Senator Clinton: Thank you, and a request
Senator Clinton, thank you for your service to this great country, most notably as First Lady and as Senator from New York. I have not always agreed with your policies or with your brand of politics, and I fully anticipate continuing to disagree in future, but you have strengthened the Democratic party and aided the liberal cause, and your contributions are appreciated.
Senator, I realize that you have not always felt fairly treated, and with good reason. You have been singled out in the debates and in the media, perhaps because you are a Clinton, perhaps because you are a woman, most likely simply because you were the front runner and presumptive nominee. You have seen your experience minimized and seen your inexperienced opponents glamorized for their rhetoric rather than judged on their accomplishments. You have endured years of attacks, and you are weary. Senator, I believe you realize that your race is coming to an end.
Your accomplishments are many. You stood against the irresponsible fiscal policies of our current President, you advocated for health care reform, you worked for New Yorkers impacted by 9/11, you demanded accountability in Iraq. You are willing to listen and learn.
Yet, for whatever reason, your star is falling, and your once "inevitable" victory now appears increasingly unlikely. Perhaps America has simply passed you by. There is no shame here; you ran hard, you would have made a fine (and historic) President, and the likely nominee has a rare brand of charisma, experience with bipartisan legislation, and fresh ideas that appeals to voters. The polls predict a decisive loss for you in New Hampshire, and you also trail in South Carolina; your national lead is evaporating. You can and should
fight through the February 5th primaries, which represent your best shot to reclaim the nomination, but if your campaign continues to lose momentum then this will be the end.
I come now to my request. You have much to offer the Democratic party in the future, but you are not its future. It will be tempting, I imagine, to unleash everything to try to win this campaign. I hope you will consider carefully the cost of any unwarranted, irrelevant, or inaccurate attacks upon the likely nominee. By all means make your case, question his qualifications -- such testing can only strengthen him for the general. Do not seek to gut him and thus harm his cause (much of which is your cause) come November. We generally remember the Clintons fondly now; it would be a shame for that legacy to be lost in a bitter primary.
Best of luck with your future endeavors. Sincerely,
-Brendan
Comments :
It feels like
the era is over for the Clintons. You can see it on Bill's face.
I hope they don't take the low road in desparation.... but I think depending on tomorrow's outcome that her endorsers will jump ship and join the winning team, in which case even the low road won't be available.
It is the economy, stupid.
I agree
that their era is ending. I don't think her endorsers will jump ship after tomorrow, I think they will be convinced to stick until Feb 5th, which should be the final showdown. We shall see...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I would agree
that Feb. 5 will be the decisive day.
Until then, all the dancing on Hillary's political grave is premature.
qui tacet consentire
Bill Clinton himself
said you can't win a campaign, by running on the past, which is exactly what Hillary has been doing.
After all the disgusting attacks she suffered at the hands of the 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy', that she would consider using those exact same tactics herself, is what has turned me off to Clinton completely. That is NOT turning the page. IOKIYAHC. (It's Okay If You Are Hillary Clinton)
It is the economy, stupid.
oops
Bill is smiling again......! And so is Hillary.
How could the Intrade Polls and all the other polls have been so wrong.
I am still on the Hope Train for the duration, but it looks like it's going to be a steep ride.
An Inconvenient Resurrection
Some of the soldiers have been disloyal, but the battle rages on. Whom shall we now trust?
It is the economy, stupid.
My GF is an Obama fan
We were just watching CNN before she went to bed. She's happy for Obama but both she and I feel it's way too early to be writing off Clinton the way CNN seems to be doing.
Personally, I would lean to Obama only because his FP views are better even though Clinton's economic views are a little better. It's a trade off. But the foreign policy views matter more to me right now even though I find economic policy and domestic policy in general VASTLY more interesting.
I can only hope then that the GOP can get the house or senate back to a stalemate or hope a pending recession gives a house back to the GOP in 2010 so we can get back to grid lock. :)
Obama strikes me as a spendthrift who will not be as concerned with or have the spine or inclination to get tough with spending and not raise taxes. But it's a sacrifice I'd be willing to make for a better foreign policy.
