Worry not. I works for GWB.
5153. Andy F - 1/26/2001 4:25:51 PM
It matters when people start feeling the effects. That hasn't happened yet no matter how hard the right-wingers might be wishing for it. Technically there was no recession under Papa Smirk, but jobs were hard to get and wage increases were meager and often less than inflation.
5154. bbb - 1/26/2001 4:26:02 PM
5149, 5155. JudithAtHome - 1/26/2001 4:26:50 PM 5156. thoughtful - 1/26/2001 4:27:08 PM Ace, 5157. Wombat - 1/26/2001 4:27:30 PM You mean the economy was slowing down in the last six months? Really? Have you told us anything we don't already know? 5158. rubberducky - 1/26/2001 4:27:39 PM bbb: 5159. Andy F - 1/26/2001 4:27:53 PM My guess is that bbb is Mitch from TT. 5160. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:28:48 PM 5161. janjon - 1/26/2001 4:29:10 PM Andy scores on yet another fundamental truth. It will be a recession and hard times when people feel it. If it happens (and gee I sure hope W's handlers will do something to try to make sure it doesn't!), it will be under W's watch. 5162. bbb - 1/26/2001 4:29:34 PM http://salon.com/politics/wire/2001/01/26/greenspan/index.html 5163. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:29:35 PM 5164. PelleNilsson - 1/26/2001 4:30:03 PM 5165. bbb - 1/26/2001 4:31:52 PM Clinton will be remember as The New Economy President. 5166. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:31:59 PM "he wouldn't purposely omit Clinton's role in setting fiscal policy knowing that bringing it up would tick off at least half of his listening audience." 5167. Wombat - 1/26/2001 4:32:16 PM bbb: 5168. Andy F - 1/26/2001 4:33:11 PM 5071. AceofSpades - 1/26/01 12:44:00 PM 5169. bbb - 1/26/2001 4:33:56 PM In this case,GWB was SLIGHTLY ahead of Alan Greenspan. 5170. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:33:57 PM 5171. Andy F - 1/26/2001 4:34:31 PM The technical definition is two quarters of negative growth. 5172. bbb - 1/26/2001 4:35:38 PM In this case,GWB was SLIGHTLY ahead of Alan Greenspan. 5173. JudithAtHome - 1/26/2001 4:35:43 PM 5174. Andy F - 1/26/2001 4:36:46 PM The only mistake is underestimating the lengths to which Rehnquist and Scalia will go to ignore their oaths and put a Republican in the White House. 5175. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:37:27 PM 5176. bbb - 1/26/2001 4:37:44 PM Andy F. 5177. JudithAtHome - 1/26/2001 4:38:49 PM 5178. bbb - 1/26/2001 4:38:50 PM andy f. 5179. janjon - 1/26/2001 4:39:57 PM you have to have lost something to be a sore loser. 5180. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:40:07 PM 5181. OhioSTOPAS - 1/26/2001 4:41:21 PM Re the Reagans' Bel Air house: 5182. JJBiener - 1/26/2001 4:41:23 PM Pelle - Clinton will be remember as The New Economy President. 5183. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:43:25 PM 5184. janjon - 1/26/2001 4:46:53 PM The only magic talismanic power relating to this discussion is that people are going to equate the Clinton years with GOOD TIMES. 5185. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:48:31 PM 5186. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:49:25 PM 5187. CalGal - 1/26/2001 4:49:48 PM Greenspan probably *is* a liberal. 5188. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:51:57 PM 5189. azazel - 1/26/2001 4:52:29 PM This just in from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1996) 5190. janjon - 1/26/2001 4:52:45 PM He cheats at tennis. 5191. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:53:23 PM 5192. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:55:22 PM "Of course, it's not a "rigid" technical definition and therefore most likely unacceptable, right Ace?" 5193. JJBiener - 1/26/2001 4:58:40 PM janjon - The only magic talismanic power relating to this discussion is that people are going to equate the Clinton years with GOOD TIMES. 5194. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 5:00:24 PM 5195. azazel - 1/26/2001 5:02:39 PM As for Greenspan, he and his cronies at the FRB are concerned with one thing and one thing only: capital preservation (theirs and those of their ilk, that is). To the extent that any particular political agenda (from either side of the aisle) meets with FRB objectives, so much the better for them. And since the tendencies of the GOP tend to favor those with massive amounts of capital, one might see some correlation in the words and deeds of the Fed Chairman with the panderings of the Republicrats. 5196. dusty - 1/26/2001 5:37:31 PM Message # 5171 Andy F 5197. wonkers2 - 1/26/2001 5:42:35 PM This week's The New Republic just came in the mail. Guess whose picture is on the cover--John Ashcroft. Next to his tensely smiling face in bold print is "NO DON'T CONFIRM JOHN ASHCROFT." 5198. Cellar Door - 1/26/2001 6:07:38 PM Only Ace would call Andrea Mitchell a liberal. 5199. JudithAtHome - 1/26/2001 6:37:03 PM 5200. CharlieL - 1/26/2001 6:40:29 PM bbb = poor, impotent andy. 5201. Rosetta Stone - 1/26/2001 6:50:20 PM haha. 5202. dusty - 1/26/2001 6:56:23 PM JudithAtHome 5203. dusty - 1/26/2001 7:02:24 PM JudithAtHome 5204. CalGal - 1/26/2001 7:04:26 PM Ace, 5205. CalGal - 1/26/2001 7:05:14 PM Also, Greenspan got his start with Ford and all of his political connections are with moderate Republicans. 5206. Rosetta Stone - 1/26/2001 7:22:37 PM Greenspan voted for Bush over Gore, NPR reported this morning. His wife, the opposite. 5207. jexster - 1/26/2001 8:36:52 PM 5208. jexster - 1/26/2001 8:37:54 PM 5209. jexster - 1/26/2001 8:38:19 PM 5210. jexster - 1/26/2001 8:39:02 PM 5211. jexster - 1/26/2001 8:59:25 PM Slate 5212. Cellar Door - 1/26/2001 9:30:01 PM The fact that Ashcroft found it necessary to lie is definitive proof that Gay Power is here to stay. 5213. Rosetta Stone - 1/26/2001 9:31:16 PM Slate is comparing what President Clinton did with fat Monica, the intern, to John Ashcroft not remembering a (if it even happened at all) job-interview question with someone fifteen years ago in 1985? 5214. Cellar Door - 1/26/2001 9:31:55 PM What makes you think I can't produce my own children, Rosie? 5215. Rosetta Stone - 1/26/2001 9:37:17 PM That post was directed to the individual who called bbb "impotent," CD. 5216. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 12:29:27 AM 5217. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 12:29:51 AM 5218. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 12:32:08 AM 5219. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 12:34:46 AM and the night included brief, honest admissions... 5220. Cellar Door - 1/27/2001 1:01:09 AM Maybe you should start a "Memory Lane" thread, Ace. 5221. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 1:44:04 AM 5222. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 1:47:08 AM 5223. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 1:51:58 AM 5224. CalGal - 1/27/2001 1:53:50 AM Democrats had the most voided votes in Florida 5225. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 1:59:09 AM 5226. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 2:01:50 AM "The study found that the 8,000 voters whose ballots were thrown out because they chose Gore and one of the two other presidential candidates listed near him voted more than 10 to 1 Democratic in the U.S. Senate race." 5227. CalGal - 1/27/2001 2:07:38 AM Yes, the article does say. You don't read. 5228. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 2:12:18 AM So, if the implication of that story is indeed correct, it would indicate that a vast majority of stupid people vote Democratic. 5229. CalGal - 1/27/2001 2:18:52 AM Stumbo, 5230. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 2:26:21 AM 5231. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 2:26:50 AM Yeah, Dem voters fuck up. Just can't punch Dem holes in Dem ballots. 5232. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 2:33:00 AM ""However, in general, it just reinforces the fact that, were it not for hideously bad luck, Gore would have won and it wouldn't even have been close." 5233. CalGal - 1/27/2001 2:36:14 AM Ace, 5234. CalGal - 1/27/2001 2:40:26 AM There was no abberration of chance. 5235. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 2:44:42 AM 5236. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 2:45:55 AM 5237. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 2:48:55 AM 5238. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 2:56:39 AM 5239. CalGal - 1/27/2001 2:56:52 AM It is your claim that the slightest bit of inconvenience discourages poor minorities from the polls... but you simultaneously claim you can tell three million people that the election is OVER and that won't affect voter turnout in the least! 5240. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:01:21 AM ...are all the same sort of mighta coulda shoulda stuff... 5241. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 3:03:17 AM Ace, #5236: 5242. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:04:12 AM "issue of outcomes being affected or votes lost due to results being announced early has been studied extensively since 1980 and it has been demonstrated consistently that it doesn't make any difference." 5243. CalGal - 1/27/2001 3:05:42 AM ...as people who fuck up on ballots. 5244. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:08:56 AM "Because these are people who made it to the polls." 5245. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:11:01 AM I see my questions have gone unanswered again. 5246. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:13:12 AM 5247. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:18:37 AM 5248. CalGal - 1/27/2001 3:23:10 AM Ace, 5249. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:26:05 AM 5250. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 3:29:44 AM One extra quibble about the Panhandle thing: 5251. CalGal - 1/27/2001 3:41:30 AM Technically, they didn't. They INTENDED to vote, but they didn't. What they did was spoil a ballot. 5252. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:44:12 AM 5253. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:49:06 AM 'Because the perception is what matters, and at this point, the media coverage focuses on counting what can be counted, which is the people who went to the polls and tried to vote. All the data coming in supports the perception that, with a little less crappy luck, Gore would have won handily" 5254. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:51:59 AM 5255. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 3:53:14 AM Correction to #5250: 5256. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:55:51 AM 5257. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 4:16:38 AM Potential counter-quibble: 5258. CalGal - 1/27/2001 4:55:32 AM Ace, 5259. OhioSTOPAS - 1/27/2001 6:27:16 AM Ace (Message # 5230): 5260. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 7:11:26 AM It wasn't 11 minutes. It was an hour and 11 minutes. 5261. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 8:44:45 AM LEGAL GROUP FILES COMPLAINT AGAINST WHITE-TRASH CLINTONS 5262. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 9:23:34 AM FOR THE CLINTONS' LAST ACT, REVIEWS DON'T LOOK GOOD, ACCORDING TO THE LIBERAL WASHINGTON POST 5263. OhioSTOPAS - 1/27/2001 10:21:57 AM 5260: It was 11 minutes. Wrong as usual, Rosie. 5264. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 10:53:40 AM 5265. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 10:55:11 AM 5266. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 11:24:02 AM To: Dumb and Dumber 5267. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 11:25:43 AM 5268. OhioSTOPAS - 1/27/2001 11:49:44 AM Rosie, pay attention: 5269. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 12:44:30 PM 5270. Cellar Door - 1/27/2001 12:45:37 PM We'll send the students and teachers to all those new prisons they've been building, of course. 5271. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 12:47:37 PM 5272. jonesatlaw - 1/27/2001 1:08:36 PM Sigh, the Big Panhandle Lie again. As Ohio points out, the call came at 11 minutes till polls in the panhandle closed. So voters discouraged would have been people who were interested enough in the outcome to watch the news reports of it yet hadn't voted 11 minutes till closing time, lived less than 10 minutes drive from the polls; wanted to vote for Bush, trusted the prediction to be accurate; didn't care enough about any other race to go and vote despite the presidential call; and would have got off their procrastinating asses to vote had the prediction not came while they were watching TV instead of going to the polls with 11 minutes left to vote. 40,000 people fit these criteria according to your scenario. Well, you bought Reagan's pledge to cut taxes, the deficit while making monsterous increases in military spending. Do you guys ever think about this stuff before reguritating the big lie? 5273. jonesatlaw - 1/27/2001 1:13:28 PM Ace:(finding his girlfriend on her knees in front of his grandfather) 5274. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 1:18:18 PM 5275. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 1:19:20 PM 5276. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 1:34:34 PM 5277. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 2:16:22 PM The poll booths didn't close in Florida at 7 pm. Think 8. 5278. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 2:18:47 PM Still looking for attention, MsnitchjuDY? Deal with your bloody toys!!!! 5279. CalGal - 1/27/2001 2:20:58 PM 5280. JJBiener - 1/27/2001 2:46:04 PM Judith - I want to know what we're going to do with all the public schools which are considered failing and which, according to him, "can not or will not change". 5281. robertjayb - 1/27/2001 3:17:35 PM . 5282. robertjayb - 1/27/2001 3:23:20 PM . 5283. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 3:45:14 PM According to today's Washington Post, Bill Chappaqua Clinton is furious over the uproar caused by his last minute pardons, White House vandalism, and other final-days controversies. Without his DNC warroom to help him, he's finding it hard to get control of the story. When Democratic hack Mark Shields of PBS disses you on Newshour, you know you're in trouble 5284. labwabbit - 1/27/2001 4:01:29 PM Part of changing the tone in Washington is to allow some things that others may have made a focus of, to let pass 5285. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 4:04:17 PM Jones, #5272: 5286. jonesatlaw - 1/27/2001 4:44:16 PM Stumbo- unless you assume simultaneous radio broadcasts of the TV networks predictions, which of course themselves did not occur simultaneously, you are talking about people who would have been trying to get to the polls in the last 7-8 minutes. This was a huge contest, with a great deal of interest and excitement, do you seriously believe that there was a huge number of people cruising around in their cars two hours after work is out thinking "maybe I'll go vote, ah shucks, Tom Brokaw predicts Gore wins I guess I'll go get a beer, and not vote at all." 5287. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 4:53:07 PM Jones-- 5288. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 4:56:00 PM "do you seriously believe that there was a huge number of people cruising around in their cars two hours after work is out thinking "maybe I'll go vote, ah shucks" 5289. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 4:57:43 PM 5290. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 5:03:12 PM Jones: 5291. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 5:12:39 PM 5292. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 5:14:37 PM "And news-stations are always either the #1 or #2 ranked station in any market." 5293. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 5:15:20 PM Okay, Ohio, I'm wrong, if the polls in Florida closed at 7 p.m., not 8 like the rest of the country (other than St. Louis, MO, where they stayed open illegally until 9:15 to help the Democrats). 5294. Al D - 1/27/2001 9:03:40 PM THE PRESIDENT: A week ago today I received a great honor, and all the great responsibilities that come with it. The first order of business is education reform, and we have started strong. 5295. Al D - 1/27/2001 9:06:50 PM (cont.) 5296. Al D - 1/27/2001 9:07:40 PM (cont.) 5297. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 9:42:31 PM 5298. ranheim - 1/27/2001 9:55:54 PM #5287 Ace 5299. joezan - 1/27/2001 10:07:27 PM 5300. joezan - 1/27/2001 10:11:00 PM 5301. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 10:22:58 PM ... Or perhaps they thought it was cute how the curve of the coastline followed that of Larry's shoulder. 5302. joezan - 1/27/2001 10:41:57 PM 5303. joezan - 1/27/2001 11:15:22 PM 5304. jonesatlaw - 1/27/2001 11:32:59 PM Ace- keep changing the scenario, because what you originally posted was crap and you know it. First it's the TV networks fault. Once the idiocy of pointing out that 11 minutes to polls closing in the CDT portion of Florida lost the GOP 40,000 voters hardly would effect the folks in line as I doubt that they were watching TV in line, we switch to radio. Anyone care to venture a guess or better yet cite factually what time delay there was between the first network calling Florida and the second TV network? How about the first radio network or radio station in Florida to call it? Then how many people were standing in line and actually LEFT after hearing the news on the radio? Even allowing for procrastination, you are positing that there were far more voters in those last 10 minutes than in the hours before. 5305. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 11:52:19 PM Jones: 5306. jonesatlaw - 1/28/2001 12:20:48 AM Stumbo- You assume a person knowledgable about the network coverage to remember their pledge not to call races before the polls close, and yet too stupid to know when THEIR polling place closes or too stupid to read their watch. Such people may exist in Florida, but even in that screwed up state I think 40,000 is far too high a number for nine counties with only Pensacola as a population center among them. 5307. Stumbo - 1/28/2001 12:44:14 AM Jones: 5308. Autodaffy - 1/28/2001 12:46:26 AM This seems the right time and place to say that the South actually won the Civil War, and all the northern spinning that anyone can come up with will ever change that. 5309. OhioSTOPAS - 1/28/2001 6:38:33 AM Ace (Message # 5287 et seq) 5310. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2001 6:53:02 AM 5311. OhioSTOPAS - 1/28/2001 7:18:52 AM Good morning, Pelle! (Or to you should I say "Good afternoon"?) 5312. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2001 7:23:05 AM 5313. Rosetta Stone - 1/28/2001 9:01:26 AM 5314. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/28/2001 1:29:47 PM Young ones! Parental units! We summon you! 5315. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 1:34:52 PM Yeah, the DNC sure wants Safire on the editorial board of its house organ --right Rosie? 5316. AceofSpades - 1/28/2001 1:50:07 PM There were no "sworn affidavits" about people leaving Panhandle voting lines in the last 11 minutes, just unproven anecdotes. 5317. AceofSpades - 1/28/2001 1:52:54 PM 5318. concerned - 1/28/2001 2:43:55 PM 5319. OhioSTOPAS - 1/28/2001 2:47:51 PM Republicans haven't tried hard enough to identify "disenfranchised" Republican voters in the Florida Panhandle? Please. 5320. AceofSpades - 1/28/2001 2:48:02 PM 5321. AceofSpades - 1/28/2001 2:49:58 PM 5322. concerned - 1/28/2001 2:53:10 PM I remember that immediately after the election, DNC operatives were spreading rumors by phone of 'disenfranchisement'. There was never anything to back this up and no specific cases were ever cited. 5323. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 2:54:55 PM People on the "editorial board" do something called "editing." 5324. Rosetta Stone - 1/28/2001 3:01:38 PM New York Times columnist William Safire disliked President George H. Bush so much that he voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. I heard him admit it myself. 5325. Rosetta Stone - 1/28/2001 3:03:46 PM I don't think... 5326. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 3:04:27 PM We know. 5327. concerned - 1/28/2001 3:05:22 PM Re. 5323 - 5328. concerned - 1/28/2001 3:06:13 PM simplistic 5329. AceofSpades - 1/28/2001 3:20:34 PM "Safire's influence at the NYT (and with the Pulitzer committee too), is spread far and wide." 5330. wonkers2 - 1/28/2001 3:32:43 PM KRUGMAN SAYS GREENSPAN IS OFF THE RESERVATION AND, IN SO MANY WORDS, FULL OF SHIT--nyt OP-ED 1-28 5331. wonkers2 - 1/28/2001 3:42:40 PM Krugman on Greenspan contd 5332. concerned - 1/28/2001 3:42:54 PM I really don't see a problem with the US government maintaining a level of debt equal to, say, 10% or so of its yearly budget since a satisfactory solution to sustaining a net positive valuation is not likely to be arrived at, and doing so only encourages politicians to increase wasteful pork. 5333. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 3:53:27 PM Does the name Wen Ho Lee ring a bell, o Ass of Hole? 5334. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 3:54:57 PM Of course in the inane worldview of connie, J.J. and Asshole, Al Gore is a "Leftist." 5335. wonkers2 - 1/28/2001 3:58:41 PM Not everybody agrees that prescription drugs, social security, drug treatment, and headstart programs are wasteful pork. Those judgmenats are beyond Greenspan's job description. 5336. jexster - 1/28/2001 4:37:40 PM 5337. concerned - 1/28/2001 4:48:45 PM Re. 5335 - 5338. bbb - 1/28/2001 5:18:22 PM Optimism Expressed for Bush Agenda 5339. bbb - 1/28/2001 5:19:18 PM Is Wen Ho Lee still in jail? 5340. bbb - 1/28/2001 5:19:54 PM Pardon,not pardom. 5341. concerned - 1/28/2001 5:34:17 PM 5342. JudithAtHome - 1/28/2001 5:36:34 PM 5343. concerned - 1/28/2001 5:39:50 PM Re. 5342 - 5344. bbb - 1/28/2001 5:40:20 PM 5345. bbb - 1/28/2001 5:42:00 PM Did Clinton's dog Buddy go crazy and kept biting Clinton's leg? 5346. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 5:42:41 PM "Is Wen Ho Lee still in jail?
