Therapy"
jexster,
cont.....
Nonresponse bias means those who responded may not necessarily reflect the views of those who did not participate. The response rate was ?? percent. (I'm disappointed not to see the response rate...maybe this fellow also has senior moments.) The results were adjusted slightly to compensate for demographic differences between poll respondents and the Ohio electorate as a whole. Although precautions are taken to ensure the sample reflects the demographic characteristics of the Ohio electorate, precise estimates for total possible error cannot be calculated. The poll was designed, conducted and financed by The Dispatch.
Darrel Rowland Dispatch Public Affairs Editor ...................................
40206. jexster - 9/5/2000 12:56:00 PM
This is the crucial and unanswered question Robt. Their answer is a concession that the ME of 2% does not account for measurement error
Like all polls, the Dispatch Poll is subject to possible error other than sampling error. Other sources of error can be unintentional bias in the wording of questions, data entry error or nonresponse bias.
The very first poll, the Reader's Digest polls of the 30's have the same problem essentially although their non-response bias and selection bias was compounded because of the readership angle.
40207. EricCartman - 9/5/2000 12:56:55 PM
Cellar:
So the media aren't doing their job. What else is new? Besides, regardless of the issue, readers/viewers are very rarely asked to any critical thinking about those issues. Generally it's just "here's the deal, make of it what you will". And since none of the Cheneys, including Mary herself, will talk about the subject, there's just not much to talk about.
What's "personal" for her ain't personal for those unlucky enough not have been born into her family. It's red meat. And heaven help you if you're in the service that Daddy Dick was once in charge of.
Yes, well, Fundie issues aside, the Democrats have been no less craven in their gay rights issues. Neither party will let Mary Cheney serve in the military. Neither will let her marry her girlfriend.
Of course if you were a pal -- like Pete Williams -- everything was OK. In fact when the heat was on, Cheney got him a job at NBC. Why not? It's part of the DOD after all.
Plus Pete was never out in the shit, undermining the unity of the squad.
I agree that it's a more substantial story than the "major league asshole" thing. All the MLA deal does is underscore the fact that W is a callow, indiscreet idiot. Wait till he has to greet the Chicom president. "Hey, there's that major league asshole from China, Jiang Zemin."
Diplomacy is a weird world, where even the seating chart can make or break a deal. Just imagine how this smartass frat-boy is going to go over.
40208. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:04:32 PM
Bush: "Mojo, Where's My Mojo, Anyone Seen My Mojo?"
ALLENTOWN, Pa. (Reuters) - George W. Bush just can't seem to get his groove back.
The Republican presidential nominee misplaced it somewhere in the Midwest a few weeks ago and was still searching for it as the campaign entered the final post-Labor Day stretch.
40209. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:05:39 PM
Bush said he was a ``plain-spoken'' man and proved it, calling Adam Clymer a ``major league asshole'' in an aside meant only for his vice presidential running mate Dick Cheney.
40210. Ronski - 9/5/2000 1:06:54 PM
Cellar,
Do have any links to sites about Lynne Cheney pushing NARTH-like scams and such? Not that I don't think she was capable of selling this sort of snake oil, but I'd love to see it in print somewhere, cyberwise or otherwise.
40211. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:08:17 PM
DNC Unveils Ad Attacking Bush Record of Leaving Children Behind in Texas
40212. Ronski - 9/5/2000 1:10:00 PM
Democrats have been slightly less craven on gay issues than the GOP has. Somewhat more hypocritical in the long run, given their touting of inclusion of gay people and trolling for votes among gays, but slightly less craven (see their platform vs. the GOP's).
40213. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:16:13 PM
C'mon Ronski. The Finance Chairman of the DNC - gay. The ambassador to Luxembourg - gay (no thanks to Jesse Helms).
If this were a dictatorship run by Democrats, you'd have no cause for complaint. But we aren't. We still have to deal with Republicans although there are secret plans now in development for Political Re-education Centers located in freshly burned hinterlands in Idaho.
Sssssshhhhhh.
40214. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:19:24 PM
National Stonewall Democratic Federation
40215. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:22:09 PM
Let's be blunt. No administration in US history has been as strong an advocate for the right of gay and lesbian people to be free from prejudice as the Clinton-Gore Administration. Even former Congressman Steve Gunderson, who is Republican and openly gay, has praised the Clinton-Gore Administration, calling Clinton "a real moral leader on behalf of justice and fairness for gay and lesbian people." And any serious assessment of Vice President Gore's public statements, actions, and progress in understanding the issues would show that he's clearly prepared to move the country even further in the direction of fairness for gay and lesbian people. It's equally clear that any rational analysis of George W. Bush's record and views would show that gay and lesbian rights under a Bush administration would either be ignored or seriously diminished.
National Stonewall Democratic Federation
40216. Ronski - 9/5/2000 1:29:10 PM
And when push comes to shove, as it did in the military and marriage, adios amigos.
40217. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/5/2000 1:30:42 PM
We all know who needs "Reparative
Therapy"
40218. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:33:20 PM
Ronski - That's because the Re-education Centers aren't ready yet. We have the building pads left over from the AIDs quarantine facilities the Reaganites prepared in the 80's but not much else.
40219. Ronski - 9/5/2000 1:59:52 PM
jexster,
I've known said finance chairman for many years, actually. It doesn't change my view of how little you can trust either major party on the subject of gay rights, though the Dems do have an advantage over the GOP here, and will as long as the Republicans pander to the religious right.
40220. Cellar Door - 9/5/2000 2:41:02 PM
I've been looking for specific texts by Lynne. But I've heard her go on about "Reparative Therapy" on the many shows she appeared on hin her Professional Meat Puppet days.
40221. Ronski - 9/5/2000 2:42:54 PM
FORMAL PUBLIC STATEMENTS (Have You Written Yours Yet?)
40222. CalGal - 9/5/2000 2:44:24 PM
BobbyJ,
That letter was a hoot!
40223. jexster - 9/5/2000 2:50:44 PM
Analysts See Massive Momentum Shift to Gore
Or as Poppy used to say We've got Mighty Mo!
40224. Cellar Door - 9/5/2000 2:51:12 PM
"And since none of the Cheneys, including Mary herself, will talk about the subject, there's just not much to talk about."
A serious investigative journalist wouldn't be deterred by such silence. There's a record out there that deserves explicating. Of course "investigative Journalism" is a farce these days what with creeps like John Stossel shilling for major corporations and clowns like Isikoff sniffing out semen stains thither and yon.
"Pete was never out in the shit, undermining the unity of the squad."
Ah but he was in charge of the shit. There he was, night after night in front of the blackboard, detailing how those famous "smart bombs" made their "surgical strikes." Had the Gulf War been popular he would have been played in the movie by. . . . Tom Cruise.
Luckily we got a real movie out of the deal -- "Three Kings."
Rather amazing that it was made, AND was hit to boot.
The problem with the press is that it can't see Mary Cheney as anything other than "scandal." Pardon me, but in the year 2000 there's nothing scandalous about being a lesbian, or having a family that isn't interested in having you brainwashed.
What's interesting (not "scandalous," just interesting) is that they see no harm in others having their children brainwashed.
This is a larger issue than the Cheneys -- or their party, or the Dems, or even gays and lesbians.
It speaks instead to the key questions: Who are we? How do we want to live? And what role should the government take in helping us to do so?
Unfortunately the press isn't interested in even asking such questions within its own ranks -much less utilizing them for the stories that need telling.
40225. Cellar Door - 9/5/2000 2:52:38 PM
toys
40226. jexster - 9/5/2000 2:54:57 PM
``In the debate on debate, Bush has very little leverage. He is out there trying to create interviews instead of debates but the longer he delays, the less chance he will have to make a decent deal,'' said Davis.
Baruch College political scientist David Birdsell said the Bush position on debates looked weak. ``Bush is making a hash of the debate on debates,'' he said.
Only the woeful RosettaStone and the benighted Ari Fleisher (sp?) seem to think otherwise.
2 Morons.
``Clearly, this has been an awfully good couple of weeks for Gore. Bush has had to scramble back up and has
not done a very good job,'' Birdsell added.
40227. jexster - 9/5/2000 2:56:16 PM
And why is that?
Because he's A MORON!
40228. jexster - 9/5/2000 2:59:37 PM
White House national security spokesman P.J. Crowley began a briefing about President Clinton's trip to New York by saying, sarcastically: ``Welcome to the James S. Brady briefing room at your media-friendly Clinton-Gore White House where seldom is heard of a disparaging word - particularly when the mike is on.''
40229. Ronski - 9/5/2000 3:16:51 PM
And John Stossel, in his recent TV outing showing the virtual impossibility of starting a small, family business in India due to the lingering influence of Britain's Fabian socialists under the Raj, was shilling for exactly which major corporation?
40230. Ronski - 9/5/2000 3:23:32 PM
Btw, I think Bush's position on the debates is going to prove a major blunder, and not because the Democrats wish it so. The NY Times quotes Bush advisors as saying that they carefully considered the move and decided that no one knew much about and cared even less about the debates commission, and that it would look like Gore was ducking TV appearances with Bush.
I don't think they're right. Among the ten percent of voters who have not made up their minds are many independents who are not idiots. If Gore and Lieberman play this right, and I suspect they will, they will make Bush look like the coward.
40231. Cellar Door - 9/5/2000 3:33:43 PM
"And John Stossel, in his recent TV outing showing the virtual impossibility of starting a small, family business in India due to the lingering influence of Britain's Fabian socialists under the Raj, was shilling for exactly which major corporation?"
All of them.
"Socialism Bad. Capitalism Good." A familiar refrain.
He's a coporate whore. "What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA" is his motto. Didn't you see the story about his credibility being auctioned on ebay?
Before the sale was stopped it was going for $3.20.
40232. Ronski - 9/5/2000 3:43:21 PM
All the attacks from the left on Stossel, and even the occasional stupidity on the part of his producers (such as in the recent organic food story), cannot change the fact that socialism has been proven bust, and free enterprise a benison.
40233. Ronski - 9/5/2000 4:32:47 PM
40234. Wombat - 9/5/2000 4:50:59 PM
The Cato Institute is particularly idiotic when it comes to foreign/military policy. They apparently do not believe that the United States should have one. If the United States wants to avoid "foreign entanglements," and concentrate on territorial defense (with small forces in Western Europe and Korea), than the military establishment could afford to be much smaller.
If the United States wishes to remain the one superpower, then it must be prepared to actually use its military in situations that might not be clear cut enough for the Colin Powells or George W. Bush's (or the Cato Institute brainiacs) of this world.
40235. Cellar Door - 9/5/2000 4:56:29 PM
"socialism has been proven bust, and free enterprise a benison."
Don't you mean a "Benetton"?
The equasion of capitalism with freedom is one of the biggest con-jobs of all time. My freedom should not be dependent of the slavery of others.
40236. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:37:43 PM
OK, I am back at dear ole SF State U where my stats professor has given me the skinny on the Ohio mail-in poll.
In a word "unreliable" because of the response bias. There is no way to correct for the bias in a mail in poll. There is a way to judge the accuracy through sophisticated "sensitivity" measures which, since they are beyond the scope of the course, I will not bother to investigate.
Such measures are not provided in the boilerplate furnished to Robert.
40237. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:39:11 PM
The CATO institute is equally imbecilic on legal matters.
The better question, what is CATO good for?
40238. concerned - 9/5/2000 5:45:32 PM
Re. 40234 -
Unfortunately for you, the repeated miserable military foreign policy failures of the Clowntoon administration argue against your point.
40239. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:49:48 PM
Two for 2000 Openly Gay Candidates Could Be Key to Democrats Regaining the House in November's Election
Two openly gay congressional candidates in Southern California are
shaping up to be key players in the Democratic Party's effort to win back the U.S. House of Representatives in November.
Long Beach nurse Gerrie Schipske, who is challenging Republican
incumbent Steven Horn in the 38th District, and Palm Springs City Councilman Ron Oden, who is attempting to unseat GOP incumbent Mary Bono in the 44th District, appear to be waging competitive races. Democrats need a net gain of five seats to win the House.
An August poll of 400 likely voters, conducted by Lake, Snell, Perry &
Associates, showed Horn holding only a slim 44 percent to 42 percent
lead over Schipske in the 38th District, a statistical dead heat.
"It's clear the families of the 38th congressional district are looking for someone new who places the same emphasis on quality health care,stronger public schools and affordable prescription drugs as they do," Schipske said
Aug. 28.
According to the poll, only 41 percent of voters said Horn has done an
excellent or good job and only 37 percent of voters said they would
vote to re-elect him. Schipske called that a "dismal performance for a three-term incumbent."
40240. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:54:26 PM
In 1995, Oden became Palm Springs' first black councilmember. He also became the Council's only gay member last year when he publicly
disclosed his sexuality while establishing local support to enact local domestic-partnership ordinances in the region. Oden, an ordained minister in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, has two daughters.
Oden believes Bono is vulnerable, citing a March online poll by the
Desert Sun in which he drew nearly 70 percent of the vote in a head-to-head match-up with the GOP incumbent. "Once again, the voters in this district are saying they want to take back their seat from the power brokers in D.C.," Oden said of the poll. "I am the strongest person to challenge the incumbent and will win in November."
70% sounds fishy to me.
40241. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:54:44 PM
toys
40242. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:54:59 PM
again
40243. jexster - 9/5/2000 6:01:57 PM
Kinsley is perilously close to trademark infringement with his latest
How Big An OxyMORON is GWB?
I claim trademark by use (indeed by overuse according to some).
One thing's beyond dispute however - Jexster hit the nail on the head once again.
40244. Wombat - 9/5/2000 6:02:27 PM
Which failures are those, Insouciant? The restoration of civilian rule in Haiti? The continued hard line on Iraq?, peacekeeping in Bosnia?, Kosovo?, steps toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Even the failures (Rwanda and Somalia) had more to do with reluctance toward committing the forces needed (which is what the Cato Institute and Republicans advocate).
Clinton's foreign policy can certainly be criticized, particularly in his first term when Warren Christopher was SoS, but its acheivements are tangible and positive.
40245. jexster - 9/5/2000 6:07:57 PM
The widespread suspicion that this man may be a dim bulb really lets Bush off too easily. It's not that he is incapable of thinking through the apparent contradictions in his own alleged core philosophy. It's that he can't be bothered. He'd rather just hold two opposing ideas in his mind at the same time. He turns out to be remarkably good at it.
Maybe two ideas aren't that much harder than one, if you're starting from scratch.
I ask for Ohio's legal opinion.
40246. jexster - 9/5/2000 6:22:59 PM
Clinton to attack GOP health care tax break plan
September 5, 2000
Web posted at: 2:35 a.m. EDT (0635 GMT)
From CNN White House Correspondent Major Garrett
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton plans to tout two new studies on Tuesday suggesting that government subsidies work better at increasing access to health insurance than do tax credits or deductions.
Basic microeconomics really and the same point I've made repeatedly about Bush's prescription drug sham, er....plan.
40247. jexster - 9/5/2000 6:23:18 PM
Moron
40248. RosettaStone - 9/5/2000 7:34:30 PM
Hey, Jexster. How's your health? Need an extra prayers next Sunday?
40249. jonesatlaw - 9/5/2000 9:18:49 PM
Ronski- might I suggest some wording borrowed from Miss Manners? Perhaps your parents could send out formal cards:
Mr. and Mrs. Xaiver Ronski
request the honor of your company
announcement that their son, Mr. Ronski Jr. is gay on the twenty first day of September, at 7:30 pm at the Stonewall Country Club. A small dance follows.
Formal Attire
r.s.v.p
40250. jonesatlaw - 9/5/2000 9:22:05 PM
Sorry, the layout is screwed up. I'm having a problem deciding how the press release should be done. They expect so much more detail than genteel correspondence usually includes.
Lets face it, with gay marriages banned, they haven't had to pay for a reception. It's one way to get a party thrown for you like your straight sibilings have had.
40251. joezan - 9/5/2000 9:24:08 PM
A serious investigative journalist wouldn't be deterred by such silence. There's a record out there that deserves explicating. Of course "investigative Journalism" is a farce these days what with creeps like John Stossel shilling for major corporations and clowns like Isikoff sniffing out semen stains thither and yon.
...this, from the author of Famous Hollywood Homos - Everything You Never Wanted To Know About Every Actor Who May Be Gay
Oh, the Humanity!
(Cue Elton John)
40252. joezan - 9/5/2000 9:36:44 PM
concerned:
Message # 40168
"This here's a good dog, Hilliary! Damn good dog!"
Any other caption suggestions?
"G--DAMMIT, BILL! I knew something was fishy that time I found this f---in' mutt wearing a thong!
40253. jexster - 9/5/2000 11:06:05 PM
Cllrdr - See Message # 40251
Saddled with a loser, their buckets of sludge greeted with an overwhelming shrug of the electorate's shoulders, the no-dicked Repugs are now pickin on fags.
yawn
40254. arkymalarky - 9/5/2000 11:19:00 PM
Stumbo,
To answer your last point first Message # 40176, there's a big difference between optional religious classes and fundamentalist religious instruction which is inseparable from the learning day. As for why I oppose vouchers to private institutions, I thought I made my reasons clear, but let me elaborate using your scenarios. If anyone receiving government assistance to get by has enough in their budget to give to private religious institutions, outside their small church donations, and certainly if they're giving an amount that would pay tuition to a private school, their benefits need to be cut way back. Government aid to support the needy is not meant to provide those kinds of luxuries, and that includes donations to the charity, cult, psychic network or whatever, of the recipient's choice. In addition there's the problem here (I doubt in Canada) of zero government regulation, minimum standards, or requirements to serve all types of students for private schools. Not that there's anything wrong with that. They can have complete autonomy to teach as they choose as long as they don't operate with government money, afaic.
40255. arkymalarky - 9/5/2000 11:19:18 PM
As far as the internship, I would like to see more than your personal observations regarding the worth of a year of practice teaching. The direct instruction under a master teacher--not one waltzing through to retirement on worksheets and built-up sick days, but a real master--is invaluable in preparing students to become teachers. Any one who's in that type of program who's finding diminishing returns after the first couple of weeks is probably not cut out to be a teacher, imo.
Most teachers in the past, unfortunately, learned just like I did, in their first year with some 100 to 150 student guinea pigs to help train them. That's why teachers are always told never to quit after their first year. It's an eye-opening experience in which they must learn everything with virtually no assistance. A one year internship clearly would go a long way toward fixing that problem.
40256. jexster - 9/5/2000 11:20:54 PM
Cllrdr -
Speaking of your area....I noticed a guy with a copy of The Celluloid Closet under his arm this eve....comments?
40257. arkymalarky - 9/5/2000 11:27:23 PM
Jones,
Amen on Message # 40180, and it goes double for state education departments and many administrative positions, the products of the educational institutions in secondary ed in particular, but also elementary, which in my experience is much weaker than it should be, who try to send teachers chasing papers instead of teaching students.
Oh, and btw, Stumbo, teachers' unions actually have precious little clout in many local areas, much less state and national. When Clinton implemented his big reform package in AR which many other states modeled and later improved upon (including TX, I'll admit) the idiotic leaders of the AEA picked the Teacher's Test to squawk about. A test any third grader should be able to pass and one over which any teacher who couldn't pass should have been handed a broom and demoted to toilet clerk. That's the only time in my 20 years I remember the teachers union having anything significant to say in anything besides Little Rock school issues. They do pretty well there, but it's a very adversarial and unpleasant relationship they and the LR administration have cultivated.
40258. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:24:22 AM
"This is very telling," says Jake Tapper of Salon.com, adding that the Bush campaign has also chewed him out for his coverage. "Of all the heinous people Bush has encountered, the one we hear him saying something negative about is the one who pointed out that Bush's record on health care is pretty weak. What does he think it's going to be like if he actually gets elected president? He's been spoiled by a press corps that has generally been intimidated or lazy or fawning."
"We think Adam is an excellent and very experienced reporter," says Michael Oreskes, the Times's Washington bureau chief. "They've never complained to us about Adam Clymer. They did raise some questions about that story, and we didn't agree with them. We take complaints by phone, fax and e-mail, but not generally by open mike. It's not the standard approach."
Strictly Bush League.
40259. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 1:07:50 AM
Well it's nice to know that people are still reading Vito, jex.
joezan, of course, has never read my book.
40260. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 1:50:41 AM
.
Keep today's NYTimes away from Shrub. Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman separately administer lessons demonstrating the wisdom of exercising caution when selecting opponents for a pissing contest.
Dowd
Krugman
40261. EricCartman - 9/6/2000 2:10:01 AM
RJB:
Not a bad Dowd column. But both links are the same one. Here's the Krugman column.
I hope.
40262. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 2:34:50 AM
Jones, #40180-1:
"It looks like we are not so far apart after all."
No, we're not; I agree with most of #40180 (though the devil, as usual, is in the details). But let me ask you yet again: do you think the teachers' unions would agree to the kind of reforms you describe? And do you think the Democratic party is likely to stand up to them? (See also my response to Arky, below.)
"Sadly, there is an important confounding variable for market based solutions. The public often chooses schools on factors other than excellence in the education of the student. I would say that there are a number of parents who would choose their child's school on the basis of convenience for the parent."
Probably; so their kids would get stuck in bad schools, just as they are now. But more responsible parents' kids would get a chance at going to better schools that they do not have now. I'd call that an overall improvement.
(Side note: this isn't really a failure of the market, but of creeping socialism, heh; absent guaranteed old-age pensions, parents would take their children's education -- which, after all, largely determines their future earning potential, and hence their ability to support them 30 or 40 years hence -- a lot more seriously. But I digress.)
40263. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 2:37:15 AM
Wombat, #40184:
This actually wasn't a religious school; as I said, the religion class was optional. (You had a choice between that, and "Human and Social Studies" -- unless you took both Latin and Greek, in which case you didn't have to take either of the first two.) In any case, though: clearly, government subsidies of such schools haven't made Canada into an oppressive theocracy. Why such a concern that it would happen here?
"The Constitution of the United States makes it clear that there shall be no established (state) religion. [...] the idea that the government cannot and should not allow actions that impose one faith on all remains a central tenet to the United States."
And why would allowing parents to choose whether their kids' share of the country's education spending went to a public school, a non-religious private one, or a religious private one amount to imposing any faith on anyone?
40264. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 2:38:55 AM
Arky:
"... there's a big difference between optional religious classes and fundamentalist religious instruction which is inseparable from the learning day."
Sure. But even if it's mandatory -- suppose that I compare two schools' academic programs, and decide that my kid would be better off yawning his way through an hour of bible-thumping every day, as long as he gets a much better education in math, English, and so forth? Why would you prevent me from making that choice?
"In addition there's the problem [...] of zero government regulation, minimum standards, or requirements to serve all types of students for private schools."
I have no objection whatsoever to some amount of regulation, and minimum academic standards; that should be a condition of getting taxpayer funding. (There's even more room for negotiation, here; e.g., religious classes not being mandatory could be a condition also. And if some schools refuse to meet that, or any, condition -- well, no harm done.) As for the all-types-of-students (physically handicapped? Mentally handicapped? Uncontrollably violent? etc.) issue -- again, the details would need to be worked out; but surely if it costs the gov't 10 times more to take care of Johnny than Jimmy, it ought to give Johnny's parents 10 times as large a voucher. And if, even then, no private school accepts him --so what? In what way has he been harmed? The money that was earmarked for him is still there.
40265. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 2:47:51 AM
Arky, cont'd:
"If anyone receiving government assistance to get by has enough in their budget to give to private religious institutions, outside their small church donations, and certainly if they're giving an amount that would pay tuition to a private school, their benefits need to be cut way back. Government aid to support the needy is not meant to provide those kinds of luxuries, and that includes donations to the charity, cult, psychic network or whatever, of the recipient's choice."
OK, good; so we seem to agree that parents being able to use gov't money towards (religious or not) private-school tuition -- just like welfare recipients being able to call up Dionne Warwick --isn't a central-tenet constitutional issue, but merely a question of public policy. Now, clearly the latter isn't a sound one; the issue is whether the former is.
(It might not be the only, or the best, solution -- I've yet to be fully convinced of that, myself, and most likely only extensive empirical tests would be conclusive. I'm pretty sure it would be better than the status quo, though.)
40266. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 2:56:33 AM
Arky, cont'd:
"As far as the internship, I would like to see more than your personal observations regarding the worth of a year of practice teaching." etc.
I guess I misread your earlier post; I was assuming that you meant a year of teacher training, with no ed. theory, but still in a simulated situation (such as prospective teachers giving daily classes to each other). I agree that having an experienced colleague look over one's shoulder and offer advice can be quite helpful. But then, heck, why even call it an internship? Experienced colleagues should always be there -- in an organized manner, not just out of the goodness of their hearts -- to help out the newbies, in just about any job. I'm not advocating "Let this be a challenge to you" writ large.
(This is not that different from what I went through in my first year as a TA; after a week of simulation, we were plunged into the real thing, teaching various sections of freshman courses --and a "mentor" would periodically check up on us, periodically schedule review sessions, was always available if we had any questions, etc. The only difference -- and a crucial one -- was that no weeding-out was possible, except perhaps in extreme cases.)
40267. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 3:04:22 AM
Arky, concl.:
"... teachers' unions actually have precious little clout in many local areas, much less state and national. When Clinton implemented his big reform package in AR which many other states modeled and later improved upon (including TX, I'll admit) the idiotic leaders of the AEA picked the Teacher's Test to squawk about. A test any third grader should be able to pass and one over which any teacher who couldn't pass should have been handed a broom and demoted to toilet clerk."
Answer me this, then: why is it that all Clinton could manage to implement, as far as teacher testing went, was a test that "any third-grader should be able to pass"? (Assuming, of course, that he even wanted to implement a harder one.) Could it be that the union had enough clout to block any test that you would've described as "a test any fourth-grader should be able to pass"?
Your first-hand evidence seems to support my thesis, rather than contradict it.
40268. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 4:10:59 AM
I dunno what to make of Krugman, BTW. Maybe he suffered a stroke shortly after getting the NYT job.
"Another big trick involves not mentioning that the tax cut will reduce the rate at which the federal debt is paid down, indirectly costing an extra $300 billion or so in interest payments."
No shit, Shylock; of course borrowing $1 today (or not paying back $1 today) means that I'll owe $1 plus the going interest, tomorrow. But the two options are equivalent -- esp. if I'm the U.S. government, and therefore get to pay the lowest interest rate available.
(I wonder if Paul would lend me a grand today, on condition I repaid him $1,001 a year from now. Surely he'd be happy to make that buck, right? After all, it's an "extra" buck.)
40269. jonesatlaw - 9/6/2000 4:40:08 AM
Stumbo- if you want teachers unions to swallow the bitter medicine of merit pay and teacher testing- it will have to be administered with a spoonful of sugar to paraphrase a famous English nanny. The sugar would likely be significantly higher salaries for those who make the grade, greater input to how schools operate, and some restoration of the social standing of the profession. The keys to social respect in the US of A are money, fame and power. Fame is really out of the question, so we are left with money and power. The power that teachers want is to have greater control of their classrooms, in discipline and instruction. Both are doable, if there is the political will to follow through with the promises of the candidates.
40270. Thoughtful - 9/6/2000 9:57:39 AM
Dare I tangle again with the all-consuming wisdom of the great stumbo? Call me a glutton for punishment, but here I go again.
Stumbo, dear "unsentimental *vulgarity*" (as Dowd says the editors suggest in her op-ed piece today), please explain #40268 to this very dense, not-even-good for ditch digging, no-mind.
If you are estimating a budget surplus that includes reduced interest payments due to paying down the debt, and then instead of paying down the debt you use the funds for other purposes, you can't correctly ignore the fact that the new choice you are making has the effect of raising interest expense and lowering the initial budget surplus estimate.
40271. Thoughtful - 9/6/2000 10:37:18 AM
Hey ducky, how 'bout posting a link to Nader's web site?
40272. Ronski - 9/6/2000 10:49:15 AM
Wombat,
Your Message # 40234 makes no sense. Exactly how does wishing to concentrate on territorial defense and maintaining a military presense in Western Europe and East Asia mean the same thing as not having a foreign/military policy? The foregoing is the policy, coupled with a reliance on free trade.
40273. Ronski - 9/6/2000 10:52:05 AM
jexster,
Re: Message # 40237, your dissection of Cato's legal position papers is eagerly awaited.
40274. Ronski - 9/6/2000 11:16:53 AM
Global Whining
(And the traffic in NYC is terrible because of it, too.)
40275. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/6/2000 11:22:00 AM
40276. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 11:35:03 AM
.
Thanks, Eric, for catching my bad link.
40277. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 11:37:07 AM
.
Wednesday September 6 10:21 AM ET
Gore wows women, Leads Bush in Missouri Poll
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuters) - Getting big support from women, Vice President Al Gore has erased a double-digit deficit in Missouri to pull ahead of George W. Bush by four points, according to a poll released on Wednesday.
The results fall within the survey's margin of error, making the race in the Midwest battleground state a statistical dead heat, according to the poll for the Kansas City Star.
Gore was down 11 points in a similar presidential campaign poll in July, but a surge in support from women helped push him ahead of the Texas governor in the latest survey, 45 percent to 41 percent. The margin of error was 4 percent.
In the poll of 621 registered voters conducted Aug. 31-Sept. 1 by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research of Washington,
Gore led Bush among women 53 percent to 35 percent. In the July poll, women voters favored Bush, 44 percent to 41 percent.
Green Party nominee Ralph Nader received 2 percent and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan got 1 percent in the latest poll. Eleven percent were undecided.
40278. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:08:29 PM
40279. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:09:59 PM
As Dick Armey recently told The L.A. Times, "George Bush is going to demonstrate a new axiom: Good manners make good politics."
40280. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 12:11:29 PM
.
Here are another two columns Shrub should be shielded from, lest he be overtaken by the vapors:
Debates Would Expose Bush’s Hollow Center...Joe Conason
Q&A through a crystal ball...Gene Lyons
40281. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:14:58 PM
Thanks for the Krugman link, Robt, EC.
His analysis of Bush's economic plan once again proves my point. The sum and substance of nearly all Bush proposals is flim-flam. Bush is trying to fool the voters into thinking he's got substance, that he's a "compassionate conservative" with half-baked bunk.
40282. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:18:58 PM
No shit, Shylock; of course borrowing $1 today (or not paying back
$1 today) means that I'll owe $1 plus the going interest, tomorrow.
But the two options are equivalent -- esp. if I'm the U.S.
government, and therefore get to pay the lowest interest rate
available.
Take a look at how much the US pays as interest on the national debt, a debt bequeathed to us and to our children by Reagan/Bush and threatened with further irresponsible growth by the flim-flam Moron.
The 2 options are equivalent
Visa's got an application in the mail today for Stumbo followed shortly by junk mail from Wee, Screw & Ewe, bankruptcy attorneys
40283. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:23:59 PM
But Mr. Bush's number games on taxes pale in comparison with his breathtaking audacity on Social Security. In case you have been in hibernation these last six months: Mr. Bush has proposed with great fanfare a partial privatization of Social Security, an idea that has its virtues(and its vices, but never mind that right now). But what is his plan? All we know is that he proposes to allow individuals to invest part of the money they currently contribute to Social Security, which will reduce the inflow of money into the Social Security system by $1.3 trillion over the next decade — and that he insists he will not cut benefits.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, GWB what GWB proposes requires a $1.3 trillion inflow of money from the General Fund over and above any amounts that may be required to meet the baby boomer retirements.
Bush doesn't put forth a detailed budget plan because to do so would show what he's shown in his speeches and in his stewardship of Texas gov't - the Moron can't add.
40284. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:33:23 PM
From Paul Krugman's Website
Here's why Bush's plans have me upset: our current situation is one in which, mainly through good luck - an unexpected economic boom, together with a political deadlock that has prevented both ambitious new spending plans and irresponsible tax cuts - we have managed to achieve an almost responsible fiscal policy. That is, our current situation - no wars or major military rivals, demography that is more favorable than it will be for the next couple of generations - is the sort of situation that, on any model, ought to be used to run surpluses and pay down debt. There's a good case that we aren't running surpluses as big as we ought, but at least we've
moved in the right direction.
Now along comes Bush with two major proposals: a huge tax cut, which not incidentally greatly reduces the progressiveness of the tax system; and a partial privatization of Social Security that makes sense only if substantial funds are transferred over from general revenue to make up for lost contributions. These proposals are made to seem less irresponsible than they are in several ways: by relying on CBO budget forecasts that make utterly unreasonable assumptions about
future spending; by not mentioning the budget implications of the Social Security proposal; and by engaging in petty dishonesty, like the fact that the cost of the Bush tax proposal is always given on a nine - let me repeat that: nine - year basis, without taking account of interest costs, and then compared with budget forecasts that are on a ten year basis. A realistic estimate may be that over the next 10 years Mr. Bush's tax cut would subtract around $1.9 billion from the budget, and that his Social Security proposal might require another $500 billion of support from general revenue. Given a realistic surplus projection, which will be in the hundreds of
billions rather than the trillions - well, you get the point.
40285. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:34:22 PM
The Paul Krugman Website (MIT)
40286. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 12:37:56 PM
Most important line in Lyons column linked by robertyjayb:
"The Washington press clique operates by a code of silence that forbids pointing out that a member is "spinning" facts to keep a "scandal" going."
40287. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:40:28 PM
and The Unofficial Krugman Website
40288. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 12:44:17 PM
.
Oh, dear. Yet another columnist seems to want to make Shrub's belly burn.
Bush's Wise-Guy
Side Is Showing...Lars Erik Nelson
Bush suffers from the image that at heart he is still a wise-guy college frat boy. That image is false; at heart he is still a wise-guy seventh-grader.
40289. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:45:31 PM
For those of us, especially those of us in CA, who are deprived
DNC Ad: The Bush Record - Its Becoming An Issue
40290. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:49:05 PM
Jake Tapper had it right when he said that the media has been giving the Moron a free ride.
NBC & CNN becoming party to his Great Debate Flim-flam is just the latest example. The Columbia Journalism Review's content analysis showing a 4:1 pro-Bush coverage bias is another.
Let's hope that the Potty Mouth incident proves to be the final straw, the turning point towards restoring fair coverage. With a 4:1 bias, there's much catching up to do!
40291. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 1:33:00 PM
.
40289. jexster - 9/6/00 11:45:31 AM
For those of us, especially those of us in CA, who are deprived
DNC Ad: The Bush Record - Its Becoming An Issue
Dammit, jexster, give warning of video in your links. My poor little machine choked and died.
40292. Dusty - 9/6/2000 1:38:30 PM
jonesatlaw
if you want teachers unions to swallow the bitter medicine of merit pay
Is merit pay really considered "bitter medicine"? Sad, if true.
40293. jexster - 9/6/2000 1:39:48 PM
In stark contrast to GWB manifest econ flim-flam & scam, the next President of the US announced a detailed budget plan including a $300 million hedge against overly optimistic budget assumptions
Here
40294. jexster - 9/6/2000 1:40:22 PM
"300 billion" - you'd think I came from Austin TX!
40295. Orca - 9/6/2000 1:54:33 PM
40296. Dusty - 9/6/2000 2:01:21 PM
jexster
Take a look at how much the US pays as interest on the national debt, a debt bequeathed to us and to our children by Reagan/Bush...
Reagan?
Attributing the debt to presidents is economic ignorance, but, even if you want to take a mindlessly simplistic approach and look at the change in debt while a President is in office, less than a third of the current debt was added during Reagan's tenure. Most of it came during the Bush/Clinton years.
(Please don't tell me that interest paid in recent years should be attributable to prior Presidents, no, don't throw me into that briar patch.)
40297. Thoughtful - 9/6/2000 2:41:31 PM
Dusty,
Federal Debt:
1980, 909.1
1988, 2601.3
1992, 4002.1
2000 est. 5617 (based on CBO data)
So under Reagan, the debt rose nearly 3 fold, in 8 years; under Bush it rose 1.5 times in 4 years; and under Clinton it rose 1.4 times over 8 years.
Federal Debt as a share of GDP (%)
1980 33%
1988 53%
1992 64%
2000 est. 58%
40298. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:26:27 PM
40299. Jonesatlaw - 9/6/2000 4:32:59 PM
Could some of the number literate and econ savy Moties address what the economic effect of Gore's $300 billion nest egg would be? Would it take money out of circulation? What would it do to interest rates, inflation etc? I'm asking for classical theory first, then you all can dazzle the dullards with competing models.
40300. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:33:03 PM
attributing debt to presidents is economic ignorance
See Thoughtful's post and read Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Non-Sense in the Age of Diminished Expectations - Paul Krugman
and tell me you still believe that horseshit.
40301. OhioSTOPAS - 9/6/2000 4:35:42 PM
Walter Shapiro, in USA Today today (huh?) on Bush and Cheney:
"[Bush's] I-didn't-know-the-microphone-was-on comment Monday morning will provide fodder for late-night comedians all week long. Adding to the hilarity was Dick Cheney's sycophantic follow-up, 'Yeah, big time.'"
Cheney's classic portrayal of the corporate-macho yes-man was funny, yes, but Bush was very lucky Cheney was so "sycophantic". For example, imagine how much MORE foolish Bush would have looked if Cheney had responded, "Ssh -this microphone might be on."
40302. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:36:25 PM
When Reagan gave us "voodoo" economics - the laughable Laffer curve - he gave us debt unprecedented in US history. Debt that, had it not been for Europeans and Japanese who were willing to take 7-8%+ notes, would have created a liquidity crisis the likes of which Brazil's worst nightmares don't approximate.
Economic Sense v. Non-Sense - burn it into your brain.
40303. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:38:32 PM
funny GOP money
40304. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:38:49 PM
toys
40305. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:46:55 PM
Don't look to me for models....Setting 300 billion of the surplus aside it seems to me is prudent. It would have some deflationary impact - no tax cuts, no gov't spending, and would exert downward pressure on interest rates.
At bottom, though, is its manifest prudence. Bush has more than frittered away the surplus with his scams all based upon projections that our unprecedented economic boom will continue and there will be no tax cuts or major spending increases.
Its one thing for a pol to court Rosie Scenario in an election year, quite another to run the government. Nonetheless, I don't fault an executive or wannabe executive for setting high standards and goals provided they have some ground in reality and provided that his plans also include provision for the downside.
Contrast then, the Gore SS plan with the Bush SS plan that Krugman so devastates in the above link.
40306. Dusty - 9/6/2000 4:47:19 PM
Thoughtful
Your post just helps to show that there are multiple ways to look at the debt. But until someone makes a credible argument that the President has sole responsibility, or even the majority of the responsibility, all of the measures are close to worthless in terms of commentary on a particular President.
40307. Dusty - 9/6/2000 4:50:13 PM
jexster
I've read enough of Krugman to know that he wouldn't even attempt to measure a President based upon the change in debt during the president's tenure in office.
If you can point me to an article that concludes otherwise, please let me know.
40308. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:53:39 PM
THE RICH, THE RIGHT, AND THE FACTS 40309. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:55:48 PM Dusty - He did in the above cited book and did so quite thoroughly. 40310. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 4:56:53 PM A news media gold mine. 40311. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:57:02 PM The book is short. Its pithy. It does not spare charlatans,right or left. 40312. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:59:50 PM Sorry Rose. 40313. JudithAtHome - 9/6/2000 4:59:52 PM George Bush shows up on NBC September 12 for an interview; Al Gore stays home. Bush looks like a fool for thinking an hour long interview on one network is a debate. 40314. jexster - 9/6/2000 5:00:51 PM None save Rosetta but then again I hear tell she's got one helluva long position in Serbian War bonds. 40315. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 5:06:02 PM Wrong, Jexster. NBC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC and C-SPAN will all cover it. Tim Russert will give the whole hour to Bush and he scores. 40316. Dusty - 9/6/2000 5:07:45 PM jexster 40317. JudithAtHome - 9/6/2000 5:19:49 PM ABC and CBS are not going to cover an event done by NBC. The top three networks are ABC, CBS, and NBC. 40318. jexster - 9/6/2000 5:20:16 PM From The Statistical Abstract of the US 40319. jexster - 9/6/2000 5:21:27 PM The excerpt and the link was on another point. Should have been clear. 40320. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 5:24:04 PM If Prince Albert doesn't show up, the headlines September 13 will be AL GORE: MISSING IN ACTION 40321. Thoughtful - 9/6/2000 5:33:34 PM Dusty, from Peddling Prosperity, 1994, a chapter on the budget deficit: 40322. Thoughtful - 9/6/2000 5:38:39 PM Another example from the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office January 1994 budget review: 40323. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 5:40:58 PM . 40324. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 5:49:23 PM 40320. RosettaStone - 9/6/00 10:24:04 PM 40325. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 6:02:27 PM Absolutely. He was flying F-102 jets protecting our southern flank from communist Cuba and the evil Soviet empire 40326. JudithAtHome - 9/6/2000 6:06:26 PM Major League....well, you know the rest. 40327. JudithAtHome - 9/6/2000 6:06:43 PM Big Time... 40328. glendajean - 9/6/2000 6:14:13 PM Living in Texas during those years, I remember how threatened we all felt. Invasion seemed imminent. Who knew if that bright light we heard about in school would come, forcing us to run into the ditches along the farm to market roads, ducking and covering our head from the atomic blast? 40329. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 6:21:01 PM Many are called. Few are chosen. Only the best flew the hot F-102. 40330. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 6:22:51 PM So he sent. . . Lady Bird. 40331. jonesatlaw - 9/6/2000 6:38:26 PM Rosetta Stoned-Only the best flew the hot F-102. In 1962, perhaps, but by the time Bush did his stint, the Delta Dagger was nearing the end of its phase-out. It was headed for the glue factory, and had been completely replaced by the F-106 Delta Dart in active units. 40332. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 6:42:43 PM Jones: When was the last time you flew a fast, single-seater military jet? 40333. jonesatlaw - 9/6/2000 6:52:12 PM Rosetta you have your head up Bush's six so far you can't tell if it's day or night. The F-102 entered service in 1956, and it was succeded by the F-106 in 1959. It was far outdated when Bush flew it. If only the best flew it, Bush, Mr. 25th percentile would have never got near it. 40334. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 6:53:54 PM Here's a REAL Air Force Flyboy. Not a Daddy's Boy fake like Dubbya. 40335. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:11:57 PM Let me get this straight. The B-52 went into service in 1954. Are the pilots flying it now, dumbies? 40336. jonesatlaw - 9/6/2000 7:17:28 PM Rosetta- Yes, the B-52 dates from the 50's, and they have been continuously upgraded and rebuilt over the years. They are still in service with active Air Force units. Many of the current pilots are younger thantheir aircraft. 40337. arkymalarky - 9/6/2000 7:25:13 PM Stumbo, Message # 40264 40338. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:25:13 PM AWOL? What are you talking about? 40339. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:27:00 PM Buy Serbian War Bonds! 40340. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:28:26 PM While Al Gore was servin his country in Vietnam, the Moron was AWOL in Alabama. 40341. arkymalarky - 9/6/2000 7:28:38 PM PS--the high school of choice for my husband's nephew, a kid who made a perfect score on his SATS in math, was the infamous Central High in Little Rock, known to have one of the best AP programs available in public schools. And though he was accepted to Yale he couldn't afford it and didn't qualify for the financial aid, so he's working on his second engineering degree at UofA and has managed that in about four years with all the AP tests he passed, having begun as a solid sophomore with Cal III as his first college math course. 40342. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:31:17 PM Some folks are born silver spoon in hand 40343. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:31:40 PM toys 40344. concerned - 9/6/2000 7:33:35 PM Re. 40336 - 40345. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:36:38 PM Right, concerned. These clowns are making it seem flying military jets is comfortable. 40346. concerned - 9/6/2000 7:37:05 PM From Christopher Hitchen's 'Bill of Goods' He's not exactly my cup of tea but he makes some telling points at the expense of US Socialists: 40347. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 7:37:15 PM Such bullshit! 40348. concerned - 9/6/2000 7:38:28 PM Did he say he wanted to end poverty as we know it? No, he said he wanted to end welfare as we know it. Did he say that the morals of the "greed decade" overclass could use an overhaul? No, he said that the morals of the underclass required strict attention. Did he quarrel with the Dixiecrats? No, he promoted Lloyd Bentsen to treasury secretary after picking a fight with Jesse Jackson over Sister Souljah. Gays in the military, along with people on death row and in public housing -- where warrantless searches were instituted -- joined the large number of Americans for whom "the era of big government" was not over, but had just begun. And those foolish enough to believe the promise about health care found themselves handed over to the tender mercies of the HMOs, an ongoing scandal that will now require a great deal more government regulation rather than less. 40349. concerned - 9/6/2000 7:38:45 PM A price has to be paid for all this, and the immediate as well as longer lasting cost is this: American Democratic liberalism has lost its honor and prestige and has proved itself as adept in making excuses for power as any Babbitt in the Nixon era. (Clinton's fawning speech at Nixon's funeral, I was told by the late, great, and prescient Joseph Heller, contained all you needed to know about him.) 40350. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:38:59 PM Come gather round people wherever you roam 40351. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:39:22 PM toys 40352. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:40:42 PM Cellar has a problem with Christopher Hitchens. 40353. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 7:42:03 PM Yeah right -- Hitchens is a Socialist. 40354. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:42:56 PM Avoiding Vietnam was the last smart thing the Moron ever did. 40355. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:44:09 PM When she was mayor, Dianne Feinstein flew an F-18 Blue Angel. 40356. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:45:54 PM Concerned: With CD regarding Hitches, you can't forget the problem of jealousy. 40357. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:47:46 PM Did she break her leg, jexster? She can't even walk straight. 40358. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:48:17 PM Whatever you think of George W. Bush, 40359. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:49:59 PM Rose - 40360. arkymalarky - 9/6/2000 7:51:22 PM Stumbo, 40361. arkymalarky - 9/6/2000 7:51:44 PM The current test teachers are required to take in their respective fields is the NTE, which is a thorough and rigorous test (at least in English, Math, Spanish, and Social Studies, which are all I've had direct or indirect experience with), but like any other national standardized tests of that nature (including the AP's fwiw), its effectiveness varies from state to state because they set the cutoff scores, just as different universities set cutoff scores for AP tests. 40362. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:55:11 PM Jex: That may be true since Clinton took over the military but not back in the 1960s. 40363. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:56:10 PM they had put 40364. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:56:44 PM What's with all this white space? 40365. concerned - 9/6/2000 7:57:45 PM 40366. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:59:35 PM Did you know that Gore had his teeth fixed recently. 40367. concerned - 9/6/2000 8:01:15 PM Re. 40366 - 40368. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 8:07:40 PM Only a Communist would get his teeth fixed! 40369. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 8:09:54 PM This is fun but I have to do homework with the kids. Toodle-oo. 40370. concerned - 9/6/2000 8:10:22 PM 40371. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 8:24:39 PM Look -- Gore's giving the Communist salute! 40372. bloodnfire - 9/6/2000 8:25:39 PM We had an amusing uproar here in the Panhandle of Florida the day before yesterday (Monday 4th). The Superintendant of Schools is running for re-election. His opponant notices that many of his 'vote for for me' signs are missing, and suspects the Superintendant. 40373. arkymalarky - 9/6/2000 8:28:03 PM How funny! It appears no nefarious political tactics are safe any more with modern technology. 40374. Wombat - 9/6/2000 9:01:44 PM Hey Rosie: 40375. Wombat - 9/6/2000 9:17:45 PM Let me get this straight, Insouciant. You cite Christopher Hitchens gleefuly as he criticizes Clinton/Gore for not being "Socialist" enough, and for emulating the Republicans in terms of what Hitchens considers threats to dissent. Can you see a slight inconsistency in this in terms of your proclaimed distaste for what you call socialism and your adoration of the sainted Reagan? 40376. concerned - 9/6/2000 9:23:01 PM re. 40375 - 40377. Wombat - 9/6/2000 9:40:28 PM I dare say you'll change your tune about Hitchens when he turns his critical spotlight on the vast spaces that make up George W's political philosophy, and his less than stunning record (compared to his current rhetoric) during his governorship in Texas. 40378. MsIvoryTower - 9/6/2000 10:15:13 PM Wombat 40379. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 10:44:25 PM The Ivins book is trash. I think she sold less than 5,000 copies. 40380. concerned - 9/6/2000 10:49:13 PM I'd sure hate to have my magnum opus be a lousy remaindered book like that. Was it a vanity publisher who had it printed? 40381. concerned - 9/7/2000 12:08:39 AM 40382. Stumbo - 9/7/2000 1:14:33 AM Jones, #40269: 40383. Stumbo - 9/7/2000 1:23:51 AM Th, #40270: 40384. Stumbo - 9/7/2000 1:30:23 AM Arky, #40337: 40385. Stumbo - 9/7/2000 1:35:22 AM Arky, #40360: 40386. jexster - 9/7/2000 2:50:15 AM GOP Fat Cats Worried They Done Bought A Dim Bulb 40387. jexster - 9/7/2000 2:53:48 AM While Rosetta Stone was busy trying to reduce her long position in Servian War Bonds and host lavish K St. Parties for Slobo's Re-election bid, there was trouble on the home front: 40388. concerned - 9/7/2000 2:59:39 AM BUSH AD KEEPS UP DEBATE PRESSURE 40389. concerned - 9/7/2000 3:01:02 AM Pinocchio Bore: Liar, debate promise breaker, no integrity at all. 40390. concerned - 9/7/2000 3:09:55 AM Weak on National Defense, Alphalfa Bore Stiffs American Legion National Convention 40391. jexster - 9/7/2000 3:10:44 AM Guess you aren't part of the inner circle of GOP fat cats, concerned. Didn't get the word about the third week in a row of Bush screw ups. 40392. jexster - 9/7/2000 3:11:39 AM "George Bush, Post 77, reporting for duty." - Howdy Doody 40393. concerned - 9/7/2000 3:12:04 AM Thankyuh! 40394. concerned - 9/7/2000 3:12:40 AM My 40393 was in response to 40391, of course. 40395. jexster - 9/7/2000 3:12:48 AM Flummoxed & Confused, Howdy Doody Changes Tune on Defense 40396. jexster - 9/7/2000 3:13:25 AM dim bulb 40397. jexster - 9/7/2000 3:14:33 AM Nite TD 40398. Thoughtful - 9/7/2000 8:51:15 AM jonesatlaw, not a complete answer, and maybe more of a question, but I've always thought that any kind of government "trust fund" was utter b.s. because the federal budget is run on a cash basis. There is no capital accounting. When they build a building, they don't set up an asset account for building and then deduct depreciation expense over a period of years. The cost of the building is an expense in the year it occurs -- all strictly cash basis. So things like a social security trust fund, etc. don't exist other than as an accounting gimmick. Each year the government takes in and spends. If they spend more than they take in, debt rises. If they spend less, debt falls. That's it. 40399. Thoughtful - 9/7/2000 8:59:25 AM stumbo, I think you are mistaken here. I'm sure Krugman is more than well aware of the time value of money. Obviously I'm not a mind reader, but I believe the point Krugman was making was the same one I'm making. W's budget proposal ignores the fact that by not paying down the debt, interest expense will rise. I think that because the entire gist of his argument was that W's proposal overspends what is probably already an overestimate of future surpluses, and thus is fiscally unsound. 40400. Dusty - 9/7/2000 9:25:46 AM Stumbo 40401. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/7/2000 9:31:08 AM 40402. JudithAtHome - 9/7/2000 9:31:19 AM Dusty: 40403. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/7/2000 9:50:50 AM ...Moreover, the Ivin's book is ranked 679th in Amazon.com sales, 16th and 10th in Primenet and charity/non-profit Purchase Circles, Rosey -- you and your candidate are the ones talking "trash." 40404. stostosto - 9/7/2000 9:51:17 AM Stumbo Message # 40268: 40405. rubberducky - 9/7/2000 9:51:41 AM HaHaHa 40406. stostosto - 9/7/2000 9:54:32 AM Of course what I refer to as "my five cents" are the remarks at the bottom of my last post. The blockquote is a quote from Stumbo's earlier post. 40407. RosettaStone - 9/7/2000 9:55:43 AM wizard: pretty funny. You're demented and mote is lucky to have you. 40408. Cellar Door - 9/7/2000 9:59:08 AM Actually it would be a good idea to give the page a redesign via an image of some sort -- say one of Dubbya created by Wiz, or some drawing or other that would be changed on a weekly or monthly basis. 40409. Jonesatlaw - 9/7/2000 10:39:03 AM Cellar- I would have to ask for equal time for Gore. I'm sure that there would be plenty of Moties who would volunteer concepts for the Wiz's work, or would seek the Wiz's skill in creating their own. 40410. joezan - 9/7/2000 10:56:40 AM 40411. joezan - 9/7/2000 10:57:45 AM 40412. Cellar Door - 9/7/2000 11:02:37 AM None of us work for the NYT, joe. 40413. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:06:03 AM Gore Up By 6 In Zogby Poll 40414. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:07:54 AM Joe Z - Problem is we want as many people as possilbe see the Imbecile in a real debate - no in 3 real debates PLUS Larry King. 40415. OhioSTOPAS - 9/7/2000 11:08:02 AM Joezan (Message # 40410): What's your point? 40416. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:10:06 AM If I were Bush I'd stop yappin about the debate adn start worryin about the ass-kickin Gore is giving him. 40417. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:11:22 AM Ohio - 40418. OhioSTOPAS - 9/7/2000 11:15:22 AM Maybe Bush's "I didn't know the microphone was on" APPARENT faux pas was actually deliberate attempt to gain identification with the Gipper. A stroke of genius that will pay off when the Reagan deathwatch begins in October. 40419. OhioSTOPAS - 9/7/2000 11:15:48 AM . . . actually a deliberate attempt . . . 40420. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:28:58 AM 6 1/2 should be 7 1/2 40421. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:38:59 AM Bush Debate Ploy Falls Flat - WPost 40422. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:49:43 AM 40423. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/7/2000 11:58:03 AM 40408. Cellar Door - 9/7/00 2:59:08 PM 40424. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:05:05 PM The Wash. Post article correctly underscores how Bush is making a big mistake in the "debate debate." Moreover, instead of talking about things that are arguably more important to his campaign, he talks about the debates, and digs a deeper hole no matter what his handlers claim. 40425. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:07:21 PM Ronski: We don't want to reduce the progressivity of the income tax system nor increase the increasing disparity of income in this country. See my Krugman post on the subject yesterday.... 40426. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:09:28 PM God forbid we return to the fallacious, irresponsible, unfair, inequitable, and economically non-sensical era of trickle down, supply-side, Laffer curve, voodoo economics 40427. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:10:48 PM The Rich, The Right & The Facts - Paul Krugman in the American Prospect 40428. robertjayb - 9/7/2000 12:15:25 PM . 40429. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:15:27 PM Figure 1 shows a picture that ought to be part of the consciousness of anyone who thinks about trends in the U.S. economy since the 1970s. The figure shows the rate of growth of income at selected points in the income distribution over several different periods. 40430. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:15:46 PM 40431. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:16:25 PM jexster, 40432. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:21:20 PM The "Krugman Calculation" 40433. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:22:35 PM Btw, the election is over. Barring some major gaffe by the Democrats, Gore will win thusly: 40434. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:24:34 PM Figure 2 ought to suggest to you that we are not talking about those schoolteachers: the really big income gains were not near the bottom of the top quintile, but at its top. Indeed, according to the CBO's numbers the share of after-tax income going to the ninth decile families between the 81st and 90th percentiles actually fell slightly between 1977 and 1989. So all of the siphoning went to families in the top 5 or 10 percent. And given Figure 2, one might well suspect that the bulk went to the top 1 percent. 40435. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:25:11 PM 40436. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:25:32 PM 40437. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:25:57 PM (I've been fence-sitting on a prediction, but what tips the scale for me is seeing that Gore has done what I thought he would, which is appeal to the middle class. The NY Times reported this morning that Gore has dropped "working families" for "middle class families" in his stump speech.) 40438. robertjayb - 9/7/2000 12:28:53 PM . 40439. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:30:02 PM Epstein's right to a point. He corrrectly identifies that the Bush programs give rise to the problem I have repeatedly noted of "adverse selection" and the problem underlying both the Gore and Bush programs that subsidizing service to any extent, increases service demand and thus exerts upward pressure on medical costs. 40440. JudithAtHome - 9/7/2000 12:30:17 PM I think Bush is making a huge mistake with this debate stuff; it looks as though he is afraid to debate Gore for 270 minutes. If he isn't confident enough to stand toe to toe with Gore for that amount of time, why should we trust that he is tough enough to stand up to the job of running the country? 40441. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:35:50 PM "Consider how health insurance affects the quantity of health care services performed. Suppose the typical medical procedure costs $100, yet a person with health insurance pays only $20 when she chooses to have an additional procedure performed.... 40442. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:35:51 PM Nonsense about Epstein. He proposes the marketplace and genuine competition, as opposed to more welfarism. 40443. Wombat - 9/7/2000 12:36:02 PM Judith: 40444. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:36:16 PM See above post. 40445. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:37:12 PM Still think I'm talking "nonsense"? 40446. RosettaStone - 9/7/2000 12:37:36 PM Bush will be there. For sure. 40447. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:39:42 PM Has Bush's Marie Antoinette comment about the debates been noted here? When told that some people did not have cable TV and thus would miss the Larry King debate, he is reported to have said, "They could watch it on their computer." 40448. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:39:47 PM Buy Servian War Bonds!!!! 40449. Wombat - 9/7/2000 12:40:35 PM Rosie: 40451. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:42:32 PM After 3 weeks of straight campaign bumbling, as the Moron continues to sink in the polls, you'd think he'd get the message... 40452. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:42:50 PM toys 40453. rubberducky - 9/7/2000 12:43:29 PM 40454. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:43:31 PM OK RD.... 40455. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:44:58 PM RD - 40456. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:45:14 PM Subsidization of benefits produces excessive use. End subsidization, and you end excessive use. Lower subsidization levels, and you lower excessive use. Only the latter is politically feasible at any time in the foreseeable future. 40457. rubberducky - 9/7/2000 12:45:27 PM jexster (and all other “Politics” posters – please take note) 40458. rubberducky - 9/7/2000 12:48:27 PM Re: Message # 40455, jexster. 40459. janjon - 9/7/2000 12:51:34 PM ronski - the only thing that surprises me about your predictions is the meager 3 point spread between Gore and W. It will be more along the line of 6. I agree, though, that Gore's electoral vote will touch or exceed 400. 40460. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:54:14 PM The Bush camp thinks it can challenge the commission's authority because, as a Bush adviser told the New York Times, "Nobody knows who the commission is." That's true. But there's a case to be made for the commission's authority. As the debate over debates heats up, the media are explaining to readers and viewers that the commission is led by the former chairmen of both parties, that it has sponsored all of the fall debates in the past three presidential campaigns, that it has arranged a broadcast consensus with the networks, and that it announced its schedule in January. What has Bush done to match these arguments? He hasn't made a case that the commission is partisan. He hasn't arranged a comparable broadcast deal with the networks. He has 40461. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:54:56 PM janjon, 40462. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:57:16 PM I never posted the entire article, only a fraction of it. 40463. janjon - 9/7/2000 12:58:47 PM W.'s "he won't debate" shenanigans either speak of abject desperation in Austin or a even-more condescending view of the intelligence/memory of the average American than I thought they had, or more likely a combination of both. 40464. Ronski - 9/7/2000 1:03:09 PM Minor complaint about the Wash Post article earlier on the debates: the commission is not non-partisan (as the League of Women Voters ostensibly is, they who earlier mounted the presidential debates); it is bi-partisan. 40465. jexster - 9/7/2000 1:05:06 PM I am betting the GOP will start transfering bucks to congressional campaigns deliberately starved in a failing effort to recapture the WH 40466. janjon - 9/7/2000 1:06:55 PM ronski. Of course, W. could campaign harder. But, will he? There is more than a little rigidity there and he really has made it clear that he wants (and needs) a very measured day. And, if he does, what do you think the odds are that he will indeed stick his big foot/mouth into the deep doo-doo. Not so much more of the misstatements (people are sort of used to that, now), but the peevishness, pettiness, smirkiness will reveal itself. Especially as the campaign continues to unravel. 40467. jexster - 9/7/2000 1:06:56 PM CNN's Candy Crowlie (sp) is reporting from the Bush campaign that they are bracing for a number of polls that show Gore in the lead and that major figures in the GOP are getting very worried. 40468. rubberducky - 9/7/2000 1:08:39 PM does anyone have any differing views on the previous belief that the GOP will hold both houses? 40469. vonKreedon - 9/7/2000 1:15:36 PM 40470. Ronski - 9/7/2000 1:16:37 PM I think the House will go Democrat by a few seats. And the GOP will lose a couple of seats in the Senate. 40471. vonKreedon - 9/7/2000 1:17:47 PM RD - I also would prefer that people write their own arguments, rather than simply posting extensive sections of other people's writing. Make an argument and include short relevant sections of sources to back up factual claims in the argument. 40472. janjon - 9/7/2000 1:20:33 PM vonKreeden. Gore is almost at the point where he doesn't have to do anything. Although it might be a good tactic for him to show up and proceed along the lines you suggest, if he chooses not to, only the true W. believers will conclude that W. is gaining any traction on this absolutely silly "let's talk and debate but only on my terms" gambit he's trying to pull off. 40473. janjon - 9/7/2000 1:21:24 PM ronski. Corzine's money and the Gore margin in New Jersey will make it Senator Corzine. 40474. Ronski - 9/7/2000 1:30:12 PM janjon, 40475. janjon - 9/7/2000 1:38:52 PM Ronski. Well, Pataki and the boys are obviously worried about the State Senate (ergo, or at least most of the ergo, the recent anti-gun violence law signed by Pataki and with a lot of hitherto neutral-to-opposed suburban GOP State Senators very very visibly on the bandwagon. 40476. Ronski - 9/7/2000 1:47:23 PM janjon, 40477. janjon - 9/7/2000 1:49:54 PM ronski. Well, she certainly has to continue to play nice. I am amazed at the number of people I meet (good liberals most) who absolutely despise her. And, for most, it is visceral and irrational. Most will still vote for her, thank God, since they remain sane enough to be able to contemplate the alternative. But. 40478. Thoughtful - 9/7/2000 2:24:33 PM re posting articles or major portions of them...I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that that constitutes a violation of copyright law. However, posting links to articles or posting minimal portions of an article is not. Posting an article with attribution is still a violation of copyright law....perhaps some legal beagles around here can enlighten us more on this issue. 40479. jexster - 9/7/2000 2:35:02 PM Open Mouth - Insert Foot by Tucker Carlson 40480. jexster - 9/7/2000 2:43:10 PM GOP Leaders Worried About Polls & Confusesd, Bumbling, Peavish Candidate 40481. janjon - 9/7/2000 3:15:53 PM Howard Kurtz has an interesting summary of the coverage today about the state of W.'s campaign and the GOP anxiety re same. It is: I've Been Saying For Some Time Now That It Is Gonna Be A GREAT Fall!!! 40482. janjon - 9/7/2000 3:19:07 PM The Kurtz article ends with these comments: 40483. Raskolnikov - 9/7/2000 3:31:28 PM Current Iowa electronic market prices: 40484. CalGal - 9/7/2000 3:37:54 PM All in all, a good day for the Dems. 40485. Ronski - 9/7/2000 4:48:11 PM Libertarian Harry Browne Surges Past Pat Buchanan in Tracking Poll 40486. Cellar Door - 9/7/2000 4:54:21 PM Most telling bit from Tucker Carlson piece: 40487. CalGal - 9/7/2000 4:56:59 PM Ronski, 40488. janjon - 9/7/2000 5:05:56 PM Hope Springs Eternal, eh, ronski? 40489. robertjayb - 9/7/2000 5:18:07 PM Gore ahead by 3 in CNN poll: 40490. jonesatlaw - 9/7/2000 5:31:48 PM Now is the time that the polls count, folks. There is a chunk of solid voters on either side, with a large bloc of uncommitteds. The game plan for GW was to get ahead early, and minimize the damage in the debates, keying on middle west battleground states. Texas is still Bush's as is the mountain west and plains states, but these are a standard republican base. There doesn't seem to be much indicating that Bush has a firm hold on enough swing states to be able to ride the electoral college to office. It still can be done, but time is short. Bush hasn't been long on details so far, and has to play catch up, since the issues he's picked have been traditionally democrats issues. He's playing with fire on the military angle- he forces the issue with Congress and the joint Chiefs- What money haven't they got that they needed? The GOP has been resisting additional spending for the Pentagon because they were trying to hogtie Clinton regarding Kosovo, as well as a few choice pork programs ordering equipment that the Chiefs never requested. 40491. ycmeehan - 9/7/2000 5:37:07 PM Jexster, 40492. robertjayb - 9/7/2000 6:08:51 PM . 40493. Cellar Door - 9/7/2000 6:50:09 PM "You can prep an ignorant man but you can't a stupid one." 40494. RosettaStone - 9/7/2000 7:19:59 PM Clearly you've never been starved, broke and offered fresh but greasy fish and chips by a local like I was in Bath, England, so many years ago. 40495. arkymalarky - 9/7/2000 7:58:18 PM Stumbo, Message # 40385 40496. CalGal - 9/7/2000 8:05:28 PM Just out of curiousity, why not post it in the Slow thread? I keep losing parts of it because it gets lost in the standard stuff. 40497. arkymalarky - 9/7/2000 8:14:21 PM Good idea that I hadn't thought of. I think it's about wound down, but...To Stumbo: I'll check the Slow thread tomorrow for any continuation of the discussion. 40498. Stumbo - 9/8/2000 1:22:36 AM Th, #40399: 40499. Stumbo - 9/8/2000 1:43:12 AM Arky, #40495: 40500. Stumbo - 9/8/2000 1:48:21 AM Arky, CG: 40501. CalGal - 9/8/2000 2:01:03 AM Poorly planned local news bullet: 40502. OhioSTOPAS - 9/8/2000 6:24:45 AM Since Joezan didn't answer my question in Message # 40415, I'll answer it. 40503. OhioSTOPAS - 9/8/2000 6:27:10 AM In any event, all of Gore's proposals on debates have been proposals to EXPAND debate. Gore has never offered to let Bush RESTRICT debate. 40504. thoughtful - 9/8/2000 7:14:01 AM jonesatlaw, on the $300 billion "trust", I saw Laura Tyson on Lehrer last night who is Gore's econ adviser and she did say that the $300 billion will pay down the debt as I thought. There really is no "trust fund" set aside. Gore's plan apparently is to eliminate the national debt by 2012. In my view totally unnecessary, but a better alternative than to tax cut away surpluses which may not materialize and then scramble to find ways to bring the budget back in to balance, just as the baby booomers are starting to retire putting strain on entitlements such as soc. sec & medicare. 40505. joezan - 9/8/2000 7:46:02 AM 40506. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 10:38:25 AM Give up guys. This "Debate over Debates" nonsense is going nowhere. Dubbya can't score points over what Gore said or didn't say because NOBODY GIVES A SHIT!!!! 40507. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 10:42:03 AM Just wait until Sept. 12th when George Bush shows up for the first debate on Meet the Press and Al Gore doesn't. 40508. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/8/2000 10:49:08 AM Yes, let's argue about the military, shall we? If your only tool is a hammer, every problem will look like a nail. . . 40509. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 10:53:01 AM Only the best flew jet fighters in the 1960 protecting LBJ's Texas. 40510. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 10:53:54 AM 1960s 40511. Wombat - 9/8/2000 10:55:43 AM Where were you serving in the 60s, Rosie? Jet jock, Gyrene, or chicken hawk? 40512. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 10:57:20 AM Only the best what? Drunken, coke-crazed, whore-fucking frat boys? 40513. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 11:06:20 AM LBJ made sure the Pentagon kept the best military flyers in Texas to protect his interests. With power, comes perks. 40514. Jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 11:32:16 AM Rosie- What color is the sky in your reality? 40515. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 11:38:09 AM Fat, ugly Joe Lockhart is out. 40516. Jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 12:11:52 PM Rosie, you nitwit, the protection of Texas would have been the active duty Phantom II's not the out to pasture Delta Dagger flown by Delta Dubya. 40517. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 12:16:21 PM Lots of sky to protect, jones. Lots of air space. 40518. Jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 12:21:15 PM Aircraft Carrier Cuba was a dagger in the stomach of oil-rich Texas. LBJ knew it and kept his best here. 40519. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 12:24:50 PM John who? 40520. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 12:30:08 PM He wasn't a jet-fighter....he was a jet flyer/pilot in training. 40521. Jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 12:30:25 PM Rosie- You can't stand Bush's second rate status, his chickehawk service and his AWOL episode that was covered up. You also can't stand the fact that Gore was in country instead of in the country club like your guy. 40522. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 12:32:12 PM Judith, stay out of this. This is guy talk. 40523. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 12:34:57 PM Sorry, I couldn't tell since you are trying to do most of the talking. 40524. Ronski - 9/8/2000 12:35:14 PM 40525. KuligintheHooligan - 9/8/2000 12:36:28 PM This is probably old news, as I just heard about it now via this e-mail sent to me. This was in a British newspaper, so I am told: 40526. Jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 12:36:30 PM Bush apparantly wasn't a strong enough candidate to induce Chenney to vote for him in the Texas primary. 40527. KuligintheHooligan - 9/8/2000 12:37:20 PM "Not that Clymer, schooled in the art of Times impartiality, doesn't tackle the debit side of the Kennedy ledger: his "achievements as a senator have towered over his time, changing the lives of far more Americans than remember the name Mary Jo Kopechne". Oh, well, that's okay then. 40528. KuligintheHooligan - 9/8/2000 12:37:44 PM US newsrooms are fully committed to diversity of gender, diversity of race, diversity of sexual orientation, diversity of everything except fundamental worldview: 92 per cent of journalists voted for Clinton-Gore. I'm not joking: that's the statistic. That doesn't mean 92 per cent of them are [expletives], but it does help explain why their papers are the dullest and most unreadable in the English-speaking world, with a pronounced tendency towards conformity. They're all agreed on what news is: news is "tepid applause" from Republican homophobes, not boos and jeers from tolerant Democrats. American political coverage is a private club, and it's no wonder more and more of the public just leaves 'em to get on with it. 40529. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 12:44:05 PM Real men don't repeat themselves, but I'll make an exception. 40530. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 12:47:14 PM THE AWOL INFORMATION IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND CONSERVABOTS LIKE YOU ARE IN DENIAL!!!!! 40531. rubberducky - 9/8/2000 12:47:49 PM Re: Message # 40525, etc. 40532. Ronski - 9/8/2000 12:50:33 PM Rasmussen: 16% of U.S. is philosophically libertarian, 32% centrist, etc. 40533. Wombat - 9/8/2000 12:51:01 PM Rosie: 40534. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 1:02:06 PM Absolute truth, CD?. Ridiculous. If he went AWOL, there would be a paper trail. 40535. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 1:03:42 PM rubber: As host I would appreciate it if you would act non-partisan. 40536. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 1:03:54 PM 40537. rubberducky - 9/8/2000 1:08:36 PM Stone 40538. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 1:08:46 PM He may have been working to the CIA during the time. Sometimes the best pilots did that sort of duty. 40539. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 1:09:01 PM He may have been working for the CIA during the time. Sometimes the best pilots did that sort of duty. 40540. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 1:10:48 PM (Jon Lovitz voice40541. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 1:11:15 PM (Jon Lovitz voice) "Oh yeah. I was working for the CIA. Yeah, that's the ticket." 40542. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 1:11:40 PM toys 40543. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 1:12:13 PM to the partisan host rubber, who criticizes posters he doesn't agree with 40544. rubberducky - 9/8/2000 1:19:50 PM Stone 40545. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 1:35:51 PM Wombat didn't post any personal info...he merely asked if Rosetta had served in Viet Nam, which of course from his diversionary tactics of yelling "personal info!!!" to you, we can assume he did not but feels free to poke fun of those who did. 40546. Orca - 9/8/2000 1:38:05 PM Ha ha ha ha ha ha! 40547. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 1:40:30 PM Orca: 40548. CalGal - 9/8/2000 1:46:56 PM Orca, 40549. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 1:53:43 PM I think it's hysterical Dick Cheney uses the excuse he was out of the country so he couldn't vote in 14 elections...I lived out of the country for 9 years and I voted in state and national elections by absentee ballots. Surely if little old me could manage it, a guy like Cheney ought to be able to do so. 40550. Ronski - 9/8/2000 2:08:40 PM It does seem to be turning out that while Cheney was vetting potential vice-presidential candidates, he neglected to vet himself. 40551. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 2:11:27 PM Yes...I wonder how many non-green card gardeners he hired to keep those Highland Park shrubs trimmed? 40552. Orca - 9/8/2000 2:14:44 PM Judith: I notice that the delusional levels are ripe for hilarity. For instance, he fervidly believes that Bush can just show up at NBC studios on Sunday and be put on the air, though NBC has specifically said it will refuse to do so. 40553. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 2:16:37 PM Orca: 40554. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 2:17:53 PM 40555. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 2:19:37 PM Rosie's getting more delusional by the minute. 40556. jexster - 9/8/2000 3:25:15 PM Real Plans for Real People'' 40557. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 3:30:13 PM Jeez, what is going on here? Could he be.... reinventing himself ??? 40558. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 3:39:48 PM Getting into flight school and flying supersonic (and tricky) planes like the F-102 is not a job for a coward, or a military press release writer like Algore. 40559. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 3:41:36 PM Oh grow up. 40560. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 3:45:48 PM No, Bush didn't join the Guard to run from military service. That's like accusing a person who takes a shower of not wanting to get wet. To be picked to flying fighters, pass the course, and to actually do it takes a person of decent character, intellect, reflexes, nerve...and ice water in his veins. 40561. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 3:49:05 PM Are you being coy with us, Rosie? Are you beating this dead horse because you want us to think YOU are a fighter pilot? Because I know a few fighter pilots and trust me, you sir are no fighter pilot. 40562. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 3:52:20 PM An F-102, for those who don't know, or who may have served those who flew them, was a Mach 2 interceptor that carried nuclear tipped anti-aircraft missiles and patrolled the airspace of North America for about 20 years, from the 1950s until the late 1970s. 40563. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 3:53:25 PM Judith: Were you the model for what's her name in Top Gun? 40564. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 3:55:22 PM I never saw Top Gun but I can pretty confidently say no. 40565. robertjayb - 9/8/2000 3:58:06 PM The F-102 was a fine aircraft and capable of supersonic speed stripped and going downhill. The follow-on F-106 was the Mach 2-capable real fast mother. 40566. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 3:58:13 PM The F-102 mission was to intercept Russian bombers. Especially from Cuba. So it takes a brave man to fly in the blue yonder protecting the citizens of a great country. 40567. Wombat - 9/8/2000 4:18:55 PM Rosie (who lives in Maryland): 40568. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 4:28:11 PM Wow! Dubbya intercepted Russian bombers, justlike Tom Cruise in "Top Gun"! 40569. Jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 4:36:40 PM Rosie- The F-102 was a high altitude interceptor that was replaced by the F-106 by the time that Vietnam heated up. Since Vietnam had no high altitude bombers, I would be rather surprised to find it assigned to Vietnam duty. 40570. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 4:39:45 PM "Keeping the Soviet Bear Bombers out of American airspace was the job of the few and brave. The F-102 fighters from Texas." 40571. Wombat - 9/8/2000 4:41:16 PM Rosie: 40572. Jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 4:50:58 PM "F-102As stood alert at Bien Hoa and Da Nang in Sout Vietnam and at Udorn and Don Muang in Thailand. The F-102A was finally withdrawn from Southeast Asia in December of 1969. The F-102A established an excellent safety record in Vietnam. In almost ten years of flying air defense and a few combat air patrols for SAC B-52s, only 15 F-102As were lost. Although a few missions were flown over North Vietnam, the Southeast Asia-stationed F-102As are not thought to have actually engaged in air-to-air combat." 40573. Raskolnikov - 9/8/2000 4:52:29 PM In fact, the Corvair F102 "Delta Dagger", the USAF's first operational delta wing aircraft and world's first supersonic all-weather jet interceptor was what Castro used to kill Kennedy. It is a well-known fact that the third gunman was Raoul Castro, strapped to the landing gear while his brother Fidel's personal F102 flew over Dealy plaza. 40574. Wombat - 9/8/2000 4:55:31 PM And I was was reversing them F-102 (Delta Dagger), F-106 (Delta Dart) 40575. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 5:00:35 PM For the record, wombat, I never served in the military. I was at UConn during the late 1960s, early seventies, and had a high draft number, meaning no Alice's Restaurant defense for me. 40576. Wombat - 9/8/2000 5:08:03 PM Well thank you, Rosie. 40577. jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 5:13:40 PM Rosie- In addition to Bush defending us, don't forget we had Snoopy on the lookout for the Red Baron. 40578. Ronski - 9/8/2000 5:16:36 PM Rosie, 40579. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 5:19:22 PM That war, Ronski. The Balkan Civil War is another example of our leaders asking our military to be Hessians. 40580. Ronski - 9/8/2000 5:26:36 PM Rosie, 40581. Wombat - 9/8/2000 5:28:59 PM Rosie: 40582. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 5:32:30 PM Rosetta: 40583. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 5:33:57 PM I don't feel badly that I didn't serve in Vietnam. I just wish that I had been born at a different age when I wouldn't have had the dilemna. 40584. Ronski - 9/8/2000 5:49:22 PM I seem to come from a long line of non-combattants. My grandfather left Europe in part not to serve the greater glory of Emperor Franz Josef in World War One. 40585. jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 8:23:58 PM One of the biggest problems in Vietnam was the hit and miss way that people were called into the service and sent to war. I have heard people theorize that one of the reasons that GI's had difficulty in comming home was that they rotated as individuals and not in units. In WWII, the "good war" guys had time to decompress in units of guys they were familiar with before hitting civilian life. 40586. Cellar Door - 9/9/2000 1:00:54 AM "I was a conscientious objector and thus did not serve in Vietnam." 40587. Jack Vincennes - 9/9/2000 9:22:57 AM Excerpt from "Cellar's War: The View of the Average Grunt as he Endured the Southeast Asian Conflict from the Moviehouses of L.A." 40588. Indiana Jones - 9/9/2000 10:14:11 AM Gore's dubious school record 40589. Cellar Door - 9/9/2000 10:54:28 AM Actually Jack it was "The Hell of War As Experienced in the Rambles of Central park" where i enjoyed sexual congress with members of virtually every branch of the service on a weekly basis. 40590. OhioSTOPAS - 9/9/2000 11:01:31 AM Indiana J. proposes a new slogan for Dubya: 40591. jexster - 9/9/2000 11:46:59 AM GWB truly a dim bulb (25 watter I'd say) abandons his little debate charade 40592. jexster - 9/9/2000 12:00:52 PM The only thing this guy can do consistently is come up with slogans and make specious claims on issues where he is weak. 40593. jexster - 9/9/2000 12:06:02 PM Way to go Ohio! 40594. Indiana Jones - 9/9/2000 12:11:48 PM Al Gore's Gulf War vote put politics over principle 40595. jexster - 9/9/2000 12:21:48 PM Now you tell me, Who's standing on the side of the people?" Mr. Bush said. "You tell me, Whose plan is a real plan with real solutions? It's our plan. It's our plan." 40596. jexster - 9/9/2000 12:44:45 PM Indy - I suppose that your failure to mention that the article was written by Alan Simpson was inadvertant. Worse, Alan Simpson is distorting what he knows to be the truth - this sort of talk goes on all the time on the Floor. Senators forever remind their colleagues how hard this vote or that vote was even though usually they aren't. No doubt Simpson's done the same thing.W 40597. jexster - 9/9/2000 12:59:21 PM Cheney didn't even bother to vote in 14 of 16 Texas electionsAs Cheney's Problems Mount, GOP Strategists Dismayed 40598. jexster - 9/9/2000 1:16:56 PM This article from the AP makes the same point re: Bush....when he's getting his ass handed to him he reaches for a slogan and character attack. 40599. jexster - 9/9/2000 1:19:34 PM 40600. jexster - 9/9/2000 2:16:56 PM MoronSpeak for The Week Discovers Freudian Malapropism
From the American Prospect
Deconstructing the Income Distribution Debate
SYNOPSIS: Broad analysis of current Wage Disparity. Paints picture of rising inequity heightened by Reagan years and inattention. During the mid-1980s, economists became aware that something unexpected was happening to the distribution of income in the United States. After
three decades during which the income distribution had remained relatively stable, wages and incomes rapidly became more unequal. Academic researchers soon began arguing vigorously about the causes of the growth in inequality: was it global competition, government policy, changing technology, or some other factor? What nobody, whatever his or her political stripe, questioned was the fact that there had been a dramatic change in income distribution.