Maybe he could go further and promise to make Ron Paul his Sec. of State! ;) That would get the rEVOLution in Obama's corner!
Not sure the spendthrift bit is entirely fair
Certainly he's in favor of various social programs that Dems in general support, but one of the ways he's made his mark in the Senate is working with Coburn on curbing pork.
What you say about FP makes sense but I suspect most moderates would prefer Clinton to Obama there, since she comes across as more hawkish. I agree with you, though.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
You say it's unfair, but I ask you
what evidence is there that he would be tough with spending?
Cutting pork is small potatoes. Our budget is gigantic and raising taxes is an unfair concession to the spending gods. What's he going to cut? Some military expenses maybe? What else?
I thought your remark
was still weighing Obama versus Clinton, in which case I think he'd be better on spending. Probably reasonable on spending even against many of the GOP candidates. None of the potential next Presidents would make major cuts in established programs. But against the ideal libertarian candidate, I cheerfully concede that Obama has little appeal =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
why would he better at spending than Hillary?
I don't see him being better....not that I really see her being much better either.
He's generally got a better record in the Senate
on spending -- I mean, he's working with Coburn, probably the most fiscally conservative Senator currently serving. With the exception of the energy bill, where he voted for and Clinton voted against. I can understand it (there was support for alternative energy in there) but can't really endorse it.
Sure, from your perspective he's only marginally better on spending, if that, but since nobody is offering the wholesale cuts you'd like I figure you have to pick and choose from what's available. Unless Paul runs third party, I guess, but AFAIK he's still saying he won't.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Fred has proposed at least one very specific major spending cut
His plan to cut Social Security
. He's also strongly hinted at Medicare cuts. More generally, he says of entitlement reform that we need to make these programs solvent "without raising taxes," which by definition implies large benefit cuts. He's perhaps the only candidate to talk seriously about the entitlement crisis, which, if left unaddressed, threatens to nearly double our federal tax burden from ~20% of GDP to ~35% of GDP.
A quick look through Obama's campaign web site demonstrates that he has a long list of ideas on how to spend yet more of my money, and on how to shift an ever-greater percentage of the tax burden onto the rich (who are already overtaxed as is).
Blah......
People don't relate spending cuts in government to more money in their pockets.
You call say entitlements. I say safety nets.
It is the economy, stupid.
Or
Possibly a means test instead of benefit cuts. Knowing Fred, he probably means benefit cuts.
People really like SS and Medicare. Maybe you don't, but the old fogeys who vote do. Those programs aren't going anywhere anytime soon. And anyone trying to take on the AARP on cutting either is going to have a hell of a time.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
In a perverse sort of way, that's exactly why I respect
those politicians who are willing to propose such cuts. Maybe they're wrong but at least they're trying to address what they see as a serious problem, knowing that their solution is going to be politically unpopular.
I don't think that cutting pork is just cosmetic but it's true that the real spending problems are not going to be solved by slashing a million dollars in earmarks here or there.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Right, pork is small change
...compared to the vast amounts of money that will be spent on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, unless we make major changes to these programs.
These three programs alone will grow to larger than today's entire federal budget.
We are talking about some *huge* tax increases if nothing is done to scale them back.
I'm confused
I thought cutting taxes brings in more revenue in the long run because of increased economic activity. Certainly if we cut taxes enough, these three programs will be but a drop in the bucket compared to total revenues. You seem to be saying we'd need tax increases to cope with entitlements. That's not what Rudy Giuliani told me.
Or does cutting taxes starve the government of revenue, making spending cuts mandatory?
I keep forgetting which it is, because no one has given me a straight answer yet.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
You must be mixing me up with someone else
I don't think we're anywhere near the peak of the Laffer Curve. There is no credible evidence to suggest this.
We were well beyond the peak of the Laffer Curve before the Kennedy tax cuts, with 93% federal tax rates.
We were probably still beyond the peak of the Laffer Curve before the Reagan tax cuts, with 70% federal tax rates.