Worry not. I work for GWB.
Wombat:
BBB has no reason to say anything; he's the king of cut'n'paste and linking...his fingers do the talking. It's as though he sets a goal each day: X amount of links and X amount of cut'n'pastes...nothing can keep him from his appointed posts.
I get it now. Silly me. All spending increases...attributable to Clinton. All tax increases....attributable to the infinite omniscent wisdom of a Republican-controlled Congress. All demonstrations of fiscal discipline....attributed to the remarkable foresight and genius of the Republican-controlled Congress. All examples of pork barrel projects and spending foolishness and loss of fiscal discipline attributable to Clinton abetted by the evil and short-sighted Democrats in Congress. That about sum it up?
Oh, and of course when Greenspan is testifying before the Senate with a limited amount of time to get his points across and with the desire to sell his POV on fiscal policy to a body that has the power to enact his preferences, he wouldn't purposely omit Clinton's role in setting fiscal policy knowing that bringing it up would tick off at least half of his listening audience.
we have a Current Events thread for such posts!
what does eToys have to do with Politics? if you have a political point to make, please make it - otherwise some of this stuff is going to get moved to the right thread.
"Those aren't weasel words, it's just common sense..."
Elaborating:
There is no meaningful ridid definition of "recession," as Alan greenspan made clear yesterday. My original point is that the difference between plus and minus 0.1% growth was a very trivial one, and it's silly to insist the latter is a "recession" and the former is not.
You can't just claim that "Oh, we've had positive one tenth of one percent growth, and since that's positive growth (though much less than the rate of population growth), that's not a 'recession.'" Obviously it is. There is no meaningful difference between positive 0.1 % growth and negative 0.1% growth, except that they are separated by two tenths of one percent, and the latter is therefore two tenths of one percent worse than the former.
Live with it.
bbb says he works for GWB, eh. Another low level civil servant who's internet use hasn't been ferreted out at work. Yet.
President Bush, in office less than a week, has scored an early triumph in his campaign for a $1.6 trillion tax cut, winning Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's support for tax relief.
Greenspan, who until recently was insisting that the best use of the projected surpluses was to pay off the national debt, said Thursday that the surplus estimates have gotten so large that he now believes there will be enough money to pay off the debt and cut taxes too.
In testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, Greenspan said that if the surplus projections come true -- $5 trillion over the next 10 years -- the government will be able to eliminate the $3.4 trillion in debt held by the public and have enough left over to reduce taxes.
The president and other Republicans were quick to praise Greenspan's comments. Bush told reporters at the White House that he believed Greenspan had gotten it "just right. He recognizes that we need good monetary policy and sound fiscal policy to make sure that the economy grows."
thoughtful:
Are you claiming Alan Greenspan doesn't know his business?
Clinton will be remember as The New Economy President.
++++++++++++++++++
No. He will be remembered as the Blue Dress President.
Oh, definitely. I'm quite certain he'd withhold relevant information to avoid "ticking off" his audience.
Has Greenspan come out in favor of the President*'s proposed tax cut?
Only an idiot would claim that two quarters of +0.1% growth (less than the rate of inflation, less than the rate of population growth) isn't a recession, but that suddenly negative 0.1% growth becomes a recession merely because it crosses some arbitrary line).
5151. AceofSpades - 1/26/01 1:25:10 PM
"As the last 30 or so posts show, people (even "learned" souls) can argue and go back and forth ad nauseum as to is it a recession and if so who's."
...
Personally, I take Alan Greenspan's word as to recession and who's responsible over, say, Andy F's.
In post 5071, you argue that we should not go by such a technical definition of a recession. Then in 5151, you say you accept Greenspan's definition (which is the technical one). Can you say "inconsistency"?
Lesson # 1 :
Do not underestimate GWB.
-Bill Clinton
"Has Greenspan come out in favor of the President*'s proposed tax cut?"
He did not specifically any *particular* tax cut plan. He endorsed *a* tax cut.
He also did not criticize any particular tax cut plan... such as the one foremost on everyone's minds. Which is odd, if he had a problem with the tax cut he knows is coming.
Lesson # 2:
It's a mistake to underestimate GWB and his A-Team Cabinets.
Wombat:
Has Greenspan come out in favor of the President*'s proposed tax cut?
If he has, it hasn't made the news....in fact, he said he wouldn't give an answer because that was a political decision.
" Then in 5151, you say you accept Greenspan's definition (which is the technical one)."
Greenspan's definition is not a "technical" one, by which I mean "rigid technical" one.
It's common sense. If you are either at or near zero growth or worse, you're in a recession. You aren't suddenly NOT in a recession merely because growth pops up one tenth of a percent above zero. One tenth of a percent growth is better than zero growth (by one tenth of a percent, precisely), but there's no "magic threshhold" requiring a formally negative growth rate.
"Can you say "inconsistency"? "
Your entire premise is wrong. I'm using Greenspan's defintion, which is not a rigid technical definition, but a common-sense and looser definiton.
I am relying on Greenspan's "definition" througout... and Greenspan expressly noted that there is no meaningful rigidly mathematical bromide which determines a "recession."
Idiot.
How is the media recount going,sore loser.
But I guess Ace sees Greenspans answer as coming out in favor of it. The fact he didn't criticise it must mean he's in favor of it.
Ace wouldn't accept that from a liberal as an answer but we're to accept it from him.
Should impeach the four liberal FLSC justices if you live in Florida.
Really!
"Tis a Gift To Be Simple" became "This is a Gift to the Simple". Sung in five part melody with strong four part dissonance in the background.
There is also no formal "two quarter rule." If you have a recession for one quarter, you know what you call that? A recession lasting one quarter.
Again, there is no "magic threshold" which says that stagnation for 120 days is NOT a "recession" but that stagnation for 120+ days suddenly, and magically, becomes a "recession."
Me, Message # 5088: "I think Reagan still had a year or two left in office when he was given the house, but I could be wrong."
Ace, Message # 5091: "Wrong, as usual. He was out of office."
Media Research Center (!): ". .. in 1986, friends of the Reagans bought them a house in Bel Air."
Ace, you're spoiling me.
Does that mean he will be remembered for drastic failures of the so-called "New Economy"?
Your little media-repeated bromide is akin to claiming that a speed of 300 mph, and ONLY speeds of 300 mph or more, are, technically, "FAST."
Duhhh. 299 mph is "fast," too. You're attempting to impose an arbitrary and relatively meaningless exact defintion on the notion of "fast."
Two quarters of negative growth = a recession is a "rule of thumb." It's not a "definition," and it has no magic talismanic power.
"But I guess Ace sees Greenspans answer as coming out in favor of it."
I "see" it that way because he used vague words like, "I am in favor of a tax cut, and I believe a tax cut can do noticeable good, especially in the event of a long economic downturn."
I understand, of course, if you have trouble interpreting these words, or interpret them to mean "Tax cuts are for weiners" or "I was not alone with Monica."
"The fact he didn't criticise it must mean he's in favor of it."
He was expressly asked about it. He declined to criticize it, or any other tax cut plan. He's just in favor of tax cuts of some sort, and will not get into details.
One might have expected him to use very cautionary language if he was against Bush's plan, rather than stating we will probably have enough for both significant tax cuts and some debt reduction.
"Ace wouldn't accept that from a liberal as an answer but we're to accept it from him."
Greenspan probably *is* a liberal.
In any event, you can take it however you like it.
Do tell me what Molly Ivins thinks, though. I'm sure she has a very persuasive interpretation.
Um. He's a rather famous libertarian, I believe.
...which means "liberal" on all social questions. He was also slow as syrup to cut interest rates during the Bush recession.
Plus, he's married to Liberal Shrew Andrea Mitchell.
recession n 1: a widespread decline in the GDP and employment and trade lasting from six months to a year
Of course, it's not a "rigid" technical definition and therefore most likely unacceptable, right Ace?
For what it is worth.
"Libertarians" are really just liberals, Cal, with a few goofball notions about private lighthouses and gay marriage.
Bill Maher is the stereotypical "libertarian" -- a dyed-in-the-wool liberal who doesn't want to admit it to himself, and so he claims he's a "libertarian" merely because he says some nasty things about women and retarded children.
Jesus. Liberals can't read.
I'm saying that "rigid techncal definitions" are bogus, not that they're "acceptable."
If you want to quibble about the definition of recession, talk to Greenspan. He's the guy who said there's no rigid bromide to define it. It's a slowdown, pure and simple, worse than mere flatness.
Because Democrats will use every bit of propaganda in their arsenal to make sure.
On Maher:
I should note the irony that he calls his show "Politically Incorrect."
Has the man said anything in fifteen years that wasn't by-the-book liberal/leftist doctrine?
Hollywood, and liberals, love to agree with each other's doctrinaire dogma, then congratulate one another for being so "brave."
It's brave to say you're in favor of abortion or sexual freedom or against icky guns?
How can fifty million sheep bleating in unison be "brave"?