During 1992 this genteel academic discussion gave way to a public debate, carried out in the pages of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and assorted popular magazines. This public debate was remarkable in two ways. First, the conservative side displayed great ferocity in presenting its case and attacking its opponents. Second, conservatives chose to take an odd, and ultimately indefensible, position. They could legitimately have challenged those who have called attention to the growing dispersion of income on the grounds that nothing can, or at any rate should, be done about it. But with only a few exceptions they chose instead to make their stand on the facts to deny that the massive increase in inequality had happened.
Since the facts were not on their side, they were forced into an extraordinary series of attempts at statistical distortion.
More
The tooth fairy didn't do it.
George Bush shows up to NBC for the September 12 debate on Meet the Press. And taunts Al Gore for not showing up after he already accepted.
Bush has already fucked the pooch in the Great Debate over Debates. When ABC & CBS said to nobody's surprise that they'd not be party to the Bush scam, the jig was up.
We want real debates that everyone can see. We want the non-partisan Presidential Commission debates.
As one former Reagan/Bush speechwriter put it: "Nobody's buyin Bush's peekaboo without purpose"
Judith, go away. Cazart wants you in TT.
Not even a hint in the excerpt. Was that intended to illustrate your point, or simply to identify the book?
I need something more to justify reading it.
This is a major league faux pas by the Bushter.
Interest on the National Debt, 1999(est)$227,000,000,000
Defense Spending, 1999 276,000,000,000
It deals with the problem of increasing income disparity.
Just like Vietnam, he hide behind a typewriter in the military flak office in Saigon.
"At first glance, you might think that the US deficit problem began long before Ronald Reagan. The federal government has run a surplus in only one year out of the past thirty. Why blame Reagan for the continuing trend?
"The answer is that until the Reagan years, budget deficits were samll and economically more or less irrelevant. A simple indicator of that irrelevance is the ratio of federal debt to GDP, a measure of the size of debt compared with the size of the economy....In terms of the size of the its debt realtive to the size of its tax base, the US government was in noticeably worse shape when John F. Kennedy took office than it was when Jimmy Carter left it.
"After 1980, however, the gradual downward trend became a steep climb. The era of deficits had begun."
_______________
I've posted this stat before. Someone calculated the difference between the budgets Reagan proposed and the budgets finally passed by Congress. The difference over his presidency was .06%. I would say there is evidence that the Presidents' proposed budgets and those passed by Congress.
"...the deficit picture is significantly brighter than it appaeared one year ago when the CBO projected that the deficit would soar above $350 billion by FY 1998. CBO now projects that the fedearl budget deficit will fall from $223 billion in the current year to below $170 billion in 1996....The dramatic improvement since last January is largely the result of the enactment in August of a major package of tax increases and spending cuts -- the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993."
As you may recall, this was the tax increase that Newt and company said would put the country in the deepest recession ever. Despite much wrangling and political maneuvering, the tax package passed. (I may be wrong but didn't Gore cast a tie-breaking vote on this?) Clinton (and the smart economists he's hired) gets full credit for this one.
Don't crowd the Shrubster, he needs his rest...
WACO, Texas (AP) - It will harder to get a look at Gov. George W. Bush's ranch near Crawford.
That's because McLennan County commissioners have restricted traffic near the 1,600-acre spread.
Motorists cannot park, stop or stand along about three miles near the ranch, which is at the intersection of Prairie Chapel and Rainey roads.
If Prince Albert doesn't show up, the headlines September 13 will be AL GORE: MISSING IN ACTION
Just like Vietnam, he hide behind a typewriter in the military flak office in Saigon
As opposed to the exemplary bravery of George W. Bush.
Thank the Lord George W. Bush prevented this from happening.
We had just lost a president because of the Cubans, and LBJ wanted the best to protect his state.
By the time Bush was at the controls both pilot and plane were in the bottom 25%.
Gosh darn it, you people are pathetic.
Any military jet is dangerous. Very. Only the brave fly them. Cuba and the Soviet Union were our enemies in the 1960s and the Texas National Air Guard were part of protecting the Gulf Coast from their Bears, MiGs and submarines.
But, you can't avoid the fact that your third rate hero was in a third rate aircraft when he wasn't AWOL.
"Why would you prevent me from making that choice?"
If you're saying that my insistence that you pay for your own child's private education instead of having the state pay for it is depriving you of choice, I don't see how that can be so in a capitalist society. Tell you what--I want my child to go to an Ivy League university. I can't afford it, so let's just let the government foot the bill. After, of course, they've sent her to the elite private academy of my choice.
Regarding your response to Wombat on religion, I must point out that these schools are already in existence with these curricula. What makes you think that free government money will suddenly change that without government regulations to go along with it? And if that were to be the case, wouldn't it defeat the concept of parents choosing what type of school their children attend?
Again I think capitalism along with government-funded good, basic care for the young, old, and infirm works best here. Make sure everyone has the basics provided for them in the highest quality possible with the amount of government financial strength we have and those who choose to make a more elite or a religious private institution a priority for their kids can show their commitment by earning the extra money to pay for it.
WRT Johnny, the special needs kid, if he hasn't been harmed in your example, he sure hasn't been helped that I can see. What the sam hill good is earmarked money if he can't use it to get in the school his parents think is best for him? Are you saying he can take that money and use it however he chooses within the public schools? For private tutors? To spend however his family sees fit? But Joe Lower-middle Class' "normal" kid gets his choice of schools, whether it's Moonie Academy or Falwell High.
Again I ask you, when was the last time you flew a F-102?
They've still not found records that he reported for duty Rose although Sen. Shelby's on the case.
In short, I don't see any way that offering vouchers to private schools isn't going to open up a big can of worms with little measurable benefit for most children it's supposedly aimed at helping over that of simply letting them choose among public schools .
Lord don't they hep themselves Lawd
But when the tax man comes to the door
The house it looks like a rummage sale yall
It ain't me, It ain't me
I ain't no millionaire's son
It aint me, it ain't me
I ain't no fortunate one
Whatever you think of George W. Bush, he easily beats the pencil pushing REMF who barely showed up in Vietnam.
Darn hard stuff, if you get my drift.
And Bush was responsible for protecting our Gulf Coast from the evil empire and their lackies.
The Clinton years, in other words, have completed and locked in the Reagan revolution. They have also effectively lowered the boom on dissent. It is now more or less axiomatic that "politics" will continue to be conducted in the way creatures like James Carville conduct it -- as a managed interface between focus groups and high-tab donors, where the holders of the purse strings get to decide which questions are asked in the opinion polls and which candidates get to be chosen before you and I have any say in the matter. This process was pretty far advanced by 1992. But it's now so much taken for granted by the Republicrat duopoly that some conservatives even feel safe in questioning it.
It wouldn't be fair to say that Clinton did all this after reluctantly discovering the limitations of power, or in response to pressure from polls and the center. After all, polls consistently show strong and well-informed majorities in favor of national health insurance, and who's going to claim that the White House acted to make itself popular on that issue? (Not enough special-interest enthusiasm.) No, we were fairly warned as early as 1992 that Clinton wanted to move the party and the country to the right, and this after eight years of Reagan and four of Bush.
We are supposedly entering "legacy time," and I think history will record with some astonishment that this remorseless progress toward a corporate state was accompanied by a chorus of support from the politically correct. During the impeachment battle, for example, feminists rallied around a man who hit on the help and then trashed his conquests if they complained. African American leaders described as "our first black president" a character who as a candidate had made a point of executing the mentally deficient Rickey Ray Rector, who ditched Lani Guinier, humiliated Betty Currie, and vetoed a United Nations resolution calling for international action to forestall the genocide in Rwanda. Liberal academics and intellectuals flocked to a president who had bombed Sudan in dog-wagging style, deceived his Cabinet, taken wagonloads of off-the-record money from Indonesian and Chinese special interests, and rented Mr. Lincoln's bedroom to the fat cats.
By riding what would have been Bush's boom had 1992 not been an election year, Clintonism has obscured much of this for now. I'm sure that there are people reading this and saying to themselves: "Yeah, but what about the Supreme Court and the Christian Coalition? What about a woman's right to choose?" Those were exactly the things that had liberals waving their arms in panic when Ronald Reagan won in 1980, except that back then they expressed concern about matters like poverty and racism and the arms race and human rights as well. If you look back and think about it, you may agree that neither Reagan nor Bush instituted a microsecond of school prayer or declared a single actual fetus to be a citizen, and that neither would Dole have, and that most certainly neither will this junior Bush. But it's important for the maintenance of consensus that some people keep on being scared of what might happen and probably won't; otherwise, they would not be such easy prey for what can happen and actually has. There is even a name for this tactic -- it's called "triangulation" -- and eight years of it have been much more than enough.
And admit that the waters around you have grown
And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin
Then you better start swimin or you'll sink like Rosetta Stone
For the times they are a changin'!
Come Senators and Congressmen please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway, don't lock up the hall
For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled
For the battle outside ragin
Will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a changin'!
Socialist Hitchens is the real thing, something Demo hacks don't understand
A NATIONAL SOCIALIST!
It's a small world that they live in.
Gore did his five months behind a desk writing press releases. Bush flew hot F-102 over the coastline hunting down Soviet MiGs.
I think he's a dim bulb
The line it is drawn the curse it is cast
The slow one now will later be fast
as the present now will be past
The order is rapidly past
For the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a changin'!
You don't have a clue do you?
The mission of the Texas ANG is 1) to protect the borders against Okies 2) to search and destroy Santana's armies
On the internship, it's a term for which the student teacher is completely unpaid that is considered part of the education degree program. The teacher wouldn't teach all classes, but would take two or three of the master teacher(s)' classes and grade, tutor, attend meetings, and everything else that goes along with teaching. IOW, you don't have your own schedule, but take parts (hopefully in varying degrees of size, ability, behavior, etc) of an existing teacher or teachers' loads. It wouldn't be a full regular class load and the intern teacher is not solely responsible at any time. If he/she has problems it is up to the supervising teacher and university advisors to help. It's very much like what you describe in your TA experience.
Message # 40267
OK, on the teacher test, I didn't explain that one very well either (all right, no comments from anyone--and that means you, Rose ;->--I do better irl, I promise), partly because it's hard to keep it from being a long and complicated story. One of the big criticisms of AR teachers was incompetence on the most basic levels--that colleges had passed people with ed degrees who couldn't even do the basics in the three r's. The test was never meant to be more than a measurement of whether that was true, and teachers who failed it would be removed. They had several chances to take it, and I don't know how many failed at least once, or whether any were ultimately dismissed. It was a breeze to me and most people I knew, and I didn't pay any more attention to it. The stink raised about it by the AEA while everything else was ignored was something I found embarrassing as a teacher. Nothing changed as a result of their protests in that regard, either.
cont
And I agree with Jones, but the most important cure to the teacher shortage is the bottom line. Math majors who think they're going to be teachers have a hard time turning down signing bonuses that are larger than their first year's income would be, in addition to yearly salaries twice what they would make as teachers. This is happening in the small nearby university's math dept at an alarming rate. They get intended math ed majors who go for straight BS's or even hire out in their junior years to companies who foot the bill for their senior year in ed. It's about the same for Chem and Phys majors.
Remember that just a few years earlier Kennedy had been killed in Texas by a Soviet/Cuban mole and had put offensive weapons on AirCraft Carrier Cuba.
Only the best protected our southern flank against the infidels.
A Major League Scumbag Pitching Another Slimeball
Too bad they didn't do soimething about the rest of his face. 
Needs Hall Pass for another Iced Tea Break
So he sets a trap. He places one of his placards in a conspicuous place on the highway, and hides a video camera behind a bush. The camera clearly shows the Superintendant driving up in his truck, his own voting slogans plastered all over it, and 'close up' shows him reaching out of the truck door, snatching his opponant's sign, and slinging it into the back of his pickup, before driving off.
The video tape was on the evening news on Monday evening, and yesterday morning (election day) ! It's south of us in Bay County (Panama City), and I haven't heard the final results. But as early returns came in, he was being beaten two to one by his opponant.
A reporter went into his office on Monday and challenged him to explain his actions. The man straight facedly said..'Well, I know I shouldn't have taken his placard, but that videocamera is dirty politics' !! And the beat goes on....
You might be old enough to have been drafted. Did you serve? Fly the hot jets, hang out with the Marines?
My reading of Christopher Hitchen's ideological position in this article is that he himself appears to have more libertarian left wing tendencies than socialist ones.
I understand that Molly Ivins has published a book on the short, but happy, career of GW. She calls the book "Schrub", The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush. Have you read it?
I feel sorry for her because she has cancer.
"... if you want teachers unions to swallow the bitter medicine of merit pay and teacher testing- it will have to be administered with a spoonful of sugar to paraphrase a famous English nanny. The sugar would likely be significantly higher salaries for those who make the grade..." etc.
"For those who make the grade" -- precisely. The unions are afraid that a large percentage of their current members -- maybe more than half -- would not. If I lose my job, is it any consolation to me that the guy who replaced me is getting more money (and more power, etc.) than I used to get?
"If you are estimating a budget surplus that includes reduced interest payments due to paying down the debt, and then instead of paying down the debt you use the funds for other purposes, you can't correctly ignore the fact that the new choice you are making has the effect of raising interest expense and lowering the initial budget surplus estimate."
But that's not related to what I'm objecting to.
In the sentence I quoted, Krugman implies (or seems to be implying) that interest payments are an "extra cost." But they're not; $1 today is worth more to me than $1 tomorrow, and even more so than $1 a year from now (and I'm not talking about inflation, here). The going annual interest rate represents a market consensus about how much more $1 today is worth than $1 a year from now. If that rate is r, then there is no difference between paying back $X today and $X(1+r) a year from now; that $Xr is not an "extra cost."
Now, one could make a subtler argument as to why the government's choice of this or that option might slightly change the interest rate, by some small amount, say, delta r. Then what must be repaid a year from now would be $X(1 + r + delta r), and that $X(delta r) might be considered an extra cost. But this looks much less impressive; so Krugman, no doubt knowing full well that many readers will come away thinking $Xr is an extra cost, carries merrily on -- who cares if they're misled, as long as it makes them more likely to accept his main thesis. This, to me, looks more like the attitude of a propagandist than an economist.
Or maybe he really does think it's $Xr. I dunno.
(Meanwhile, my Shylock line -- which was the real reason I even bothered posting #40268 -- seems to have failed to bring the house down. Oh well.)
"If you're saying that my insistence that you pay for your own child's private education instead of having the state pay for it is depriving you of choice, I don't see how that can be so in a capitalist society. Tell you what--I want my child to go to an Ivy League university. I can't afford it, so let's just let the government foot the bill. After, of course, they've sent her to the elite private academy of my choice."
Well, technically speaking, yes, all of these are examples of denial of choice; but what we're discussing is whether such denial is reasonable. It's perfectly reasonable for the govt to deny you the right to choose something that would cost it (i.e. the taxpayers) more. But I don't see why it's reasonable to deny it if the cost is the same. Likewise, I don't see why it's reasonable to deny it based on a cost not borne by the govt (such as your kid having to sit through religious classes); it should be up to you, the parent, to decide whether that cost is worth the benefits.
I'm not sure I understand the 2nd paragraph, but certainly the govt regulations on participating private schools should be limited to, well, again, reasonable ones. Minimum academic standards, sure. Mandatory study of I, Rigoberta, no.
"WRT Johnny, the special needs kid, if he hasn't been harmed in your example, he sure hasn't been helped that I can see."
I wasn't claiming he was helped (if no private school accepted him). But would you oppose a policy that would help a great many, on the grounds that it doesn't help some small minority?
Well, we actually did get paid (about $1K/month --enough to subsist on -- plus a tuition waiver). Is the internship you're describing concurrent with the (4-year?) program, or does it come afterwards?
"The test [...] was a breeze to me and most people I knew, and I didn't pay any more attention to it. The stink raised about it by the AEA while everything else was ignored was something I found embarrassing as a teacher. Nothing changed as a result of their protests in that regard, either."
Well, right, nothing changed. As opposed to, say, a harder test being given the next year.
And, again, I do also agree about the bottom-line thing -- if public schools significantly raise their standards for teachers, the only (non-coercive) way to get enough candidates who meet those standards will be to significantly raise the salaries. But, again -- the unions care about their current members.
Bush's current taunting of Gore on presidential debates - both in a new television ad and in stump speeches - was also angering some Republicans, said GOP officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
While Bush's pre-emptive ``agreement'' last Sunday to participate in one formal debate and two on TV talk shows was initially cheered as bold strike by Bush, his subsequent refusal to negotiate terms on other formats with Gore was viewed with increasing concern.
Author: DEBORAH ORIN/NYP
INDIANAPOLIS - Republican George W. Bush unveiled a TV ad yesterday blasting rival Al Gore as an untrustworthy debate-dodger as the two sides angle for political advantage.
"If we can't trust Al Gore on debates, why should we trust him on anything?" asks a woman's voice.
It goes on: "Does Al Gore now mean debates depend on his meaning of 'anytime, anywhere'?"
Bush got some back-up when the American Legion's national commander introduced him at its convention and said Gore had refused to appear.
"You deserve better than that," Commander Al Lance told the vets, noting that Bill Clinton had the courage to speak to the convention about why he avoided the Vietnam draft.
Gore aides blamed schedule conflicts. Bush aides suggested Gore skipped it because its commander has said, as has Bush, that the military is weak on readiness.
At the American Legion - on a jammed four-state day reflecting the tense state of a race that is just three days old - Bush again pounded the Clinton-Gore team for letting the U.S. military slide.
"Let's get something straight - these are not criticisms of the military. These are criticisms of the current commander-in-chief and the vice president for not providing the necessary leadership," Bush said.
He'll ratchet up the readiness issue today as he stumps with Gulf War heroes Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf - reminders of his dad's administration.
Bush - who served at home as a pilot in the Texas National Guard during Vietnam - wore his Legion cap and told the crowd, "George Bush, Post 77, reporting for duty."
Guess you're what we in the biz refer to as a Lone-Star swillin Gore Bore
Welcome to the big leagues, this ain't the Bushies any more! Its da Big Show!
What a loser!
imbecile
dumbkopf
dim wit
nit wit
MORON
(Meanwhile, my Shylock line -- which was the real reason I even bothered posting #40268 -- seems to have failed to bring the house down. Oh well.)
I first thought it was a typo, then I saw who wrote it and realized it couldn't have been a mistake, then realized it was quite clever. But I didn't think of a useful response, so I simply enjoyed it and moved on. "40379. RosettaStone - 9/7/00 3:44:25 AM
The Ivins book is trash. I think she sold less than 5,000 copies.
I feel sorry for her because she has cancer."
At least she doesn't suffer from terminal stupidity! 
You might be able to suggest something over in the Anniversary thread...about listing this place in search engines? 
My five cents:
"Another big trick involves not mentioning that the tax cut will reduce the rate at which the federal debt is paid down, indirectly costing an extra $300 billion or so in interest payments."
Which two options are equivalent? Borrowing and not reducing debt? The way I interpret Krugman, that is his point exactly. And his charge is that Bush's proposal doesn't recognise that.
No shit, Shylock; of course borrowing $1 today (or not paying back $1 today) means that I'll owe $1 plus the going interest, tomorrow. But the two options are equivalent -- esp. if I'm the U.S. government, and therefore get to pay the lowest interest rate available.
I don't know if Krugman has the numbers right, of course, perhaps Bush really has somehow accounted for the higher interest payments that his plan would occour due to the higher level of government debt. But I don't see anything conceptually wrong with Krugman's statement.
In fact, go to anniversary thread and see discussion on how to promote mote. Maybe your visual talents can be used to help get more posters.
A great idea!
Vice President Algore, on CNN's "Larry King Live," 03/14/00:
VICE PRES. GORE: The second challenge is to eliminate the 30-second
and 60-second TV and radio ads, and instead debate twice a week with a different issue each time. Would you be willing to. . .to host one of the first debates, Larry?
MR. KING: Absolutely, of course.
VICE PRES. GORE: Well, I accept. I accept.
What's the problem, you Major League Assholes?
Giants lead grows to 6 1/2
Who Let the Dogs Out!
Bush League Asshole & Loser.
Next crucial sign - look for reports that the RNC is sending $$$ to their cash-starved Hill campaign committees.
Don't you think it might also be wise to haul RR out of the meat freeezer in Tarzana?
October may be too late
Mr. Gore told his audience to "read my plan," a pointed reference to the infamous pronouncement by former President George Bush, father of Mr. Gore's current rival, who told voters, "Read my lips: no new taxes."
"My plan wasn't built on cross- your-fingers economics that says we can give more to the people who already have the most and then just hope the benefits trickle down to the middle class," Mr. Gore said, again contrasting himself with the Reagan- Bush era.
To demonstrate a fiscally conservative approach, Mr. Gore said his $300 billion rainy-day fund would be a hedge against overly optimistic surplus projections.
"If today's economic forecasts fall short, this new reserve fund will guarantee that we will not have to cut education or health care," Mr. Gore said. "And unlike the promises made on the other side, we won't be running deficits and endangering America's prosperity."
Actually it would be a good idea to give the page a redesign via an
image of some sort -- say one of Dubbya created by Wiz, or some
drawing or other that would be changed on a weekly or monthly
basis.
40409. Jonesatlaw - 9/7/00 3:39:03 PM
Cellar- I would have to ask for equal time for Gore. I'm sure that
there would be plenty of Moties who would volunteer concepts for
the Wiz's work, or would seek the Wiz's skill in creating their own.
What "page" are you talking about . . ."Flack?"
Then there is the slightly chilling remark from Gore, posted above, about his opponent wanting to give "more" to the "people who already have the most."
Who is the "we" who is doing the giving? And then there is the fact that generally the people who have produced the most have the most. God forbid they should be allowed to keep it.
We, as in We The People.....
A Table Talk poster wants to know:
Why do I have visions of little rat-sized suitcases being shoved into lifeboats on the S.S. Bushtanic?
heh-heh-heh
The income distribution is measured in percentiles. For example, the first set of bars shows the rate of growth of income of the family at the 20th percentile (the top of the bottom quintile). The choice of percentiles ranging from 20 to 95 means excluding the real extremes. Some very important developments are missed by these exclusions, especially at the top. But this picture still gives us a useful baseline.
The three periods chosen are 1947-73, 1973-79, and 1979-89. The first period represents what Alice Rivlin has called the "good years" the great postwar boom generation. The remaining two periods show the "seventies" the period from the business cycle peak of 1973 to that of 1979 and the "eighties" from the 1979 peak to the 1989 peak.
What do we see in the figure? First, the 1947-73 numbers show what real, broad-based prosperity looks like. Over that period incomes of all groups rose at roughly the same rapid clip, more than 2.5 percent annually. Between 1973 and 1979, as the economy was battered by slow productivity growth and oil shocks, income growth became both much slower and more uneven. Finally, a new pattern emerged after 1979: generally slower income growth, but in particular a strong tilt in the growth pattern, with incomes rising much faster at the top end of the distribution than in the middle, and actually declining at the bottom.
In some of the conservative critiques I will describe below, apologists claim that the 1980s represented a normal process, that there was nothing unusual or distressing about the rise in inequality. As the discussion gets a bit complicated, it will be useful to retain the basic image of Figure 1:"good" growth looks like an all-American picket fence; growth in the 1980s looked like a staircase, with the well-off on the top step.
This is the starting point of Krugman's analysis in the article you can find under "American Economy" at the above link. Krugman's views in the article are also contained in a chapter of his "Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Non-Sense...."
I didn't say we should. I am no fan of Reaganomics, or Bushonomics either.
See here for more:
Bush, Gore, Medicare and The Gloomy Truth
(NY Times site, requires free registration)
It is a remarkable fact that incomes have soared so much at the top of the U.S. income distribution. But is it important? Until recently, most economists thought not; growing poverty might be an important social issue, but the fact that some people are very rich was only a social curiosity.
My own contribution to this discussion was to point out that there is a sense in which the rise in incomes at the top is in fact a major economic issue, and to offer a shorthand way of conveying that point: the now infamous "Krugman calculation" that 70 percent of the rise in average family income has gone to the top 1 percent of families....
The rise in average income relative to median should not be a surprise, given Figures 1 and 2. That is exactly what one would expect to see when incomes become more unequal, because when incomes at the top of the scale are rising faster than the average, incomes farther down must correspondingly grow less rapidly than the average. In an arithmetic sense, we can say that most of the growth in productivity was "siphoned off" to high-income brackets, leaving little room for income growth lower own. I emphasize that this is only an arithmetic point: it says nothing about the economic forces at work, in particular whether something else could or should have happened.
When I say that growth was "siphoned off" to high-income families, however, who am I talking about? Are we talking about two married
schoolteachers, whose $65,000 income is enough to put them into the top quintile? Or are we talking about Donald Trump?
Gore 48%
Bush 45%
Nader 3.5%
Buchanan 1.5%
Browne 1%
Others 1%
Gore will get more than 400 electoral votes.
To get a sense of this and, to be honest, to help attract attention to a trend that I thought had been neglected I proposed the following thought experiment. Imagine two villages, each composed of 100 families representing the percentiles of the family income distribution in a given year in particular, a 1977 village and a 1989 village. According to the CBO numbers, the total income of the 1989 village is about 10 percent higher than that of the 1977 village; but it is not true that the whole distribution is shifted up by 10 percent. Instead, the richest family in the 1989 village has twice the
income of its counterpart in the 1977 village, while the bottom forty 1989 families actually have lower incomes than their 1977 counterparts.
Now ask: how much of the difference in the incomes of the two villages is accounted for by the difference in the incomes of the richest family?
Equivalently, how much of the rise in average American family income went to the top 1 percent of families? By looking at this measure we get a sense of who was "siphoning off" the growth in average incomes, accounting for the fact that median income went up so little.
The answer is quite startling: 70 percent of the rise in average family income went to the top 1 percent.
What does this tell us? Since the 1970s median income has failed to keep up with average income or, to put it differently, the typical American family has seen little gain in spite of rising productivity. So when we speak of "high income" families, we mean really high income: not garden-variety yuppies, but Tom Wolfe's Masters of the Universe.
Wealth distribution. Wealth the assets that families own and income are different though related things. Wealth is typically much more concentrated than income: current estimates are that the 1 percent of families with the highest incomes receive about 12 percent of overall pretax income, while the wealthiest 1 percent of families has some 37 percent of net worth. Precisely because wealth is so concentrated, it is difficult to measure accurately from sample surveys: a random survey of a few hundred or even a few thousand people will contain only a handful of really wealthy people.
Nonetheless, researchers at the Federal Reserve Board have tried to use sophisticated sampling procedures to deal with this problem. For some time their surveys have shown that average wealth was rising much faster than median as in the case of income distribution, a sure sign of growing inequality. In March, 1992 they released a working paper that showed a sharp increase in the concentration of wealth even since 1983, with the share of the top 1 percent of families rising from 31 to 37 percent.
Recently, several academic researchers (Claudia Goldin and Brad DeLong of Harvard, together with Edward Wolff of New York University) have put together long-range historical estimates on wealth distribution. They suggest that the concentration of wealth in the U.S. reached a trough in the late 1970s at a level not seen since the nineteenth century, then surged rapidly back to 1920s levels. The point is that the wealth numbers confirm the general picture of a dramatic and rapid increase in economic inequality in the U.S.
(And the fact that Bush continues to make a mess of his campaign.)
Bush has Republicans running for cover...Robert Novak...the lizard strikes
"Undeniable panic is gripping partisan Republicans, from rank-and-file voters to seasoned political operatives, with two full months left before the presidential election. They are dismayed not so much about the surge by Al Gore but the loss of confidence in George W. Bush.
"This mood may reflect the very nature of the Grand Old Party. One Bush adviser puts it this way: "When Democrats face trouble, they circle the wagons; Republicans head for the tall grass." Perplexed by the boost the vice president was given by his pedestrian acceptance speech in Los Angeles, they are panicked by Bush's seeming inability to counter it."
He proposes no solution other than letting the old and the poor die.
c. Economists often blame the health insurance system for the excessive use of health care. Give your analysis of why might the use of care be viewed as "excessive"
d. What sort of policies might prevent this excessive use"
from Mankiw Priniciples of Microeconomics, Ch7
And if Bush decides to go through with next Tuesday's gambit on "Meet the Press," Gore should drop by and ask precisely that question.
What is your military record? Did you serve?
That debate shit don't flush
Small wonder the GOP suckers Bush ripped off for millions are getting worried about their investment.
...and start picking up your own toys!
Anyone who wishes to speak intelligently to the point that the rich deserve to keep their tax dollars would do well to read the excerpts. I can't help it if they don't.
i'd like to see and end to the cut-and-paste of entire articles.
i'd prefer if you post a excerpt or two (reference Greystroke in Current Events as an example) along with a link and make your point.
as an example, messages Message # 40432 through Message # 40436 are unnecessarily long. I dare say no one other than you is reading it. besides, you make no effort to string them together or even credit the author.
this must stop - this was pointed out to you over the weekend, and i thought maybe the point was made. i'd rather not step in, but will if this persists.
thank you for cooperating
(40450 was deleted and this is a repost due to toys)
Anyone who wishes to speak intelligently to the point that the rich deserve to keep their tax dollars would do well to read the excerpts. I can't help it if they don't.
then make the points yourself and don't post article after article that no one is reading anyway.
been silent about the commission's plan all year and has waited until September to announce, with a week's notice, his alternative plan. In the contest of authority, he is trying to beat something with nothing. William Saletan
You may be right, but I'm guessing that the GOP will do something to staunch the bleeding. Bush can campaign harder (he spends only minutes at some campaign stops), they can run far better ads than they have, and so on.
I would be happy to make the points myself RD without quoting, just rewording an analysis that is rather involved.
I bet I could do so and only use 25% more post space.
Nonetheless, I get your message. This is your thread.
I hope you got mine.
Do W.'s handlers really think that he can get away with (a) his arbitrary setting of the ground rules (which, of course, at its core means rejecting the now time-honored role of the Commission that sets up the Presidential Debates) and then (b) accusing Gore of being double-faced (and relying on some historically out-moded comments in doing so?)
True, there is a large core of people out there for whom this or any other election just doesn't attract their attention, but these so-called undecided VOTERS do pay more than just a modicum of attention to what is going on.
Someone up there hit the nail on the head when he/she said to watch what happens to the RNC's money shortly - if it starts going to the Congressional races, then even the true believers will have lost their faith in W.
Granted, I have a bias. And, I hardly ever see W. making his comments because I rarely watch t.v. But, I listen to the radio a lot, and he really does come over as being exceedingly shrill and simple-minded. Part of it is inflection (as in his mantra about it being the PEOPLE'S money), but overall it is just shallow.
As for his "major league asshole" comment - it was interesting to read some commentary that this is right dead on what you might expect in a fraternity milleau. Except, W. presumably would have grown out of that mode by now. At any rate, my reaction was that "it takes one to know one."
if Gore wins by a decent margin (which is looking more and more likely), what will happen to the Congress?
i'm starting to wonder if more GOPers than Lazio have something to worry about these days
(jex: yes, you point is received)
Gore will, IMO, make a big mistake if he does not appear on Larry King and insist that the first order of business is nailing down a debate schedule that is accessible to those without cable or internet. Gore can go on and roast W on W's obvious reluctance to debate in a format that includes more depth than softballs tossed by King for an hour. W's only real, though desperate, hope at this point is that Gore will give W's campaign some traction on the "Gore is untrustworthy" theme, so Gore needs to show up for the debate.
So many races depend on local factors, however. In NJ, for example, Franks is gaining on Corzine, which may make a Democrat-held Senate seat (Lautenberg's) go GOP. Corzine is prone to gaffes, and is really too far to the left for the state, while Franks is an unthreatening moderate.
You may be right about NJ, too. We'll see. Franks certainly is still behind, but I think he has the mo', if not the money.
Also, as you know, the NYS legislature is generally impervious to coattails. What is your most wildly optimistic prediction about how the NY State Senate will end up if Gore trounces Bush by twenty points?
I suspect it will be life as usual in Albany. State Senate still GOP, but not by as much. Assembly very much still Dem. Some cynics say that both sides like it that way.
What is your current take on Hillary/Ricky? (sorry, couldn't resist, but his propensity to have photo-ops taken in amusement parks or while eating outlandishly sized hot dogs, etc., really do make him seem what he is - a not very mature looking 42 (or is it 43) year old.)
I agree that both sides like it that way. They can blame the other for not passing good new laws or decommissioning bad old ones.
I think Hillary is a slight favorite now. Lazio's campaign is not catching fire with anybody, and Hillary does not seem quite the dangerous interloper that she once did to some of the state's swing voters.
I think she is actually beginning to grow on people, whereas Lazio is looking a little callow.
I give it to Hillary by three points.
"Our final empirical evidence about the state of Bushworld comes from National Review, where the editors of that conservative bastion declare up front: "The campaign is going badly for George W. Bush." Their prescription: Bush should jettison this "compassionate" stuff and start serving up red-meat conservative issues.
Even Jonah Goldberg, editor of NationalReview.com, has had his confidence shaken a bit: "I still think Gore will lose, but it is dramatically less obvious than it was just a few weeks ago. Bush is behind in the national polls. His campaign is off-stride and the press finally has an excuse to come home and beat the tar out of the Republican candidate, as its instincts normally dictate."
Perhaps. But for today, at least, it is mostly Republicans who are beating the tar out of the Republican candidate."
It is only a matter of time before the Rabid Right gets more than just restive and starts spouting off about what THEY think this election is all about.
That is when you can conclude that it will be a Gore landslide.
Presidential Vote Share
Gore .50
Bush .487
Presidential Winner Take All
Gore.562
Bush .432
NY Senate Winner Take All
Clinton .558
Lazio .429
Congressional Control
GOP House and Senate .442
GOP House, Dem Senate .010
Dem House, GOP Senate .458
Dem House, Dem Senate .087
(Yes. I know that it means nothing.)
Clymer, meanwhile, did his best to prove Bush's assessment correct. "I'm disappointed in the governor's language," he prissily told the Associated Press. As if a lifelong reporter in his 60s could be shocked to hear a grown man swear.
Tucker, who wasn't so much as his father's hard-on back then, has swallowed whole the standard-issue view of the era. Would that a Time Machine were operative to show this clown, and others like him, precisely how genteel it all was.
The era of swearing is NOW.
Lord, that was funny, the headline. It was the word "surges" that got me.
Actually, if Browne were to bound ahead of Nader as well, I would be a happy puppy.
(you somehow neglected to mention that Browne is now back to where he was month ago. Pat is on a one way path down. Couldn't happen to a more deserving soul.)
How many people involved in those tracking polls? Another way of asking whether it was more than, say, the views of three people involved in this herculean leap over.
"In the poll conducted September 4-6, Gore appears to have a slight edge among the poll's 1,259 respondents, including 777 likely voters. Among the likely voters, 47 percent said they plan to vote for Gore, the Democratic nominee for president, while 44 percent said they plan to cast ballots for GOP nominee Bush. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll has a margin of plus or minus four percentage points, meaning the two are in a statistical dead heat."
I suppose you heard what Christopher Hitchens said about Bush and the upcoming debates on the Chris Matthews' show a day or two ago. If you didn't, here it is, not exactly in his own words but the meaning is correct: "You can prep an ignorant man but you can't a stupid one." (I have to go to a meeting so I can't check all the postings to see if you already have this pearl of wisdom from Hitchens).
“There’s not a single one of us that’s not discouraged,” said Tom Slade, a former Florida legislator and state GOP chairman. “We had a 15, 20 point lead. We were just whistling down the street, and now we’re whistling past the graveyard.”
That applies perfectly to Hitchens. Cockburn and Sullivan too.
British political journalism is exactly like British cooking.
I practically ate the brown paper bag, I was so hungry.
(Thanks for taking the effort to discuss this with me, btw, since our online time is so different).
To answer your question about the one-year internship, it is in addition to, not concurrent with, the coursework. I don't know if they do it the way it was done for you, but they should. This is something that's done at UofArkansas, but I hope it takes on elsewhere, personally.
On the teacher test, its purpose was to weed out teachers who got degrees due to poor university standards in ed depts and were hired and became entrenched in the system. It wasn't meant to be an entry test, though there are several tests administered to students along the way to hopefully weed out the incompetent ones, including some kind of basic skills test that must be passed before a graduate can be issued a teaching certificate. As I said, though, the NTE, which is a very good and rigorous test to the best of my memory, is now required for all teachers in the field they will be teaching. I had to take one in both English and social studies for both to be on my teaching certificate.
The biggest obstacle to graduation for current teachers, though, from what I hear, is the new College Algebra requirement. Bob (my husband--a h/s math teacher) says they should be required to take Calculus, too, then maybe they will produce better math students for him.
On private school vouchers, my main problem is with government money being used to subsidize private businesses or religious institutions. I know it's done in some other cases and I don't like that, either.
On a related subject: Just saw an interesting news report on ABC, btw, on the imminent shortage of principals. It's become a thankless job, and the $75-100,000 a year salaries aren't enough to keep them any more. I wouldn't be a principal if my salary were a million a year.
Well, like I said, I dunno whether he meant $Xr or not. The way he phrased it screams yes; his professional reputation, of course, screams no. But if he knows it's not $Xr yet phrases it so many readers will think it is, that's pretty bad, too.
Dusty, #40400:
Heh. Thanks. If it put a smirk on even one person's face, it was worth posting after all.
300, #40404:
I meant that borrowing and not borrowing are equivalent. Sorry if my phrasing wasn't clear.
Ronski, #40447:
That is pretty funny. (Though I think I do know at least one person who has a high-speed modem, but no cable.)
Cellar, #40486:
Actually, the most telling bit is that you can't tell the difference between "in his 60s" and "in the 60s".
"... the one-year internship [...] is in addition to, not concurrent with, the coursework."
I'm not so sure that's a good idea. Who wants to spend an extra year unpaid? This might be just as great a contributing factor to the lack of good candidates as the higher salaries and signing bonuses in other fields.
"On private school vouchers, my main problem is with government money being used to subsidize private businesses or religious institutions."
Not subsidize as much as simply do business with, really. You don't insist that the Air Force should make its own planes, do you? Or that government offices should only be built by govt-owned construction firms and lit with electricity from govt-owned utilities, that civil servants only use govt-manufactured computers running a govt-designed OS, print stuff out only on paper from govt-owned mills, while sipping coffee made from govt-grown beans, with cream from govt-milked cows?
And there is no a priori good reason that I can see for the govt not to do business with religious institutions, if they happen to be able to offer some service that the govt needs performed (such as teaching children to read and write) -- as long as they're not given any special favors because they are religious institutions.
As I write this, there hasn't been a post here in over 5 hours. Right now, for whatever reason, this is The Slow Thread.
And yes, this conversation is winding down, esp. since I'm going out of town for a few days (though perhaps others might wish to continue it). See y'all sometime next week.
"What's next, after the mayor of San Jose admits to an affair with a co-worker? There could be a rise in your electric bill...."
Joezan's apparent point in his Message # 40410 is that Al Gore is - as George W. Bush contends - reneging on an offer to debate on Larry King Live.
However, the quoted exchange is clearly an offer by Gore to engage in a lengthy series of debates, only one of which would be on Larry King's show. At least in this case, Bush's claim to be accepting an offer Gore has made is phony.
Ohio - Message # 40502:
Actually, I didn't see your question.
But then, it was a rather stupid question, wasn't it?
Because the argument from your side has been, for whatever reason, that the Larry King Show is not the appropriate place for a debate - not that it's not the place for a first debate.
Furthermore, in March, when Pinocchio made this statement there was no talk of 5 debates - it was months later that GWB made that challenge. Hence, it is only reasonable to assume that Algore's promise to make King's show the setting of ...one of the first (debates) did not exclude the chance that it would be the first.
I'm just surprised Pinocchio hasn't yet denied making the statement.
It's the difference between a jet jock F-102 fighter and a PR news release writer. 
Worst WH press secretary in the history of the Republic.
Aircraft Carrier Cuba was a dagger in the stomach of oil-rich Texas. LBJ knew it and kept his best here.
Bush flew the military jets protecting the country. Gore re-wrote lying press releases telling the jaded press corp in Siagon that we were winning the Vietnam War.
The second rate guys went to Vietnam? Tell John McCain.
You just can't stand the fact that Bush was military-jet fighter, Gore was a PR flack protecting his boss.
Still the case.
"STAND well back. Bush has - gasp! - "gone negative". He has unleashed - aaargh! - "the politics of personal destruction". And what's more, the guy he's personally destroying is a blameless journalist. As every TV viewer in America knows by now, while up on the podium waiting to speak, genial George Dubya spotted a familiar face in the crowd. Forgetting there was a microphone mere inches from his plastic smile, the governor chortled to Dick Cheney: "There's Adam Clymer, major-league a****** from The New York Times." "Oh, yeah, he is," agreed Cheney. "Big time."
Anyway, Bryant Gumbel, the widely unwatched CBS anchorman, was not impressed: "Bush may have even taken yet another step backwards by sticking his foot in his mouth with a vulgar comment." On this issue, Bryant knows whereof he speaks. The grand panjandrum recently interviewed a Christian conservative about the Supreme Court decision on gay scoutmasters, at the end of which he handed over to the weather guy. Unfortunately, the camera lingered on him just long enough to catch him dismissing his interviewee as a "f***ing idiot".
But it seems it's one thing for a media [expletive] to call a conservative an [expletive], quite another for a media [expletive] to be characterised as such by a conservative [expletive]. The expletive in question, Adam Clymer, is after all the acclaimed author of Edward M Kennedy: a Biography, in which he salutes his subject "not just as the leading senator of his time, but as one of the greats in history . . . a lawmaker of skill, experience and purpose rarely surpassed since 1789". (cont)
But the assholian status of Mr Clymer is not under serious investigation. Instead, on the news shows, the clip of Dubya's frightful lèse-majesté has been broadcast again and again. The benign explanation is that, well, you know how the networks tend to play up anything they get on video. But there's all kinds of stuff they get on video that mysteriously never makes it to air. While I was mooching about the Democratic Convention last month, six Boy Scouts walked out on stage to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. They were booed by delegates. "It was pretty insensitive," said one - not about the booing but about the decision to let the Scouts appear at the convention in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling permitting the organisation to exclude openly gay scoutmasters. So there were the rank and file of the Democratic Party jeering half a dozen bewildered young boys. This is amazing, I thought, and assumed ABC, CBS, NBC et al would be on top of the issue. But no, not a peep. The New York Times and Washington Post likewise considered it unworthy of mention.
By contrast, when gay Congressman Jim Kolbe addressed the Republican Convention, the Times devoted no fewer than four stories to his reception. As he spoke, 12 members of the Texas delegation, being disapprovers of homosexuality, quietly bowed their heads in prayer. Even worse, most of the rest of those hard-hearted Republicans "offered only tepid applause", tutted the Times. "Tepid applause"! Is there no end to the hate these bigots aren't prepared to spew? (cont)
William Powers summed it up beautifully in the National Journal: "The journalistic establishment is like one big pretentious snot-nosed French waiter, and it's time for America to hurl a glass of ice water in its face and give it the boot." Calling 'em a******s is an excellent start. Way to go, Dub!" [END]
Both candidates served their country.
After Gore almost fled to Canada, Gore's senator daddy got him a press aide job in the army and he did five months in Siagon with two military guards protecting him. One of them, who was given a camera and told to watch over favorite son military PR flack, recently talked about it in a L.A. Times story.
George Bush took incredible risks learning to fly a jet fighter and protecting the motherland from the communist menace to the south.
Our military was concerned about an attack from Cuba. Less than five years earlier, a Cuban/Soviet-sponsored killer had murdered our President.
This AWOL disinformation is pure bs and everyone knows it.
well, someone had to pick up the cheerleading from concerned.
Real men who ask others on this thread whether or not they have flown jet fighters should be prepared to answer the same question. What did you do during the (Vietnam) War, Rosie?
You just don't like it that he was like Hans Solo and took "risks" defending the country flying the single-seater, hot-fighter jets against the real Evil Empire.
host i may be, that doesn't preclude me from participating.
when i post as host, i make that clear from when i am not.
now, if you still don't like it, too bad. every host posts in a non-host fashion at theMote. get used to it.
re: invasion of privacy.
I would you like to inform Wombat, who lives near me in Maryland, that I don't give out personal information about myself on the internet.
Thank you
i never claimed non-partisan status did i? just that i am a fair host – which i am.
as for Wombat, which post contains personal information? if he didn't post such information, then i have no idea of what it is s/he has done wrong. you must be specific.
Funniest Post of the Year (Unintentional Stupidity Division): I would you like to inform Wombat, who lives near me in Maryland, that I don't give out personal information about myself on the internet.
Stick around...he tops himself frequently.
Heavens, I'm embarrased. I missed that one completely.
Cellar: What I note most about the Bush AWOL matter is that if these same simple facts in your Message # 40536 existed on the record WRT to Al Gore, we'd be hearing demands for congressional investigations, Dan Burton would be out shooting melons again, the RNC faxes would be whirring, and the Fox talk shows would natter endlessly about it. Democrats just don't have the Repubs' lust for hand-to-hand-kick-em'-in-the-nuts combat.
Yes, and the delusion that should Bush do so, it is Al Gore that would suffer!
The question of the day: Did White House Joe Liehard resign because he was caught fibbing on whether or not Bill Clinton shake hands and talked to Castro yesterday in NYC. At first the White House said it didn't happen.
Of course it all depends on your definition of "shaking hands."
The Cuban dictator is obviously grateful to Clinton for sending back his love child to the motherland.
I guess the fact that the Dubbya's election prospects are going south has unhinged him.
Who writes this guy's slogans???????????????????
Bush did it, on his own, and did it well. I have talked to 102 and 106 pilots and they said it was nice plane, a joy to fly, but not easy or forgiving. No room for error. And yes, some F-102 groups went to Vietnam but the red menace from Cuba was real and threatening.
Of course the other major presidential candidate did write terrific press release about the Viet Cong body counts and how we were winning their Civil War.
Did you serve in Vietnam? y/n
If so, what arm of the service: Army y/n; Navy y/n; Air Force y/n; Marines y/n; Coast Guard y/n.
If so, did you see combat? y/n
By the way, based on your postings over the years, the biggest leaker of personal information about yourself is...you.
Guess I'm changing my vote. We want a man like that for president, don't we folks?
So says Major Gravitas
You are conflating the F-102 Delta Dart and the F-106 Delta Dagger. The F-102 topped out at Mach 1-something (810 mph), did not carry nuclear air-to-air missiles and was in front line service until 1960.
Its job was to fly up very high to attack Soviet bombers of the era, which were propellor-driven Bears. From the description given on the USAF Museum web site, the F-102's guidance system did most of the work, even firing the plane's missiles when locked onto its target. It carried no cannon armament, so air-to-air combat with fighters may have been a risky proposition.
The fighters that followed it (F-104, F-106) were almost twice as fast.
This source confirms that F-102's were removed from Vietnam before Bush started flying them. Further, they were being phased out of Guard service while Bush was flying them:
"Large-scale retirement of the F-102A from the ANG began in late 1969 and continued throughout the 1970s. The last F-102A finally left ANG service in October of 1976, when the 199th FIS of the Hawaii ANG traded in their Delta Daggers for F-4C Phantoms. Most of the retired F-102As ended up in the boneyards at the Davis-Monthan AFB storage facility. Many were subsequently converted into remote-controlled drone aircraft. "
Source-F-102
Our involvment in the Vietnam Civil war was illegal, immoral and I hated both LBJ and Nixon for getting us in and not getting us out.
I'm embarrassed now that I didn't serve and wish that I had been born in another era when we weren't the world policemen.
I've encouraging my oldest son, who is working on his Eagle project in the Boy Scouts, to do military/peace corps service between prep school and college but his mother thinks otherwise. Unfortunately service now is a "caste system" problem for some middle class parents.
Not me. I would like all five kids to do it, if only to help us pay some of the bills for college afterwards.
Time will tell if that happens.
Where do get off insulting Al Gore, who probably felt about the same as you did about Vietnam, but went anyway; while defending George Bush, who supported the war, as long as he didn't have to fight in it. He took the middle option, which I guess is better than some, and his time in the Guard was certainly less safe than, say, Dan Quayle's.
Since you will probably ask, I was 11 in 1968.
I gather your position is that while the war was immoral it was also wrong not to go fight it? That service to one's country trumps objections to the war?
Or do I misunderstand your post?
I feel differently about the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
I understand your reasoning about your children serving today, about the class distinctions, and also about the difference between the Gulf War and Kosovo, but I did not understand why you felt badly about not having served in Vietnam.
I was a conscientious objector and thus did not serve in Vietnam. I do not have any particular negative feelings about those who did. I respected their decision.
Yet I have wondered what the Vietnam experience would have been like, and have had long discussions with men who served (and also with some women who were there as nurses). I am aware that I missed something that was of critical importance to many in my generation. But I do not feel badly about not going. I think I made the right decision.
The last time the US was not in some way the world's policeman was in the 1890s.
You have such gall. I don't want to hear another word from you about Al Gore's service to his country or George Bushs, either.
My father, who retired a colonel in the NY National Guard and served in the 77th Army division during WWII winning many medals fighting the Japanese in the Northern Marinas (Siapan) and Okinawa, thought I was stupid not to go into the ROTC when I first started at UCONN. By the time I was a senior in Storrs, he was glad I hadn't.
His brother was sent to the Italian Front, and managed, much like the Czech national hero, the Good Soldier Schweik, to cause so much trouble they sent him way back behind the lines and made him bake bread.
My father was an inspector in the Signal Corps in World War Two and never got to see anything but factories in the Midwest.
I just said no, and the selective service said okay. Funny thing was that when I was called up to do alternative service such as emptying bedpans in a U.S. hospital, I answered, correctly, the question about homosexual tendencies, and was promptly awarded a 4-F.
No queers near our bedpans!
If I'd only known.
In addition, nearly everybody went in WWII. My father in law was drafted despite the fact that he was over 30, was married and had two kids and one on the way.
And I was a Big Fag who didn't serve in Vietnam because the military considered me far too immoral to be entrusted with the responsibility of raping and murdering Southeast Asian peasant.s
"Dark as night, every step brings a crackle of popcorn or the goo of old soda. A minute into the march, I'm at my post, riveted as Bruce Dern strips and enters the ocean naked and despondent. I turn to Sergeant Kubrick, but he clamps a hand over my open mouth and says, 'It's about the duality of man.' 'Dinky Dau, motherfucker,' I say back, and settle in for another double feature of hell on earth."
Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of ''Inventing Al Gore,'' he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard).
I LOVE the Navy!
"Vote for Bush - Gore isn't THAT much smarter!"
Against campaign reform -came up with a slogan ("reformer with results") and a buddhist temple ad.
Against Patient's Bill of Rights - ran ads, made claims that he led the fight in Texas for a PBR, when he actually vetoed the bill several times, only to sign it when the Legislature removed enforcement provisions. The Texas PBR may be useful for Bush's shameless huckstering and perhaps toilet paper in a pinch but other than that, not much.
Poorly Conceived Policy Initiatives - to deal with the growing perception that his "new ideas" are just so much Texas steer shit, what did the Moron do but come up with a slogan "real plans for real people"
Not only is he one of the least capable men to run for President in 100 years, he is fundamentally dishonest.
UR state's now a dead heat
"Damn it, Howard! If I don't get 20 minutes tomorrow, I'm going to vote the other way."
Yup Howdy Doody's short on substance, not terribly bright, but he's always got an inane slogan at the ready.
This is Senate Floor small talk. Senators don't make vote deals this way. Simpson's full of crap but the bad thing is that he knows he is and doesn't care.
He did it with McCain. He's doing it now. The more you see of Bush, the more you realize that he's a dissembling little twit. You simply cannot trust the guy, and not in the sense that you can't trust him to follow through on this or that, as for most politicians. GWB isn't to be trusted in what he says at the time he's saying it.
Its almost pathological.
"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness."--Ibid.
40601. jexster - 9/9/2000 2:17:16 PM
toys
40602. Indiana Jones - 9/9/2000 2:27:52 PM
jexster: Anyone who reads the article will discover its author, even without looking at the byline: it's a first-person account.
"Senators don't make vote deals this way."
You should write to Simpson and explain to him how such deals actually work.
40603. OhioSTOPAS - 9/9/2000 2:38:12 PM
Please. The link in Message # 40594 is an ugly lie by an ugly liar.
40604. Indiana Jones - 9/9/2000 2:40:07 PM
Congresswoman Disclaims Gore Comment
A black congresswoman who asserted Vice President Al Gore has a low ``Negro tolerance level'' backed off Friday, saying the claim was in a draft statement not meant to be released.
Rep. Cynthia McKinney's office issued a statement on Aug. 29 related to a lawsuit brought by three black Secret Service agents in which she said Gore's ``Negro tolerance level has never been too high.''
``I've never known him to have more than one black person around him at any given time,'' said McKinney, D-Ga.
Guess McKinney got the Loretta Sanchez treatment.
40605. Indiana Jones - 9/9/2000 2:40:17 PM
Toys
40606. robertjayb - 9/9/2000 3:06:57 PM
.
Gore Holds His Lead...NEWSWEEK’s new poll shows his post-convention momentum continuing...
"September 9 — Vice President Al Gore leads Texas Gov. George W. Bush by a margin of 47 percent to 39 percent among registered voters, according to a new NEWSWEEK poll. In a poll of likely voters, the margin remains the same, with Gore besting Bush 49 percent to 41 percent."
40607. robertjayb - 9/9/2000 3:07:40 PM
rats
40608. robertjayb - 9/9/2000 3:08:36 PM
?
40609. robertjayb - 9/9/2000 3:32:59 PM
.
Bush Rejuvenates at Texas Ranch, Readies for Battle
"We are going to keep George W. Bush on the defensive," one Gore aide said. "He has run mainly on his charm. We are going to squeeze the charm out of him."
heh-heh
40610. robertjayb - 9/9/2000 3:39:25 PM
.
In state polls (Reuters):
-In New Hampshire, Gore and Bush were deadlocked at 42 percent apiece in an WMUR-University of New Hampshire poll. The poll of 786 likely voters was taken Sept. 1-6 and has an error margin of 3.5 percentage points. Earlier polls were already showing the race close.
-In Illinois, Gore was at 44 percent and Bush at 40 percent in a Chicago Sun-Times-Fox News Chicago poll. The poll of 600 likely voters was taken Tuesday and Wednesday and has an error margin of 4 percentage points, making the race statistically tied.
-In Texas, Bush led 53 percent to 30 percent in a Scripps Howard Texas Poll.The poll of 1,000 adults taken Aug. 7-30 had an error margin of 3.5 percentage points, larger for subgroups like registered voters.