But at 35% tax rates? Not likely. Raising that 35% to 36% would almost certainly increase federal revenue.
Thanks
Here's evidence that you're sane.
Do you believe the people that believe the peak of the Laffer Curve is somewhere down around 10% are just ignorant or do they know they're spouting BS and are just trying to get their "drown the government in the bathtub" agenda in through the back door?
As I've said previously, I'd like to see a flatter tax once we get debt under control, but for now we need to go back to those days of 70+%, but only on those in the upper 1%.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Laffer Curve zealots
I'll take the "incompetent/misinformed/stupid" explanation over the "conspiracy theory" explanation. Anyone who thinks that the Laffer curve peaks below 20% is simply clueless.
Now, I honestly don't know where the peak is, but I'm rather confident that it's above 35%. I'd be *very* hesitant to "go back to those days of 70+%." I strongly suspect that the peak is below 70%, especially given that (1) we had more a lot more deductions allowed back before 1986, so 70% now would be a lot worse than 70% in 1980, and (2) international tax competition and capital mobility have increased over the last 20 years.
US tax rates on capital income are already on the high side compared to our international competition. If we need to raise more government revenue, we should be looking to do so through a broader tax base (fewer deductions, fewer credits), not higher rates. For starters, we need to eliminate the federal deduction for state and local taxes -- something that Reagan wanted to do in 1986 but was unable to get Congress to agree to.
Unfortunately, Democrats seem to be stuck on raising rates for top earners, rather than getting rid of the unjustifiable deductions/credits/exemptions. Note to smart Democrats: you could soak the rich *without raising rates* if you simply cleaned out some of this crud from the tax code.
Good point
I don't know why, for instance, gambling losses are deductible. Also, changing the level where the AMT is phased in is probably a good idea. Of course, there wouldn't need to be an AMT if we didn't have so many deductions/credits/etc.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Double-counting
Be careful, we don't want to double-count income. If gambling winnings are income, then wouldn't it logically follow that gambling losses reduce your income?
Note that one person's gambling losses are another person's (a casino owner's) gambling winnings, probably taxed as corporate income, so this is probably not a good example of something that unfairly shrinks the tax base. The money gets taxed one way or another.
A good example of something that *does* unfairly shrink the tax base: corporations can deduct interest payments on their debt, but individuals holding those bonds can avoid paying taxes on the interest if they hold those bonds inside an IRA, 401k, etc. This allows a lot of income to go entirely untaxed. Further, even for bonds held outside retirement accounts, since the corporate tax rate is 35% and the individual tax rate is often lower, like 25% or 28%, this allows a lot of corporate income to evade the full 35% rate.
I don't really like laffer curve arguments
Sure, anyone would agree that above "some level" of taxation, tax evasive practices and discouragement from work will set in and effectively lower tax revenues.
It may below 20%, I don't know. It probably isn't...maybe above 35%, I don't know. It probably isn't either. But the whole argument is irrelevant to me. I don't think the goal is to "maximize revenue" for the government. I don't think the government should tax the private sector at whatever rate "the market will bear".
To me it's about prosperity and better results for the population as a whole. And I think taxes diminish prosperity and reduce or slow wealth creation...which DOES benefit everyone.
We should only tax what is "NEEDED" and dispense with ideas about what is "PREFERABLE" for more programs.
Laffer curve arguments are covers for excuses from either side to tax more or less.
My arguments are simply that many nice sounding, altruistic programs leave us ALL worse off and that our quality of life, even for the most of the less fortunate would be better by scaling back or eliminating a lot of inefficient spending and taxes.
No Laffer curve argument is going to convince me that a $55,000 household that already pays state sales tax for state government, gas taxes for roads and property taxes schools is better off by paying an additional $10k or so in fed income taxes or even only marginally affected. Let them save, spend and invest that money or most of it and multiply that by millions of households and we'll need a lot less social spending.
Disposable income shoots way up, prices on goods go down, business hire more people and we are more productive as a society which creates a higher standard of living for everyone.
Minimal safety nets be truly sufficient.
I would love to see each candidaate...
