Asymmetrical Information

Don't expect to hear that point much again. The Dems don't want to concede that reality, which similarly dooms all their fancy ClintonCare plans and the like, and the Bush campaign wants the voters to believe that a President Dean would actually raise taxes, as opposed to just really, really wanting to raise taxes.

give me an S...

give me an O...

give me an L...

what's that spell??

DEAN!

but.. uh... we don't want to let this get out, as we still need people to vote for Bush... although the fact that none of the Dwarves believes in protecting the US is a good reserve... (interesting that these people, especially dean and kucinich, proclaim that they will violate their oaths of office vis a vis preserve, protect, defend... interesting)

but really.. of course the dems will carry the senate and house.. i mean.. they're just correct aren't they??? oh.. you mean that its more likely that they'll lose the power to fillibuster? ... nelson says "haw haw"

Clinton managed to deal with them for 6 years, somehow. I'm not too worried about it.

In other words, Jason, raising taxes really isn't all that important. I guess all can simply skip listening to any Democrat for the next year, since nothing they propose has any more chance of happening than Howard Dean replacing Shaq at center for the Lakers.

hmm,
well, i just guess that means that the republicans will move back to their pre-bush rhetoric concerning the need for fiscal responsibility. after-all there is asizeable minority of rep senators and house members who are pretty scared by what is going on. i don't think you can rely on a great rep solidarity in the face of horrible eco numbers. if the pres victory is decisive, this will not be a problem (and it won't be even if it isn't--see the current admin). if bush could get the dems to be his pet during these three years, then my guess is that a dem pres will skillfully exploit the faultlines within the rep party, and bring it on home!

Reword your argument, applying it to the 1980 election. Guess we should have passed on the "voodoo economics" debate, eh, seeing as Tip O'Neill had a firm grip on the house?

If a Dem candidate runs on a platform of repealing the tax cuts for those earning, over $200,000/annum (or whatever - but stay away from the "top 1%", as 19% of the country think they're in that gilded percentile), then they'll have a mandate if they win. That's why it matters.

Nice post on Krugman, BTW.

"Dean can't fix our fiscal crisis by raising taxes, because the GOP congress won't let him - so we might as well stick with a President who'll make it worse!"

At the very least, a Democratic president would stop the hemmoraging.

On the Nixon-to-China theory, one should vote for Dean and a republican congress, since Dean would actually be able to get the Dems to swallow the spending cuts necessary to rebalance the budget, as long as a Republican Congress made it impossible to raise tax rates.

Jason,

Can you name a recent President, Democrat or Republican, who reduced the federal budget? If he can't raise taxes, how could he possible stop the hemorraging? I don't think a new National Health Care program is going to do it. The only way to get out of this mess is to grow the economy. By the way, the CBO has recently reduced their debt projections. Could the tax cuts be working already?

Jim English

“At the very least, a Democratic president would stop the hemmoraging.”

Is someone trying to be a comedian? What are the chances that a Democrat President would cut spending? Gosh, what are my chances of humilating Shaq O’Neal on the basketball court. Jason McCullough can be very funny when he wants to be.

What's with all the Shaq analogies ? He has a couple new commericals on I guess (the one with the kids dancing around him is so cute!)

I'd say any other President (Democrat or Theoretical Republican) would be more fiscally responsible than Bush, who cuts taxes a lot and increases spending a lot. Almost anyone else would moderate on at least one of the two.

And one more thing, a President Dean (Clark, Kerry, Edwards, whoever) could also just let the Bush tax cuts expire, and there's nothing Congress could do about it. Add that to a supposed inability to pass new spending and that would be a reduction on the hemmoraging.

Yeah, we can elect a Democrat, and the American taxpayer will stop "hemmoraging" money and start hemorrhaging blood -- like the 3000 in the WTC.

Of course, they aren't exactly hemorrhaging money right now. They aren't even earning money. It's hard to earn money when you are dead.

I'm willing to forgive a President a lot in the economic sphere if he is aggressively going after those that would kill us. You know -- the type of President that isn't going to sent a $10 million missile to a $10 tent to hit a camel in the butt.

