One more:
26. After finding no trace of WMDs in Iraq after over three years of looking, publish documents - in Arabic - of plans to build nuclear weapons on the web and claim that the documents themselves are proof that Saddam had WMDs in 2003.
Posted by: Kevin T. Brown at November 9, 2006 01:32 PM
And your comments, Ben Bradley, prove that you conservatives are the complete opposite.
The words and actions of one conservative prove nothing about conservatives as a whole. The majority of conservatives I know care just as much about this country as you do, Kevin, they just have different views about what's in our collective best interests. Moreover, most of the conservatives I know are as upset about the war in Iraq and George W. Bush's borrow-and-spend fiscal policy as any liberals I know.
The People Have Spoken... let's see if anybody's listening
And your comments, Ben Bradley, prove that you conservatives are the complete opposite.
If yu let ben goad you into making the same kind of generalizations as he is, you are just as bad as he is. Worse, maybe, because you seem to know better.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 9, 2006 12:42 PM
Ken, a leader needs to be able to communicate. "Because I said so" doesn't even work with my five year old. And running a country isn't like defining jazz or porn. They're both ephemeral, whereas leading a country is very specific. "This is where we need to go, this is why we need to go there, and this is the list of souvenirs we're going to pick up on the way." You can't run a country with your gut.
But -- can you run a country with porn?
I say we try it. Otherwise, we'll never know.
Bill: If we're going to try it, can we add beer as well? And maybe some snacks?
DAMN! YES! Porn, beer, and snacks! Plus football!
It's morning in America, Knuckles.
I for one am glad the democrats won the house and senate. It gives the people a chance to see what screw ups they are once they are in power, hence the Carter and Clinton years, and remind them in time for the Presidentital elections to vote republican.
Porn, beer, and football! Now that's a platform I can support!
Oh, and John Banks, after the last six years of seeing what screwups the republicans are at governing, it's going to take a bit more than two years for the public to buy into them again.
Remember the last time the GOP had total government control after two presidential elections? That was under Hoover and you know how the public reacted to that administration and the crash: The GOP was sent to the political woodshed for twenty years!
Don't hold your breath for a quick return to power for the GOP. After all the Dems were sure that they were going to retake both chambers in 1996.
I for one am glad the democrats won the house and senate. It gives the people a chance to see what screw ups they are once they are in power, hence the Carter and Clinton years,
Those were years where the budget was balanced, no?
And if those administrations were screwups, what do you call the efforts in New Orleans, NASA and Iraq?
Porn, beer, and football! Now that's a platform I can support!
Me, too!
I sense a political party about to be born...
Posted by: roger Tang at November 9, 2006 03:36 PM
And if those administrations were screwups, what do you call the efforts in New Orleans, NASA and Iraq?
Both parties have much to be ashamed of today.
The downfall of the G.O.P. was hubris, pure and simple. If Democrats fall victim to it as well, they will suffer the same fate.
Several posts back, there was a reference to Stephen Colbert's reaction to the outcome of the election. This isn't the first time I've seen someone on this blog refer to Colbert as if the opinions he expresses on "The Colbert Report" reflect his real beliefs.
You all **DO** realize "TCR" is a comedy show, and that Colbert is playing a character (a parody of Bill O'Reilly, I believe), right?
Just thought I'd mention it.
Bill Myers, your posts are usually thought-provoking, intelligent, and responsible. I've quite enjoyed the "relationship" we've developed arround here and on your personal site, but this last post has shown you to be just as thoughtless as someone better left unnamed. That last post just goes too far. Only a FOOL would want to run this country with porn.
I mean, have you SEEN most of the people in DC? Would you want to see ANY of them in porn? I mean, REALLY!
Snicker, snicker.
"I for one am glad the democrats won the house and senate. It gives the people a chance to see what screw ups they are once they are in power, hence the Carter and Clinton years, and remind them in time for the Presidentital elections to vote republican."
Suure, the Clinton years are a prime example of how Democratics can lead the country to ruin...I mean, they had total control of the White House and...no control in Congress for Clinton's last 6 years in office?
It wasn't Democrats that spent millions of taxpeyer dollars trying to impeach Clinton over something a good deal of Republicans do...have an consensual extramarital affair with another adult. But it's pretty clear that Republican leadership is more than willing to look the other way when those relationships occur within the GOP...and with teenagers, no less.
Yeah, the rallying cries of the conservative just aren't sending fear into me any more. At least for the next two years, I know that their efforts to reduce my rights and transfer my money to the already rich at least won't expand. I don't know if we'll accomplish a lot of damage control over the next two years, but I'm at least optimistic for the first time in a long while.
""Now that the election is behind us, and the Democrats control one or possibly both houses of Congress, there's no reason not to admit it: the Right was right about us all along. Here is our 25-point manifesto for the new Congress:""
Don't you have real problems to be worried about without scaring yourselves with completely imaginary (and quite silly) problems?
I for one am glad the democrats won the house and senate. It gives the people a chance to see what screw ups they are once they are in power, hence the Carter and Clinton years,
There are a lot of things I could call Clinton (and many I have) but his presidency was not a screw up. Clinton did some good things, some bad things, some dumb things, and some smart things. But to compare the Clinton years to the Carter years is like comparing the Beatles to New Kids on the Block.
No, the next 2 years won't be easy, but the focus will hopefully be to build relationships and not tear down. As Pelosi said, "Democrats are not about getting even. Democrats are about helping the American people to get ahead." And your comments, Ben Bradley, prove that you conservatives are the complete opposite.
I hope you are right Kevin, time will tell. Then again part of me thinks this country is at it's best when there is so much gridlock that the only things that get done are things that both side really want.
" transfer my money to the already rich "
That's the second time in this thread you made some comment about your taxes being raised, or your money taken. However, I'm gonna call you on this.
You see, no taxes were raised in the past 6 years. In fact, everyone (THAT'S EVERYONE!) had their taxes lowers. Period. End of story. They lowered all the tax brackets, and expanded the lowest tax bracket (the one where they don't pay taxes).
there are many, many, legitiment attacks you can make on the GOP and Bush, so why in the hell do you have to fall into the tired and untrue partisan lies? It's fun and easy to say "they gave the rich tax cuts and raised the tax on the poor" but that's a flat out untruth.
You can argue that they shouldn't have given across the board tax cuts, or that we couldn't afford the upper end tax cuts, but they did cut EVERYONE's taxes.
The closest you could come to your statement, is that they cut services to the poorest in the county, while lowering the taxes (not giving them your money, but letting them keep more of their own, btw).
Jerry, he didn't mention taxes, he said "transfer my money to the rich." That includes a lot more than just taxes. Did salaries for the rich increase more than salaries for the rest? How do wage increases compare to inflation? The employment rate is good, but have the types of jobs held by Americans shifted?
If you want to "call" him on this, then you should cover more than just taxes.
Posted by: Jerry Wall at November 9, 2006 04:26 PM
That's the second time in this thread you made some comment about your taxes being raised, or your money taken. However, I'm gonna call you on this.
True. Very true.
On the other hand, those tax cuts were funded by massive borrowing and deficit spending (which, contrary to popular belief, are not synonymous). The federal debt is a drain on the overall economy. It eats up productivity in two ways: it puts the federal government in the position of competing with the private sector for capital, thus raising the cost of raising capital; and the interest on the debt is an expense that must be paid for levying... taxes.