...go on the record regarding what they would cut. But that's not going to happen. Every proposed cut would piss off some special interest, and those special interests equal votes-- that's the common wisdom. So you kind of have to piece together the puzzle yourself. Obama has established a record of being a bit of a contrarian and he has allied himself at times with the budget hawks in the Senate. That leads me to believe that he will be fiscally disciplined and will be willing to make principled cuts that may be unpopular but necessary in the long term.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Exactly........
It is the economy, stupid.
Name someone
who actually has a chance of getting elected (i.e. not Ron Paul) who would rein in spending.
The Republicans have demonstrated over their time running Congress that they are all about massive growth in spending.
Bush has blown $450 billion and counting on Iraq. Every single Republican candidate wants to continue that drain on the budget ad infinitum, especially McCain. McCain wants to stay there for 100 friggin years. Imagine what that will cost.
So if the Republicans want to cut spending they are going to have to tell Americans that programs like S-CHIP have to be cut but we need another $100 billion to keep going in Iraq.
Try selling that BS.
qui tacet consentire
It's an easy sell, really
But only to Republicans. The average voter won't go for it, though.
The Republican plan is to bankrupt the government. There is no rational explanation for their policies. Now, I like the idea of a more limited federal government as most here know, but doing it this way is a really bad idea in the long term. When our basic infrastructure starts to deteriorate beyond the point of safety (some say it already is) because we're paying so much interest on the debt, heads are gonna roll.
Fans of 18th century history will be interested to remember that just before the French Revolution, the largest line-item on the budget was interest on debt.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
The way I see Obama
I really don't get him. He combines (1) run-of-the-mill liberal views on almost all issues with (2) lame platitudes about "hope" and "change." This is appealing, how?
Just more lipstick on the same old pig.
Where is the "change" when the policies all three major D candidates are offering are basically the same as Mondale in '84, or even McGovern in '72? On economic policy: higher taxes/spending, more regulation. On foreign policy: stop the supposed warmongering (in Vietnam, against the Soviets, in Iraq). On social policy: legal abortion, militant secularism, and more judges who substitute their own personal preferences for the text of the law.
Funny you say that
my pragmatic FP approval for Obama aside, I actually said that about him to my GF tonight.
McCain made some empty rant about following Bin Laden to the gates of hell if he has to and some other empty red meat comments and I said it was such and my GF agreed (no surprise) and then they cut to Obama doing the same thing with "hope" and "change" and said he was doing the same thing as McCain and she suddenly twitched and struggled to disagree but ultimately said nothing and gave a conceding grin.
But hey, he sounds good! lol.
At the risk of profanity...
I prefer the Vodkapundit
version:
That whole summary was pretty funny
Much more enjoyable than actually watching the debates.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
back to blue?
Heh... I figured I was doing so much boosting of Dems
these days that I might as well go blue, at least for the early primaries.
I'll change it back when I decide to slam Dems for something down the road. I'm sure I'll have plenty to choose from when the mood strikes =P
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Lame platitudes
Not really. Specific reasons for constructive optimism. You don't have to agree, it doesn't matter.
Higher spending: not particularly well correlated with Dems in power, is it? Foreign policy: a majority of Americans feel Iraq was a mistake. Objectively, it's pretty hard to argue it was worth the costs. Social policy: abortion illegal is a fringe (~15%) position. Also, Obama is really not a good example of "militant secularism."
Please tell me you see significant difference between, say, Obama and Edwards. (As a liberal, I see very significant differences between, say, Giuliani and Huckabee and McCain.)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Sure, Edwards is not exactly the same
I see little practical difference between Obama and Clinton. Edwards is clearly further left on economic issues than either. At the same time, all three offer a fairly predictably left-wing set of views. The differences are largely of degree. Should the government take over a little more or a lot more of the health care market? Should taxes on the rich be raised a little or a lot? Should the trend towards free trade be slowed/questioned/watered down, halted, or even rolled back? Should the government impose a few more environmental regulations and create a few more "alternative energy" boondoggles, or a lot more?