The Democrats are terminally unserious on defense. We thought we could afford that during the '90s After all, history was dead and we had no real threat. Well, other than those pesky terrorists, but if you stayed away from American embassies or naval ships or barracks overseas, you would be o.k.

And it's not like Clinton ever cut spending, either. Anyone who thinks *any* of the Donk Dwarves has serious plans for spending cuts is smoking something that distorts reality.

Given a choice between a President who is going to spend irresponsibly and defend the United States, and one that is going to spend irresponsibly and not defend the United States, the choice is pretty clear.

Unless of course you belong to the moonbat wing of the Democrat's party.

I can't believe people seriously consider this an argument.

Of course you cannot believe that people seriously consider this an argument. You cannot --- or rather dare not. It is the one argument to whuch the Democrats cannot effectively respond.

The Democrats demagogue any discussion of national defense as McCarthyism. Challenge them on national security and they claim you are suppressing dissent. And, since the press does not want to air the issue it will be the elephant in the living room in the 2004 Presidential campaign, even though it will be one of the major reasons why Bush will win re-election.

Go ahead. Play the ostrich. You can run, but you cannot hide, come November 2004.

Jason McCullough wrote:

I can't believe people seriously consider this an argument.

I agree, the notion that after each having taken a position to oppose Social Security reform and increase spending on social welfare programs (including an even larger prescription drug benefit) that any of the nine dwarves would be better than Bush on fiscal issues is rather absurd. That and trying to create an image of a governor who nearly tripled State spending in Vermont over eleven years as a “fiscal conservative.”

The comment however that the Democratic Party cannot be trusted with national security though is a fair one. Their candidates seem to run the gambit from “I voted for Operation: Iraqi Freedom but now I wouldn’t” to “only if the UN says so but let’s go into Liberia” to “let’s build a Department of Peace.”

With the (possible but increasingly unlikely) exception of Joseph Lieberman (who has an uncanny habit of reversing any sensible positions he once had whenever he runs in a nation-wide race) there is not a single Democratic presidential candidate who is serious about foreign policy. That’s the problem with running in a primary where you have to cater to a base who still thinks they’re protesting the Vietnam war.

This is a level of hubris that all politicians fall into...that all of their proposals will magically become law because they will it to be. One only has to look at Arnold in California. He has to get all of his proposals through a Democratically controlled House and Senate (and a fairly liberal one at that). Having said that, the President does have the bully pulpit of being President to talk directly to the electorate and get them to pressure their representatives to vote for legislation that he favours.

"Given a choice between a President who is going to spend irresponsibly and defend the United States, and one that is going to spend irresponsibly and not defend the United States, the choice is pretty clear."

I'm assuming you meant Bush when you talk of a president that is "going to spend irresponsibly and defend the United States". In which case I believe what you meant to say was a president who will talk about being tough on terra and then under-fund homeland security, drag us into a costly (monetarily and security-wise) war, and continue tax-cuts for the rich, and doleing out fat, no-bid contracts for his buddie's corporations to profit wildly off of said war. Did I mention under-funding homeland security?

The fact is that all the resources spent to get rid of Saddam's hidden PLANS could have been put to better uses: like keeping us safer, better educated, and with jobs. But seriously folks, I'm willing to forgive the president based on the fact that he really seems to mean it each and every time he utters a lie. Keep believing Mark. You truly have tremendous powers (of self-delusion).

"there is not a single Democratic presidential candidate who is serious about foreign policy."

You don't have to go along with the thinking that we can bully the rest of the world into toeing our line without negative consequences to be serious about foreign policy. Just the opposite, there needs to be some willingness to be flexible, and willing to work with other nations when it is in our best interest.

What is the Bush administration's policy on North Korea? And is it a success yet? I don't know.

Slappy:

What was the economic cost of the destruction of the WTC? Was it greater than or less than $87 billion?

How many jobs did that attack cost? The biggest economic hit this country took since Bush's election was not the dot-com bubble bursting -- it was the fallout of the 9-11 attacks. Look at the hits taken by the transportation and tourism industries after that attack.

What safety is there is playing ostrich by leaving wackos a safe haven from which to attack us? How does it help our economy to leave the one of the world's biggest terrorist paymaster untouched?