Deficit spending cannot go on indefinitely, because it is, by definition, spending more than one takes in. Paying off that debt will require raising taxes. Generally, when taxes are raised, the middle class bears the heaviest burden. The poor don't make enough money to tax, and the rich have great influence in Washington and also have at their disposal tax shelters that aren't available to the middle class.
The closest you could come to your statement, is that they cut services to the poorest in the county, while lowering the taxes (not giving them your money, but letting them keep more of their own, btw).
No, that's false. George W. Bush's 2001 tax reform package increased the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a subsidy aimed at the working poor. It is a "refundable credit," which means you can receive a refund larger than your federal withholdings. Almost without exception, people receiving the EIC receive a refund that far exceeds what they actually paid for in taxes.
GAH! In my post above, I used deficit and debt as synonymous in a sentence after pointing out that they're not synonymous!
STOP ME BEFORE I MESS UP AGAIN!
"Jerry, he didn't mention taxes, he said "transfer my money to the rich." "
Gah, you're right. I miscredited another comment to him, that was actually one someone else made, that related to raising taxes on the poor. My bad.
"Did salaries for the rich increase more than salaries for the rest? How do wage increases compare to inflation? The employment rate is good, but have the types of jobs held by Americans shifted? "
I don't know how to answer this. I've heard it said by some that average incomes are higher now than six years ago, and by others that they are lower. I've also heard that the biggest gulf in income between the highest and the lowest was created in the late 90's. However, I can't find any information right now to back up any side.
Originally posted by Bill Mulligan: "And that's the attitude that keeps things from working as well as they should.
"Regardless, he isn't next in line--someone Pelosi doesn't like is in line. So this will be a good indication of how she may lead."
I agree.
As I recall, appointment as a committee head based on seniority is traditional but not mandatory. I have no problem with Pelosi choosing not to put Harmon in the seat if she feels Harmon is wrong for the job. But that should not automatically mean that she gives the job to Hastings, who sounds pretty clearly to be the wrong person for the job.
If Pelosi does give Hastings the job simply because he's in line for it, that sounds to me like poor leadership. I hope that, if Harmon is not going to fill the chair seat, Pelosi takes Hastings aside, tells him he's not qualified, and that she'd like him to voluntarily step aside to avoid a messy scene but that if he doesn't she will convene a vote among the Democratic leadership to choose who the chair will go to and she will strongly urge the others to vote for someone other than him.
(I'm assuming it's the Democratic leadership who vote on who get the committee chair positions now that democrats are the majority party. Hope I'm not displaying my ignorance too badly.)
It's fun and easy to say "they gave the rich tax cuts and raised the tax on the poor" but that's a flat out untruth.
What's true is that by cutting taxes disproportionately for the rich, the liability for Bush's record spended falls more and more on a shrinking middle class.
As for salaries, corporate CEOs are making 5 times the salaries they were making 25 years ago (adjusted). Corporations aren't making similar gains ove the same time period. These are the daunty wallflowers Bush's tax policies shelter the most.
Bill Myers, your posts are usually thought-provoking, intelligent, and responsible. I've quite enjoyed the "relationship" we've developed arround here and on your personal site, but this last post has shown you to be just as thoughtless as someone better left unnamed.
Sean Scullion, why don't you and Bill Myers just go ahead and rent the damn hotel room?
Sean -- keep your shrouds up, my friend. It is NOT worth responding to Mike. He's irrelevant.
Check out how these closeted Mormons hit on each other, talking about their shrouds and all manner of kinky fetishes that drive them.
Bill--Mike who?
Jerry Wall--look at it this way. Yes, average incomes ARE more than they were six years ago. Taken singly, this fact looks like it's good. Now, add in the fact that, on average, average expenditures are far more than they were six years ago, due to costs being far more. Instead of using the "income" in both situations, perhaps it would be more accurate to use the phrase "buying power." While I myself am making significantly LESS than I was six years ago, I am fortunately in the minority amongst people I know. Fortunately for THEM, that is. I'd love to be making what I was back then, personally. Anyway, most people I know are making more, but they have to pay out more in return. Now, I'm no econimist, never claimed to be, never even finished my economics class(I didn't drop it, car accident knocked me out for the duration) but it seems to me that making more only to have to pay out more isn't upwardly mobile. Hope that helps a little.
Man, I make a funny post and the only one to respond is our resident under-bridge resident. I'm gonna go bang my head against something.
"Several posts back, there was a reference to Stephen Colbert's reaction to the outcome of the election. This isn't the first time I've seen someone on this blog refer to Colbert as if the opinions he expresses on "The Colbert Report" reflect his real beliefs.
You all **DO** realize "TCR" is a comedy show, and that Colbert is playing a character (a parody of Bill O'Reilly, I believe), right?"
I can't speak for everyone, but yes, I do. I think one would have to be a total moron NOT to know that. There's just no other way to refer to him than by his given name, though. He's playing a character, but the character has his name. It's not like Sasha Baron Cohen and "Borat."
And considering yesterday's hilarious "The Word," in which Colbert was so completely overcome with grief that he literally couldn't say anything, I think my comment about being anxious to see how Colbert reacted was pretty valid.
PAD
I just realized, thanks to my lovely wife for reminding me, that if Bush and Cheney somehow meet their demise, Nancy Pelosi will become President.....
Kevin, -you and your wife aren't the only ones thinking that way. All day long I've been thinking if God forbid something happened to those two(hey, I don't like 'em, but I wouldn't want to see anything happen to 'em) would Pelosi turn to Geena Davis for advice?
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 9, 2006 06:58 PM
Jerry Wall--look at it this way. Yes, average incomes ARE more than they were six years ago. Taken singly, this fact looks like it's good. Now, add in the fact that, on average, average expenditures are far more than they were six years ago, due to costs being far more. Instead of using the "income" in both situations, perhaps it would be more accurate to use the phrase "buying power." While I myself am making significantly LESS than I was six years ago, I am fortunately in the minority amongst people I know. Fortunately for THEM, that is. I'd love to be making what I was back then, personally. Anyway, most people I know are making more, but they have to pay out more in return. Now, I'm no econimist, never claimed to be, never even finished my economics class(I didn't drop it, car accident knocked me out for the duration) but it seems to me that making more only to have to pay out more isn't upwardly mobile. Hope that helps a little.
Sean, you are talking about "real income," which is based on the amount of goods and services that can be purchased with that income. When absolute income rises, but the costs of goods and services rise equally or higher, "real income" remains flat or decreases.
For someone who didn't finish economics class, you're quite astute about the basic concepts. And in this case bang-on correct.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 9, 2006 06:58 PM
Man, I make a funny post and the only one to respond is our resident under-bridge resident. I'm gonna go bang my head against something.
I couldn't think of anything funny to say in return was all. Trust me, I got a good laugh out of it.
As SOON as I saw your post, Bill, I recalled good old Mr. Miller, the ubiquitous ball of spit perched ever so precariously on his lower lip, using that exact phrase. Durn brain damage.