40611. vonKreedon - 9/9/2000 4:54:03 PM
Mr. Gore! Please don't squeeze the Charmin'!
40612. Cellar Door - 9/9/2000 6:34:08 PM
40613. robertjayb - 9/9/2000 8:04:10 PM
.
Any doubts about why Halliburton seemed eager to be particularly generous with the departing Mr. Cheney?
Cheney's Firm Profited From 'Overused' Army...The Washington Post
"Brown & Root has done $2 billion worth of logistics business since winning an exclusive Army contract in 1992 and stands to do another $1.2 billion by 2004. "The first person to greet our soldiers as they arrive in the Balkans and the last one to wave good-bye is one of our employees," Cheney said in an interview last year with The Economist magazine.
"A long-time defense contractor, Brown & Root has deployed employees to Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Hungary, Albania, Croatia, Greece, Somalia, Zaire, Haiti, Southwest Asia and Italy to support Army contingency operations since 1992. As of this week, the company had 13,130 employees in the Balkans--about 90 percent of them local hires, the rest from the United States, often retired military."
40614. CalGal - 9/10/2000 11:12:02 AM
It is interesting to see that Cheney is tanking, lately.
40615. Cellar Door - 9/10/2000 11:22:09 AM
A lot sooner than I would have expected too.
Politics aside, there's a world of difference between being a behind-the-scenes power player and operating in an upfront position. He suffers particulrly in comparasion to Lieberman's bouncy affability.
I guess we're doomed to a politics of PR, with actual issues and ideas tossed to the four winds. And on that level Gore-Lieberman is in the best position to win.
40616. CalGal - 9/10/2000 11:27:51 AM
Politics aside, there's a world of difference between being a behind-the-scenes power player and operating in an upfront position.
I agree. So does Maureen Dowd, in The Tao of Dick
Never choose a back-room guy you think would be good at governing, because if he's lousy at politicking, he may never get to the governing part.
I still dislike Lieberman intensely, but apparently he makes everyone "feel good".
40617. Cellar Door - 9/10/2000 12:06:11 PM
I have numerous reservations about Lieberman too. But where the pubber hits the road he's a practical politician. he made that clear weeks ago when he said that he was there to support Al Gore and Gore's positions -- even if he differed with some of them for one reason or another. In other words he's a professional, not an ideologue. And so is Al.
The chimp and the robot are professionals too.
Working for the "private sector."
40618. CalGal - 9/10/2000 12:20:39 PM
Ancedote.
A presidential adviser was fresh from persuading the French government to smash the "French connection" by which heroin destined for America was refined from Turkish opium in Marseilles. Boarding a helicopter to bring his glad tidings to President [name withheld], the adviser, [name withheld], who then still had Harvard's faith in government efficacy, found himself traveling with cabinet member [name withheld], embodiment of University of Chicago realism about powerful appetites creating markets despite governments' objections. When ]the adviser] (who tells this story) told [cabinet secretary]about his achievement, this conversation ensued.
Cabinet sec, dryly: "Good."
Adviser: "No, really, this is a big event."
Cabinet sec, drier still: "Good."
Adviser: "I suppose you think that so long as there is a demand for drugs, there will continue to be a supply."
Cabinet sec: "You know, there's hope for you yet."
Name the president, the adviser, and the cabinet secretary.
40619. stostosto - 9/10/2000 12:34:07 PM
President: von Kreedon
Adviser: stostosto
Cabinet sec: CalGal
40620. stostosto - 9/10/2000 1:06:11 PM
Oh, shoot, I was planning to cut back on my inbred references...
40621. arkymalarky - 9/10/2000 1:07:52 PM
Well, good luck to you Sto. That's an impossible goal for an Arky, I'm afraid.
40622. stostosto - 9/10/2000 1:08:40 PM
Chicken.
40623. JudithAtHome - 9/10/2000 1:16:25 PM
Tucker Carlson needs to cut his hair...he's lost so much weight, that huge mop on top of his head is making him look even younger than he did as a chubby, cherubic pontificator.
40624. RosettaStone - 9/10/2000 2:18:31 PM
"I have listened to the tape and I'm not sure if Mr. Gore is saying James Riady--or Dottie, or Lottie, or even John Gotti."
--Democratic congressman Henry Waxman
Absolutely priceless quote. Classic Clinton/Gore-defender strategy.
40625. JudithAtHome - 9/10/2000 2:27:30 PM
Was anyone watching CNN just now? Chrisrine Amampour was interviewing Arafat and I looked away to take a phone call and next thing I know, he is walking off the set....what happened? He was arguing with her about "her people"...
And does Arafat have Parkinsons?
40626. RosettaStone - 9/10/2000 2:30:51 PM
LOL! Do you know how few people watch CNN? Less than 200,000 prime-time. It's one of the reasons they just fired Clinton-buttboy Rick Kaplan as their news president. Tom Johnson is next.
40627. JudithAtHome - 9/10/2000 3:00:18 PM
Look, you jerk...I watch CNN on SUNDAY MORNINGS...that is what I am asking about.
For someone who was crowing about how many people would tune in to watch your flyboy Bush on Larry King...ON CNN...you seem to be sending mixed signals now with your glee at how few actually watch the network. Which is it? Do millions watch or do fewer that 200,000?
40628. PelleNilsson - 9/10/2000 3:29:50 PM
Yes, Arafat is thought to have Parkinsons's disease.
40629. JudithAtHome - 9/10/2000 3:31:08 PM
Thank you, Pelle.
40630. thoughtful - 9/10/2000 4:32:08 PM
"40299. Jonesatlaw - 9/6/00 4:32:59 PM
Could some of the number literate and econ savy Moties address what the economic effect of Gore's $300 billion nest egg would be? Would it take money out of circulation? What would it do to interest rates, inflation etc? I'm asking for classical theory first, then you all can dazzle the dullards with competing models."
As I said earlier, the $300B nest egg is really just a surplus that is used to pay down the national debt -- national debt being the stock of previously accumulated deficits.
Keynes would tell you that the government should run a deficit, boosting aggregate demand, when the economy is growing too slowly and a surplus, shrinking aggregate demand, when the economy is growing too quickly. The idea is to use the federal budget as a countercyclical balance wheel. Today's economy is growing too fast in the opinion of many economists so the budget surplus is appropriate. By reducing aggregate demand, the surplus is helping to reduce the inflation rate. The surplus is also helping to lower interest rates in two ways:
40631. thoughtful - 9/10/2000 4:49:12 PM
In terms of the effect on money in circulation, the Fed is the final arbiter of that. The treasury has been buying up long-term treasury bonds -- one reason why the interest rates on long T-bonds is as low as it is -- which has the effect of putting money into the system. But the Fed is capable of sterilizing that with its own open market activities.
Here are some other reasons for using the projected surpluses to pay down the debt:
40632. Indiana Jones - 9/10/2000 4:56:55 PM
Long Washington Post article on the lameduck:
"He came into office as the Man From Hope, and Clinton plainly hopes to leave that way as well. But there is one theme that has snaked darkly around and under the optimistic image Clinton seeks to project to the world. It is grievance.
"In September two years ago, Clinton summoned his Cabinet to apologize for the Lewinsky affair, and he made a startling admission: He had been angry nearly every day of his presidency.
"I told him in our interview that I was astonished to learn that he had harbored this much resentment, and asked him if he did still. 'I'm not by nature an angry person,' he said, adding, 'I work on it all the time.'"
40633. jexster - 9/10/2000 5:24:15 PM
There is a split in the GOP about how to stem the steady tide toward Gore. One camp argues that they cannot win on issues as Clinton proved for 8 years. So guess what this camp wants to do? Just what they did for the past 8 - character assassination, trivia, sleaze
Here
40634. jexster - 9/10/2000 5:28:02 PM
Looks like its gonna be slime, slander & slogans for 2 months
40635. dusty - 9/10/2000 6:15:49 PM
thoughtful
As I said earlier, the $300B nest egg is really just a surplus that is used to pay down the national debt -- national debt being the stock of previously accumulated deficits.
If Gore's "nest egg" is to be used to pay down the debt, then it is an inapt term. It may be a politically savvy selection, but it is misleading.
Keynes would tell you that the government should run a deficit, boosting aggregate demand, when the economy is growing too slowly and a surplus, shrinking aggregate demand, when the economy is growing too quickly.
My recollection is that one problem with this proposal is the lag time between realizing that a deficit/surplus is needed, and the actual implementation.
Do you:
40636. jexster - 9/10/2000 6:21:25 PM
Prosperity for America's Families - Download Your Very Own in Adobe Format Today!
40637. jexster - 9/10/2000 6:25:56 PM
Actually, I think its an inaccurate simplification that Keynes advocated only the use of fiscal policy - surpluses and deficits, to manage aggregate demand.
He placed greater reliance on monetary policies except in the most serious situations where monetary policies alone would be ineffective.
Keynes was a monetarist!
40638. jexster - 9/10/2000 6:33:53 PM
Gore's plan to set aside $300 million is not a deficit reduction feature. Its a reserve fund intended to help defray unexpected expenses or deal with economic slowdowns.
Its not really a new idea. Many states and cities who do not have the luxury of running deficits are taking advantage of the Clinton Boom establishing "rainy" day funds as a slight hedge against Bush's election, Voodoo Economics, earthquakes, hurricanes or other natural disasters
40639. dusty - 9/10/2000 6:43:26 PM
jexster
Actually, I think its an inaccurate simplification that Keynes advocated only the use of fiscal policy - surpluses and deficits, to manage aggregate demand.
Did someone make such a claim?
40640. dusty - 9/10/2000 6:47:18 PM
jexster
Gore's plan to set aside $300 million is not a deficit reduction feature. Its a reserve fund intended to help defray unexpected expenses or deal with economic slowdowns.
I hadn't heard this. If true it's incredibly stupid. I presumed that Gore had some advisors with a clue. Can you provide a link to this claim? I'd hate to report this silliness to my friends, and then learn that the claim isn't true.
40641. dusty - 9/10/2000 6:54:58 PM
jexster
I just realized you did link in their plan.
And yes, they included a reserve fund. They really are this stupid!
40642. dusty - 9/10/2000 7:29:58 PM
As jexter points out, many cities and states do maintain rainy day funds. They are typically restricted from running a deficit, so this is a prudent decision for them. It also makes sense for households to have a rainy day fund, as most households do not have the authority to issue money. But a Federal rainy day fund? A gimmic, just like the use of the term "lock-box"; an attempt to sound prudent, while peddling nonsense.
40643. rubberducky - 9/10/2000 7:36:54 PM
so what (and why) should be done with the surplus, dusty?
40644. dusty - 9/10/2000 7:46:17 PM
rubberducky
I'd like some combination of tax-cuts and debt reduction. (No, I haven't given much thought to the optimal mix). Of course, this isn't saying very much, as both major candidates have promised this. But I don't like creating a flim-flam category like a reserve fund, and pretending that this is economically rational.
40645. dusty - 9/10/2000 7:49:58 PM
From the Gore-Lieberman document:
In fact, by the end of September, we will have paid back $360 billion of debt over three years – the largest three-year debt pay down in history.
How should one interpret this claim? If you had 10,000 in credit card debt, paid off 2000, but added 1700 in new charges, bringing your debt to 9,700, would you say you've paid down your debt by 2000 or 300? I think most honest people would say 300.
But I don't believe this is the nature of their claim. I don't think they are looking at either the gross redemption of bonds, or even the net redemption. I think they are comparing to what they might have spent. To put it in terms of the credit card comparison, it is as if you were thinking about buying a big screen TV for 2000, which would bring your debt up to 12,000, but you decided against it, and declared that your current debt of 9700 is 2300 below what it might have been had you spent according to your plan. Does anyone have a spouse who would accept this "argument"?
Are there any voters who will accept this claim?
Someone please let me know if there is a more credible explanation of their claim.
40646. dusty - 9/10/2000 8:00:16 PM
There are quite a few positive aspects of the Gore-Lieberman plan. it is nice to see relatively more emphasis on tax cuts and debt deduction in comparision to the economic proposals of Demcrats in the past.
40647. Spartan - 9/10/2000 8:25:28 PM
There is a wealth of information on these topics at www.context.co.nz -really worth checking out.
40648. Spartan - 9/10/2000 8:28:47 PM
40649. CalGal - 9/10/2000 8:30:32 PM
Here's the Context link.
Are you from New Zealand, Spartan?
40650. CalGal - 9/10/2000 8:31:02 PM
Whoops. I should refresh. Sorry.
40651. dusty - 9/10/2000 8:32:00 PM
Interesting site
40652. RosettaStone - 9/10/2000 8:54:48 PM
So it has come to this from the old gay lady?
Drudge is posting that babyPinch's NYTimes will be reporting tomorrow that President Bush never taught his sons to use condoms.
40653. Cellar Door - 9/10/2000 9:52:26 PM
No condoms? Uh-oh. What's next? A bastard or an HIV diagnosis?
40654. jexster - 9/10/2000 11:12:40 PM
Bush Road Kill on Campaign Trail - Race is Over
40655. robertjayb - 9/11/2000 12:54:12 AM
.
Dead Heat In Florida...Bush, Gore Tied
"In a recent Portrait of America (POA) telephone survey of Florida’s likely voters, Al Gore and George W. Bush are in a dead heat, each with 43% of the vote.
"The candidates have swapped places since POA’s last poll, which showed Bush in the lead with 42% to Gore’s 35%.
"Rasmussen Research conducted the survey of 507 likely voters in Florida on September 7, 2000. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is +/- 5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence."
40656. jexster - 9/11/2000 1:11:10 AM
From the Gore-Lieberman document:
In fact, by the end of September, we will have paid
back $360 billion of debt over three years – the
largest three-year debt pay down in history.
How should one interpret this claim?
One shouldn't. The quoted statement is a clear, unambigous interpretation of undisputed fact as is the sentence which follows. It too is an unambigous statement of undisputed fact - for the first ime in generations we have begun to pay back our debt.
The statements need no interpretation. They are clear. They are factual. They do not magically become less clear, or less acurate by inventing new facts as you do in your patently false analogy.
We can draw inferences from facts. For example, it is reasonable to infer that during the Clinton administration the fiscal condition improved to a point where the government could pay back rather than refinance debt.
You don't need analogies or interpretation. You just need to learn some facts!
40657. jexster - 9/11/2000 1:21:23 AM
Just the facts m'am!
From the Depty Treasury Secty's Statement Re: August Quarterly Refinancing
By the end of this fiscal year, we will have achieved three straight years of unified budget surpluses -- a feat unimaginable just a few years ago. The unified surpluses for the three years are estimated to total over $400 billion. These surpluses cap the longest series of improvements in budget results in the history of the United
States.
As the President announced on Monday, this year we will pay down $221 billion of publicly held debt. This reduction in our publicly held debt consists of a reduction of $210 billion of privately held marketable debt and $11 billion of nonmarketable debt. In all, this will bring us to a total reduction in publicly held debt of
approximately $360 billion in just three years.
The Clinton administration is fiscally responsible. Sound fiscal policy produced surplus. Surplus permits debt payback. The Reagan/Bush administration based its fiscal policy on economic quakery. They ran up debt the likes of which this country has seen only in major war. The federal debt grew to unimagiable proportions. Debt service alone cost over 200 billion each year and was the second largest government expenditure.
Reagan Bush Fiscal mismanagement ---->massive deficits ------> new debt required to pay interest on existing obligations -------> huge debt service requirements crowd out private investment ------> economic stagnation
Clinton-Gore Fiscal Management ------> reduced government demand in credit markets ------> lower interest rates ------> economic expansion -------> surplus -------> reduce principal for first time in generations
Got it? Sure you do.
40658. jexster - 9/11/2000 1:44:39 AM
I'd be delighted to provide a link Dusty. But your claim that "reserves" and "lock boxes" are gimmicks, is yet more evidence that you really do not know much about public finance and fiscal policy.
The current surplus is based on Budget Act spending targets that are fanciful whether the economy contiunes to expand or not. Economic slowdown increases countercyclical spending and reduces revenue. Debt cannot be reduced. Interest payments rise.
The distinction you make between state and federal governments is a distinction without a difference. If the federal government decides to continue balanced budget policies under reasonable spending assumptions for any appreciable length of time, the reserve concept makes emminent good sense either as a reserve for unforseeable spending requirements, forseeable expenditure increases in existing programs that politicians would rather not recognize, revenue downturns, new spending programs that Gore and Bush propose.
The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided to meet General Fund spending requirements, mask task cuts, and hide the need for revenue increases or spending cuts. The "so-called" combined budget was the gimmick, and a roundly criticized gimmick at that.
40659. jexster - 9/11/2000 1:50:00 AM
Liberal politicians in the 50's were first to distort Keynesian theory. Eventually the distorted Keynes became the "common" understanding - tax cuts and spending increases are best for expanding Aggregate Demand, the opposite for contraction. Keynes preference for monetary tools all but disappeared from the public understanding.
40660. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:11:38 AM
Not only is reserve idea meaningful in a federal context, I would argue that the the Balance Budget statute becomes something of a sham without such a feature.
Contingency is a generally accepted budget practice in business planning which despite the greater contingency risk to goverments, is ignored in public practice.
40661. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:28:21 AM
for a contrary view (contrary, incomplete, misguided and generally full of shit) see How Kinsely Manages Not to Be Right Every Time :)
40662. vonKreedon - 9/11/2000 2:28:49 AM
Ducky - You don't have a link to the Nader campaign web site in the Candidates link section. It's at http://www.votenader.com/.
40663. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:51:26 AM
On the subject of social security Speech by Fed Reserve Governor Gramlich
Kinsley is playing word games WRT "pay as you go". Gramlich makes this quite apparent. Kinsley also ignores the damage done by raids in the 70's as well as the manifest political wisdom that FDR consciously employed in crafting key features such as flat rate; pay as you go; no actuarial basis.
There were political reasons for these choices. FDR realized that above all he had to have a system which stood the test of time. Kinsely alludes to the fact that both conservatives and liberals support features for different reasons. He only touches on the subject for the political play of the century immediately produced support across the spectrum - different ideological castes produced consensus, a sustaining consensus which makes SS uniquely successful.
40664. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:14:46 AM
Nine Misconceptions About Social Security
Among the nine (described in the article)
- Social Security is hand a hand to mouth accounting fiction
- The government uses overly optimistic numbers to convince people that Social Security will be there for them. The situation is much worse than the government admits.
- The demographics of the Baby Boom will place an unbearable burden on the Social Security system.
- If people invest their money themselves, they will get a higher return than if they leave it with the government.
- Social Security gives tens of billions of dollars each year to senior citizens who don't need it.
The last was a favorite of my grandfather. A confirmed FDR hater, he'd often give me lectures on various politcal & economic truths, things every young boy should know. "Why I don't need that check..much better those who need the money get it" Of course, he never returned a dime
40665. Thoughtful - 9/11/2000 8:35:20 AM
Dusty, There is an objection that fiscal policy changes move too slowly to have an impact on economic cycles. I disagree in that there are two ways that fiscal policy works. One is through automatic stabilizers such as unemployment compensation and a progressive income tax structure. These levers can kick in even before anyone is aware that there is an economic slowdown at work, e.g., we were well into the 91 recession before anyone even knew we were in a recession. The other aspect of fiscal policy -- the tax and spending programs as generated by congress can happen way to slowly to be effective given: a) the short downturns we typically experience, the last one being less than a year long and b)the political reality that things like tax increases and spending cuts are very difficult to achieve -- that's why we've been running deficits for so many decades.
Remember too that monetary policy is not immediate. Lags can typically run between 12-18 months or more before they start to take effect....that's why the Fed must be proactive rather than reactive as it tries to steer economic growth.
Re many economist not thinking the economy is growing too quickly -- you will always find an economist to counter an argument. However, the wise ones (IMHO), like Greenspan and company, clearly see a need to slow the economy down from its 5-7% pace to something more reasonable at 3-4% given the very tight labor markets and rapid wage growth.
40666. Thoughtful - 9/11/2000 8:39:21 AM
jex, as dusty pointed out, I never said Keynes said fiscal was the only policy. I only pointed out his view on how to use fiscal policy to manage growth.
I haven't yet had a chance to look over the Gore or Bush plan, but as I said before, government accounting is cash accounting. Talk of soc sec trust, and other "savings" is BS. There is no capital accounting, and whether they are setting aside $300B or not, the effect of it will be a reduction in the national debt. This is not to be confused or compared with state & local accounting where they do run capital accounts -- depreciating buildings, roads, etc. over a period of years and borrowing against those investments with municipal bonds.
40667. Thoughtful - 9/11/2000 8:40:04 AM
See today's NY Times for a Krugman op-ed on what's wrong with the Gore plan.
40668. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2000 8:45:37 AM
Gore takes on Hollywood
Vice President Al Gore and his running mate, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, said today that if the entertainment industry did not stop marketing violent films, recordings and video games to children they would propose legislation or new regulatory authority allowing the federal government to sanction the industry.
In an extended interview on the veranda of the vice president's residence, Mr. Gore said he would give industry officials six months to "clean up their act." If they do not, and if he and Mr. Lieberman win the November election, the vice president said he would encourage the Federal Trade Commission to move against the industry by using its power to prohibit false and deceptive advertising.
40669. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 8:47:44 AM
Re: Message # 40662, vonKreedon.
added.
thanks for pointing that out.
40670. Dusty - 9/11/2000 8:50:38 AM
jexster
The quoted statement is a clear, unambigous interpretation of undisputed fact as is the sentence which follows.
Well, I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt that it might be ambiguous. If it is unambiguous, then they are simply lying.
(Frankly, I don't believe this; I betting on ambiguity.)
You restate that the debt reduction is 360 billion. Restating an error does not constitute supporting evidence.
I had intended to provide a link to the US government site summarizing the day by day amount of debt, but I just checked and it seemed to be missing. So I will try again:
The Public Debt To the Penny
The highest value of the debt was on 12/31/99. The debt on that day was 5,776 billion. As of last Friday, the debt is down to 5,681 billion.
This is less than a 100 billion reduction.
Please tell me the unambiguous interpretation that reconciles the claim of 360 billion of debt reduction with the unambiguous change in debt of less than 100 billion.
40671. Thoughtful - 9/11/2000 8:54:20 AM
jex, thanks for the link to the Gore tax plan -- I thought W. had finally put his out as well, but I didn't see it on his web site (I heard it went on for 297 pages or some such thing). Would you have a link to it?
Thanks.
40672. Dusty - 9/11/2000 9:02:30 AM
jexster
I'd be delighted to provide a link Dusty.
If you actually read what I post, you'll see that I noted you already have provided a link.
The current surplus is based on Budget Act spending targets that are fanciful whether the economy continues to expand or not. Economic slowdown increases countercyclical spending and reduces revenue. Debt cannot be reduced. Interest payments rise.
Meat tenderizer rubbed on a bee sting can reduce the pain.
If the federal government decides to continue balanced budget policies under reasonable spending assumptions for any appreciable length of time, the reserve concept makes emminent good sense either as a reserve for unforseeable spending requirements, forseeable expenditure increases in existing programs that politicians would rather not recognize, revenue downturns, new spending programs that Gore and Bush propose.
We don't have a balanced budget policy. There was an attempt to enact such a policy as a Constitutional amendment. (I opposed it.) Should such a misguided law get passed, then there would be an argument for building in a reserve fund. But it wasn't passed. There is no justification for the federal government holding a reserve fund.
The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided to meet General Fund spending requirements, mask task cuts, and hide the need for revenue increases or spending cuts. The "so-called" combined budget was the gimmick, and a roundly criticized gimmick at that.
No kidding. I'm among those who roundly criticized the gimmick. I'm happy to see that you oppose some gimmicks, at least. Perhaps you can explain why you don't see "lockboxes" as gimmicks.
40673. Dusty - 9/11/2000 9:07:24 AM
jexster
The Atlantic Monthly article contributes more to misinformation, than to correcting misinformation. Elaboration later.
40674. Dusty - 9/11/2000 9:20:25 AM
Thoughtful
There is no capital accounting, and whether they are setting aside $300B or not, the effect of it will be a reduction in the national debt.
I'm trying to think how the mechanics would even work. A state can buy T-bills, or even leave some in a bank deposit. But if the Fed buys T-bills (or bonds), this would be a reduction of debt. I suppose they could put 300 billion in a savings account, but I would hope they wouldn't be that stupid. And I hope they would not be allowed to hold corporate debt or stocks.
40675. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2000 9:37:58 AM
40658 is gobbledygook.
The current surplus is based on Budget Act spending targets that are fanciful whether the economy contiunes to expand or not. Economic slowdown increases countercyclical spending and reduces revenue.
The first sentence is unknowable, the second sentence somewhat contradicts the first while stating the obvious.
The distinction you make between state and federal governments is a distinction without a difference.
Sophistry.
If the federal government decides to continue balanced budget policies under reasonable spending assumptions for any appreciable length of time, the reserve concept makes emminent good sense either as a reserve...[or for] new spending programs that Gore and Bush propose.
You just called these assumptions "fanciful," now you're saying they're "reasonable." In any case, more words = less meaning. You're saying the reserve concept makes good sense as a reserve. Tautology? Or for new spending programs, but you just said it makes good sense "under reasonable spending assumptions."
Your style of argumentation reminds me of cazart: call Dusty uninformed, state a bunch of tautological mumbo-jumbo, and pretend as though you've made a point.
40676. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 10:13:03 AM
from Slate's Today's Papers:
The LAT fronts a fascinating case involving a Massachusetts woman who is being kept in state custody to protect her unborn child. The woman, who is nine months pregnant, is a member of a 13-person religious sect that views science and religion as blasphemy, denies the existence of the United States, and denounces education, government, banking, and entertainment. The woman's two previous children are alleged to have died because the group refused to seek medical help. A juvenile court judge ordered the woman to be hospitalized until her baby is born. The judge also said he could hear the unborn child's voice in the courtroom: "And it said, 'I want to live. I do not want to die. I do not want to die like my brother Jeremiah did.'" The judge has appointed an attorney to represent the fetus. Feminist groups are outraged. The fundamentalist Christian woman has refused legal counsel for herself (believing in prayer over law), but reproductive rights lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union have filed
friend-of-the-court briefs.
i am continually amazed how our courts contradict themselves. how in the world can a piece of tissue be assigned a lawyer? i don't see old livers and hearts assigned lawyers when they are to be removed from the body. where's the outrage?
yet, that's exactly what happens here. a fetus, which according to pro-abortion people, is a mass of tissue and nothing more (which the courts agree with) is assigned a lawyer. hmm, maybe i should ask the courts if it's ok to pop the next zit i find, the zit might not like that.
i also suppose the millions of fetuses aborted since Roe v Wade had no such "voice" and were perfectly happy to be murdered.
40677. CalGal - 9/11/2000 10:19:27 AM
Actually, the courts disagree that the fetus is a piece of tissue at nine months--despite what pro-choicers say.
40678. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 10:39:58 AM
CG:
well, it kinda has to. otherwise, the courts knowingly condone murder.
but, i agree there is some debate. i, myself, support 1st trimester abortions, but not after.
the difference being, i have no moral problem "murdering" a non-viable tissue mass. after 3 months, tho, my support fades with each passing week.
40679. CalGal - 9/11/2000 10:45:40 AM
otherwise, the courts knowingly condone murder.
They don't. That was the whole purpose of the trimester rule. Originally, abortions at that stage were allowed only if the life of the mother is in danger. Then they changed it to "life or health", which provided a loophole that you could drive a truck through.
But the whole reason for these restrictions is because in the third trimester, the fetus is considered to have some rights.
I grant you, the rights are rather flexible--it's only a life at 22 weeks if someone kills it without the mother's permission.
But still, no one but the most adamant pro-lifers (none of whom sit on the court) consider a third trimester fetus to be tissue.
40680. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 10:48:59 AM
oh, i see what you're saying, Cal - and agree.
40681. DaveM - 9/11/2000 10:53:35 AM
rubberducky -
Judges are ordinary humans - there are plenty of loons out there. Contradiction is inevitable. It doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about "the courts" - even at the federal level, the 4th circuit and the 9th circuit are about as different as imaginable.
CalGal -
I don't know of any pro-choicers that say that the fetus is nothing but a piece of tissue at nine months.
Dusty -
I think Jexster's debt reduction statistics stem from the difference between projected debt and actual debt, though I didn't look too closely. That is not necessarily a poor way to look at things.
40682. CalGal - 9/11/2000 10:55:48 AM
Dave,
I don't know of any pro-choicers that say that the fetus is nothing but a piece of tissue at nine months.
I've seen people on both this thread and several in TT say exactly that. Are there any activists who say so publically? Probably not anymore, although I wouldn't be surprised if there were some questionable statements made back in the 70s.
40683. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 11:05:17 AM
Re: Message # 40681, DaveM.
Judges are ordinary humans - there are plenty of loons out there. Contradiction is inevitable. It doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about "the courts" - even at the federal level, the 4th circuit and the 9th circuit are about as different as imaginable.
well, i don't know a whole lot about the court system, this is true. however, i didn't know it was such a burden for judges to adhere to some basic legal precepts. among them, tissue masses shouldn't have lawyers.
40684. DaveM - 9/11/2000 11:07:45 AM
Dusty -
Sorry, I didn't see your 40645 before posting. That seems like an entirely reasonable way for govt. to calculate its debt. Your analogy is poor because you were considering completely discretionary spending. Your kid is looking at colleges, right now, right? Say s/he enrolls at a fancy university with predicted tuition expenses of 20k fr. yr., 21.5k so. yr., 23k jr. yr., and 24.5k sr. yr. After three years of steady tuition increases and significant planning on your part about your future budget, the university decides to leave your kid's tuition at 23k for that last year. Have you saved 1500 or O?
Cal - There were probably a lot of questionable statements made in the 70s.
40685. DaveM - 9/11/2000 11:12:06 AM
Ducky -
Judges often don't mind precedent. I'm pretty sure that there are disagreements among the courts about: 1. whether fetuses are simply tissue masses (or tissue masses +); 2. how interests are allotted legal representation; 3. how people involved in moronic cults are treated.
Besides, you are ignoring the basic fact that everyone should have a lawyer. Keeps the job market strong.
40686. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 11:22:23 AM
Dave
Besides, you are ignoring the basic fact that everyone should have a lawyer. Keeps the job market strong.
i like you - so i'll spare you my anti-lawyer screeds.
40687. Dusty - 9/11/2000 12:44:09 PM
DaveM
I think Jexster's debt reduction statistics stem from the difference between projected debt and actual debt, though I didn't look too closely.
I agree. I tried to make that point in Message # 40645
That is not necessarily a poor way to look at things.
I'm sure reasonable people could argue about whether this is a valid way to look at the numbers, and I suspect decent arguments could be made in favor of presenting numbers this way. But I contend that such an approach should be clearly labeled.
Calling it a 360 billion debt reduction, is nice and clean, but misleading IMHO. If they said instead, the debt at the end of September will be 360 billion below what it might have been had we spent and borrowed more, it would be more accurate, but wouldn't have that nice sound bite quality they were looking for.
Do you think the average reader of the proposal reads we will have paid back $360 billion of debt over three years and automatically knows that this does not mean the debt is 360 billion lower than any time in the past? Instead, it is 360 billion lower than some projection of what the debt might have increased to under some alternative spending assumptions?
40688. Dusty - 9/11/2000 12:45:49 PM
oops, posted before refreshing and seeing Message # 40684
40689. Dusty - 9/11/2000 12:47:27 PM
DaveM
Say s/he enrolls at a fancy university with predicted tuition expenses of 20k fr. yr., 21.5k so. yr., 23k jr. yr., and 24.5k sr. yr. After three years of steady tuition increases and significant planning on your part about your future budget, the university decides to leave your kid's tuition at 23k for that last year. Have you saved 1500 or O?
Neither. I am out 23k after making the payment.
40690. robertjayb - 9/11/2000 1:08:16 PM
.
Bush has narrow edge in POA poll:
September 11, 2000
Presidential Tracking Poll
"In the race for the White House, George W. Bush and Al Gore are virtually tied in the popular vote. In Portrait of America's latest 3-day average Bush has 42.5% while Gore has 41.7%; Ralph Nader, 3.2%, Pat Buchanan, 1.4%, Harry Browne 1.3%, Howard Phillips .2%, and John Hagelin .3%. These results from a nightly Portrait of America Presidential Tracking Poll reflect interviews conducted September 7, 9 and 10."
40691. jexster - 9/11/2000 1:57:28 PM
The Bush-bashing may have faded for the moment, but Vice President Gore won the media skirmishing this morning by figuring out once again how to make news.
It doesn't hurt, in this poll-obsessed age, that he's putting good numbers on the board as well — good enough that one newspaper now declares him to be ahead in the all-important Electoral College race.
And his running mate keeps getting good press, too.
The tenor of George W. Bush's coverage, meanwhile, might best be gleaned from the Drudge Report headline describing a major newspaper profile: "Bush Dad Never Told Him to Buy Condom."
The day's big score involves an interview that Gore and Joe Lieberman granted to the New York Times on the veranda of the vice president's mansion. In what the Times describes as "a clear appeal to voters concerned about moral issues, and particularly to women with children," the duo unloaded on the entertainment industry.
This was cleverly timed because the Federal Trade Commission is about to release a study (reported by The Washington Post today) blasting the industry for marketing violent, adult-oriented entertainment to kids, which will keep the issue in the headlines.
more here
Get the picture? Bush's bloated corpse crawling with maggots lying alongside the 2000 Campaign Trail. The Great Campaign Trail Roadkill proceeds apace as Gore continues to dominate in the coverage battles as he has done in each week since selecting Lieberman.
40692. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 2:03:09 PM
Jex
do you agree with Gore's pandering wrt his "ultimatum" given to the "entertainment industry"?
to me, it smacks of ill conceived silliness to try and tell an entire industry what/how to market its product. other than liquor and cigarettes, i can't think of another instance of this. isn't this just campaigning with no spine?
40693. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:07:08 PM
No I don't think that the Government has the authority to sanction the entertainment industry for their speech. It is "commercial speech" to be sure. Perhaps an argument can be fashioned that it is less deserving of protection that other types of speech but I find the distinction unpersuasive.
Still, media violence is, I think, a troublesome social problem and something need to be done.
Taking of lawyer hat, reaching for "Great Campaign Trail Roadkill Y2K"chapeau, Its a KICK ASS Move!
40694. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:08:38 PM
As far as marketing products go cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, pornography, medications, and guns are regulated to one degree or another
40695. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 2:08:52 PM
i'll take that as a "yes, it is campaigning with no spine, rubberducky"
heh
40696. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:10:47 PM
The sale of goods or services manufactured or produced in harmful ways or which have harmful effects are extensively regulated in general both domestically and by way of import control
40697. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:11:35 PM
what exactly would campaigning WITH a spine mean, in the context of addressing the various so-called sins of the entertainment industry?
40698. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:12:34 PM
No I don't think I agree with your "no spine" remark. Actually its the tougher stance requiring substantial spine especially given the Democrat's relations with the entertainment industry.
Mucho Spine...Mucho Roadkill
40699. Wombat - 9/11/2000 2:14:21 PM
Al Gore (Campaigning with spine):
Violence sells and there's nothing you can do about it! If you cannot control your own kids, it's your own damn fault! Ever heard of the "off" button?
40700. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:15:59 PM
WRT: Spinelessness, I think RD is beginning to appreciate that George W. is, as I have called him for over a year, indeed my first moniker, The Chicken Man.
In fact, in the history of craven candidates, we've not seen GWB's like very often.
RD is now troubled that I might be right - again - thus the back-breaking, shoulder-dislocating reach
40701. Thoughtful - 9/11/2000 2:16:42 PM
vonKreedon, thanks for posting about the Nader site. Obviously ducky has his 40702. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:17:24 PM The "just use the off button" is just so much horsewaste. Its the CYA for irresponsible production to blame the victim 40703. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:18:06 PM Wombat - for one of the few times I can think of, I disagree with you. No question that parents should shoulder much of the burden in terms of what type(s) of violence/entertainment creeps into their kids' lifes. 40704. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 2:19:11 PM Re: Message # 40697, janjon. 40705. Wombat - 9/11/2000 2:19:44 PM Janjon & Jexter: 40706. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:21:41 PM jexster - did you read the fascinating episode in today's Times about W.'s relationship with his father? I guess I'm not surprised that others are picking up on the condom/raincoat comments (although I am surprised that the Times saw fit to include that little tidbit). There's a lot of other stuff in there that would make a Freudian drool. 40707. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 2:21:48 PM Re: Message # 40699, Wombat. 40708. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:22:48 PM Sorry Wombat...I took you seriously but was also somewhat querulous that you'd have said such 40709. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:22:57 PM wombat - ah, that makes me feel much better. I don't like having my vision of the world and those who inhabit it subject to inexplicable quirks! 40710. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 2:23:07 PM Re: Message # 40701, Thoughtful. 40711. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:23:51 PM RD - Well rain on my fuckin parade. Damn I thought I had another Bushite by the 'nads 40712. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 2:25:14 PM Jex 40713. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:27:09 PM JJ - Maybe the Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy of Nattering Nabobs of Negativism, having taken righteous offense at the Bush League Slime of Clymer, is moving to correct the coverage imbalance in favor of the Moron....Perhaps the Moron is beginning to emerge in the public imagination 40714. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:29:21 PM FLINT, Mich. –– After securing core support among women and minorities, Al Gore is using his evolving populist message to break George W. Bush's lock on a constituency crucial to Republican victory: white working-class and moderate-income men. 40715. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:31:09 PM 40716. Wombat - 9/11/2000 2:31:43 PM Guys: 40717. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:35:23 PM Wombat - trust me, ages 6 and 3 are a piece of cake as to what is about to happen in terms of control over what your kids see/hear/read/absorb. First, they develop their own observations and ways of getting info. Then come sleepovers. Then... 40718. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:35:40 PM Bush is out of his league, that is the The Bush League. He should have stayed with the Austin Armadillos. The GOP moneybags wasted their money buying GWB's ticket to the Big Show. 40719. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 2:36:19 PM ...Al Gore is using his evolving populist message to break George W. Bush's lock on a constituency crucial to Republican victory: white working-class and moderate-income men. 40720. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:40:15 PM jex - I suppose one shouldn't be surprised that W. is still out their putting up that not-very-jutted chin and pronouncing "I'm gonna win. You can book it.", since that is traditional for politicians who figuratively are at the mast of the Titanic. But, somehow, you get the feeling that he still believes/wills it to be so. If I didn't think it was indeed the pleasing-Daddy syndrome that led him to choose that disaster Cheney, it does seem plausible that he did so mostly because he didn't think it would make any difference who he picked. He was going to win and therefore unquestioned loyalty to him and his family was paramount. 40721. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:43:51 PM As in past elections, the Democrats have collected millions of dollars in campaign contributions this year from the entertainment industry. But Mr. Gore, who has chastised the industry even as he solicited its wealthy leaders, suggested that he was not concerned about alienating his backers in Hollywood and New York City. 40722. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:47:14 PM JJ- Its rare for any politician headed for the bone yard to admit it. Having been up close and personal in a few campaigns, I'm here to tell 'ya that it takes an unbelievable committment of energy and ego. It is a world unknown to most, very hard to imagine. 40723. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:50:39 PM jex - I suspect that among other things it means that another potload of tv spots that the RNC had prepared will just sit on the shelf. Gotta believe that they were set to go with more of their tv/movies=moral decay=Dems in general, Clinton in specific and Gore by osmosis crap. Yet another plan on how to gain some votes from women foiled. 40724. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:51:37 PM RD- what's maddening is the special interest politics that have grown up in America since the 70's. A huge disconnect of empathy in society. I am not black, so I don't appreciate "black" issues; not a woman, so "equal pay for equal work" isn't important; not a tree hugger etc etc etc 40725. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:51:59 PM jex - I agree that McCain was about as likely to occur as it was to envision that (a) JFK would go for LBJ and (b) LBJ would accept. 40726. Ronski - 9/11/2000 2:52:50 PM janjon, 40727. Wombat - 9/11/2000 2:53:47 PM RD: 40728. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:53:57 PM jex - it all started when the Dixiecrats walked out in 1944. The beginning of the end of the BIG UMBRELLA. For both parties. 40729. Ronski - 9/11/2000 2:55:52 PM 40730. Wombat - 9/11/2000 2:56:39 PM What I enjoyed about Lazio was his description of Castro as a "terrorist" and Arafat as something other than one. Say good bye to the right wing Jewish vote.... 40731. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:57:00 PM ronski. I even wonder if Clinton did the handshake at least in part in the hope that it would cause Rick to react the way he did. A little trap. 40732. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:58:35 PM ronski. oops. Yes indeed, the walkout was '48 but the first big convention ruckus was in '44. 40733. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:59:39 PM Lazio should stick to stuffing his mouth with sausages at county fairs. They taste better than feet. 40734. Ronski - 9/11/2000 3:00:24 PM 40735. Wombat - 9/11/2000 3:01:01 PM Janj: 40736. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 3:01:36 PM Re: Message # 40724, jexster. 40737. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:03:47 PM The Bushes are really excellent Republicans in at least one respect, they are a vicious, petty, vindictive lot - traits that emerged in full fetid flower over the past 8 years as the "politics of personal distruction". 40738. Ronski - 9/11/2000 3:07:53 PM It is interesting that the predictions that Hillary's campaign would vie with the presidential race for national media attention have proven wrong. Aside from this photo business, the Senate race has all the excitement of a councilman's contest in Sleepy Hollow. In the time of Washington Irving. 40739. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:11:34 PM I'm not so certain that your cynicism is justified RD or at least it is misplaced. 40740. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:15:15 PM JJ - Good point. Bush is no JFK. McCain is no LBJ 40741. Ronski - 9/11/2000 3:16:17 PM And some gays have had the sense not to trust political society for the advancement of their interests, as important as it is ultimately to codify equal treatment for gay people. 40742. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 3:22:26 PM Re: Message # 40739, jexster. 40743. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:33:32 PM WRT the genuineness of Gore's concern about media violence marketing, I have no doubt that it is the real deal. 40744. Jack Vincennes - 9/11/2000 3:34:04 PM In a rapid-fire series of light questions about his personal side, Winfrey asked him, "Favorite cereal?" This exchange followed: 40745. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 3:36:35 PM Jack 40746. RosettaStone - 9/11/2000 3:37:39 PM Did she ask him about whether or not his daddy taught him about using condoms, the way the NYTimes did to Bush? 40747. glendajean - 9/11/2000 3:42:36 PM personally, i think he'll go with grits to show he's more of a man 40748. Jack Vincennes - 9/11/2000 3:43:01 PM I make no judgments. 40749. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:43:38 PM Not only gays Ronski most interest groups. 40750. janjon - 9/11/2000 3:44:08 PM Stone. Read more carefully. If that is possible. The Times was just restating some comments W. made to some other publication some years ago. 40751. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:44:44 PM JV - I dunno about judgments for if you made no judgement you made no point either 40752. janjon - 9/11/2000 3:44:52 PM jack - your point being? 40753. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:48:54 PM Yes Gore is telling the entertainment industry not to market violence to kids. That is exactly what he is doing. The FTC report concludes that the entertainment industry's actions subvert their voluntary ratings system. Gore will call for a remedy to false and deceptive ad practice on the theory that the ratings system is undercut in a conscious, deliberate way by advertising practices. Its akin to the tobacco companies putting warnings on cigarettes at the same time gutting them with Joe Camel. 40754. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:50:57 PM That last was for RD. 40755. Jack Vincennes - 9/11/2000 3:51:52 PM jexster, janjon 40756. janjon - 9/11/2000 3:53:25 PM you've come a long way, jack. A long way. 40757. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:58:52 PM RD/Ronski - I am gay. I am for DOMA at least insofar as I believe that gay marriage is not good policy and perceive that it furthers a dumbing down of hetero marriage though I also see constitutional full faith and credit problems and although I also believe that society should sanction and support responsible, committed, monogamous relationships for same sex couples. 40758. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 3:58:55 PM Re: Message # 40753, jexster. 40759. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:59:45 PM Yes JV, Gore is one love maker and heart breaker. 40760. jexster - 9/11/2000 4:02:05 PM RD - read your articles before you link, indeed before you type, certainly before you claim my post nonsense 40761. janjon - 9/11/2000 4:02:33 PM And, he likes the Breakfast of Champions too!! 40762. jexster - 9/11/2000 4:06:09 PM Again, we're back to "just turn it off". That is non-sense. Just an excuse, just blame the victim. Caveat emptor is not an answer to the charge. Its a defense in avoidance. 40763. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 4:10:36 PM Re: Message # 40760, jexster. 40764. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 4:11:30 PM 40765. jexster - 9/11/2000 4:12:21 PM Oh sure it does RD. Whether voluntary or not, the point's the same. In fact, the conduct of those who shield themselves with voluntary warnings is more culpable than those who are required to put warnings on. 40766. jexster - 9/11/2000 4:13:18 PM ITs a marketing ploy exactly what the FTC says. 40767. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 4:18:29 PM the point you're over looking, Jex, is that the companies decided to do something to help parents weed out content. they don't, by and large, do that. so, boo-hoo they market silly-nilly "mature" content at 15 year-olds. such a horrific crime! 40768. jexster - 9/11/2000 4:19:09 PM Sen Brownback (R-KS) is on CNN - a perfect example of a Republican who cannot decide whether to shit or go Brownback 40769. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 4:19:29 PM damn i'm having editing problems today 40770. jexster - 9/11/2000 4:22:51 PM I'm not overlooking anything RD. The industry put those warnings on knowing and intending to render them useless. You are correct. The warnings are a marketing ploy. 40771. jexster - 9/11/2000 4:27:28 PM Damn do I know my Moron or what! 40772. janjon - 9/11/2000 4:32:59 PM I can hardly wait to hear Cheney spew forth "Real Plans for Real People 40773. Ronski - 9/11/2000 4:33:00 PM Jexster, 40774. Jack Vincennes - 9/11/2000 4:33:25 PM "Who is fool enough to be suckered by this marketing ploy?" 40775. janjon - 9/11/2000 4:34:45 PM jack - less than two months before your misery ends. 40776. Ronski - 9/11/2000 4:35:17 PM I meant to post about the new slogan. 40777. Jack Vincennes - 9/11/2000 4:36:42 PM janjon 40778. janjon - 9/11/2000 4:37:34 PM A current Marist poll gives Gore a 25 point lead over W. in New York. As in State, not just City (where it would be more like about a 45 point lead). 40779. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 4:37:59 PM Re: Message # 40768, jexster. 40780. Jack Vincennes - 9/11/2000 4:39:11 PM Asked what he likes to sleep in, Gore – whose wife once suggested in a broadcast interview that he sleeps in the buff – said with a guilty smile: "A bed." 40781. Jack Vincennes - 9/11/2000 4:39:59 PM Winfrey replayed the tape of the Gores' passionate embrace at the Democratic National Convention last month. Winfrey's narration included "Hello, baby." 40782. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/11/2000 4:40:29 PM 40783. janjon - 9/11/2000 4:40:58 PM jack - I do in fact know what you mean. I cannot listen to W (most of my listening is via radio, not t.v., so I don't really know what effect a face and moving mouth would make) without getting a nasty little shiver. And, back in the days when I occasionally had to contemplate that he might become my....leader....let alone, commander in chief, well..... 40784. janjon - 9/11/2000 4:42:58 PM A bed? That is lame. 40785. robertjayb - 9/11/2000 4:46:38 PM . 40786. jexster - 9/11/2000 4:47:53 PM The FTC reports that 80 percent of movies rated R are being marketed to teens and a memo "we need to find a way to sell this stuff to kids" 40787. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 4:50:36 PM i'm sure that Rev Al will kick ass when he gets in office and stop all that evil bidness 40788. jexster - 9/11/2000 5:04:37 PM I dunno whether he will or not. I am not sure its a good idea even. I have no reason to believe that he doesn't mean what he says. 40789. jexster - 9/11/2000 5:17:15 PM RD - Gore said what he said RD....he wants the FTC to sanction deceptive advertising practice....You have no reason to doubt that statement. Neither can you challenge the certainty that the result cannot be achieved unless someone tries to do it! 40790. jexster - 9/11/2000 5:17:59 PM 40791. jexster - 9/11/2000 5:19:44 PM Why is JV so hung up on the Big Kiss? 40792. jexster - 9/11/2000 5:20:16 PM 40793. Raskolnikov - 9/11/2000 5:23:11 PM I think JV is just appalled that Gore might actually *plan in advance* to kiss his wife on national TV (although Tipper was obviously caught off guard by it). 40794. Cellar Door - 9/11/2000 5:32:03 PM When a woman said she was praying that ``God was going to make you a president,'' Bush rushed to her corner of the room and leaned across a row of seniors to reach her. She leaned across, too, and caressed Bush's face as he gave her a quick kiss. 40795. robertjayb - 9/11/2000 5:48:35 PM . 40796. labwabbit - 9/11/2000 5:52:24 PM The lead is Gore's first outside the margin of error since the tracking poll began in April." 40797. Raskolnikov - 9/11/2000 6:11:35 PM Gallup 40798. Raskolnikov - 9/11/2000 6:16:32 PM 40799. labwabbit - 9/11/2000 6:20:28 PM 40800. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 11:06:31 PM Re: Message # 40789, jexster. 40801. labwabbit - 9/11/2000 11:42:40 PM ...heavy mental gymnastics. 40802. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 11:46:11 PM um 40803. CalGal - 9/11/2000 11:50:01 PM Hey, Ducky, if it's not a hassle, could you add the Gallup poll to the butterscotch bar? The Zogby one might be another neat one to add. 40804. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 11:57:29 PM 40805. jexster - 9/12/2000 12:23:58 AM Why Dis Man Be Smilin'? 40806. jexster - 9/12/2000 12:24:27 AM I think Al's quite the hottie 40807. vonKreedon - 9/12/2000 1:07:00 AM 40808. EricCartman - 9/12/2000 2:37:33 AM Message # 40762 is a classic example of the muddleheaded feel-goodism Lieberman (and Clinton, for that matter) has dabbled in in the past. The irony of the phrase "shaming Hollywood into doing the right thing" is apparently lost on Rev. Joe. Good thing movie flacks have a sense of humor, and since they don't have souls, it's impossible to insult them. So it's a safe hand to bite. S&M is big in Hollyweird, or so I'm told. 40809. EricCartman - 9/12/2000 2:38:10 AM Vince Message # 40780: 40810. EricCartman - 9/12/2000 2:38:25 AM Message # 40788 & Message # 40789 could literally have been written by a young Tina Turner, always certain that Ike would never beat the shit out of her again. Why? Because he said so. Look, I'll give the guy credit -- he's more qualified than W. So is one of my cats. 40811. angel-five - 9/12/2000 8:38:40 AM Bah, all of this is irrelevant. President Gore; mark my words. Bush is looking tired and weak. Gore is smiling like a man who knows he has three more aces in his sleeve. People are finally admitting that they aren't really fatigued by Clinton. And the debates are coming. And admit it, folks. Gore is so close to the middle of the road on most things that there really won't be a hell of a lot of difference between him and, say, a socially and environmentally hip Republican. It's ridiculous that things like the election of our president get decided by non-facts like one of the candidate slipping his wife some tongue on camera --really, what's next, bare tits on page 3? -- but there you have it. Gore will be better for our nation than a industrial whore from the most damaged state in the union, but he'll get elected because he actually looks like he's alive, now, and that puts him ahead of Bush. And it'll be two years into his presidency before everyone figures out that Tipper didn't actually like the kiss, but that's fine by me, anyway. Anything that Tipper doesn't like can't be all bad -- she's a half-baked flaky blonde with the brains of a collie and by all appearances Al should sue her charm school for a breach of their maintenance contract, but if you study her long enough you'll figure out that behind that glitzy vapid smile lurks the natural viciousness of a food-depped sewer rat. I guarantee she routinely slaps Al in private and has kicked him in the sack at least once. But look at it on the bright side; the two of them ought to keep us all entertained for a while. 40812. stostosto - 9/12/2000 8:42:27 AM Pentangeli: 40813. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 9:05:48 AM The bushies have stepped into it once again with the latest anti-Gore ad where the subliminal message "RATS" was slipped in in a single frame. The fact that they are doing it at all is bad enough....but their "it was a mistake -- it wasn't intentional -- somehow part of the word 'bureaucrats' got left in" is just absurd. As Tom Friedman says in today's NY Times -- don't insult the intelligence of the electorate. It's a losing strategy every time. 40814. angel-five - 9/12/2000 9:18:13 AM There's a perfectly sane explanation for all of this, actually. They considered the intelligence of the average non-partisan projected Bush voter. Then they wanted to make 'em hungry. 40815. angel-five - 9/12/2000 9:18:14 AM There's a perfectly sane explanation for all of this, actually. They considered the intelligence of the average non-partisan projected Bush voter. Then they wanted to make 'em hungry. 40816. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 9:33:25 AM the current tagline for "Politics" is: 40817. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 9:48:33 AM Then the bushies proved that it just ain't the idiot up front. I visited their web site yesterday and, like so many web sites, they have a question for the day -- a way to get the surfers involved in the site. Yesterday's question was, In Which State is Cheney Registered to Vote? Sheesh! Why would they so foolishly bring attention to the fact that they are skirting the Constitutional requirement that running mates be from different states? How dumb can you get? 40818. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 9:49:13 AM Bush Explained? 40819. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/12/2000 10:17:49 AM How about: Propaganda Ping Pong Anyone? 40820. JudithAtHome - 9/12/2000 11:08:50 AM Politics: the good, the bad, and the ugly 40821. janjon - 9/12/2000 11:18:49 AM angel. You're wrong about Tipper. I plead guilty to knowing her rather well and having liked her immensely for all the time I've known her (back to the time Al first became a Senator.) Among her other many attributes, no collie in brains be she. Very bright. Very analytical. Perhaps more importantly, very decent. She's been deeply involved in many more worthy projects than she's ever been given credit for because she does much of what she does on an anonymous (sometimes even incognito) basis. 40822. janjon - 9/12/2000 11:21:15 AM vonKreeden. Regarding Al's appearance with Ophrah yesterday, if you read back a bit here you will note that our good Jack V. got himself all in a dither (well, not as much as a dither as he CAN get himself into about the good Al) about it all. This of course told me, even before I read the news stories today, that Al had hit a home run. 40823. JudithAtHome - 9/12/2000 11:24:14 AM Politics... 40824. Cellar Door - 9/12/2000 11:46:52 AM 40825. angel-five - 9/12/2000 11:53:37 AM Real gems don't censor. 40826. janjon - 9/12/2000 12:01:24 PM even the brightest jewels sometimes have a minor flaw. 40827. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 12:02:19 PM jan 40828. janjon - 9/12/2000 12:04:02 PM jack - I just sensed you were too bright not to eventually come to your senses. Welcome aboard! 40829. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 12:05:34 PM And the funny he made with Oprah when she asked his favorite ceral, and he said "Oprah", punning that he meant "serialized TV show"? 40830. janjon - 9/12/2000 12:06:56 PM we're not hiring him to put on a soft shoe show, Jack. Or a baseball game. 40831. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 12:08:09 PM Oh, but we should. He's THAT good. 40832. janjon - 9/12/2000 12:09:04 PM as I said, welcome aboard kid! 40833. JudithAtHome - 9/12/2000 12:12:10 PM The Vanity Fair piece also says GW sets aside 3 hours a day to play video games...misses his days of the joystick in that fighter plane, no doubt. 40834. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 12:12:45 PM so, jack, i see janjon must agree with jexster's Message # 40806. 40835. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 12:14:28 PM duck 40836. angel-five - 9/12/2000 12:15:11 PM Any more, say, than imposing a R rating on a movie and People intimate with the MPAA rating system and how it absolutely governs content in a film, from the conception to the completion, would probably tell you that 'censorship' is quite a good word to use to describe what the MPAA does. You might not want to use that example. Tipper, and the PMRC, not only tried to accomplish in music what the MPAA has already accomplished in cinema, but they failed, and they got made to look like hapless morons in the effort to boot. Christ, even Dee Snider made them look sad. Censorship isn't a minor flaw, Janjon, and neither is ineptitude. I'm sure that to some folks Tipper Gore is a perfectly lovely human being, but if she's as bright as you'd paint her then her judgment is abysmal -- it's gotta be one or the other. She undoubtedly spent a lot of time remaking herself since that debacle and distancing herself from it -- you don't hear the letters PMRC much anymore, let alone from her, do you? -- but a fool with a dozen handlers is still a fool. 40837. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 12:17:11 PM She did seem dazed during her DNC spech. I thought it might be the tonscillectomy she received from her husband, but she does have a suburban housewife's prescription drug-induced demeanor. 40838. angel-five - 9/12/2000 12:18:26 PM I wasn't going to be the one to say it, but, yeah. Of course, to you, that prolly just makes her sexy. 40839. JudithAtHome - 9/12/2000 12:18:54 PM JV: 40840. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 12:19:08 PM Well . . . okay. Fair shot. 40841. robertjayb - 9/12/2000 12:20:14 PM . 40842. glendajean - 9/12/2000 12:24:34 PM The Vanity Fair piece also says GW sets aside 3 hours a day to play video games...misses his days of the joystick in that fighter plane, no doubt. 40843. angel-five - 9/12/2000 12:26:01 PM Right under the Coast Guard radar, to boot. 40844. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 12:32:04 PM J@H 40845. JudithAtHome - 9/12/2000 12:35:50 PM I daresay Harrison Ford or Bill Pullman or Kevin Kline or Michael Douglas or even Michaels FATHER would do as well as GW. 40846. labwabbit - 9/12/2000 12:37:02 PM a5 40847. janjon - 9/12/2000 12:37:22 PM jack - she gave her talk BEFORE THE KISS . And, she did not look or act dazed. Cogent, intelligent, with it. 40848. jexster - 9/12/2000 12:40:58 PM This election is turning into a farce. 40849. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/12/2000 12:42:41 PM CD- Thanks for the headsup [-- lousy visuals, though!] 40850. bubbaette - 9/12/2000 12:44:16 PM sorry, but I don't want to see either of the candidates sucking face. 40851. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 12:44:52 PM janjon 40852. janjon - 9/12/2000 12:46:00 PM I recommend to all an article in this week's New Yorker about Ms. Hsia and the Buddhist Temple to-do. 40853. labwabbit - 9/12/2000 12:46:10 PM Well I have a question about public kissing behind a podium... 40854. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/12/2000 12:46:37 PM . . . and did someone say: "RATS?" 40855. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/12/2000 12:47:42 PM BUBBA!!!! 40856. janjon - 9/12/2000 12:47:49 PM Well, Jack you got the nimble part down pat, lets now work on the quick. 40857. jexster - 9/12/2000 12:48:47 PM Houston -- DOWN HERE in the land of the tumbleweeds, they'll insult a man by saying he's ``all hat and no cattle.'' It sort of means he's full of hot air. 40858. jexster - 9/12/2000 12:50:45 PM Doesn't JV have anything else to talk about? 40859. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/12/2000 12:51:09 PM Jex- That's the reason BushLIGHT™ is depicted as a hat in Doonsbury. 40860. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 12:51:29 PM jexster 40861. jexster - 9/12/2000 12:52:09 PM But are you comfortable with Cllrdr giving you a sex life? 40862. labwabbit - 9/12/2000 12:52:34 PM GW: (see pic above) Hey babe is the mike turned rats off? 40863. OhioSTOPAS - 9/12/2000 12:53:23 PM The Bush campaign's use of subliminal advertising was particularly stupid because it required the candidate to come forward and try to pronounce "subliminal". 40864. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 12:59:24 PM Re: Message # 40858, jexster. 40865. janjon - 9/12/2000 12:59:45 PM If things continue on their current path for, say, a week or so more, watch the GOP rats begin to scurry. As in, more funds being diverted to the Congressional races. And, not just House. I would think that in the bottom of their collective hearts, the RNC is now getting more than just a little concerned about whether they will keep control of the Senate. Trent is NOT going to sit by and watch that happen, W. be damned. 40866. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:03:25 PM As far as leading discourse, I'd be delighted to accept. 40867. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:05:05 PM Here's the Moron on CNN 40868. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 1:05:22 PM rubberduck 40869. janjon - 9/12/2000 1:09:13 PM Jack - Thinking about the Senate, how do things look in Virginia? 40870. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/12/2000 1:09:28 PM I'd rather see him bite Jack! 40871. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:10:28 PM RD its easy. The polls are clearly moving in Gore's direction. All polls show him in the lead including Gallup now 7%. Gallup has been the worst for Gore among polls that have gone all over the lot. 40872. janjon - 9/12/2000 1:12:58 PM Moreover, a number of issues where real differences exist between W. and Gore and which will only serve to increase Gore's swaying to him of the undecided voters haven't even been "aired" in detail yet. Abortion rights and gun control, to name two biggies. 40873. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:13:03 PM Bush is just so much armadillo carrion on the Campaign Trail. 40874. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 1:13:26 PM janjon 40875. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 1:15:20 PM Angel 5: why do you think Tipper's PMRC stint was bad judgment on her part? You may not have liked her actions, but from a PR standpoint, her actions were successful (they got the voluntary labelling they wanted) and prescient, given the current national mood about such things. 40876. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 1:17:02 PM Ohio, 40877. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:17:39 PM JJ - Gore changed the playing field, with his convention speech that most of the pundits panned, he in one night, changed the framework of the race, its very dynamic from one of personality/"scandals" to his home turf. 40878. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:18:33 PM I'll take that bet. GOP up 2 is fantasy land. 40879. janjon - 9/12/2000 1:18:39 PM Jack - I would bet you heavily that it won't be 54-46. 52-48 maybe, but 51-49 is more likely. 40880. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:21:35 PM There are only 2 paid pundits who can match my analytic performance this year - William Saletan (Bill is God) and the guy who writes the On the Campaign Trail for the Post.... 40881. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 1:21:48 PM jan 40882. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:23:51 PM The real significance of the violence in media flap is not so much that it plays well with women and Reagan Democrats, its that it further innoculates Gore on the Clinton negatives leaving only the considerable Clinton performance positives 40883. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:24:35 PM I don't only post what I read JV, I tell you what tommorrow's paper is going to say... 40884. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:26:52 PM I'm havin a ball this year. Not only around this cyber dump, I'm involved with local young Demos in a Stop Nader effort and 2 campaigns for supervisor. 40885. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 1:27:06 PM quick update on the MN Senate race. The primary today will probably select Mark Dayton as the Dem nominee. I personally consider Dayton the worst of the 4 Dem hopefuls (I'll be voting for Yanisch, I think), but he has high name recognition and a lot of money (heir to Dayton's/Target/ department store fortune). At the same time, Rod Grams is taking a lot of flak since a top aide/girlfried was evidently the anonymous circulator of a possibly illegal anti-Ciresi (another Dem contender who was the front runner a few months ago) was e-mailed from a Hotmail account that had occasionally been accessed from her home. 40886. CalGal - 9/12/2000 1:30:30 PM Rask, 40887. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 1:30:42 PM Senate will of course be affected by the Presidential election. If it ends up looking like a rout for Gore (premature to call, but not at all out of the question given Bush's currently lackluster campaign and his weak performance in past debates), a lot of close Senate races will ride on Gore's coat-tails. I still would bet on a GOP Senate, but I would take shorter odds on a Dem win than most. 40888. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:31:02 PM Howard Kurtz - Gore on A Roll 40889. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:34:04 PM Bush, who needs to go negative, has crumbled in the face of criticism that an ad that isn't even remotely negative is a Bush slime job because of a subliminal message 40890. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 1:36:15 PM "I read something recently on that race--the Dems were caught off 40891. vonKreedon - 9/12/2000 1:36:29 PM 40892. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 1:40:44 PM Vk 40893. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 1:42:24 PM vK 40894. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 1:43:26 PM or two. 40895. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 1:44:02 PM Jex: actually, the winning candidate dominated for such a length of time in every election after 1960, with the exception of 1980, where it was nip and tuck most of the way. Bush can look to 1976 and 1968 for hope, in that a candidate way behind for most of the race came within a hair of catching up in the last couple of weeks (but neither won). 40896. vonKreedon - 9/12/2000 1:48:51 PM 40897. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 1:56:01 PM Vk 40898. CalGal - 9/12/2000 1:57:33 PM I think the one surprise has been Bush's discomfiture when he's behind. Great winner, not such a terrific fighter. 40899. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 1:59:35 PM how big is a surprise is it though, CG? 40900. CalGal - 9/12/2000 2:03:29 PM I was referring to both incidents, although I realize I wasn't clear. Yes, the McCain situation brought out the same reaction--cranky, fumbly, upset. 40901. vonKreedon - 9/12/2000 2:06:33 PM 40902. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 2:08:40 PM vK 40903. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:11:19 PM Now that the voter's are getting engaged, they are getting engaged on issues, engaged on Gore's terms not Bush's 40904. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 2:14:40 PM From CNN 40905. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:15:00 PM I wish you could be more specific Rask....I am talking about the parry and thrust of the campaing in specifics....Bush cannot get traction on anything...every time he tries to take the initiative from Gore we see shit like "Major League Asshole", "Dick Cheney Doesn't Vote" etc etc. 40906. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:17:46 PM Voters do in fact make a distinction WRT negative campaigning between issue/record criticism (legit) and "personal attacks"/mudslinging (risky) 40907. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:20:06 PM Kurtz accurately reviews the bidding for the first month of serious campaigning thusly 40908. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 2:21:08 PM I was going by poll standings, which are a more reliable indicator of how a campaign is going than the number of negative headlines. For instance, while Bush was taking media heat in 1988 for the selection of Quayle, he was rising steadily in the polls. 40909. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:23:04 PM The GOP isn't captive to the media, they're captive of their candidate. 40910. janjon - 9/12/2000 2:25:29 PM W. isn't as dim as his newest mispronuciation would indicate. Although absurd in concept and naive in terms of thinking they would get by with it, the *RATS* hubbub is, somehow, sublime. 40911. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 2:26:17 PM the difference between attacking a policy and attacking a person is a perfectly sensible distinction, and was surprised when Bush accused Gore of going negative over Gore's attacks on Texas' performance. 40912. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:28:52 PM No I'm not talking polls Rask. I think the polls this year stand on a different footing from those in the past. Unprecendented peace and prosperity have led to a quiescent and unusually volatile electorate. 40913. janjon - 9/12/2000 2:29:26 PM Jex. It all goes back to the fundamental and collosal miscalculation that W. and his handlers (as in Karl Rove) made - even though they truly did believe it would be a close election, never in their wildest dreams did they think that Gore would get there without going negative (and having to do it first). So, they felt quite comfortable taking the high road and making all those wonderful announcements that THEY were going to keep this a positive campaign. (While, of course, reserving the right to respond if attacked, just like they had to in South Carolina when McCain had the gall to compare W. to Big Bill. Right.) 40914. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:30:50 PM I also believe that a composite look at polls from March to August for the past 7 elections will show vastly more divergence this year than previously 40915. janjon - 9/12/2000 2:33:15 PM rask - you've certainly hit one of my buttons. I hate the out of context and distorted use of prior votes in advertising. 40916. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:33:19 PM JJ - Right on. Gore in something akin to "Art of War" has used his enemies momentum against them. Now they're in his trap and can't get out. 40917. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 2:33:54 PM Rask 40918. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:36:37 PM Things are changing now but because of electorate volatility the horse race poll results are not as important as in the past. Better to look at the headline war, media coverage, Poppy's "Mighty Mo",and the underlying issue and personality questions in the polls. Gore is kicking ass on each of these fronts and the effect is beginning to show in the horse race results 40919. janjon - 9/12/2000 2:37:18 PM jack - truth is one thing (like in a candidate indeed having voted against xyz) but the whole truth is better (like in the vote was a procedural one and in fact was made to keep something else from being tabled or whatever.) 40920. janjon - 9/12/2000 2:38:20 PM Speaking of Poppy, how long before he decides that he also has to come charging out and rescue his boy? 40921. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:39:10 PM Horton was a race card play. Therein lay its effectiveness. JV can spout the party line defense all he wishes but every analysis by independent academics confirms what any fool knows....The Horton Theory was the same that Helms ran in his Senate race ad against affirmative action showing a black hand taking a job away from a white. 40922. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 2:39:11 PM jan 40923. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 2:40:14 PM jexster 40924. vonKreedon - 9/12/2000 2:41:48 PM 40925. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 2:42:19 PM Vk 40926. janjon - 9/12/2000 2:42:27 PM jack - I miswrote. In my ideal world, there would be fair context for all political ads. Ergo - I should have written that it SHOULD be truthful in the complete context. 40927. vonKreedon - 9/12/2000 2:43:03 PM 40928. janjon - 9/12/2000 2:43:58 PM What ads? Granted, my t.v. watching is verrrry limited, but I haven't seen a single Presidential campaign ad. Hillary and Ricky is another matter, of course. 40929. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:44:36 PM If anyone is interested in getting beyond the partisan and really learning something about negative campaigning, I strongly suggest that you read "Going Negative" by Ansolalbehere (MIT) and Iyengar (Stanford). 40930. janjon - 9/12/2000 2:44:46 PM I guess that is what living in a Gore-up-by-25-and-climbing state does for you. 40931. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 2:46:47 PM I've only seen a few fuzzy ads for both guys. No raw meat yet. 40932. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 2:55:05 PM "I also believe that a composite look at polls from March to August for 40933. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 3:02:44 PM "Horton was a product of Dukakis' policy, which had long been 40934. janjon - 9/12/2000 3:03:21 PM I agree with most all of what you've said, and indeed I think that their recognition of these historically tested factors underlies W's handlers comments for weeks that they expected the race to be a close one. As I said above, however, I doubt very much that they expected Gore to come close and now ahead without having gone (or being perceived as having gone) negative. Thereby shooting a major if not fatal hole in their strategy and plans. 40935. janjon - 9/12/2000 3:04:51 PM rask - I also agree with your comments that we indeed will see some "clever" ads from Gore soon. Well, at least many of you will. 40936. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 3:08:10 PM 40920. janjon - 9/12/00 2:38:20 PM 40937. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 3:13:05 PM I think this "real people" thing is a total failure -- if we're the "real people" who are the Bushes? Obviously the superior Greenwich-ites/Tokeneke club members who are gracious enough to perform public service for the underclassed and under privileged. 40938. janjon - 9/12/2000 3:13:05 PM thoughtful - well, this one is the Big Enchilada for Poppy. Not just about money. This is about REVENGE!!! 40939. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 3:13:51 PM Yeah, but Poppy doesn't have what it takes -- but watch out for the silver fox! 40940. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 3:15:50 PM I think it was here that someone linked an article about W's first visit to Texas, asked directions and was told to turn right at the next cattle guard. He asked what color the guard would be wearing! 40941. janjon - 9/12/2000 3:17:12 PM "Real Plans for Real People" will go down as one of the stupidest political slogans of all time. Condescending as hell. And, especially stupid when you look at the pedigrees of the principal messengers. Not even W. would deny that he is manor born, in a political sense. And, can you see that phrase tripping off of Cheney's lips without immediately being met with incredulity or guffaws, depending on how polite and close the audience is or whether it is on t.v. 40942. janjon - 9/12/2000 3:18:24 PM The Silver Fox is formidible indeed. It actually would be fun to see her cut loose. 40943. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 3:32:42 PM I think the Bush's not knowing about grocery scanners or ordering pizza really hurt them in the last election -- not major election issues -- but a sign of how out of touch they were with the electorate. The fact that W. has to try to prove he's "one of us" proves that he isn't. 40944. robertjayb - 9/12/2000 5:37:57 PM CNN Daily Tracking Poll: 40945. janjon - 9/12/2000 5:41:13 PM Are there any reputable polls out there that don't show Gore in the ascendency? Either consistently pulling ahead or steadily rising to now being even, depending on the poll? 40946. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 5:41:22 PM Every since Slackjaw introduced me to Bayesian statistics, I have started wishing that polls didn't say whether a difference was statistically significant, and instead listed the probability that the difference was due to chance. With that poll's numbers, it can't be much more than a 10% chance. 40947. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 5:41:58 PM The problem with that poll is it doesn't ask the RATS. Today's key question is how will the RATS vote in the election! There's certainly enough of them to swing it either way. 40948. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 5:44:09 PM There is also something in statistics called meta-analysis, which basically uses the results of multiple studies to figure out whether they collectively are more statistically significant than any of them are individually. I don't know that much about how to do it, but given the number of polls all showing a slight lead for Gore in the last few weeks, I have found myself wondering what they could tell us. 40949. janjon - 9/12/2000 5:46:34 PM I see that this CNN poll covered about 750 voters. Are these from all fifty states? Weighted for the more electorally significant states? 40950. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 5:55:41 PM The national polls mean little to nothing, unless the spread gets to a consistent 10%. 40951. CalGal - 9/12/2000 5:59:49 PM It's been said for a while now that the whole race pretty much depends on about a million voters spread out in about 10 states. Odd, when you think on it. 40952. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 6:00:20 PM "I see that this CNN poll covered about 750 voters. Are these from all 40953. janjon - 9/12/2000 6:00:53 PM a 15 point spread in Illinois? Gawd. 40954. janjon - 9/12/2000 6:02:52 PM Yeah, the swings aren't really that much. 60-40 is definitely a landslide. That boils down to 6 to 4 out of every ten (duh), which ain't much, McGee. 40955. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 6:03:06 PM "The national polls mean little to nothing, unless the spread gets to a 40956. jexster - 9/12/2000 6:17:26 PM I don't think the national polls mean too much at this point for reasons previously stated at least insofar as the horserace question goes 40957. jexster - 9/12/2000 6:20:45 PM Here are some excerpts (brief) from the Vanishing Voter's latest e-mail 40958. jexster - 9/12/2000 6:23:16 PM Also interesting question is how intensely are the voters focusing. We are all well aware that Bush is proving himself to be a stumblin bumblin good ole boy (all hat, no steers) but if most people aren't paying attention then it doesn't matter as much. 40959. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 6:24:33 PM "the danger of straining too hard at poll numbers 40960. bubbaette - 9/12/2000 6:25:40 PM Stop me if you've heard this one before: 40961. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 6:26:10 PM and from what I have seen, no recent poll has fallen outside any other recent poll's margin of error. 40962. RosettaStone - 9/12/2000 7:57:18 PM George W Bush and the evil right-wing conspirators are trying to implant microchips in my brain to monitor my conversations with the Lord...!!! They will try with you, too. Be wary of their plot! Reject their evil doings. 40963. robertjayb - 9/12/2000 8:19:02 PM . 40964. RosettaStone - 9/12/2000 8:30:34 PM Anyone read Drudge tonight? 40965. labwabbit - 9/12/2000 9:51:22 PM 1. Thank you for introducing us to Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, 40966. jexster - 9/12/2000 11:53:37 PM The Little Mouse That Roared: RATS Flap Drowns Bush Message on Health Care 40967. jexster - 9/12/2000 11:59:35 PM Here's a sublimable message for Stone 40968. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/13/2000 12:01:07 AM 40969. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:10:58 AM Rask - I thought that was what I said +/-3 or 4 point spread ie a spread of 3-4 points positive to 3/4 negative. 40970. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:17:05 AM That said, I've already wasted more time on the trial heat the relevance of which I think is less than the attention paid. 40971. angel-five - 9/13/2000 12:19:05 AM Rask: But that labelling wasn't what Tipper campaigned for. She and her accomplices wanted much more. They came up far short of it -- and, if you're just talking about them coming out of the affair with some good press and a good photo op victory over scumbag rock, well, the hearings sort of put an end to that. 40972. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:19:43 AM Additonal Gore lead outside margin of error - CBS/NYT 40973. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:35:11 AM If the Moron isn't battling the Rat Patrol, he's defending himself against accusations he has dislexia! 40974. angel-five - 9/13/2000 12:37:44 AM Ah! And in that campaign add he wanted to attack the 'arts'. It makes much more sense now. 40975. Jonesatlaw - 9/13/2000 12:54:59 AM GW BUSH: 40976. Jonesatlaw - 9/13/2000 12:55:23 AM Conservatives hate affirmative action and want the system to let people into college and jobs and military stuff based on hierarchial numbers crunching from some computers and standardized tests and stuff. 40977. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:56:55 AM Rask - my bad...UR right the margin of error CNN for eg the horse race could be in the latest Gallup 44-52 Gore 38-46 Bush. 40978. Jonesatlaw - 9/13/2000 1:01:07 AM Hey- is the "W" for Willard? Maybe he could play that old Micheal Jackson tune for his next commerical. 40979. jexster - 9/13/2000 1:10:40 AM Jonesy - You don't mean "Willard" you must mean "Widlard" 40980. rubberducky - 9/13/2000 9:51:14 AM 40981. mgleason - 9/13/2000 9:56:37 AM Oh, lord-love-a-duck, stop with the 'subliminable' messages. 40982. rubberducky - 9/13/2000 10:03:00 AM "The point is, this is a way to help inoculate me about what has come and is coming." 40983. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 10:36:51 AM "Rask - my bad...UR right the margin of error CNN for eg the horse race could be in the latest Gallup 44-52 Gore 38-46 Bush." 40984. JudithAtHome - 9/13/2000 10:37:04 AM Ducks: 40985. rubberducky - 9/13/2000 10:41:24 AM J@H 40986. JudithAtHome - 9/13/2000 10:43:17 AM Hows about: 40987. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 10:45:17 AM A5: 40988. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 10:57:44 AM I know most of you here think the federal government is the solution to all of our problems whether it has the constitutional authority to solve the problem or not. Maybe you should reconsider. If you had a brain in your head, you'd understand the importance of the 10th amendment and how it means, in the case of entitlement programs, that people in New Jersey wouldn't have to suffer because of California's fraud and mismanagement. As it is now, money from each tax payer is being wasted equally. Ain't that grand? I know, let's throw *more* money at it! 40989. rubberducky - 9/13/2000 11:04:00 AM welcome Cygnus, but how do you already "know" what "most" of us think? 40990. robertjayb - 9/13/2000 11:04:07 AM . 40991. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 11:04:25 AM Where's Ronski? Here's the #1 reason not to vote for Harry Browne even though he's the best candidate in the race. He has no chance to keep Al Gore out of office. 40992. janjon - 9/13/2000 11:06:23 AM Not one of her top-ten best, but today's column by Maureen Dowd is not too shabby: Hope the underscoring comes through 'cause if it doesn't the point of the column is lost 40993. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 11:06:37 AM rubberducky, I've been reading the posts in this thread. 40994. JudithAtHome - 9/13/2000 11:13:45 AM You know, people can laugh about the verbal mistakes GW makes all they want but havew they stopped to think how they will cringe when he continues to do this on a world stage? Can you imagine the thankless task an interpreter will have? 40995. RosettaStone - 9/13/2000 11:18:47 AM Where shouldn't there be any handicapped jokes? 40996. alan ladd - 9/13/2000 11:22:27 AM Hi there--I am new around here. Yesterday, I posted in the movie thread, and there has not been a post in 22 hours. So, I figured I'd come over here and kill this thread. http://www.savannahjournal.com/news/lafon.shtml 40997. Wombat - 9/13/2000 11:24:05 AM Cygnus: 40998. PsychProf - 9/13/2000 11:26:33 AM Alan...welcome. The Movie thread is discontinuous in posting frequency, as many anchor threads are. I enjoyed yer Shane thing... 40999. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 11:29:01 AM 41000. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 11:29:12 AM 41001. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 11:29:18 AM Gee, I guess you're right Wombat. We should just lower ourselves to the level of our competition. 41002. JudithAtHome - 9/13/2000 11:29:21 AM oops. 41003. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 11:29:29 AM 41004. JudithAtHome - 9/13/2000 11:34:23 AM Alan: 41005. jexster - 9/13/2000 11:42:31 AM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore (news -web sites) has opened a seven-point lead over Republican George W. Bush (news-web sites) in the latest Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday -- the first time his lead has been outside the statistical margin of error. 41006. jexster - 9/13/2000 11:49:10 AM Gore Overcomes Problems With Likeability - CBS/NYT 41007. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:00:46 PM CNN led its midafternoon newscast today with its follow-up to the report. "No detail is too small or too fleeting to cause a controversy," a CNN anchor noted. In its piece about Mr. Bush's tarmac appearance, the network also pointed out that Mr. Bush mispronounced "subliminal" four times 41008. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:02:16 PM toys 41009. janjon - 9/13/2000 12:06:48 PM You mean he didn't even say subliminable? He said sublimable? 41010. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:06:53 PM ST. LOUIS--Joining up with the Bush campaign in Florida yesterday, I was feeling disappointed that I'd missed all the catastrophe of the last few weeks: the failure of Bush's debate-evasion maneuvers, the fizzle of his first attack ad, assholegate. But dawn broke at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach with fresh disasters aplenty for the Republican nominee. 41011. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:07:53 PM JJ - I heard sublimable, but then again I missed RATS when they aired his killer commerical 41012. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:11:46 PM Bush May Suffer From Specific Language Impairment 41013. OhioSTOPAS - 9/13/2000 12:16:37 PM I've had to reconsider my scoring of a draw in Message # 40863. Hearing Dubya on the radio, I thought he successfully made it to the end of "subliminal" despite stumbling. But hearing him again on television, it was "sublimibibble". 41014. OhioSTOPAS - 9/13/2000 12:20:20 PM Message # 41010: Governor Bush's interview performance on Good Morning America was panned by dimwit radio commentator Michael Reagan for yet another reason: Reagan said Diane Sawyer asked Bush about the FTC report on the entertainment industry's marketing of violence to kids - a front page story Monday - and Bush didn't know anything about it. 41015. janjon - 9/13/2000 12:20:47 PM The Weisberg article is well worth reading. I think it sums up the fundamental source of W.'s problems quite well - he's really not interested in policy. Just in winning. Which I do in fact think he is. It would be extremely against human nature not to want to win the race once you've gotten this far. And, I suspect his competitiveness along these lines does, now, outweigh his desire for revenge for Poppy's loss. 41016. OhioSTOPAS - 9/13/2000 12:21:17 PM Now that Pat Buchanan's got 12 million dollars with which to try to take conservative votes away from Bush, it doesn't look good for the governor. 41017. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:21:20 PM The great sublimable dispute may just go down in history as a draw. 41018. janjon - 9/13/2000 12:23:20 PM So, is it this week or next that the RNC begins (quietly, they will fervently hope) to divert $$$$ to the Congressional races? 41019. janjon - 9/13/2000 12:23:56 PM oh, jexster, are you there? 41020. robertjayb - 9/13/2000 12:23:58 PM . 41021. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:24:39 PM I was wondering about the third party effect myself. One would think that Nader would draw from Gore, Buchannan from Bush. But polls seem to suggest that Nader draws from Bush too. 41022. OhioSTOPAS - 9/13/2000 12:26:02 PM With Bush's good poll numbers six months ago - hell, six WEEKS ago - who thought Bush would be behind Gore even with Buchanan at only 1%? 41023. bubbaette - 9/13/2000 12:26:09 PM toys 41024. robertjayb - 9/13/2000 12:26:37 PM toys 41025. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 12:27:48 PM I have to say that any diagnosis of dyslexia without first-hand testing of the person strikes me as very speculative. All we really know is the guy has a chronic problem with pronounciation, which could have (m)any of several root causes, from inattentive mis-readings of a teleprompter or notes, (or inattentive readings combined with a need for glasses), to a very poor vocabulary. Personally, I would say that if it is indeed dyslexia, or any other reading disorder, it reflects positively on Bush, not negatively, as it excuses many of his gaffes. Reading disorders are not necessarily related to intelligence, although they frequently give people the impression that they are. 41026. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:28:51 PM JJ - I'm not predicting they will start to send $$$ to their Senate and Congressional campaign committees. After all, Bush has been moving recently to wrest control of the RNC from the powers that be. 41027. janjon - 9/13/2000 12:31:17 PM I agree with Rask. If it is dyslexia, so be it. And, more power to W. as he copes with it. 41028. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:33:31 PM I also thought it funny that, in speaking of his RATS ad, Bush said "We're taking it out of the rotation" Maybe he's beginning to wax nostalgic for the good old days at the Texas Rangers. When men were men, assholes were assholes, and the good taxpayers of Tarrant County made him a millionaire. 41029. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:35:27 PM My brother weighs in by e-mail 41030. robertjayb - 9/13/2000 12:36:51 PM . 41031. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:39:13 PM Yup Florida looks to be in play. To think, just 6 weeks ago Cheney and Bush were whoopin it up here in California talking about how they were going to make a serious play for the state forcing Gore to spend kazillions to hold his base and now the worm has indeed turned 41032. janjon - 9/13/2000 12:43:50 PM Meanwhile, Hillary defeated her opponent (a doctor who was probably put up to it by the GOP to test the waters as to how big an anti-Hillary vote would turn out) in the primary held here in NYState yesterday. 41033. Wombat - 9/13/2000 12:44:42 PM Cygnus: 41034. Ronski - 9/13/2000 12:52:24 PM Not only is it impossible to diagnose dyslexia from the armchair, reading problems are a complex group of disorders. I sense that it is inattention and a poor vocabulary on Bush's part, since I know people who are truly dyslexic and never make the kind of mistakes when speaking that Bush does or his father did. 41035. Wombat - 9/13/2000 12:57:32 PM Or a ssa-eloh? 41036. jexster - 9/13/2000 1:05:02 PM On a heavier note, yesterday's CA papers carried stories that Gray Davis was proposing a massive increase in CalGrants to guarantee low and middle income high school grads with good grades full tuition to any state university and up to $10,000 for private schools. 41037. glendajean - 9/13/2000 1:05:05 PM When Bush ran against Ann Richards in 1994, according to her internal tracking polls, he was not behind (and she had a favorability rating that never went below 60%). Texas was trending heavily Republican (today, there aren't any Democratic statewide officeholders left) and the only question was how would suburban, mostly Republican women vote. They were the ones who put Richards into office (just barely) after her Republican opponent said several stupid comments that were particularly offensive to women. 41038. jexster - 9/13/2000 1:12:12 PM Thanks Glenda for shedding light on the myth that GWB is some sort of political demi-god. 41039. Ronski - 9/13/2000 1:15:55 PM glenda, 41040. Ronski - 9/13/2000 1:20:07 PM Also, in Texas in '94, Bush's win was part of a brief but strong national Republican trend. Remember the Congressional Class of '94? 41041. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 1:24:34 PM 41042. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 1:24:37 PM 41043. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 1:26:38 PM 41044. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 1:30:37 PM 41045. Thoughtful - 9/13/2000 1:32:56 PM Today's NY Times, Krugman attacks Bush's tax plan -- it just doesn't add. Maureen Dowd makes fun of the RATS ad in a clever way -- subliminably! 41046. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 1:42:47 PM Hey Wombat, that was my point, genius. But, if we pass something like the healthcare system her majesty Hillary proposed (and Al Gore supports), the federal government will have control over a huge part of our economy. That sad thing is, you seem to actually want that despite referring to "the failed socialist states". 41047. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/13/2000 1:49:36 PM 41048. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 1:56:36 PM 41049. Ronski - 9/13/2000 2:00:30 PM Thoughtful, 41050. janjon - 9/13/2000 2:07:06 PM Ronski. But nobody - and I mean nobody - has as much problems with his figures as does our little Ricky. That so-called tax plan of his is about as half-baked and porous as can be. 41051. Ronski - 9/13/2000 2:11:53 PM Beavis, Butthead and Bush. It doesn't surprise me about the frogs, given that Bush pere, as president, used to sic his dog on the squirrels on the White House lawn, slaughtering them in great numbers, no doubt. You would think that the limousine drivers would have killed more than enough of them accidentally. 41052. Ronski - 9/13/2000 2:13:58 PM 41053. Jack Vincennes - 9/13/2000 2:16:49 PM Washington Post 41054. janjon - 9/13/2000 2:22:26 PM Ronski. Much closer to a draw than a squash. They could, in fact, run a squash against Hillary and said veggie would attract a sizeable vote. 41055. Wombat - 9/13/2000 2:25:28 PM As it happens, Cygnet, I thought the Clinton health plan was a cumbersome load of nonsense. I prefer a single payer plan--or choice of plans, using existing deductibles and employer contributions, administered by the Federal sector. If--for constitutional reasons--you would rather have fifty bureaucracies administer such a plan, then fine, although it would certainly be less efficient. It would also be considerably more efficient than the "system" we have now, and would serve everyone. It would not be as efficient as the libertarian dream of pay as you go with no insurance at all, but that is a kind of efficiency that I suspect most people will want to avoid. 41056. Ronski - 9/13/2000 2:26:17 PM 41057. janjon - 9/13/2000 2:32:37 PM Ronski. I doubt it. I am sure we will hear lots and lots from Ricky asking Hillary to point to one thing - just one thing - she's DONE for New York. She, on the ther other hand, will indeed try to tie him to the parts of his "record" that he would just as soon forget. If he is really stupid, he might even try a surprise geography quiz on her (of course, she could no doubt fling that one right back at him, since I doubt he's been north of Manhattan very much in his life until recently). In other words, more or less a shrill circus. 41058. janjon - 9/13/2000 2:44:21 PM what is your current take on things around here, Ronski? 41059. jexster - 9/13/2000 2:48:09 PM Also, in Texas in '94, Bush's win was part of a brief but strong 41060. jexster - 9/13/2000 2:51:12 PM Well, Bush is behind, but he's been behind before. He was briefly 41061. glendajean - 9/13/2000 2:55:17 PM When Bush ran against Richards in '94, I believe Clinton's popularity in Texas was around 20%. Not a great year to run as a Democrat. 41062. Ronski - 9/13/2000 2:55:19 PM janjon, 41063. jexster - 9/13/2000 2:57:46 PM The fundamentals continue to move to Gore 41064. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 2:57:48 PM Wombat, you obviously haven't thought through what you said. How can a federal bureaucracy possibly be more efficient than a state bureaucracy? When the New Jersey system doesn’t have to take care of citizens in Florida, it’s simply has to be more efficient. Sure, citizens in a state that’s run inefficiently may feel “left behind” by citizens in a state that’s run efficiently. But that’s tough shit for them. Either move out of the state or get involved in their local government. Gasp! Conscientiousness is unthinkable! 41065. janjon - 9/13/2000 2:59:52 PM ronski - your views on almost everything (except certain manifestations stemming from your favorite political creed) are always welcome. I had the Hillary/Ricky to-do in mind, but feel free to comment as you wish. 41066. glendajean - 9/13/2000 3:00:10 PM The l-word is still potent among the true believers and the Clinton haters. But probably doesn't pack the punch it used to. Good call on D'Amato. He and Finkelstein used that word over and over successfully in the past. 41067. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:01:30 PM Glenda - I think its a good rule to discount media horserace punditry for the simple reason that its an Iron Rule of Politics that the media love a tight race. They always play this up. Indeed I have seen many times the media predicting "tight" races that ended up as landslides. 41068. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 3:02:23 PM BTW, I just heard that if you categorize people based on education level and look at for whom they intend to vote, the largest gap in favor of Gore is in the "high school dropout" category. By a 2-to-1 margin, high school dropouts favor Gore. You Gore lovers are in good company. 41069. glendajean - 9/13/2000 3:03:27 PM Ronski -- I would imagine that the true believers on the right need red meat from time to time. They didn't get it in the Republican convention. Their vice presidential candidate has a lesbian daughter (ok, according to her mother, she's not declared, but we do know that her daughter lives with a woman, took a job with Coors to build customer relations within the gay and lesbian community, and has a less than Republican big hair "do"). They've given Bush a free ride, but I don't think compassionate conservativism or real solutions for real people get them to the polls or make them happy. 41070. janjon - 9/13/2000 3:03:58 PM It will take a tremendous gaffe by Gore (highly unlikely, and if it occurs it will be in terms of how he comes over as opposed to his substance) AND a remarkably good showing by W. in the debates (especially the first one), for this race to turn around in W.'s favor. Granted, given the level of expectations, many will determine that W. will have had a remarkably good showing simply by not ending up with any egg on his face through either being unknowledgeable or truly mangling grammar/pronunciation. But, the odds of Gore making a gaffe aren't very high. He's been through all of this, many a time. 41071. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:04:54 PM A supporter of the Impaired One trashing the ignorant? 41072. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 3:05:33 PM "If I were the Gore people, I would be 41073. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 3:07:04 PM Duhhh, Cygnus X-1, Al Gore tells me there really is such a thing as a free lunch, and I believe him. 41074. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 3:10:45 PM Gore's worst gaffe would be something that confirms the worst perceptions people already have about him, by claiming that he was one of the Mercury 7, or something. And if he resorts to that condescending, patronizing tone he often uses in debates, he risks pissing off the many voters whose instincts are to give arrogant eggheads swirlies over electing them to the presidency. 41075. Cellar Door - 9/13/2000 3:11:24 PM Oh boy -- turn on the tube! The DOJ has a house nigger in front of the court house claiming that the Wen Ho lee case "has nothing to do with race." 41076. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:11:41 PM When A Campaign is Laughable It in Trouble - Time 41077. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:12:11 PM He's not a house nigger he's chinese. 41078. glendajean - 9/13/2000 3:12:16 PM Jexster -- It's my feeling that Bush has lost votes, but that Gore has gotten them. It's an amazing story, if you think about it, that he has done so well with such a great economy and no war going on. Speaks volumes about the weight of Clinton's "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" actions and the impeachment process. 41079. Cellar Door - 9/13/2000 3:13:15 PM A house nigger is a house nigger is a house nigger. 41080. glendajean - 9/13/2000 3:13:38 PM That should be, Bush hasn't lost votes, but that Gore has gained votes. 41081. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:14:57 PM I Can't Stand All This Bush-is-a-Moron Smugness - Time 41082. janjon - 9/13/2000 3:15:41 PM I speak from a sort of vacuum, since as I mentioned yesterday we aren't getting any Presidential ads here in New York, so I really don't know the extent to which either or both side is in fact engaging in issue/record ads. BUT, regardless of whether it is driven by a change in the mood of the press, more focus on Big Al, or whatever, it is inevitable that both sides are going to pick up on the issue/record ads at the very least. Those of you getting such ads are going to learn a lot more about what has been going on or not going on in Texas than you ever thought possible. 41083. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 3:15:59 PM 41084. Ronski - 9/13/2000 3:16:45 PM janjon, 41085. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 3:17:33 PM The Gallup pole is in the link. 41086. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 3:18:02 PM 41087. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:18:08 PM Bush has been losing votes. In fact, Candy Crowlie, CNN's reporter on the Bush campaign, reported last week or maybe the week before some whistling-past-the-graveyard in the Bush camp to the effec that they were taking consolation in this very fact. 41088. Wombat - 9/13/2000 3:18:44 PM A Federal bureaucracy does a very good job administering social security, medicare, and medicaid. The Federal government also has the resources to provide these services in a way states don't. 41089. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 3:19:29 PM glenda: It is something that Gore could also take advantage of, by trying to make Bush appear overly scripted. Also, the national journalists who host these things would end up helping Gore, by asking oddball spins on questions and getting more prosecutorial when Bush dodges the question in favor of a pat answer. I would also bet that Gore will push for another one of those "town meeting" debates, where such a tactic would come across very poorly. 41090. janjon - 9/13/2000 3:22:28 PM Actually - that Time article contained a very simple statement of truth - there is no question that W. will embark very soon on what everyone in the world will recognize as being very strong negative attacks. They've really got not choice. 41091. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:22:55 PM The best hope Bush has, albeit a slim one, lies in the fact that all his stumbling, bumbling and fumbling is happening at a time when the electorate is still paying less attention to the race than at comparable times in the past. 41092. Wombat - 9/13/2000 3:24:14 PM So it will be a contest between who will seem less scripted. Hmmm. 41093. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:24:36 PM WRT town meeting formats - Gore does well in them and Bush thinks he does too. 41094. janjon - 9/13/2000 3:26:27 PM ronski. Is your state senator the one who was elected in a b-election following the GOP push to repeal the NYC commuter's tax as a sop to his election effort? If so, speaking as a recently born-again, but fervent, dweller of the City I say fie on him. Fie. May he lose by a landslide and flood. 41095. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 3:27:25 PM 41096. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:28:32 PM Seems to me that while the media's focus on Bush bumbling did not begin with Assholegate, its certainly picked up steam since then. Then again, they've had an abundance of material to work with. 41097. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 3:28:35 PM Wombat: I have always thought that Gore's biggest weakness as a debater was to *appear* to be scripted when he was being spontaneous. 41098. Thoughtful - 9/13/2000 3:29:32 PM Has any schedule been set yet for the debates? Since the debate debate quieted down, I haven't heard anything. 41099. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 3:30:29 PM Nothing yet. Last I heard they were negotiating over how to negotiate, or something. 41100. glendajean - 9/13/2000 3:33:43 PM My ever slight middle aged memory says that Gore did quite well debating Quayle in '92 and Perot on NAFTA. I think Dole/Kemp was so far behind that it didn't matter much. 41101. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:34:12 PM Speaking of housen----rs JC Watts Panic Attack - Urges Bush to go on the Offensive 41102. Thoughtful - 9/13/2000 3:34:17 PM Can it be over the shape of the table? Shades of Vietnam.... 41103. Ronski - 9/13/2000 3:37:50 PM 41104. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 3:39:03 PM "My ever slight middle aged memory says that Gore did quite well 41105. glendajean - 9/13/2000 3:40:12 PM Thoughtful -- I would imagine that Bush is trying to limit his vulnerablities (whatever his campaign thinks they are -- less hostile panel, chance to chat more, less need for policy answers). They've got an idea of a format that would help their man in something that nobody thinks he will do well. 41106. glendajean - 9/13/2000 3:42:59 PM Vanocur cut Reagan off. If he hadn't, the mental alertness charge would have hurt him. Of course, Reagan defused much of that with his joke about old age. 41107. janjon - 9/13/2000 3:43:06 PM 41092. Wombat - 9/13/00 8:24:14 PM 41108. glendajean - 9/13/2000 3:46:07 PM The press like best to be vultures. It looks like they are picking over Bush' selection of Cheny as a vp. Lieberman looks like a great choice (hope he doesn't have a mistress out there somewhere, wouldn't that be the kiss of death). I bet Bush is kicking himself for not convincing Powell to join the ticket. 41109. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 3:46:56 PM Hell, Desert Storm couldn't win an election for Bush pere less than two years afterwards. There is no way that it will help his son 10 years later. I can't believe Bush fils even thinks it will. I suspect he is just surrounding himself with reputable people in hopes that it will rub off and allay some fears. 41110. Jonesatlaw - 9/13/2000 3:50:29 PM Where does Bush come up with these tag lines? The "real people" thing reminded me of "coke, its the real thing" which is not where Bush wants to go. 41111. jexster - 9/13/2000 4:00:35 PM Gore Campaign Receives Package of Secret Bush Debate Prep Materials Turns over to FBI 41112. janjon - 9/13/2000 4:02:31 PM rask - you would think that W. and his would realize that. But, time after time we get "remember Desert Storm" shoveled out by them. I think it goes to the ultimate vacuity at play here. They don't have policies, they have memories and the desire to revenge Poppy. 41113. janjon - 9/13/2000 4:07:20 PM jex - I smell a rat. 41114. glendajean - 9/13/2000 4:09:54 PM Damn. Maybe it was the guilty soul who stole Jimmy Carter's debate briefing book and gave it to the Reagan campaign in 1980. 41115. Wombat - 9/13/2000 4:19:24 PM As long as they photocopied everything before handing it over to the FBI... 41116. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 5:07:26 PM Current Iowa Electronic Market prices (real money being invested): 41117. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 5:08:48 PM ducky, why isn't Krugman's NYT column on the sidebar? 41118. janjon - 9/13/2000 5:09:02 PM Iowa Electronics Market, eh. 41119. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 5:16:14 PM Brain child of the U of Iowa's business school. It is a futures market. I find it a fascinating representation of the changes in the race, as the prices are determined by real people placing real bets. 41120. janjon - 9/13/2000 5:31:51 PM Fascinating. 41121. janjon - 9/13/2000 5:38:07 PM Quinnepiac poll out today shows that in New York, among likely voters, it is Gore 60%, Bush 31%. 41122. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 5:41:37 PM The IEM is pretty accurate. I recall, for instance, that just before the 1996 election, Dole's Winner Take All price dropped to around 5 cents, indicating that prices aren't substantially driven by partisanship (although I do think there is a slight GOP bias to the market). 41123. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 5:43:10 PM "The latest presidential poll results are now on www.gallup.com 41124. Thoughtful - 9/13/2000 5:43:13 PM Raski -- great link. That's so much fun. 41125. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 5:44:55 PM I have been kicking around throwing a hundred bucks there to play around with, but my suspicion is that it would get too addicting. 41126. Thoughtful - 9/13/2000 5:46:10 PM glendaj, of course Bush is trying to minimize exposing his vulnerabilities. The problem is it's not just people like me, but obviously his own people who fear his performance in a debate. The problem is, when you're president, international and domestic negotiations on policy issues often hinge on one's ability to persuade with words. That's the concern here and a very real one. Regardless of how right your positions are on an issue, it won't do a bit of good if you can't persuade the opposition of your rightness. Frankly I don't think W. is up to the job. 41127. janjon - 9/13/2000 5:46:32 PM Oooooh yes. Addicting that would be. I'll just peek in a lot for the rest of the so-called season. 41128. stostosto - 9/13/2000 5:48:09 PM Iowa Electronic Market on Presidential Voting Shares (VS) 41129. stostosto - 9/13/2000 5:51:36 PM 41130. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 5:57:03 PM We are talking about the University of Iowa here. Iowa City is the only place in the entire state which wouldn't be improved by being paved and turned into a parking lot for Minnesotans and Illini. 41131. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 5:57:32 PM Hell, you wouldn't even need to pave it. 41132. glendajean - 9/13/2000 6:04:28 PM I lived in Iowa City for a couple of years back in the late 70s while attending grad school. U of I is firmly committed to empirical quantitative research over qualitative research -- or at least it did when I went there. 41133. glendajean - 9/13/2000 6:12:16 PM Thoughtful -- I want Gore elected president, and frankly, I would love to see Bush self-destruct in a debate. But that is my personal opinion. 41134. glendajean - 9/13/2000 6:12:51 PM They are a bit of circus -- they = debates 41135. rubberducky - 9/13/2000 6:32:53 PM Raskolnikov: 41136. jexster - 9/13/2000 6:51:23 PM Gore Close To Crossing Rubicon 41137. jexster - 9/13/2000 6:54:01 PM 1117. Raskolnikov - 9/13/00 10:08:48 PM 41138. jexster - 9/13/2000 6:59:54 PM Environmental Voters For Gore - Bush Slime Alert! 41139. jexster - 9/13/2000 7:01:41 PM Evidence that the campaign is heating up...the usual voter registration crew was out on Castro St. this afternoon hawking 41140. jexster - 9/13/2000 7:30:36 PM I've not seen a single Presidential campaign ad 41141. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 7:33:14 PM Ducky: It is similar format to the other NYTimes columnists you have linked: 41142. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 8:04:44 PM Message # 41021: 41143. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 8:05:10 PM vK Message # 41042: 41144. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 8:16:52 PM Cygnus X-1 Message # 41068: 41145. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 8:17:15 PM Anyway, what does it mean? Well, in Rush-land, it has the connotation that dummies vote for Gore. This is condescending, to say the least. I know some very intelligent people who, for one reason or another, never got a diploma. Certainly that doesn't speak well of their ambition or ability to finish things, but it doesn't necessarily have to do with their ability to understand and process information. Not everybody does well in the one-size-fits-all meat-grinder that many American public schools have become; that doesn't mean they're idiots. 41146. jexster - 9/13/2000 8:31:10 PM Yea Eric I don't think that Nader's necessarily going to take votes away from Gore. 41147. Cellar Door - 9/13/2000 8:41:47 PM Nader is a mirage. 41148. lemwalker - 9/13/2000 8:54:32 PM So here I am one of the very few Americans without tv. And I get polled again! 41149. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 9:21:24 PM Hey, don't fret EricFartman. I wasn't trying to insult you. You can always get your GED. 41150. LadyChaos - 9/13/2000 9:49:22 PM 41151. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 9:55:52 PM BTW, anyone who votes "for the person" on a national level is flat out ignorant. If you can't see the underlying ideologies then you should be unqualified to vote. You may think Bush is an idiot (even though it was Gore who flunked out of two grad schools), but I'd vote for a department store mannequin if it would keep Al Gore’s socialist ideas from being passed. Here's why. 41152. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:04:37 PM Dept. of Justice Investigating Gore 41153. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:04:47 PM Democrats will surely say that Clinton would have vetoed the bill in any case because he and the Democrats generally have opposed tort reform — and get a lot of support from trial lawyers as a result. 41154. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:06:14 PM 41155. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:06:31 PM 41156. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:06:41 PM 41157. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:07:27 PM 41158. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:09:06 PM 41159. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 10:11:33 PM 41160. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:13:03 PM 41161. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 10:18:30 PM 41162. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 10:19:19 PM I can see it clearly. If Al Gore were a Republican, we'd be swarmed with headlines: "Gore in bed with trial lawyers!" "Who loves lawyers? Al Gore does!" 41163. Wombat - 9/13/2000 10:19:31 PM I'll just wish you luck in blowing it out of all proportion. Kind of like what you did with the Los Alamos spy scandal, when you were ready to string up the entire administration for treason. Have a nice day, and keep trying. 41164. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:22:47 PM 41165. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:26:32 PM 41166. Indiana Jones - 9/13/2000 10:27:35 PM Hey it happened last election. 41167. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:29:17 PM 41168. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:31:06 PM 41169. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:32:18 PM 41170. Wombat - 9/13/2000 10:32:43 PM When Tom DeLay states that legislative priorities will be dependent not only on how much companies contribute to the Republicans, but on how little they contribute to Democrats, somehow I don't see your outrage as being disinterested. 41171. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 10:32:44 PM Message # 41146: 41172. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 10:34:12 PM If you had any balls, you'd have quoted the entire post instead of taking a sentence out of context but then I think yours belong to the ace of spades. 41173. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 10:36:40 PM Cygnus Message # 41149: 41174. Wombat - 9/13/2000 10:38:58 PM Did Rush Limbaugh finish college? Inquiring minds want to know. 41175. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 10:42:33 PM Mr. Fartman, are you suggesting I shouldn't listen to any talk radio? Why, then I'd be as ignorant as you and be inclined to vote for backwards, ignorant populist like Ralph Nader. But, I'll now do more than repeat what I heard. 41176. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 10:43:38 PM Wombat: 41177. Wombat - 9/13/2000 10:47:45 PM I suspect there is an inverse relationship to intelligence and listening to talk radio. Cygnet is certainly demonstrating it. 41178. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 10:48:39 PM Hey Wombat, do your parents know your on the computer at this hour? 41179. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 10:50:08 PM Probably not, right? After all, a young wippersnapper such as yourself can go and get an abortion without parental consent, so why shouldn't you be able to go online without them knowing? 41180. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 10:51:56 PM 41181. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 10:52:16 PM Message # 41175: 41182. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 10:52:26 PM I know how Al Gore can beat the rap on this latest scandal. He can claim diplomatic immunity. After all, he practically had Chinese citizenship at that time. So, he can claim he was conducting official Chinese embassy business. 41183. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 10:55:28 PM Oh, that's right Mr. Fartman. I forgot the rules. If it comes from a conservative, it must be untrue. 41184. Wombat - 9/13/2000 10:59:07 PM Cygnet: 41185. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 11:01:03 PM 41186. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 11:02:01 PM Nah, I'm going to go beat my grandmother over the head with a frying pan and steal her Medicare check. That's what a good, cold-hearted conservative does. 41187. Wombat - 9/13/2000 11:03:17 PM Hey, whatever rocks your world... 41188. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 11:07:32 PM 41189. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 11:09:46 PM That should be whom they hit up for contributions. 41190. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 11:19:24 PM 41191. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 11:26:21 PM 41192. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/13/2000 11:27:59 PM 41193. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 11:33:10 PM 41194. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 11:45:20 PM Message # 41183: 41195. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/13/2000 11:45:21 PM Hey Stewed, do you everstartthinking? 41196. jexster - 9/14/2000 2:05:54 AM Ace is always yappin about bribery. He's as tired as he is wacko. 41197. stostosto - 9/14/2000 6:51:09 AM 41198. joezan - 9/14/2000 7:59:27 AM 41199. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 8:09:22 AM Does Cygnus (or Rush Limbaugh, since he appears to think for Cygnus) think that only those with at least highschool diplomas should vote? 41200. joezan - 9/14/2000 8:57:28 AM 41201. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 9:14:54 AM Joezan 41202. Cygnus X-1 - 9/14/2000 9:53:15 AM bubbaette, as a matter of fact, I would. It was no mistake that owning property used to be a prerequisite for voting. It was to keep idiots from casting misinformed or uninformed votes for demagogues intent on gaining power at the expense of the country (ie. Al Gore). Not all votes are equal. If you don't know anything about the issues or anything about the Constitution, I don't care what you "feel", you don't deserve to vote because you're ignorant. And there's a lot of ignorance in this country as evidenced by the number of women swayed by "the kiss". Any such woman not only shouldn't be allowed to vote, they should be stuck cleaning toilets for a living. 41203. rubberducky - 9/14/2000 9:57:01 AM X: 41204. Cygnus X-1 - 9/14/2000 10:01:37 AM Mr. Fartman, Re Message #41194. You continue to attack the messenger rather than the message. Are you sure you're not voting for Al Gore? 41205. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 10:19:06 AM Cygnus 41206. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 10:21:46 AM On the trial lawyer thing: So far, all we have is a memo written from DNC flunky to her boss suggesting that he use probably illegal language to solicit campaign contributions. Since I find bribes reprehensible (its why I hated D'Amato and loved the Abscam sting), it is certainly worth interviewing the flunky, her boss, and the trial lawyers in question to see if a crime was actually committed, but this is pretty fucking scant evidence of any crime by Gore. Ace is once again jumping to conclusions so fast that it is clear his premises are sinking. 41207. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 10:22:13 AM I also think, Cygnus, that you do your cause more harm than good the way you spout off. Frankly, most people who read your posts would be more inclined to vote against any candidate you might support. The Repubs already have enough of a problem being identified as the party of intolerance and misogynism without your confirming that impression. 41208. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 10:27:08 AM Additionally, voters without a high school diploma are disproportionately black in this country, and blacks have overwhelmingly supported the Democratic party, regardless of income and education, since 1936, so this is certain to skew the results. 41209. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 10:29:45 AM Actually, I am not very right on that. While it is true that blacks are less likely to graduate from high school, it is only by a small amount. 41210. Cygnus X-1 - 9/14/2000 10:34:17 AM Like I said before, at the national level (and to a larger extent the state level) I don't support a candidate, I support an ideology. If Republicans have been misidentified as racists or misogynists, it's only because they support equal opportunity - not equal outcome. 41211. Cygnus X-1 - 9/14/2000 10:35:50 AM That's a very racist thing for you to say, Raskolnikov. 41212. Cygnus X-1 - 9/14/2000 10:36:18 AM I for one am offended. 41213. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 10:42:11 AM That would make you both offended and offensive. Fortunately, I have better things to do with my time than to attempt rational discourse with an irrational person. 41214. Cygnus X-1 - 9/14/2000 10:48:56 AM Uh oh, bubbaette, please don't tell me you were actually swayed by "the kiss". Shame on you! 41215. rubberducky - 9/14/2000 10:54:04 AM X-51 41216. Cellar Door - 9/14/2000 10:54:49 AM Hillary won the debate, the voters say. 41217. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 10:55:39 AM I watched no part of either convention. I base my vote on issues, not sound bites and photo ops. 41218. janjon - 9/14/2000 11:26:36 AM I see that Ace is off on another one of his indignant/constipated toots. 41219. janjon - 9/14/2000 11:27:32 AM ronski. Did you watch Hillary and Ricky last night? Reactions? 41220. robertjayb - 9/14/2000 11:58:23 AM . 41221. jexster - 9/14/2000 11:58:43 AM Forget irresponsible fiscal policies, forget their politics of personal destruction. The best reason, the screaming imperative to elect a Democratic Congress has to be putting an end to endless Reagan Memorials. 41222. glendajean - 9/14/2000 11:59:37 AM I still say that they should re-name Washington, DC to Reagan, DC, and get it over with. 41223. glendajean - 9/14/2000 12:00:23 PM Oops. Sorry, Jex. 41224. DanDillon - 9/14/2000 12:03:00 PM The old goose has a new aircraft carrier being commissioned in his name as well: the USS Ronald Reagan. 41225. janjon - 9/14/2000 12:03:00 PM There should be a prescribed time period, say 50 years after leaving office, before any memorial (other than, perhaps, the naming or renaming of facilities) is erected for a President. 41226. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 12:04:54 PM I think an edit should be sent down from Congress requiring that henceforth, each newborn male shall be named Ronald and each newborn female shall be named Reagan. 41227. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 12:05:15 PM That's "edict", not "edit" 41228. Ronski - 9/14/2000 12:15:33 PM janjon, 41229. glendajean - 9/14/2000 12:23:11 PM The Slate guy thinks its a done deal ... again. 41230. CalGal - 9/14/2000 12:23:16 PM Oh, did I miss the debate? Bummer. 41231. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:23:47 PM From my read of the NYT I give the win to Lazio but then again, I'm a Ragin Cajun of James Carville School 41232. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:24:55 PM Since Labor Day, the media have released about 20 polls on the presidential race. Three show a dead heat, one shows George W. Bush leading by a single percentage point, and the rest show Al Gore leading by one to 10 points. In the latest polls, Gore leads by an average of five points. It's fashionable at this stage to caution that "anything can happen," that Bush is "retooling," and that the numbers can turn in Bush's favor just as easily as they turned against him. But they can't. The numbers are moving toward Gore because fundamental dynamics tilt the election in his favor. The only question has been how far those dynamics would carry him. Now that he has passed Bush, the race is over. 41233. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:25:48 PM Why Bush Will Lose - William Saletan 41234. robertjayb - 9/14/2000 12:26:22 PM . 41235. robertjayb - 9/14/2000 12:28:26 PM . 41236. Ronski - 9/14/2000 12:29:11 PM jexster, 41237. Cellar Door - 9/14/2000 12:30:53 PM It was a debate not between Hillary and Lazio, but Hillary and Tim Russert. The man's a boor and a boob. 41238. ycmeehan - 9/14/2000 12:30:58 PM Frick and Frack, Eric? You can't mean that, not you, not really. 41239. janjon - 9/14/2000 12:31:16 PM Ronski. Thanks. I saw it. Agree with much of what you say. Thought that Lazio demonstrated that he could hold himself together in such a setting. Most of his responses were articulate and cogent (in the context of soundbites). His comebacks (clearly well-rehearsed) about aspects like Hillary's references to Newt were good. 41240. Cellar Door - 9/14/2000 12:33:35 PM The desire of the "mainstream" press to humiliate Hillary Clinton at every opportunity is breathtaking. 41241. Cellar Door - 9/14/2000 12:34:07 PM Hell, Ace has better manners than Tim Russert. 41242. janjon - 9/14/2000 12:36:16 PM Russert indeed can be criticized on at least one aspect of the use of those 1998 tapes. As indicated above, it really does seem to be commonly accepted that Hillary had been misled by Bill. For Russert at this date to ask her whether SHE should not apologize to the American people for having - her having - misled them was a distortion that someone in his position last night should not have made. 41243. janjon - 9/14/2000 12:37:07 PM Manners? Ace? Gimme a break. 41244. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:38:17 PM I'm not alone among Motitites, JJ for one, have said that Bush only leads when he's in a phantom campaign. 41245. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:39:23 PM Yea that shit that Russert pulled. If I were Hillary I would have told him to stick a large dildo up his butt. 41246. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:39:59 PM JJ=Janjon not JJBeanHead 41247. Jonesatlaw - 9/14/2000 12:46:02 PM Ace- Gee, I wonder if the National Manufacturer's Association's contributions to GOP campaigns had anything to do with the GOP spearheading tort "reform.?" I wonder if you have the same view of the many stories of arm twisting by Trent Lott, "suggesting" that certain GOP supporters come through again with contributions if they wanted to see action on their issues? 41248. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:46:29 PM Battleground notwithstanding 41249. Ronski - 9/14/2000 12:47:51 PM janjon, 41250. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:50:17 PM Ronski - Lazio didn't leave well enough alone....he pounced on the impication of Russert's slimey question to the effect "As we've just heard, she can't be trusted....." 41251. Ronski - 9/14/2000 12:53:53 PM Voter.com does not suprise me, nor does the fact that the Rasmussen tracking poll has Bush with a very slight lead (within the margin of error). Gore's good fortune is that he is neck and neck with the challenger in early to mid September. As long as he does not permit himself to be painted as a terrible lefty and does not get preachy and condescending, the strength of the economy should overwhelm the new-broom-sweeps-clean sentiment, according to virtually all the economic and electoral models. I still say Gore by three points. 41252. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:55:52 PM Daily News Poll: Hillary Kicked Butt 41253. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:56:59 PM Voter.com is what we "statisticians" call "an outlier". But it does show the weaknesses of tracking polls so early..... 41254. janjon - 9/14/2000 1:00:29 PM ronski. No apologies needed! Your off the top of your head stuff is miles better than much of the crap spewed forth around here (um, Ace is back, as you may know.) 41255. jexster - 9/14/2000 1:02:37 PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Al Gore(news - web sites) enjoys a six-point lead over Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush (news - web sites), according to a poll released on Thursday. 41256. mgleason - 9/14/2000 1:13:27 PM Yes; I, too, think that Saletan did a good job. 41257. Ronski - 9/14/2000 1:13:44 PM What I found most compelling about the figures Saletan used was the significant drop in those who had previously said they would never vote for Al Gore. 41258. Cellar Door - 9/14/2000 1:14:28 PM Just listening to CNN. A "new fundraising scandal" -- for Al Gore, of course, as the Repubs are as pure as the driven snow doncha know. 41259. jexster - 9/14/2000 1:18:46 PM The Communitarian Platform (Libertarians Must Die) 41260. Ronski - 9/14/2000 1:21:52 PM jexster, 41261. jexster - 9/14/2000 1:22:06 PM MG - I too remember those Carter stumbles. UR post also called to mind a Senate party I attended immediately following JC's inauguration (I had an SRO in the VIP area! - posture, posture). Very painful recollection, of a Demo operative gushing "Its about time! We Democrats were born to govern" OUCH 41262. jexster - 9/14/2000 1:24:06 PM A communitarian perspective recognizes both individual human dignity and the social dimension of human existence. 41263. jexster - 9/14/2000 1:24:37 PM No individual dignity for libertarians! Death to libertarians! 41264. janjon - 9/14/2000 1:25:54 PM Saletan generally has both a sure and deft touch and interesting perspectives. A good read. 41265. jexster - 9/14/2000 1:42:38 PM Watch Al and Karenna Gore Schiff Live Webcast 2:15 EDT Today! 41266. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 1:48:30 PM Ricky also didn't do himself well upstate by rather proudly pointing out that he had been there SIX times already. 41267. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 1:51:10 PM Cart is correct in his retort to VK re: modern liberalism. The players are certainly interesting, and political campaigns are always enjoyable, but no ideological struggle is at stake in this election (unless you are childish enough to believe that Roe v. Wade might be at peril with a troika of Bush appointees, a fear ladled out for dimwits). Take, for instance, what I and most everyone on this thread takes to be the imminent election of Mr. Gore. He certainly offends me, just as Bush offends many as a a little rich frat boy with a vendetta against the King's English, but my distaste for Gore is almost purely personal, based upon the way in which he has morphed ideologically (and added the nasty trick of condemning as evil those who hold the same positions as his own, inconvenient prior stands), the individual manner in which he has presented himself to people over the years, specific statements and actions, a severe discomfort with what makes him tick (I think it is primarily fear), and that ever-present condescension that his handlers appear to have beaten out of him (hopefully, the tonic has a shelf-life of over two months). 41268. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 1:51:34 PM 41269. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 1:51:42 PM 41270. jexster - 9/14/2000 2:04:10 PM intellectually incapable of divining raising soft money from, say, the allegations leveled against Mr. Gore. 41271. Cellar Door - 9/14/2000 2:04:28 PM Actually if Tipper is smart (I doubt she'll let Al within a mile of the invitations list) she'll invite Danny of "The Real World" to the White House --with football player Corey Johnson as his date -- instead of Ellen and some Anne-Equivalent. 41272. jexster - 9/14/2000 2:06:05 PM Cllrdr - How are you coming with your assignment to give JV a little luvin? Need special attention in the french kiss department. Spare no toungue! 41273. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:07:09 PM Jack, 41274. jexster - 9/14/2000 2:11:27 PM jibber jabber yabber yiibber blather blather JV watches too much TV 41275. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 2:14:14 PM jexster 41276. Cygnus X-1 - 9/14/2000 2:16:32 PM jonjon, Re Message #41254, I think Ronski has made it know on this message board that he already has a significant other. 41277. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 2:17:02 PM Gore equals Corelone? Preposterous! We all know that Gore's the anti-christ 41278. jexster - 9/14/2000 2:18:07 PM Speaking of TV, here's a purty picuture 41279. jexster - 9/14/2000 2:19:27 PM JV...you not only don't know Willy Brown, you don't know squat. 41280. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:20:04 PM Similarly, it is lazy, but en vogue, to look at a campaign finance system that can be criticized, and thereafter become intellectually incapable of divining raising soft money from, say, the allegations leveled against Mr. Gore. 41281. jexster - 9/14/2000 2:20:13 PM Gore as Corleone 41282. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:21:02 PM Ducky, didn't he post that yesterday? 41283. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 2:29:27 PM and keep in mind that nothing is yet pointing toward a crime, much less a crime which implicates Gore. All we have is a flunky memo recommending wording that is probably illegal. We don't know that the wording was ever used in talking to the potential donor, and there is no evidence even implying that Gore did anything illegal. More likely than not, the flunky had no clue that she was recommending anything illegal, and thought she was just making something explicit that everyone knows is implicit (you think businesses donate to both parties because they are ambivalent?). I can't imagine anyone high up at the DNC would be quite dumb enough to directly solicit a bribe and I therefore can't imagine that the wording was actually used (who the hell takes phone call wording recommendations from subordinates anyway?) 41284. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 2:29:54 PM Cal 41285. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 2:32:22 PM Rask 41286. Ronski - 9/14/2000 2:32:44 PM Jack, 41287. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:33:23 PM Jack, 41288. Dusty - 9/14/2000 2:34:55 PM jexster 41289. rubberducky - 9/14/2000 2:35:18 PM CG: 41290. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 2:36:32 PM I'll admit to being disappointed in VK's response. The direct solicitation of a bribe is not something that *everybody does*. 41291. Ronski - 9/14/2000 2:37:04 PM And if jexster tries to take over the libertarian phone booth for their next meeting, he can expect trouble. 41292. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 2:37:22 PM Cal 41293. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 2:38:51 PM Is the communitarian movement that thing pushed by Amitai Etzioni? If so, I haven't heard much about it lately, but it was more than just a few people 5 years ago (when as part of my grad school job, I helped organize a communitarian conference on campus). 41294. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:39:08 PM I was just wondering. Over night there just seemed to be a lot of graphics. Sorry to be thread nanny. 41295. rubberducky - 9/14/2000 2:41:27 PM well, the graphic in Message # 41278 was posted in Message # 40969, on 9/13/00 12:10:58 AM, but i'll allow it. 41296. Dusty - 9/14/2000 2:41:53 PM jexster 41297. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:42:09 PM I think bribes are quite common, but then I always assume the worst. However, I think there are better ways of stating it. 41298. Dusty - 9/14/2000 2:43:17 PM Jack Message # 41267 et al. 41299. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 2:44:00 PM Cal 41300. Cellar Door - 9/14/2000 2:44:20 PM I've just e-mailed the NYT demanding that their editors provide a full and thorough explanation of their role in the persecution of Wen Ho Lee. 41301. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2000 2:44:36 PM Surely you've read it? 41302. glendajean - 9/14/2000 2:46:35 PM With no intention of piling on JV, that was some love note about Clinton, funny and honest. As far as Gore being Corleone, well, he slapped Perot around on the Nafta debate, but he never shot Moe Green in the eye. 41303. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:49:16 PM And they are often unsurprisingly idiots. 41304. Dusty - 9/14/2000 2:52:11 PM Raskolnikov Message # 41283 41305. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 2:52:15 PM Cal 41306. glendajean - 9/14/2000 2:52:26 PM Celler -- there's a hefty security guard who lives with his mom in Atlanta that tells me that the press doesn't ever, ever really admit such errors, and if they do, they tend to skip over the Second Coming headlines they used when first they started their prosecution. 41307. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:54:26 PM GJ, 41308. glendajean - 9/14/2000 2:55:51 PM Jack -- I decided not to read the VF article because of the diagnosing him for ADD and dyslexia. If the author thinks they have the ability to make dugejmens aobout ... Has anybody heard about the Hillary/Lazio debates...GOd, I wish the lectio .. ...... 41309. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 2:56:12 PM Also, I saw the Lazio-Clinton debate. I thought they both did quite well, and they were refreshingly honest as to their views on each other's shortcomings. They were also adept at staying on message. It was a good rumble. 41310. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 2:57:11 PM glenda 41311. Dusty - 9/14/2000 2:58:16 PM 41312. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:59:03 PM GJ, 41313. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:59:55 PM ARe the clinton/lazio debates going to be rerun? I'm sorry I missed them, but it's nice to see Hill did good in her first time out. 41314. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:00:33 PM In VK's defense, I think what he objected to was being crowned with Ace's adjectives. VK wanted a serous discussion (as he is wont)and Ace likes to taunt (as people do on both sides of the aisle around here). 41315. JudithAtHome - 9/14/2000 3:03:18 PM If GW were some senator running for Govenor from Louisana or.....oh, Arkansas, his little forays into Dubonics would be a matter of ridicule the likes of which we've never seen but because he is a Bush and the "successful" Govenor of Texas, people assume it's something that will just go away once he's crowned. Is no one embarrassed by this? Is anyone concerned how foolish this man will look on the world stage? 41316. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 3:08:54 PM Juditha 41317. CalGal - 9/14/2000 3:11:17 PM And one with Altzheimers, no less. 41318. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 3:12:56 PM A troika of embarrasments. I'm sure the Sudanese must have been tittering every chance they got. 41319. CalGal - 9/14/2000 3:16:02 PM Just so long as he doesn't trip on the way out of an airplane. I mean, some things are just too much for our national pride to withstand. 41320. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 3:17:06 PM I think that there's a bit of a difference between physical disabilities and having a poor command of one's native language. (Unless it's true that Bush is learning disabled) 41321. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:18:12 PM Carter had hemorrhoids. 41322. CalGal - 9/14/2000 3:18:57 PM Not really. I think the Presidency can withstand an occasionally fumbletongued President. 41323. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 3:19:18 PM Did the hemmies affect his speaking ability? 41324. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:21:09 PM I'll let you be the judge. The only reason we know that was because the press was on one of its let's have all the medical facts (I think Kennedy's Addison disease had recently been disclosed) and Carter release his entire medical record. Grown reporters promptly reported on the presidential pain in the butt. 41325. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 3:21:33 PM bubbaette 41326. CalGal - 9/14/2000 3:21:44 PM Bubba, 41327. Ronski - 9/14/2000 3:23:36 PM Churchill suffered from severe depressions, and didn't do too badly as a leader. 41328. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 3:23:53 PM Cal 41329. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:23:56 PM Bit of a drinker, too. 41330. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 3:24:15 PM I seem to recall similar concerns about Clinton making a mockery of the United States on the world stage when his sexual intimacies were revealed. 41331. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2000 3:24:41 PM Most of the people in the world never hear the U.S. president speak. Most of those that do hear him through an interpreter. 41332. Ronski - 9/14/2000 3:24:53 PM Luther had piles, too, but left a mark on history. 41333. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:25:08 PM Jack, you are always doting on the French. Embarrassing. 41334. Ronski - 9/14/2000 3:25:23 PM 41335. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 3:26:16 PM Patton was dyslexic. It confused the hell out of the Germans. 41336. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:26:32 PM Well said, Indy. Although personally, I'm against puking on foreign heads of state on their own soil. 41337. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 3:26:34 PM Jack 41338. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 3:27:11 PM And the fact that his family doubled as extras on Hee Haw. 41339. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:28:08 PM Ronski -- there's a great statue of Luther in Thomas Circle (14th & Mass Ave) in Washington, DC. He looks like he is in great stride and you better not mess with him. 41340. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 3:28:27 PM I think that the international mockery wrt Clinton's extramarital activities was leveled at his accusers more than at Clinton himself. 41341. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 3:30:48 PM IJ 41342. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 3:32:23 PM bubba 41343. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:32:23 PM It could be genetic. 41344. CalGal - 9/14/2000 3:32:55 PM There were also plenty of Americans who thought that Carter must be a moron because of the southern accent. 41345. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:33:45 PM Well, Missy, thaaank you 41346. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 3:35:25 PM I saw Ronnie Jr. in the National Ballet at Va. Tech. Mercifully, the ensemble kept him off the stage most of the time. Have to admit that I probably wouldn't have gone if I hadn't been curious to see junior in a tutu. 41347. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:38:05 PM Bubbaette -- I heard he's still bitter about being accused of being light in his loafers. 41348. mgleason - 9/14/2000 3:41:30 PM I'd not thought about Churchill's 'black dog' in ages, Ronski. It's time to dip into The Wilderness Years again. 41349. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2000 3:42:57 PM bubba: Bush won't be attending any and will leave all that nasty overseas business to people like Rice, Powell, and Cheney while he catches up on the video games, naps, and baseball. Like Clinton, he may show up for the photo op at the end, but will ask that it occur on U.S. soil to prevent any chance of air sickness. 41350. JudithAtHome - 9/14/2000 4:03:03 PM Fine...if he's elected, I hope all of you enjoy him to the fullest. Maybe three hours a day playing video games will improve his verbal dexterity...it's a cinch the state of Texas will save money after he's out of office. No way will he need a Library. 41351. CalGal - 9/14/2000 4:05:41 PM Maria, 41352. glendajean - 9/14/2000 4:10:20 PM Judith -- as you probably know, the State Capitol in Texas was restored, beginning with Clements in his last term and the process continued through most of Richard's term. She greatly reduced the actual governor's office, opting for a different arrangements of offices in the rather small governor's suite. Back in '63, after the assasination, Connally had built a football field size office that only had a couple of windows. Richards went back to the room that was the original governor's office. 41353. marshame - 9/14/2000 4:11:25 PM What a pleasant relief to find this thread full of light-hearted jousting and witty reparte. Not the usual nasty slugfest. 41354. mgleason - 9/14/2000 4:16:23 PM CalGal: 41355. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 4:26:05 PM Gilbert's bio of Chruchill is on my short list of books to read soon. It seems to be the definitive bio, and wasn't written very long ago. 41356. CalGal - 9/14/2000 4:27:48 PM We should probably take it to the Books thread. God knows it doesn't get enough activity. 41357. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 4:30:13 PM Regarding my indifferent response to the appearance quid pro quo campaign money and policy in our political system I offer the following examples from The New Republic and the Nation from the last four years: 41358. mgleason - 9/14/2000 4:31:36 PM John Charmley wrote a singularly charmless 'revisionist' political biography of Churchill in the David Irving style. 41359. JudithAtHome - 9/14/2000 4:34:22 PM VonK: 41360. racehorse - 9/14/2000 4:35:17 PM 1) Are you for or against the allowance of open homosexuals to serve in the military? FOR 41361. racehorse - 9/14/2000 4:36:20 PM 9) Were you for or against a vote of impeachment of President Clinton in the House of Representatives? AGAINST 41362. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 4:40:54 PM From The Nation, this is a somewhat lengthy bit on Tobacco money and Repub, and particularly Bush, policies: 41363. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 4:42:01 PM .... 41364. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 4:42:47 PM And finally, from The Nation, a series of questions a la House Impeachement Investigator questions to Clinton: 41365. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 4:42:52 PM VK: The thing is, the line between a bribe and a campaign donation is certainly blurry. The key difference, as I see it, is whether there is an explicit agreement for a quid pro quo. While I certainly agree that PACs often make implicit bribes, and that politicians expect rewards for services rendered, I do see a line that cannot be crossed. If a politician crosses that line, I think he should be nailed to the wall. 41366. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 4:43:06 PM I recognize, and the articles in TNR and the Nation point out, that the Dems behave in the same way as the Repubs cited above. Given that this is the effective rules that we wage our adversarial partisan contests then it is in the interests of the candidates to play to the best of their abilities. For the Repubs to whine now that the Dems are fielding a team as talented, or more so, than the Repubs in the creative field of campaign finance, is...well...whining. 41367. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 4:52:54 PM Now, Jack O' and Ace, if you can convince me that this memo ties, in a way that would warrant bringing charges, Gore to a promise that if the Trial Lawyers pay then Clinton will veto the tort reform bill, then I will change my tune. But I don't see that in the reports so far. 41368. Jonesatlaw - 9/14/2000 5:05:55 PM VK- It seems that the process is reversed somewhat- the "bribe" was to be paid after the action, not before. 41369. glendajean - 9/14/2000 5:10:48 PM Gore's numbers are up in Ohio. 41370. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 5:15:56 PM 41371. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 5:17:17 PM 41372. Dusty - 9/14/2000 5:41:23 PM Jack Vincennes 41373. robertjayb - 9/14/2000 6:04:24 PM . 41374. janjon - 9/14/2000 6:09:14 PM The GOP is playing a verrry dangerous game by trying to get mileage out of this so-called bribe fund raising flap. 41375. jexster - 9/14/2000 6:39:20 PM Cal; I had to go to class, so I couldn't answer your smart ass. No the graphics are not the same. The latest tracking poll graph only looks identical to those who don't know how to read the graph. 41376. jexster - 9/14/2000 6:42:14 PM Cheney: Just Another Old, Tired Republican 41377. jexster - 9/14/2000 6:43:33 PM 41378. jexster - 9/14/2000 6:46:42 PM Very interesting Glenda that Ohio story. 41379. jexster - 9/14/2000 6:52:48 PM What the voters want is George Bush to lead with Al Gore's agenda,'' comment on the Pew results by a poli sci guy 41380. mgleason - 9/14/2000 6:58:16 PM Vis-à-vis Rick Lazio's antics during the debate, he's from Long Island and doesn't know any better. (So speaketh an almost native Westchesterite.) 41381. jexster - 9/14/2000 6:59:35 PM Bush must choose between running on character and running on issues. Running on character proved inadequate. Running on 41382. jexster - 9/14/2000 7:03:36 PM For all his debate foolishness & posturing, Bush came out getting just what Gore had proposed. 41383. mgleason - 9/14/2000 7:05:22 PM Well, Jex, with the economy a non-issue, some of the issues Bush has left he daren't run on: abortion, school prayer, etc. 41384. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2000 7:09:40 PM Down the Memory Hole with Al 41385. mgleason - 9/14/2000 7:12:09 PM Gore also told Frank Zappa that he was a fan. 41386. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2000 7:15:47 PM He told Courtney Love that, too. 41387. mgleason - 9/14/2000 7:21:38 PM He must have been staring down at her décolletage at the time. There's no other explanation that doesn't include extra-terrestrials. 41388. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 7:27:02 PM 41389. labwabbit - 9/14/2000 7:32:55 PM ...ya mean the best act-dressed award. 41390. mgleason - 9/14/2000 7:36:54 PM Yes. You and the three people on the Golden Globe Awards committee are all shape-shifting alien scum. I know my SF, mister. 41391. Don S. - 9/14/2000 7:47:52 PM Um, I liked that one album of Courtney's. And, rest assured, it had nothing to do with décolletage. (Nice diacritic, there, Sprite!) 41392. jonesatlaw - 9/14/2000 8:01:29 PM I can understand the concern about the chilling effect of Congressional scrutiny of movies and TV and their promotion. The problem is not really the media, so much as it is the problem of parents. I've gone to R rated movies and seen idiots with toddlers there. Aside from the questionable decision to expose a child so young to bloody gun fights or sex scenes, the little shits talk through the dialogue. 41393. mgleason - 9/14/2000 8:04:54 PM Heh. I have plenty more where that came from. 41394. AceofSpades - 9/14/2000 8:22:04 PM 41395. AceofSpades - 9/14/2000 8:28:14 PM 41396. AceofSpades - 9/14/2000 8:30:01 PM 41397. AceofSpades - 9/14/2000 8:33:29 PM 41398. jexster - 9/14/2000 8:37:27 PM Beautiful Picture of Fundamentals: Gore Wipes Out Bush Lead Among Men 41399. jexster - 9/14/2000 8:42:10 PM The problem is not really the media, so much as it is the problem of parents. I've gone to R rated movies and seen idiots with toddlers there. 41400. jexster - 9/14/2000 8:42:47 PM GO GIANTS!!!! 41401. jexster - 9/14/2000 9:07:46 PM More fundamentals for Gore from NBC Once again, it’s the economy. By a 41402. joezan - 9/14/2000 10:39:18 PM 41403. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 10:49:16 PM Joezan 41404. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2000 10:54:43 PM Ace (41397): You sound as though you just don't believe in the proverbial free lunch. 41405. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2000 11:00:51 PM Last sentence should read "...take their kids to R-rated movies or slip...." 41406. AceofSpades - 9/14/2000 11:02:17 PM 41407. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2000 11:10:21 PM Ace: I think it depends on the kid, how much rope you give them. 41408. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2000 11:14:01 PM As far as movies go, I'd worry more about the "message" of a film than anything else with my kids. I wouldn't care about nudity at all, in and of itself, but something like American Psycho (at least what I know of the book), I'd probably not like my kid wanting to see. 41409. joezan - 9/14/2000 11:25:58 PM 41410. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2000 11:31:09 PM joezan: I certainly see the motives of both men, but isn't there something more here than meets the eye? 41411. jexster - 9/14/2000 11:33:13 PM Why Won't The New York Times Apologize to Wen Ho Lee, Why Won't Christopher Cox -Author of the Hysterical Report of Same Name 41412. jexster - 9/14/2000 11:35:17 PM Why is it then that a state like NY that supposedly receives so little from the federal government is staunchly Democratic (and usually big government)? 41413. jexster - 9/14/2000 11:43:27 PM Get Your Very Own Copy of the Cox Report - Here! 41414. joezan - 9/15/2000 12:00:28 AM 41415. jonesatlaw - 9/15/2000 12:10:45 AM Ace- Hollywood makes movies the public wants to see. If the public likes slasher films, they pay money for them. Hollywood makes more. If the public stops liking slasher movies, Hollywood stops making them. I would prefer the kinds of ratings I get for movies on satelite TV- they spell out whether there is "adult content" "brief nudity" "significant sexual content" "considerable violence" etc. 41416. jonesatlaw - 9/15/2000 12:21:39 AM What happened to the idea that there would be adult films that weren't appropriate for children, but that weren't porn? I think that using "fuck" in the dialogue would get a film an R rating, at least several instances of the more reaction causing "dirty words" will get an R rating. But there isn't a distinction between that and something horrifically violent, or strongly sexual. Saving Private Ryan is a great example of a movie that no child who isn't mature enough to think as an adult should see. There is nothing wrong with the film, it is just not suitable for a kid. 41417. CalGal - 9/15/2000 12:24:37 AM What happened to the idea that there would be adult films that weren't appropriate for children, but that weren't porn? 41418. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 12:30:39 AM 41419. CalGal - 9/15/2000 12:31:56 AM The problem, as I understand it, is that newspapers and local television stations often refuse to run ads for X or NC-17 movies, and many theaters simply not to show them, for obvious reasons. 41420. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 12:39:26 AM 41421. CalGal - 9/15/2000 12:44:48 AM Oh, do you think I'm bitching about censorship? No, I'm not. I don't think zoning regulations qualify, anyway. But I'm sure that, in the end, it turns out that malls get their marching orders from the city supervisors, or board, or whatever. 41422. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 12:49:55 AM 41423. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 12:53:27 AM 41424. CalGal - 9/15/2000 12:53:30 AM I don't think it's a matter of them refusing--I do think it's a zoning issue. I've discussed this before and I thought I'd read it before as well--in fact, I've taken it as true for some time now and would continue to do so except you're disagreeing and I'm starting to wonder. 41425. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 12:58:08 AM 41426. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 12:59:35 AM 41427. CalGal - 9/15/2000 1:08:25 AM Ace, 41428. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 1:09:19 AM 41429. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 1:09:44 AM 41430. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 1:11:47 AM 41431. CalGal - 9/15/2000 1:14:49 AM By the local ordinances, aren't they? It's not state, it's local. And what I mean is that prudish activist parents would get involved quickly to change the zoning laws if they ever didn't restrict what movies were shown--and most of the rest of the population wouldn't care enough. 41432. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 1:16:11 AM Cygnus Message # 41202: 41433. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 1:18:56 AM And there's a lot of ignorance in this country as evidenced by the number of women swayed by "the kiss". Any such woman not only shouldn't be allowed to vote, they should be stuck cleaning toilets for a living. 41434. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 1:19:47 AM Here's evidence. It's widely accepted that the public school system is failing....Conservatives would rather have an educated populace that can take care of themselves, so they support vouchers. Liberals like Al Gore oppose any reform whatsoever and propose no solutions to the problem. What else can we conclude other than that they actually want an ignorant populace? 41435. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 1:20:17 AM You dittoheads are something else. You read Atlas Shrugged, figure you've got the entire world figured out, and proceed to divide everyone into rugged individualists like yourself, and parasites who only exist from the fruits of your sacred toilings. Everything's so goddamned simple, isn't it? It's all an "us vs. them" rhetorical war, with nary a glance at the fact that the major industries, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, all of them contribute heavily to both parties. So just how much of a closet socialist could Algore be? 41436. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 1:20:26 AM 41437. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 1:26:35 AM 41438. CalGal - 9/15/2000 1:27:01 AM I doubt there's a God-fearing Southern town in America that doesn't have a video-rental store with adult films in the back room. 41439. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 1:28:11 AM 41440. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 1:28:44 AM Jexster Message # 41411: 41441. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 1:30:57 AM Ace Message # 41437: 41442. jonesatlaw - 9/15/2000 1:31:16 AM Ace- I think that CalGal is right- when the X rating was proposed to be replaced by NC-17, the idea was to differentiate between porno and "legitimate" films for adults. Somehow this got lost in the shuffle. I think that many R rated films should be rated as for adults only, while some of the milder ones should be okay for 13-14 and up. 41443. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 1:36:26 AM 41444. jonesatlaw - 9/15/2000 1:39:20 AM Ace- Merit pay is okay if you can come up with a workable means of parceling it out. Not all of our present teachers are bad. Many are rather good and are devoted to teaching because they love the subject they teach, and/or working with kids. Many consider teaching "a calling" in the same way that nurses and ministers etc. view their professions. 41445. CalGal - 9/15/2000 1:41:15 AM Ace, it's not a matter of making Showgirls obscene. All they have to do is say that you can't show any NC17 movies in malls. 41446. jonesatlaw - 9/15/2000 1:46:43 AM Obsecenity is in the eyes of the local beholders. Recently there was a sew "adult" store opened in my hometown that showed what seem to be garden variety porno, which fills back rooms in video stores all over. However, two local juries found the videos to be obscene as violating community standards. For years, Omaha has pushed its porno trade over the river into Council Bluffs, Iowa. Lots of Omaha cars in the parking lots at the Iowa "adult" bookstores, in fact the majority of the business comes from across the river. Even so, the juries voted to convict. 41447. jonesatlaw - 9/15/2000 1:50:46 AM Ace- I seem to recall a zoning ordinance restricting nudie bars, adult bookstores and movie theatres to a certain area in town as being upheld against a first amendment challenge. The courts saw them as time, manner, place restrictions with a rational basis. 41448. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 1:51:08 AM Jones: 41449. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 2:06:57 AM Ralph Nader, in today's Chico News & Review: 41450. CalGal - 9/15/2000 2:08:10 AM Ace, 41451. jonesatlaw - 9/15/2000 2:10:23 AM Eric- so far Omaha is not that Philistine, but we're a predominantly Roman Catholic town. Something like 65-70% of the overall population is Catholic, and consequently sex is the big taboo. You can drink like a fish, but no nookie joints. If you go 50 miles down the road you come to Lincoln, which is overwhelmingly WASP, with major Seventh Day Adventist and Methodist populations. They had allowed liquor by the drink outside of private clubs only a few years before I went to college there in the 70's. OTOH, they had an adult bookstore, and two X rated movie houses. When bars first opened, there were several "tittie bars" amoung them. Even so, it has only been a short time since they have allowed liquor to be sold on Sunday, and allowed beer and wine sales outside separate liquor stores. 41452. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 3:28:19 AM ycmeehan Message # 41238: 41453. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 3:28:38 AM For me, that in itself is enough to return the inept Bush leaguer back to Texas. 41454. angel-five - 9/15/2000 4:24:51 AM I think the thing about Bush and Gore isn't that the same people have bought both of them, Eric. It's different people. 41455. bubbaette - 9/15/2000 8:13:31 AM Joezan 41456. Wombat - 9/15/2000 8:18:58 AM Mr. Nader: 41457. JudithAtHome - 9/15/2000 8:57:50 AM I read that article in Vanity Fair magazine about GW and while some of it made me feel a little better about him, most of it made me feel worse. Since I've made no bones about how I view him, this ought to be a scary thing. Read it, guys...and pay attention to what his friends, the people who know him best, have to say. 41458. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 9:17:40 AM from Today's Papers comes another reason for me to not give blood: 41459. Wombat - 9/15/2000 9:33:36 AM I lived in Britain in the 1980s, so I can't give blood. BSE and all. 41460. Thoughtful - 9/15/2000 9:52:36 AM Question of fact...is Laura W's first wife? Was he ever divorced? 41461. Wombat - 9/15/2000 9:53:40 AM W was engaged before (to a Jewish girl, no less). Didn't work out. 41462. Thoughtful - 9/15/2000 10:04:27 AM OK. Thanks -- I was looking for things that tweedle dum and tweedle dee have in common for a pitch I'm giving. So far I've got that they're between 50-55, both ivy leaguers with C averages, both protestants with famous political fathers, married with children, never divorced, and both like diet soda. I thought I'd leave out that they both have experience with illegal substances. 41463. JudithAtHome - 9/15/2000 10:06:13 AM Thoughtful: 41464. Thoughtful - 9/15/2000 10:06:51 AM Since I know I won't, how 'bout giving me the elevator speech? 41465. JudithAtHome - 9/15/2000 10:07:35 AM Hey, they can both speak....problem comes when you try to understand one of them. 41466. marjoribanks - 9/15/2000 10:10:49 AM I thought both Gore and Lieberman were impressively congenial and funny on Letterman and Conan last night. Gore particularly so, since he ad-libbed several really funny biting lines. If that's the Gore (and Lieberman) we continue to see in the run-up to the election, I have a hard time believing that undecideds are going to plump for the increasingly frazzled-looking Shrub and the lump, Cheney. 41467. Thoughtful - 9/15/2000 10:11:54 AM Mind you, in my pitch, I'm looking for the similarities as a foil to then reveal the differences -- which given my role, of course, has to do with their economic policies. 41468. JudithAtHome - 9/15/2000 10:12:43 AM I liked Gores ad lib "We work 24/6." 41469. marjoribanks - 9/15/2000 10:13:23 AM I assume I'm not the only person here who saw both these appearances last night. Other perspectives on them would be appreciated. 41470. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 10:18:12 AM EricCartman, Re Message #41435: 41471. JudithAtHome - 9/15/2000 10:20:22 AM Well, I just made a comment about Gores gift of ad lib...I thought he did an excellent job. Of course, once I say that, I'll be blasted as a Clinton enabler by those who think Gore was pandering to Hollywood. 41472. CalGal - 9/15/2000 10:20:35 AM Gawd, I'm working too hard if I'm missing this stuff. I actually fell asleep last night! Good thing that CNN or Fox will rerun every detail. 41473. JudithAtHome - 9/15/2000 10:22:26 AM Cygnus: 41474. marjoribanks - 9/15/2000 10:25:27 AM Letterman did kiss Gore's ass a little bit assiduously on the environmental issues, but he kind of provided a context for this. In any case, I think the Gore you saw on the show (relaxed, upbeat, confident yet able to laugh at himself) and the Lieberman on the other show (relaxed, upbeat, confident yet able to laugh at himself) is so different from what the pudits tell us is the popular perception of the pair, that these two are going to look awfully good when on the same stage as the increasingly defensive Republican pair. Bush is unable to poke fun at himself at this point, he thinks it'll lose him votes. 41475. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 10:28:52 AM "The only question I ask the least/worst people is: When are you gonna say, "Enough is enough"? When are you gonna deny them the vote? Put it in the Green column." 41476. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 10:34:56 AM "I'm sure it does your emotional hearts good to think of the wonderful safety net provided be Medicare. But your brain should be telling you that such a massive federal program would be rife with fraud and abuse - and it is. A recent investigation found that the cost of fraud and mismanagement in Medicare would more than pay for the repeal of the estate tax." 41477. marjoribanks - 9/15/2000 10:35:11 AM Interesting, Rask. One of the subtexts to the Letterman interview yesterday is that Gore (using Letterman as a foil) made no bones about his intentions about targeting global warming as "priority # 1" for his administration. I think its unwise to say such things in today's political climate, but he did so in a roundabout way. 41478. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 10:35:16 AM interesting Rask 41479. glendajean - 9/15/2000 10:38:36 AM Hendrik Hertzberg of the New Yorker in the current issue on Nader and the two party system: 41480. glendajean - 9/15/2000 10:39:43 AM toys 41481. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 10:40:22 AM MB: I am voting for Gore. I am a centrist Democrat, often prefering the use of Republican means (harnessing the market, promoting economic growth, etc.) to achieve Democratic ends (such as universal health care, the protection of the environment, elimination of poverty, etc.). Gore and Lieberman both are closer to my political heart than 99% of candidates running in any election (although Bradley was closer). My main qualms with Gore are personal, not on policy. 41482. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 10:43:14 AM Rask, Check it out. 41483. bubbaette - 9/15/2000 10:43:25 AM I recently read in an article either in the Richmond Times Dispatch or the New Republic that the administrative cost of the Medicare program are 3% of total spending or less. The administrative cost of traditional insurance is about 15% of total spending while the administrative cost of "medigap" insurance is about 40% of total spending. 41484. glendajean - 9/15/2000 10:44:15 AM Hertzberg (continued) 41485. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 10:45:48 AM "One of the subtexts to the Letterman interview 41486. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 10:46:27 AM Judith, Re Message #41463: 41487. marjoribanks - 9/15/2000 10:47:43 AM Thanks for the response Rask. I don't really have the same qualms (I'd imagine) as you do mainly because Gore is so phenomenally strong on the issues that really matter to me (environment being the biggest) and because I had the chance to spend some time with him when he was still a Senator and have the highest respect for him that I could accord a politician. He is, however, nakedly ambitious. And loyal perhaps to the point of excess. These are traits that generally accompany individuals who aspire to the highest offices, so I guess I gloss over them more easily than others would. 41488. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 10:49:55 AM "1) It makes them dependent on government and therefore gives 41489. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 10:55:04 AM Not quite, Rask. If you don't like your insurance provider, you can either choose another one or choose not to buy insurance at all. This is not true with Medicare. We're forced to pay for it, under penalty of imprisonment, whether we want it or not. 41490. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 10:59:44 AM bubbaette, did the article explore why administrative costs might be so high? Could it have anything to do with federal regulations buried in Medicare? 41491. Wombat - 9/15/2000 11:00:58 AM Cygnet sounds an awful lot like the Fray's BTerry. 41492. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 11:01:58 AM Here is case study number one in why you ask Cygnus for his sources. 41493. Wombat - 9/15/2000 11:03:06 AM Administrative costs in Medicare are lower than in the private insurance sector, plus it dies not have to advertise. 41494. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 11:06:06 AM "Not quite, Rask. If you don't like your insurance provider, you can 41495. JudithAtHome - 9/15/2000 11:06:18 AM Cygnus: 41496. Wombat - 9/15/2000 11:07:31 AM And that is people defrauding the government, presumably. 41497. Wombat - 9/15/2000 11:08:47 AM I don't believe dyslexia affects how people speak. 41498. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 11:10:09 AM Wombat, I'm honored you remember me. And, that is what should happen. These "generous" states then have to decide if they want to continue to foster this government dependence. Other "less generous" states choose to be that way for a reason. How dare one state force their choice on another?! 41499. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 11:10:16 AM "What are your qualms, if you don't mind listing them." 41500. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 11:12:09 AM '$20 billion would more than pay for the estate tax relief that the president just vetoed. $20 billion would also allow us to provide Americans (with) marriage penalty tax relief,' 41501. JudithAtHome - 9/15/2000 11:12:32 AM Wombat: 41502. Wombat - 9/15/2000 11:14:53 AM Fraud tends to trigger a schizophrenic reaction among conservatives in government. They hoot and holler about it and grill government bureaucrats in hearings; but if the agency or program in question attempts to crack down, they hoot and holler about the persecution of individuals by a big government agency, and attempt to emasculate its enforcement capabilities. Take the IRS, for instance. 41503. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 11:16:13 AM I have never been convinced of a "Race to the bottom", myself. Sure, welfare reform resulted in a lot of cuts, but I would argue that this was largely states that just didn't see welfare as a very large priority, rather than states that were trying to deter poor people from moving to their state. 41504. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 11:17:51 AM Cygnet. oops. Missed Thompson's mention of the estate tax there. Still, it remains a fact that you tried to pass off the total amount of fraud discovered as solely belonging to Medicare. 41505. Wombat - 9/15/2000 11:18:17 AM I couldn't forget you, Cygnus. Your "reasoning" is thoroughly grounded in your feelings about the role of government, and is among the least analytical in the thread. 41506. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 11:19:13 AM 41507. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 11:19:15 AM JudithAtHome, I don't know about you, but I've never had to discuss public policy details with a hostile press most of my waking hours. I'm not excusing idiotic speech, I just don't think people realize the tough standards they're applying. 41508. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 11:20:17 AM "Fraud tends to trigger a schizophrenic reaction among conservatives 41509. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 11:22:11 AM "Wipe the egg off your face. $14 billion is close enough to $20 billion 41510. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 11:23:29 AM Ace, I meant to ask you. Did you happen to hear about the Greate One? He had major heart surgery. That was quite a scare, but I hear he's fully recovered and his prognosis is good. 41511. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 11:25:21 AM Gretsky had heart surgery? 41512. Wombat - 9/15/2000 11:25:39 AM Rask: 41513. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 11:26:31 AM 41514. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 11:28:27 AM I guess there's no mistaking that you're a liberal, Rask. The Great One is none other than Mark Levin, enemy to the liberal cause. 41515. JudithAtHome - 9/15/2000 11:29:46 AM Cygnus: 41516. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 11:30:26 AM Ace: total fraud mention in article: 20.7 million. Total Medicare fraud: 14.1 million = a 46.8% increase, which rounds uncontroversially to ~50%. 41517. Wombat - 9/15/2000 11:33:04 AM Cygnus: 41518. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 11:34:28 AM 41519. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 11:35:38 AM Yes, life is tough. GW may not be perfect, be he's still getting the vote from anti-socialists. Look at it this way: Would you ever vote for a lying rapist if you thought his opponent's ideology was dangerous for the country? 41520. JudithAtHome - 9/15/2000 11:36:49 AM Cygnus: 41521. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 11:38:19 AM You are actually quibbling about rounding 46.8% to "~50%", and equating it with Cygnus' (being ase precise as possible here, since we know you hate rounding) ~46.8085106383% error? 41522. Wombat - 9/15/2000 11:41:13 AM The true "anti-socialists" will be voting for Pat Buchanan. Sure you won't jion them? 41523. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 11:41:28 AM For consistency's sake Ace, I will now expect that any number you cite by rounded to no less than 5 significant digits. 41524. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 11:41:34 AM JudithAtHome, since you already went there... 41525. Wombat - 9/15/2000 11:41:38 AM "join" 41526. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 11:41:47 AM 41527. JudithAtHome - 9/15/2000 11:43:01 AM I don't watch Bill O'Reilly since he seems to have contributed heavily to Bush...wouldn't be prudent. 41528. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 11:44:33 AM 41529. janjon - 9/15/2000 11:47:38 AM Gail Collins was being, for her, rather reflective in her column today about the Hillary/Ricky go around. Winging It In Buffalo is a typical Collins turn of words though. 41530. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 11:48:59 AM Ace: 41531. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 11:51:59 AM 41532. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 11:52:16 AM Actually, Rask, since I said Medicare accounted for $20 billion, I over stated by 29.5%. I'm sorry you couldn't have understood my point. 41533. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 11:53:13 AM 41534. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 11:54:17 AM "You are inflating/deflating numbers to put the best possible face on 41535. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 11:54:47 AM 41536. janjon - 9/15/2000 11:56:06 AM Jack - read your post yesterday giving your reflections on what will be once Gore is President. Actually agree with much of what you say and also agree that if W. were to become President I don't think the roof would collapse or the world would change in large measure. 41537. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 11:56:26 AM 41538. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 11:58:20 AM Cygnus:"Actually, Rask, since I said Medicare accounted for $20 billion, I over stated by 29.5%. I'm sorry you couldn't have understood my point." 41539. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 11:59:27 AM 41540. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 12:00:35 PM "Well, Rask is not retreating from his gross mathematical error of 41541. JudithAtHome - 9/15/2000 12:01:46 PM This is an interesting pissing contest over size. 41542. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 12:01:52 PM well, we know that you round 35% to zero when it is convenient for you, so I guess you are well within your margin of error on your estimate. 41543. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 12:02:48 PM well, we know that you round 35% to zero when it is convenient for you, so I guess you are well within your margin of error on your estimate. 41544. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 12:03:40 PM well, we know that you round 35% to zero when it is convenient for you, so I guess you are well within your margin of error on your estimate. 41545. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 12:04:41 PM Judith: Ace and I are just flirting. We haven't had a movie blow-up in a while, and we missed each other. 41546. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 12:05:33 PM sorry for hte multiple posts. The last time my browser stalled, I lost a very long post, so I panicked. 41547. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 12:08:18 PM 41548. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 12:10:21 PM 41549. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 12:10:49 PM Ace: as should be evident by now, I take numerical accuracy much more seroius than you do. A good share of my work is quantitative analysis, so accusing me of numerical sloppiness is akin to accusing a lawyer of violating the attorney/client privilege. 41550. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 12:12:42 PM 41551. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 12:14:14 PM 41552. AceofSpades - 9/15/2000 12:15:59 PM 41553. vonKreedon - 9/15/2000 12:33:15 PM Ace, in the midst of a set of posts coyly mocking Rask's roundness, states, Rask is ~100% wrong about he and I "flirting." Given the context of Ace's posts this would seem to interpret as Rask and I are flirting ~32.135% of the time. 41554. jexster - 9/15/2000 1:06:52 PM One Good Slogan Deserves Another 41555. jexster - 9/15/2000 1:08:24 PM Hey Rask..what do you do in quantitative analysis if I might be so bold...I'm considering work in that area eventually (having learned thanks to you what "range" is)...maybe you we could discuss in careers thread?????? 41556. jexster - 9/15/2000 1:15:27 PM Pew Poll: Gore Ahead 48-43; "Populism" Bringing "Reagan" Dems On Board 41557. jexster - 9/15/2000 1:24:05 PM Bush Compassionate Conservative Claims to Moderation - A Bold Faced Lie 41558. jexster - 9/15/2000 1:30:38 PM And it's not just the relative size of Bush's huge conservative proposals that renders his tiny liberal proposals moot. His tax cut and Social Security privatization are designed to bankrupt and delegitimize government. Bush's rationale for cutting taxes is that the government is projected to run a large budget surplus. But the government also has a large debt and an even larger set of unfunded obligations that will come due when the baby-boom generation retires. When fully phased in, Bush's tax cut would consume the available budget surplus, paralyzing the federal government in exactly the same way Ronald Reagan's tax cut paralyzed it. The net size of Bush's tax cut is 1.5 percent of GDP, compared with 4 percent for Reagan's 1981 cut. But the 1981 tax cut was quickly followed by tax increases the following two years, diluting the net effect to 2.2 percent of GDP. Bush's tax cut, then, is just one-third smaller than the one that caused a decade and a half of red ink. 41559. jexster - 9/15/2000 1:37:07 PM GOP Master of Negative Ads Under Attack 41560. jexster - 9/15/2000 1:47:04 PM Voter.com comes back toward reality 41561. OhioSTOPAS - 9/15/2000 1:47:36 PM Jexter (41588): 41562. Ronski - 9/15/2000 1:47:38 PM Chile privatized their social security system without destroying their government. I wonder how they managed that. 41563. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 1:48:16 PM His tax cut and Social Security privatization are designed to bankrupt and delegitimize government. 41564. jexster - 9/15/2000 1:55:27 PM I think you missed the Reagan years RD...This is standard conservative MO. 41565. jexster - 9/15/2000 1:58:37 PM 41566. bubbaette - 9/15/2000 1:59:20 PM did the article explore why administrative costs might be so high? Could it have anything to do with federal regulations buried in Medicare? 41567. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 2:01:40 PM Re: Message # 41564, jexster. 41568. bubbaette - 9/15/2000 2:01:47 PM Another thing to bear in mind with respect to both Medicare and Private insurance is that the vast majority of fraud which drives up costs is committed by providers, not beneficiaries. Both private insurance and Medicare have problems with fraud -- it's not exclusive to Medicare. 41569. jexster - 9/15/2000 2:02:28 PM RD - Bush's tax cut will cost over $1 trillion. His scheme to "privatize" SS will cost over $1 trillion in transition costs. 41570. jexster - 9/15/2000 2:04:47 PM RD - Its exactly what Reagan did. The Federal Government can run all the deficits it wants. It doesn't affect "their source of power" in any way, shape or form. 41571. jexster - 9/15/2000 2:08:41 PM RD - you really should put Krugman's column up on your pundit bar. You might learn a little. 41572. jexster - 9/15/2000 2:11:35 PM RD - Should I post the Clinton-Gore, Bush-Quayle debt comparison chart for you again? 41573. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 2:13:43 PM Re: Message # 41570, jexster. 41574. Indiana Jones - 9/15/2000 2:13:48 PM The Federal Government can run all the deficits it wants. It doesn't affect "their source of power" in any way, shape or form. 41575. janjon - 9/15/2000 2:13:59 PM Give RD a bit of a break. I gather he was not even quite a teenager when the Reagan years finally ended. 41576. Cellar Door - 9/15/2000 2:14:20 PM The Right's favorite "Investigative Journalist." 41577. janjon - 9/15/2000 2:15:51 PM my 41575 was written before reading RD's childish, churlish and chaotic 41573. Reads like youth has nothing to do with it. 41578. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 2:16:55 PM Anyone else notice than when Ace wins an argument he gloats, and when he loses, he makes tangential jokes? What is doing now? 41579. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 2:16:56 PM janjon 41580. Indiana Jones - 9/15/2000 2:17:13 PM janjon: 41581. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 2:23:47 PM Re: Message # 41577, janjon. 41582. janjon - 9/15/2000 2:27:57 PM RD - I was allowing you the benefit of youth to justify (a) first, your lack of awareness of the Reagan starve-the-programs policy and (b)the jumble of your thought processes. 41583. janjon - 9/15/2000 2:29:35 PM Gore is hot, but not as far as I know in the context I gather you are using, RD. 41584. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 2:31:15 PM Re: Message # 41582, janjon. 41585. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 2:34:57 PM Ace, Re Message #41535 41586. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 2:37:30 PM "Oops, you're right. The point I was trying to make was that I actually 41587. Wombat - 9/15/2000 2:39:04 PM Ronski: 41588. Indiana Jones - 9/15/2000 2:39:18 PM Fair enough, janjon, but for jexster's benefit: 41589. janjon - 9/15/2000 2:39:51 PM RD - Nope. I followed it all. Your so-called chiding Jex on his hackery was predicated on his comments about W's supposed plans to use tax cuts to "delegitimize" government. A concept you obviously didn't grasp. Your lack of grasp hardly makes it hackery. Jex then, patiently and without hyperbole, pointed you to the Reagan antecedents. 41590. Wombat - 9/15/2000 2:42:21 PM "the income level that is subject to SS witholding..." 41591. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 2:44:07 PM rubberducky, Re Message #41458: 41592. Wombat - 9/15/2000 2:45:19 PM SS privatization is a superb example of attempting to fix something that is not broken, which is touted by some who have an ideological and/or financial stake in privatization. 41593. Indiana Jones - 9/15/2000 2:46:50 PM As for interest rates "sky-rocketing"... 41594. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 2:48:45 PM Re: Message # 41591, Cygnus X-1. 41595. CalGal - 9/15/2000 2:49:07 PM Wombat, 41596. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 2:49:58 PM yes, IJ 41597. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 2:54:14 PM "I disagree. I think it is broken when a "retirement" system forces some people to 41598. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 2:56:26 PM rubber, Oh, so we should ignore all practical considerations? The fact that they're considered a high-risk group shouldn't be considered even though this could be a life-or-death decision? Do you have total faith in blood screening procedures? What about intravenous drug users? Can we discriminate against them? After all, homosexuality & intravenous drug use are lifestyle choices, right? 41599. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 2:58:50 PM Don't forget the biggest selling point of privatizing social security: What you put in is now yours to do with as you please. 41600. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 3:02:55 PM Re: Message # 41598, Cygnus X-1. 41601. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:04:09 PM Rask, 41602. jexster - 9/15/2000 3:04:29 PM Why Privitization's Not A Bad Idea, Its Just Bush's Idea That Sux - P. Krugman 41603. Wombat - 9/15/2000 3:04:46 PM Cygnet: 41604. jexster - 9/15/2000 3:05:36 PM The Unofficial Krugman Web Site 41605. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:07:07 PM Wombat, 41606. jexster - 9/15/2000 3:07:55 PM just as being a heterosexual is a lifestyle choice. one i don't agree with, btw, but i understand some people think it's somehow morally superior. 41607. glendajean - 9/15/2000 3:07:59 PM Now here's an angle -- will the Olympics affect Bush's campaign efforts? 41608. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 3:08:41 PM rubber, you're neglecting to include the fact that a much higher percentage of the male homsexual population is infected with HIV than the heterosexual population. 41609. jexster - 9/15/2000 3:08:59 PM "I disagree. I think it is broken when a "retirement" system forces 41610. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:09:58 PM GJ, 41611. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 3:10:57 PM Wombat, but you could take your social security payments and put them in a CD (and you'd probably be better off). How much safer can you get? 41612. Wombat - 9/15/2000 3:11:26 PM Cal: 41613. glendajean - 9/15/2000 3:12:19 PM Look, it's simple. If you want to give blood, don't be a homosexual male. 41614. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 3:12:38 PM Re: Message # 41606, jexster. 41615. jexster - 9/15/2000 3:12:47 PM Now here's an angle -- will the Olympics affect Bush's campaign 41616. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:12:54 PM Jex, 41617. janjon - 9/15/2000 3:13:07 PM Well, the reason I think SocSec should be an insurance program is so that I would pay less in and wouldn't expect to see anything out unless disaster happened. 41618. jexster - 9/15/2000 3:13:28 PM I wish you were right. I sure would like to convert Gavin Newsom. 41619. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 3:13:36 PM jexster, Re Message #41606: 41620. jexster - 9/15/2000 3:14:53 PM I'm talking about paying in far more than you could possibly ever get out, which is (I believe) the truth about those who pay in the maximum at this stage in the game 41621. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:15:03 PM Wombat, 41622. seadate - 9/15/2000 3:15:34 PM Rubberduck - 41623. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:16:02 PM To say nothing of the fact that some people casually mention taking off the cap on SocSec, like it's no big deal. 41624. jexster - 9/15/2000 3:16:15 PM Cyg - You can characterize me any way you please. I've been called everything evil you can imagine. I assure you I don't care. In fact, I rather revel in it. 41625. Wombat - 9/15/2000 3:16:26 PM Cygnet: 41626. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:17:17 PM Jex, 41627. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 3:17:32 PM OK, Wombat. You will be better off. 41628. jexster - 9/15/2000 3:18:32 PM Quiz: Test Your Knowledge of Social Security - AARP 41629. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 3:18:43 PM Re: Message # 41608, Cygnus X-1. 41630. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:18:56 PM Janjon, 41631. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 3:19:49 PM jex, I sentence you to the asylum. Be gone with you. 41632. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:21:13 PM Jex, 41633. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 3:21:29 PM Re: Message # 41622, seadate. 41634. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 3:21:39 PM "As for the crossover--why is a one-time grit your teeth and bear it spend the extra money for the next ten years so unworkable? (I'm asking you to remind me, not challenging you)" 41635. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:22:55 PM It just isn't fair to say "the system is broke because you pay in more than you get out" and have the solution be "most people who has paid in during their careers will get screwed so that we can use what you thought would be your bennies to fund a more privatized system". 41636. Wombat - 9/15/2000 3:23:33 PM Considering how insurance companies work, Cal, if an earthquake hit your neck of the woods, and everyone who had earthquake insurance submitted their claims, there would either be some quick renegotiating by the insurance companies, pleas for Federal relief, and/or a passel of lawsuits. 41637. janjon - 9/15/2000 3:24:40 PM What do you know. I answered them all correctly. 41638. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 3:25:06 PM rubber, Actually, it's not bullshit. The fact of the matter is this: If a homosexual and hetersexual man give blood, you are much more likely that the former's blood is infected. I'm tellin' ya. Learn to love broads. 41639. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 3:25:30 PM "The answer is "TRUE". On average, workers receive back their 41640. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:25:34 PM Wombat, 41641. Ronski - 9/15/2000 3:26:35 PM I don't think that social security is a disaster, anymore than I think that government-run airports, schools, parks, and a few other things are. But I do think that all of these areas of our lives could be improved to some degree by using more of the marketplace and less of the government. 41642. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 3:26:46 PM "Considering how insurance companies work, Cal, if an earthquake hit 41643. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:29:54 PM More generally - why shouldn't some people pay in more to SS than they realistically (actuarily) can expect to receive back. 41644. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 3:30:48 PM Ronski, I meant to ask you. What was your opinion of the Supreme Court decision regarding the Boy Scouts being able to prohibit homosexuals from becoming scoutmasters? 41645. janjon - 9/15/2000 3:30:49 PM CalGal. If someone were to be able to deliberately choose to pay in less for Social Security benefits who then, somehow (through just not saving enough or having investments go sour, or whatever) ends up with not enough to retire on, why then should this "disaster" equate to that person's nevertheless being able to pony up to the trough and receive more soc.sec. benefits than he or she would otherwise be entitled. Doesn't seem like fair play, to me. 41646. jexster - 9/15/2000 3:31:19 PM I scored 100 too Cal. Aren't we smart! 41647. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 3:33:31 PM Re: Message # 41638, Cygnus X-1. 41648. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:35:38 PM Janjon, 41649. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:36:27 PM Ack. Not the only thing expensive about it. The only thing problematic about it. Sorry. 41650. jexster - 9/15/2000 3:39:46 PM Bottom line fact about SS, that no retirement plan in the US has been around, much less been as sucessful as Social Security has been. Small wonder that its "the third rail" of US politics. 41651. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:41:09 PM It was conceived as an insurance plan, I believe. It was Nixon who turned it into an entitlement program--or so I've read. 41652. jexster - 9/15/2000 3:41:15 PM WARNING THIS IS A RE-POST 41653. janjon - 9/15/2000 3:42:18 PM in some, very broad and not totally analogous ways, the system currently works the way you would suggest. Take those who pay in the max (and, as self-employed souls, both my wife and I do). Actuarily, we will never receive back what we have paid in, especially if you count in interest and other growth of principal assumptions (I think the max benefit per year is now somewhere about $20,000 a year). The equivalent, if you will, of the person who pays in mandatorily but doesn't receive benefits because his or her post-retirement income exceeds the limit at which benefits cease. 41654. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:44:36 PM Janjon, 41655. jexster - 9/15/2000 3:45:49 PM No it was originally an old age income supplement - surviors benefits, disability benes added later. Yes an insurance program, but only in a loose sense. SS was never actuarily based. 41656. janjon - 9/15/2000 3:47:28 PM I said it was quite broad, CalGal. It is similar in that under your system people with sufficiently high post-retirement income don't get benefits (even though they would have made contributions while working) while the way it current works people with sufficiently high pre-retirement income (especially self-employed who pay both portions of the annual contributions), stand less of a chance than anyone else from getting back what they paid in. 41657. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:47:33 PM They call it a social insurance program, but I don't see how it qualifies as such. 41658. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 3:47:34 PM Cygnus Message # 41470: 41659. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 3:48:00 PM rubber, this proves my point: What homosexuals are missing. 41660. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 3:49:17 PM I'm sure it does your emotional hearts good to think of the wonderful safety net provided be Medicare. 41661. Jonesatlaw - 9/15/2000 3:49:41 PM I thought that the blood questions were aimed at behavior, but the above exchange just made me realize that I haven't been asked if I engaged in hetrosexual unprotected anal intercourse. I thought that the chance of infection was increased by anal intercourse, and that was in part the reason that the infection rate was higher in the gay population in comparison to hetrosexuals. Seems that that part slipped their minds. 41662. jexster - 9/15/2000 3:50:06 PM You sick prevert!!!! 41663. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 3:50:20 PM You want compassion? You want charity? Be smart about it. Feed a man fish and you've made him dependent on your generosity. Teach a man to fish and you've freed him to take care of himself. 41664. CalGal - 9/15/2000 3:51:53 PM Janjon, 41665. Jonesatlaw - 9/15/2000 3:53:00 PM If we eliminate the inheritance tax there are two significant changes that might give Americans pause. The first is the loss of charitable giving that is part of the estate tax planning used by the Gotbucks of the world. The second is that a substantial number of tax attorneys will be without work, and will be forced to make mischief in some other area of society. 41666. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 3:53:48 PM Re: Message # 41659, Cygnus X-1. 41667. jexster - 9/15/2000 3:55:40 PM To be fair, 800 screwdrivers were a private industry innovation on a federally administered contract. 41668. jexster - 9/15/2000 3:57:11 PM "econonomy", pure MoronSpeak 41669. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 3:58:07 PM Mr. Cartman, you disparage Rush, but you're not doing a good job. It's not enough that it's your opinion that he's bad. The fact of the matter is, in this example, he's right about high-school dropouts favoring Al Gore. But, it's not meant to be taken literally that liberals want everyone to be stuipid. It's a good vehicle to illustrate how liberal policies keep people stupid. And, it's interesting to ponder that some may truly want people to be stupid, so that they can remain powerful. 41670. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 3:58:20 PM I have to admit, Cygnus, the link in Message # 41659 makes up for a lot of your earlier nonsense. ¡Que bueno! 41671. Thoughtful - 9/15/2000 4:00:25 PM jex, I just read #1 on the Dean Baker article. He's done some good work in some areas, but this point is just bogus. The trust fund is a statistical artifice. I take $5k out of my account A and "lend" it to my account B. I then take money out of account B to pay interest back to account A. Somehow by this transaction I'm supposed to be better off? Ridiculous. It's all my money -- or in the case of SS, it's all government money. 41672. jexster - 9/15/2000 4:02:14 PM Speaking of MoronSpeak this week is truly bountiful 41673. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 4:02:38 PM Re: Message # 41661, Jonesatlaw. 41674. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 4:05:13 PM rubber, Yuck! That was a bunch of dudes! How gross! 41675. janjon - 9/15/2000 4:06:27 PM The only part about the social security contribution scheme that I find irksome is that one also has to pay income tax on the amounts that are contributed. Taxes on taxes are over the top, even to a LIBERAL like me. 41676. jexster - 9/15/2000 4:07:44 PM No Thoughtful, you are not correct. The point is that SS up until now has always had the Trust Fund in surplus. I believe the current balance is nearly 900 billion. The point I understand Baker to be making is that when the government borrows from the fund, either through the discredited IOU practice or when the fund buys US Treasuries to invest its surplus, it helps the US government. And in fact it does. During the Reagan budget binge, it helped big time, supporting the US debt. 41677. CalGal - 9/15/2000 4:07:54 PM Hey, be grateful they graciously allow you to deduct the percentage the company usually pays from your taxes. 41678. CalGal - 9/15/2000 4:08:17 PM taxable income, I mean. 41679. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 4:08:34 PM janjon, then you must think the estate tax is over the top, too. After all, all of that wealth that was acquired was taxed already. 41680. Thoughtful - 9/15/2000 4:08:39 PM Then he makes some assumptions about real wage growth and productivity which one hopes come true, but for which there is little evidence of sustainability over 75 years -- we don't understand why productivity fell so sharply in the 70s and 80s nor why it's picked up so in the late 90s. We also don't understand the anemic growth in real wages in light of strong productivity growth. 41681. jexster - 9/15/2000 4:09:15 PM RD - is it kosher to link porno sites? There's this really kinky one from Norway.... 41682. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 4:09:32 PM Thanks, Cartman. I just thought he should see what he was missing. 41683. OhioSTOPAS - 9/15/2000 4:11:48 PM Janjon: I don't think income tax is owed on the amounts CONTRIBUTED Social Security. If any income tax is owed on one's Social Security income, there's an exclusion of a certain percent so that one is only paying taxes on the "profit". (I think.) 41684. janjon - 9/15/2000 4:12:07 PM cygnus. Not at all. I spend enough of my time around people for whom estate tax and avoidance of same is both a passion and an art. If IRS hadn't been browbeaten into becoming wimps, the stuff they would uncover. 41685. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 4:13:01 PM jex: no, it's not - and i'll delete mine and X-51's if it offends anyone (i get carried away sometimes - although, i don't think my link was "porn"; just naked men) 41686. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 4:14:36 PM Cygnus: 41687. Don S. - 9/15/2000 4:14:51 PM ehhh, what do you expect from someone who names himself after a weak-ass Rush* song? 41688. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 4:14:53 PM And, it's interesting to ponder that some may truly want people to be stupid, so that they can remain powerful. 41689. jexster - 9/15/2000 4:16:04 PM which there is little evidence of sustainability over 75 years -- we don't understand why productivity fell so sharply in the 70s and 80s nor why it's picked up so in the late 90s. 41690. EricCartman - 9/15/2000 4:22:46 PM Cygnus Message # 41682: 41691. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 4:27:24 PM Eric (is your last name Shawn?): 41692. Thoughtful - 9/15/2000 4:28:17 PM Jex, you're being silly. It is all government money. It is me telling myself what a good job I'm doing saving money by making purchases on my credit card, see? I'm able to buy stuff and still have money in the bank. Aren't I better off? 41693. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 4:28:58 PM jonjon, Oh, I didn't realize you had two standards. 41694. Don S. - 9/15/2000 4:30:09 PM OK, Eric. 41695. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 4:30:43 PM Don S. Them's fightin' words. I'll put up my Rush against your Michael Bolton any day. 41696. rubberducky - 9/15/2000 4:31:16 PM "weak"-ass song, actually 41697. Don S. - 9/15/2000 4:32:55 PM "My Michael Bolton"? I think you have me confused with Ace. 41698. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 4:33:01 PM Careful there, Eric. Schizophrenia isn't a choice either. 41699. jexster - 9/15/2000 4:42:06 PM No Thoughtful I don't see how you are saving money by making purchases on your credit card. 41700. Wombat - 9/15/2000 4:42:35 PM Cygnus: 41701. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 4:48:20 PM The Derek Jeter thing was a hypothetical. The Erin Br... thing was factual. 41702. Thoughtful - 9/15/2000 4:59:00 PM Jex, I agree that the SS crisis is overblown for a number of reasons -- the scary thing is that the Medicare/Medicaid crisis is "underblown" by a lot --that's where the real coming crisis is. Adding Rx drugs to the pot will only make it much, much worse and why I think both candidates are just pandering to the elderly -- who just happen to vote. 41703. janjon - 9/15/2000 5:04:05 PM cygnus - double standard? Hardly. Your initial premise that the estate tax hits income that has already been taxed is flawed. For a lot of it, perhaps at some point, but not necessarily during the lifetime of the decedent. Ever heard of generation skipping? Those with the real bucks have. As well as all sorts of nifty limited partnerships, gift programs and other devices intended to and successful at passing wealth to heirs without incurring those nasty estate taxes. 41704. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 5:07:44 PM jonjon, Huh? What part of Bill Gates' wealth wasn't taxed? 41705. Wombat - 9/15/2000 5:09:45 PM His charitable foundation, for one. 41706. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 5:12:07 PM A fat lot of good that does his heirs. 41707. janjon - 9/15/2000 5:13:37 PM Poor Bill, eh. 41708. Wombat - 9/15/2000 5:17:39 PM Gee, they'll just have to stagger through life with $1 billion instead of $2 billion. 41709. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 5:23:46 PM Hey, you despots. He may be a rich guy "undeserving" of your sympathy, but you're still tyrannizing him by passing laws unfavorable only to him (or the few like him). That's mighty dangerous ground on which you tread when you excuse unfair laws on the grounds that it only affects a well off few. Remember when Gore supported the ex post facto tax law because it only affected a few rich people? He should have been removed from office for that unconstitutional transgression. 41710. janjon - 9/15/2000 5:43:02 PM Cygnus. Perhaps it is because it is late in the day, or perhaps you've just been holding it in, but (albeit somewhat chaotically) your true stripes are beginning to show. 41711. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 5:50:00 PM janjon, the class warrior. 41712. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 5:50:45 PM jexster has so much fun posting links, but I think he forgot this one. 41713. janjon - 9/15/2000 5:51:52 PM cygnus. You bet'cha. Wake up and smell the coffee. 41714. Wombat - 9/15/2000 5:52:08 PM Cygnus: 41715. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 5:56:38 PM So Wombat, Is my language is overblown when I take issue with the Vice President of the United States, someone sworn to uphold the Constitution, advocates the passage of a law blatantly in violation of the Constitution? Or is it when I recognize the dangers of majority rule? 41716. jexster - 9/15/2000 6:26:56 PM Bush Wastes 2 Days in California 41717. jexster - 9/15/2000 6:29:01 PM The only thing Bush trips to the Golden State will "keep Gore guessing" about is his opponent's sanity 41718. Raskolnikov - 9/15/2000 6:32:58 PM Of course an estate tax is "double taxation" in that it taxes money that has already been taxed. The thing, who gives a shit? Every form of taxation taxes some money which has already been taxed. There is no way around this unless you fund your entire economy using lump sum taxes like the ones Britain had under Thatcher. 41719. jexster - 9/15/2000 6:36:19 PM Gore Continues to Hold 7 Point Lead Over Bush 41720. jexster - 9/15/2000 6:39:59 PM Any tax is on money that has already been taxed fer Chrissakes. The estate tax to the extent that the majority comes from unrealized capital appreciation has never been taxed when it was in the hands of the decedent. 41721. Indiana Jones - 9/15/2000 6:40:20 PM If Gore's vote has been at 49 percent for two whole days (which I hardly think is sufficient to call anything) and that's the highest it's been, wouldn't it be more accurate to describe it as a "ceiling"? 41722. vonKreedon - 9/15/2000 6:54:30 PM 41723. Cygnus X-1 - 9/15/2000 7:00:41 PM jexter, I don't want to get into a pissing contest, but... 41724. Indiana Jones - 9/15/2000 7:56:59 PM Bush Put to Test by Pop Quiz at Santa Ana High 41725. robertjayb - 9/15/2000 8:27:06 PM . 41726. jexster - 9/15/2000 9:10:29 PM Charlie Cook appearing on CBS NewsBush reminds me of a wide receiver who's just caught a pass and been blind-sided. He doesn't quite know what huddle to go to 41727. jexster - 9/15/2000 9:17:02 PM Charlie Cook appearing on CBS NewsBush reminds me of a wide receiver who's just caught a pass and been blind-sided. He doesn't quite know what huddle to go to 41728. jexster - 9/15/2000 9:21:13 PM Cyg - Hey smart guy, why don't you try either reading what I posted this morning or going to the current Voter.com Poll. 41729. jexster - 9/15/2000 9:24:16 PM Today's pretty picture (worth the 1000 words Cyg can't read): 41730. jexster - 9/15/2000 9:26:50 PM Robert - Your state results were reflected in CBS's Electoral Map du Jour which is showing the mid-west turning from yellow-brown (toss-up) to blue (Gore). Ohio Republicans are reported bracing for a move in that state's weekend polls for a Gore lead greater than margin of error. 41731. jexster - 9/15/2000 9:30:59 PM CBS Comedy Close 41732. jexster - 9/15/2000 9:32:35 PM jexter, I don't want to get into a pissing contest, 41733. jexster - 9/15/2000 9:35:58 PM That Used-to-be Darling Poster of Republicans - Zogby 41734. jexster - 9/15/2000 9:47:57 PM 41735. jexster - 9/16/2000 1:35:00 AM Speaking of Gore's 8 point bulge in Michigan, the man who conducted the poll said said the poll reflects a loss of confidence in Bush by Republican voters. 41736. EricCartman - 9/16/2000 2:32:03 AM Cygnus Message # 41691: 41737. EricCartman - 9/16/2000 2:33:44 AM Brutal times call for brutal measures. 41738. CalGal - 9/16/2000 2:35:00 AM Jex, that's the same chart, I swear. 41739. Indiana Jones - 9/16/2000 10:13:50 AM Cal: The first two were identical; this time it's different because it shows one more day of polling. (It would be more aesthetic if jester didn't specify a width of 300.) 41740. Cellar Door - 9/16/2000 10:17:29 AM All apologies for slavery should take the form of massive floral tributes to Me. 41741. jexster - 9/16/2000 10:18:40 AM NYTThe problem with all that hustle and bustle is that Mr. Bush often wears his fatigue on his tongue. And never has it twisted in such an exquisite fashion as it did during a visit on Thursday to a drugstore in Orange, Calif. 41742. Indiana Jones - 9/16/2000 10:18:51 AM Raw, ham-handed politics 41743. jexster - 9/16/2000 10:19:20 AM No its not Cal. Its the same result, different day. 41744. jexster - 9/16/2000 11:09:56 AM The new numbers suggest Gore is getting the momentum these days, said Mike Young, a political scientist at Penn State University. 41745. Cellar Door - 9/16/2000 11:34:24 AM PARADE OF AD PULLOUTS CONTINUES FOR "DR. LAURA" 41746. Cellar Door - 9/16/2000 11:34:42 AM Long John Silver's informed StopDrLaura.com that "this program was identified by our company in planning as a show to avoid." Stonestreet Capital told its ad agency to "stop all advertising on the Dr. Laura program." Luxor in Las Vegas said the hotel would "stop our ads from running in that particular show 41747. jexster - 9/16/2000 11:44:13 AM Out of His League - Big Time 41748. Cellar Door - 9/16/2000 11:54:03 AM Frankly, I don't blame him. 41749. jexster - 9/16/2000 12:00:30 PM Normally I might agree with the GOP spin on this CLLRDR but he's leaving California republicans to twist slowly in the wind. Having taken millions in campaign contributions from them, he's now leaving them poor and in the lurch, all alone to face the mighty Gore/Lieberman/Davis juggernaut. 41750. Cellar Door - 9/16/2000 12:12:43 PM MORE SPONSORS TO DROP DR. LAURA 41751. Cellar Door - 9/16/2000 12:13:01 PM Corzine’s spokesman Tom Shea said that ads were bought through a media buying company to run specifically on WCBS New York during Hollywood Squares and Inside Edition and was upset when he found out Dr. Laura had replaced them. IHOP likewise explained it was unaware it had been buying local spots on Dr. Laura and “when we learned that our advertisement did appear in the show in the Los Angeles market, we notified our media buyers to place show on ‘do not advertise’ list,” said a company spokesman. A KCBS spokeswoman said the station doesn’t comment specific advertiser-station issues, but insists “The amount of people pulling spots has been negligible it’s not been a problem is the bottom line.” 41752. Cellar Door - 9/16/2000 12:14:18 PM When the International House of Pancakes doesn't want you -- it's time to go! 41753. Uzmakk - 9/16/2000 6:57:05 PM Hooray for Dr. Laura. 41754. jexster - 9/16/2000 7:27:50 PM 41755. Cellar Door - 9/16/2000 7:28:21 PM 41756. jexster - 9/16/2000 7:30:38 PM Among likely voters, Gore’s margin stands at 14 points (52 percent to 38 percent for Bush). Third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan draw three and two percent, respectively. 41757. Uzmakk - 9/16/2000 8:10:10 PM Hooray for Tom Shales. 41758. jexster - 9/16/2000 8:22:12 PM Huh? 41759. RosettaStone - 9/16/2000 8:23:01 PM The HOMOsapiens at the NYTimes were just made fun of on CNN's Reliable Sources because of the ease the Gore campaign spinners had getting front-page treatment on the RNC bureaucRATS political ad. 41760. jexster - 9/16/2000 8:27:42 PM I know Rose. That news is about 3 days old. 41761. jexster - 9/16/2000 8:31:39 PM From Gore Stink Bombs Hit Target Gore's recent agility is all the more striking because "three months ago, it looked like the Gore campaign couldn't do anything right and the Bush campaign couldn't 41762. jexster - 9/16/2000 9:53:47 PM Bush/Cheney Defense Stand: More Slogan Than Substance 41763. RosettaStone - 9/16/2000 10:37:07 PM Jex: I've got to admit it, I'm losing interest in politics. 41764. jexster - 9/16/2000 11:11:05 PM Oh c'mon Rosie, its just gettin fun! I hope you didn't sign over the kids' college fund to W.? 41765. jexster - 9/17/2000 10:20:59 AM How The GOP Led By Tom DeLay Brought US Politics to a New Partisan Low 41766. Cellar Door - 9/17/2000 12:40:50 PM Baker is just another StaarWhore, jex. He was on "Meet the Russert" this morning. A visicious little queen if I ever saw one. And I've seen plenty! 41767. jexster - 9/17/2000 12:44:12 PM Cllrdr: What galls me is all GWB's palaver about the politics of personal destruction. If he was truly sincere, not the lying smarmy bastard he truly is, he'd go down to Sugar Land, TX and have a chat with the Roach Killer and take his bullwhip away. 41768. jexster - 9/17/2000 12:52:39 PM Stick A Fork in That Turkey! Font 41769. Cellar Door - 9/17/2000 1:01:13 PM So much for the "threat" of Ralph Nader! 41770. jexster - 9/17/2000 1:05:50 PM MoronSpeak Sunday Supplement from the LA Times 41771. Cellar Door - 9/17/2000 6:09:09 PM 41772. jexster - 9/17/2000 7:45:38 PM And what are most of the pundits saying about this picture ? 41773. robertjayb - 9/17/2000 9:43:57 PM . 41774. jexster - 9/17/2000 9:44:54 PM slopes, towelheads, and the like 41775. Cellar Door - 9/17/2000 10:00:20 PM Actually he means ME. 41776. DaveM - 9/17/2000 10:57:20 PM I checked a new book, Does Atlas Shrug: The Economic Consequences of Taxing the Rich, out of the library today. It looks interesting, though I've only skimmed over the contents. Clever title. 41777. robertjayb - 9/18/2000 12:30:31 AM . 41778. robertjayb - 9/18/2000 12:57:29 AM . 41779. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/18/2000 8:40:35 AM Bartcop amateurs! 41780. bubbaette - 9/18/2000 9:33:36 AM Accept no pale imitations -- insist on the Wiz! 41781. jexster - 9/18/2000 10:17:07 AM Lee Atwater's "Electoral Advantage" Now Belongs to the Democrats 41782. Jack Vincennes - 9/18/2000 10:30:30 AM janjon 41783. jexster - 9/18/2000 10:32:37 AM Mr. Deaver insisted there was ample time for the Bush camp to protect how he is perceived. The campaign, he said, should assert stricter control over Mr. Bush's public appearances and press for bolder events and policy proposals. 41784. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/18/2000 10:36:05 AM Thanks Bubb! 41785. jexster - 9/18/2000 10:36:09 AM JV - 41786. jexster - 9/18/2000 10:37:16 AM WoW---sssshhhhh. If Deaver "don't know", don't YOU go tellin 'em!!! 41787. jexster - 9/18/2000 10:39:25 AM Wiz - nice picture of Biener BTW....now we know what he's been up to lately, Krafting the Kansas Kreationist KurriKulum and the Bush comeback! 41788. Jack Vincennes - 9/18/2000 10:42:06 AM jexster 41789. CalGal - 9/18/2000 10:47:36 AM JanJon, 41790. jexster - 9/18/2000 10:51:37 AM Then the question of limtus tests is a red herring. All he has to do is find a juror of the Kennedy-Scalia mold (a Thomas and not a Souter) and he's got his anti-Roe vote, no? 41791. Jack Vincennes - 9/18/2000 10:59:24 AM jexster 41792. jexster - 9/18/2000 11:17:02 AM JV - Did you pull a muscle reaching for that slam? 41793. Jack Vincennes - 9/18/2000 11:28:56 AM jexster 41794. jexster - 9/18/2000 12:26:46 PM Newsflash from CNN: 41795. jexster - 9/18/2000 12:27:36 PM No JV, frankly I have no idea what you are talking about, but then that Gore as Corleone thing went right over my head too. 41796. glendajean - 9/18/2000 12:36:17 PM Jexster -- that means he has big socks. 41797. robertjayb - 9/18/2000 2:54:22 PM . 41798. jexster - 9/18/2000 3:00:09 PM The Director of the Gallup Poll was on CNN with interesting facts: 41799. jexster - 9/18/2000 3:00:46 PM Some Yiddish words used by Joseph Lieberman (news - web sites) on the campaign trail and their English translations: 41800. jexster - 9/18/2000 3:02:22 PM Saw my first Presidential ad since the primaries (other than Nader). 