For that matter, do you know the cost of maintaining the Air Force and Naval assets required to maintain the no-fly zone and sanctions prior to our liberation of Iraq in 2003. Does it cost more money to maintain ground troops in Iraq than jets and carriers outside Iraq?

Are we in a better position strategically today than a year ago? You bet, unless you are one of those hoping for America's defeat. As we saw in Afghanistan and Iraq our air assets give our ground forces a tremendous force multiplier. All of those assets are now available wherever we need them. That means that the 2nd Infantry is a lot safer than it was a year ago.

The best evidence I have that the US is winning militarily against the forces of evil is the whining I hear from you and yours. Two years ago I don't know how many liberals I knew that said "Thank God Bush is President, not Gore." They felt threatened and scared.

Today, thanks to the successful military campaigns led by George W. Bush -- not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in the Philippines, Yeman, Singapore, and Pakistan -- those same bleating liberals now feel safe enough to denounce the war as a failure and a hoax.

Have a little respect for the blogger and comment on her topic. If you want to talk (or yell talking points) on national security, bring it on, but not here.

Wes,

The topic was whether a Democratic President could raise taxes with a Republican congress. This is your initial post:

"What's with all the Shaq analogies ? He has a couple new commericals on I guess (the one with the kids dancing around him is so cute!)

I'd say any other President (Democrat or Theoretical Republican) would be more fiscally responsible than Bush, who cuts taxes a lot and increases spending a lot. Almost anyone else would moderate on at least one of the two.

And one more thing, a President Dean (Clark, Kerry, Edwards, whoever) could also just let the Bush tax cuts expire, and there's nothing Congress could do about it. Add that to a supposed inability to pass new spending and that would be a reduction on the hemmoraging. "

You choose to focus on the subject of fiscal responsibility. Only at the end do you introduce the very relevant point about the tax reductions expiring.

I believe your comments about Bush lowering taxes and raising spending contributed to the thread diverging.

These comment threads flow as people make strong statements on the peripheral of the arguement that people feel obligated to challenge. I don't think that this indicates any lack of respect for Jane.

I believe that you had no answer for Mark L's excellent post so you challenged him on form instead. What's next, challanges on grammer and spelling.
Your post discussing Blog etiquite (sp?) is easily the most off topic of the bunch. So give us all a break.

Go Northern Illinois Huskies!

Jim English
Chicago, IL

Well, Wes,

When ya got the facts on your side, argue the facts. That is what I was doing.

When ya got the law on your side, argue the law. Again, since the election is inextricably linked to the law, that is what I was doing.

When ya ain't got the facts or the law on your side, pound the table. Just like you are doing.

The facts, which I pointed out, were that:

(a) Democrats are never serious about cutting spending so that discounts the "fiscal irresponsibility" argument against Bush. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

(b) The Democrats are never serious about defense, which discounts any other arguments they have when the country is at risk. As I said earlier, this is the elephant in the living room they don't want to talk about.

Since they do not care to talk about it, one commentator instead attacked Bush's handling of the war. I refuted those arguments.

If you really feel that this thread has been hijacked -- as opposed to refusing to talk about the elephant in the closet -- you need to address your comments to slappy, not me.

But then, that is not what really grinds your gear, is it?

What is the Bush administration's policy on North Korea? And is it a success yet?

Apparently it involves using multilateral diplomatic pressure including the PRC, Japan, and Russia (none of whom want a nuclear North Korea) to force the North Korean regime to give up its nuclear ambition (which trumps the phony “Bush squandered international sympathy so now no one is going to cooperate with us” meme).

Considering that the policy of the last two Democratic presidents was to send over billions of our tax dollars to help them build “peaceful” nuclear technology and believe them when they promised not to and build nuclear weapons, I consider the Bush policy to be an improvement.
Question for the peanut gallery – how many of the Nine Dwarves are going to condemn the Clinton-Carter disaster on North Korea which allowed them to build nuclear weapons in the first place?