And considering yesterday's hilarious "The Word," in which Colbert was so completely overcome with grief that he literally couldn't say anything, I think my comment about being anxious to see how Colbert reacted was pretty valid.
Personally, I wasn't at all worried about his reaction.
;)
Some people give the impression that they think Nancy Pelosi will do a horrible job because she is a woman.
Well, so's the president.
The Democrats didn't have a platform to run on in this election because they didn't need one.
It was about the war.
As long as they let the focus stay on the war, they were in good shape.
Sean Scullion has a good point about the buying power of money.
Inflation is approximately 3% per year.
If you were making $6 an hour 10 years ago, you would have to be making $8 an hour today to keep up with the inflation over that time.
And the inflation numbers do NOT include some items that people need, like, say, um---GASOLINE!
Those people who are making that small amount per hour really didn't get much benefit from their $42 per year tax cut. (Compared to those that paid $35,000 less in taxes per year, those people being in the upper tax brackets.)
"And considering yesterday's hilarious "The Word," in which Colbert was so completely overcome with grief that he literally couldn't say anything..."
And the emergency donkey pinata. I loved the emergency donkey pinata!
What's great about Colbert is that he really sells it. He looked like he was really working himself up to unleash his hate on that pinata. He really looked like he was going to put the alcohol away for a moment before he yanked it back out and took a drink. There are moments when Colbert can be surprising even though he's doing something very obvious, just because he sells what he's doing so well.
Democrats are now in the spotlight and we are watching. On Wednesday, new House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi pointed to a painting behind her, hanging on the wall of the Library of Congress. She signaled a figure burning a scroll of learning and trampling on the Bible. The title of the painting was “Corrupt Government.” She explained:
“It is a harsh image to see a Bible underfoot, but it makes a powerful point: corrupt government undermines our values. We come here today to support those values, and to lay out an agenda for a new era of honest, open, and transparent government.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2283...
*********
If I had said it, I would be "just another dilusional conservative." Truth is, even teh most liberal of DC politicians can see the real truth. We are a nation founded on religious ideals, period. At the time, these may have been Christian ideals but the country has taken it one step further to religion in general. This nation was founded on the belief that all religions are created equal and all citizens of this nation, indeed all humans, were born with the right to practice that religion freely within the confines of obvious moral standards (can't kill, steal, kidnap, etc...). This election was not about liberalism v. conservatism, Republicans v. Democrats, or even Iraq. This election boiled down to the fact that even the Democrats, seen as the leftist sect of the country, acknowledged that this country has a set of values greater than any petty disputes between the two parties. Americans decided that Republicans were no longer getting the job done in protecting the conservative values of this country...so they elected Democrats who made the same vows as the Republicans they beat out had made when they took office. The Democrats elected to replace these Republicans are just as conservative as the Republicans they replaced and have promised not to abandon the voters as the Republicans did. This election was hardly a referendum pushing for the liberal ideals previously backed by the Democrats.
Consider the facts, 9 states had ballot measures to ban gay marriage (a conservative talking point): it passed in 8, the only state to not pass the initiative was Arizona, the reason - it was also the only state that included a ban on all forms of domestic partnerships. I know of gay people who would also say that gay couples should not get married. But I also know of hardly anyone who would support banning any form of partnership at all (this is a position taken only by extreme radicals, not the mainstream conservative).
- Michigan, the face of affirmative action (University of Michigan), voters in that state put a ban on affirmative action in that state, in pretty convincing fashion.
- Many states had initiatives curtailing eminent domain (an extremely liberal issue), again conservatism and keeping government out of private affairs won and eminent domain has been derailed in most states.
People may point to stem cell research in Missouri as a victorious point in the elections for the left...consider the issue though. Prior to the elections the measure had a huge, almost 30 point, lead and pretty much guaranteed to pass. And why not, no one wants Michael J. Fox to die. Its a sympathetic issue. People hear that it can save lives and vote for it for that fact. People don't actually admit that these same cells can also come from discarded umbilical cords or similar cells from adults. No research has ever proven that embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure anything (at least anything specific), all they have proven is that they COULD cure certain things. Adult stem cells have been researched and in fact USED to aid in therapies or other treatments, not to mention, there is no moral downside to them. Ironic how that 30 point lead shrunk to 2 (51-49) on election night, after people started reading about the issue more, rather than voting on emotion alone.
Liberals will also champion South Dakota shooting down the anti-abortion measure on its ballot...this measure provided that the only time abortions would be allowed would be in the case of a mother's life being threatened by the carry of the baby to term. Not in cases of rape or incest. The extremity of the language is why the initiative was defeated, not the principle of it, same with the Arizona gay marriage amendment.
****
I'm not looking to convert anyone on any issues, I can't do that, nor would I try. My only point is that to consider it a liberal victory would be a gross misrepresentation of the elections. To the contrary, conservatives throughout the country should see this as a resounding victory. Where properly worded, conservative measures seem to carry weight with the American populace.
That is the truth.
If I had said it, I would be "just another dilusional conservative." Truth is, even teh most liberal of DC politicians can see the real truth. We are a nation founded on religious ideals, period. At the time, these may have been Christian ideals but the country has taken it one step further to religion in general. This nation was founded on the belief that all religions are created equal and all citizens of this nation, indeed all humans, were born with the right to practice that religion freely within the confines of obvious moral standards (can't kill, steal, kidnap, etc...).
And one of the options of religious practice is to practice no religion at all. Who has more faith than the person with no religion?
My only point is that to consider it a liberal victory would be a gross misrepresentation of the elections. To the contrary, conservatives throughout the country should see this as a resounding victory. Where properly worded, conservative measures seem to carry weight with the American populace.
That is the truth.
If you're suggesting most Americans want to privatize social security, wanted medicare retooled as a trillion dollar government giveaway to pharmaceutical companies, or consented to a billion-dollars-a-week war for reasons other than to curtail nuclear terrorism, uh, no.
Yeah, well, while we debate these piddly points I just want to point out two headlines up right now on the Drudge report:
Aliens could attack at any time' warns former British Ministry of Defence chief
and
NASA looks at a monster storm on Saturn
Coincidence? WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!! Jeeze, do you watch any monster movies?
Well I have a different take on the matter, besides what PAD said about why Bush did it. There is another reason, when the democrats start investigating iraq in 07, someone is going to have to be the fall guy for all the shit that happened. So now they can blame the guy that just left on everyhting the dems find. "he was just a bad apple, a loose cannonl, etc etc"
"The Democrats didn't have a platform to run on in this election because they didn't need one.
It was about the war.
As long as they let the focus stay on the war, they were in good shape."
Well, hopefully the Democrats won't be that stupidly short sighted or foolish. If they are, they can kiss their majority goodbye by the next major election. And maybe their possibilities of snagging the White House as well.
"Aliens could attack at any time' warns former British Ministry of Defense chief
and
NASA looks at a monster storm on Saturn
Coincidence? WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!! Jeeze, do you watch any monster movies?"
But, you missed the final piece of the puzzle, Bill.
"With a smartening-up Bush and a newly energized Democratic majority...."
They're already here!! The first wave has descended upon us!!!!
Maybe, and I stress MAYBE, the Democrats as a whole could become energized, lifelike and personable when in the same room as Bush. But a smartened up Bush??? Bush dumping Rumsfeld against the objections of Cheney??? No way in Hell. Not gonna happen.