41801. jexster - 9/18/2000 3:20:20 PM "Can Bush Win?" Message No Longer "Subliminable" 41802. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 3:25:54 PM Weekly update from Iowa Electronic Markets: 41803. jexster - 9/18/2000 3:34:19 PM Rask: What's the IEM all about anyway and why might it be statistically significant? 41804. Ronski - 9/18/2000 3:34:32 PM It might be a good idea to give the credit for the Yiddish story to A.P., which ran it earlier today. 41805. jexster - 9/18/2000 3:35:16 PM Well, certainly I was wrong earlier this summer in thinking that Al Gore, some of his negative ratings, his personal ratings, the fact that people didn't like him very much were harder, more fixed than they have turned out to be. Al Gore has achieved something I didn't think he could do this fast, which was to change his personal rating so quickly. 41806. jexster - 9/18/2000 3:35:41 PM Well I sure didn't write it! 41807. Ronski - 9/18/2000 3:39:24 PM I see in jexster's link that Bush wants people "controlling their own lives." 41808. Wombat - 9/18/2000 3:47:50 PM Ronski: 41809. Ronski - 9/18/2000 3:57:59 PM Wombat, 41810. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 4:04:50 PM "Rask: What's the IEM all about anyway and why might it be 41811. Ronski - 9/18/2000 4:17:26 PM The September update of the prediction of the Dismal Scientist is unchanged from August, and says Gore is the clear favorite. 41812. jexster - 9/18/2000 4:19:55 PM Makes sense I guess, except if you posit that the conventional wisdom or an amalgam of it is superior to the genius of one "coldly rational" political observer. 41813. Cygnus X-1 - 9/18/2000 4:20:39 PM Ronski: 41814. Cygnus X-1 - 9/18/2000 4:21:52 PM #2 means that even if GW proposes federal control of "our bedrooms", there is no precedent to support it. 41815. jexster - 9/18/2000 4:22:11 PM Then again, what about the genius of a New Age approach? 41816. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 4:23:10 PM "Makes sense I guess, except if you posit that the conventional 41817. jexster - 9/18/2000 4:24:14 PM I don't see how the Electoral Colleg Mappers, including the Dismal Scientist's, put Pennsylvania in the "leaning Gore" column in view of the 18 point lead shown the other day. 41818. jexster - 9/18/2000 4:25:20 PM Rask: Yes I know. A semi-snide poke at the wisdom of the herd v. the wisdom of the single genius, like say Cyg here. 41819. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 4:25:23 PM "Then again, what about the genius of a New Age approach?" 41820. jexster - 9/18/2000 4:26:44 PM No intelligent reason? 41821. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 4:27:52 PM shine on, brother. 41822. Ronski - 9/18/2000 4:37:00 PM Cygnus, 41823. Ronski - 9/18/2000 6:12:51 PM jexster, 41824. glendajean - 9/18/2000 6:22:25 PM Last week's Indianapolis Star poll showed Bush leading Gore by 9% in Indiana. Indiana, Texas and one other state are the only three where he has a solid lead and the state has more than 3 electoral votes. Bush has a lot of 3 vote states. 41825. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/18/2000 6:24:17 PM That WyomingQueen of the Mustangshas been calling Gore a hypocrite for criticizing Hollywood while still take their money. 41826. robertjayb - 9/18/2000 6:28:57 PM . 41827. Ronski - 9/18/2000 6:30:23 PM I predict that Gore will win Washington handily and Oregon by a small margin. 41828. RosettaStone - 9/18/2000 6:31:41 PM What's this I'm reading that the cost of a gallon of home heating oil will double this winter. And natural gas will go up 60%. 41829. labwabbit - 9/18/2000 6:40:53 PM Message # 41828 41830. robertjayb - 9/18/2000 6:46:15 PM . 41831. labwabbit - 9/18/2000 6:53:08 PM ...then the there's the U.S civil war, let's take a look at Iran-Iraq-hell, the damn middle-east, not to mention the hunnerd-years war, the Crusades, WW-II, & I.... 41832. labwabbit - 9/18/2000 6:56:07 PM Holy-sh**! 41833. jexster - 9/18/2000 7:09:10 PM 41834. jexster - 9/18/2000 7:11:16 PM Gore up by 9 in The Golden State according to some fly by night pollster (Policy Institute, not Field or Mason-Dixon who do the best here) 41835. jexster - 9/18/2000 7:13:49 PM How is Gallup's question asked of a random sample of everyone any more or less accurate a predictor of the election than Rask's IEM? 41836. jexster - 9/18/2000 7:16:35 PM Screw compassionate conservatism. Even Rosie knows that all shuck and jive. Besides its boring. 41837. robertjayb - 9/18/2000 7:20:39 PM . 41838. Don S. - 9/18/2000 7:49:03 PM I wonder about those state polls upon which the various "Electoral College" maps are based. A recent statewide poll in Arizona showed Gore with a slim lead over Bush -- yes, in Arizona of all places. Yet every E.C. map I've seen this year shows Arizona solidly for Bush. Nothing would surprise me more than Gore carrying Arizona, even though Clinton carried it in '96. But between the poll I saw and the '96 results, I wonder if it's safe to assume anything. 41839. Cellar Door - 9/18/2000 7:52:31 PM You know folks, if Dubbya performs the way I expect he will in the debates, I'm this close to predicting a Gore Landslide. 41840. Don S. - 9/18/2000 7:55:34 PM Speaking of Electoral College slam dunks, does anybody know what makes Indiana such a reliable GOP bastion? South Carolina I can understand. Or Utah. 41841. robertjayb - 9/18/2000 7:59:45 PM . 41842. robertjayb - 9/18/2000 8:13:50 PM . 41843. vonKreedon - 9/18/2000 8:19:39 PM Jack O'Niner argues that Bush would have a hard time appointing an anti-Roe set of Supremes. But why? Unless he is expecting that the Dems are going to win the Senate! My my! Jack is is really downhearted. 41844. CalGal - 9/18/2000 8:27:37 PM It's hardly anti-choice to question whether or not there is a right to privacy. Besides, even if the courts said there was no constitutional right to abortion, it would be legal almost everywhere by existing state laws. I doubt that any state would allow it to remain completely illegal--even assuming that their voters would let them. 41845. DaveM - 9/18/2000 8:35:56 PM I recommend Mark Tushnet's Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts. He is a pretty renowned constitutional scholar, and is famous for his audacity: he proposes doing away with judicial review. He talks a lot about institutional constraints on legislative behavior that, in his opinion, are more important than judicial control of the meaning of the constitution. 41846. DaveM - 9/18/2000 8:40:33 PM VonKreedon - 41847. RosettaStone - 9/18/2000 8:58:19 PM Alec Baldwin, the former actor, just got his from Matt Drudge. 41848. Rick Nowood - 9/18/2000 9:08:55 PM Gore stories about his aledged scandals, Bush stories about... 41849. CalGal - 9/18/2000 9:10:46 PM I thought that a while ago, but now I've decided that it's actually a pretty fascinating election. It's moved a lot, and there have been any number of "certainties" smashed. 41850. Rick Nowood - 9/18/2000 9:25:38 PM So I can vote for someone who will transfer all the money in the country into the hands of his rich cronies or I can vote for someone who will force Hollywood to stop making the violent Woo pictures I enjoy so much. 41851. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 9:28:20 PM "How is Gallup's question asked of a random sample of everyone any more or less accurate a predictor of the election than Rask's IEM?" 41852. DaveM - 9/18/2000 9:32:54 PM Rask - 41853. Indiana Jones - 9/18/2000 9:52:26 PM Gore misstates facts in drug-cost pitch 41854. Cellar Door - 9/19/2000 12:54:50 AM 41855. Cellar Door - 9/19/2000 12:59:00 AM "It is not clear if Baldwin still fantasizes about being Drudge, as he recently revealed to COSMOPOLITAN magazine" 41856. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 9:54:55 AM If Gore wins, get used to stories like this: 41857. Wombat - 9/19/2000 10:22:32 AM Cygnus: 41858. Wombat - 9/19/2000 10:28:07 AM Cygnus: 41859. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 10:35:27 AM Wombat, I was hoping someone would bite. Thanks. 41860. Raskolnikov - 9/19/2000 10:37:26 AM " suspect that you are overestimating the predictive ability of people in the market." 41861. jexster - 9/19/2000 10:39:51 AM We may not succeed, but I believe we need a new fighting conservative traditionalist party in America," he said. "I believe, and I hope, that one day we can take America back. That is why we are building this Gideon's army, and heading for Armageddon, to do battle for the Lord." 41862. Wombat - 9/19/2000 10:43:02 AM Cygnus: 41863. Wombat - 9/19/2000 10:45:51 AM Jex: 41864. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 10:48:44 AM Also, Wombat, it's very telling that that excerpt you quoted would be in the article. It illustrates what any conservative Republican is up against when running for election. He not only has to defeat his opponent, but about 90% of the national media. 41865. jexster - 9/19/2000 10:49:27 AM Cheney Finds Public Not Receptive to School Voucher Scheme 41866. jexster - 9/19/2000 10:52:23 AM Wombat - 41867. Wombat - 9/19/2000 10:53:38 AM Cygnus: 41868. jexster - 9/19/2000 10:54:27 AM Bush Weak in GOP Bastion of Ohio 41869. jexster - 9/19/2000 10:56:42 AM Wombat's right. From Greenspan to bond traders on Wall Street, Bush's flim flam tax plan has been roundly condemned. In fact, the NYT ran an article on this very point about 3-4 weeks back. Cyg can find it if he wants to pay for it. 41870. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 11:12:37 AM Oh, the New York Times. They wouldn't be biased, would they? Of course not. They report all of the stories with no editorialization. 41871. bubbaette - 9/19/2000 11:15:59 AM The NY Times is biased as opposed to, say, your hero Rush? It is to laugh. Ha Ha 41872. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 11:17:22 AM Hey Wombat, if you make $10,000 per year and have $1,000 in debt. Which would you choose: 41873. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 11:18:20 AM bubbaette, Rush doesn't claim to be impartial. The New York Times does. 41874. Ronski - 9/19/2000 11:18:28 AM It is interesting that while Buchanan is out on the hustings again deploring homosexuality, he doesn't actually seem to be proposing any federal action on the subject. 41875. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 11:19:42 AM Also, if you check my link, it was to the Boston Globe - certainly not partial to the conservative cause. 41876. Cellar Door - 9/19/2000 11:20:05 AM He's pulling 1% or lower, Ronski. Who gives a flying fuck what he proposes --save his old Beltway whore pals? 41877. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 11:21:33 AM You worry too much about that shit Ronski. He's powerless to do anything about homosexuality. Get off his back. You can't legislate that someone like you for what you are. 41878. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:23:48 AM The NYT article was comprised of quotes from business leaders, some allied to Bush, some with Gore, most independent. I refer to those in the latter category. 41879. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 11:24:47 AM White House for $ale 41880. Wombat - 9/19/2000 11:24:48 AM Cygnus: 41881. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:27:25 AM Cyg wants us "not to worry" about what the Republicans are saying.... 41882. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 11:27:26 AM jexster, can you inform us as to what periods of time comprised those repeated national recessions? 41883. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:27:52 AM 1987-1992 41884. Ronski - 9/19/2000 11:28:37 AM Spreading prejudice against gay people is not something that should go unchallenged, even if it is done by someone who is now irrelevant to the electoral process. There are anti-gay initiatives in four states scheduled for a vote in November. What is said in national forums (such as press coverage of a candidate) can influence politics. 41885. bubbaette - 9/19/2000 11:28:41 AM Cygnus 41886. Wombat - 9/19/2000 11:29:07 AM Hell, there were plenty of drugs and the "wrong" crowd in my private school(s). 41887. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 11:31:05 AM Oh, I see. So parents are to accept that they are compelled under penalty of imprisonment to send their children to potentially deadly schools. After all, it's a celebration of diversity, right? They don't need a choice? We just need to piss more money into it. 41888. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:32:17 AM Before the "triple dip recession", the second most severe recession since The Big One, various regional recessions - Northeast, Southeast, Midwest rolled across the landscape. 41889. bubbaette - 9/19/2000 11:33:01 AM So parents are to accept that they are compelled under penalty of imprisonment to send their children to potentially deadly schools. 41890. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 11:33:46 AM yes, it does, bubbaette. It means that you'd better double-check your facts because what you're seeing, hearing, or reading is most likely slanted to support an agenda. Or, in the case of the NYT, most notably it's not even reported at all when it may damage a particular candidate. 41891. Raskolnikov - 9/19/2000 11:34:30 AM "Now, before you answer, ask yourself: How would an "internet" 41892. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:35:46 AM In 1976, the staff director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee asked me to give Pat Moynihan's staff a briefing on what was then a Republican issue, that big government deficits were crowding out private investment. The issue was near and dear to Sen Jim Buckley, Moynihan's opponent and was a centerpiece issue for the Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee. 41893. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:37:29 AM Strangely silent and CULPABLY silent given their position on deficits in the '70's; our experience with deficits in the '80's, and Bush's promise of a repeat for the next decade. 41894. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 11:38:05 AM jexster, read this. 41895. Ronski - 9/19/2000 11:38:47 AM 41896. Wombat - 9/19/2000 11:39:23 AM My parents exercised their choice. And there was bullying, drugs,and bad influences at my private school as well. 41897. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 11:40:13 AM bubbaette, here are my choices if I can't affort private school and I don't live in a nice neighborhood: 41898. Indiana Jones - 9/19/2000 11:40:24 AM Wombat: Even if the issue has merit (human drugs cost more than animal drugs), Gore lied in his example. Now, is that significant? Maybe you don't think so because it's Gore, but consider this: Cygnus was castigated recently for exaggerating Medicare waste (by some percentage between 40 and 50 percent). No one argues that Medicare waste occurs, but several Motiers had a field day with Cygnus's inaccuracy. 41899. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 11:41:52 AM Gee, Wombat, then your parents were foolish to pay to send you there, weren't they? 41900. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:42:38 AM After all, most reporting accepts Mr. Bush's numbers on his tax cut, which his campaign likes to describe as costing the Treasury $1.3 trillion over the next decade, compared with a projected $2.2 trillion surplus. Few reporters have noticed that that comparison turns out to be full of sly tricks designed to make the tax cut look less irresponsible than it is. 41901. Ronski - 9/19/2000 11:43:19 AM Wombat, 41902. Wombat - 9/19/2000 11:43:52 AM Hmm. The Cato Institute proposing to cut throught the partisan interpretations of the Reagan tax cuts. What do you suppose they'll find? Hopefully they will mention the increased government spending that did much to stimulate the economy (and balloon the deficit) during the Reagan years. 41903. bubbaette - 9/19/2000 11:45:25 AM Cygnus 41904. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:45:46 AM Most of the growth during the Reagan years occured in the early period when the economy was recovering from recession. When factories are producing at 70% capacity and return to normal that "growth" is chimerical. That growth is what you base your fatuous claims on. Thereafter, real growth was flat, down in 1987, down more than ever in 1990-1992. 41905. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:47:19 AM Bush's problem is not explaining his tax cuts, its in the tax cuts themselves save for those with "convenient" and selective memories. 41906. Raskolnikov - 9/19/2000 11:48:36 AM Cygnus, Cato's article is a case study in selection bias and post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. 41907. Ronski - 9/19/2000 11:48:41 AM As Pat Moynihan recently noted, Congressional accounting tricks and related legislation are such that even Congressmembers like himself do not always notice what is going on until they've become law. 41908. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 11:48:48 AM bubbaette, 41909. Indiana Jones - 9/19/2000 11:50:39 AM Bush takes his turn on Oprah 41910. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:52:04 AM Q. Clinton was re-elected largely because the economy is in much better shape than in 1992. Does he deserve the credit for that? 41911. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:52:21 AM toys 41912. bubbaette - 9/19/2000 11:52:28 AM Cygnus 41913. Wombat - 9/19/2000 11:53:25 AM Cygnus: I had a scholarship. 41914. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:53:31 AM If Bush isn't running on his daddy's name, then what IS he running on, his brains? 41915. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:56:48 AM http://www.politics.com/images/uploads/boone.jpg 41916. Jonesatlaw - 9/19/2000 11:57:52 AM Cygnus- since most private schools at present are operated by charities, overwhelmingly churches, if you could not afford to send your child to a private school, there is a very good chance that she/he could be admitted anyway. Most schools offer scholarships, grants or work-study programs that would allow a poor but willing student to attend private school. 41917. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 11:58:21 AM jexter, did you even read my link? It had lots of pretty pictures that you love. 41918. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:00:17 PM The Ole Impeacher Bill McCollum in Trouble in FLA Senate Race - Miami Herald 41919. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 12:01:58 PM I most certainly do not advocate "injecting government" into schools. Vouchers give people a choice as to how their education taxes are spent. The government is left out. 41920. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:02:51 PM 2.1 percent during the 41921. Raskolnikov - 9/19/2000 12:04:28 PM I have read Cato's article before. It is quite sloppy. Evidently Cato is convinced that a President, just by being in office, causes the economy to do miraculous things. While it is certainly uncharacteristic for a libertarian organization to push this sort of governmental determinism, it isn't too surprising given their love of Reagan. 41922. Wombat - 9/19/2000 12:04:37 PM And the vouchers grow on trees? Who administers the program? 41923. Jonesatlaw - 9/19/2000 12:06:26 PM I think that the present dual system of schools is just what we need. To starve either system is to weaken education in this country. Most private schools do a fine job of educating their students. They offer things that public schools cannot- religious instruction, self imposed regulations on conduct greater than that possible in public services etc. At the same time, many kids that private schools cannot educate must attend public schools. Whether the problem is physical, psychological or educational, most private schools do not have the staff resources, the physical facilities or the funding to deal with special needs kids. Most voucher plans will starve public schools of the funds they need for these kids. 41924. Raskolnikov - 9/19/2000 12:07:30 PM Yeah, the merging of Bush's and Clinton's administrations is particularly silly. 41925. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:09:06 PM A school voucher of $1500 will not help low income parents of disadvantaged schools put their kids in private schools that cost $5000. 41926. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:10:03 PM Check out "Supply Side Virus Lives" in the "Cranks" Section 41927. Indiana Jones - 9/19/2000 12:10:06 PM Wombat: I'd be more forgiving and put it in the same category as Bush's military readiness statement if Gore hadn't used a family member for his example. In my mind that makes it harder to sluff off on a staffer. 41928. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:10:32 PM 41929. JudithAtHome - 9/19/2000 12:10:43 PM I've always wondered, if the government grants the vouchers, how is that taking the government out of the equation? 41930. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:11:20 PM Rask - makes sense to Cranks at Cato 41931. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 12:12:29 PM jexter and rask, you're selectively reading the link. Jexster, please look at the pictures. Rask, if a president can control fiscal policy, then why couldn't Reagan's fiscal policy have affected the economy. And your criticisms are very shallow. "Sloppy"? Oooh, that'll show 'em. 41932. Wombat - 9/19/2000 12:17:08 PM Indy: 41933. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:18:21 PM In planning a trip to see the family in Houston, I came upon some distressing news. 41934. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:23:09 PM if a president can control fiscal policy, then 41935. glendajean - 9/19/2000 12:23:21 PM And glendajean. We always look better compared to Louisiana. 41936. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:25:35 PM Apologies to you too Glenda. I never fail to take comfort in the fact that the most anti-Bush posters here on the Mote are from Texas. 41937. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:28:52 PM Here's an idea. 41938. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:30:03 PM and Glenda I grew up in Louisiana where I learned to hate Texas at my momma's knee 41939. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:30:20 PM 41940. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:30:32 PM toys 41941. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:30:46 PM toys 41942. Indiana Jones - 9/19/2000 12:34:41 PM Wombat: This link shows the same thing re Alabama in 1948. The totals add to 100 percent and are shown to two significant digits. No percentage for Truman. (The book shows zero votes!) 41943. JudithAtHome - 9/19/2000 12:37:10 PM I think I may seriously move to France if Bush wins... 41944. RosettaStone - 9/19/2000 12:38:44 PM George Bush is learning from Al Gore on how to get the stay-at-home woman's vote. 41945. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:38:44 PM I suppose its a measure of GOP desperation and the fact that they've beene mightily frustrated in their efforts to go negative in the campaign. 41946. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:39:50 PM I think that even women would think the tears a bit shall we say "put on" 41947. JudithAtHome - 9/19/2000 12:40:06 PM Yes, and right after the birth of those twins, he started drinking like a fish because he couldn't handle the pressure of being a family man... 41948. jexster - 9/19/2000 12:41:18 PM The Upshot of Oprah Appearance - Bush is such a simple little shit 41949. Ronski - 9/19/2000 12:45:34 PM I think it's pretty clear that Truman was not permitted to be on the ballot in Alabama in 1948, the only state where that happened. 41950. Raskolnikov - 9/19/2000 12:55:58 PM "Rask, if a president can control fiscal policy, then 41951. Raskolnikov - 9/19/2000 12:56:06 PM 41952. JadeGold1 - 9/19/2000 1:08:39 PM How Much Credit Does Clinton Deserve For The Economy? 41953. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 1:12:33 PM jexster & Rask, which worst recession since the Great Depression would be the one to which you are referring? Is it the same one that Al Gore talks about? The one that was over before the press even knew it was happening? The one that was over before Clinton even took office? 41954. Ronski - 9/19/2000 1:14:01 PM 41955. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 1:14:22 PM What do you mean by selecting specific dates for comparison? It was an average of the entire administration. Worst GDP growth? Did you bother to look at the link, or are you just drudging up some liberal hack? 41956. Ronski - 9/19/2000 1:14:31 PM 41957. mgleason - 9/19/2000 1:17:50 PM My question exactly. JadeGold, if you are not JadeBrass, I am beside myself with joy. 41958. Cellar Door - 9/19/2000 1:19:58 PM 41947. JudithAtHome - 9/19/00 5:40:06 PM 41959. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 1:49:55 PM Cellar, Clinton didn't have twins. 41960. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 1:58:15 PM At least not with Hillary. 41961. Thoughtful - 9/19/2000 2:02:08 PM Rask, Volcker was a Carter appointee, you know, and Reagan frequently criticized him 41962. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 2:02:22 PM Portrait of America has Bush up 44 to 41.3. 41963. Ronski - 9/19/2000 2:14:13 PM 41964. glendajean - 9/19/2000 2:46:00 PM Following up on Truman, the 1948 election, and his being off the ballot in Alabama, I found the following info at the Harry Truman Presidential Library web site: 41965. RosettaStone - 9/19/2000 2:46:42 PM Bush is winning again because he cried on TV about the birth of his twins. He needs to kiss his old lady to get another five points. Women love that sort of stuff. 41966. labwabbit - 9/19/2000 2:52:03 PM Clinton crying publically 41967. Raskolnikov - 9/19/2000 2:56:59 PM Cygnus: 41968. bubbaette - 9/19/2000 2:58:32 PM Jade Gold! 41969. glendajean - 9/19/2000 3:04:03 PM While skimming through the Harry Truman Library site, I came across a small memoir by William J. Bray, a fellow who traveled with Truman on all the whistlestop train rides during the campaign and who coordinated local politicos at each stop. Bray said that Truman refused to give political speeches on Sunday, and on that day, when they were on the train, he would go out to the rear platform and say welcome and then go back inside the train. He said that reporters on Dewey's train drank martinis and played bridge. On Truman's campaign,they drank bourbon or scotch and played poker. 41970. Ronski - 9/19/2000 3:12:40 PM 41971. Ronski - 9/19/2000 3:14:26 PM 41972. RosettaStone - 9/19/2000 3:17:55 PM Hillary Clinton, the woman who once said that she wanted to be a US marine earlier in her life but couldn't enlist because the elite military force would allow girls into their fighting units, is now complaining about "bully" Rep. Lazio because he "invaded her space" in the Buffalo debate. 41973. labwabbit - 9/19/2000 3:25:25 PM Really, what is one to believe when listening to Mrs. William Clinton? 41974. JudithAtHome - 9/19/2000 3:34:25 PM Oh jeez...here I thought Rosie was watching Oprah to see his hero and I go to Drudge and find out all he knows about it, he read on Drudges front page! I was about to chide him for watching TV in the afternoon and eating bon bons.... 41975. rubberducky - 9/19/2000 3:40:41 PM Pelle removed the political test posted in this thread many, many posts back. 41976. Indiana Jones - 9/19/2000 3:47:41 PM Thanks for the additional info, gj, but I don't think that means they were listed as Democrats in those states ("they" meaning Thurmond's electors). 41977. Don S. - 9/19/2000 3:49:00 PM Somebody should do an updated test. That test was so 1999. 41978. rubberducky - 9/19/2000 3:54:03 PM is that a volunteer offer on your part, Don? 41979. Raskolnikov - 9/19/2000 3:55:50 PM ducky, thanks for adding the Krugman and IEM links. 41980. rubberducky - 9/19/2000 3:59:39 PM you're welcome Rask 41981. glendajean - 9/19/2000 4:19:15 PM Indy, in other excerpts of The Loneliest Campaign, found at the Truman site, the author says that in 4 southern states, the Dixiecrats had completely taken over the Democratic Party structure. 41982. Ronski - 9/19/2000 4:27:11 PM 41983. glendajean - 9/19/2000 4:39:10 PM Interesting, Ronski. There was a depressing story in the NY Times about a week or two ago that talked about how divided the state is on the issue of civil unions, with the resulting "Take Back Vermont" campaign. 41984. glendajean - 9/19/2000 4:39:40 PM ...incumbent 41985. robertjayb - 9/19/2000 4:41:26 PM . 41986. Jonesatlaw - 9/19/2000 5:05:43 PM An airport named for Ronald Reagan should be a small strip in Dixon Illinois without any control tower. 41987. Ronski - 9/19/2000 5:12:28 PM glenda, 41988. Ronski - 9/19/2000 5:13:22 PM Well, perhaps a control tower, but no one staffing it. 41989. Ronski - 9/19/2000 5:21:25 PM What the Vermont Court Did: Gays Are No Special Class 41990. glendajean - 9/19/2000 5:27:21 PM Dale Carpenter is (or was) a Log Cabin Republican lawyer from Houston, and a fairly reasonable guy. I think he clashed quite often with the National LCs. 41991. Ronski - 9/19/2000 5:31:13 PM The tightness of the presidential race is going to make the debates huge audience-grabbers. Anyone want to predict how it's going to go? Any interesting questions you'd like to see asked of the candidates? Any recommended answers? 41992. jexster - 9/19/2000 5:32:29 PM Happy to report that the Associated Press makes the same mistake I have WRT margin of error ie mistaking the range: 41993. Ronski - 9/19/2000 5:32:33 PM I think Dale Carpenter is still a GOPer. The IGF site is distinctly non-left. 41994. jexster - 9/19/2000 5:33:04 PM One thing I'm not mistaken about - Gore leads in Arizona by 10 points which is comfortably outside the margin of error. 41995. jexster - 9/19/2000 5:38:57 PM WRT debates, I, along with most other Americans I suspect, are more interested in the size of Ian Thorpe's feet at the moment. 41996. Ronski - 9/19/2000 5:46:20 PM The Rasmussen Tracking Poll and Voter.com poll, when averaged with Newsweek, Zogby, etc., suggest this thing remains pretty close, albeit with Gore the favorite at the moment. 41997. glendajean - 9/19/2000 5:51:50 PM Gentlemen .... the Flying Dutchman that beat Thorpe (and in medical school, so I assume of a more "legal age") is not bad on the eyes. Ah, swimming. 41998. jexster - 9/19/2000 5:56:57 PM The Gore/Lieberman Campaign now has an SF office! 41999. jexster - 9/19/2000 6:01:08 PM I haven't averaged the polls yet but plan to do so now that I know how to calculate standard sample deviation. I suspect that voter.com is what we statistics pros call an "outlier". 42000. jexster - 9/19/2000 6:08:05 PM WRT polls, notice the variance between the tracking polls and the state polls. Gore up by 10-12 in California, 25 in NY, 18 in PA, 10 in Arizona. There's a mismatch in state results and the tracking polls it seems to me anyway. 42001. Ronski - 9/19/2000 6:52:38 PM True enough about outliers, but that would be two outliers that have Bush with a small lead, voter.com and Rasmussen, and you'd have to toss out Newsweek and perhaps Zogby as well, making for a pretty tight race. 42002. joezan - 9/19/2000 9:19:25 PM The man is pathological: 42003. Cellar Door - 9/19/2000 9:26:03 PM Gore fed her to the dog. 42004. labwabbit - 9/19/2000 9:27:17 PM His dog ATE his mother-in-law. Thus explaining the reduced costs of obviously second-hand medication. 42005. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 9:32:40 PM His mother is a dog. He's the antichrist. 42006. Cygnus X-1 - 9/19/2000 9:33:50 PM But hey, you have to remember, when it comes to liberals, it's not the facts that matter, it's the emotion that they're trying to stir. 42007. Greystoke - 9/19/2000 9:34:34 PM Cygnus 42008. labwabbit - 9/19/2000 9:35:40 PM ...it's the emotion that they're trying to stir. 42009. joezan - 9/19/2000 9:43:44 PM 42010. Cellar Door - 9/19/2000 9:46:22 PM Actually I am the Anti-Christ. 42011. labwabbit - 9/19/2000 9:55:34 PM 42009. joezan - 9/20/00 2:43:44 AM 42012. labwabbit - 9/19/2000 9:57:20 PM 42009. joezan - 9/20/00 2:43:44 AM 42013. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:19:56 PM Democrat Al Gore, virtually tied with Republican 42014. joezan - 9/19/2000 11:27:55 PM 42015. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:34:59 PM Despite all of his bravado, Bush doesn't have a chance in hell of carrying California," said Garry South, political adviser to the state's popular Democratic governor, Gray Davis. "He doesn't have the infrastructure or the assets here to contest it. . . . Al Gore has as much chance of winning Texas as they do here." 42016. RosettaStone - 9/19/2000 11:45:32 PM The big W is on the rebound. 42017. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:49:21 PM Average Gore lead for polls conducted 9.11-9.18 is 5.48% Std Deviation = 3.06 42018. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:50:07 PM Speaking of dim bulbs, HiYA Rosie! 42019. jexster - 9/19/2000 11:54:28 PM DETROIT (Reuters) - Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites) has widened his lead over Texas Gov. George Bush in the vote-rich state of Michigan, according to a new poll released on Tuesday. 42020. RosettaStone - 9/20/2000 12:03:47 AM Oh, how the world turns, turns, turns... 42021. jexster - 9/20/2000 12:04:31 AM Average Gore lead for polls conducted 9.6-9.11 is 3% Std 42022. jexster - 9/20/2000 12:05:46 AM Yea that was one hella fine bitch beatin' Lazio The Light delivered Rose.... 42023. RosettaStone - 9/20/2000 12:10:48 AM Wrong, Jex. MSNBC poll said that Lazio won the debate, 67% to 24%. 42024. jexster - 9/20/2000 12:13:28 AM RIVERHEAD, N.Y. (AP) - Rep. Rick Lazio (news - web sites), the Republican Senate candidate running against Hillary Rodham Clinton (news - web sites), told an enthusiastic crowd of elementary students Friday that he wished they were old enough to vote - but he got the voting age wrong. 42025. RosettaStone - 9/20/2000 12:13:40 AM You know it's bad when Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, called New Yorker Lazio's "menacing" while the witch said, "the thing that probably prepared my best in dealing with things like that was having two younger brothers." 42026. RosettaStone - 9/20/2000 12:14:28 AM me best 42027. jexster - 9/20/2000 12:15:11 AM NEW YORK (Reuters) - A poll of voters who watched the first debate between Senate candidates first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (news - web sites) and Rep. Rick Lazio (news - web sites) found Clinton as having done a better job. 42028. RosettaStone - 9/20/2000 12:16:46 AM That poll was small and very wrong. Everyone knows that. 42029. RosettaStone - 9/20/2000 12:20:34 AM Another poll shows that Lazio has the edge with white women, 49 to 40 percent. Thirday-seven percent of white women said the first lady doesn't share their moral or ethical values. 42030. jexster - 9/20/2000 12:20:39 AM While we all know that the November election is the only poll that matters, many are still wondering who won last night’s debate. Although scientifically a winner has not been determined, we do have results of our online poll: 42031. jexster - 9/20/2000 12:21:08 AM Rose+Bush+Lazio = 25 watt bulb max 42032. joezan - 9/20/2000 12:22:46 AM 42033. RosettaStone - 9/20/2000 12:23:52 AM The whole point of Hillary Clinton's desperation to play the victim in the debate is that she has to get the New Yorker, Lazio, to change his straightforward debating style if she has any change of slowing down his campaign juggernaut. That's really all it is. 42034. jexster - 9/20/2000 12:27:03 AM Missed that one JoeZ...you wouldn't be talkin about the Great GOP Dog Pooper Scooper would ya? 42035. jexster - 9/20/2000 12:28:06 AM Hillary's not playin the victim you slimy slerb slut. Lazio's doing the talkin about it because he knew he lost the debate for appearing to be such a Major League Asshole 42036. jexster - 9/20/2000 12:29:03 AM And as far as juggernaut's go, Lazio the Light's headed nowhere while The First Bitch is closing fast on the impenetrable 50% mark. 42037. jexster - 9/20/2000 12:32:50 AM See Rosie, if you'd listened to me you wouldn't have made several crucial errors in posts that make you look like a Moron 42038. RosettaStone - 9/20/2000 12:34:12 AM I doubt it, Jex. Hillary has never debated before and isn't used to people disagreeing with her in public. She paniced. 42039. joezan - 9/20/2000 12:35:00 AM 42040. RosettaStone - 9/20/2000 12:38:15 AM Only small minds talk about polls all the time. 42041. joezan - 9/20/2000 12:40:17 AM 42042. joezan - 9/20/2000 12:41:36 AM 42043. jexster - 9/20/2000 1:18:12 AM I kinda figgered. You losers got nuthin better to do than talk dog shit. 42044. joezan - 9/20/2000 1:30:54 AM 42045. EricCartman - 9/20/2000 1:43:38 AM Cygnus Message # 41856: 42046. jexster - 9/20/2000 1:43:52 AM Seems he did Joez...seems you idiots haven't anything better to do than play dog shit games which wind up bitin you in the ass. 42047. jexster - 9/20/2000 1:44:51 AM Like I said, its better for the GOP that Ian Thorpe's feet are of greater interest to the electorate than what passes these days for a Republican presidential campaign 42048. jexster - 9/20/2000 1:49:20 AM JoeZ- just so you'll know shit from shinola the next time you run across it this is the Scoop on the BIg Dog Poop: 42049. jexster - 9/20/2000 1:58:24 AM Voter Involvement Index - Vanishing Voter Project 9/11/00 42050. EricCartman - 9/20/2000 3:05:29 AM Message # 42048 42051. RosettaStone - 9/20/2000 6:22:21 AM Let me put this way, Jex. Al Gore's running mate isn't quitting his day job. 42052. Indiana Jones - 9/20/2000 8:54:42 AM Still lying... 42053. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/20/2000 9:13:38 AM 42054. bubbaette - 9/20/2000 9:29:33 AM Hey Rosie! 42055. Cygnus X-1 - 9/20/2000 9:39:42 AM EricCartman, the reason Rush doesn't cover all aspects of an issue is because the liberal media covers their side ad naseum. Also, what difference does it make if I link to an "unbiased" source or to Rush Limbaugh? As I've been trying to point out, attacking the messenger only keeps your head in the sand. 42056. Wombat - 9/20/2000 9:46:13 AM So that explains where your head has been at. 42057. Jack Vincennes - 9/20/2000 10:12:55 AM Excerpts from the Washington Times on Gore's lying about his mother-in-law's medical condition: 42058. Cygnus X-1 - 9/20/2000 10:13:26 AM That's funny Wombat. It's amazing that despite the incongruity, you were able to shoehorn that punch line. Here’s one for you: Many people have no clue as to how our Republican form of government is supposed to work. Worse, they make no attempt to learn. They just sit around with thumbs lodged up their anal orifice waiting for a Demagogue to tell them what they want to hear. That must be why you’ve been typing with one hand. 42059. Jack Vincennes - 9/20/2000 10:13:31 AM * * * 42060. Jack Vincennes - 9/20/2000 10:20:02 AM Ah, how I long for the days when this sort of fakery could doom your presidential chances ala' Joe Biden. 42061. Wombat - 9/20/2000 10:20:32 AM Cygnus: 42062. Jack Vincennes - 9/20/2000 10:26:51 AM "Questions about whether Al Gore exaggerates the truth have resurfaced, rooted in campaign-trail anecdotes meant to portray him and his policies in human terms with which voters can identify," USA Today says. "On Monday, addressing a Teamsters meeting, Gore spoke of childhood lullabies and then sang, 'Look for the union label.' That song was written in 1975, when Gore was 27." 42063. Thoughtful - 9/20/2000 10:28:00 AM Well, the final whitewater report is supposed to be released today --actually the final report will remain sealed for weeks yet (I'm guessing til Nov. 8) but Ray will be releasing his "conclusions" today in a detailed press release: article in CNN. 42064. OhioSTOPAS - 9/20/2000 10:33:34 AM So if Gore had prefaced his example with, "Assuming my mother-in-law and my dog pay wholesale prices . . .", he'd be correct, correct? 42065. Jack Vincennes - 9/20/2000 10:36:48 AM "Look for . . . the union label . . . da da da da dad, da, da, da, dad da." 42066. OhioSTOPAS - 9/20/2000 10:37:44 AM I also note that the facts refute the Republican/Limbaugh/Globe charge that the difference cited by Gore between the human price and the animal price of Lodine was inflated by the fact that a dog's dosage is less than a human's. 42067. Jack Vincennes - 9/20/2000 10:38:54 AM Ohhhhhhhhhh. 42068. Jack Vincennes - 9/20/2000 10:40:18 AM Ohio's next defense: 42069. OhioSTOPAS - 9/20/2000 10:42:28 AM Don't forget to whine "If a REPUBLICAN said this, it would be front page NEWWWWWWS!" before you leave. 42070. Jack Vincennes - 9/20/2000 10:43:59 AM Ohio 42071. Jack Vincennes - 9/20/2000 10:51:12 AM Actually, maybe I have, but if I did, I was extrapolating the thoughts of my mother-in-law, my dog, and a Congressional study. 42072. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/20/2000 10:52:40 AM Let's divert the attention away fromThe Major League Imbecile (who is aping everything the Gore Campaign has done) and focus on"the character issue." 42073. glendajean - 9/20/2000 10:57:50 AM Ah, how I long for the days when this sort of fakery could doom your presidential chances ala' Joe Biden. 42074. Jack Vincennes - 9/20/2000 11:00:18 AM glenda 42075. Jonesatlaw - 9/20/2000 11:03:25 AM Gore has a terrible habit of trying to personalize issues in an effort to put a human face on his ethusiastic wonkery. He should stick with hypotheticals. We are now debating what dosage some old lady takes? The Republic must know, what did she take and when did she take it? How much did the dog take and when did he take it? Call for the special prosecutor! 42076. JudithAtHome - 9/20/2000 11:11:23 AM I didn't see Bushs performance on Oprah but saw clips of it on my local news and he seemed to be relaxed. He got off a couple of really good ad libs; I chuckled, anyhow. I'm certain he does really well in intimate one-on-ones with people; the guy has a great personality. 42077. Indiana Jones - 9/20/2000 11:18:15 AM Many now say that Ronald Reagan's similar love of making up personal anecdotes to "flavor" the issues was evidence of his developing Alzheimer's. We can only speculate in Gore's case. 42078. Wombat - 9/20/2000 11:23:48 AM Indy: 42079. Raskolnikov - 9/20/2000 11:25:07 AM "Koshergate" 42080. Raskolnikov - 9/20/2000 11:25:38 AM JV: a lullaby of "look for the union label" is clearly a joke. 42081. glendajean - 9/20/2000 11:27:41 AM Hey, Indy, if you fought on the beaches of Normandy, France, it's ok to take credit for it. I've never thought of Gore and Reagan as having similar characteristics, but you may be on to something. 42082. Raskolnikov - 9/20/2000 11:31:34 AM Ferraro was also criticized for her pro-choice stance. One would think Liberman was the first member of a religion to public hold a stance contrary to the orthodoxy. 42083. Raskolnikov - 9/20/2000 11:32:01 AM Lieberman, that is. 42084. jexster - 9/20/2000 11:45:13 AM Begala Tapped for Debate Prep 42085. Jonesatlaw - 9/20/2000 11:49:00 AM Regarding Orthodox "orthodoxy": I understand that unlike Roman Catholics etc. there is no one source of authoritative teaching (human source that is) for Jews. Isn't a broad assertion of Jewish doctrine usually an invitation to debate? 42086. jexster - 9/20/2000 11:55:14 AM Having mined Dog Poop for all it was worth, now the Republicans are honing in on the real deal - anti-Semitism 42087. jexster - 9/20/2000 11:56:41 AM Better Picture 42088. jexster - 9/20/2000 12:05:21 PM Lazio The Light, Stung By Debate Loss, Goes After Critics 42089. robertjayb - 9/20/2000 12:06:47 PM . 42090. jexster - 9/20/2000 12:09:48 PM Let's review the bidding 42091. glendajean - 9/20/2000 12:33:15 PM Once upon a time, there was a real estate deal in in Arkansas, and then we all jumped down the dark, black rabbit hole. 42092. labwabbit - 9/20/2000 12:34:28 PM A little Democrat gouging for your pleasure. (Or displeasure.) 42093. labwabbit - 9/20/2000 12:34:46 PM 10.You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than 42094. JudithAtHome - 9/20/2000 12:35:03 PM Well, there's some money not well spent... 42095. Thoughtful - 9/20/2000 12:35:24 PM Well, surprise, surprise. Ray said there is insufficient evidence to bring charges against the Clintons for Whitewater. Let's see that's 6 years (2 years after Starr himself said there was nothing there) and the most expensive independent counsel investigation ever to finally decide that no charges would be brought on a matter that's 20 years old in which the Clinton's lost money. 42096. JudithAtHome - 9/20/2000 12:36:33 PM Okay, that was funny; now where's the Republican list? 42097. glendajean - 9/20/2000 12:37:00 PM Bad day for Gore. 42098. glendajean - 9/20/2000 12:38:35 PM Judith, they believe all Democrats are bad, and they (and I get teary eyed here) are just out for our best interest. 42099. labwabbit - 9/20/2000 12:42:32 PM J@H 42100. JudithAtHome - 9/20/2000 12:44:33 PM Lab: 42101. robertjayb - 9/20/2000 12:47:29 PM . 42102. glendajean - 9/20/2000 12:52:45 PM Well, I for one, am glad they got to the bottom of Whitewater. You wouldn't want something like that hanging over two terms of the presidency. We can all sleep better tonight. 42103. JudithAtHome - 9/20/2000 12:57:33 PM Gene Lyons seems to have contracted Molly Ivins habit of Tangentitis...he started out fine and then went off into another column.... 42104. jexster - 9/20/2000 12:57:53 PM WRT whether Bush can recover during the Olympics hiatus (or do people pay attention to dog poop or Ian Thorpe's feet), this from the Vanishing Voter Project explaining the significance of the chart I posted yesterday on declining voter interest. 42105. OhioSTOPAS - 9/20/2000 12:58:26 PM When Hillary is elected President later this century, the Republicans can investigate it all over again. 42106. jexster - 9/20/2000 12:59:44 PM Of course, news coverage at some points in the campaign is a response to key events, such as an important presidential primary or a national pary convention. These events trigger a heightened level of both news coverage and election interest. It is during other periods of the campaign when the independent influence of news coverage on interest is most evident. After the Super Tuesday primaries in early March, for example, news coverage of the campaign declined sharply and remained low until the summer conventions, as did election interest. After the conventions, news coverage declined less steeply, and has risen again in recent weeks. Americans'attention to the campaign has followed a similar pattern since the convention. 42107. jexster - 9/20/2000 1:00:10 PM In the last month of the 1996 election, the level of news coverage was about 40% lower than it was during the last month of the 1992 campaign. Dole trailed Clinton by a wide margin in the polls in 1996, and in the absence of a close race the press cut back on its coverage, which may have contributed to the decline in voter turnout. "If the 2000 election remains close, we can expect news coverage during the campaign's final weeks to exceed that of 1996," says Thomas Patterson, Shorenstein Center survey director and Bradlee Professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. "The combination of a tight race and heavy coverage could help to reverse the slippage in turnout that we saw in the last presidential election." 42108. jexster - 9/20/2000 1:04:01 PM A pox upon Slate's pithy Will Saletan for beating Unsolicited Opinions Inc.'s vaunted Department of Political Augury and Hairball Divination to the punch. 42109. Ronski - 9/20/2000 1:04:58 PM Wombat, 42110. jexster - 9/20/2000 1:13:10 PM Sure Sign Bush in Deep Doo - Mass Moron Media Buy in FL 42111. Ronski - 9/20/2000 1:16:29 PM USA Today Poll: Bush Closing in on Gore? 42112. Wombat - 9/20/2000 1:18:54 PM Ronski: 42113. jexster - 9/20/2000 1:21:34 PM Tipper Talks, Addresses Asian Community in SF 42114. jexster - 9/20/2000 1:23:52 PM Ronski - Yes the Gallup track does suggest a narrowing race. But contrary results are being reported at Voter.com (bush margin there is narrowing) and from Newsweek, Zogby and Pew. Also the state polling shows Gore pulling away in big states. 42115. jexster - 9/20/2000 1:27:20 PM I TOLD you Voter.com Battleground was an "outlier". Ed Goeas has admitted they misused their likely voter model. Now their site's down. Been down for days. 42116. robertjayb - 9/20/2000 1:30:51 PM . 42117. jexster - 9/20/2000 1:33:16 PM Further to the Post Article (WARNING Posted yesterday) 42118. Cygnus X-1 - 9/20/2000 1:50:52 PM Wombat, Re Message #42061 42119. robertjayb - 9/20/2000 1:55:44 PM . 42120. Wombat - 9/20/2000 2:00:35 PM Cygnus: 42121. jexster - 9/20/2000 2:02:54 PM As the Bush Campaign Bumbles Towards Its Miserable End, MoronSpeak Now in Daily Mode 42122. jexster - 9/20/2000 2:05:11 PM September 8th Minutes of the Liberal Media Conspiracy 42123. Ronski - 9/20/2000 2:11:42 PM Wombat, 42124. glendajean - 9/20/2000 2:23:00 PM Since the good news about Whitewater today, I hope that the Congress will think about putting a monument on the Mall. What a special gift it has been to the American people. 42125. glendajean - 9/20/2000 2:23:45 PM Maybe an environmental monument, with water flowing over rapids. 42126. Ronski - 9/20/2000 2:27:36 PM glenda, 42127. glendajean - 9/20/2000 2:31:34 PM My dear Ronski -- if you walk north of Georgetown along the canal path, you will find yourself reaching Great Falls. It's why G. Washington pushed for building the canal. The river is all rapids through that area. 42128. glendajean - 9/20/2000 2:31:56 PM Actually, it would be west of Georgetown 42129. Raskolnikov - 9/20/2000 2:32:59 PM Jex: problems like the ones you link to are why I am quite skeptical of any poll but Gallup, unless disparities are large, or collective results tend to point in the same direction. Few other organizations have been doing this as long, and have had as much time to tweak their models. Gallup makes mistakes too (usually because people lie to them), but they don't make basic ones like assuming an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. 42130. Ronski - 9/20/2000 2:33:07 PM glenda, 42131. Ronski - 9/20/2000 2:37:05 PM glenda, 42132. Wombat - 9/20/2000 2:41:18 PM Ronski: 42133. Ronski - 9/20/2000 2:42:57 PM 42134. Wombat - 9/20/2000 2:43:18 PM I think the DC suburbs are a little to rich and powerful to have a large trash mountain built in their midst. Perhaps SW DC. 42135. Ronski - 9/20/2000 2:45:13 PM 42136. Ronski - 9/20/2000 2:47:05 PM (And if you propose that it go where Cato stands now, I'll be really hurt.) 42137. glendajean - 9/20/2000 2:51:21 PM Ronski & Don S. I haven't lived here a full year and can only make a guess about it. 42138. Wombat - 9/20/2000 2:52:41 PM Ronski: 42139. glendajean - 9/20/2000 2:57:48 PM Of course, what D.C. really needs is a ski area in the city limits. 42140. jexster - 9/20/2000 2:59:23 PM Rask - I found the article really interesting, now that I am an official geek (3 weeks of Stats). 42141. jexster - 9/20/2000 3:02:31 PM The following from the National Elections Studies Sampling description gives some flavor of what I'm talking about. I have similar from Gallup in a text book somewhere. 42142. jexster - 9/20/2000 3:02:52 PM 42143. Ronski - 9/20/2000 3:32:04 PM And Speaking of the Olympics, Gays in the Australian Military Have Proven a "Non-Event" 42144. glendajean - 9/20/2000 3:53:07 PM Great link, Ronski. Thanks. 42145. Jonesatlaw - 9/20/2000 3:56:32 PM Put an asterix in the Bush column behind Nebraska. Bush is fairly solidly ahead in two of the three congressional districts, and in the state as a whole. However, in the second district, Gore is ahead within the margin of error. It is possible that Gore will get at least one of Nebraska's five electoral votes. 42146. glendajean - 9/20/2000 4:04:38 PM I thought the electoral college is "winner-take-all." 42147. Raskolnikov - 9/20/2000 4:14:38 PM "State and local polls at this point, I suspect are far more reliable. First, their sample size is larger relative to the population." 42148. Raskolnikov - 9/20/2000 4:16:17 PM Nebraska is weirdly non-partisan in nature. It wouldn't surprise me if their methods for selecting electors was different than everyone else's. 42149. Ronski - 9/20/2000 4:19:38 PM Nebraska has the only unicameral legislature, but I think its method of choosing electors is the same winner-take-all system as all the other states. 42150. Indiana Jones - 9/20/2000 5:22:29 PM 42151. Ronski - 9/20/2000 5:25:07 PM 42152. Jonesatlaw - 9/20/2000 5:53:56 PM Glendajean, Ronski- Yes, Nebraska is winner take all for the two electoral votes that our senators would represent, while the remaining three votes are by winners in the congressional districts. This hasn't mattered a bit since first instituted since the GOP candidate has won in every congressional district, and thus the statewide race as well. Maine also portions out their electoral vote in this way. 42153. robertjayb - 9/20/2000 6:17:30 PM . 42154. jexster - 9/20/2000 6:40:45 PM Already posted that one Robert. 42155. jexster - 9/20/2000 6:42:12 PM 42156. jexster - 9/20/2000 6:47:34 PM Good point Ronski about sampling size. Still all that SMSA crapola the polls go through.... 42157. jexster - 9/20/2000 6:49:07 PM Next up - the Chapter on Probability including sampling. 42158. EricCartman - 9/20/2000 6:53:50 PM Football pool spreads are up in the Sports Thread. 42159. ranheim - 9/20/2000 6:54:10 PM #42139 42160. jexster - 9/20/2000 6:55:01 PM multistage sampling is the thing I have problems with 42161. jexster - 9/20/2000 6:56:38 PM What's the difference between Eric's Football Spreads and the IEM? 42162. robertjayb - 9/20/2000 7:00:59 PM . 42163. profemeritus - 9/20/2000 7:06:52 PM Robert Solow offers help to those who want to see the economic reaity behind some issues currently obfuscated by politicians. For more light than heat on the pros and cons of tax reduction versus debt reduction read this article by Nobel Laureate Solow. He is one of the clearest expositors of economic poliy issues of our time. He writes clearly, yet profoundly, at the Ec I level (no math). 42164. Cygnus X-1 - 9/20/2000 7:27:29 PM Elton John will tell us how to vote. Some here seem to think that Pat Buchannan & the like harm the cause of homosexuals. They may, but Elton John's birthday bash complete with male strippers dressed as boy scouts does more to harm the cause of homosexuals than anything that anyone from the "religious right" can do. 42165. EricCartman - 9/20/2000 7:36:18 PM Cygnus Message # 42055: 42166. EricCartman - 9/20/2000 7:36:40 PM I love this double standard. "Liberal media" conspiracists, sure that the NY Times et al are all in on it, praise rags like the Moonie Times for its "refreshing" stance on things political. But it doesn't seem to occur to them that maybe a media organization owned by a cult might have its own agenda to work -- or that said cult leader, who has had business dealings with Poppy Bush in the past, might even do a bit o' skewing in favor of Junior. Naw, never happen. Only bleeding-heart liberals do that shit, not creepy money-grubbing cult leaders who have publicly denounced this country. Right. 42167. Cygnus X-1 - 9/20/2000 8:25:05 PM Yeah, did you read the article EricCartman? Did you happen to notice that the reporter claimed that Al Gore's basic premise was correct without providing a shred of evidence? Nor did he bother to explore why human drugs might cost more than dog drugs. You can ignore that, I don't. 42168. Cygnus X-1 - 9/20/2000 8:41:29 PM White church group claims Bush as one of its own. Those racists. I bet the press will pounce on this one. 42169. Al D - 9/20/2000 11:16:11 PM While we all have been totally convinced by Eric that there is no Liberal bias in the media, I am still confused. Take for example the RATS flap. My understanding is that Tony Snow alerted the NY Times about that and they weren't interested. They the Gore forces called them and they made a big deal out of it. Aside from the fact that subliminable advertising is a joke, how did a week long discussion of that ad my all the media contribute to a discussion of issues, which is what the press claims to be so interested in? 42170. EricCartman - 9/21/2000 2:14:27 AM Cygnus Message # 42167: 42171. EricCartman - 9/21/2000 2:15:09 AM As for the Lewinsky matter, you liberals love to parrot that one as evidence that there is no bias. 42172. EricCartman - 9/21/2000 2:16:22 AM But, just as I won't try and convince you that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, neither will I continue to try to prove that the press has a liberal bias. I hold them as axioms. 42173. EricCartman - 9/21/2000 2:16:34 AM How exactly is Bill Clinton -- in practice, not going by his worthless word -- a liberal? He "reformed" welfare, bulled free-trade initiatives through, coddled China for the sake of corporate expansion, gave the Pentagon as much money as it wanted for its toys, kept the nonsensical War on Some Drugs going full-tilt, and invaded a couple of countries to boot. 42174. EricCartman - 9/21/2000 2:27:24 AM Message # 42169: 42175. jexster - 9/21/2000 2:33:57 AM Meanwhile back at the ranch so to speak 42176. mgleason - 9/21/2000 2:53:00 AM Jeez, Jex, all I can say is that it's a good thing for Shrub that only a small minority of voters read Vanity Fair. Gail Sheehy even quotes Barbara Bush as saying that Shrub was destined to grow up with 'optical rectosis' - a shitty outlook on life. 42177. jonesatlaw - 9/21/2000 2:56:42 AM Do you hear the sound of hundreds of little rat steamer trunks being slammed shut as the SS Dauphin majestically starts to sink beneath the waves? 42178. mgleason - 9/21/2000 2:59:36 AM I can even hear the faint sounds of 'Abide With Me' over the mad rush to the lifeboats. 42179. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 8:48:11 AM Excellent link, Prof.E. He's a good writer who can make sense of economics. 42180. rubberducky - 9/21/2000 10:36:30 AM Ex-gay leader confronted in gay bar 42181. Cellar Door - 9/21/2000 10:47:39 AM You beat me to it, Ducky! 42182. glendajean - 9/21/2000 10:51:47 AM Rubber -- Pauk was THE poster child for the full-page newspaper ads that were run in newspapers across the country (actually he and his wife). I think he works (or did at the time) for James Dobson's Focus on the Family. 42183. rubberducky - 9/21/2000 10:52:20 AM haha - do you get John Aravosis's "The List" too? 42184. glendajean - 9/21/2000 10:54:00 AM I posted in Current Events an Advocate story about another example of an ex-ex. These so-called cures have about as much truth to them as the old medicine man shows. 42185. Jonesatlaw - 9/21/2000 10:54:13 AM In baseball its a balk, in a gay bar its a Paulk. 42186. rubberducky - 9/21/2000 10:56:54 AM it's gonna be a good day...heh heh heh 42187. robertjayb - 9/21/2000 11:08:47 AM . 42188. Ronski - 9/21/2000 11:11:50 AM Walking around DuPont Circle should have been enough of a give-away on its own. 42189. glendajean - 9/21/2000 11:37:32 AM Mr. Ps isn't in the middle of the circle. You have to know what it is and where it is to find it. 42190. jexster - 9/21/2000 11:39:49 AM GOP "Leadership' Fails - Again - Lame Duck Congress Required to Pass Spending Bills 42191. Cellar Door - 9/21/2000 11:44:25 AM I should have laid bets about when this was going to happen, glendajean. I'd be rolling in dough. 42192. robertjayb - 9/21/2000 11:47:59 AM . 42193. Ronski - 9/21/2000 11:48:06 AM Cygnus, 42194. Ronski - 9/21/2000 11:50:10 AM Cellar, 42195. jexster - 9/21/2000 11:51:45 AM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican George W. Bush (news - web sites)has cut Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites)'s lead almost in half over the past week and the vice president now leads the presidential race by only four percentage points in a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Thursday. 42196. Ronski - 9/21/2000 11:54:49 AM Voter.com has Bush at 40%, Gore at 39. And CNN-Gallup has it Gore 49%, Bush 43. Both of these show a very slight improvement for Gore over yesterday's numbers, suggesting that Gore may have weathered what was a bad few days for him and good ones for Bush, without major ill effect. 42197. glendajean - 9/21/2000 11:55:29 AM re: gay exhibitionism 42198. jexster - 9/21/2000 11:59:22 AM Bush Health Care Advisor Major Shareholdings in 8 Health Care Companies 42199. Jonesatlaw - 9/21/2000 12:01:39 PM I missed Brittany Spears in a Catholic Schoolgirl's uniform? My goodness, something my son and I can agree on and I miss it.... 42200. glendajean - 9/21/2000 12:05:19 PM It was in one of her early videos. 42201. Jonesatlaw - 9/21/2000 12:06:27 PM If there is only one campaign reform, I hope that it is more reporting of contributions in a way that is timely and accessable to the public. If we continue to bend over and take it after voters have such information, it's our own damn fault, and I can live with that. 42202. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 12:06:29 PM But is it really inappropriate for a campaign "advisor" to have business interests? I don't see that as any less appropriate than an industry lobbying Congress or an administrative agency. In fact, isn't the policy development process -- laws or regulations -- predicated on the notion that interested persons will participate. 42203. Ronski - 9/21/2000 12:07:50 PM glenda, 42204. Jonesatlaw - 9/21/2000 12:10:35 PM Actually, when my son and some of his teamates were drooling over some Brittany Spears photos this summer, I had a most unsettling experience. Instead of thinking that she was a little hottie- my first thought was "Doesn't this girl have a father? Has he seen what she's wearing?" 42205. glendajean - 9/21/2000 12:11:42 PM Ronski -- you're so damn rational (and intelligent). I just get tired of tarring a whole group based on the actions of individuals. 42206. Ronski - 9/21/2000 12:11:47 PM 42207. Ronski - 9/21/2000 12:14:21 PM glenda, 42208. Jonesatlaw - 9/21/2000 12:24:03 PM Glendajean- It's amazing how easy it is for the double standard to pass without challenge. 42209. glendajean - 9/21/2000 12:32:23 PM Jones, I think psychologically we're hard-wired to not trust "the other", whatever that is. At autopsy time, there's not much difference between any of us. 42210. jexster - 9/21/2000 12:45:02 PM Contrary to piffle pedaled by our dear baleful RosettaStone 42211. Cellar Door - 9/21/2000 12:51:48 PM Slow curtain. The End. (The Press hopes.) 42212. jexster - 9/21/2000 12:57:18 PM At autopsy time, there's not much difference between 42213. glendajean - 9/21/2000 1:00:42 PM Who stole the Bush papers? 42214. Indiana Jones - 9/21/2000 1:03:36 PM Al Gore vs. Business 42215. jexster - 9/21/2000 1:14:58 PM Poll mean for past week - Gore +5.23 42216. jexster - 9/21/2000 1:21:24 PM More Republican "leadership" 42217. Ronski - 9/21/2000 1:23:29 PM Gee, and here I thought that contracts were awarded on merit. 42218. jexster - 9/21/2000 1:25:36 PM Dick Cheney may not think that voting is very important. He votes with his checkbook! Cheney Contributions to Big Oil & Right Wingers Documented 42219. jexster - 9/21/2000 1:26:35 PM Ronski - Not in Mississippi! 42220. Jack Vincennes - 9/21/2000 1:32:40 PM I had expected Lazio would come out on the short end of his debate with Clinton, for two reasons. First, Russert's question seemed "mean" and her discomfort would certainly evoke sympathy from softies. Lazio played it tough and stated that her blaming others was a pattern. True, but he should have said, "Look, I sympathize with Mrs. Clinton. She was wronged and she was led to believe something by someone she loves. That was a cruel thing, and I see no value in revisiting her personal pain here and now." But he was too hopped up. 42221. jexster - 9/21/2000 1:35:18 PM I'll be interested to see the Voter Involvement Index for this week and next. 42222. Ronski - 9/21/2000 1:39:56 PM In the same vein: 42223. Raskolnikov - 9/21/2000 1:42:10 PM I always recall that Internet license plate motto joke, with "if license plates were honest". 42224. rubberducky - 9/21/2000 1:45:11 PM hey! 42225. Raskolnikov - 9/21/2000 1:46:39 PM you are right. It should be "at least we aren't the Dominican Republic", but you know that a hallmark of humor is exaggeration. 42226. Ronski - 9/21/2000 1:46:52 PM Indy, 42227. Indiana Jones - 9/21/2000 1:51:10 PM The Missing Issue in the Campaign 42228. Jack Vincennes - 9/21/2000 1:52:43 PM Wasn't it Dick Lamm who said the elderly have a responsibility to die a little quicker? 42229. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 1:56:26 PM I think it's a bit deceptive to lump Soc. Sec. and Medicare together with Medicaid, since the first two are funded by payroll taxes and are (with some exceptions) pretty much dedicated toward seniors. Medicaid, on the other hand, is not primarily a seniors' program but also covers many children and is not funded by a earmarked tax. 42230. jexster - 9/21/2000 1:59:19 PM Here's to the State of Mississippi 42231. Raskolnikov - 9/21/2000 2:00:20 PM Medicaid expenses for the elderly (primarily nursing home care) will be increasing considerably as the number of elderly increase. I am pretty sure care for the elderly will end up being over 50% of Medicaid expenses in a few decades. It is already something like 40% (going by memory). 42232. Indiana Jones - 9/21/2000 2:00:53 PM Thanks, Ronski. I'm not too worried about it because I think the corporate grip on the U.S. is stronger than its ever been and it certainly is tight on Gore...just a different set of hands. Interestingly, though, the book I just finished on the Truman campaign said Truman pretty much did the same thing, and the Republicans were so sick of it by the end that they didn't feel the least compunction about unleashing the Red Scare later. 42233. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 2:05:05 PM Rask 42234. jexster - 9/21/2000 2:09:24 PM And here's to the government of Mississippi 42235. Ronski - 9/21/2000 2:10:35 PM Indy, 42236. Ronski - 9/21/2000 2:30:57 PM 42237. Indiana Jones - 9/21/2000 2:33:54 PM Ronski: In Gore's case, it certainly comes off as hypocritical (he and Clinton have been in office for the past eight years, he's running on how good the economy is and how much better off we are, Clinton says in a speech he wants to become a millionaire and enjoy the benefits of the economy "he" built once he leaves office, Gore uses the class rhetoric while addressing people who literally paid $10,000 a ticket to see him, etc.). 42238. Indiana Jones - 9/21/2000 2:36:46 PM Incidentally, I still think Bush has a very good shot at winning this election (though I'm obviously less sure of his victory than I was about a month ago). 42239. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 2:37:07 PM Hopefully this hasn't been picked to death yet, but I was completely surprised when Gore went to the right on religion and censorship, whether it's Lieberman quoting George Washington or this new Anti-Hollywood bullshit. Last Sunday on the talking head shows I heard two democratic spokespeople (didn't recognize them, probly mid level handlers) refer to the First Amendment as a "problem" that Gore would have to be creative in working around. Now as a strategy there's almost no downside for Gore because no one really believes he's gonna pass any laws, but as long as he proposes them vaguely, all the press types will say to Bush's people- "you mean your party is proposing NO legislation to deal with this blight on our children's lives?" (That was the most shocking thing, watching all these heroes of the Fourth Branch of Government accuse the Republicans of being, in effect, the "do-nothing" party on censorship.) But really, where's the outrage among the civil libertarian types? I haven't heard a word of it. Am I just missing it completely? 42240. CalGal - 9/21/2000 2:43:05 PM Hypocrisy seems to play quite well, hadn't you noticed? 42241. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 2:50:29 PM It may actually motivate me to vote Republican, and I REALLY dislike Bush. But this new Democratic party is like my party from hell- populist demogoguery (christ, where's the spell check on this thing?), an expanded welfare state, moral majority rhetoric AND censorship? Good lord. I knew there was a problem after that whole hullabaloo with the Playboy Mansion fundraiser. I mean, if the Dems aren't going to defend my right to get loaded with half naked starlets, then what the hell do we need Dems for? 42242. joezan - 9/21/2000 2:51:58 PM 42243. ranheim - 9/21/2000 2:52:07 PM I have a great deal of trouble becoming interested in the presidential "race". The Republicans appear - to me - to be the party of BIG business. The Democrats seem to be the party of labor unions, government employees, and minorities. 42244. rubberducky - 9/21/2000 2:52:19 PM A Good Case Against Hillary 42245. JJBiener - 9/21/2000 2:53:13 PM CalGal - Spooky? It is absolutely surreal. Sometimes times I think I am trapped in a bizarre alternate universe or an episode of Sliders. 42246. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 2:54:19 PM But was Gore really proposing some sort of censorship, or was he using the "bully pulpit"? I disapprove of the ultra gory movies that seem such standard fare, and vote with my feet. Maybe I haven't been paying much attention, but I don't recal Gore proposing any legislative remedies. Did I miss it? 42247. Ronski - 9/21/2000 2:55:02 PM I think the civil libertarian types on the left are being somewhat quiet about this because they have Democrat sympathies and don't really believe that Gore/Lieberman will do anything about it if they actually win the election. An exception is the ACLU, which has been very critical of the Clinton administration re: the First Amendment. 42248. Ronski - 9/21/2000 2:56:05 PM (My post was to Jamie R, if that was not obvious.) 42249. Ronski - 9/21/2000 2:57:51 PM Three cheers for ranheim. 42250. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 3:00:25 PM Yeah, let's all cheer while government goes to hell in a handbasket, the interstate road system collapses, air traffic control quits, old folks dependent on Social Security are turned into the streets, colleges and universities collapse, etc. 42251. robertjayb - 9/21/2000 3:02:10 PM . 42252. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 3:03:29 PM Of course then general practitioners won't have to worry about dealing with geezer patient loads anymore, or poor children for that matter. Maybe some other country can take up the slack as our military goes out of business. 42253. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 3:03:46 PM Bubbaette, he is and he isn't. What he said was, he would give the industry 6 months to "fix the problem" voluntarily, after which the government would intervene. The Dems I saw were ignoring requests for details. When it was pointed out that legislation would almost certainly be unconstitutional, the Dems conceded that that was a problem, but that Gore would be "creative" in working around constitutional restrictions. In every interview of Lynn Cheney that I saw, when she said legislation was not a feasible answer, the press asked "do you mean that the government should do nothing about this?" 42254. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 3:05:30 PM But then again, will the money that's more important to you than standard of living be worth anything? After all, without the fed government, each state can develop it's own monetary system. 42255. JJBiener - 9/21/2000 3:08:28 PM Bubbaette - But was Gore really proposing some sort of censorship . . . Did I miss it? 42256. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 3:12:51 PM Clean air and water? Fuggedaboutit -- the state can engage each other in a race to the bottom in their efforts to lure industry and to turn a blind eye to their favorite campaign contributors. 42257. ranheim - 9/21/2000 3:16:47 PM bubbaete 42258. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 3:16:49 PM Ronski, re: censorship and the right. I absolutely agree that the Robert Bork/ George Will contingent is thoroughly pro-censorship. But since the media is more left, they have plenty of motivation to cheerfully trounce them, whip up outrage etc. when they (the right) start floating their trial balloons. The real danger will be when censorship starts to come from the left and a great many people have to choose between their principles and their gravy train. I believe that fascism, if it ever comes to this country, will come from the left. 42259. JJBiener - 9/21/2000 3:22:19 PM Independent Counsel Robert Ray announced Wednesday that he had found "insufficient evidence" to charge the Clintons with wrongdoing. If you cannot find enough evidence to charge, let alone convict, in that time and with those resources, the evidence doesn't exist. The Clintons have been vindicated. 42260. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 3:22:34 PM Ranheim 42261. Jonesatlaw - 9/21/2000 3:24:35 PM JJB- I have to agree with you that we do not need government censorship in general, and that the Gore's efforts are hollow promises. It's worked for him before- remember Tipper and the joust with Zappa et al? 42262. Jonesatlaw - 9/21/2000 3:27:34 PM There's also a big difference between the movies I would let him watch by himself and those I would watch if I could watch with him. 42263. Ronski - 9/21/2000 3:28:02 PM ranheim, 42264. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 3:29:42 PM >>What we do need is to arm the parent who will take appropriate action with information. 42265. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 3:30:29 PM Just take, for example, the notion of all roads being toll roads. Here in the fair city of Richmond, one of the main roadways was developed by a private company more than 30 years ago as a toll road with the understanding that once the bonds were paid off the tolls would go. Guess what? Despite the fact that it costs some folks as nearly $875 year to commute and the tolls have raked in untold millions the tolls havent gone away and the bonds are no closer to being paid off than they were 30 years ago. 42266. Ronski - 9/21/2000 3:33:38 PM It is not disputed that social stability is protected by the state excerising its military and police powers and maintaining the rule of law. Whether the redistribution of wealth is truly moral and whether it helps stability and progress or hurts it is what is disputed (by a small minority, to be sure). 42267. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 3:33:46 PM All of which goes to show that libertarianism is just as "pie-in-the-sky" as communism and more impractical to boot. 42268. JJBiener - 9/21/2000 3:34:42 PM Jones - We have digital cable and can restrict shows by rating or by channel. We have never had to use it with our daughter. We explained to her what she was allowed and not allowed to watch and why. She understood and agreed. We occaisionally monitor what she watches and she has been good about following the rules. 42269. Ronski - 9/21/2000 3:39:33 PM There are roads and bridges built by the state far older than 30 years that continue to charge tolls. Technology will undoubtedly make it easier to collect fees in the future. If businesses need workers, they will pay for them to get there. It really is just a matter of targeting the costs to the people receiving the benefits. 42270. Jack Vincennes - 9/21/2000 3:40:42 PM JJ is correct 42271. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 3:43:13 PM bubbaette, this kind of hair-splitting over arcane details is what makes the libertarian party seem like such an exercise in futility (and self-indulgence.) If we can agree that a minimal state is the goal, I would gladly take privatized roads off the table. It's a little disingenuous to argue about how a minimal state would deal with trivia, when the current trend is strongly towards an expansion of the state. It doesn't sound as though you would gladly give up the welfare state, if only your fears about mail delivery for the indigent could be assuaged. 42272. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 3:44:22 PM >>>, Cisneros was honored by his guilty plea; Espy dignified by his acquittal; and Gore celebrated by four separate decisions not to appoint a special prosecutor ahahahahahaa! Beautiful. 42273. Ronski - 9/21/2000 3:50:06 PM I think libertarianism is good deal more practical than marxism, which has been proven not to work. In essence, the U.S. is still a country with a classical-liberal, or libertarian, bent, as the authors of a recent book on why socialism failed in the U.S. point out: a distrust in sweeping governmental programs and a respect for individualism. 42274. ranheim - 9/21/2000 3:53:30 PM Government - except in the time of war - expands incrementally. 42275. rubberducky - 9/21/2000 3:57:17 PM "some of us" prefer them nosey coloreds stick to their part of town too 42276. Ronski - 9/21/2000 3:57:46 PM ranheim, 42277. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 3:57:55 PM It doesn't sound as though you would gladly give up the welfare state, if only your fears about mail delivery for the indigent could be assuaged. 42278. Jack Vincennes - 9/21/2000 3:58:39 PM duck 42279. Jonesatlaw - 9/21/2000 3:59:16 PM JJ- my son is 10 years old. He also knows what we do and do not think is appropriate for him to watch, and he has been good at following our standards when he is at other kids houses etc. I expect him to "cheat" a little, and we are shifting to more and more self regulation as he gets older. By the time he's 14-15 I won't regulate it at all. 42280. Ronski - 9/21/2000 3:59:22 PM Tax revenues grow with the population. But tax rates do not necessarily have to as well. 42281. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 4:02:59 PM Ah yes, the inevitable accusations of racism. How charming. What the hell is government "maturing"? And how many single black mothers would like to personally thank the govt sponsored war on drugs for the mass imprisonment of young black men? (Since racism is on the table.) 42282. Ronski - 9/21/2000 4:03:17 PM jones, 42283. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 4:04:26 PM I don't think that anyone was accused of racism. Instead the point made was that the good old days weren't so good for everyone. 42284. Ronski - 9/21/2000 4:08:07 PM I don't trust any particular company to always act in the interest of protecting the consumer from tainted foods, but I trust most businesses to do so most of the time in order to stay in business. While government regulators catch bad meat and the like from time to time, the overwhelming safety of our foods is not the result of government inspectors. It is the result of safety controls the companies themselves run. 42285. rubberducky - 9/21/2000 4:08:13 PM JV: 42286. Jonesatlaw - 9/21/2000 4:08:36 PM Government does a fine job in doing some things that the market does poorly. The market has not provided widely available affordable health care. The market did not protect the enviroment. The market did not give us the minimum wage, the 40 hour work week, safe workplaces or income security for the disabled and elderly. The market did not educate GI's following WWII or Korea without considerable government investment. The market did not electrify rural areas, cure polio or smallpox, nor did it create the transistor, the computer or the internet. Government did either by itself or by intervention in the market. The West was won not only by immigrants and railroads, but by Union soldiers and government land grants and homesteads. 42287. rubberducky - 9/21/2000 4:10:31 PM Re: Message # 42281, Jamie R. 42288. Jonesatlaw - 9/21/2000 4:11:00 PM Lassiez faire economics was an aberration, not the norm in our history. Its time has not returned. 42289. Jack Vincennes - 9/21/2000 4:11:49 PM Aspects of the past are attractive to old and young alike. I just think it extreme to collar all attemots at nostalgia with the evils of the past. 42290. Cellar Door - 9/21/2000 4:12:06 PM Insufficient evidence is only exoneration in the lexicon of mutts who view all things political as a "win" or a "loss." 42291. Jack Vincennes - 9/21/2000 4:12:23 PM "attemots" is French, by the way. 42292. Jack Vincennes - 9/21/2000 4:12:52 PM Cellar 42293. glendajean - 9/21/2000 4:13:43 PM Speaking of then and now in politics, this writer for the New Republic tries to explain the feminization of politics. 42294. Cellar Door - 9/21/2000 4:14:20 PM So happy to oblige. 42295. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 4:15:48 PM The market has given me a wage well above the minimum. And if it were not for the incredible general wealth created by the market, the minimum wage would be non-existent. No govt could decree a minimum wage unless the great majority of people were already far above it. And the forty hour work week is again a function of general wealth. If everyone were poor, do you really think they would give a shit what kind of weekly earning caps the govt mandates? Conversely, if child labor laws were repealed (and I'm not saying they should be) do you suppose parents would be rushing their kids back to the factories? 42296. Jack Vincennes - 9/21/2000 4:16:22 PM If I guess correctly, whoever is the placekicker for the Washington Redskins, Michael Beschloss and now that he is out of a job, Bob Dornan handing me a mint 42297. rubberducky - 9/21/2000 4:16:56 PM Re: Message # 42289, Jack Vincennes. 42298. Jonesatlaw - 9/21/2000 4:17:26 PM Perhaps the question is not should government be larger or smaller as a whole, but will the social good we want be produced by anyone else? 42299. Ronski - 9/21/2000 4:19:36 PM jones, 42300. Indiana Jones - 9/21/2000 4:19:58 PM No govt could decree a minimum wage unless the great majority of people were already far above it. 42301. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 4:21:51 PM rubberducky- sorry. I've been exposed to too many people lately who argue that anyone opposed to the welfare state must just want to keep women and minorities "in their place." It's a punch I've come to expect. Anyway, I misinterpreted your post, so I apologize. 42302. Jonesatlaw - 9/21/2000 4:21:56 PM Jamie- There is a minimum wage and a 40 hour workweek because they were mandated by the government, period full stop. The increasing wealth of the country did not produce them from the 19th century until the early part of this century, although there was one of the greatest expansions of national wealth in the history of nations during that time. 42303. Cellar Door - 9/21/2000 4:23:22 PM I've been exposed to too many people lately who argue that anyone opposed to the welfare state must just want to keep women and minorities "in their place." 42304. rubberducky - 9/21/2000 4:24:51 PM no problem Jamie. 42306. Ronski - 9/21/2000 4:26:15 PM jones, 42307. ranheim - 9/21/2000 4:26:40 PM May I remind you - since I have been inactive for the past 6 months - that I was born and raised, went to college in Minnesota. Medical School in Houston. Then the USAF for 9 years. I did not live in Louisiana until I was 36 years old. 42308. Indiana Jones - 9/21/2000 4:26:59 PM There is a minimum wage and a 40 hour workweek because they were mandated by the government, period full stop. 42309. Ronski - 9/21/2000 4:29:01 PM There is a 40 hour workweek and many Americans work far longer than that, and are happy to because they make good money. 42310. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 4:30:11 PM Jonesatlaw, you are playing at words here. Since the market is by definition an extra governmental institution, the market cannot create a "mandatory" anything. Every damn person in the country could be making $100 an hour and there would be no "minimum wage" until some politico decreed it. So I'll agree 100% with you that extra legal institutions cannot pass laws. You win. 42311. Jonesatlaw - 9/21/2000 4:42:49 PM Did advances in the economy or government intervention stop child labor? Did the economy produce the standard 40 hour work week? Did more people earn a livable wage before the mandatory minimum wage was instituted or after? 42312. Ronski - 9/21/2000 4:46:36 PM jones, 42313. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 4:50:51 PM The Times had an article a while back about some humanitarian group that pressured these Central American garment factories to stop using child labor. The factories said "sure" and fired all the kids. They didn't care, they had people beating down the doors for jobs, and didn't want the grief. The kids didn't exit the labor market. They found other jobs that were much more dangerous and paid considerably less. Now, if we suppose all jobs were barred from them, would they simply give up and starve? No, they would be forced to find illegal work, probably more dangerous and now without any protection at all. It is market created wealth that makes those kinds of laws possible. When people can't afford to obey them, they find some way of getting around them. And for what it's worth, I don't have any problem with the govt protecting kids with child labor laws. They'd just better be aware of the consequences. In Central America, these U.S. humanitarians just fucked all these kids over in a huge way, and their attitude was basically just "oops. Oh well." 42314. Indiana Jones - 9/21/2000 4:54:21 PM 42315. Cellar Door - 9/21/2000 4:56:50 PM Who does this polling? L. Brent Bozell? 42316. Indiana Jones - 9/21/2000 4:58:44 PM Actually, I think the Florida poll isn't all that favorable for Bush. He has to carry Florida, it's tied, and it shows Nader with 10 percent. It also shows his favorable/unfavorable as worse than Gore's. 42317. Indiana Jones - 9/21/2000 5:00:19 PM Oops... make that 11 percent for Nader. 42318. Ronski - 9/21/2000 5:00:58 PM Cellar, 42319. PelleNilsson - 9/21/2000 5:04:31 PM 42320. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 5:05:39 PM Isn't it about to be set at 6.25? 42321. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 5:06:16 PM I'm pretty sure the Republicans are going to okay a hike of some kind, this being an election year and all. 42322. Ronski - 9/21/2000 5:06:31 PM I think a real bellweather state right now is Wisconsin. If Gore starts leading there then I don't think Bush can turn things around. If Bush can hold his own in Wisconsin, I might retract my predictions about Oregon and New Hampshire, and Bush will begin to look like he has a chance nationwide. But Gore will have to keep stepping into dog-do, like he did the other day, to lose this thing. 42323. Ronski - 9/21/2000 5:07:49 PM Jamie, 42324. Indiana Jones - 9/21/2000 5:09:03 PM I think it's $5.15. 42325. PelleNilsson - 9/21/2000 5:13:29 PM And what kind of life can one lead in the US at $6.25 an hour? 42326. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 5:13:38 PM Ronski, I agree with you. After all, the real minimum wage is always unemployment. And then there's under-employment on top of that. But yeah, it's hardly Destroying This Great Nation. I tend to get more irritated about things like massive Ethanol subsidies for ADM. ("This hour of Country Down Home Jamboree brought to you by ADM. ADM- corporate welfare never tasted so good.") 42327. Ronski - 9/21/2000 5:19:08 PM JamieR, 42328. Indiana Jones - 9/21/2000 5:21:15 PM Pelle: The current tight labor market means that the minimum wage has very little effect, as even fast-food restaurants are paying more than the minimum wage (and remember, those employees are frequently teenagers who still live at home). 42329. Raskolnikov - 9/21/2000 5:21:47 PM "And what kind of life can one lead in the US at $6.25 an hour?" 42330. Indiana Jones - 9/21/2000 5:22:57 PM 42331. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 5:25:41 PM As a woman, I'm not really keen on determining what the wages should be based on whether the person "needs" it or not. I'm more comfortable with the notion of the same pay for the same job, regardless of who holds it. 42332. PelleNilsson - 9/21/2000 5:27:02 PM Indy 42333. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 5:30:58 PM No govt could decree a minimum wage unless the great majority of people were already far above it. And the forty hour work week is again a function of general wealth. If everyone were poor, do you really think they would give a shit what kind of weekly earning caps the govt mandates? Conversely, if child labor laws were repealed (and I'm not saying they should be) do you suppose parents would be rushing their kids back to the factories? 42334. Indiana Jones - 9/21/2000 5:34:40 PM Pelle: I'm sure there are people working at minimum wage, and some likely below it. (When I was a teenager, I had a government job that was below the minimum wage at the time, and I never could understand that.) 42335. Raskolnikov - 9/21/2000 5:37:30 PM "As a woman, I'm not really keen on determining what the wages 42336. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 5:38:02 PM Right now, with the economy booming, the minimum wage is fairly irrelevant --except in depressed places or among powerless groups. It 42337. Raskolnikov - 9/21/2000 5:39:44 PM Here is some info on US mininum wage demographics. It is from 1998, so it probably misses some of the benefits of the new economy, but there are assuredly still a lot of people receiving the minimum wage, even though it is a smaller number than there were a decade ago. 42338. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 5:54:09 PM Bubbaette- First of all, "employers" is not a monolithic group. Second of all, my point is not that in the absence of government intervention, employers would sincerely look out for the benefit of all people. My point is that the govt has little power to do much about it one way or the other. Your example of sweatshops just illustrates that point. Laws that basically amount to "we the govt wish the following were true..." get no credit for success unless they actually have the power to bring about the desired ends. I do not doubt that worker protection laws do provide some marginal protection for some groups of workers in lousy bargaining positions. But I think to give them credit for the general prosperity of "workers" (another silly monolithic term) is like crediting the drug laws for the fact that most teenagers are not hooked on smack. 42339. JJBiener - 9/21/2000 6:03:22 PM Bubbaette - Do you think that the coal mine owners would provide adequate ventilation or workers' compensation if it weren't mandated? 42340. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 6:06:32 PM Jaime 42341. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 6:06:59 PM 42342. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 6:08:24 PM JJ 42343. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 6:09:53 PM Actually, the Pinkerton Co. didn't employ the miners -- the Pinkerton Co. was hired by the mine owners to put down efforts to organize -- which they did quite brutally. 42344. Raskolnikov - 9/21/2000 6:11:48 PM "Absolutely. The labor unions would demand it and coal companies 42345. Raskolnikov - 9/21/2000 6:12:42 PM cross post with Bubba wrt government's role in allowing workers to unionize in the first place. 42346. Raskolnikov - 9/21/2000 6:14:15 PM The latest presidential poll results are now on www.gallup.com 42347. JJBiener - 9/21/2000 6:14:45 PM Bubbaette - Government programs -- unemployment insurance, workers compensation, minimum wage, FLSA, etc., also provide a minimum standard that one would think not only possible but desirable in a country with our resources. 42348. glendajean - 9/21/2000 6:15:37 PM Obviously, there is a creakiness in worker protection as the economy does a tremendous change. In jobs where people's bodies are affected (factories or construction sites), government provides needed help for the workers. And while government intervention sets up inefficiencies (some worse than other), employers have rarely taken the lead in the past on making their working environments safe. 42349. JJBiener - 9/21/2000 6:19:56 PM Bubbaette - I am well aware of the history of unionism in the US. Violence was used on both sides to improve their bargaining positions. Both also tried and did use the government to improve their positions. It is reprehensible no matter which side used them. 42350. Jamie R - 9/21/2000 6:20:16 PM Protecting people from violence is one of the govt's jobs, so protecting strikers is legit in my book. I'm hardly anti government. I'm not too informed about the ins and outs of labor history in regards to unionization. I will say that I've seen a few PBS type shows that discussed "peaceful" strikes in which the strikers were smashing property, hurling bricks, and beating scabs severely. I'm not surprised that a company might respond with violence in that kind of situation. Can anyone recommend a good objective book about labor history? (Not overly strident in either direction, and not 800 pages of minutiae please.) 42351. Raskolnikov - 9/21/2000 6:22:05 PM "I have enough faith in the generosity of the American people and the strength of our economy to trust that people would not be dying in the streets without government intervention. To think that there are millions of people in this country who would allow their fellow humans to starve to death is more cynical that I can manage." 42352. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 6:23:11 PM . I have enough faith in the generosity of the American people and the strength of our economy to trust that people would not be dying in the streets without government intervention. To think that there are millions of people in this country who would allow their fellow humans to starve to death is more cynical that I can manage. 42353. Raskolnikov - 9/21/2000 6:23:54 PM The point, JJ, wasn't that labor was virgin pure, but that *government authority* was necessary to get them the power that use as evidence that government is necessary. 42354. JJBiener - 9/21/2000 6:25:37 PM Rask - You don't think the clout that laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act gives to Labor Unions has anything to do with Union effectiveness at getting employers to comply? Or the ability to sue for violation of OSHA? 42355. glendajean - 9/21/2000 6:30:50 PM Unions represent less than 20% of the labor workforce, don't they? I am sure that number is fairly low, certainly much more than it was the 40s through 60s. 42356. jexster - 9/21/2000 6:31:28 PM Roadkill 2000 Proceeding Apace! 42357. JJBiener - 9/21/2000 6:33:22 PM Rask - Before the advent of government programs to fight poverty, people *were* being allowed to starve on the street. You seem to think that there aren't any homeless even now. 42358. jexster - 9/21/2000 6:35:43 PM HELLS BELLS!! 42359. JJBiener - 9/21/2000 6:38:48 PM Bubbaette - How many employer exploiting their employees IS acceptable? 42360. glendajean - 9/21/2000 6:39:39 PM Interesting #s in the 50 state poll referenced above: 42361. jexster - 9/21/2000 6:44:15 PM 42362. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 6:44:51 PM it is extremely short sighted to claim that generosity would not be manifest now and be sufficient to meet the needs. 42363. jexster - 9/21/2000 6:45:42 PM 7% lead -- Louisiana (what's that about?) 42364. RosettaStone - 9/21/2000 6:45:59 PM The same people who were blaming Judge Ken Starr for President Bill Clinton's screwing around with interns in the White House are now blaming George Bush for the oil crisis. 42365. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 6:50:15 PM How can an employer exploit an employee when the employee can merely quit any time he pleases? Employers cannot dictate wages and working conditions and force people to work for him. 42366. JJBiener - 9/21/2000 6:50:44 PM Bubbaette - Mike and I are not wealthy by any means, but I don't begrudge paying my taxes. Would I donate the same amount of money if it weren't deducted from my paycheck? I doubt it, and I sincerely doubt that most people would. 42367. JJBiener - 9/21/2000 6:53:10 PM Bubbaette - There are people now in 3rd world countries . . . 42368. jexster - 9/21/2000 6:53:48 PM Of course Rose only a baleful idiot would fail to realize that those who are making the big bucks off the oil price increases are responsible for them 42369. JJBiener - 9/21/2000 6:55:29 PM Rosie - It never ends... 42370. bubbaette - 9/21/2000 6:56:51 PM Last time I checked, we weren't living in a third world country. 42371. jexster - 9/21/2000 6:58:59 PM California 36 Moron 50 (Big Al) 42372. jexster - 9/21/2000 7:02:37 PM Speakin of the baleful and the Moronic, Hi Ya JJ 42373. jexster - 9/21/2000 7:10:24 PM Who Let the Dogs Out? Woof Woof Woof Woof Woof!!! 42374. jexster - 9/21/2000 8:03:40 PM Picked this up on the Politics.com forum. 42375. jexster - 9/21/2000 8:03:58 PM toys 42376. jexster - 9/21/2000 8:04:19 PM 42377. jexster - 9/21/2000 8:04:32 PM toys 42378. CalGal - 9/21/2000 8:16:36 PM Great discussion. 42379. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/21/2000 10:46:29 PM 42380. jonesatlaw - 9/21/2000 11:58:20 PM But the notion that the poor, sick and elderly would be taken care of out of the goodness of our hearts has been disproven enough. 42381. concerned - 9/22/2000 12:00:49 AM Six Nobel Prize Winning Economists say Pinocchio Bore doesn't know shit about tax plans. 42382. concerned - 9/22/2000 12:02:43 AM Pinocchio Bore's big Occidental Petroleum Bucks - what a payoff! 42383. concerned - 9/22/2000 12:05:23 AM Joseph LIEberman - moral milquetoast. 42384. concerned - 9/22/2000 12:23:46 AM Sheesh. This place is deader than a Socialist's prefrontal lobes. 42385. concerned - 9/22/2000 12:32:19 AM 42375. jexster - 9/22/00 1:03:58 AM 42386. jexster - 9/22/2000 12:38:51 AM Nice try ThomasD. Your link is about Alec Baldwin. 42387. concerned - 9/22/2000 12:39:02 AM More proof that Pinocchio Bore is a moronic driveling scumbag: his proposal to 'tap' the strategic petroleum reserve in an attempt to 'lower' gas prices. 42388. jexster - 9/22/2000 12:40:26 AM Lower gas prices are for moronic scumbags Dick Cheney 42389. concerned - 9/22/2000 12:43:44 AM Re. 42386 - 42390. jexster - 9/22/2000 12:45:09 AM Name the six Nobel prize winning economists who endorsed the Moron's tax plan. 42391. Cellar Door - 9/22/2000 12:45:49 AM Not toys in the attic, connie -- bats in the belfrey. 42392. concerned - 9/22/2000 12:47:30 AM Nobody with a three digit IQ and in reasonable mental health would vote for Pinocchio Bore as president. 42393. jexster - 9/22/2000 12:47:47 AM Meanwhile, in news of no importance whatsoever, six Nobel Prize-winning economists endorsed the Bush tax plan. The Baldwin decision was widely reported on television, radio and in almost all newspapers. The Nobel announcement made just two papers, neither of which mentioned the world-renowned experts' names. 42394. Cellar Door - 9/22/2000 12:48:47 AM 42392. concerned - 9/22/00 5:47:30 AM 42395. jexster - 9/22/2000 12:50:30 AM How 'bout a pretty picture to relax you TD. You're seem to be deeply distressed this evening. Really hope you're not drinking again. 42396. jexster - 9/22/2000 12:53:44 AM 42397. concerned - 9/22/2000 12:57:23 AM Re. 42394 - 42398. jexster - 9/22/2000 12:57:54 AM Speakin of Morons 42399. concerned - 9/22/2000 1:01:41 AM Pinocchio is first and foremost, a sleaze. A felonious corrupt sleaze, to be more specific. 42400. concerned - 9/22/2000 1:05:25 AM "No Controlling Legal Authority" is 'code' for "Sure, I broke campaign finance law, but fuck all you Americans." 42401. jexster - 9/22/2000 1:06:33 AM And an aider and abettor of rape, perjury, theft, baby killin, and God only knows what else 42402. jexster - 9/22/2000 1:07:27 AM Glad to have you back TD...but lay off the sauce 42403. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/22/2000 1:26:14 AM 42404. jexster - 9/22/2000 1:40:17 AM John McCain on Bush's Tax & SS Flim Flam 42405. jexster - 9/22/2000 1:43:03 AM "When he was asked if people could lose money under his plan, Bush replied “Maybe, Maybe Not.” 42406. Indiana Jones - 9/22/2000 9:12:40 AM 42407. rubberducky - 9/22/2000 9:16:06 AM Haw Haw Haw 42408. theDiva - 9/22/2000 9:17:51 AM how very flattering. 42409. Indiana Jones - 9/22/2000 9:19:40 AM 42410. Indiana Jones - 9/22/2000 9:20:40 AM Sorry about the Hillary photo...not having Wizzo or jexster's talent, I just have to take what comes off the news wire. 42411. theDiva - 9/22/2000 9:21:07 AM my God, you mean that's not doctored?! 42412. rubberducky - 9/22/2000 9:22:05 AM that makes it even funnier 42413. Indiana Jones - 9/22/2000 9:22:15 AM Hee-hee-hee. Nope, it's AP. 42414. RosettaStone - 9/22/2000 9:23:29 AM Great week for Bush and Lazio. I can feel the momentum... 42415. theDiva - 9/22/2000 9:24:28 AM Well, the haircut is nice. 42416. theDiva - 9/22/2000 9:25:06 AM But who told her to wear that big bulgy necklace right next to that big bulgy pin? Accessorize intelligently, dear. 42417. theDiva - 9/22/2000 9:27:20 AM Look, Stone. Just write in Father Steve for President. Trust me on this one. 42418. RosettaStone - 9/22/2000 9:29:36 AM Hopefully, Algore lost the election the day he said on CBS: "Remember, America. I gave you the internet, and I can take it away." 42419. Indiana Jones - 9/22/2000 10:11:54 AM Piling on Mr. Bush 42420. Indiana Jones - 9/22/2000 10:14:50 AM Democrat is faulted anew over drug costs 42421. rubberducky - 9/22/2000 10:19:08 AM bush is "well-qualified"? 42422. Indiana Jones - 9/22/2000 10:21:23 AM ducky: What were Bill Clinton's qualifications for being president when he was elected? Is the difference between being qualified and not qualified taking a spin as Arkansas attorney general? 42423. glendajean - 9/22/2000 10:26:48 AM He's only been governor 6 years, Ducky. 42424. CalGal - 9/22/2000 10:35:27 AM Well, it's at least in part because being governor of Texas isn't all that much of a job, whereas Arkansas governors really do run the country. Besides, Clinton had spent 20 years in politics, rather than goofing off, drinking, and owning baseball teams. 42425. CalGal - 9/22/2000 10:36:41 AM Ha! Run the state, I meant. 42426. rubberducky - 9/22/2000 10:37:19 AM well, i'm not a fan of Clinton - but he had a smidge more than 8 years of work in the public sector, right? 42427. Jamie R - 9/22/2000 10:38:17 AM Okay, sure, but what he lacks in experience he makes up in eloquence and gravitas. 42428. rubberducky - 9/22/2000 10:39:00 AM GJ: 42429. Raskolnikov - 9/22/2000 10:41:19 AM "Hopefully, Algore lost the election the day he said on CBS: "Remember, 42430. CalGal - 9/22/2000 10:47:29 AM Rask, 42431. glendajean - 9/22/2000 11:00:42 AM Darn. I had visions of Charleton Heston starting a National Internet Users Association and making ads saying, You'll never take this mouse out of my hand until its cold and stiff. 42432. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/22/2000 11:07:46 AM Obviously, Rosiedidn'tknow Gore was lampooning while doing Letterman's Top Ten. 42433. Ronski - 9/22/2000 11:14:29 AM Rasmussen: Bush leads by two points 42434. JudithAtHome - 9/22/2000 11:19:49 AM Bush has only been Governor for 5 years because this past year has been spent "running for another job". 42435. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/22/2000 11:20:09 AM How Uber-Republican Rupert Murdoch Became Major Donor to Gore's Super-Glitzy Showbiz Fund-Raiser 42436. glendajean - 9/22/2000 11:30:06 AM Ronski -- if we're picking our druthers, I'll take the Gallup Poll. 42437. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 11:35:15 AM Cal - Arkansas governors really do run the state . . . 42438. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 11:39:05 AM Gallup conducts its polls over the weekends. A practice which traditionally favors Democrats. 42439. JudithAtHome - 9/22/2000 11:42:37 AM JJ: 42440. robertjayb - 9/22/2000 11:46:14 AM . 42441. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 11:57:02 AM Judith - I am not sure why. I have heard a couple of potential explanations, but nothing that really rings true. It is the reason that many pollsters don't poll on weekends. It has something to with a large numbers of people being unavailable or unwilling to participate and this tends to favor Democrats for some reason. I think there is something about this on Voter.com. 42442. robertjayb - 9/22/2000 11:58:28 AM . 42443. Jonesatlaw - 9/22/2000 12:01:01 PM The steady drumbeat critcism of Gore over granny and spots prescriptions gives more insight into the critics character than Gore's. There is either a naive confusion between prevarication and confabulation or a willing disregard for it. 42444. labwabbit - 9/22/2000 12:08:31 PM Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers decided that a fellow 42445. labwabbit - 9/22/2000 12:08:54 PM How in the world do you think these killers got off so 42446. Ronski - 9/22/2000 12:10:41 PM It could also be said that excluding weekends, as some polls do, favors Republicans. The usual explanation is that GOPers are more affluent and are usually out spending money on Saturday, while Dems are home, not spending it. 42447. Indiana Jones - 9/22/2000 12:13:12 PM that some drugs prices are inflated for human use far beyond their costs in vetrinary use. That is not to say that there are not points to be made in favor of the practice- but apparantly they are not strong enough to merit response by the Bush campaign. 42448. robertjayb - 9/22/2000 12:13:23 PM . 42449. Jack Vincennes - 9/22/2000 12:17:41 PM jones 42450. glendajean - 9/22/2000 12:19:48 PM No matter your position, the Bush campaign remains impotent. 42451. Jack Vincennes - 9/22/2000 12:21:54 PM glenda 42452. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 12:28:02 PM Jones - Notice that the attack is not directed to the essential point made by Gore- that some drugs prices are inflated for human use far beyond their costs in vetrinary use. 42453. Ronski - 9/22/2000 12:33:03 PM 42454. Wombat - 9/22/2000 12:51:48 PM Gee, Ronski, how enlightening. Of course, had the US intervened in Rwanda, I am sure the Cato Institute's "scholars" would be bitching about how the US should stay out of other people's wars... 42455. RosettaStone - 9/22/2000 12:59:46 PM "African Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do." 42456. robertjayb - 9/22/2000 1:00:56 PM . 42457. jexster - 9/22/2000 1:08:51 PM Maybe that's because Gore's essential point was so obviously invalid that it did not need comment. It is common knowledge that the approval time and therefore the cost of approving medicine for humans is far higher than it is for animals. This additional cost is reflected in the higher cost of prescriptions for humans. As usual Gore is trying to manufacture an issue out of nothing. 42458. jexster - 9/22/2000 1:11:45 PM Delay Sponsors Lavish Vegas Golf Outing to Reward Contributors 42459. Ronski - 9/22/2000 1:14:18 PM Wombat, 42460. Indiana Jones - 9/22/2000 1:14:41 PM At least Delay has to pay for it out of contributed funds. 42461. Ronski - 9/22/2000 1:26:31 PM The Daily News reports that the National Journal estimates that Gore currently has 264 electoral votes vs. 204 for Bush, and that the American Research Group gives Gore 26 states with 336 electoral votes and Bush 24 states with 202 votes. 42462. Jamie R - 9/22/2000 1:34:28 PM I'm not up on the debate about different drug prices for different markets, but anyway, so what? I thought the idea of a single "just price" for all markets went out with Aristotle. They made the damn drugs, they can charge whatever they want for them. It's called property rights. Doctors and lawyers do it all the time in reverse- if they think you can afford it, they charge you more than the poor patients they're giving discounted rates to. Same services, same drugs prescribed, same equipment used, etc. 42463. Ronski - 9/22/2000 1:35:49 PM 42464. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 1:47:33 PM Jamie - The drug pricing is just another of Gore's non-issue issues. He paints the drug companies as evil demons bent on destroying the American consumer. His populist message depends on having "powerful forces" to blame for everything that is wrong in people's lives. 42465. jexster - 9/22/2000 1:51:23 PM You encounter what economists call "market segmentation through intrapersonal price discrimination" everyday. Examples: the same book costs more in the US than in Australia; matinee movie tickets; discount coupons; airline excursion fares; college financial aid; paperback books v. hardcover ones; oil at Costco v. the gas station; mass transit discounts for seniors; catalog v. store prices; all you can eat restaurants.....the list is as endless as the options in the marketplace. 42466. Jamie R - 9/22/2000 1:51:41 PM Yeah, his newfound populism has left me more confused than anything else. When he anounced that he wanted to protect helpless people like me from "big oil" my response was a profound "huh?" I guess there are lots of voters out there who really do identify themselves as powerless. 42467. jexster - 9/22/2000 1:52:34 PM and Delay doesn't have the Austin governor's mansion to do the same thing either... 42468. Jamie R - 9/22/2000 1:54:43 PM An example I saw recently- people who buy movie popcorn subsidize people who just buy tickets and nothing else. It's a nice work around the fact that price discrimination at the ticket level would be impossible. Anyway, I thought that was an interesting analysis. I suppose it would also apply to $8.00 airport cocktails. 42469. jexster - 9/22/2000 1:57:31 PM Most people identify themselves as "powerless" to effect change both in government and in their private lives....this result has been confirmed repeatedly by independent social studies (see the General Social Survey and the National Election Studies)Here 42470. jexster - 9/22/2000 1:58:13 PM That's right Jamie....another example...there really is no end to them 42471. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:00:05 PM Be careful though for 42472. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 2:04:27 PM Jex - Drugs cost less for dogs, cats, Canadians and Mexicans because it costs less to bring the drugs to those markets. If drug companies charged the same in those markets as they do for humans in the US, those markets would be subsidizing the FDA's approval process. 42473. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:07:14 PM This purty picture illustrates the underlying dynamic of why drug firms (all firms) differentially price. Firms want to get onto the demand curves of Bob, Sue, Rover Fluffy etc. 42474. Indiana Jones - 9/22/2000 2:08:25 PM The bottom line on drugs - dogs, cats, Canadians, Mexicans all pay less for the same medication than US consumers who effectively subsidize, either via insurance or their own pockets (often at the expense of food etc), the marginal market entrants. 42475. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:08:40 PM No it doesn't JJB....it does not cost the firms one dime more or less to sell drug x in Detroit or Windsor Ontario...it does not cost firms one dime more or less to sell to the Vet or Walgreens. 42476. Jamie R - 9/22/2000 2:08:49 PM The relationship goes the other way. People are willing to pay x to make a product because they believe they can charge Y (where hopefully Y > X.) In the event that they guess wrong, it doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference what the production costs were. They will price it at whatever minimizes their pain. 42477. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:09:11 PM Fluffy must die! 42478. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:11:17 PM Hump those demand curves --- that's our free market in action! 42479. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 2:15:05 PM Jex - ....it does not cost the firms one dime more or less to sell drug x in Detroit or Windsor Ontario...it does not cost firms one dime more or less to sell to the Vet or Walgreens. 42480. pellenilsson - 9/22/2000 2:18:43 PM You are aware that there is a relationship between the cost to produce a product and the price charged, aren't you? 42481. Raskolnikov - 9/22/2000 2:20:51 PM "Gallup conducts its polls over the weekends. A practice which 42482. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:21:25 PM No I'm not ignoring the costs. In fact, just about every post I have made on this subject either explicitly or implicitly involves cost of production. 42483. Jonesatlaw - 9/22/2000 2:21:45 PM Perhaps a comparison is in order. Say Gore complains that his grandma pulled up her little blue Rambler to the pumps for some gas. The gas company charges $2.40 for the gas, while when they gas up his plane, the company charges $.30. 42484. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:22:57 PM It does not cost Pfizer a penny more to bring a drug to market in Detroit than it does to bring the same drug to market in Windsor Ontario. Neither does it cost a penny more to bring a drug to market in San Diego than it does to bring the drug to market in Tijuana 42485. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:25:09 PM If I can make a profit of 25%/unit with the same fixed costs by charging 200% less to attract new customers who would not pay full freight, I would do it in a heartbeat. So would you JJB. 42486. Jonesatlaw - 9/22/2000 2:27:30 PM The question is why are costs passed on only to the American consumer? If I invent some wonderful electronic gadget, and do the safety testing in the US, why don't I try to get some of the costs back from every sale, not just a segment of the market? 42487. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:28:42 PM The differentials in drug prices are manifestly more a function of demand than supply............ 42488. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:32:07 PM Costs are passed on to all consumers but to American consumers for several reasons chief among which is that we can pay more....insurance has a big impact...as does the lack of price controls (in the Canadian case)... 42489. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:32:41 PM "OlIgopolistic" 42490. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:35:08 PM Dallas Morning News: Bush in Deep Doo in FL 42491. RosettaStone - 9/22/2000 2:39:45 PM 404 Overnight Quests in the White House/Camp David since 1999 for Bill, Hillary and Algore. 42492. Ronski - 9/22/2000 2:43:09 PM jones, 42493. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 2:43:27 PM Jones and Jex - You keep ignoring the cost of complying with FDA regulations. Those costs are far higher than complying with the Canadian and Mexican equivalents. 42494. Jonesatlaw - 9/22/2000 2:45:30 PM Yea, but what color is the Rambler? 42495. Ronski - 9/22/2000 2:47:33 PM 42496. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:48:28 PM Gotta secret for 'ya Rosie....most people don't care about or for GOP slime 42497. Jonesatlaw - 9/22/2000 2:50:19 PM JJ- I'm not ignoring them at all. Clearly sales in Canada and Mexico are profitable, even at the lower rates. Why must R&D costs be solely recouped on US consumers? 42498. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:50:24 PM No the cost of complying with FDA regulations is the same JJB 42499. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:52:01 PM Nuther tid bit for ya Rose dear 42500. Jonesatlaw - 9/22/2000 2:52:52 PM Ronski- Your point regarding price controls noted. Clearly, the effort to sell under those cost controls is worth it to the company. 42501. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:54:47 PM All this shows ta go ya that the issues of medical costs are WAY TOO complicated for election year debate...they're too fuckin boring anyway... 42502. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:55:59 PM 42503. jexster - 9/22/2000 2:56:50 PM Notice the pretty negative slope of Bush's curves..... 42504. jexster - 9/22/2000 3:00:51 PM I'm goin over to the Giants board for more gloating fun.... 42505. Ronski - 9/22/2000 3:01:23 PM jones, 42506. Ronski - 9/22/2000 3:04:27 PM And one more thing, if Granma has taken very good care of that Rambler it might easily fetch 8-10 K today. 42507. robertjayb - 9/22/2000 3:06:41 PM . 42508. Slackjaw - 9/22/2000 3:09:32 PM Economically it's somewhat difficult to say what's wrong with price discrimination, as for any given level of competitiveness it represents a transfer from consumers to producers. If for some reason you accept the ancillary postulate that consumer surplus is more important than producer surplus then obviously there is a problem. 42509. Slackjaw - 9/22/2000 3:12:53 PM difficult to say what's wrong with PERFECT price discrimination 42510. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 3:17:10 PM Jones - I'm not ignoring them at all. 42511. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 3:24:30 PM RJB - It is hard to imagine how Lars keeps his job with his eyes so firmly shut. 42512. Slackjaw - 9/22/2000 3:24:58 PM The additional costs imposed by the FDA are not... 42513. pellenilsson - 9/22/2000 3:29:08 PM robert 42514. Wombat - 9/22/2000 3:35:02 PM Hard to imagine how Jeff Gerth still has a job... 42515. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 3:38:28 PM Slack - How can you possibly know this? 42516. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 3:44:18 PM Let's look at the drug pricing from another persepective. As I posted earlier, it takes about 10 years and $500 million to bring a drug to the US market. Suppose China requires an additional 2 years of clinical trials costing an additional $100 million. Should American consumers pay that additional cost or should it be reflected in the cost charged to the Chinese? I say the Chinese should pay it and not Americans. It is the same situation we have with Canada and Mexico. 42517. Raskolnikov - 9/22/2000 3:48:25 PM "I say the Chinese should pay it and not Americans. It is 42518. Indiana Jones - 9/22/2000 3:53:46 PM Clinton is releasing the strategic petroleum reserve. 42519. Jonesatlaw - 9/22/2000 3:59:46 PM Bienner- If there was something additional to be done to the drug for use in China- a reformulation or change in the manufacturing process, I would find your argument more compelling. 42520. robertjayb - 9/22/2000 4:00:17 PM . 42521. pellenilsson - 9/22/2000 4:02:36 PM JJ 42522. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 4:04:22 PM Rask - Regardless of what you think is fair, there is nothing to indicate that it will necessarily happen that way. 42523. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 4:08:09 PM Pelle - Why shouldn't the Chinese share the $500 million too? 42524. TabouliJones - 9/22/2000 4:09:10 PM FWIW Slate on Canadian verses American drug prices. 42525. Slackjaw - 9/22/2000 4:09:39 PM Biener, I guarantee you "standard practice" is only in service of profits for business, and you are talking about a situation of possible conflict between the two. I further guarantee that any self respecting business school gets to price discrimination and cross subsidization in classes on pricing, because they are taught by economists who like talking about it. 42526. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 4:11:02 PM Jones - If there was something additional to be done to the drug for use in China- a reformulation or change in the manufacturing process, I would find your argument more compelling. 42527. Slackjaw - 9/22/2000 4:12:47 PM and now Biener will say, "But Slack, they aren't in conflict." 42528. pellenilsson - 9/22/2000 4:13:25 PM JJ 42529. Raskolnikov - 9/22/2000 4:13:47 PM "But this is what is happening now with drug prices in US, Canada and 42530. robertjayb - 9/22/2000 4:16:42 PM . 42531. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 4:19:39 PM Slack - I am not ignoring price discrimination or cross subsidization. They don't negate my point. I said earlier that cost is not the sole determinant of price. It is however one of the determinants. My objection is to Gore and others who jump to the conclusion that a difference in prices from one market to another is the result of price gouging rather a difference in costs. 42532. Raskolnikov - 9/22/2000 4:21:15 PM Gore was pushing for 6 million barrels. This is a classic Gore maneuver. When pushing unwise policy for the sake of political expediency, make sure that the policy proposal is an inconsequential one. That way you score political points but do very little damage. 42533. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 4:21:20 PM Pelle - So you agree the drug should have a higher price in China? 42534. Slackjaw - 9/22/2000 4:24:17 PM Biener 42535. Thoughtful - 9/22/2000 4:24:43 PM Rask, better than doing significant damage just to score political points. 42536. Jonesatlaw - 9/22/2000 4:26:53 PM It would be interesting to see the actual cost of R&D for development of various drugs. There is a considerable amount of the basic research done by Universities and other institutes funding in large part by the federal government. I don't think that it is a bad thing for basic research to be subsidized by the government, but I wonder how much the the costs are actually borne by the pharmaceutical industry and how much by the government and private charity. 42537. Slackjaw - 9/22/2000 4:27:04 PM And just to be clear that my last post covers exactly what Biener is talking about -- which I predict he will now dispute -- recall his message 42510: "Some of the R&D costs are being recouped from the other markets. The additional costs imposed by the FDA are not and should not." 42538. Indiana Jones - 9/22/2000 4:29:17 PM Everything I've read says it won't do squat because refineries are at capacity anyway. 42539. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 4:30:02 PM Rask - One could easily argue that other factors are the reason for this 42540. Indiana Jones - 9/22/2000 4:33:03 PM According to CNN it's going to be 30 million barrels. 42541. Thoughtful - 9/22/2000 4:35:43 PM I'm coming in on the tail end of this argument on pricing, but I suggest you check out Hal R. Varian in 9/21/00 NY Times "Economic Scene." It can be found in the column on the left of the business page. Nice, easy to understand take on prescription prices and price discrimination. He concludes: 42542. pellenilsson - 9/22/2000 4:38:29 PM JJ's problem is that when Gore attacks the drug company's pricing policy, he (JJ) must, knee-jerkingly, rush to their defence, but in doing so he reveals his utter ignorance about pricing mechanisms. 42543. Indiana Jones - 9/22/2000 4:41:43 PM 42544. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 4:43:00 PM Slack - Come back to Earth. 42545. pellenilsson - 9/22/2000 4:53:46 PM JJ 42546. Slackjaw - 9/22/2000 4:56:18 PM Biener, you are such a goddam hack. 42547. Raskolnikov - 9/22/2000 5:01:45 PM Thoughtful: "Rask, better than doing significant damage just to score political points". 42548. Raskolnikov - 9/22/2000 5:07:16 PM "You could argue that the flapping of a butterfly's wings in China is the cause, but why not look at the most obvious cause?" 42549. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 5:14:45 PM Pelle - he (JJ) must, knee-jerkingly, rush to their defence . . . 42550. Raskolnikov - 9/22/2000 5:18:09 PM "Everything I have been discussing relates to how business show 42551. Thoughtful - 9/22/2000 5:27:00 PM Seems to me the talk about the market should bear the cost sounds a lot like government intervention forcing extra costs to be borne by a customer group which free market forces would not impose. I never thought I'd hear jj make an argument for government intervention. 42552. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 5:34:57 PM Slack - Biener, you are such a goddam hack. 42553. Raskolnikov - 9/22/2000 5:37:53 PM "There is nothing wrong with my logic. If it cost more to bring a drug to market in the US, then it is reasonable to assume that there will be a comparable difference in price." 42554. Raskolnikov - 9/22/2000 5:39:51 PM JJ: of course drug companies price gouge. A much better defense than to deny this, or blame it on the FDA, is to argue that it is necessary to recoup their huge R&D costs. Not only does the drug price have to pay for the research of the 1 drug which made it to market, it has to also pay for the 20 drugs which caused fetuses to grow gills. 42555. Thoughtful - 9/22/2000 5:43:32 PM #42553 -- Rask, jj, I disagree. Price is a function of both supply and demand. Even if it costs more to supply drugs to sub-saharan africa -- which I'm assuming it does based on transportation costs alone -- the price could still be lower given the elasticity of demand. The margins will be smaller. 42556. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 5:46:56 PM Thoughtful - I never thought I'd hear jj make an argument for government intervention. 42557. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 5:53:00 PM Rask - of course drug companies price gouge. A much better defense than to deny this, or blame it on the FDA, is to argue that it is necessary to recoup their huge R&D costs. 42558. Thoughtful - 9/22/2000 5:54:39 PM That's the point jj....what you are saying ain't necessarily so. For example, the drug company may be able to charge more in Canada than in the US as they have national health insurance....or they may charge less in the US as the population is larger so they are better off selling to more customers at lower prices. There are other scenarios all of which would be free market profit maximizing activity on the part of the drug company. The only way to ensure that the US customers pay for FDA costs is to regulate it -- at which point the Canadian co. may choose not to sell their product in the US which is a loss for the US customers. 42559. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 5:56:27 PM Rask - This is true for marginal costs (distribution costs for instance), but not fixed costs. Dealing with FDA regulations is a fixed cost. 42560. robertjayb - 9/22/2000 6:01:39 PM . 42561. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 6:02:39 PM Thoughtful - If given the choice to allow the market to work it out on its own or to have the government impose a solution, I'll take the market. Competition is far better at controlling prices than the government is. 42562. jexster - 9/22/2000 6:02:42 PM Compliance with FDA, Canadian, EU, Japanese, Sri Lankan regulations for safety are costs of production for each and every drug sold in any of the home territories. 42563. jexster - 9/22/2000 6:03:38 PM 42564. JJBiener - 9/22/2000 6:06:06 PM Jex - As Thoughtful pointed out, price is determined by both supply and demand. It is not strictly demand driven. 42565. stostosto - 9/22/2000 6:06:31 PM 42566. stostosto - 9/22/2000 6:09:40 PM 42567. jexster - 9/22/2000 6:10:28 PM George W. Bush today announced a 91 billion buck "moon shot" against disease. 42568. jexster - 9/22/2000 6:11:44 PM Sto...that's SUPER KEWL!!! 42569. glendajean - 9/22/2000 6:20:14 PM Robertjayb -- got to love those Gallups. 42570. jexster - 9/22/2000 6:20:41 PM 42571. glendajean - 9/22/2000 6:27:22 PM Jexster -- you often post right past my ability to understand what you are talking about. have a good weekend. 42572. Cellar Door - 9/22/2000 7:20:17 PM THE LIST 42573. Cellar Door - 9/22/2000 7:23:54 PM Herrschaft thought he recognized the man as Paulk, but didn't really 42574. Cellar Door - 9/22/2000 7:25:50 PM 42575. Cellar Door - 9/22/2000 7:27:39 PM And, were 42576. Cellar Door - 9/22/2000 7:29:06 PM 42577. jexster - 9/22/2000 7:55:59 PM Ciao Glenda...and don't forget to vote - early and often! 42578. concerned - 9/22/2000 9:08:36 PM Janet's Epiphany or 'Tired of Lefty Lies' Check out the bullshit that pissed her off: 42579. concerned - 9/22/2000 9:09:17 PM I won't bore you with too many details, just the ones that caused the problem to some on this board. When I was seventeen, at my father's insistence because of where I worked, I carried a small .32 caliber automatic in my purse. I was waylaid by two thugs one night and, there is no doubt in my mind, I would have been raped and killed but for the fact that I was carrying the gun. And I knew how to use it, again, thanks to my father. In telling the story, in response to a request, I related how one held me while the other one slit open my blouse and bra and then pinched my nipples so hard I wanted to scream but he had already warned me that if I made any noise he would cut my throat. I had to react and it was an automatic response, didn't even think about it, I hit him in the crotch, real hard with my right knee. He responded by punching me hard on the left eye/cheekbone, so hard that it knocked me loose from the one holding me and I fell to the ground. But that's what I needed. An opportunity to have both hands free so I could get at the gun, which I did, and came up shooting. I was nearly arrested because at seventeen without a permit I definitely was "illegal." So much for that. 42580. concerned - 9/22/2000 9:09:59 PM One of the answers contained the astounding statement, ". . . . Are you on the NRA payroll trying to soften "cold dead hands" with pretty bras and nipples?. . ." and "What a bunch of propaganda." It took another exchange before I understood what he/she was complaining about. The "cold dead hands" is the latest buzz word the anti-gun people are using to demonize Charlton Heston, the NRA and every person who objects to what they are doing. The person who posted that must be deathly afraid that someone will find a way to replace "cold dead hands" with "pretty bras and nipples" to send a message that every woman is in danger of rape, mutilation and death unless she is 42581. concerned - 9/22/2000 9:10:32 PM I started asking myself, "What good is an agenda that has to be built on lies?' and "If they have to resort to lies to get it done, what is their real agenda?" 42582. concerned - 9/22/2000 9:11:04 PM I checked on Newt Gingrich and his purported wanting "Medicare to wither on the vine." False. He never said it. I have a copy of the speech he made which contains the statement. But he wasn't talking about Medicare. He was talking about the Federal Health Care Administration and how it would "wither on the vine" once seniors had choices rather than being locked into the present system. 42583. concerned - 9/22/2000 9:11:45 PM We are now faced with the same situation in the current debate on Social Security. The plan to privatize offered by Bush is being demonized. I haven't seen the details of his plan, but I have seen the details of what happened with the Municipal Employees in Galveston, Texas. While it was still allowed for municipalities to do it, the city opted out of Social Security and went with a private plan. They deduct the same amount from wages as would Social Security. But in Galveston, If you have been a Municipal Employee earning an average of $25,000 a year and have reached retirement age, instead of the $500 to $800 per month you would get from Social Security you will be getting $2,500 to $4,000 depending on how long you worked. And when you die, whether it's before or after retirement, the money that's in there belongs to your estate, not the government. I want to see the numbers on the privatization. Let's see for ourselves who is lying. 42584. concerned - 9/22/2000 9:11:56 PM It just goes on and on and on, one lie on top of another. The Republicans have done their share. They are not Lilly white. I'm not sure that Bush will be a great President, a good President or even a decent President, but I haven't been able to find anyplace where he has lied to us. But I can't find anyplace where Gore has told the truth. 42585. Nostradamus - 9/22/2000 9:41:25 PM This election is as meaningless as most, another choice between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. Either candidate will be a palatable, if unmemorable, president. 42586. ranheim - 9/22/2000 9:42:59 PM I thoroughly enjoyed your rough ride, concerned. There are better hisorians in this Mote than I. But, I believe that the only SIGNIFICANT changes in the major parties of that day have occurred because a third party received such a large % of the vote, the one or both of the major parties became alarmed. FEAR!! That is the only thing that is going to change the basic beliefs of today's two major parties. 42587. jexster - 9/22/2000 9:45:07 PM Weekly MoronSpeak 42588. concerned - 9/22/2000 9:49:28 PM Re. 42585 - 42589. concerned - 9/22/2000 9:54:37 PM Re. 42587 - 42590. jexster - 9/22/2000 10:05:18 PM You ain't seen nothin yet TD 42591. jexster - 9/22/2000 10:07:13 PM No misquote TD, nothing subliminable here. Its just MoronSpeak...more MoronSpeak...on top of....more MoronSpeak 42592. Nostradamus - 9/22/2000 10:08:27 PM The only real example of fiscal restraint that I can think of in the last 8 years is when the Democratic congress killed the universal health plan in 1994. Spending is up everywhere, only, because of the economy, taxes are up even more. 42593. jexster - 9/22/2000 10:13:59 PM Now we know why NBC played patsy to Bush's lame, lame, lame & failed Great Debate Gotcha Ploy 42595. concerned - 9/22/2000 11:31:20 PM How do you like the latest 'in your face' hypocrisy from Occidental Boy? Even though he opposed releasing Strategic Petroleum Reserves during the gas price spike earlier this year, now that it's election season, this greasy li'l slime wants to score political points by dipping into them now, framing this as some type of dubious retaliation against 'big oil'. 42596. Al D - 9/22/2000 11:35:20 PM jexster 42597. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/22/2000 11:41:14 PM 42598. Al D - 9/22/2000 11:44:01 PM Listening to Nader is an interesting experience. Let's suppose on had no particular policical bent. How would he respond to hearing that MasterCard is our great enemy. I have a MC, use it quite often, pay it off every month, for the most part, and do not pay exorbinant interest. I realize when I use it, their is charge to the provider of the good or service, somewhere between 1.5-3%. Common sense tells be that the cost is passed on to me, and I accept that fact. Why should I see MC as an enemy of mine? 42599. concerned - 9/22/2000 11:57:44 PM I hear that they're working on a 'Socialism' drug in Sweden. It is supposed to destroy portions of the frontal lobes that are responsible for self actualization and rational thought in addition to enhancing tendencies toward gullibility and dependency. 42600. concerned - 9/23/2000 12:09:38 AM Elliott "Tony" Roosevelt Jr., grandson of former Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt, endorses both Bush's candidacy and Bush's Social Security plan, clearly because Bush is the better candidate with sounder ideas. 42601. concerned - 9/23/2000 12:17:05 AM Kathleen Willey kicking the WH Rapist's rotten ass in Court 42602. jonesatlaw - 9/23/2000 12:32:22 AM Concerned- You reporter is the liar, or an idiot. "Cop Killer" was a term applied to armor piercing ammunition, which does exist and has existed for over 75 years. There are still NRA morons who feel the need to insure that there is access to military weapons more suited to terrorists than sportsmen. There was also some suggestion that teflon coated bullets would be more effective against body armor. The NRA poo poo'd this as well. 42603. concerned - 9/23/2000 12:34:59 AM More big fat lies from Occidental Boy: 42604. jonesatlaw - 9/23/2000 12:46:12 AM But hey, don't take my work for it- how about a Congressional Report- Cop Killer Ammunition and Sniper Rifles 42605. Slackjaw - 9/23/2000 12:50:06 AM Oh yeah, on refining capacity for heating oil -- several people have claimed that releases of petroleum reserves can't have any effect on heating oil prices because refiners are already at capacity. 42606. jonesatlaw - 9/23/2000 12:52:47 AM But here's the lame ass NRA explanation- Use of the sensational term, "cop killer bullet," is dishonest and misleading. There has never been any bullet invented for the purpose of killing police officers. And, as the BATF reported to Congress in 1997, no law enforcement officer has ever been killed or even injured because an armor piercing bullet penetrated a bullet-resistant vest. 42607. joezan - 9/23/2000 12:55:07 AM 42608. jonesatlaw - 9/23/2000 1:00:39 AM joezan- Hey, the boys from Sinoloa are picking up a few .50 calibers just to make the DEA, ATF and BP boys think twice about fucking with their business. If the market price goes down a bit more on these things, then we'll need military units to do our more serious policing. You won't call SWAT, you'll call the Marines. 42609. joezan - 9/23/2000 1:04:51 AM 42610. jonesatlaw - 9/23/2000 2:39:09 AM The sniper rifles are a perfect example of how our firearms regulations have gone nuts. We ban the import of a few foreign military surplus and cheap semi-autos, fuss about 10 round clips etc, meanwhile apocolyptic paranoids stock up on weapons that fire a round designed to knock out light armoured vehicles and aircraft that has an effective range of more than a mile. Any moron who could put his hands on 5 grand could knock out a diplomatic or presidential motorcade or Marine One from thousands of yards away, regardless of the protection in a conventional armored limo. I am surprised nobody's taken out an armoured car with one. 42611. JudithAtHome - 9/23/2000 9:38:27 AM Sunday, NPR will air a 2 hour show called Debating Our Destiny: Forty Years of Debates. I saw a ten minute highlight clip of the show and it looked very good...Jim Lerher interviews most of the people involved and questions them on how it felt to win or lose the debates...Dukakis, Ford, Bush the Elder, Quayle, Clinton, etc. It should whet our appetites for the upcoming debates! 42612. jexster - 9/23/2000 10:31:15 AM Bush Campaign's Irresponsible Stewardship Echoes Great Texas Budget Bust 42613. jexster - 9/23/2000 10:38:45 AM "We've been caught in a Gore riptide," said GOP pollster John McLaughlin, who is working in a number of congressional races. "I felt like I'm pulling candidates out of the water into lifeboats. 42614. jexster - 9/23/2000 10:47:28 AM The audience included a single mother who said her solution to the rising cost of heating oil was to "wear sweat clothes" and a couple who said the rising cost of heating oil has eaten up all of the profits of their flower nursery this year. 42615. jexster - 9/23/2000 10:54:40 AM Why I just found them! 42616. ycmeehan - 9/23/2000 11:29:39 AM Message # 42588 42617. jexster - 9/23/2000 11:31:12 AM Al - 42618. jexster - 9/23/2000 11:34:03 AM Message # 42605 42619. jexster - 9/23/2000 11:38:38 AM Al- 42620. robertjayb - 9/23/2000 11:51:00 AM . 42621. jexster - 9/23/2000 11:52:28 AM Til December...then I might take econometrics but have to take calculus again I think....been too long, way toooooooooooo long since I did 42622. jexster - 9/23/2000 12:04:58 PM "PsychProf" - apolgies for the transposition, I'm becoming subliminably impaired from too much George W. exposure 42623. jexster - 9/23/2000 12:05:56 PM apolgies = apologies 42624. jexster - 9/23/2000 12:09:44 PM Al 42625. RosettaStone - 9/23/2000 12:42:28 PM But Clinton was the first president to be serviced by a homosexual-rights activist. And poor Sid Vicious got colon cancer out of the experience. 42626. Cellar Door - 9/23/2000 12:53:08 PM What new delusions have seeped into your addled brain, Rosie? 42627. JudithAtHome - 9/23/2000 12:58:09 PM Little early to be hitting the elderberry wine, Rose.... 42628. RosettaStone - 9/23/2000 1:20:02 PM I can't help it if you don't read the newspapers, Cellar. 42629. JudithAtHome - 9/23/2000 1:24:06 PM Now he's blaming Clinton for causing cancer....better call the Special Prosecutors office, Rose; they have more time now that they've shelved the Whitewater farce. I'm sure they'd like to know just when Clinton caused this cancer and if he had help.... 42630. Jack Vincennes - 9/23/2000 1:32:18 PM In one day's newspaper: 42631. robertjayb - 9/23/2000 1:37:50 PM . 42632. CalGal - 9/23/2000 1:41:02 PM They aren't monkeys, they're koalas. The equestrian team brought them home after the Olympics. 42633. JudithAtHome - 9/23/2000 1:41:35 PM Clearly this guy was educated in Texas.... 42634. Jack Vincennes - 9/23/2000 1:42:55 PM I always liked Carl Rowan, especially after he shot a kid who was swimming in his pool. 42635. CalGal - 9/23/2000 1:48:54 PM Yeah, I can tell how fond you were of him. I always thought he was a profound hypocrite, even before that happened. 42636. Jack Vincennes - 9/23/2000 1:51:46 PM It's a legacy to shoot a pool hopper. 42637. Orca - 9/23/2000 1:54:18 PM Jack: 42638. robertjayb - 9/23/2000 2:03:03 PM Ooops! 42639. Jack Vincennes - 9/23/2000 2:08:12 PM Orca 42640. Cellar Door - 9/23/2000 2:10:02 PM In one day's newspaper: 42641. Jack Vincennes - 9/23/2000 2:10:26 PM I have not checked out Drudge. 42642. Cellar Door - 9/23/2000 2:14:00 PM The Republicans still think Chuck Norris and Tina Louise are celebrities. 42643. CalGal - 9/23/2000 2:14:25 PM I don't know that success is the new barometer of character. I just think that no one cares as much about character anymore. 42644. Cellar Door - 9/23/2000 2:16:30 PM "Character" is Mediaspeak for Sex. 42645. Jack Vincennes - 9/23/2000 2:19:50 PM The m.o. is tediously familiar in these times. 42646. Jack Vincennes - 9/23/2000 2:21:12 PM So, rape a nun, but hold approval at 50% or higher, and raping a nun is A-OK. 42647. CalGal - 9/23/2000 2:22:05 PM Jack, 42648. CalGal - 9/23/2000 2:23:02 PM Hey--nunraping was my hypothetical. Yours was the llama. 42649. JudithAtHome - 9/23/2000 2:23:44 PM Well, Jack, if Bush gets in just think how handy your little scenario will be when they start "charging" him.... 42650. Slackjaw - 9/23/2000 2:24:43 PM Jexster Message # 42621, you shouldn't need a calculus course for basic metrics for policy wonks. Even if you derive the OLS estimator from scratch it's a simple procedure requiring one derivative. Most of the class will be geared toward explaining the assumptions and content of the Gauss-Markov theorem and ways of dealing with failure of those assumptions, like collinearity, autocorrelation, and heteroskedasticity. Then maybe dummy variables, systems of equations, and in the week left over, logit and probit. Sadly, no mention of Tobit, a very cool method that I would guess is very relevant for applied public policy analysis...how can your model deal with censoring and selection bias? 42651. Jack Vincennes - 9/23/2000 2:27:59 PM Juditha 42652. Cellar Door - 9/23/2000 2:28:02 PM "Nun Rapes Llama -- Film at 11." 42653. CalGal - 9/23/2000 2:29:53 PM Jack, 42654. Orca - 9/23/2000 2:32:27 PM Jack: 42655. Jack Vincennes - 9/23/2000 2:32:47 PM A fair example on the third paragraph on my earlier post - the press. 42656. jexster - 9/23/2000 2:34:48 PM Just returned from the opening of the Gore/Lieberman CA Victory 2000 office in SF where State Democratic Chairman Art Torres announced that the following poll results will appear shortly: 42657. Jack Vincennes - 9/23/2000 2:37:58 PM Orca 42658. CalGal - 9/23/2000 2:40:36 PM Jack, 42659. Jack Vincennes - 9/23/2000 2:41:40 PM Cal 42660. robertjayb - 9/23/2000 2:41:47 PM . 42661. jexster - 9/23/2000 2:41:53 PM Slack - 42662. jexster - 9/23/2000 2:42:50 PM Almost forgot, according to Torres, Gore +13 in CA 42663. Jack Vincennes - 9/23/2000 2:44:17 PM That seems rather low, +13. 42664. jexster - 9/23/2000 2:47:17 PM Considering NY up 25, I'd say we've some work to do. 42665. CalGal - 9/23/2000 2:47:28 PM Jack, 42666. jexster - 9/23/2000 2:49:54 PM The Hillary lead over Lazio (+9) explains the increased stridency of the Light One since the debate... 42667. Orca - 9/23/2000 2:50:31 PM Jack: Glad those pigeonholes come in so handy. Enjoy yourself. 42668. jexster - 9/23/2000 2:57:01 PM A chuckle 42669. jexster - 9/23/2000 4:28:02 PM Art Torres Was Right - Chicago Trib 42670. JJBiener - 9/23/2000 5:58:56 PM Orca - We've had eight years of this nonsense. Whitewater. Filegate. Vince Foster. Mena. Los Alamos. Chinagate. The Buddhist Temple. And none of them has proven to have any there there. 42671. ranheim - 9/23/2000 6:20:13 PM It is time for us to re-evaluate the 17th Amendment (ratified on 8April1913). This was the amendment that caused Senators to be elected by popular vote; as are the President and members of the House of Representatives. 42672. ranheim - 9/23/2000 6:38:57 PM I see nothing wrong with "smoke filled rooms". It would help keep some of the "self-appointed" candidates (Huffington; Corzine; Clinton) from running. The men coming out of these rooms were not always great choices; after all Warren G. Harding emerged from such a room in Ohio. But, in general, the men (very few women prior to 1913) in the smoke filled rooms - be they Demnocratic or Republican - did not want to embarrass their party. Therefore, a high % of the candidates that emerged in this former era were considered "solid". The past history of all the men in these rooms - both politically and personally - was known to their peers. Thus, a moral leper like Clinton would have been eliminated. 42673. Jack Vincennes - 9/23/2000 6:42:16 PM ranheim 42674. Jack Vincennes - 9/23/2000 6:44:49 PM ranheim 42675. RosettaStone - 9/23/2000 6:47:35 PM It turns out that Matt Drudge was correct once again. 42676. CalGal - 9/23/2000 6:47:42 PM Besides, all that money would go somewhere. 42677. RosettaStone - 9/23/2000 6:49:54 PM add--campaign headquarters in Texas 42678. robertjayb - 9/23/2000 6:55:45 PM . 42679. RosettaStone - 9/23/2000 6:59:17 PM Only 2%? 42680. ranheim - 9/23/2000 7:00:10 PM #42674 42681. CalGal - 9/23/2000 7:01:47 PM That movie about Flint Michigan, called Roger & Me, was a long time before NAFTA. 42682. Nostradamus - 9/23/2000 7:08:33 PM Hey, quit trashing Mexico. America has done pretty well in the bargain. After all we got Texas and California and ... hey, you're right, those damn Mexicans fucked us again! 42683. ranheim - 9/23/2000 7:15:57 PM Cal 42684. CalGal - 9/23/2000 7:18:45 PM Oh, okay. It might have been his TV show, then. 42685. jonesatlaw - 9/23/2000 8:55:29 PM What was scandalous once (remember the days of "the appearence of impropriety") is scandalous no longer. The higher bar went by the wayside shortly after the promises for the most ethical administration in history and the wholesale exploitation of everyone from the President's Secret Service detail to his cabinet members to his personal secretary, all in the aim of keeping a tryst with a chunky cheerleader quiet. 42686. Nostradamus - 9/23/2000 8:59:58 PM Well put, Jones. Is it yours? 42687. Slackjaw - 9/23/2000 9:13:44 PM There is no way NAFTA has caused that much job loss in Flint. We don't trade enough with Mexico for that. 42688. Slackjaw - 9/23/2000 9:14:47 PM Wasn't NAFTA approved in 1993? That's after Roger & Me by a couple years. 42689. jonesatlaw - 9/23/2000 9:34:45 PM But Jack will be back with more crying about how this is just "everybody does it." 42690. jonesatlaw - 9/23/2000 9:36:34 PM The bitter distilation of the last eight years of accusations is that Clinton is a bad husband, and a bad lawyer. Yes there were 14 convictions in whitewater, but none were against Clinton or his wife, which was the whole reason for the inquiry. Perhaps if there were a similar inquiry into Silverado savings and loan, as ruthless and abusive as Starr's, there'd be 14 convictions surrounding a Bush baby. What would the GOP folk amoungst us think if that was all that $52 million dollars and 6 years produced? 42691. jonesatlaw - 9/23/2000 9:42:22 PM Before the GOP apology chorus starts up- 42692. CalGal - 9/23/2000 9:44:14 PM Slack, 42693. Al D - 9/23/2000 10:14:41 PM Let's face it, Clinton is St. William to liberals like Jonesatlaw, who will pop up at every opportunity to defend him. Is getting a blow job in the Oval Office any good man's idea of an affair? Oh, perhaps Jones has knowledge of some affair Willy had but not with Monica. Look, the asshole has 4 more months to go and I say good riddance to bad rubbish. For goodness sake, Gore is doing everything he can to distance himself from the bloke. Why don't his supporters do the same? 42694. Al D - 9/23/2000 10:22:36 PM One interesting thing about the Nader rally. He went on at length talking about how the Mississippi river starts with one drop of water in Montana. Since he was in Minnasota, that got quite a response. I think Lewis and Clark might have thought they were on the Missouri when they made their journey, so I suspect Nader had his rivers mixed up. Does this say anything about Nader's intelligence? Well, perhaps jexster can add it to his political armor in case Nader gets strong in Calif. and threatens to take votes from Gore. 42695. jexster - 9/23/2000 10:36:22 PM Thanks for the tip Al. I avoided the Nader rally at SFSU. All the little boy and girl radicals - puhleeze. We were real revolutionaries!!!! 42696. jexster - 9/23/2000 10:37:52 PM Right now I am more worried about my Giants who've dropped 2 to the Snakes since clinching on Thursday than I am about Ralph Nader. 42697. RosettaStone - 9/23/2000 10:47:45 PM Lick those envelopes for Algore, intern Jexster. (g) 42698. Al D - 9/23/2000 10:52:43 PM jexster 42699. robertjayb - 9/23/2000 10:59:04 PM . 42700. jonesatlaw - 9/23/2000 11:36:48 PM Al- I don't think that Clinton is St. William by any means. As I said above-his behavior is in my view, sinful. He has admitted his offense to his wife and his offense to us in misleading the public about Monica. He has asked for forgiveness. Whether its granted or not, his response to his sin is preferable to that of his persecutors. They are not through misleading the public, nor have they have admitted let alone apologized for their misrepresentations. 42701. ee - 9/23/2000 11:49:54 PM Al D: Which half? 42702. jexster - 9/24/2000 12:07:50 AM Yea thanks Rose, I really stepped into a pile of Gore dog poo-poo. At least Da Mayor knows my name now. 42703. jexster - 9/24/2000 12:11:25 AM Rose - 42704. jexster - 9/24/2000 12:13:03 AM Al - 42705. jexster - 9/24/2000 12:16:04 AM Robert - 42706. JJBiener - 9/24/2000 1:52:51 AM Jones - Yes, we know that the reports say that they can PROVE that Clinton is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but you know he's guilty anyway. He was just clever enough to stonewall, to hide the evidence to get people to lie for him. 42707. JJBiener - 9/24/2000 1:58:06 AM Jones - I'm sure you would have been very helpful in Stalin's purges. 42708. JJBiener - 9/24/2000 1:59:16 AM Jex - Looks like Prof Krugman gives Jexster an "A". 42709. jexster - 9/24/2000 2:15:15 AM I'll take an A from an MIT prof anyday, JJ. I realize my efforts wouldn't measure up to the Kansas Kreationist Kurriculum but what the hey..... 42710. jexster - 9/24/2000 2:24:23 AM Attention Republicans! Coming to Landover Baptist, America's Favorite Church - Unsaved Unwelcome 42711. jexster - 9/24/2000 2:24:46 AM 42712. jexster - 9/24/2000 2:29:22 AM True Christians know that the Devil's Birthday is no joke," Pastor Deacon Fred said. "We have had it with Satan! We have had it with his Clinton/Gore army of demons trying to ruin the world with their liberal media! I gotta tell you folks, Halloween will never be the same! Our kids are not playing games anymore! This October 31st, Freehold Iowa better prepare to get spooked by the Holy Ghost!" 42713. JJBiener - 9/24/2000 2:43:27 AM Jex - I realize my efforts wouldn't measure up to the Kansas Kreationist Kurriculum but what the hey.... 42714. jonesatlaw - 9/24/2000 3:34:53 AM JJ- Yes I am familiar with the standard of the criminal law, beyond a reasonable doubt. I'll let you in on a little secret between judges and attorneys- it's often bullshit. We convict people where the evidence can lead reasonable people to two possible outcomes every day. When the stakes are higher and famous or wealthy people are involved, its closer to the truth. 42715. RosettaStone - 9/24/2000 9:24:02 AM According to my twins who just ran into the study with the information, new Nickelodeon poll of twelve children on its news insert program shows 7 kids for Bush, 4 for Gore, 1 undecided. 42716. JudithAtHome - 9/24/2000 10:53:33 AM Luckily, they will have time to come to their senses before they are old enough to vote. They like Bush because his intellect is closest to their own... 42717. jexster - 9/24/2000 11:00:27 AM Despite a significant amount of advertising, frequent trips through the state and nearly $10 million in campaign contributions from Californians, Texas Gov. George W. Bush has slipped even further behind Vice President Al Gore among voters here, an Examiner/ KTVU poll shows. 