None of this is new. Indeed, it is far more reminiscent of the Mondale/McGovern party than it is of the Clinton/DLC party.
The Democratic Party has moved a very long ways to the left over the last 12 years, since Bill Clinton declared that "the era of big government is over."
The only Democrat running who seems to be from the Clinton/DLC camp is Richardson, who not only passed a huge tax cut as New Mexico governor, but also has criticized the other D candidates for being too quick to propose tax hikes.
Unclear. Federal spending was held back pretty effectively under Reagan. The Republican Congress did a pretty good job of fighting spending from 1995 to 1999. The Republican record on spending was not so great in later years, but each year, however bad the Republican bills were, Democrats nearly always wanted to spend *even more*. Democrats consistently voted in virtual unison against just about every spending cut proposal brought to the floor. Look at the votes on the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act; not a single Democrat voted for it. Look at the votes for the Republican Study Committee's alternative budget proposals, which would have significantly curtailed federal spending; a remarkable absence of donkeys in the Yes column.
Ahhh, but we're not having an election on whether to send a time machine back to 2003 to warn ourselves to not invade Iraq. We're having an election on what to do now going forward.
Indeed, you could have said basically the same thing about Vietnam in 1972. But the debate wasn't whether Vietnam was a screwup; it was how to make the best of that screwup going forward.
I don't think this is at all a fair assessment of public views on abortion. There are really three camps on abortion: legal, illegal, and mostly legal but with restrictions. "Illegal" is not a very popular camp, sure. But ask people whether they support parental notification laws, or whether they support partial-birth abortion bans, or whether taxpayers should fund abortions, and you'll get some different results.
For example: I happen to believe abortion should be mostly legal, and I also oppose partial-birth abortion bans, but I am opposed to taxpayer funding of abortion, and I am very strongly in favor of parental notification (I would be absolutely *outraged* as a parent if any aspect of my under-18 child's medical records/procedures/treatments were kept secret from me).
Maybe in rhetoric, but I lump that rhetoric in with that same blather about "hope" and "change." When it comes down to actual policies, I don't see a lot of respect on the D side for many peoples' strongly held Christian religious views, absurd as those views may sometimes be. (I am sadly forced to say "Christian" because Muslims seem to get a free pass when it comes to absurd religious views.)
For example, Democrats generally favor laws to grant civil rights protections to gays. I would consider such a law to be an unjustifiable intrusion on the religious freedom of those who believe that homosexuality is immoral.
Nits....... for lz
generally favor laws to grant civil rights protections to gays. I would consider such a law to be an unjustifiable intrusion on the religious freedom of those who believe that homosexuality is immoral.
Adultery is immoral yet we have civil rights protections for the 'immoral' in this case.
There is a subtle, yet stark difference in this 'hope' rhetoric that you so despise..... while Reagan asked folks to be personally responsible, Obama is asking folks to participate by believing their voice can make a difference and that Obama as a leader would actually listen.
People are tired of being told what they can't do by the cynics. That is a message that resonates.
Obama is NOT anti-market or anti-trade. He knows a strong market and jobs are the way to restore more economic balance, and less disparity in income levels. His economic adviser teachers at Chicago University.
It is the economy, stupid.
Regarding your final point
Do you also believe that civil protections for women is an unjustifiable intrusion on the religious freedoms of those who believe that "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other?"
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Yes Adam's Rib
Apparently Adam Smith!
(Adam Smith never married.)
It is the economy, stupid.
I am opposed to civil rights laws
If I want to run a business that refuses to hire women, I should be free to do so. I consider civil rights laws *in general* to be an infringement on our freedom. Like it or not, freedom includes the freedom to be a bigot, a racist, etc., as long as it doesn't degenerate into violence.
BSD v. GPL freedom
In the nerd community, we call this BSD freedom.
The BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) license allows you to do pretty much whatever you want with source code so long as you don't strip out the copyright statement and don't use imply that the author of the code endorses your new work. This allows for total freedom for the programmer, but not the end user. He may take this BSD-licensed source code and use it in a proprietary program. The downside is that the end user of the program may or may not receive any freedom to modify and or redistribute the program. He is subject to the programmer's whim.