Kotos and Kang have taken over!!! Kotos (or was that Kang) has taken Bush's form! Kang (or was that Kotos) has taken Pelosi's form. I'm sure I saw them holding hands at some time during that press conference. And did you see how many other "Democrats" were exchanging long chained proteins with Pelosi on election night? There's a small army here now!!!!!!!!!!
They can laugh at that poor Defense Chief, but that "storm" is just the dust clouds being kicked up by the launch of the super fleet. They're on their way and they have their probes ready.
Come Thanksgiving, lets all pray that it's ONLY the turkeys that will be stuffed.
Bill Myers, your posts are usually thought-provoking, intelligent, and responsible. I've quite enjoyed the "relationship" we've developed arround here and on your personal site, but this last post has shown you to be just as thoughtless as someone better left unnamed. That last post just goes too far. Only a FOOL would want to run this country with porn.
I mean, have you SEEN most of the people in DC? Would you want to see ANY of them in porn? I mean, REALLY!
You've got to turn your thinking around, friend! We don't want to get government into porn, but the other way around.
I just wonder if it's too early to start printing up "Jeremy/Jameson '08" bumper stickers...
-Rex Hondo-
And considering yesterday's hilarious "The Word," in which Colbert was so completely overcome with grief that he literally couldn't say anything, I think my comment about being anxious to see how Colbert reacted was pretty valid.
I thought the best bit happened on the night of the election right (The Midterm Midtacular) at the closer when Colbert realized that the Democracts were going to win, went on a pristine rant about the new Democratic America, tasted the terrorist cake ("MMMMMM, tastes like surrender!"), said "SCREW THIS!", stormed out, then recieved a motivational speech from Uncle Sam in his limo. He's probably gonna milk the crazy depressed Right Winger angle for a little while, so it should be fun to watch. Though, I have to say, that closing bit on the election night, so far, has been the highlight.
Ken, a leader needs to be able to communicate. "Because I said so" doesn't even work with my five year old. And running a country isn't like defining jazz or porn. They're both ephemeral, whereas leading a country is very specific. "This is where we need to go, this is why we need to go there, and this is the list of souvenirs we're going to pick up on the way." You can't run a country with your gut.
Sean, not necessarily. While part of leading can be using persuasion to get people to *want* to follow you. However you can go with the "Trust me" if people TRUST you, especially if you have a track record of success. A team of well-respected advisors doesn't hurt either. However once that trust is sorely tested to the breaking point, and beyond . . . .
You all **DO** realize "TCR" is a comedy show, and that Colbert is playing a character (a parody of Bill O'Reilly, I believe), right?"
Peter, Michael J. Fox was once popular with both liberals and conservatives back in the Dark Ages: the 1980s, as "Alex P. Keaton" on FAMILY TIES. Conservatives loved him for his hilarious spoof of conservatives while liberals thought he nailed it dead on.
Then again, mixing the actor for the character they play is nothing new. How often do you see movie ads or reviews that describe Tom Cruise IS a spy taking on impossible missions or George Clooney IS a CIA agent in the Middle East, Emma Thompson IS a writing dictating the life of a character, Will Ferrell?
versus "plays a character who . . ."?
-- Ken from Chicago
>No research has ever proven that embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure anything (at least anything specific)
Someone may not have been keeping up with the news.
Reports have been coming out of experiments which have restored sight to blind mice using stem cells. Not sure if it was the embryonic variety of cells, however.
What's great about Colbert is that he really sells it. He looked like he was really working himself up to unleash his hate on that pinata. He really looked like he was going to put the alcohol away for a moment before he yanked it back out and took a drink. There are moments when Colbert can be surprising even though he's doing something very obvious, just because he sells what he's doing so well.
I just wish he took the next obvious step and chugged directly from the bottle.
Maybe when Pelosi is installed as Speaker . . .
Reports have been coming out of experiments which have restored sight to blind mice using stem cells. Not sure if it was the embryonic variety of cells, however.
the story is a little complicated and was, typically, poorly written, so the confusion is understandable.
The cells used were no longer capable of becoming any kind of cells (so they were not true stem cells). They would be more accurately described as immature rod cells.
The only reason the story got mixed up in the stem cell debate was that a lot of the stories I read went out of their way to stick in something to the effect that scientists are also trying to grow human embryonic stem cells. True enough but not terribly pertinant to the story and it resulted in a more than a few people touting this as a victory for stem cell research.
Look, I'm in favor of stem cell research but I have to say, people are probably going to be very disappointed in the results. The expectations are way too high. And I further expect that it will be the adult stem cell lines that give the best results. Were I still in bio research that's where I'd be focussing and not just because of the politics involved.
"Though, I have to say, that closing bit on the election night, so far, has been the highlight."
I agree, but you left out my favorite part!
"The Democrats have only been in power for 2 minutes, and they've already gotten us mired in this unwinnable war."
Awesome.
Bush did not (or perhaps, could not) make the smart move here.
The smart move would have been to offer Joe Lieberman the job of Secretary of Defense. All in the spirit of bipartisanship.
If Lieberman accepted, his senate seat would be filled by the choice of a Republican governor. Bush would have a 50-50 Senate, with Cheney breaking ties.
Presto, Bush gets some control back of the Senate.
(I know, I know, me being diabolical again...)
The smart move would have been to offer Joe Lieberman the job of Secretary of Defense. All in the spirit of bipartisanship.
If Lieberman accepted, his senate seat would be filled by the choice of a Republican governor. Bush would have a 50-50 Senate, with Cheney breaking ties.
Presto, Bush gets some control back of the Senate.
True, but that would have such a obvious and blatant politcal move that it would hurt Bush even more.
"True, but that would have such a obvious and blatant politcal move that it would hurt Bush even more."
And Lieberman would have never accepted the position.
"We are a nation founded on religious ideals, period."
I'm not an American, so I may not be familiar with the nuances, but I think it would be equaly if not more accurate to say that the US was founded on liberal ideals.
"This nation was founded on the belief that all religions are created equal and all citizens of this nation, indeed all humans, were born with the right to practice that religion freely."
This was, and still is a liberal ideal.
It is true that liberalism in the US never had the anti-clericalism that characterized European liberalism. But this is partially because from the beginning the US did not have a clerical power like the one that existed in Europe, and also socialism, with its distinct anti-religious ideals, was not as successful as in the US.
Of course, the values of most cultures are based on religious ideals. You also have to remember that what was considered liberal and conservative in 1776 was different than now, and also, again, that the US did not develop the revolutionary aspirations to topple the old world that characterized socialism, and parts of the French revolution.
"the Democrats, seen as the leftist sect of the country"
Only in the way that the Republicans are seen as a right wing fundementalist sect. I suppose that the extremes are more sect-like, while the closer you get to the center the differences blur.
"acknowledged that this country has a set of values greater than any petty disputes between the two parties."
It is reasonable to assume that most Americans share some values. It is also likelt that each side believes they support greater values, they just don't always agree what they are.