However, it would be a distortion of reality to infer that our new president has the Fed chairman in his pocket. C'mon, pull the other one...
The technical definition is two quarters of negative growth.
The why'd you post the nonsense in Message # 5055
Yesterday on the Christopher Lyden show, John Fund was whining about the mistreatment by the Dems of Ashcroft, crying dirty politics, as if the "dirty" politics were unrelated to Bush's "dirty" nominee. Wonder why all the others are being approved almost by acclamation (except for Norton). It's only logical that Ashcroft and Bush should look in the mirror to find whom to blame for the growing opposition.
LOL!
What do you want her to do? Drop NBC and join Faux News?
It's funny to me that all this outcry over Hillary being indebted to the donors of the gifts is going on...I didn't see anyone hollering that GW would "owe" those $100,000 donors to his inauguration festivities.
So writes a "male" who can't produce his own children, and the authorities won't allow him to adopt them.
So will you support me in urging the Senate to increase the gift limit to, say, $100,000 per gift?
But I agree with your point - I wonder if there is a better way to fund inaugurations?
Greenspan was an Ayn Rand protege, which is a lot more than just a wannabe libertarian. Also, if this forum is any basis for judging, libertarians are more likely to tilt right than left--although there's no reason why they can't tilt left. 
"A lie is a thing of beauty. To be convincing, it must be bold; but, once exposed as a deliberate falsehood, it enters the realm of the sublime. Who can avert his eye from Bill Clinton wagging his index finger and saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," or John Ashcroft testifying to the Senate that "I have never used sexual orientation as a matter of qualification or disqualification in my offices"? These moments derive their power from our knowledge that the speaker is knowingly telling an untruth.
When the lie is told with seeming conviction, the teller emerges as a Byronic hero, altering by sheer force of will the map of truth. When the lie is told in a shifty-eyed way, the teller is rendered compellingly human--tragically, perhaps fatally diminished. Either way, the result is art. "
God. It's no wonder no one's reading that e-magazine anymore.
A blast from the past. Note the date:
7558. jonesatlaw - 11/8/00 7:44:04 AM [Election Night]
While a Bish victory seems all but certain, look for further twists to this potboiler of an election. Recounts are possible, and changes to the totals not impossible, even if improbable.
Jonesey with the prescient (if understated) call...
Hee, hee. What a fuckin' night:
7563. AceofSpades - 11/8/00 7:50:32 AM
Joezan:
That was fucking unbelievable!!!
My girlfriend asked me at around 8:00, "Why are they calling Florida for Gore if Bush has more actual votes?"
"There, there," I told her, with great sophistication, "Raw numbers don't matter. They can project the winners accurately."
"But Bush has more votes," she countered.
"Don't be a silly-head," I said, dripping political acumen. "Raw votes don't matter. The projections are COMPUTER-TABULATED. They're accurate."
"Oh," she said. And then we both were sad.
And then, an hour later, we see Bush telling reporters that Florida is still in play... and then all the networds put Florida back into the toss-up column.
And during this time, I told her: "Don't get optimistic. It's only in the toss-up column for *now.* Those projections were probably accurate, and Gore will almost certainly take Florida."
And now...
and now...
and now...
BUSH WINS!!!
7579. robertjayb -11/8/00 8:27:58 AM
.
Dammit, the repubs ran a brilliant campaign. No deviation. None.
Dubbya's so fuckin'dull, I'm sure we'd all like to relive those thrilling days of Monicamania and Impeachment-o-Rama. Right folks?
One must be careful in reading Jexster.
Did I say that? Let me begin again.
You shouldn't read Jexster at all; he's an imbecile. But when reading his cut-and-paste jobs, you must be careful. One, he often gives articles a completely bogus title; for example, he'll call an article noting Greenspan's endorsement of a tax cut something like "Da Moron wrong on Taxes... again." You wonder if he even read the article.
The other thing he does is edit ver-r-r-r-y carefully, to make an article say something it does not, or to quote just the "helpful" parts of an article while carefully keeping mum about the damning parts.
Case in point?
Check out Jexster's cut-and-paste from Slate above. He quotes Slate, liberal hack-zine elite, making some nasty comment about Ashcroft's alleged lies. Fair enough.
But you would never guess from Jex's selective quotation what all that is really a preamble to.
And what IS Jexster's Slate article about?
Well, it's called "Whopper of the Week," and it's about the week's worst, most revolting lie.
So what was the Whopper of the Week? The Ashcroft matter, which gay journalists everywhere are so angry about, wondering "Where's the Outrage?" (Note to Gay Journalists: I've wondered "Where's the Outrage?" for four and a half years. Your check is in the mail.)
No, it's not Ashcroft's alleged lie.
Well, who's lie then?
Well, Denise Rich's... the woman who gave Clinton $1 million to grant her husband a pardon:
To emphasize this last point, Chatterbox, a known Democrat, kicks off "Whopper of the Week" with a Democrat's lie: Clinton fund-raiser Denise Rich's denial, through a spokesman, that she had anything to do with Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon of her ex-husband, the fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich.
"Denise was totally taken by surprise. It's not something she really wanted. It's not something she would have used her clout for."
--Denise Rich's publicist, Bobby Zarem, as reported in the Jan. 23 New York Daily News.
"Exile for 17 years is enough. Marc has made the lives of countless others better."
--Dec. 6 letter from Denise Rich to Bill Clinton, as quoted in the Jan. 23 New York Times.
Odd that Jexster didn't quote the most relevant part of the article to us. Isn't it?
Disgusting:
5161. janjon - 1/26/01 9:29:10 PM
Andy scores on yet another fundamental truth. It will be a recession and hard times when people feel it. If it happens (and gee I sure hope W's handlers will do something to try to make sure it doesn't!), it will be under W's watch.
Live with it.
The admission that yes, this is Clinton's recession, but yes, we will lie and blame it on Bush.
We've always known it... just happy to get confirmation, Jan. "Truth" to you people is like kryptonite.
A review of computerized records for 2.7 million votes in eight of Florida's largest counties offers new details of how voters erred. It reveals that, while both Vice President Gore and George W. Bush each may have lost votes that were intended for them, Democratic voters were significantly more likely to have invalidated their ballots than Republican voters.
According to the Post's analysis, the biggest problem for Gore was in "overvotes," ballots invalidated because voters indicated multiple choices for president. Although the number of ballots thrown out for that reason was known shortly after the Nov. 7 election, The Post analysis for the first time shows the voting patterns contained in those ballots. Gore was by far most likely to be selected on invalid overvoted ballots, with his name punched as one of the choices on 46,000 of them. Bush, by comparison, was punched on 17,000.
Democratic votes also appear to have been disproportionately affected because of Palm Beach County's infamous "butterfly ballot." The study found that the 8,000 voters whose ballots were thrown out because they chose Gore and one of the two other presidential candidates listed near him voted more than 10 to 1 Democratic in the U.S. Senate race.
Yawn.
Numerous ballots contained two, three, or four votes. It's silly to call those "Gore votes," merely because Gore was one of the chosen candidates.
As far as PBC voiding: Many "voided" ballots were immediately replaced by a fresh new ballot and re-voted. As these were all by and large placed in the same "void" piles, you haven't a clue as to how many of those 8,000 went on to successfully vote for Bush.
In any event, the election's over.
And who were the "two other presidential candidates listed near him?"
The article doesn't say. But I've seen the ballot.
The two candidates listed next to Gore were: Pat Buchanan...
...and George W. Bush of Texas.
Funny. The people voted for Gore and "one of the two candidates listed near him," one of which was GW Bush. So whose votes were these?
Why, obviously-- they were Gore's.
In almost every county, the pairing of Gore with each of the more obscure candidates garnered more votes than the lesser-known candidate got alone. In the most prevalent combination, more than 6,800 voters punched holes for both Gore and Libertarian Harry Browne. Browne's name appeared right after Gore on the ballots in seven of the counties.
The next most common choice was Gore and Reform Party nominee Patrick J. Buchanan, with 6,300 ballots. That combination was most prevalent in Palm Beach County, where the butterfly ballot positioned Gore's spot between Buchanan and Socialist David McReynolds.
The Palm Beach County voters who punched either Gore-Buchanan or Gore-McReynolds voted overwhelmingly Democratic in the U.S. Senate race, favoring Bill Nelson over Republican Bill McCollum, 6,645 to 632.
Stop the presses, boys. We've got us a scoop.
Actually, I suspect that both Republicans and Dems rely heavily on votes from the ignorant. But ignorant Republicans are more likely to know how to vote--and, since they're more likely to be white, feel more entitled to vote and entitled to demand their rights. (This is not a slam, it's a good thing.)
That said, there's no question that the problem is that Dem voters fuck up. The thing is, that's fixable. And in 2004, those ignorant voters are going to be a lot more aware of their rights, what can and can't be expected of them, and how to vote.
However, in general, it just reinforces the fact that, were it not for hideously bad luck, Gore would have won and it wouldn't even have been close.
"However, in general, it just reinforces the fact that, were it not for hideously bad luck, Gore would have won and it wouldn't even have been close."
Except for the 40,000 Republican panhandle voters who didn't vote because the state had been "called," and except for the 10,000 felons and illegal aliens who voted, and except for the fact that we don't count the votes of retards who believe you can select two, three, or even four or five Presidents.
A bunch of stupid liberals believe Presidential voting is a "Top Five" affair, as in, "And my Top Five Candidates for President are (drum roll)..."
As Stumbo said (funny!):
Stop the presses, boys. We got ourselves a scoop.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Another point:
This is not "bad luck." This has been the case for 100 years. Idiots vote in elections, and we don't count those votes.