The freedom I advocate most often is GPL freedom.
The GNU GPL (General Public License) allows you to use the source code in your program so long as you release your program under the GPL as well. The GPL stipulates that users must have these rights:
1) to run the program, for any purpose
2) to study how the program works, and adapt it to one's needs
3) to redistribute copies
4) to improve the program, and release improvements to the public
This license allows for maximum freedom to the end user, but not to the programmer. The programmer, if he chooses to incorporate GPL'd code in his program, is forced to use the GPL for his new program.
GPL freedom essentially states that some restrictions are needed to ensure freedom for everyone. The analogy is often made to slavery. The abolition of slavery reduced the freedom of slaveowners because they no longer had the freedom to buy and sell people, but by reducing their freedom in this area, many more people had increased freedoms as a result.
Restrictions of certain freedoms are needed in order to ensure freedoms for all of us.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
In political philosophy, they are called
negative and positive freedoms. Negative meaning free from constraint and positive being in the sense of having a privilege or right afforded to you...even if it means infringing on another's negative freedom.
The right to smoke or hire whom you want is a negative while the right to not smell smoke or affirmative action are positives.
Oddly enough...
I consider the GPL a horrible software license.
That was obvious.
I assumed you would.
It depends. Sometimes BSD is better, sometimes not. It's about the right tool for the job.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Response coming
but it deserves more time than I can give it until tonight.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Make that tomorrow
Sorry, forgot about this until now.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Response
The country as a whole has moved left in some ways. This is apparent by (1) the policies of mainstream Republicans, such as the current President, the current nominees, and several Governors; (2) polling that suggests more people self-identify as liberal than used to; (3) increased bipartisan agreement on what used to be contentious issues, such as global climate change. On the other hand, we've moved right on some other ways; the Patriot Act comes to mind, as does our categorization and treatment of detainees in the GWOT.
Reagan was ok on domestic
, not so great overall. (Bush, incidentally, is the worst by pretty much every measure.) Whether you view the defense spending in the 1980s as necessary or not probably has a lot to do with how you categorize Reagan.
Not sure that's strictly relevant, since we're discussing what actually happened. It's not obvious that if they had control of the Presidency and Congress the budgets would have been the same; it's entirely possible that lacking that power they chose to put in politically popular items that they knew would not actually get funded.
Ok; it's still relevant in the sense that it's hard to trust the people who botched the thing initially to fix it now, but I'll rephrase. A majority of Americans have been consistently opposed to the Republican plan on Iraq. Way back in February, 53% supported a deadline for withdrawing troops
, and in June 66% wanted to decrease 
troop levels, of which an astounding 40% wanted to remove all troops. If anything the Democratic candidates are slightly right of Americans, and well to the right of their base.
It addresses your statement that Democrats support "legal abortion" by showing that only a handful of Americans support making abortion illegal. That said, I entirely agree that the abortion issue is complicated and that most people favor "reasonable" restrictions or conditions -- which, after all, is what Roe set up, that's the pro-choice position IMO whether those who hold it categorize themselves thusly or no. To the extent that Dems choose to endorse hardline pro-abortion positions, they do lose the majority, I agree, but there are plenty of Dems in the mushy middle, and a few pro-life.
This is a really expansive reading of the First Amendment, I must say. Not only does this religious "freedom" trump the EPC and permit discrimination, it also must trump the ICC (since that's the foundation for some civil rights legislation
). This is inconsistent both with how Congress has viewed its authority and with SCOTUS interpretation.
It's not convincing on the state level either: as far as religious freedom overriding state laws goes, SCOTUS says no
(wikipedia summary): "The decision affirmed that U.S. States may enforce laws that have the incidental effect of interfering with the ability of residents to engage in religious practices. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so."
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
One little critique, Brendan
In response to:
You said:
It is relevant. It's actually something I've been noticing over the past 5-6 years. The Dems would decry spending by th GOP while leaving out the part that they had many more costly amendments and alternate versions voted down. I think it does matter to mention this.