The Dwarves are sunk. Nitwits each one. Supply-side economics, Reaganomics, is the only thing that works without nasty long term unintended consequences. Kucinich is being supported by the Communist Party of the USA, which party is also thicker than thieves with big labor.

Did anyone see the C-Span (prog. ID: 178602) with Gene Sperling and the 2 other Dem mouthpieces re: '04 election economics?? AEI's Engen & Hassett totally blew away ALL their "Clinton Economy" rhetoric. GDP growth was rising BEFORE Clinton took office, likewise GDP growth was FALLING before GWB took office. The Dems are the worst kind of blatant liars regarding economics. They and their liberal academicians didn't think up Supply-side, ergo it must be wrong. It came from INDUSTRY, you know, where money is made and where budgets count and mean success or failure. At least the Republicans DO wash the proverbial "rented car" from time to time, unlike the Dems.

I have watched a lot of the Senate and House proceedings on C-Span for several years now. What strikes me most is that the Dems usually are playing partisan politics where their issues seem to be more about making GWB look as bad as they can so as to regain, again, their decades reign of taxing and spending. Their spending is to buy votes 9/10 times while the Reps seem to actually have the nation's economic and security interests at heart. The Dems had control of the taxpayer's purse for the lion's share of the past fifty years. Their only claim to fame is having created a behemoth of Gov't, where spending (taxation) grows faster than the economy/revenues for the very reason that taxes stifle growth.

I just got a new/used book, "Reagan - In His Own Hand". The dozen or so radio speeches from the 70's I've read so far are very revealing as to the political climate of those times when I was just a snot nosed 20-something and didn't know squat beyond my liberal education & the drone of popular anti-war, anti-Americanism. It wasn't til the early eighties, nearing college graduation, having taken Econ 101, with a professor that taught us about the Laffer Curve and how there were revenue and growth maximizing points on the left side of the upside down bell curve whereby growth promoting lower taxes would actually increase revenues. We all saw that, didn't we?, when revenues doubled by the end of Reagan's terms in office. Spending also went nuts as the Dems, in their infinite stupidity, were gonna get their vote buying in, if Reagan was going to have his way on his tax and spending cuts inititives. The dems held the purse-strings, not Reagan. They knew the more they spent the more they were able to marginalize the benefits of the tax cuts. And they are doing it again with GWB's tax cuts.

On the Senate floor last night re: $87bil for Iraq, it was curious to see Kerry and Edwards sitting behind Min Whip Reed who held the floor mugging for the C-Span camera, later a scowling, self-conscious looking Hillary did the same. No talking, just face time. Similar opportunism didn't appear on the other side of the aisle.
Here's a party that was screaming "Blood-for-oil" that now wants half the $20bil for Iraq's reconstruction to be a loan??? When a Democratic & free Iraq rise out of the ashes, it will be a stabilizing beacon of hope and freedom in the region and no longer a base of terrorism. 'Course if it goes less well, it's a political plus for the Dems, likewise our economy.

And all this after even Clinton himself in '98 was singing the war song against Saddam. More flipping by the Dems than all the MacDonalds put together.

Read the Regan letter's books. It going to come out pretty soon I think that Reagan is one of the most misunderstood (through the left's efforts) and most highly under rated and apprecited President since Eisenhower & Coolidge, both of whom also captained great growth economies.

The Dwarves are sunk. Nitwits each one. Supply-side economics, Reaganomics, is the only thing that works without nasty long term unintended consequences. Kucinich is being supported by the Communist Party of the USA, which party is also thicker than thieves with big labor.

Did anyone see the C-Span (prog. ID: 178602) with Gene Sperling and the 2 other Dem mouthpieces re: '04 election economics?? AEI's Engen & Hassett totally blew away ALL their "Clinton Economy" rhetoric. GDP growth was rising BEFORE Clinton took office, likewise GDP growth was FALLING before GWB took office. The Dems are the worst kind of blatant liars regarding economics. They and their liberal academicians didn't think up Supply-side, ergo it must be wrong. It came from INDUSTRY, you know, where money is made and where budgets count and mean success or failure. At least the Republicans DO wash the proverbial "rented car" from time to time, unlike the Dems.