There are more Democratic idiots than Republican, so more Democratic idiot votes are never counted. Further, when you have a massive GOTV effort and drag illegal, non-English-speaking Haitians to the polls and force them to vote, you can't expect them to be particularly enthused about it, or adroit with the stylus. Nor can you expect the crack addicts you bribed to the polls with packs of Marlboros to punch a perfect ballot.
"Hiddeously bad luck" suggests an abberration of chance. There was no abberration of chance. This happens every year, and will continue happening every year, every single year the Democrats attempt to win an election with crack addicts, Alzheimer's shut-ins, illegal immigrants, and the typical gang of Democratic cretins.
Oh, we count the votes of retards all the time. We just don't count the votes of people who screw up.
You're not getting anywhere with the 40,000 in the Panhandle, since stats show over and over that calling elections early don't make that much (if any) difference, and the 10,000 felons (assuming it's true) were more than cancelled out by all the black people drummed off the voting rolls because they might be felons.
It's nothing to get upset about on either side. It's just gonna be fun. It will further serve to stiffen the spines of Dems, Bush will be less and less likely to use the words, "The people voted for my platform", and 2004 will probably demonstrate that a lot of morons learned how to vote. All in all, not a bad thing.
Oh, sure there was. The Duval county and PBC ballots were aberrations. But in general, I think that a high error rate that has been taken for granted will now be examined. Another way in which this was a good thing.
Also, it's a good thing because at this point, it's pretty clear that Gore won by half a million votes and only lost Florida through bad luck and a disproportionate allocation of crappy votes. So Gore isn't ruined like it was first expected he'd be.
"You're not getting anywhere with the 40,000 in the Panhandle,"
*NONSENSE.* Polls have shown a difference. A specific poll on THIS SITUATION came up with the 40,000 number. That's not perfect evidence, but it's more evidence than your typical "I don't want to believe it, so I don't" attitude.
Such nonsense! It is your claim that the slightest bit of inconvenience discourages poor minorities from the polls... but you simultaneously claim you can tell three million people that the election is OVER and that won't affect voter turnout in the least!
I say again: BULL SHIT. Florida had one the HIGHEST turnouts in the country; New York had a comparitively low turnout. What accounts for this? Simple! Florida was a swing state; NY was not. A vote "counted" in Florida; it barely counted in NY. The importance of the vote turned Florida voters out in recent record numbers.
But you claim that that the news that the election was over did NOTHING to dissuade an entire corner of the state from voting? Ludicrous.
"since stats show over and over that calling elections early don't make that much (if any) difference,"
Well, a poll did. Further, "stats" (such as a record high turnout in vigorously contested Florida) shows that people will go to the polls in greater numbers... IF they believe their vote is important.
When you tell them the election is over, that higher-than-normal urge to vote disappears.
"and the 10,000 felons (assuming it's true) were more than cancelled out by all the black people drummed off"
Hah, hah, hah! There have been, what, 100 people wrongly crossed off the list?
And, by the way, if I understand it right (and I think I do), all those people could vote at the polls, Cal. They just had to vote by affidavit, affirming they actually *were* entitled to vote.
You've tallied up 30,000 net Gore "votes" (multiple punches for multiple candidates)... and that's become "a half a million votes"?
Barbie says: "Math is hard."
Cal,
Please explain why Florida's turnout was so high, if not for the fact that "every vote mattered."
Now compare to a state where every vote didn't "matter."
Would Florida's turnout have been so high if the state was a "lock"? No-- "lock" states have the poorest turnout.
So, if a "lock" state has a poor turnout, what about a state where no further votes will *literally* count at all, because the election is over?
Please explain. I'm soooooo curious.
Let's say the polls close at 8:00. I'm late. I can't make it in time.
Do I go to the polls anyway, just to make a "showing" as citizenship demands, even though the polls are closed?
Answer: Of course not.
Now, if I am told by every news agency that the election is over, do I vote anyway?
Answer: Probably not, for the same reason as in the first hypothetical: It's a waste of time.
You will claim there are "other races" which were still going on... trouble is, Nelson was declared the winner of the Senate race at the same time as Gore.
So, you are claiming that people will be JUST AS LIKELY to vote for minor offices -- Representative, sherrif, dog-catcher -- as for President in a swing state? Fucking puh-leeze. If that's true, why are Presidential years always high-turnout compared to the very low turnout non-Presidential midterm elections?
Why is that, Cal? Hmmmmmm... I wonder.
Could it be that:
Presidential races are the most important, and the most likely to animate an irregular voter to the polls;
that Presidential races in swing states are even MORE important, and drive an even higher turnout; and finally
that therefore, an election in which there is either no Presidential choice, or the Presidential choice has already been determined, will have a lower turnout?
If my logic is confusing, just let me know. I'll break it up into tinier pieces.
?????
I don't recall making the first claim. The second is not a "claim". A poll isn't evidence. The issue of outcomes being affected or votes lost due to results being announced early has been studied extensively since 1980 and it has been demonstrated consistently that it doesn't make any difference. It was much mentioned back in November and December.
! There have been, what, 100 people wrongly crossed off the list?
Is that all? Seriously? I have read that it was much more.
But I think you miss my point. I was saying that all of those--the supposed panhandle loss, the supposed felon vote, the people wrongly crossed off the list--are all the same sort of mighta coulda shoulda stuff. I don't weight any of them particularly heavily--along with the supposed road blocks, the additional id checks, and so on.
...as people who fuck up on ballots. The thing is, you only want to discuss the import of one sort of mighta coulda shoulda -- Dems who are Retards -- and you are immediately dismissive of any other mighta coulda shoulda which would tend to show that the bad luck was actually on Bush's side.
NO RACE in recent memory has been wrongly called like this. IT HAS NOT HAPPENED. GW Bush got the shafting from a very bad network "call" -- hmmm, go figure, the Republican got screwed.
But you want to whine endlessly about the "hiddeously bad luck" Gore had, and, because you wish to use this as a propaganda point or point of personal vindication, it requires you to claim that a network call in a Republican stronghold has NO EFFECT on voter turnout.
That's bullshit, and I suspect you know it.
Even if the effect is "very small," as you earlier admit, a "very small" suppression of Republican votes is more than enough to swing a close race like this.
I suspect that the "half a million votes" quote refers to the total popular vote, not just Florida.
But, given that everyone (except, perhaps, the same sort of people who thought they had to punch separate holes for president and vice-president) knew that what mattered was not the popular vote but the Electoral College -- and that that influenced the way the candidates campaigned, and voter turnout -- I'm surprised that anyone ever brings it up.
Cite these studies.
And explain why Florida had a high turnout, if not for its being a crucial swing state. And if it had a hight turnout because it was a crucial swing state, what happens to turnout when it is NO LONGER a crucial swing state, but a decided state?
Also, please explain if your alleged "studies" document cases in which not only the Presidential race was called, but the Senate race, leaving only minor & often uncontested candidates down-ticket.
You keep avoiding these questions.
Is it really your claim that a Panhandle voter would be just as liable to go to the polls to elect his sherrif as he would if the Presidency were on the line?
No, that's not the same at all. Why? Because these are people who made it to the polls. They voted. And they fucked up. Due, no doubt, to the fact that they're idiots. But the analysis of actual attempted votes is far more meaningful than analysis of reasons why people might not have voted, if they didn't care enough or didn't understand how things worked.
Also, I find it odd that you say that I'm whining. I'm not whining at all. I think the whole thing is pretty cool. Sure, I'd rather Gore won. But given that he didn't win, it's as good as it can get. That's what I enjoy about it.
So what?
"They voted."
Technically, they didn't. They INTENDED to vote, but they didn't. What they did was spoil a ballot.
And 40,000 net Republicans INTENDED to vote for Bush, but they didn't, because the Tom, Dan & Peter show told them the election was ALREADY OVER.
Cal, I will ask these questions one more time. If you do not respond to them THIS TIME, my side of this conversation is over. I have no time for a nitwit who picks and chooses which points she is capable of answering.
If you must concede my points, then be honest and DO SO, rather than simply pretending you didn't read them.
Here are the questions:
"And explain why Florida had a high turnout, if not for its being a crucial swing state. And if it had a hight turnout because it was a crucial swing state, what happens to turnout when it is NO LONGER a crucial swing state, but a decided state?
Also, please explain if your alleged "studies" document cases in which not only the Presidential race was called, but the Senate race, leaving only minor & often uncontested candidates down-ticket."
Rebut, refute, or concede, but answer.
If you don't, I am out of here.
"Because these are people who made it to the polls."
Are you suggesting we give credit for physical presence without mental functioning?
The facts:
The Panhandle is a Republican stronghold. One Representative for the Panhandle is Joe Scarborough, who is popular and was either completely uncontested, or not seriously contested. Certainly his seat was rated either "safe" or "lock."
Being a Republican stronghold, most, if not all, the other Representatives would have been in a similar position. Tallahassee's Rep might have been Dem.... but then, he was safe too.
Some judges were up for retention. Judges usually get 70-90% positive votes. Thus, noncompetitive.
Now, let's add this up:
-- The Presidential race has been called for Gore
-- the Senate race has been called for Nelson
-- Most, if not all, representative races are uncontested or blowouts
-- the judge retention election is a blowout, as it is every year
So.
Cal, you're claiming that Panhandle Republican, informed that Gore and Nelson had won, would bother voting?
Might I ask: What precisely would they be voting *for*? Which races? What races were "live" and contested?
The "half a million votes" was nationally, as Stumbo points out.
As for the studies--eh. You can buy it or not. I'll look them up later. It was regularly and repeatedly acknowledged in practically ever discussion or analysis piece on the panhandle issue during those two months because, as I said, it has been well-studied since Carter's loss.
Now, you are welcome to argue that all of these studies don't count, that the Panhandle is different. Which is no doubt what you'll do when I provide the links. So why not just say it now, and save us both the time?
You keep avoiding these questions.
"Keep"? My lord, Ace, you post three times to my one.