Now that the WH and Congress aren't rubber stamping each other in "feel good" partisanship, spending has "miraculously" slowed to a near halt. But it's not because the Dems are having their way with cheaper bills, it's because they are being tempered by spiteful partisanship.
The GOP, for their part, only seem better on spending, in absolute terms, when they're in the minority....but they usually seem better even in relative terms when you look at what the alternatives to their bills were.
I don't see how anyone can look at it any other way.
Ok, you're both right that it's relevant, I shouldn't have
made such a strong statement, but it's not the end of the story, since it still seems possible to me that a party out of power could propose things for political purposes that they would not pass were they in power. In fact, it seems likely.
Agree that it's hypocritical to rip the GOP for spending if you wanted a bigger budget. C'est la vie.
We can test this soon enough when we get a Democratic Congress and President =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Yeah, we'll see
but I'm not holding my breath.
Clinton, for his part, did put a deficit reduction package in place when he came in. Luckily, we were already in the opening stages of recovery and Bush 1 had already raised a few taxes.
He then raised taxes a little more and took advantage of the peace dividend by continuing to cut military spending.
But the real benefit to Clinton's spending record came when the GOP took over the House on a wave of anti-Democratic sentiment. Balanced by Newt, Clinton looked better than he would have with a Dem Congress during those years.
Clinton vetoed a lot of bills....and I doubt it was because they were too big ;)
Militant secularism?
I wish we had that kind of power.
Atheists/agnostics/non-theists have zero input on any major party platform. The best we get is a plank saying that atheists are good people, too. Oh, how lovely! Did you know that Asians are good people as well? Let's put that in the platform! Democrats tolerate us. Republicans outwardly shun us.
The "change" offered is in comparison to 8 years of ... I think you get my point. Obama's platitudes is what does turn me off to him. I don't know if it's a campaign shtick or he really believes you can get political enemies to hammer out an agreement. One thing I'll concede to the Republicans is that they know how to stand their ground. Does Obama think anything short of 270-290 D's in the House and 62-66 D's in the Senate is going to get universal health care on the table? He's going to have a hard time fighting the Blue Dogs, to say nothing about the Republican members. There is no such thing as a moderate Republican anymore.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Reality check
Obama's platitudes vs his record in Chicago.
His record wins.
He worked with Republicans and built a coalition and a majority to provide health care in Chicago. That's not platitudes that's action.
Okay Okay! I will stop now!
It is the economy, stupid.
No moderate Republicans?
An odd claim. The Republicans are lucky if they can rack up a majority of their *own* party for any sort of budget cut (and usually cannot get a single D to help out). Many Congressional Republicans are moderate to liberal on economic issues, happy to vote "yes" on feel-good spending bills. Their conservatism is largely restricted to foreign policy and social issues.
Look at how many Republicans voted yes on the SCHIP bills. They were only just barely able to sustain the veto, and only in the House, not the Senate.
The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act passed by the narrowest of majorities, with Cheney casting the tiebreaker "yes" vote in the Senate. Again, a bunch of defectors in the R column, and not a single one in the D column.
The RSC budgets get 100-150 votes in the House.
If these guys are all "conservatives", then I'm horrified to even think of what it would take for you to call someone a "liberal" on economic issues.
Hillary
oh please,
don't have the funeral for Hillary yet!
This Obamarama fad is nonsense... its already fading , as people are asking how , EXACTLY , will he be this big change agent in such a divided country and such a divided congress. ? " all you need is love ? " perhaps ....
He is inspiring , yes, and inspiration is good , but we need a fighter . Lets see how he looks in 8 years, I'm sure there is no shelf life on inspiration
I am sure common sense will prevail ,
sligowoman
We'll see, I don't expect her to go anywhere
until Feb even if she loses big in NH.
Clinton is certainly a fighter and has the experience to step in "ready from day one" as she puts it, but I think Obama can handle himself fine (witness his freeze out of Fox after their smears, for example). He's already shown in Congress that he can work with Republicans, but to be fair Clinton has also demonstrated an ability to reach across the aisle at times.