Americans decided that Republicans were no longer getting the job done in protecting the conservative values of this country"
It is reasonable to assume that the neither last elections nor the presidential elections represented a major shift to extremely conservative or extremely liberal values. It may be possible even that there is a slight majority in the US for conservative values. Maybe in some issues people are more conservative, and with others more liberal. But it is more likey that moderate democrats were elected to follow moderate liberal ideals, which are not that far from moderate republican.
"This election was hardly a referendum pushing for the liberal ideals previously backed by the Democrats."
Is there any indication of democrats abandoning their values?
"9 states had ballot measures to ban gay marriage (a conservative talking point): it passed in 8, the only state to not pass the initiative was Arizona, the reason - it was also the only state that included a ban on all forms of domestic partnerships."
Weren't the 9 states already conservative? It is deceptive to determine the overal attitude in the US on liberal issues because you have geographical areas where the liberals are a majority and conservatives are less likely to be represented, and in other places the reverse is true.
"this is a position taken only by extreme radicals, not the mainstream conservative)."
Do mainstream liberals support gay marriage?
"Its a sympathetic issue. People hear that it can save lives and vote for it for that fact. People don't actually admit that these same cells can also come from discarded umbilical cords or similar cells from adults. No research has ever proven that embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure anything (at least anything specific), all they have proven is that they COULD cure certain things. Adult stem cells have been researched and in fact USED to aid in therapies or other treatments."
I am not a biologist. If you are not, it is rather pointless for us to parrot scientific opionions for or against the projected potential and advantages of stem cell research, which we are unable to assess. If there is somebody on this board who can, it would be helpful. If not, I suggest sticking to the ethical consideration, which we do understand.
Also, aren't there conservatives who support stem cell research?
"to consider it a liberal victory would be a gross misrepresentation of the elections."
It is a victory in the sense that liberals now have more power to influence things. Apparently, in the places where change occured the liberal candidates' messages had more support.
Where properly worded, conservative measures seem to carry weight with the American populace.
"I aven't looked at he map, but again, it seems that in moderate conservative states conservative measures wre passed if not too conservative, whereas in liberal states no proposal were presented.
"That is the truth."
The truth probably has less to do with the difference in values between democrats and republicans as much as lack of faith in the conduct of republicans in some areas.
---------------------
"Sean, not necessarily. While part of leading can be using persuasion to get people to *want* to follow you. However you can go with the "Trust me" if people TRUST you, especially if you have a track record of success. A team of well-respected advisors doesn't hurt either. However once that trust is sorely tested to the breaking point, and beyond . . . ."
Idealy, in a democracy, voters should be swayed by arguments, not by the charisma of a leader. But this is not always the case.
That idea is pretty diabolical, Glenn. However, it would never have happened. I think that Bush really believed that the elections were going to go much better, that the Republicans were going to retain at least the Senate and maybe the House as well. Therefore, he'd have no need for such a hat-trick. I know that you have to blatantly ignore a host of indicators to the contrary, but the war in Iraq is solid proof and the Administration's ability to do that.
Rumsfeld was on the way out at least a week before the election. The fact that Gates had already been selected and had accepted the job offer is solid evidence of that. Gates as Secretary of Defense was already a done deal.
A quick correction. Re-reading my previous post, I imply that it was wishful thinking to expect the Senate to remain in Republican hands. It really wasn't. A large number of close election all had to go the the Democrats with no diappointments and Lieberman has to stick with the Dems as well for the Republicans to lose control of the Senate. The odds of a Democratic controlled Senate were pretty low.
Thinking that Republicans were going to retaint the House on the other hand required Colbert-like self-delusion.
Thinking that Republicans were going to retaint the House on the other hand required Colbert-like self-delusion.
If that's a typo it's actually a pretty funny one.
Anyone who truly thinks we are a nation founded on religious ideals makes it clear they have no grasp whatsoever of the Revolutionary era. Some colonies were founded in order for the colonists to be free to practice their religion free from interference from the crown. Some, on the other hand, were not.
The Revolution occurred NOT due to some great religious upheaval, it occurred due to gross incompetence on the part of Parliament, and a fundamental misunderstanding of how the colonies viewed their role in the political and economic world of the Empire. PERIOD. Read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. Read anything ever written by him, for that matter. And then go on to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, etc. Jesus didn't have jack-all to do with the Revolution. On the other hand, Lord Grenville, Lord North and basically the entire British military establishment did.
Micha -
If not, I suggest sticking to the ethical consideration, which we do understand.
As I have mentioned already in other posts, even the ethical considerations by those against embryonic stem cell research seem to be twisted and, imo, often hypocritical.
So, to say we understand the ethical considerations? That is simplifying it far too much.
Craig, what I meant is that I do not have the scientific knowledge necessary to decide betwwen claims of scientists who support or object to stem cell research, but I do have, I hope, the intellectual capacity to make a decision in an ethical argument. So, so long as there is no scientific consensus, purely scientific arguments don't help me make a decision, since each side brings out the scientific studies that support their ethical point of view. Since I don't have a way to decide, you might as well go straight to the ethical and philosophical arguments.
Bill Mulligan - Oh, OK, thanks for the correction. Hopefully NEW SCIENTIST or some other reputable publication will have all the details soon and we'll find out what was really behind those mice getting their eyesight back.
"I further expect that it will be the adult stem cell lines that give the best results. Were I still in bio research that's where I'd be focussing"
Why?
1
On the other hand, those tax cuts were funded by massive borrowing and deficit spending (which, contrary to popular belief, are not synonymous). The federal debt is a drain on the overall economy. It eats up productivity in two ways: it puts the federal government in the position of competing with the private sector for capital, thus raising the cost of raising capital; and the interest on the debt is an expense that must be paid for levying... taxes.
Bill, I am going to have to disagree with you here on why we are running deficits. I know this is counter intuitive but in the long run tax cuts cause an increase in tax revenue. Our government's current fiscal trouble (both debt and deficit spending) are not a result of the tax cuts, but the result of a spend happy government(which is why I am pissed at republicans.) The Bush Tax cuts, which were phased in over three years, 2001-2003 have, as of the 2005 budget caused an increase in revenue. According to the CBO, total tax revenue for the year 2000 was $2,025.5 billion, while 2005 tax revenue was $2,153.9 billion. The problem is in the dramatic increase in spending, 2000 spending $1,789.2 billion, 2005 spending a whopping $2,472.2 billion. If we balance the budget the debt issue goes away. In fact as a percent of GDP our debt, while still the highest it has been since 2000, is lower then every year between 1985 and 2000. (also CBO figures) http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
Deficit spending cannot go on indefinitely, because it is, by definition, spending more than one takes in. Paying off that debt will require raising taxes. Generally, when taxes are raised, the middle class bears the heaviest burden. The poor don't make enough money to tax, and the rich have great influence in Washington and also have at their disposal tax shelters that aren't available to the middle class.
As for tax burden, I would have to argue that the burden of taxes does not fall on the middle class. Although it feels like it does. The top 1% paid ~34% of the taxes in 2003 and the top 50% of wage earners paid ~96% of all income taxes in 2003 you can get the numbers to do the math at the us house of representatives http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/2003taxshares.pdf
John
Bill Mulligan,
It was indeed a typo. What I had meant to type "retain the House" but only did on-the-fly proofing.