I neither understand nor give a damn about your question about turnout. As to your question about impact when early results are announced, my answer is that the studies regularly show this and that yes, it seems counterintuitive to me, too. But that is what they say consistently, and those studies are more meaningful than your poll of outraged voters.
That said, it may indeed turn out that the early polls mattered in the Panhandle--that this, alone among all situations, had an impact on the results. Fine. That, alas, would just mean that the voters in the Panhandle are like the people who were turned off by roadblocks--the uncommitted, the folks who didn't get to the polls.
So let's keep the two things straight: the analysis of actual voting efforts by people who made it to the polls is quite different from a recitation of things that stopped uncommitted people from getting to the polls.
I am merely pointing out that your claim that the early call made a difference is not supported by studies. But even if it did make a difference, it would only elevate the claim to the equivalent of the people who were dissuaded by roadblocks, additional id checks, and being wiped off the rolls as assumed felons.
Whatever, Cal.
You have "studies" which show that people will vote, even when they're told the Presidential, Senate, Congressional, and judicial retention races have all been decided.
What are they voting for? Who knows. But Cal says they're just as pumped up to vote as voters in a live, swing-state Presidential race.
They love voting for Sheriff in Florida, I guess.
"The race has been called" might or might not dissuade me from voting (since that would depend on my trust in the networks' ability to correctly make a snap judgement on statistical matters). "The polls are closed" definitely would (since that would depend on my trust in their ability to correctly state verifiable facts).
Now, I definitely recall it being mentioned on various TV shows that the networks' policy was to not call any race until the polls in that state were closed.
So, if the networks said, "The polls are closed in state X [as they presumably believed them to be, in Florida], and we project A as the winner," surely I wouldn't try to go vote.
But if they merely said "We project A as the winner," I wouldn't, either -- being aware of the above-mentioned policy, and assuming that it would be correctly executed.
Not even if I really, really cared about the local dog-catcher race.
And 40,000 net Republicans INTENDED to vote for Bush, but they didn't, because the Tom, Dan & Peter show told them the election was ALREADY OVER.
These aren't the same thing. Getting to the polls and not getting to the polls are different. You can measure one.
But anyway, why are you doing this? There's no dispute that most "expert analysts" at this point in time think more people left their house intending to vote for Gore. If the weight of evidence starts tilting towards a clear win for Bush, I'll be the first to acknowledge it.
I'm certainly not arguing that some travesty of justice has occurred, nor am I whining. I'm just enjoying the fact that more data has been uncovered to further cast clouds on Bush's presidency.
Now--let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that everything you say is correct and everything I say is wrong. That despite the analysis, the vote still would have been close or Bush would have won if the panhandle hadn't been called, the felons hadn't voted, and so on.
But that doesn't matter. Why? Because the perception is what matters, and at this point, the media coverage focuses on counting what can be counted, which is the people who went to the polls and tried to vote. All the data coming in supports the perception that, with a little less crappy luck, Gore would have won handily.
So. Even if everything you say is true (and it isn't, but no matter), I'm just enjoying the fact that the little frat boy has to endure further aspersions on his victory.
Whatever your particular determination to vote, people vary in voter-determination.
Some people will vote, no matter what.
Some people will probably vote, especially if it's close.
Some people will only vote if it's close.
Some people will only vote if it's close and if a party precinct captain drags them to the polls.
Some people won't vote.
It's just stupid to claim that a call for both President and Senator (with all other races either uncontested, niggling, or both) is not going to make a significant fraction of voters decide to WATCH the election returns rather than actually voting.
It's so pig-ignorant.
Truth be told? I didn't vote... AGAIN. I didn't vote in 1996 because New Jersey was a lock for Clinton, and I wasn't even too animated about Dole. This time around, it was inconvenient-- PLUS, of course, NY was a lock for Gore, and Lazio was toast. (Nadler, in my neighborhood, was also an unconstested lock.)
So please don't tell me that it makes no difference if a voter believes an election is actually contested or not. I voted in 1988 when it was contested. I voted in 1992 when it was contested. I did not vote in 1996 or 2000, when no race was contested.
Pure bullshit. I know damn well voters stay home when an election is a lock, or if the race has already been decided. Because I'm one of those voters who do so.
Yawn.
1) Perception is all that matters to you people;
2) The media wants to promote just this perception, just as they wanted to promote the idea that tax cuts were "dangerous," and have only grudgingly reported that Greenspan has put the lie to their year-long drumbeat against tax cuts
3) The media has a vested interest in claiming that their blunder didn't actually affect things.
I'm still stunned that "studies" prove my voting patterns aren't affected by knowing an election is a lock/already over...
Hmmmm... I DID vote in all elections with an important contested race, and I DID NOT vote in any elections where all important races were locks...
But funny-- Cal's studies claim that I actually DID vote in all these elections.
That's odd. I don't remember voting in 1996 or 2000. I do remember voting in 1988, 1992, 1994, and 1998.
This is very, very strange. Oh well-- if Cal's studies say I voted in every election, so be it!
"I definitely recall it being mentioned on various TV shows prior to this election that the networks' policy was..." etc.
Yes, Stumbo, they did ALL say that.
Only later did they note that they'd actually called Florida a half-hour before the panhandle polls closed.
Eh, what does it matter? Cal's studies say we all voted anyway.
I wonder if Cal's studies can tell me whom I voted for... because I sure don't remember.
Was "Frasier" running for office? Because I seem to remember "Frasier" that night. Maybe I voted for Frasier. Or Niles.
People living in the Panhandle, and well aware of being an hour behind the rest of the state (and of the sort of mix-ups this may cause), might have had better reasons to distrust the networks' ability to ascertain whether the polls had indeed closed everywhere in the state.
But that's kinda reaching. Time zones aren't exactly kept secret, so one would've expected those bastions of information-gathering to be aware of them.
1) Well, of course. Perception is everything.
2) It's a conspiracy!
3) Eh. I doubt it. They've been wearing sackcloth and ashes for months on that blunder.
It's now up to FORTY THOUSAND Panhandle Republicans who decided not to vote in the ELEVEN MINUTES between the networks' announcement of a Gore victory and the closing of the polls?
Ha! That statement is full of shit, even by your "standards".
(UPI) A legal watchdog group has filed a complaint against Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) with the Senate Ethics Committee, alleging that the former first lady and junior senator and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, may have illegally accepted more than $190,000 worth of personal gifts.
Upon leaving the White House after President George W. Bush's Jan 20 inauguration, the Clintons filed financial disclosure statements listing "gifts, china and furniture that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will benefit from and enjoy for her personal use," said a statement detailing the complaint, released yesterday by the Washington, DC-based Judicial Watch.
"Senate rules, standards of conduct and federal law all have strict provisions concerning the illegal or improper solicitation and acceptance of gifts," the statement said, urging the "Senate Ethics Committee to investigate Sen. Clinton's conduct and arrive at an appropriate remedy."
"Sen. Clinton's acceptance of these gifts goes beyond crass," commented Jusicial Watch president and chief counsel, Larry Klayman.
Senator Clinton has refused to comment on the gifts.
"Sen. Clinton's acceptance of these gifts goes beyond crass," commented Jusicial Watch president and chief counsel, Larry Klayman.
This man will go to his grave with a form for a lawsuit against the Clintons clutched firmly in his hand. I expect him to sue Chelsea any day now.
Jusicial Watch
This misspelling was from Rosettas link, by the way.
Don't you understand time zones, Ohio? The western panhandle of Florida is in a different one from the east. Polls closed at 8 PM est.
Why don't you go back to TT, judithesnitch? Cazart is looking for dainformer.
Why don't you go to Aruba, pastyface?
I'm not bothering you anymore, RS...please do the same.
The networks projected Gore the winner at 7:49 PM EST, some time after the polls in eastern Florida closed (7 PM EST time), but before the polls closed in Western Florida (7 PM CST, 8 PM EST). Eleven minutes before, not 1 hour and 11 minutes.
Obviously, for the networks to "call" Florida 1 hour and 11 minutes before the polls in western Florida closed, they would have had to "call" it before ANY polls in Florida closed, which of course they did not do.
You really are stupid. I'm refraining from calling you shit-for-brains, because then I'd owe shit an apology.
I just heard GWs radio address...his recycled campaign sound bites, rather, and I want to know what we're going to do with all the public schools which are considered failing and which, according to him, "can not or will not change". are we going to shut the doors on these schools? Because if students leave and take their money with them, how are those schools supposed to change?
If half my yard is dying because it doesn't get enough water, I don't take what little water that part gets and transfer it to the side of the yard that is already getting enough, do I?
Sounds like a plan to me...according to the Republicans, that's where they belong, anyhow.
Ace- if you are ever informed that you are a father, ask for the genetic test. It would probably save you some money, because if you truly believe 40,000 Bush voters didn't go to the polls because of the call 11 minutes before the polls closed, your girlfriend could be doing your grandfather and you'd never catch on.
"What's going on here!!!???"
Girlfriend: "Oh honey, I was helping your grandfather with his zipper, when his penis fell out of his fly. Since my hands were full with his zipper, I held it in my mouth until I could fix things."
Ace: "Oh, that's okay then."
Great post, Jones....
I just saw on CNN that the Bush White House is refusing to let any reporters SEE any of the alleged vandalisn done by the Clinton evictees. This sounds like the old "dirty tricks" scenario to me...put a bunch of garbage out there and let it be spread by people who need no proof; then, when proof is asked for, say "We just want to put it all behind us" with that sanctamonious siff.
The Clinton people are asking to see proof; the media is asking to see proof; the only people out there not asking for proof are the people who can prove it.
This wouldn't be the first time Rove and Co. had floated things that weren't exactly the whole truth. Maybe it was payback for the fact Clinton got as much appaulse as Bush at Bushs own inauguration.
siff=sNiff
Here is the CNN story:
Much Ado About Little
-- President Clinton's chief of staff called the Bush administration Friday afternoon to inquire about reports of last-minute vandalism in the West Wing and in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building by former Clinton-Gore staffers, a senior Bush official told CNN.