I have watched a lot of the Senate and House proceedings on C-Span for several years now. What strikes me most is that the Dems usually are playing partisan politics where their issues seem to be more about making GWB look as bad as they can so as to regain, again, their decades reign of taxing and spending. Their spending is to buy votes 9/10 times while the Reps seem to actually have the nation's economic and security interests at heart. The Dems had control of the taxpayer's purse for the lion's share of the past fifty years. Their only claim to fame is having created a behemoth of Gov't, where spending (taxation) grows faster than the economy/revenues for the very reason that taxes stifle growth.

I just got a new/used book, "Reagan - In His Own Hand". The dozen or so radio speeches from the 70's I've read so far are very revealing as to the political climate of those times when I was just a snot nosed 20-something and didn't know squat beyond my liberal education & the drone of popular anti-war, anti-Americanism. It wasn't til the early eighties, nearing college graduation, having taken Econ 101, with a professor that taught us about the Laffer Curve and how there were revenue and growth maximizing points on the left side of the upside down bell curve whereby growth promoting lower taxes would actually increase revenues. We all saw that, didn't we?, when revenues doubled by the end of Reagan's terms in office. Spending also went nuts as the Dems, in their infinite stupidity, were gonna get their vote buying in, if Reagan was going to have his way on his tax and spending cuts inititives. The dems held the purse-strings, not Reagan. They knew the more they spent the more they were able to marginalize the benefits of the tax cuts. And they are doing it again with GWB's tax cuts.

On the Senate floor last night re: $87bil for Iraq, it was curious to see Kerry and Edwards sitting behind Min Whip Reed who held the floor mugging for the C-Span camera, later a scowling, self-conscious looking Hillary did the same. No talking, just face time. Similar opportunism didn't appear on the other side of the aisle.
Here's a party that was screaming "Blood-for-oil" that now wants half the $20bil for Iraq's reconstruction to be a loan??? When a Democratic & free Iraq rise out of the ashes, it will be a stabilizing beacon of hope and freedom in the region and no longer a base of terrorism. 'Course if it goes less well, it's a political plus for the Dems, likewise our economy.

And all this after even Clinton himself in '98 was singing the war song against Saddam. More flipping by the Dems than all the MacDonalds put together.

Read the Regan letter's books. It going to come out pretty soon I think that Reagan is one of the most misunderstood (through the left's efforts) and most highly under rated and appreciated President since Eisenhower & Coolidge, both of whom also captained great growth economies.

Mark L's got it down pat.

The libs are dolts with not our country's best interest at heart, but their own power, which by God, they've had for far far too long, thanks to crooked big labor.

Big labor's Dem campaign contributions are way bigger than that legally declared to the FEC.
Teachers send home Dem propaganda with students.
This insidiousness has to stop.

Mr. L: As you can read I adressed everyone, not just you. I thought your comment directly after my first one was a diversionary tactic, but I guess you could really think that a Democrat in the White House would de facto equal another September 11th. And you did have one on point comment which I missed and for that I appologize. You are saying that the budget doesn't matter because you only feel safe with Bush as president because of his foreign policy. Fine, I disagree on both counts: Bush serving a second term would not make us safer, and the budget matters.

Jim: that was the equivalent of saying "you're making noise shushing us, HA!" The reason I didn't post a response to Mark's "excellent post" is because I thought that by doing that I would be indulging him and myself going off topic. But you are right, it was off topic of me to say "keep it on topic". Of course you do exactly what you are pointing out as well but this is getting a little post modern.

So yes, a Democrat could repeal the tax cut. I'd kind of like to know what you and Mark L think, but so far I know that he thinks September 11th was Clinton's fault and you think I'm a prissy dillettante ( wait, earlier you said that everybody expands the budget and the tax cuts are working).

Fellas I've got a post up on national security seriousness here. If you want to come over fine, but I'm avoiding the topic here because I find it inappropriate, not because I'm hiding from it. It is a very important topic.

Note Lieberman's recent proposal (mentioned by E.J. Dionne's Post column last night) that we simply replace Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy with tax cuts of comparable total size for the non-wealthy, thereby at least ensuring that the average American will get as much benefit out of the tax-cut-induced deficits as the pain he gets out of them. THAT one will sell.