[Boring Technical Explanation of Typo]Before correction I had written "retaint he House" and thought I had left the "t" off the word "the" instead of putting the space in the wrong place. So I simply added it in.[/BTEoT]
I didn't even realize how my typo could be interpreted until it was pointed out. I wish I was that funny when I was trying to be.
I just wanted to say that I didn't realize it was PAD himself who made the most recent remark about wanting to see Stephen Colbert's reaction to the outcome of the election. I know Peter realizes that Stephen Colbert the actor/comedian is playing the part of "Stephen Colbert," right-wing demagogue. I only brought it up because I've seen other posts here and elsewhere from people who didn't seem to get it.
That's what I get for not scrolling back to double-check the "Posted by" line. Sorry for the confusion.
Paul
Micha, the problem with embryonic stem cells is also what makes them so potentially powerful--they can literally become any possible type of cell.
Consider a fertilized egg thathas only a dozen cells- any of theose dozen cells may be the one that gives rise to any organ of the body. That potential is amazing.
But...it also means that simply dropping it on, say, someone's brain has the potential of the cell giving rise to something not at all brain-like. Doc Conner may want a new arm but not growing out of his head.
The hope is that the brain cells would somehow send signals to the implanted embryonic cells to force them into that direction. Good enough but keep in mind that this is NOT how they work--whatever it is taht causes stem cells to committ to theair eventual path, it doesn't come form adult cells but, rather, from signals that are within it's brother stem cells (or so it seems This is one of the big mysteries of science and a very exciting field.)
You might get good results dropping embryonic stem cells onto an embryo but an adult? I don't expect much. (Note--if we trick the cells into comitting before implantation, well, now we have something better. How we artificailly do something when we don't understnd how it's does naturally is a very tough question.)
Adult stem cells--and lots of people don't know that there even ARE adult stem cells--are used to working with the complex system of the adult body and therfore, to my thinking, have a far far greater potential for succcess.
Anyway, that's how I see it. Obviously a lot of scientists must see it differently given the desire to work with embryonic stem cells.
Paul,
I don't think anyone has ever failed to "get it" about Colbert. Every time I've seen someone say, "you know he's faking, right?" it's always been in response to someone who was just playing along with Colbert's joke. Don't worry about it, people get it.
Oh and on the upcoming rampaging monster front--new headline on Drudgereport: Smoggy skies 'created life on Earth
When Hedorah is smashing through downtown LA you'll all be screaming "Bill was right! We should have listened!" For all the good it'll do you then.
As exciting as this week was, the real story is coming up.
Nancy Pelosi has been demonized by many Republicans as being out of her league and a lightweight. She has the chance to both proven them wrong and, more importantly, do the right thing. Champion people for chairmanships that are the right people for the job, not doddering seniority cases or people whose constutuants have not allowed their manifest stupidity stop them from getting relected.
TPM Muckraker http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001981.php
Has a good article on its "favorite" Democrats. If any of these folks get in it's gonna be two years of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" all over again.
Rep. Alan Mollohan--under FBI investigation. set to take the chair of the panel that got him in trouble.
Rep. John Murtha--been caught on tape by the FBI explaining how he works scams
Rep. Alcee Hastings-- Impeached by virtually the entire congress...including Pelosi.
Rep. Steny Hoyer-- Possible House Majority leader. Well known for courting special interests, he even voted in favor of the bankruptcy bill and got over $100,000 from lenders for his trouble.
Meanwhile, on the "Boy, how ugly would it have been if they'd LOST?" front, James "Serpentor" Carville wants to reward Howard Dean for his victory by kicking him out and replacing him with the one Democrat who LOST--Harold Ford. Whether this is to counter the Republicans looking to Michael Steele to replace Ken Mehelman or somthing else I don't know. Markos "Daily Kos", fresh from flexing his muscles in his takedown of Joe Lieberman...um, nevermind...responds thoughtfully " Carville needs to shut the f**k up. If he wants a war, we’ll give him one." Yikes...
This is the internet age, jackasses! If you want to waste the honeymoon forming a circular firing squad it won't go unnoticed.
And if the remaining Republicans are smart--big if--they will just stand by and watch.
Also, if it hasn't been mentioned already--Happy Veterens Day. And happy birthday to the Marines.
Bill Mulligan are you reading your nonsense before linking to them?
This leaves Hoyer, who voted for the bankruptcy retooling -- like the republican majority who sponsored the bill in the first place.
If it's bad and about a republican, they are innocent until proven guilty. If it's bad and about a democrat, it's gotta be true. Typical.
And Mary Matalin doesn't call her husband "Serpentor," she calls him "Serpent Head." Put down the GI Joe before you hurt yourself.
I just read almost every word in this thread and agreed with Mike almost every time. Since I know I am not irrelevant, how could he be?
Keep on popping the ballons of the high and mighty right wingers, Mike. I, for one, am thoroughly enjoying it.
And the person who wrote that the Bush administration has shown the ability to switch gears/paths (or whatever)... You're 100% correct.
I've watched Bush go from insufferable right wing suck-up, to half-assed cliche slinger, to idiotic war monger-- to just plain deadly.
As I told my conservative Mom this past Wednesday-- there's not a damned Democrat in the world who wants to see terrorists attack this country... Ever... And anybody who thinks that is a moron and a deluded asshole.
THERE'S your mantra for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Now let's all sit back and watch the Republicans spit and sputter and attempt to figure out a way to make gay marriage seem deadlier than al-Qaeda... just in time for 2008.
And for those posters who question the abilities of Nancy Pelosi (HA! THAT's a real knee slapper! Have you bothered to question the abilities of your Commander in Chief lately?)-- you should be ashamed of yourselves. How could the FIRST FEMALE House Majority Leader be weak... or incompetent?!
We all know what you REALLY mean: That you question her abilities "...because she is a woman."
Just for that utterly unfounded, sexist attitude, I hope all your future hookers and/or girlfriends and/or wives refuse to cop your joints for the rest of your natural born lives-- no matter how much money you bribe them with.
I'll never forget being in San Diego one year and have a comely stripper tell me she couldn't wait for the Comic Con to be over because, "The Republicans are coming to town and they're going to FLOOD this joint... and they're great tippers too."
Awww, Mike, were you getting all upset that nobody was talking about you. It's ok, poppet, lemme give some of the attention momma didn't:
You basic argument seem to be that you don't care what any Democrats did as long as it can be claimed that a Republican did far worse. Wow, most of us stopped using that one when it stopped working, say, third grade. For your sake I hope you're a precocious 2nd grader.
Mollohan: The donors to his charities won $179 million in government contracts. Why don't we see 100 times the outrage from you over the tens of billions in no-bid contracts handed over to Hitlerburton?
Not much of a defense of Mollohan is it? And no wonder; what Mike fails to mention is:
1- National Legal and Policy Center filed a 500 page ethics complaint against Mollohan for misrepresenting his assets on financial disclosure forms. Mollohan's real estate holdings and other assets have jumped in value from $562,000 in 2000 to at least $6.3 million in 2004.