Clinton aide Karen Tramontano called Andrew Card, President Bush's chief of staff, said Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer.
Card's deputy, Joseph Hagin, called Tramontano back Friday, and described to her "plural incidents," Fleischer said. The Bush spokesman would not describe those incidents to reporters.
A senior Bush aide, who did not want to be identified, said that the incidents occurred mostly in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, but that some also took place in the West Wing.
Hagin also told Tramontano the story surrounding the so-called pranks had become "bigger than life," Fleischer added.
And, here's the latest from Clinton's people....
AIR FORCE ONE ITEMS PUT ON SALE OVER WEB-head
Appear on Ebay after reported thefts--sub
The appearance of dozens of articles emblazoned with the Air Force One log on a popular internet site is raising questions about their orgin in the wake of the theft of items from the presidential plane.
More than 30 presidential collectibles were listed as of last night for sale on the internet auction site Ebay.
toycheck
Which is more important, the school or the children? If a school is failing the children and can not or will not change, what should we do? Should we let it continue to fail our children or should we give those children other options. The schools exist to serve our children, not the other way around.
Because if students leave and take their money with them, how are those schools supposed to change?
Once again, where is your focus? Is your focus on the schools or the children? If a school cannot provide an adequate education it should be closed and another school opened which can. It cruel to condemn a child to a life of poverty in order to protect a bureaucracy.
If half my yard is dying because it doesn't get enough water, I don't take what little water that part gets and transfer it to the side of the yard that is already getting enough, do I?
What happens if the yard keeps dying in spite of three years worth of effort? Do just keep pouring more and more water on it, or do you tear it out and start over? Do you think money is universal cure for every educational ill we have?
Billions of dollars set for religious groups...The Houston Chronicle...(registration required)
WASHINGTON -- President Bush, keeping a campaign pledge to rally "the armies of compassion," will announce plans next week to funnel billions of federal tax dollars to religious groups providing social services like housing, job-training and drug and prison rehabilitation.
The president has yet to release details on his proposed White House "Office of Faith-Based Action." Although aides estimate the office will administer about $8 billion in grants and tax breaks over the next decade, they have not specified where the money would come from.
Should Michael Kinsley have to pay for candles and incense?
...official promotion of religion—even when it's not specific—can reach a point where it infringes on the rights of nonbelievers. President Bush has cut off family planning funds for international organizations that finance abortions on the grounds that money given for one thing frees up money for the other. But he does not apply the same logic to his plans to subsidize church-based education. If a birth-control grant to some agency amounts to taxpayers funding abortions, why isn't a grant to a church school essentially forcing me to pay for candles and incense? (excerpted from Slate)
Only one week out of the office, Bubba ia already lonely, bored and misses the attention that his aides (especially females) were paid to give him. Even the Secret Service is treating him with professional contempt. Luckily the dog is still interested in his insights.
He doesn't have the discipline to stay quiet for long. Expect trouble with a capital T.
-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer on allegations of mischief by outgoing White House staff, such as missing "W" keys on all the computer keyboards.
... Or people who listened to the radio while driving to their polling station (on their way back from work, perhaps), and who -- see #5250 -- not-unreasonably interpreted the fact that the race had been called as an indication that the polls were already closed.
I have no idea how many people would fit this scenario -- but, surely, more than the one you posit.
I'd like to sell you a mounted Jackalope, a catfish stole, a deep water port on the Platte River, and a couple of quarterhorse eggs, if you buy the GOP line.
Please explain why there are always so many people at the post office on April 15.
Here's a possibility-- because people tend to wait for the deadline.
You are claiming that "no one" votes in the last half hour. That's absurd. The last half hour is almost certainly a period of peak activity. The biggest voting times are almost certainly, in order: Lunch break, 5-6 pm, just when the polls open, and just when the polls close.
There are sworn affidavits regarding lines in the polling places at this time. (Remember St. Louis, with hundreds of people lined up at the time the polls were closing?) And these affidavits say that news of the election call were relayed, and many, if not most, people went home.
How significant was the vote suppression? Not terribly significant-- in terms of the number of people who voted. But in an election determined by an excruciatingly close margin, 40,000 (or, let's knock that number down, 5,000) discouraged voters is a landslide.
You dipshits are getting all giddy when a newspaper "discovers" 200 votes for Gore... and yet you are incapable of being honest and admitting that many thousands, if not several tens of thousands, of people would go home or stay home once ALL RACES had been called.
A "huge number" of people is hardly required.
BTW Jones, I live just three blocks from my polling place. It's a four minute walk.
When I was in surburbia, I lived a scant 10 minute car jaunt away.
If the "no one" is voting in the last half hour of polling, why not just shut them down a half hour earlier?
Polling places tend to be located in the nearest school or fire-house... which tend to be very close to the community they serve.
Jones apparently lives in some part of the country where he has to drive a half hour to vote.
Be that as it may, most people vote where their little ones go to school. And that's pretty damn close. Closer than the 7-11, closer than the supermarket.
"... a huge number of people cruising around in their cars two hours after work is out thinking 'maybe I'll go vote, ah shucks, Tom Brokaw predicts Gore wins I guess I'll go get a beer, and not vote at all.'"
No. It's "ah shucks, Tom Brokaw predicts Gore wins so the polls must be CLOSED, so I CAN'T vote." (I've already made this point twice. Do I have to put it in all caps to get your attention?)
And, BTW, many people don't get out of work until 6 or later.
In addition, Jones makes all this sound *unlikely*.
He doubts that many people were driving to the polls at the last minute. Perhaps he's forgotten about the hundreds (thousands?) of people lined up in St Louis at the last minute, or even lining up after the polls were closed.
Is Jones saying that only black people procrastinate and get a late start? Gee, that sounds mildly racist. CPT and all that.
Next, Jones states it's extraordinarily unlikely that someone driving a car would listen to the RADIO.
What do you think people do in their cars while driving --read Dostoyevski? No, they immediately put on the radio. And news-stations are always either the #1 or #2 ranked station in any market. Furthermore, even non-news stations will break in with particularly big news.
So, yes, everyone in a car on their way to the polls will 1) have the radio on and 2) hear about the projection the moment it's made.
Further, anyone in line at the polling station will hear the news immediately.
When people were doing the brief statewide recount in Florida, they were informed, word of mouth, of the US Supreme Court's stay of the recount within moments of the order coming down. And yet-- not a television or radio in sight.
How did they hear about this news?
Well, gee, it's a real mystery.
Especially amongst voters. Sure, Howard Stern and Modern Rock stations have their devotees... among listeners 18-34.
All older demographics -- all people most likely to vote -- favor news. Or the NPR simulation thereof.
Next question: 7 p.m. est is very, very early for stations to stop people from voting. Especially since most people work until 6 p.m. Why so early?
On Tuesday, I sent to Congress a package of reforms to turn last year's pledges into this year's laws. I want to make all of our
public schools places of learning and high standards and achievement. Our country must offer every child, no matter what his or her background or accent, a fair start in life with a quality education.
I also met this week with congressional leaders in both parties, and we found a lot of agreement on the basic goals of reform. No one is content with the status quo. Most are open to new ideas. Everyone agrees at least that the problems are serious and action is urgently needed.
This city has heard so much talk over the years about education reform. So many different approaches have been tried. So many new programs have been created. But we need more than a few new programs. We need a new way of thinking. We must go back to the fundamentals of early reading and regular testing, local control, and accountability for results, clear incentives for excellence, and clear consequences for failure.
These are the elements of the plan I am proposing. Real reform starts by giving schools and school districts more authority and
flexibility. We cannot expect schools to change unless they have the freedom to change. My plan respects the principle of local
control. It does not try to run the schools from a central office in Washington. I view principals, teachers and parents as allies in
reform. They are ready to raise the standards, ready to take responsibility and answer for results.
Those results must be measured by testing every child every year, in tests developed and administered by states and local
districts, not the federal government. Without yearly testing, we do not know who is falling behind and who needs our help.
Without yearly testing, too often we don't find failure until it is too late. Testing allows us to help children early, before
frustration turns into apathy.
We need to aim high, but we also need to be realistic. Many schools, particularly those in poor neighborhoods, will need help
to meet high standards. And they will have it, including a new $5 billion initiative over five years for reading instruction. The goal
is to improve our public schools. We want them to succeed, and when they're willing to change, we'll give them the tools to do
so.
t the same time, we will not continue to pour taxpayers' money into schools that do not teach and will not change. My plan will give every failing school a fair chance to improve, but there will be a deadline, a moment of truth when parents are given better options and their children are given a way out. There are some honest differences of opinion in Congress about what form these options should take. I have my own plan which would help children in persistently failing schools to go to another public, private or charter school. Others suggest
different approaches, and I am willing to listen. But all reform must be based on a principle: Children and parents, who have had only bad choices need better choices. And it is my duty as President to help them.
In sending my plan to Congress, I ask that we act before this summer, when schools begin planning for the next school year. I hope to have the support of Republicans and Democrats alike, and I hope to have your support, as well. Thank you for listening.
While it is true there is nothing new here, what it wrong with Bush's words?
Those folks at CNN sure know their geography...
I have no idea where you live. I live in rural Louisiana.
My polling place is about 6 blocks from my home. Kindergarten children -yes 5 year olds - are bused 9 miles to school in my locale.
It makes no difference who you talk to - black or white - everyone is becoming terrificaly annoyed at the School Board. It would not surprise me that vouchers would be considered within 10 years in rural LA due to this fact.
Nearly every adult is in the same position as am I. The place where you vote is much closer to you than where your children go to school. And almost all of the polling places are in schools.