As for Thorley Winston on how Clinton inexcusably ignored the nuclear Gathering Storm in North Korea: entirely true. Exactly the way Bush ignored it for two years, in fact.

One small point that I think is being missed: Even the firmest of ideologues must compromise with reality when they become officeholders. If they don't then either the community they hold responsibility for goes crash or, more frequently, they find themselves without a office (As happened to the Democrats in 2002). Screw mandates! The true test of whether or not any President would be able to get a tax hike through Congress is whether America is in dire need of the money and whether such a tax hike could be enforced. If Mr. Dean can persuade those who are in Congress that these 2 things are true then he shall have his tax cut no matter which party it is that holds office. He will have to hunt harder for convincing evidence if the House and Senate are held by Republicans then he would if they were held by Democrats but that is all.

A party that cannot be moved by evidence, whether because of ideology or a patronage hound's desire for "politics as usual", is a party that is unfit to rule.

Mr. Mouse (can I just call you "Pinky"?) is correct -- if a Democratic President presents evidence for either a tax hike or a tax redistribution which is so strong that it persuades a majority of the voters, but the current Congress refuses to go along, he will be perfectly free to emulate Truman and bash the "do-nothing Congress" in hopes of getting sea change in the 2006 elections. It's the oldest political story there is.

The real trouble with the current US political system seems to be that it provides no adequate precaution against the continual temptation of elected governments to run up the deficit and hope the roof won't fall in until after they've retired -- which is why I regard Clinton's opposition to a balanced-budget Constitutional amendment as his second biggest mistake. (His biggest mistake, as Thorley Winston says, was looking the other way while North Korea -- and Pakistan, which he doesn't mention -- acquired the Bomb. Of course, as Winston also doesn't mention and I did, Bush did exactly the same thing until the intelligence information became too intense to ignore, at which point Clinton or Gore might well have been just as likely to respond. What Bush DID do was deliberately conceal from Congress, for three weeks, his discovery that NK had restarted its Bomb factory, until Congress had passed his Iraq war resolution -- after which he revealed the news to them within a few hours. Naughty boy.)

What year are we talking about?

Isn't it likely that Bush will get his re-election in 2004?

Look at what the clowns just did in California. The 3 grandmas, Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi. Women in charge. And, yes, they brought discipline to party politics. Nobody got up there as a democratic challenge to Gray Davis.

Is this old fashioned thinking, or what?

When you're drawing up battle plans (and politics are certainly an example of having a well armed opponent), what were these women thinking?

Did someone tell Feinstein not to run for governor, because even if Gray Davis resigned it would have admitted guilt? And, she couldn't have won, anyway?

Who was holding onto power? Why didn't Hillary come to California? When her husband was president the Clinton's practically made Los Angeles their home away from the White House? And, yet when you looked at the tracks, did you hear her coming? No. Well, why not?

Didn't George Washington set an example that as a leader she stayed on his horse in front of the troops. With a lot to lose, didn't he exemplify risk?

Didn't we just see something gutless?

Will Hillary run against Bush in 2004? Don't think so. And, from that, like Sherlock Holmes would say the night the dogs didn't bark, the silence tells you something.

Isn't it possible that Hillary won't run for president? Ever? Would she run in 2008?

What Bush has up ahead is something similar to what Karl Rove was given in Texas; when Ann Richards blew her race against this Bush, back in 1994. The entire State flipped.

Florida, about the same.

Once strong democratic strongholds are flipping.

If you said California could be flipped, I would have laughed. But then I had no idea until a minute after the polls closed on 10/7, and everybody flew out of the gate with the obvious news that Schwartzenegger won the election ...

I began to wonder why it took so long for this fact to filter down. (I thought the polls were lying.)

I didn't see bumper stickers, or anything that would indicate Schwartzenegger would get 48% of the votes. When Ross Perot got 19%, in 1992, you should have seen all the lawn signs! And, the enthusiam. And, people volunteering. This time? Quite silent.

And, it's sad. Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi are the left's gifts from San Francisco. Isn't that base suicidal to the rest of the country?