From the complaint:
For the period 1996 through 2004, NLPC found that the Financial Disclosure Reports:
* repeatedly failed to disclose real estate assets which public records showed were owned by Mollohan and his wife
* repeatedly failed to disclose financial assets which public records showed were owned by Mollohan and his wife
* repeatedly failed to disclose major loans which were used in the acquisition of financial assets which were not being disclosed
* failed to disclose interests in companies which owned major assets
* grossly undervalued assets, giving purported valuations which were a small fraction of the assets’ true value
"The bottom line is Mollohan got very wealthy in a four year period. His account of his finances during this period is demonstrably false. The fact that he earmarked well over $100 million in tax dollars to groups associated with his business partner is about as big a red flag as one can imagine."
2- On April 7, 2006, The New York Times reported that Mollohan "has fueled five non-profit groups in his West Virginia district with $250 million in earmark funding"
3- On April 21, 2006, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced that Mollohan would temporarily step down as the Ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee. Howard Berman of California took Mollohan's place.
4- On April 25, 2006, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mollohan cooperated with CEO Dale R. McBride of FMW Composite Systems Inc. of Bridgeport, West Virginia for the joint purchase of his 300 acre farm along West Virginia's Cheat River. Mollohan had directed a $2.1 million government contract earmarked to FWM composite systems to develop lightweight payload pallets for space-shuttle missions. Federal Bureau of Investigation agents have started asking questions in Washington and West Virginia about Mollohan’s investments and whether they were properly disclosed, according to the Journal. Mollohan had previously acknowledged he may have made inadvertent mistakes on financial disclosure forms.
(this is all cut and pasted from Wikipedia, which is all the effort Mike deserves.)
None of this means that Mollohan belongs in jail. I'm just saying that maybe a smart person would not want someone with an ethics cloud hanging over their heads assume a position of power right after an election decided in large part on corruption.
But there will always be people like Mike that will vote right down the line, Republican or Democrat, without thinking. Whether there's enough of them, who knows. There are plenty of perfectly good Democrats in congress, why use tainted ones?
Murtha: he knew he was offered a bribe -- and he didn't take it. This is just more republican hatred and disgust of patriots who actually served their country in Vietnam who have the nerve to try and serve the public interest.
One should not take my word for it and I'm sure we ALL know that Mike has so far not demonstrated the ability to find his ass with both hands and a flashlight. Go to http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10427 for a (admittedly biased but useful) look at the actual transcript of the ABSCAM sting. Then go to http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10426 for the transcript, if you want to see for yourself.
It raises an interesting question; after a clear attempt to be bribed did he report it to the FBI? Nope. The Ethics Committee, of which he was a member? Nope. By Murtha's own story, he knew that a member of congress, Frank Thompson (from New Jersey. Knock me over with a feather) was corrupt. And. He. Did. Nothing.
NOT the guy I'd want in charge.
Incidentally those right wing nuts at the left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) listed Murtha under Honorable Mention in its 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (one of only four Democrats listed on the site). The report cited Murtha's steering of defense appropriations to KSA Consulting, which employed his brother Robert, and the PMA Group, founded by Paul Magliocchetti, a former Murtha senior aide.
But He IS a Democrat, and that's good enough for Mike.
Hastings: Arrested and acquitted in an FBI sting where he accepted no bribe and received no money. As for his removal from office: "Senators could choose whatever standard of proof -- beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, or another measure -- they deemed appropriate." It's just too bad for Hastings he didn't just sit 4 years on reports the chair of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus was sexually harrassing the under-age pages. It's just too bad for Hastings he didn't just get caught doing something wrong.
Another weak argument and you have to sympathize with Mike on this one. Alcee is so corrupt it's almost like he's a character from the Simpsons. Google around about the guy and be prepared to laugh until you cry. Even his personal life is a mess--he owed his lawyer about a half million dollars form her defense of him. Luckily for him he lives with her. Unluckily for her it seems like everything he touches goes to hell. She was disbarred for mishandling client funds. But all's well that ends well and she gets 71K a year for being his Scheduler (4 grand more than his chief of staff gets).
But all you need to know about the guy is that he was impeached by some of the very people now considering putting him on the House Intelligence Committee. The U.S. House Of Representatives Voted 413-3 to impeach him. Had Mike been a member it would have been 412 to 4, just barely not enough for Alcee to prevail. As USA today wrote in an editorial "They cannot be serious. In 1988, Nancy Pelosi, the Congresswoman likely to become speaker of the House if Democrats recapture the majority, voted to impeach a federal judge named Alcee Hastings. So did Steny Hoyer, the front-runner to become majority leader. Now, 18 years later, these and other Democrats are weighing whether to make Hastings chairman of the House Intelligence Committee if they win in November (or ranking member if the Democrats fall short of the majority)." (Editorial, "Matters Of Choice," USA Today, 8/30/06)
This leaves Hoyer, who voted for the bankruptcy retooling -- like the republican majority who sponsored the bill in the first place.
Uh huh. See, unlike you, Mike, I don't just automatically accept every little thing that either party does as automatically right. It's harder that way, because you have to, you know, think, but trust me, it's better. Or, to put it in words you may understand: Baaaa baaa baaaaa baa baa. Ok?
If it's bad and about a republican, they are innocent until proven guilty. If it's bad and about a democrat, it's gotta be true. Typical.
Mike, illustrating the concept of projection. Take a bow, Mike.
And Mary Matalin doesn't call her husband "Serpentor," she calls him "Serpent Head." Put down the GI Joe before you hurt yourself.
Yeaaaaaahhhhhh....um, I'm not Mary Matalin. Thanks for playing.
Ok, is that enough attention for one night, Mike? Let's just all hope to God that Pelosi and the others in power are smarter than you are. It's a low bar but one that must be jumped.
Posted by: insideman at November 10, 2006 10:34 PM
And for those posters who question the abilities of Nancy Pelosi (HA! THAT's a real knee slapper! Have you bothered to question the abilities of your Commander in Chief lately?)-- you should be ashamed of yourselves. How could the FIRST FEMALE House Majority Leader be weak... or incompetent?!
Uhm... is there, like, some magic scroll or something that decreed that the first woman speaker can be neither weak nor incompetent? No? Well, then, she can indeed be weak or incompetent... if she's weak... or incompetent. It depends not on her gender, but on her actions.
Posted by: insideman at November 10, 2006 10:34 PM
We all know what you REALLY mean: That you question her abilities "...because she is a woman."
So, if she's a woman, she is inherently above criticism?
Look, you can get off your high horse and stop presuming to protect women everywhere. They're not china dolls. They can take the heat.
Anyone who can't... male or female... doesn't belong in Congress.
Posted by: insideman at November 10, 2006 10:34 PM
Just for that utterly unfounded, sexist attitude, I hope all your future hookers and/or girlfriends and/or wives refuse to cop your joints for the rest of your natural born lives-- no matter how much money you bribe them with.
Sounds like a bit of bitterness on your part towards those of us who are getting something you're not.
Posted by: insideman at November 10, 2006 10:34 PM
I'll never forget being in San Diego one year and have a comely stripper tell me she couldn't wait for the Comic Con to be over because, "The Republicans are coming to town and they're going to FLOOD this joint... and they're great tippers too."
Oh, well, that's all I need to hear. All Republicans are corrupt and all Democrats are angels. All because of the word of one stripper. Hey, that's all I need to hear (he said, dripping with sarcasm).