Stumbo:
Those folks at CNN sure know their geography...
...an obvious sop to African Americans.
...Afro"centrism", writ large.
By God, Stumbo - you're right!
The Mighty Larry King, Catalyst for Continental Drift...
Well, since it's kinda slow in here, I thought I'd liven things with a few Clinton/Gore quotes - just for old-times' sake:
Differences between me and President Clinton? That's a very thin file...let me pull it out here. Wait a minute...nothing seems to be in it...
-Al Gore
Machismo gracias.
-Al Gore, opening up a speech to students at a predominantly Hispanic school in New Mexico during the 1996 campaign
Bill Clinton should wake up every morning and thank the Lord for women.
-Mike McCurry, commenting on Clinton's favorability ratings amongst women voter
That Michael Jackson is unbelievable, isn't he? He's just unbelievable!
-Al Gore, at a Chicago Bulls Game in Jan. 1998
Part of growing up is learning how to control one's impulses.
-Hillary Clinton, introducing President Clinton at a gun control rally.
The President looked me in the eye and told me the same thing on several occasions. And I'm not upset. You want to know why? Because I never believed him in the first place.
-Robert Torricelli, on Clinton's denials of an affair with Monica.
I share with you the view that the urgent problems of species extinction and the conservation of biological diversity should be addressed. The first step in saving any plant or animal from extinction is to become aware of and respect the fragile ecosystems that make up our own planet.
-Al Gore, replying to a complaint from a Dallas couple that Amtrak service cuts were eliminating the "Texas Eagle", connecting Dallas to the West Coast and Chicago.
Please acknowledge (or dispute) the points in #5290.
If you can't do the latter, then that establishes that the scenario you originally pos(i)ted was crap.
You all should demand that Jim Baker spin you guys a less ridiculous lie. It's a shame how he embarrasses you.
I assume a person who had seen the gazillion network pledges to call no race before its time -- and who, though he may perhaps have thought he knew roughly when his polling place was supposed to close, nonetheless deferred to the networks' statement, because they were presumed to know what they were doing and saying.
BTW, your second paragraphs have been pretty weak, all day. Lose 'em.
There were no "sworn affidavits" about people leaving Panhandle voting lines in the last 11 minutes, just unproven anecdotes. As far as I know, no actual line-leaving voter has come forward or been identified.
Even WorldNetDaily isn't buying your tall tale! See this article.
Up early on a Sunday too, are you Ohio?
Yeah, I'm always up early. If I could sleep later, I would.
But there's always something to read in the Mote!
It's 1.20 pm here and we are just about to sit down for lunch. Have a nice day! 
You understand NOTHING about the "mainstream" media.
But then neither do J.J. or Ace.
---That's funny. Affidavits to this effect were offered to Judge N. Sanders Sauls during Al Gore's contest action.
Besides-- *We* didn't have the benefit of a telephone marketing campaign to inform our voters they'd been "disenfranchised."
Imagine all the sob stories if we'd had one.
No, just a couple of radio programs, a Republican telephone poll of 35,000 residents, one or more lawsuits by the "Committee for Honest Politics", radio ads by said committee, public claims of voter discouragement by, among others, the Senate Majority Leader.
You'd think that someone constantly tuned to the news enough to have caught news of network projections in the eleven-minute window between network announcement and close of polling would have been reached by now.
(Although in fairness, I must concede that my surfing the Internet has turned up about 3 actual voters who make plausible claims that their vote was affected by news of the network's "call". So you only have 39,997 to go.)
Cellar,
I understand the "mainstream media" (your quotes, not mine) enough to know that William Safire is not on the NYT's "editorial board," but rather an op-ed *columnists.*
People on the "editorial board" do something called "editing." They're also responsible for the unattributed opinions of the newspaper.
Ohio,
Like I said: With a telephone marketing effort, we could have flooded the hystrionic Robert Wexler's office with voters on a crying jag.
Well, DUH! And do you know how that's done? Of course not. You don't know jack shit about media. I've been a working journalist for over thirty years so shut your fucking hole!
Safire's influence at the NYT (and with the Pulitzer committee too), is spread far and wide. He scarcely needs an official title of of the sort you adore nit-picking over.
Your childish notion of two "sides" to everything (Good Conservatives vs. Evil Liberals) would be laughed at in a culture with any
intellectual backbone.
I don't he voted for Clinton in 1996.
cllrdr -
Well, it was the Left which pioneered the simlistic 'us good guys, them bad guys' zero sum approach to politics, plus the 'scorched earth' tactics used when they had the Congressional Majority and of the Clowntoon administration. What else can you call it when the WH Rapist stood on his two hind legs and talked about remembering 'right wing church burnings' that never occurred.
Riiiiiiight. That's why the actual editorial board (and the reporters who sneak their leftist opinions into straight news stories) take the 180 degree opposite position from Safire on every major issue.
His "influence" is so great that everyone there disagrees with him.
Giggle. The NYT features the likes of Collins, Dowd, Lewis, Krugman, Rich, etc. (liberals all), and one token moderate/conservative, and you claim it's the lone moderate/conservative who's "influencing."
Maybe he could "influence" them to hire a single other conseravtive. Or a single other *moderate*, even.
Despite his legendary obscurity, what Greenspan has to say is usually quite clear and intellectually coherent once translated into English. But his testimony last Thurs before the Budget Committee was evasive and often inconsistent. It was hard to avoid the impression that his intent was to give aid and comfort to the new administration while retaining plausible deniability.
True, Greeenspan explicitly rejected the admin's argument that we must immediately cut taxes to prevent a recession....Nonetheless, the headlines were all about Greenspan's endorsement of tax cuts--something the Fed chairman must have known would happen. And when you look at the tortured logic by which he arrived at that endorsement, you have to wonder whether those headlines weren't exactly what he wanted....
His argument went as follows: given its projected surpluses over the next decade, the federal govt may not only pay off its debt, but actually finding itself using surplus cash to buy private assets. This could cause problems of insulating the government's investment decisions from political pressures. So, we should "smooth the guide path" which turns out to mean that the government never does pay off its debt after all.
Now I would quarrel with those surplus projections. I would also point out that in declaring "it is far better...that the surpluses be lowerec by tax reductions than by spending increases," Mr. G was out of bounds. Since when is it the Fed's business to say that we should have a tax cut rather than, say, a new prescription drug benefit--or for that matter a missile defense system? (Neither program is factored into those surplus projections.) Mr.G himself seemed aware that he was on shaky ground, offering the very inadequate excuse that "I speak for myself and not necessarily for the Federal Reserve."
But the really strange thing about his argument was that he seemed to ignore the fact that the main reason the govt will one day become an investor is the buildup of assets in the hands of the SS and Medicare systems--and those funds MUST accumulate assets to prepare for the future demands of the baby-boom generation. Indeed, by all estimates even the huge projected surpluses of those trust funds will be inadequate to the task. "Certainly," Mr.G declared, "we should make sure that the SS surpluses are large enough to meet our lont-term needs." Well, I'm sorry, but you can't do that without allowing the Federal govt to become an investor.
So if that prospect was what was really worrying Mr. G, he should have focused on the problem of how to prevent the govt's position as an investor from being abused. And there are many ways to do that--including, by the way, realistic plans for partial privatization of SS, which (unlike the fantasy promises of the Bush campaign) would require the govt to ante up trillions of dollars to pay off existing obligations, solving the "problem" of excessive surpluses quite easily.
But Mr.G seemed determined to arrive at tax cuts as an answer...But by the same token, if the economy is strong again by the time a tax cut goes into effect, won't that tax cut do noticeable harm? Mr.G declined to answer questions along those lines.
When a man who is usually a clear thinker ties himself in intellectual knots in order to find a way to say exactly what the new president wants to hear, it's not hard to guess what's going on. But it's not a pretty sight.
Yeah, just like Clinton was a "Liberal."
Keep it up boys, keep it up.
New Product: The Bush Palm Pilot
Aren't you a bit confused? That's not at all what I was posting about.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate's Republican leader predicted Sunday that Congress will approve by July Fourth a cornerstone of President Bush's domestic agenda, his 10-year, $1.6 trillion tax cut proposal.
Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney said Bush might compromise to assure passage of his education reform package, suggesting the president might sign an education bill that did not include private-school vouchers.
Appearing on ''Fox News Sunday,'' Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said Americans ''will get every bit'' of Bush's proposed tax cut. Democrats discussed a much smaller figure.
''We have excess cash. We have a slowdown in the economy. So any immediate injection into private hands where the people can ... save it or spend it the way that it would be helpful to the economy, I think, is very positive,'' Lott said.
Bush's chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, said on CBS's ''Face The Nation'' that hoped a tax cut would come sometime in the second quarter.
''I think that's really when the economy is going to need it,'' he said.
Lott said Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's comments last week about a tax cut were a ''huge'' boost to Bush's plan.
''He helped immensely, because he made it clear that, while eliminating the national debt is important and that a good portion of the surplus should go to that, you could do it too quickly or you could get into a situation where it's paid off -- and then you either cut taxes at that point or you start ... investing that money, and he doesn't think that's good,'' Lott said.
The House's top Democrat, Rep. Richard Gephardt, said tax cuts on the order of $700 billion to $750 billion over 10 years were appropriate. He said Congress must be careful not to count on projections of a large federal surplus.
Why Didn't Clinton pardom him too?
Sorry! 
Is Clowntoon doing too many lines again? Or is he hitting the sauce now?
No, he has rosacea...
How do you know, JAH? Do you have access to his mysterious medical records? Actually, he probably does have acne rosacea, but abusing certain substances predisposes one to that.
Why Didn't Clinton pardom him too?"
No bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb. Wen Ho lee is out of jail because the trumped up charges that the freepers floated through Safire lackey Jeff Gerth didn't withstand legal scrutiny. He wasn't the