I think part of the problem is that the democrats ran without a plan. They thought all they had to do was frighten people into thinking Bush and the republicans could actually win.

Well, that tactic failed.

And, I don't think anyone has any idea on how to reach a majority of Americans. The democrats represent the anti-war crowd. And, this isn't about Vietnam anymore. Besides? All those war protesters in the late 1960's and 1970's ... didn't that usher in Nixon's two terms? How did the democrats benefit from that one?

As to Dean, while he's no Jimmy Carter, I think there's going to be fear from an independent center, that while it's nice to take a chance on someone like Dean ... the democrats have just exhausted their welcome.

Wasn't that why Algore got the nod? The powers-that-be in the democratic party don't seem answerable to anyone. Algore ran because they thought (rightly so) that most of the country was exhausted by Clinton's energy.

Well, Dean has energy. But he's still saddled with the anti-war idiots. Then, let's say he loses. Like McGovern, or McCarthy. Or Dukakis. What then?

You don't think this president is electable? Why not? His brother, in Florida, beat out the democratic competition. (And, exactly what was Janet Reno doing down there?)

When you lose, don't you take good will down with you? You see anyone out there who can rebuild good will?

Wes,

You failed to address your own divergence off topic in your initial post. So really, your shushing analogy does not hold. I am at a loss for an anology that would encapsulate your pretense of politeness toward the host as a means to advertise your own blog. Let me know if you think of anything.

Back to the topic. I may have missed it, but has anyone brought up Jimmmy Carter's failed attempts at the Bully pulpit. He went into office claiming that he would take his plans directly to the people. Many believe it was his failure to work with Congress that led to his miserable presidency. Any thoughts.

Go Bears!

Jim English
Chicago

Isn't there a bigger question that should be asked? Are the democrats doomed to lose their grip on government?

What if there's no democratic president sworn into the Executive Branch, say until 2012?

In other words, in this example, Bush wins 2004. And, goes until 2008. And, is FOLLOWED by a republican who also wins an 8 year run.

In the past politics were vibrant because democrats really had a feel for the PEOPLE. They weren't the 'anti-war' party. And, they didn't seem to be so far left in their policies that most Americans now feel comfortable being "independents." (At least statistically, it can be seen that the republicans expanded their tents. And, while they have arguing factions, what if there isn't going to be a big tilt towards the far out extremists (called right wing nuts, by some; and, volunteers,by others.)

When the first ship sailed that was wrapped in Iron, instead of composed of wood, no one thought it portended the future.

What about the democrats having waved off major portions of the US voting population?

You just didn't see this, here, in California?

Now, you're saying, or arguing that the San Francisco base is going to rule democratic policies in the future. And, they're going to be so successful at it that they'll have most Americans eating these expensive, taxpayer funded, 'safety nets?'

Well, I think your argument breaks down when you see a certain failure. Where the boxer just can't get to stand up again in the ring, so to speak.

The democrats want to win! And, they spend an awful lot of time complaining about the republicans. They've even invented a 'cargo cult' style of just copying the republican 'volunteers.'

As if cargo cults actually achieve goals.

If politics is just argument, then sure. The democrats are viable until the corpse is pronounced dead.

That's the saddest part. How Clinton's legacy as a 'globalist' has totally missed the American JACKSONIAN spirit. The Pied Piper story. But there's been a peeling away of followers. I think what's left are the people who are at the teet, itself. And, they're just blind to the outcomes down the road.

So, I'll repeat my question. When do the democrats get to lead again? Pick one house. Senate? White House? Supreme Court?

A funny thing happens with "peasants rebellions," after the rioting, when people aren't led well, the whole thing collapses. Unhappy people, alone, does not guarantee an ascendency for the democratic party.

So? Where the tax money goes after it is collected can be answered sweetly, like Reagan did when he was told of the 'harm' that would come from eliminating welfare.

Yes, we have factions in America, just as France has 'factions,' and, other places, too ... that never assymilate. When the democrats bow out (because you can't be kept out of power without shrinking) ... this is the stuff that will smell from their trenches.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Hobbs Online links to Wired - tech job ads are on the rise.

Comments are Closed.