You're right that if he loses the nomination this cycle he'll probably be back, and with more experience.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Hillary is running out of money
Strapped for Cash
The campaign spent a boatload in Iowa and is said to be running low on cash. The question is, will her long time donors and financiers be willing to take bets on a Hillary, when the winds of change are blowing heavily in Obama's favor.
Intrade has Obama winning NH at 93%, with Hillary at 7%, trending towards Obama.
It is the economy, stupid.
Unfortunately the next FEC filing
isn't until the end of January. I'd love to see exactly how much money the various campaigns have now.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Obama to me is an empty unknown
with flowery rhetoric and not much else. The more I hear from him the less I like. Of course I could never dislike him more than Edwards but he and his Oprah endorsement make him the ultimate Media propelled trojan horse without any evidence of competency.
If we must have a democrat, then I would go with a known, experienced, and competent candidate which is Hillary Clinton. It is too early to write her obituaries.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I said it here 6 months ago....
...Hillary Clinton would have zero chance in a general election, and if the Democrats were smart, they would run screaming froma Hillary nomination....
well... it turns out, that maybe the Democrats are smarter than I gave them credit for.
Hillary is a devisive figure in American politics, who has record-high negativity ratings for a candidate at this stage of the game. 45-50% of the American populace will never vote for her under any circumstances, so her margin of error is razor thin.
Her nomination would be about the only thing that would guarantee a GOP victory in November.
Obama and Edwards are much better nominees, Obama especially - because of his ability to bring in independents.
Independents, by and large, cannot stand Hillary Clinton.
The Democratic Party appears to be wising up. Good for them.
ps. Hello, purpleface.... sorry I haven't been around much.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Smiles
You are so smart ;} Of course, I agreed with you. But it's early days yet to crown Obama.
Gee, four of my favorite guys online at the same time. It's still Christmas here.
AND, dammit, Swords Crossed meeting in SL tomorrow night 5:30pm SLT
Show up, ya lout ;} You can admire the furniture I built yesterday.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
maybe
send me an email to remind me......
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Hillary is tested ,Obama is unknown
wow , I am in full agreement with Ender on this one :-)
also Stinerman , yes we need a fighter if ever we needed one.
I see hard times ahead, for example in Health care, these corporations would have no problem " scuttling the ship " rather than lose their enormous profits, thus making transition to universal care " a big mess" , so everyone could point and say , " see, thats Hillarycare for you "
Whoever wins the nomination there will be no comity and reaching across the aisle .
sligowoman
Hillary may be tested....
...but she failed that test.
More than half of the American public can't stand her. That's a failing grade when it comes to elections.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
glass half full ?
sounds like glass half full/empty to me ... she is hated because the right wing smear machine has spent 15 years doing an excellent job of demonizing her, to the point where people are writing diaries , on Kos , for example , saying basically " I hate her but I dont know why ",!!!,
I at least try to reason with myself why I do not approve of a candidate ( not based on visceral hatred ) I have even given GW Bush benefit of the doubt eg trying to just read about him and his policies instead of watching him , his lack of speaking skills drives me nuts )
oh well .......
sligowoman
I hate to tell you
but the last favorable/unfavorable ratings I saw had Clinton in the middle of the pack of all the candidates. Besides, Bush proved that you can have highly unfavorable ratings and still win.
Well, Clinton fights on
Obviously I was too trusting in the polls showing a double-digit Obama lead in NH.
That said, I still think Feb 5th will prove decisive, and I'm still inclined to believe that it will be the end of the road for Clinton, particularly if Edwards gets out first. And my request still stands.
Credit where credit is due, the Clintons are formidable politicians and Hillary did an excellent job between Iowa and NH.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I am shocked
frankly. It's weird that all of the polls were so wrong. I don't see how that could happen, and will be curious as to how the stats guys analyze this.
Watching the results tonight, was like watching the 2,000 election. He Won He Won! OH wait no he didn't. Creepy!
Trail by fire...... to get to the nomination, you first have to get through the Clintons.
I