Insideman, Mike is irrelevant because he's a troll. You say you know you're "not irrelevant," but frankly you're on the verge of being incorrect, what with your puerile taunts.
Bill Mulligan -- there is NO reason to waste your time on Mike. No one who matters is taking him seriously. I'd rather read more illuminating posts from you about things like stem cell research -- posts which teach me something -- than watch you waste your impressive intellect sparring with Mike. Yes, you can cut Mike to shreds but it's a bit like watching someone club a parapalegic baby seal.
I mean, I too had fun cutting Mickey to shreds with my Onion-esque mock articles about him. But after awhile one realizes that shooting fish in a barrel isn't worth it precisely because it's so easy.
Normally I ignore Mike but in this case it gave me the opportunity to expand on my earlier post, so he was a useful idiot.
My point--too subtle for Mike to spot--was that the Democrats have a golden opportunity here and taking it would be good for the country, good for the Democrats and, long term, good for the Republicans as well. Or they can continue the cycle of incompetence and be willing to have a few years in power, a few years lost in the wilderness, a few years in power...
It's a different world and politicians should wise up. The information is out there. they can't hide as easily as they once did. Getting chummy with reporters doesn't protect you when a kid with a modem can tell the world what a scumbag you are. The fact that some idiots manage to fool enough voters into getting them elected doesn't mean you should put them in positions where they can harm the institution.
I thought insideman was kidding. Isn't it supposed to be a joke if you say that Republicans like strippers and you got this info from a stripper?
Mollohan: The donors to his charities won $179 million in government contracts. Why don't we see 100 times the outrage from you over the tens of billions in no-bid contracts handed over to Hitlerburton?Not much of a defense of Mollohan is it? And no wonder; what Mike fails to mention is:
1- National Legal and Policy Center filed a 500 page ethics complaint against Mollohan for misrepresenting his assets on financial disclosure forms. Mollohan's real estate holdings and other assets have jumped in value from $562,000 in 2000 to at least $6.3 million in 2004.
You haven't addressed where your 100-times outrage over Hitlerburton no-bids is.
As reported by CBS News 19 Nov 2004:
House Probes U.N.-Saddam Scam
The humanitarian program, begun in 1996, allowed Iraq to trade oil for goods to help Iraqis get food, medicine and other necessities that became scarce under strict U.N. economic sanctions imposed after the Gulf War. It was credited with preventing widespread starvation....Investigators who have been following a money trail say the former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan -- where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program -- to reward the families [of suicide bombers] up to $25,000 each.
Halliburton received $73M for increasing Iraq's oil exports from $4B in 1997 to $18B in 2000. Considering the same oil-for-food kickbacks Saddam Hussien paid Halliburton with were funding his public promise to hire suicide bombers, I wonder what kept Dick Cheney from telling Hussein to go f*ck himself.
It raises an interesting question; after a clear attempt to be bribed did he report it to the FBI? Nope. The Ethics Committee, of which he was a member? Nope. By Murtha's own story, he knew that a member of congress, Frank Thompson (from New Jersey. Knock me over with a feather) was corrupt. And. He. Did. Nothing.NOT the guy I'd want in charge.
From the wikipedia entry Bill Mulligan cites:
He remained in the [Marine] Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer (S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.
That's one more bronze star, two more purple hearts, one more cross of gallantry, one more distinguished service medal, and one more Marine than George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul wolfowitz, and Karl Rove put together.
And the best you can come up with, Bill Mulligan, are casual penny-ante lapses he disclosed to the FBI when things got formal for him -- which was the right thing to do. This is how you wish happy birthday to the US Marines?
Alcee is so corrupt it's almost like he's a character from the Simpsons. Google around about the guy and be prepared to laugh until you cry. Even his personal life is a mess--he owed his lawyer about a half million dollars form her defense of him.
Bush still owes Barry Richards $1 million for squashing the 2000 recount, dumbass.
But there will always be people like Mike that will vote right down the line, Republican or Democrat, without thinking.
And it doesn't take much to demonstrate that the ones who vote Republican do the least thinking of all.
And Mary Matalin doesn't call her husband "Serpentor," she calls him "Serpent Head." Put down the GI Joe before you hurt yourself.Yeaaaaaahhhhhh....um, I'm not Mary Matalin. Thanks for playing.
Yeah, Mary Matalin worked for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove. Your devotion to the republicans is more like a hooker's devotion to the pimp who beats her. Who the hell knows what keeps you hanging on?
Mollohan: The donors to his charities won $179 million in government contracts. Why don't we see 100 times the outrage from you over the tens of billions in no-bid contracts handed over to Hitlerburton?Not much of a defense of Mollohan is it? And no wonder; what Mike fails to mention is:
1- National Legal and Policy Center filed a 500 page ethics complaint against Mollohan for misrepresenting his assets on financial disclosure forms. Mollohan's real estate holdings and other assets have jumped in value from $562,000 in 2000 to at least $6.3 million in 2004.
You haven't addressed where your 100-times outrage over Hitlerburton no-bids is.
As reported by CBS News 19 Nov 2004:
House Probes U.N.-Saddam Scam
The humanitarian program, begun in 1996, allowed Iraq to trade oil for goods to help Iraqis get food, medicine and other necessities that became scarce under strict U.N. economic sanctions imposed after the Gulf War. It was credited with preventing widespread starvation....Investigators who have been following a money trail say the former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan -- where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program -- to reward the families [of suicide bombers] up to $25,000 each.
Halliburton received $73M for increasing Iraq's oil exports from $4B in 1997 to $18B in 2000. Considering the same oil-for-food kickbacks Saddam Hussien paid Halliburton with were funding his public promise to hire suicide bombers, I wonder what kept Dick Cheney from telling Hussein to go f*ck himself.
It raises an interesting question; after a clear attempt to be bribed did he report it to the FBI? Nope. The Ethics Committee, of which he was a member? Nope. By Murtha's own story, he knew that a member of congress, Frank Thompson (from New Jersey. Knock me over with a feather) was corrupt. And. He. Did. Nothing.NOT the guy I'd want in charge.
From the wikipedia entry Bill Mulligan cites:
He remained in the [Marine] Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer (S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.
That's one more bronze star, two more purple hearts, one more cross of gallantry, one more distinguished service medal, and one more Marine than George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul wolfowitz, and Karl Rove put together.
And the best you can come up with, Bill Mulligan, are casual penny-ante lapses he disclosed to the FBI when things got formal for him -- which was the right thing to do. This is how you wish happy birthday to the US Marines?
Alcee is so corrupt it's almost like he's a character from the Simpsons. Google around about the guy and be prepared to laugh until you cry. Even his personal life is a mess--he owed his lawyer about a half million dollars form her defense of him.
Bush still owes Barry Richards $1 million for squashing the 2000 recount, moron.
But there will always be people like Mike that will vote right down the line, Republican or Democrat, without thinking.
And it doesn't take much to demonstrate that the ones who vote Republican do the least thinking of all.
And Mary Matalin doesn't call her husband "Serpentor," she calls him "Serpent Head." Put down the GI Joe before you hurt yourself.Yeaaaaaahhhhhh....um, I'm not Mary Matalin. Thanks for playing.
Y