42718. ycmeehan - 9/24/2000 11:16:58 AM Judith, 42719. JudithAtHome - 9/24/2000 11:18:50 AM Thanks! 42720. RosettaStone - 9/24/2000 11:24:23 AM Pathetic 42721. ycmeehan - 9/24/2000 11:27:46 AM Each time I laugh out loud at the computer, my husband asks: C'est encore Judith, non? 42722. ycmeehan - 9/24/2000 11:38:04 AM Rosetta, 42723. RosettaStone - 9/24/2000 11:48:47 AM Glad you asked. 42724. ycmeehan - 9/24/2000 11:59:18 AM Are you saying that you're catholic? 42725. rubberducky - 9/24/2000 12:02:33 PM jexster: 42726. RosettaStone - 9/24/2000 12:30:39 PM Not just Catholic, yc, but ROMAN Catholic. 42727. JudithAtHome - 9/24/2000 12:33:10 PM ducks: 42728. Nostradamus - 9/24/2000 12:38:37 PM Of course they're enthusiastic. 42729. robertjayb - 9/24/2000 12:39:25 PM . 42730. RosettaStone - 9/24/2000 12:45:44 PM Really? 42731. rubberducky - 9/24/2000 12:48:41 PM Re: Message # 42727, JudithAtHome. 42732. RosettaStone - 9/24/2000 12:52:58 PM Religious satire? How's this one? 42733. rubberducky - 9/24/2000 12:56:09 PM How's this one? 42734. JudithAtHome - 9/24/2000 12:56:44 PM Rosetta: 42735. ycmeehan - 9/24/2000 1:05:40 PM Rosetta, 42736. RosettaStone - 9/24/2000 1:36:34 PM How ridiculous, yc. Why didn't you tell me to go straight to Religion? 42737. JudithAtHome - 9/24/2000 1:40:51 PM ...because she knows who she's dealing with? 42738. ycmeehan - 9/24/2000 2:00:28 PM Judith, 42739. ycmeehan - 9/24/2000 2:31:52 PM Jexster: Guess who is the major fibber in this election? 42740. PelleNilsson - 9/24/2000 3:07:30 PM ycmeehan 42741. jonesatlaw - 9/24/2000 3:12:59 PM If you want to speak of major fibbers- I have a few for you. Apparently the case against Wen Ho Lee fell apart because of some major screw ups by the FBI and Justice. 42742. dusty - 9/24/2000 4:44:27 PM robertjayb 42743. ycmeehan - 9/24/2000 4:56:10 PM I haven't followed the Lee case carefully. However, I would agree that certainly memory vestiges of the Big Red China scare had much to do with the behavior of all involved in the Lee case. Only the fear of precipitating a major scandal in a presidential election year and be found wrong again kept the Republicans quiet, I think. 42744. CalGal - 9/24/2000 4:58:11 PM YC, 42745. dusty - 9/24/2000 5:12:10 PM ycmeehan 42746. dusty - 9/24/2000 5:15:19 PM CalGal 42747. RosettaStone - 9/24/2000 5:20:58 PM dusty: Please file that post in Krugman's thread in the NYTimes Op Ed online folder. I know for a fact that he has one of his former MIT interns read the complete thread--and often replies via e-mail. 42748. RosettaStone - 9/24/2000 5:22:39 PM Bad timing. No not that one, silly. That one. 42749. Cellar Door - 9/24/2000 5:31:10 PM Don't worry, Dusty. Pravda (aka. the NYT) is in Dubbya's pocket. 42750. Cellar Door - 9/24/2000 5:33:35 PM Of course far be it from Krugman (can't trust those Jews, can ya?), much less a half-Rat like me, to criticize the Sainted Dubbya, who we all know is Perfect and Without Sin. 42751. Al D - 9/24/2000 5:39:53 PM Don't we all know by now that Americans don't care about lies, and it doesn't matter if a man is unfaithful to his wike and insists on 60 minutes that he has never cheated on hi wife. And polls only matter and should be shouted out when Democrats are ahead. And it is only important when Republicans make errors. 42752. Al D - 9/24/2000 5:40:36 PM feel free to make a big deal out of all my spelling errors. 42753. CalGal - 9/24/2000 5:41:59 PM Dusty, 42754. ycmeehan - 9/24/2000 5:48:08 PM Dusty, 42755. JudithAtHome - 9/24/2000 5:50:07 PM YC: 42756. dusty - 9/24/2000 5:50:23 PM RosettaStone 42757. dusty - 9/24/2000 5:54:49 PM CalGal 42758. dusty - 9/24/2000 5:58:46 PM ycmeehan 42759. Al D - 9/24/2000 6:00:43 PM Judith 42760. CalGal - 9/24/2000 6:02:59 PM They don't want anything for their money, dusty. Sorry, but most of them aren't thinking "Gosh, if I give money to so and so I'll be a hotshot." 42761. JudithAtHome - 9/24/2000 6:04:59 PM Al D: 42762. dusty - 9/24/2000 6:11:42 PM CalGal 42763. ycmeehan - 9/24/2000 6:15:08 PM I would prefer his brain on the button, Judith. 42764. CalGal - 9/24/2000 6:16:32 PM Dusty, 42765. stostosto - 9/24/2000 6:47:33 PM 42766. dusty - 9/24/2000 6:53:16 PM CalGal 42767. CalGal - 9/24/2000 6:53:55 PM I don't think he's slipping. Bush is gaining; he got a bit more focused. 42768. dusty - 9/24/2000 6:55:13 PM stostosto 42769. CalGal - 9/24/2000 6:59:09 PM Actually, you went on to argue that equating what Hollywood donors get for their money with what corporations get for their money would be silly. I agree. But I didn't make the comparison. 42770. stostosto - 9/24/2000 6:59:51 PM 42771. dusty - 9/24/2000 7:06:03 PM CalGal 42772. Cellar Door - 9/24/2000 7:13:24 PM As we all know, Hollywood liberals control our precious oil reserves. 42773. CalGal - 9/24/2000 7:17:25 PM Sto, 42774. CalGal - 9/24/2000 7:18:56 PM Dusty, 42775. stostosto - 9/24/2000 7:23:21 PM 42776. CalGal - 9/24/2000 7:25:58 PM Yes, that's it exactly. The fact that Gore was so far ahead was in good part due to Bush fumbling badly. It has never been expected to be other than a close race. Still, I think the basic perception at this point from analysts and pundits is that the race is Gore's to lose. 42777. stostosto - 9/24/2000 7:33:49 PM 42778. ycmeehan - 9/24/2000 7:36:36 PM Thanks for the links, Cal 42779. ranheim - 9/24/2000 7:38:39 PM I thought some of you would be interested in the following. The information is current to July, 2000. 42780. stostosto - 9/24/2000 7:50:23 PM 42781. Al D - 9/24/2000 8:35:21 PM ranheim 42782. jonesatlaw - 9/24/2000 9:21:24 PM Ranheim- I would be interested to compare that with a randomly selected group of people who match Congress' demographics. It would tell us something about the political animal. 42783. Al D - 9/24/2000 9:46:26 PM Jonesatlaw 42784. jonesatlaw - 9/24/2000 10:49:20 PM Al, I would imagine that the number of arrests would be far lower for the Congresses of the 50's, and probably the 30's. I don't think that the behavior of the Congressmen was that much better with respect to "private vices" of the day. Drinking, whoring, gambling wife beating etc, along with comfy relationships with criminals probably were as high in the 30's as now. This is of course a SWAG based on my reading, as I don't remember the 50's and wasn't around for the 30's. 42785. concerned - 9/25/2000 1:04:46 AM Wrt 'bankrupting businesses', would failed entrepreneurial endeavors be included in that number? 42786. concerned - 9/25/2000 1:12:38 AM George W. Bush's SAT scores were in the top decile, nothing to sneeze at. Much worse, comparatively speaking, is Alphalfa Bore's educational record when compared to Bush's. 42787. concerned - 9/25/2000 1:15:06 AM Did somebody say that Pinocchio Bore is a liar? 42788. msgreer - 9/25/2000 7:30:55 AM GW goes on Oprah and suddenly his poll numbers increase with women. 42789. bubbaette - 9/25/2000 7:46:54 AM Anybody catch the debate between Chuck Robb and George Allen last night? 42790. bubbaette - 9/25/2000 8:11:37 AM I'm not the most objective observer because I hate George Allen with a passion. But I think that George started out as the most articulate with Chuck Robb losing his train of thought a few times. But this was far outweighed by the unpleasantness of George Allen's smirk and the way he was caught prevaricating several times throughout the debate. He was actually boo-ed by the audience for the way he kept trying to dance around instead of answering a direct question about his postion on 1st trimester abortions. I think he also lost points on his $1000 per kid eduction tax credit (at least with childless voters like me.) 42791. stostosto - 9/25/2000 8:24:34 AM 42792. stostosto - 9/25/2000 8:25:16 AM 42793. Wombat - 9/25/2000 8:25:26 AM Sto: 42794. Dusty - 9/25/2000 8:33:02 AM stostosto 42795. bubbaette - 9/25/2000 8:34:25 AM Sto 42796. stostosto - 9/25/2000 8:57:46 AM 42797. stostosto - 9/25/2000 9:01:06 AM 42798. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 9:05:19 AM Bubb 42799. RosettaStone - 9/25/2000 9:10:21 AM Someone should have given Senator Chuck Robb one of those infamous Monica massages that Miss Virginia used to do for LBJ's son-in-law---to get him primed. 42800. stostosto - 9/25/2000 9:15:36 AM 42801. Wombat - 9/25/2000 9:26:14 AM Sto: 42802. stostosto - 9/25/2000 9:28:57 AM 42803. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 9:34:37 AM jones says 42804. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 9:35:56 AM jones says: 42805. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 9:36:52 AM As for what is true, as I don't have your zealot's faith, in the matters that have not been the subject of investigation, I can't say. I honestly don't know what happened with Mrs. Willey or Mrs. Broaddrick. Of course, I don't have any stake in the accused, so I can remain fair-minded. 42806. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 9:37:47 AM jones says 42807. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 9:38:14 AM jones says 42808. DaveM - 9/25/2000 9:42:08 AM Hey Jack. Glad to see that you can still scandal-monger with the best of 'em. Hope things are well for you - they are kind of busy on this end. 42809. Wombat - 9/25/2000 9:59:50 AM Jack: 42810. jonesatlaw - 9/25/2000 10:11:22 AM So the jist of it Jack, is that nothing was unusual about the serial investigations of Clinton that produced nothing but Monica. All of it was justified because Clinton got a blow job and evaded questions about it in a deposition. If your experience is that sanctions are handed out every time a witness evades the truth, and reaches for a legal distinction to justify it, I want to practice where you live. Sanctions are rare where I practice, especially in matters involving peoples sex lives. 42811. stostosto - 9/25/2000 10:16:26 AM 42812. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 10:16:36 AM Ranheim: "This information is from a source I trust in Phoenix; I will not name him." 42813. jonesatlaw - 9/25/2000 10:17:57 AM Clinton's real misfortune is that the judge blew it and didn't dismiss Paula Jones earlier. There was little justification for it under the law, if any. 42814. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 10:19:10 AM jones 42815. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 10:21:43 AM jones 42816. Wombat - 9/25/2000 10:27:43 AM Jack: 42817. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 10:33:07 AM Wombat 42818. Dusty - 9/25/2000 10:54:21 AM stostosto 42819. Dusty - 9/25/2000 10:59:16 AM stostosto 42820. bubbaette - 9/25/2000 11:14:13 AM But Jack, you didn't tell me whether George lost your vote by referring to his daughter in discussions about education. Also, are you impressed that he knows his daughter's name? 42821. stostosto - 9/25/2000 11:19:22 AM 42822. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 11:27:22 AM bubber 42823. Dusty - 9/25/2000 11:31:09 AM stostosto 42824. bubbaette - 9/25/2000 11:34:24 AM I've never been a fan of Chuck Robb as I've always thought of him as kind of plastic, but I'd vote for a yeller dog before I'd vote for George Allen. 42825. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 11:38:34 AM Bubber 42826. Ronski - 9/25/2000 11:46:58 AM Wisconsin Journal State Poll: Gore 43%, Bush 38% (scroll down) 42827. bubbaette - 9/25/2000 11:48:06 AM I think that as Governor, Robb did neglect some of the transportation issues in NOVA that might have been headed off a little better if he'd been more pro-active. I believe that at the time, the rural members of the legislature held sway, so he might not have been able to do as much. I also blame Robb for starting the politicization of the state workforce that Allen carried to extremes. 42828. Ronski - 9/25/2000 11:48:48 AM 42829. Orca - 9/25/2000 11:49:02 AM Jack sez: So, strip away your feint, and the Clinton administration has been investigated for possible violations of law in a matter involving the release of FBI files, the firing of the White House travel office staff, land deals and S&L irregularities in Arkansas, and potential perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. 42830. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/25/2000 11:50:54 AM 42831. robertjayb - 9/25/2000 11:54:19 AM . 42832. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 11:54:25 AM Orca 42833. Dusty - 9/25/2000 11:58:51 AM TheWizardOfWhimsy 42834. Orca - 9/25/2000 12:04:24 PM Jack: Hm. And here I thought you were a smart Washington lawyer who knows how things get done in D.C. Yah, shooor! You bet those investigations all originated with Janet Reno, and were entirely her doing, and had nothing to do with the pressure applied by the likes of Burton, Bossie, Klayman, Goldberg, et. al. Uh-huh. 42835. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 12:05:36 PM Orca - We'll have to remember this the next time there is a GOP president. 42836. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 12:09:31 PM Orca - Do you believe that Reno and the Justice Department would spend millions investigating accusations with no evidence whatsoever? If so I have a bridge you might be interested. 42837. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 12:12:36 PM Orca 42838. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 12:16:14 PM JJ 42839. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/25/2000 12:19:33 PM Dusty - This, the man of "character and moral superiority who will bring dignity back to the WH?" 42840. Orca - 9/25/2000 12:21:41 PM Jack: I see. If an established fact -- such as the participation of the above-named people in the origination of all these groundless scandals -- fails to fit your neat little GOP model of the universe, it is deemed merely another black helicopter sighting. 42841. Orca - 9/25/2000 12:22:43 PM OTOH, it's certainly not surprising. 42842. Dusty - 9/25/2000 12:23:49 PM What is this obsession that liberals have with black helicopters? 42843. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 12:27:13 PM Orca 42844. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 12:27:54 PM Jack - If Orca believes it, then he has to believe that Clinton has allowed rank incompetence to flourish in the DOJ. Not exactly the kind of thing great legacies are made of. 42845. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 12:29:00 PM Orca 42846. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/25/2000 12:30:23 PM What is this obsession conservatives have with Clinton's penis and moral superiority . . . and guns -- you can never have enough guns? 42847. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 12:31:35 PM Wiz 42848. bubbaette - 9/25/2000 12:33:36 PM Jones at law or jones, Ind.? Either way, good luck electing a president who's not a sinner. The process is such that you have to be somewhat craven to go through it. 42849. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 12:37:04 PM Orca - Why would Reno and the DOJ even investigate if there was absolutely no evidence? Do you believe they are so incompetent that they would chase any politically motivated accusation? Is Clinton so incompetent as President that he would protect Reno and the DOJ for 8 years and never try to fix the problem? The only possible scenarios are that there really was some evidence or Clinton is incompetent. Which do you believe? 42850. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 12:37:58 PM bubber 42851. rubberducky - 9/25/2000 12:41:04 PM i'm surprised there's been no discussion about the Hillary / White House stays in the news recently. i did something odd yesterday, watched one of the talking head shows. i came away from that with 2 conclusions 42852. Orca - 9/25/2000 12:43:55 PM Jack: I've established intellectual superiority over you. 42853. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 12:44:00 PM ducky 42854. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 12:44:31 PM Orca 42855. Orca - 9/25/2000 12:44:50 PM Or is it just the JJ Biener School of Pathetic False Bravado? 42856. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 12:46:41 PM The insistence of some Democrats that "insufficient evidence" equates to "no evidence" reminds me of a joke. 42857. rubberducky - 9/25/2000 12:47:00 PM of course, Jack 42858. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/25/2000 12:47:17 PM Jack -- Lots of insight I thought too. Being the visual junkie I am, I found it fascinating to see what time has done tthem also. Clinton's eyes are becoming like FDR's and my mind went straight to FDR's womanizing and wondering about reincarnation. I couldn't help but like all of them for their humanity. 42859. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/25/2000 12:47:58 PM tt = to 42860. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 12:49:05 PM Orca - LOL! I assure you my bravado is quite genuine. 42861. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 12:51:35 PM Wiz 42862. CalGal - 9/25/2000 12:53:58 PM I don't see why it should be so troubling, myself. Tacky, but not particularly troubling. 42863. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/25/2000 12:56:00 PM Time is the great leveler of us all, Jack! 42864. CalGal - 9/25/2000 12:56:27 PM Wiz, 42865. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/25/2000 1:00:03 PM Cal- It was a Jim Lerher production and it was on only one of our local PBS affiliates, so I think it should be on again. 42866. Orca - 9/25/2000 1:02:48 PM Jack: At any rate, it seems you want us to have a "mature" discussion. Fine. I couldn't agree more. In fact, that was my own suggestion back at the beginning. 42867. CalGal - 9/25/2000 1:03:03 PM I'll check it out. Thanks for the tip. 42868. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 1:17:03 PM Orca 42869. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 1:17:31 PM Wiz & Jack: 42870. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 1:19:59 PM Juditha 42871. rubberducky - 9/25/2000 1:24:05 PM 42872. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 1:30:49 PM Name a few.... 42873. rubberducky - 9/25/2000 1:34:11 PM worse than Bush Sr? 42874. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 1:36:20 PM Nixon and Carter come to mind immediately. 42875. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/25/2000 1:37:22 PM J@H, JV- 42876. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 1:38:27 PM Bush Sr was the essence of a mediocre, forgettable president. He did little harm, but little good. 42877. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 1:42:00 PM Wiz 42878. Cygnus X-1 - 9/25/2000 1:43:02 PM Another story for the national media to ignore. This even contradicts the author of the original story who, without any evidence, claimed Al Gore's larger point was true. I weep for our decadence. 42879. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/25/2000 1:47:22 PM For me, the scariest thing about this show was just how much happenstance plays a role in this nebulous and ephemeral pursuit of power that can effeci all of our realities so heavily at times. 42880. CalGal - 9/25/2000 1:48:52 PM Bush Sr. could arguable be considered the most qualified president in history. 42881. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/25/2000 1:49:08 PM effect! 42882. Thoughtful - 9/25/2000 1:53:01 PM It's a done deal...gore is going to win by a landslide -- I held a straw vote today in the office -- heart of corporate america -- heart of conservative country -- all voting were top income earners; and gore won with more than twice the votes of bush. 42883. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 1:55:05 PM Cal 42884. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 1:55:57 PM Thoughtful 42885. Thoughtful - 9/25/2000 1:56:06 PM Rask, I agree that 100 yrs from now Bush Sr. will not be listed as a top president, but fortunately, we don't have to go back that far -- we only have to remember back to '88-92 for this election. 42886. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/25/2000 2:02:40 PM Jack- You make preposterous leaps I can't agree with, but I think you're right about Dole. 42887. Don S. - 9/25/2000 2:02:47 PM rubberducky7: "Cheney is a pretty bright guy and very politically earnest. not an ounce of personability, however." 42888. Dusty - 9/25/2000 2:02:50 PM TheWizardOfWhimsy 42889. CalGal - 9/25/2000 2:04:49 PM Jack, 42890. Don S. - 9/25/2000 2:06:39 PM Cygnus X-1: "Another story [Gore's pet vs. people medicine gaffe] for the national media to ignore. ... I weep for our decadence." 42891. rubberducky - 9/25/2000 2:07:02 PM hey, Don, i like my new word 42892. Wombat - 9/25/2000 2:07:16 PM Cygnus: 42893. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/25/2000 2:07:18 PM Dusty- LOL! [...as long as I'm not an effeci snob!] 42894. Don S. - 9/25/2000 2:08:22 PM Nixon was never gov. of Calif. "Won't have him to kick around anymore" came after he lost his bid. 42895. Wombat - 9/25/2000 2:08:51 PM A "Liberal" one too. 42896. Wombat - 9/25/2000 2:09:35 PM Referring to Don S.'s post about Doggiegate. 42897. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 2:09:41 PM Wiz 42898. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 2:10:31 PM He was also U.N. ambassador. 42899. CalGal - 9/25/2000 2:11:13 PM Oh, lord, that's right about Nixon. You know, that is the second time I've made that mistake, too. Something filed away wrong. 42900. Don S. - 9/25/2000 2:11:54 PM Perhaps a reboot is in order. 42901. CalGal - 9/25/2000 2:16:09 PM Okay, without Nixon, I agree that Bush has the best resume of existing Presidents. But I disagree that his time in the RNC counts all that much as experience. 42902. CalGal - 9/25/2000 2:17:07 PM Don, 42903. Cellar Door - 9/25/2000 2:20:04 PM "Bush Sr. could arguable be considered the most qualified president in history." 42904. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 2:27:04 PM Cal 42905. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 2:28:00 PM Cellar 42906. Don S. - 9/25/2000 2:30:48 PM I'm still reeling from the insult that I would ever post an insult. 42907. Dusty - 9/25/2000 2:32:16 PM Jack Vincennes 42908. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 2:33:45 PM Dusty 42909. CalGal - 9/25/2000 2:34:20 PM Jack, 42910. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 2:36:54 PM Cal 42911. Dusty - 9/25/2000 2:38:30 PM From This site: 42912. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 2:39:20 PM dusty 42913. Dusty - 9/25/2000 2:40:32 PM 'tis easy to do. 42914. alistairconnor - 9/25/2000 2:43:50 PM It's always mind-blowing to read how little you people know, or remember, about America's "foreign policy"... The USA's surealistic (or quixotic?) non-recognition of China was one of the 20th century's longest running gags. 42915. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 2:44:52 PM alistair 42916. CalGal - 9/25/2000 2:45:39 PM But it seems less so when you first discount the value of heading a party organization, and later, even less so, when you discount the value of foreign diplomatic experience. 42917. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 2:46:33 PM Cal 42918. alistairconnor - 9/25/2000 2:48:13 PM Jack, 42919. Thoughtful - 9/25/2000 2:48:15 PM If there's such a strong sentiment that the govt needs gridlock to prevent doing too much damage, why don't we take it one step further and require all Congressmen to be part timers? 42920. alistairconnor - 9/25/2000 2:49:27 PM that's why 42921. glendajean - 9/25/2000 2:51:45 PM I am plodding through Peter Baker's The Breach. The story isn't any better after-the-fact than it was living through it. 42922. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 2:55:02 PM glenda 42923. jonesatlaw - 9/25/2000 2:57:26 PM Jack- I'm not disappointed in the convictions in Whitewater, nor with the "clearing" of those accused who were not filed against. The same is true for the other scandals. However, each was driven by the fact that Clinton was the target of the investigation. Without Clinton, no special prosecutor and everything proceeds in a garden variety manner. 42924. Dusty - 9/25/2000 3:13:35 PM alistairconnor 42925. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 3:14:24 PM jones 42926. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 3:15:18 PM "Gore has been a congressman, a senator and a vice-president for 42927. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 3:19:28 PM Rask 42928. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 3:27:01 PM "Depends from which job one hops. But eight years in the House and 42929. jonesatlaw - 9/25/2000 3:27:27 PM Jack- Of course, see the IC statute OLE'! (I certainly hope that is how it is spelled, ignorant as I am of Spanish) 42930. jonesatlaw - 9/25/2000 3:30:47 PM Bush probably beats out Clinton in indictments etc. A few Christmas time pardons helped out. 42931. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 3:30:48 PM Alistair - It's always mind-blowing to read how little you people know, or remember, about America's "foreign policy". 42932. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 3:33:26 PM Rask - keeping in mind that by most accounts Gore is the most actively involved veep this century 42933. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 3:37:16 PM "By whose accounts?" 42934. labwabbit - 9/25/2000 3:37:44 PM JJ 42935. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 3:40:25 PM jones 42936. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 3:41:59 PM Rask 42937. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 3:48:27 PM Jack: I could have sworn I have heard it from other sources as well. Schultz for one. 42938. jonesatlaw - 9/25/2000 3:59:40 PM Moreover, in a point you've never been able to rebut, the statute's triggering mechanism allows the Attorney General to weigh the specificity and credibility of evidence before conducting a preliminary investigation. 42939. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 4:02:18 PM Rask - Are you really disputing this? 42940. Thoughtful - 9/25/2000 4:10:10 PM If someone would be so kind as to explain something to me. What is the deal with Gore and the Buddhist monks? Were that not Americans? Was it just that he said it wasn't a fund raiser when it was? What exactly is the deal here -- in an elevator speech format please. 42941. Thoughtful - 9/25/2000 4:10:42 PM sorry -- were they not.... 42942. Dusty - 9/25/2000 4:11:12 PM This doesn't prove much, but I thought it was mildly humorous. 42943. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 4:11:12 PM "Are you really buying this? Clinton has been notorious for 42944. Dusty - 9/25/2000 4:13:36 PM Raskolnikov 42945. Thoughtful - 9/25/2000 4:16:04 PM only thing I remember about Bush's VPship was that Reagan kept sending him to all the funerals around the world. 42946. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 4:22:20 PM If Clinton is so nortorious for micromanaging, why is everyone screaming about things that happened on his watch, when he "should've been paying attention"? 42947. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 4:22:59 PM jones 42948. Dusty - 9/25/2000 4:26:28 PM Jack Vincennes 42949. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 4:27:34 PM Thoughtful - What is the deal with Gore and the Buddhist monks? 42950. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 4:27:38 PM "And we all know the Clinton administration and the press wouldn't 42951. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 4:28:02 PM Dusty 42952. Dusty - 9/25/2000 4:29:15 PM Oh yeah, here it is, from Black's Law Dictionary, p. 674, section 3 42953. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 4:31:38 PM Jack: 42954. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 4:32:41 PM Judith - If Clinton is so nortorious for micromanaging, why is everyone screaming about things that happened on his watch, when he "should've been paying attention"? 42955. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 4:36:46 PM JJ: 42956. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 4:36:50 PM Juditha 42957. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 4:36:52 PM JJ: It would simply be easier to retract your comment that Clinton is a micromanager, but since I have never seen you retract anything, even in the face of directly contrary, indisputable evidence, I can't say I have high hopes this time. 42958. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 4:39:17 PM Rask - How the hell can you sit through 8 years of whitewater, file gate, chinagate, buddhagate, travelgate, lincolnbedroom gate, doggydruggate, and still maintain with a straight face that the press is biased into putting a positive spin on the Clinton-Gore administration? 42959. CalGal - 9/25/2000 4:39:31 PM Jack, 42960. Thoughtful - 9/25/2000 4:39:35 PM jj -- ok. I looked it up on cnn and found this: "Federal law prohibits political activity in government offices and bans fund-raisers at religious institutions because of their tax status." 42961. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 4:43:13 PM Judith - I doubt anything Clinton could do would impress you 42962. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 4:43:42 PM I was perfectly polite to and equally perplexed by the both of you. 42963. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 4:46:31 PM "If you actually watched the coverage, how could you not? The press 42964. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 4:49:15 PM Thoughtful - The pope can't contribute because he is not a US citizen. No, the nuns are not an institution so technically they are allowed to give. When the money is not theirs and it comes from the church, that is illegal. 42965. CalGal - 9/25/2000 4:54:08 PM Jack, 42966. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 4:58:24 PM With me, I just didn't understand Jack's math of how 6 years total experience as UN/China ambassador, CIA chief and RNC head give an "objectively" better resume than 8 years as a senator and 4 more years as a congressman. 42967. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 5:00:20 PM Because a donkey can be congressman or Senator. It is a cheese-filled job with the number one aim of moving up, getting pub, and/or assuaging dimwitted FILL-In-YOUR STATE constituencies. 42968. Thoughtful - 9/25/2000 5:01:10 PM jj...and the law that the repubs have been fighting hard to protect -- McCain being a key exception. 42969. CalGal - 9/25/2000 5:02:45 PM Rask, 42970. CalGal - 9/25/2000 5:06:24 PM Because a donkey can be congressman or Senator. It is a cheese-filled job with the number one aim of moving up, getting pub, and/or assuaging dimwitted FILL-In-YOUR STATE constituencies. 42971. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 5:07:38 PM "Because a donkey can be congressman or Senator. " 42972. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 5:10:01 PM Unless Jack wants to argue that someone who is vetted and approved by a collective of donkeys is automatically more qualified than those donkeys themselves. Sort of an anti-ontological argument. Can a body of donkeys appoint somehow better than themselves? 42973. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 5:13:47 PM Caligula made his horse a Senator for a reason. Regardless, your argument relies upon a faith in the resume value of representing a district and then a state in Congress over an extended period of time. Since my evaluation of the skills to perform these functions is that you need only avoid shitting your pants on the Senate floor, I'm afraid I'm unmoved by the argumenst set forth by either you or Rask. Somehow, I just think experience as head of the CIA, an envoy to a nuclear superpower, head of one of the two major political organizations, and as ambassador to the United Nations is a greater qualification, even if performed for a shorter period of time, than making sure that Blount County gets its share of tobacco subsidies. 42974. Cellar Door - 9/25/2000 5:15:54 PM Donkeys? You've abandoned the Llamas? Fickle, fickle man! 42975. Dusty - 9/25/2000 5:15:58 PM Raskolnikov 42976. glendajean - 9/25/2000 5:16:42 PM 1) Budhist nuns don't live in poverty, necessarily, or take such vows. That is predominantly a western tradition. I read that recently. 42977. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 5:17:09 PM I was consistent. I told you I thought little of Bush's four years as congressman. So, I take the tale of the tape, throw out the stupid jobs (caddying, House of Representatives, Senate) and make my calculation. 42978. Jack Vincennes - 9/25/2000 5:17:57 PM glenda 42979. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 5:19:00 PM Rask - I am one of those who believes that no bias is going to steer a reporter away from a good story, and the past 8 years has provided ample evidence of this. 42980. Cellar Door - 9/25/2000 5:19:06 PM "Had he resigned instead of putting the country through impeachment and war, I would have been impressed. I would have believed that in spite of everything, deep down, he care more for his country than he did for himself." 42981. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 5:20:42 PM "The answer to your question is yes, although I think it is irrelevant. The reason it is irrelevant is that Bush was appointed to China to avoid vetting by the donkeys. " 42982. Rick Norwood - 9/25/2000 5:20:53 PM "Consider the jackass, that most intelligent, loyal, trustworthy, faithful, and hardworking of animals. And yet, such is the power of public opinion, that when someone calls me a jackass, instead of being complimented, I remain in doubt." - Mark Twain 42983. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 5:27:32 PM Thoughtful - and the law that the repubs have been fighting hard to protect 42984. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 5:27:33 PM "Caligula made his horse a Senator for a reason. Regardless, your 42985. RosettaStone - 9/25/2000 5:27:36 PM Breaking News from USA Today 42986. Dusty - 9/25/2000 5:28:13 PM glendajean 42987. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 5:30:26 PM Glendajean - Budhist nuns don't live in poverty, necessarily, or take such vows. That is predominantly a western tradition. 42988. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 5:31:01 PM JJ: I think you largely confuse White House attacks with media attacks. You also conveniently ignore how much Clinton and Gore have been attacked by the media. 42989. Rick Norwood - 9/25/2000 5:32:46 PM I'm not surprised that Gore is falling in the polls. I'm a democrat, and I'm disgusted with the way he is trying to pander to the voters. Tell me what you want, and I'll give it to you. You want cheap gas. I'll give you cheap gas. I think most people see selling off part of our defense reserve as a partisin political move, and are disgusted by it. 42990. glendajean - 9/25/2000 5:35:04 PM I am trying to think where I read the article -- I believe in was a few weeks ago in the NY Times Sunday Magazine. It's a minor point, but it was fairly emphatic that our conjured up image of what a budhist nun does or does not do is in conflict with the reality of it. 42991. CalGal - 9/25/2000 5:37:26 PM GJ, 42992. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 5:41:02 PM Rask - I think you largely confuse White House attacks with media attacks. 42993. glendajean - 9/25/2000 5:41:26 PM yeah, maybe that's it. It was an article on the woman who was charged with violating campaign laws. 42994. Nostradamus - 9/25/2000 5:43:13 PM Rick 42995. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 5:47:56 PM "The media provides the forum and the distribution of those attacks." 42996. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 5:49:13 PM kooky is right. One of the Natural Law party's central themes is a belief in Transcendental Meditation. Hard to reconcile that with the scientism in the rest of their rhetoric. 42997. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 5:52:35 PM As of Monday, Sept. 25, Texas Gov. George W. Bush has pulled ahead of Vice President Gore and leads by three points, 47% to 44%. 42998. CalGal - 9/25/2000 5:53:04 PM GJ, 42999. DaveM - 9/25/2000 5:55:35 PM The most thorough account of the Buddhist Temple scandal (pro-Gore account, that is). 43000. Cellar Door - 9/25/2000 5:56:26 PM A Buddhist nun is by definition not a Christian. Therefore in Republican Psarty terms she is a sinner deserving of eternal damnation. She is also an Oriental. And you know you can't trust those slopes and gooks, right folks? Even if they come Taiwan like We Ho Lee. 43001. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 5:56:33 PM JJ: have you been in a mine shaft for the past week? Bush has been the media darling and Gore has been taking a lot of heat over doggiegate. Those poll results didn't come from a vacuum. 43002. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 5:59:44 PM Rask - Would the media have allowed an advisor to President Bush to attack Walsh the way Carville attacked Starr? Would they have invited him back week after week to voice his attacks unchallenged? I know your memory of the era is limited so I will remind you that any suggestion that Bush was less than forthcoming was met with calls for impeachment. Bush would have been crucified if he had tried a fraction of Clinton's games. 43003. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 6:00:11 PM You also forget how soft the media was on Bush *before* the Dem convention. They are still giving him a free pass on a lot of policy issues (see Krugman's most recent column). 43004. DaveM - 9/25/2000 6:00:28 PM JJBiener - 43005. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 6:02:20 PM Rask - Bush has been the media darling and Gore has been taking a lot of heat over doggiegate. 43006. DaveM - 9/25/2000 6:02:41 PM JJ - 43007. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 6:03:31 PM "Would the media have allowed an advisor to President Bush 43008. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 6:05:02 PM Cellar - Can you send me some of whatever drugs you are taking. Your hallucinations are amazing. 43009. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 6:05:10 PM "Wait for it. Give it a week." 43010. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 6:09:32 PM Rask - When Walsh eventually suffered from some of the same problems, going after George Schultz for some questionable travel expenses, Walsh was also criticized. 43011. DaveM - 9/25/2000 6:12:57 PM That Carville was never taken to task for attacking Ken Starr is a result of Ken's lack of a popular mandate. The "outrage" was limited to a very discrete class. 43012. RosettaStone - 9/25/2000 6:13:48 PM CNN just reported that their tracking poll shows that Gore has gone from +24 w/woman to +4 w/woman in the same week. 43013. bubbaette - 9/25/2000 6:14:40 PM The media thrives on conflict. It makes a better story to present opposing points of view on a story than to simply report actions. Besides, is your idea of unbiased media coverage basically report an action and not look at the story behind the action? I supposed unbiased coverage would be to print Starr's press releases unedited and allow no discussion? 43014. RosettaStone - 9/25/2000 6:20:01 PM longer. 43015. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 6:22:47 PM Rask - That is a safe bet . . . 43016. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 6:29:44 PM Bubbaette - Unbiased reporting would present both sides (or all sides) of an issue equally and fairly. It would challenge all points of view, not just those the reporter disagrees with. At the very least it would acknowledge its point of view so the viewer could judge the content appropriately. 43017. DaveM - 9/25/2000 6:35:04 PM He was described as fumbling, bumbling, stumbling, struggling, desperate, etc. You won't see similar terms applied to Gore. 43018. RosettaStone - 9/25/2000 6:42:16 PM ABC News just called Gore's plan MediSCARE! 43019. DaveM - 9/25/2000 6:44:22 PM Wow! We sure are lucky the media is so liberal, otherwise Gore's plan would have sparked riots in the streets. 43020. ranheim - 9/25/2000 7:01:07 PM Why don't you people vote for REAL change : Harry Browne? Despite being severly criticized for de-funding the government, I would still like to see Browne revoke the Executive Orders of past presidents. Including FDR's EO taking taxes out of each paycheck - instead of a lump sum payment on March 15th. I would LOVE it! 43021. Cellar Door - 9/25/2000 7:17:19 PM "ABC News just called Gore's plan MediSCARE!" 43022. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 8:27:21 PM "Another case in point. CNN reported Gore leading Bush a couple of weeks ago even though Gore's lead was with in the margin of error. Now that Bush is up by 3 in their poll, the headline reads Stalemate Continues." 43023. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/25/2000 8:48:11 PM 43024. dusty - 9/25/2000 9:29:47 PM Raskolnikov 43025. dusty - 9/25/2000 9:34:03 PM Is nothing sacred? 43026. Al D - 9/25/2000 9:36:23 PM The day the media blames Gore's slip in the polls on his lies and pandering is the day I want to see. I did hear one talking head claim that it was not legal to use oil reserves to lower oil prices. Gore gave lowering prises for his call to release 5,000,000 barrels and keep doing so until the price of oil dropped. 43027. dusty - 9/25/2000 9:39:37 PM Raskolnikov 43028. JJBiener - 9/25/2000 10:45:33 PM DaveM - 2. You will see prevaricating, pandering, lying and shifting applied to Gore. 43029. concerned - 9/26/2000 1:08:34 AM Re. 43012 - 43030. jonesatlaw - 9/26/2000 1:08:50 AM Jack- Did you forget this? 31673. Jack Vincennes - 6/24/00 2:02:14 AM 43031. jonesatlaw - 9/26/2000 3:00:48 AM Another trip down the memory hole- 43032. Thoughtful - 9/26/2000 9:39:41 AM jj, "All of their rhetoric on the* subject is just self-serving political gamesmanship. Their definition of "fair" is any policy which gives them a political advantage." 43033. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/26/2000 9:45:54 AM 43034. Wombat - 9/26/2000 9:54:35 AM The republicans: 43035. Jack Vincennes - 9/26/2000 9:58:00 AM jones 43036. Raskolnikov - 9/26/2000 10:13:29 AM "The media is giving Bush a free pass on policy issues as reported by 43037. glendajean - 9/26/2000 10:47:37 AM Bush troubles in Florida. 43038. glendajean - 9/26/2000 10:54:32 AM Does Jeb Bush have doubts about Florida being Bush Country? 43039. Thoughtful - 9/26/2000 10:58:16 AM DaveM, most interesting article....didn't get a chance to finish it, but was surprised to learn that he claims there is no law making it illegal to do a fund raiser at a religious institution....only that it threatens the institution's tax exemption to do so. This is in direct conflict with what has been reported in the press about the campaign finance laws. Thanks for the link. 43040. robertjayb - 9/26/2000 11:51:39 AM . 43041. glendajean - 9/26/2000 11:58:21 AM From Robertjayb's link: (on the Florida US Senate race) 43042. Ronski - 9/26/2000 12:08:39 PM Gore led Bush briefly in the Rasmussen Tracking poll by two points, 43% -41%, about two weeks ago. 43043. glendajean - 9/26/2000 12:17:32 PM I thought McCollum had a clean sweep in Florida. I read something a few days ago that Bob Barr is having "some" trouble in Georgia -- his district is not as Republican and he has a very wealthy challenger. James Rogan in California has always had a difficult district (for him) and this year doesn't seem any different. Are any other of the House impeachment managers facing tough elections? Supposedly, the high partisanship of House Judiciary Committee members is in part because they are from fairly partisan districts. 43044. janjon - 9/26/2000 12:26:55 PM I was going to link the interesting article from today's Washington Post about the Florida race, but now see that I don't have to. 43045. janjon - 9/26/2000 12:33:48 PM I hadn't read Ronski's post when I added what is now a "me too" re the electoral race. 43046. robertjayb - 9/26/2000 12:36:40 PM . 43047. glendajean - 9/26/2000 12:45:55 PM LA Times story on Senate campaigns. 43048. Ronski - 9/26/2000 1:16:42 PM janjon, 43049. janjon - 9/26/2000 1:27:48 PM Ronski. 43050. Ronski - 9/26/2000 1:30:55 PM janjon, 43051. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 1:59:10 PM Thoughtful - I believe the difference between you and me is that you view the above as a strictly democratic phenomenon. 43052. Ronski - 9/26/2000 3:59:14 PM Using the Electoral College Calculator, I have figured out a scenario for Bush to win by two electoral points. He needs to win Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona, Louisiana, Missouri, Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, and New Hampshire, in addition to all those states in the South and West (plus Indiana) that everyone pretty much concedes to him. 43053. Thoughtful - 9/26/2000 3:59:32 PM jj, perhaps the GOPers didn't whine because, whether in the majority or not, they collect far more funds than the Dems do. I remember when W. overspent his funds early in the campaign. Someone recommended that his Mom send a letter to her Christmas list asking for money. She did and raised millions. Somehow I don't think Clinton's Mom's xmas list would've done the same. 43054. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 4:01:58 PM Thoughtful - Clinton is the most successful fundraiser of all time. He doesn't need any help. 43055. robertjayb - 9/26/2000 4:08:35 PM . 43056. janjon - 9/26/2000 4:14:07 PM ronski. If that is what its gonna take, jexster was correct a week or so ago. Get the fork out, W.'s done. 43057. Dusty - 9/26/2000 4:19:03 PM Raskolnikov 43058. Dusty - 9/26/2000 4:20:10 PM Not only that, it will trump ideology. 43059. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 4:32:51 PM Robert - I think Conason, Teepen and Sheer are taking turns blowing Clinton. Those articles demonstrate the point I made the other day in spades. It brings to mind the line by Big Jule from Guys and Dolls, "I used to be bad when I was a kid, but since then I've gone straight. As you can tell from my record, 33 arrests and no convictions." 43060. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 4:37:37 PM According to the Portrait of America site the Electoral College looks like this: 43061. robertjayb - 9/26/2000 4:38:20 PM . 43062. Al D - 9/26/2000 4:57:56 PM Clinton's mom called the casino owners of America and threatened to quit the clubs and they ponied up a bundle. 43063. Cellar Door - 9/26/2000 5:01:36 PM Great pieces, robertjayb. The follow-up, of course, is to drag these scum-sucking pigs (especially the entire editorial board of the NYT) through the streets, lashed to the back of a Dodge truck. 43064. JudithAtHome - 9/26/2000 5:03:14 PM Al D: 43065. Raskolnikov - 9/26/2000 5:05:18 PM Well then JJ, maybe you can answer the question: What is it exactly that Clinton is supposed to have done, and what is the evidence for it? 43066. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 5:13:15 PM RJB - Conason, Teepen and Scheer are journalistic remoras. Anyone who takes them seriously should be ashamed. 43067. Ronski - 9/26/2000 5:18:41 PM I think what's been happening to Gore is that some people who had been certain they were not going to vote for him last summer, and who changed their mind after the convention and went for him, are once again having second thoughts. The GOP ads (which I haven't seen) are probably having an effect raising doubts about Gore's character (missteps such as the doggie drug remark) and about the expansiveness of his plans for new programs. 43068. Thoughtful - 9/26/2000 5:19:40 PM jj, go to www.commoncause.org and you'll see that by far business supports the GOP ($114.7m vs. $81.3m). The totals are closer GOP=$120.3m; Dem=$112.1m as the dems make it up with labor and lawyers. However, the GOP is still winning on the soft money front. 43069. Ronski - 9/26/2000 5:22:19 PM I also think the attacks by Gore on Big Oil (whom could he possibly have in mind?) and Big Business are not working. 43070. janjon - 9/26/2000 5:31:51 PM ronski. I think Gore now will move his focus away from trying to demonstrate that he is the new Big Populist and that we now begin to hear more about issues like....abortion and gun control. Maybe not from him directly, but 'tis time. 43071. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 5:34:54 PM Rask - What is it exactly that Clinton is supposed to have done, and what is the evidence for it? 43072. janjon - 9/26/2000 5:42:59 PM occasionally it seems appropriate just to link words like vindictive, hyperbolic, suspicious, ludicrous, silly, pea-brained, paranoic, and just downright unamerican. 43073. robertjayb - 9/26/2000 5:48:31 PM JJB, 43074. robertjayb - 9/26/2000 5:50:41 PM toystoys 43075. Raskolnikov - 9/26/2000 5:52:39 PM I note that in that hysterical list containing many paranoiad fantasies, you couldn't even come up with what criminal activities Clinton was supposedly exercizing all of this power to cover up. This has long been my problem with the whitewater investigation - it has always seemed to me like there was an accusation of a cover-up without a clear definition of what the hell was being covered up. 43076. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 5:53:29 PM Thoughtful - you'll see that by far business supports the GOP 43077. janjon - 9/26/2000 5:55:14 PM I am shocked to recall that Big Bill spent 40 days behind the then very bad Iron Curtain right when that American venture called the Vietnam War was going on. Actually going on when he did that!! Gawd. And he's never properly accounted for what he was doing then? Well, that can only lead to one conclusion. He was being trained to do something....bad....(make that....evil....if you want) at some later date. 43078. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 6:00:12 PM Rask - This is from another link. 43079. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 6:00:22 PM In July of 1993 (shortly before Vince Foster committed suicide) the FBI raided Hale's office and found documents outlining the illegal loan. Hale was under investigation for unrelated charges and offered to reveal incriminating evidence against Clinton in return for a plea bargain. But the prosecuting U.S. Attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas, Paula Casey, a former Clinton campaign worker who had just been APPOINTED by Clinton in an unprecedented "sweeping D.A. massacre" would hear NOTHING of the charges against Clinton and refused to plea bargain with Hale. But when the special Whitewater prosecutor Robert Fiske came to Little Rock in 1994, he struck a plea bargain with Hale, and since then Hale has been a frequent guest of the Whitewater grand jury in Little Rock. 43080. glendajean - 9/26/2000 6:00:50 PM And he killed Vince FOster, too. Or Hillary did. I can't remember which. 43081. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 6:04:58 PM janjon - Since Democrats see nothing wrong with Gore Sr. being bought and paid for by Armand Hammer, I am not surprised they would see nothing wrong with Clinton skipping about behind the Iron Curtain during the height of the Cold War when we were at war with a Soviet client state. 43082. robertjayb - 9/26/2000 6:05:34 PM . 43083. janjon - 9/26/2000 6:06:03 PM Six years and $52 million wasn't enough. Nossirree. The truth will continue to be revealed by those who know the truth. 43084. Raskolnikov - 9/26/2000 6:07:38 PM Gosh, JJ: with all that, the Special prosecuter didn't try for an indictment? Obviously, Starr must have been a Clinton crony, helping him concoct the whole Lewinsky scandal to sidetrack the public from the murder of Vince Foster, the importation of drugs from Mexico, and the deaths of all who opposed him. 43085. JudithAtHome - 9/26/2000 6:08:38 PM God, this all sounds bizarre....so JJ, do you think Clinton is a Manchurian Candidate? Would you only be satisfied if he took a gun and blew his brains out on national TV? Would that be enough of a mea culpa for you? 43086. janjon - 9/26/2000 6:09:02 PM rask - the fix was in, dummy. 43087. janjon - 9/26/2000 6:10:03 PM judith - it would be seen as being nothing more than a ploy to help Gore get elected. 43088. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 6:13:48 PM Glendajean - My father-in-law was a machinist and a union steward as well. I did not intend to label the rank and file. I apologize. My statement was in response to attacks on business as if being in business is something to be ashamed of. The relationship between labor officials and organized crime is well established. Even Clinton's buddy Arthur Coia of the Laborers' Union has significant ties to the mob. 43089. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 6:22:14 PM Rask - Gosh, JJ: with all that, the Special prosecuter didn't try for an indictment? 43090. glendajean - 9/26/2000 6:27:16 PM JJ -- understand. 43091. janjon - 9/26/2000 6:27:48 PM ah yes, the old "well, we've got the goods, but the jury ain't likely to buy it" routine. 43092. ranheim - 9/26/2000 6:28:14 PM I have called Clinton a moral leper many times in this forum. What, initially, made me suspicious is what I heard from friends and acquaintances of mine who live in Ark - the state next north of LA. Then, to my knowlege, he is the only recent president to have refused to allow his medical exams to be made public. 43093. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 6:28:14 PM Judith - God, this all sounds bizarre 43094. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 6:32:09 PM Glendajean - Because of innocent until proven guilty? 43095. Al D - 9/26/2000 6:36:51 PM J.J. 43096. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 6:38:09 PM janjon - ah yes, the old "well, we've got the goods, but the jury ain't likely to buy it" routine. 43097. robertjayb - 9/26/2000 6:41:34 PM JJB 43098. glendajean - 9/26/2000 6:42:47 PM JJ -- its the width and scope of the accusations against Clinton that take my breath away. The fantasy of killing Vincent Foster. No one person can do all the things that he is accused of doing -- and there not be enough evidence to convict in court. 43099. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 6:43:39 PM Al D - If there was no "there" there, why did members of the White House staff feel it was necessary to go into Foster's office and remove files before the FBI could investigate? To me that is an admission of guilt right there. If there was nothing damaging, or at least potentially damaging, why was it necessary to remove them? It doesn't even bother the Clinton apologists. 43100. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 6:45:19 PM RJB - Guilt to what, specifically, beyond unauthorized canoodling? 43101. glendajean - 9/26/2000 6:46:11 PM To me that is an admission of guilt right there. 43102. Cellar Door - 9/26/2000 6:46:23 PM "I find myself thinking we've lost our ability to have a political conversation." 43103. glendajean - 9/26/2000 6:47:16 PM toys 43104. Al D - 9/26/2000 6:49:25 PM J.J 43105. janjon - 9/26/2000 6:51:45 PM glenda. When "conversations" get to this mode, they aren't political in nature. They are attempts to deal with people who are embarked on irrational vendettas with more than a twinge of belief that they are on a moral crusade as well. 43106. janjon - 9/26/2000 6:53:56 PM cellar. Although it would be predictable that there will be a post soon from him to the effect that he was just trying to stir things up, you give him far too much credit for something as rational as that. He's definitely a true believer. 43107. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 6:58:23 PM Glendajean - its the width and scope of the accusations against Clinton that take my breath away. 43108. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 7:03:52 PM Glenda - They killed Vince and hid the truth. 43109. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 7:07:45 PM janjon - Care to be specific? Or do you just prefer personal attacks to substantive responses? 43110. janjon - 9/26/2000 7:16:51 PM biener. As I am sure you will recall, I made a decision some time ago not to enter into discussions with you. But, it is indeed true that (although I would quarrel that they took the form of a personal attack) I was certainly referring to you in an indirect way in my posts to Glenda and henceforth I will resist that as well. 43111. ycmeehan - 9/26/2000 7:45:59 PM 43112. concerned - 9/26/2000 8:08:30 PM 43065. Raskolnikov - 9/26/00 10:05:18 PM 43113. concerned - 9/26/2000 8:14:06 PM Re. 43111 - 43114. Al D - 9/26/2000 8:18:37 PM yc 43115. concerned - 9/26/2000 8:26:51 PM The same perverse, capricious qualities of WH Rapist supporters that allow them to ignore his criminal abuse of power and swinish behavior will allow them in the future to deny that they ever supported him when he is generally acknowledged to be a worthless dirtbag. 43116. concerned - 9/26/2000 8:32:25 PM Vote Pinocchio Bore if you want to condescended to for four years by a felonious divinity school failure and law school dropout who lies like a rug and has both a mean streak and dictatorial tendencies. 43117. phydeau - 9/26/2000 8:33:14 PM Hi folks, I'm new here, been reading this for a couple weeks. You've got a couple of fullblown freepers here, it seems, using their favorite logical fallacy, false dichotomy. If you don't hate Clinton, you're a, let's see, "bootlicking Clowntoon defender". I notice no one's been defending Bush on his record, because it's indefensible, of course. Let's see: 43118. concerned - 9/26/2000 8:33:28 PM Oops. ...want to be condescended to.... 43119. CalGal - 9/26/2000 8:34:05 PM Nonsense, our freepers are quite mild, and we've only got two. Well, maybe three. 43120. concerned - 9/26/2000 8:37:33 PM Hey Fido - 43121. phydeau - 9/26/2000 8:37:41 PM Ahem, that's "wooph". 43122. concerned - 9/26/2000 8:37:58 PM ...sanctimonious hypocrites.. 43123. CalGal - 9/26/2000 8:38:46 PM Dammit, I hate it when I miss a punchline. 43124. phydeau - 9/26/2000 8:40:02 PM Let's see... concerned, jjwhatshisname, Al D, and that weird guy Jack Vincennes whose words have the structure and syntax of a reasonable person but are somehow without content. That's four! 43125. CalGal - 9/26/2000 8:40:34 PM BTW, Phydeau, you likewise don't see too many people upholding Gore's integrity. 43126. concerned - 9/26/2000 8:43:23 PM I'm a political centrist, of course. I also don't believe that you have to love crap to be a liberal, although the noisiest Leftists try to obscure that fact. 43127. phydeau - 9/26/2000 8:43:58 PM Hmmm... I think Gore's got as much integrity as the average politician these days who's in the thrall of the big money boys, which may not be much, but at least he has a record of "competence", participating in the political process in Congress and as VP. I don't know if I'd say Bush doesn't have "integrity", I just don't think he's qualified to be president, for the reasons I stated above. 43128. phydeau - 9/26/2000 8:45:52 PM Centrist? Are you one of those people who says "Well, I used to be a Democrat until I found out how EEEEVIL they are..."? 43129. CalGal - 9/26/2000 8:46:40 PM I'm a political centrist, of course. 43130. concerned - 9/26/2000 8:48:54 PM Re. 43128 - 43131. Al D - 9/26/2000 8:49:41 PM playdough 43132. concerned - 9/26/2000 8:51:01 PM Boy, I'd surely hate to see all those Lefties leaving the country if the US was polluted by George Bush winning the presidency. 43133. phydeau - 9/26/2000 8:51:26 PM Well, of course he'd have his handlers who'd keep him out of trouble, just like Reagan did. And I don't think he himself had the ambition and ability, it's the folks who raised $70 million for his primary battle... c'mon does anyone believe he'd be anything but a pleasantly vapid figurehead? Also, my standard of "qualified" involves a significant intellectual presence, which both Clinton and Gore seem to have. 43134. phydeau - 9/26/2000 8:52:33 PM Al D -- thanks for your kind thoughts. 43135. CalGal - 9/26/2000 8:55:19 PM Phydeau, 43136. Al D - 9/26/2000 8:56:20 PM intellectual presence, which both Clinton and Gore seem to have. 43137. phydeau - 9/26/2000 9:04:10 PM I would rather have not lived thru Reagan. You get empty figureheads like that and you're just inviting corruption, when no one's in charge. As I recall, it happened with Ulysses S. Grant too. 43138. phydeau - 9/26/2000 9:05:29 PM I would rather have not lived thru Reagan. You get empty figureheads like that and you're just inviting corruption, when no one's in charge. As I recall, it happened with Ulysses S. Grant too. 43139. dusty - 9/26/2000 9:06:15 PM phydeau 43140. CalGal - 9/26/2000 9:07:54 PM If you hit Refresh, you get a double post. Check the FAQs and How to Post for any other idiosyncracies the interface has. 43141. phydeau - 9/26/2000 9:08:39 PM Whoops, sorry about that... 43142. CalGal - 9/26/2000 9:09:09 PM Oh, I didn't see that he referred to Jack as a freeper. I assumed he just meant concerned and Al. But really, they're just rabid. And they're as far out as we go. 43143. concerned - 9/26/2000 9:09:46 PM We prospered under Reagan. Furthermore, when he left office, Americans in general didn't feel like they had spent eight years swimming upstream through a sewer pipe. 'Intellectual presence', indeed. 43144. phydeau - 9/26/2000 9:13:14 PM I don't think Clinton's administration was nearly as corrupt as Reagan's, I mean with the whole Iran/Contra thing and all, not to mention Silent Sam Pierce at HUD, and numerous others... 43145. concerned - 9/26/2000 9:13:18 PM Remember when the 'appearance of impropriety' had some meaning? Now Lefties wink at hypocrisy and cheer on liars and rapists. 43146. concerned - 9/26/2000 9:14:31 PM Clowntoon is corruption personified. 43147. concerned - 9/26/2000 9:15:50 PM I challenge anybody to name a politician more corrupt than the WH Rapist. 43148. phydeau - 9/26/2000 9:16:01 PM concerned, I'm happy to provide you with an opportunity to vent your bile against someone new. I hope it cheers your day. 43149. CalGal - 9/26/2000 9:16:08 PM Phy, 43150. DaveM - 9/26/2000 9:20:11 PM Welcome Phydeau - 43151. phydeau - 9/26/2000 9:21:14 PM On another subject... October Surprise 2000! What will the Rs do if it's coming down to the wire and it looks like Bush will lose? They've already done the oil price thing, it doesn't look like it's working. My prediction: Ronald Reagan will conveniently die just days or weeks before the election! The sentimental fondness for the "Great Communicator" will wash over Republicans, driving them to the polls to preserve his legacy! Good guys triumph! Bad guys go down in defeat! 43152. concerned - 9/26/2000 9:24:28 PM Re. 43142 - 43153. CalGal - 9/26/2000 9:24:39 PM The fundamentalist worldview (political - not religious) he foisted upon the republican party has created the divisive political atmosphere that pervades the country at the moment. 43154. concerned - 9/26/2000 9:26:20 PM Re. 43151 - 43155. CalGal - 9/26/2000 9:27:09 PM They've already done the oil price thing, it doesn't look like it's working. 43156. concerned - 9/26/2000 9:30:55 PM What trash, to try to hide the Democrats' responsibility for Vietnam. 43157. concerned - 9/26/2000 9:32:14 PM What is now referred to as the 'religious right' got li'l Jimmy Carter elected. Go figure. 43158. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 9:33:08 PM janjon - As I am sure you will recall, I made a decision some time ago not to enter into discussions with you. 43159. phydeau - 9/26/2000 9:33:16 PM I was speculating... since the R's chances in November will be strengthened by a weakened economy, and oil prices are a big part of it, and the R's have mega-connections with the oil industry... of course no one would be able to prove it, thanks to "plausible deniability" (a phrase introduced by the Reagan administration, BTW). 43160. DaveM - 9/26/2000 9:38:24 PM Cal - 43161. concerned - 9/26/2000 9:39:21 PM What 'mega connections'? You mean like Pinocchio Bore and his million dollar Occidental Petroleum stake and blatant advocacy for their interests? Bore's literally slimed with crude. His whole fortune is made from Hammer/Occidental Oil. 43162. phydeau - 9/26/2000 9:41:05 PM concerned, I wasn't really expecting a response from you, but perhaps you might recall the Bushes dabbled a bit in the oil business, and Mr. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, a huge supplier of oil field equipment. FYI. 43163. ycmeehan - 9/26/2000 9:45:10 PM Al, 43164. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 9:46:01 PM YC - JJ, you are such a nice man. How can you defend such persons.? 43165. concerned - 9/26/2000 9:47:29 PM Re. 43162 - 43166. concerned - 9/26/2000 9:50:29 PM I will never understand the persons who paraded their President's indiscretions for all the world to see. 43167. DaveM - 9/26/2000 9:51:09 PM only the lowest order of mankind would try to defend himself by destroying anyone who speaks against him. 43168. ranheim - 9/26/2000 9:57:02 PM I get laughed at in the Thread because I really believe the wrong side won the War Between the States; that I have no use for democracy - would return to the days of the Republic in a second; believe in "smoke filled rooms" rather than zillionaires running for office; and would bring our taxes down to those collected by a tariff - that's among other 18th and 19th century thoughts. 43169. phydeau - 9/26/2000 9:57:52 PM concerned... don't hold back, tell us how you REALLY feel! :) 43170. concerned - 9/26/2000 9:59:06 PM Re. 43167 - 43171. phydeau - 9/26/2000 10:03:55 PM Hey folks, if you want to see a libertarian's paradise existing today, look at... Texas. The government is very weak there, in large part due to the Civil War. The Union installed their own governors and other administrators, and the legislature responded by gutting the powers of the Governor. Also, the legislature itself is only in session every other year, and last I heard legislators only got paid $7200/year for their work, so you basically had to be independently wealthy to survive, or to use your position to get "contributions" from parties interested in the legislation you produce. 43172. phydeau - 9/26/2000 10:05:03 PM BTW: I lived there for 13 years, don't live there now. 43173. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 10:06:40 PM Phydeau - Welcome to the Mote. The predictability of your posts made them quite humorous. I have piece of friendly advice. When you're taking in your daily dose of Democratic propaganda, you might also want to sample some other sources of information as well. You won't look quite so silly. 43174. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 10:10:49 PM Phydeau - BTW: I lived there for 13 years, don't live there now. 43175. phydeau - 9/26/2000 10:11:45 PM Thank you, Mr (Ms?) JJ. I thought you were a freeper because of the wild-eyed nature of your posts, along with using childish names to refer to Clinton and Gore. If that wasn't you, I apologize. 43176. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 10:21:01 PM I have a question for Phydeau or anyone else with his political bent. The explanation normally given for the numerous accusations and scandals involving Clinton is that he is the victim of a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. This VRWC is made up of countless people with an overwhelming hatred of Clinton. So much so they want to destroy Clinton even at the cost of their reputation, careers and personal fortunes. 43177. Al D - 9/26/2000 10:26:02 PM I find it curious that anyone on the Mote could call me rabid and align my name with concerned and be serious. And CalGal is always serious, seems not to have an ironic bone in her body. As I have explained before, I am a small l libertarian, more comfortable with Ronski's ideas than anyone else in this forum. Yes, I started posting on Free Republic long before I knew there was a Fray. I posted as bigal and was called a lesbian. 43178. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 10:26:58 PM Phydeau - Wild-eyed? You weren't reading my posts. There is nothing wild-eyed in anything I write. Nor is there any name calling. I may challenge your precious beliefs, but I won't be childish about it. Apology accepted. 43179. phydeau - 9/26/2000 10:30:19 PM follow the money, JJ... Bush had the backing of big biz, Clinton had the nerve to get elected... every politician accumulates enemies over his career... easy for big biz to give them a forum... Richard Mellon Scaife for example... etc., etc. 43180. Al D - 9/26/2000 10:37:04 PM Richard Mellon Scaife for example... etc., etc. 43181. ycmeehan - 9/26/2000 10:37:06 PM I lived in Texas, Phydeau, for several years. The nicest people, church-going, pillars of their communities, would engage in behavior sometimes that I could only term as being schizophrenic. Of course, I am talking only about the people who grew up down there. If they liked you, they were wonderful but then you found out that they were apt to cut corners to acomplish their aim. I was told that this attitude had a lot to do with past hard times, the dust bowl, and the ups and downs of the economy the last 70 years. They reminded me of the French peasants in the little village where my great-grand-mother retired. 43182. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 10:37:11 PM Phy - follow the money 43183. phydeau - 9/26/2000 10:40:02 PM Hey JJ, are you voting for the veteran (GORE) or the draft-dodger (BUSH)? 43184. Al D - 9/26/2000 10:43:14 PM yc 43185. concerned - 9/26/2000 10:44:13 PM Surely you can do better than that. Big business? You aren't so naive to believe that business is some monolithic evil out to control the government, are you? 43186. phydeau - 9/26/2000 10:47:00 PM Sorry JJ, I was under the impression you wanted a serious conversation. My mistake. 43187. ycmeehan - 9/26/2000 10:47:16 PM Hey, Big Al, 43188. Al D - 9/26/2000 10:48:04 PM wit 43189. phydeau - 9/26/2000 10:48:50 PM I thought the people of Texas were as good as you can find anywhere. Unfortunately, they're saddled with a government system from the Civil War. 43190. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 10:49:17 PM Phydeau - I didn't realize serving six years in the National Guard was considered draft-dodging. Do you consider Clinton a draft-dodger? 43191. ycmeehan - 9/26/2000 10:52:28 PM Al, my brand of irony is weird too. Don't be so serious. Rather, don't take me too seriously. 43192. concerned - 9/26/2000 10:53:01 PM Hey, if Lefties can vote for the WH Rapist that lied to an enlistment officer and then ran all the way to GB and got his ass thrown out of Oxford after raping a girl to avoid the draft, and who subsequently became governor cocaine Hooverer and maximum ruler with his Praetorian Storm, er State Troopers nookie procurement detail in the Armpit of America aka Dogpatch aka Arkansas, and swear unconditional fealty to this criminal impeached piece of shit, then they shouldn't have any problem at all with people who want to vote for GWB who flew jets for the NG instead of pencil pushing REMF dropout flunkie, the pathologically lying oil drenched hypocrite Pinocchio Bore. 43193. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 10:53:39 PM Phydeau - Sorry JJ, I was under the impression you wanted a serious conversation. 43194. Al D - 9/26/2000 10:54:56 PM yc 43195. JJBiener - 9/26/2000 10:55:39 PM concerned - Punctuation. Please! 43196. concerned - 9/26/2000 10:59:32 PM 'It's the economy, stupid' is code for 'I'm kissing Big Business Ass Like Nobody Has Ever Done Before!', in case any of you Lefties have forgotten. 43197. ycmeehan - 9/26/2000 11:00:00 PM Concerned, 43198. concerned - 9/26/2000 11:04:42 PM Re. 43197 - 43199. Al D - 9/26/2000 11:09:49 PM yc 43200. Cellar Door - 9/26/2000 11:16:48 PM "He has a way of standing so that he does not tower over one." 43201. phydeau - 9/26/2000 11:17:25 PM Phydeau - I didn't realize serving six years in the National Guard was considered draft-dodging. Do you consider Clinton a draft-dodger? 43202. phydeau - 9/26/2000 11:18:47 PM oops, chicken hawks (those who vigorously supported the war as long it was someone else fighting it) 43203. phydeau - 9/26/2000 11:28:45 PM hmmm... kinda quiet around here... well, it's late here on the east coast... good night all. 43204. ycmeehan - 9/26/2000 11:49:29 PM Al, 43205. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/27/2000 12:35:52 AM 43206. jonesatlaw - 9/27/2000 1:01:21 AM Jack- the problem with your previous Father Knows Best back off is that it came on the heels of previous responses to other posters which seemed to imply that there would be no rational reason for Reno not to accept the recomendations- note how you posit responses for Cartman- such as "the stars." 43207. Thoughtful - 9/27/2000 8:51:26 AM jj, re Message # 43076, now who's being incredibly naive? Why do you think that all these groups are willing to shell out so much money to politicians and political parties? Do you think they are all strictly altruists? Of course not. Because they know that money buys them access and influence. They want to be able to influence the outcome of legislation which will affect them monetarily either favorably or unfavorably. All without regard for the desires of the voters on the particular issues. 43208. Wombat - 9/27/2000 9:01:36 AM Insouciant: 43209. Jack Vincennes - 9/27/2000 9:04:19 AM jones 43210. JRoth - 9/27/2000 9:05:03 AM To build on Thoughtful's point: 43211. Jack Vincennes - 9/27/2000 9:06:32 AM Wombat 43212. Wombat - 9/27/2000 9:09:38 AM Jack: 43213. Dusty - 9/27/2000 9:24:00 AM Thoughtful 43214. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 9:30:54 AM I wonder what proportion of the legislation introduced in the Congress is introduced primarily with campaign contributions in mind. My guess would be at least 30%. 43215. rubberducky - 9/27/2000 9:49:52 AM no conversation about the "bush mole"? personally, i think this is the issue that may sink Gore. a sampling: 43216. Wombat - 9/27/2000 9:53:21 AM Ducky: 43217. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 9:53:51 AM Rubberducky 43218. jonesatlaw - 9/27/2000 9:56:23 AM Jack- I thought that the Paula Jones case should have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, that occurred before discovery, a fact your nuance has ommitted. 43219. rubberducky - 9/27/2000 9:58:47 AM Wombat: 43220. Wombat - 9/27/2000 9:59:31 AM Ducky: 43221. Wombat - 9/27/2000 10:01:33 AM Ducky: 43222. glendajean - 9/27/2000 10:04:07 AM I still say that the mole in the Bush campaign just has a guilty conscience over stealing Jimmy Carter's debate briefing book and giving it to the Reagan campaign in 1980 (which Reagan's people used). 43223. jonesatlaw - 9/27/2000 10:12:37 AM Glendajean- The Gore camp hasn't hid the information about recieving briefing materials- they turned them over to the FBI immediately without reviewing them more than enought to realize what they were. I would understand partisans of the other camp being sceptical of the claim, but it does seem that they've been above board. 43224. rubberducky - 9/27/2000 10:16:15 AM Wombat: 43225. Wombat - 9/27/2000 10:19:25 AM No more far-fetched than the Gore campaign doing it in the first place (unless you consider Gore to be the anti-Christ). 43226. rubberducky - 9/27/2000 10:23:06 AM well, i think it possible that someone planted a mole - not with Gore's consent or knowledge. more possible than mailing sensitive materials to someone in the Gore camp in some calculated move to get an him to leave and start all this. but both aren't impossible, i grant you. 43227. glendajean - 9/27/2000 10:28:21 AM Jones -- I think the word about Reagan pilfering the Carter briefing book came out after the election. 43228. glendajean - 9/27/2000 10:28:55 AM Reagan's first OMB director... 43229. Wombat - 9/27/2000 10:33:20 AM David Stockman. 43230. Ronski - 9/27/2000 10:39:24 AM Good News for Gore in Michigan, Bad News in LA Times National Poll 43231. janjon - 9/27/2000 10:40:44 AM For those who don't think that this election doesn't really matter, read today's lead editorial in the Times about the Supreme Court. 5-4 is a very uncomfortable place to be in my humble opinion 43232. janjon - 9/27/2000 10:46:03 AM ronski. I suspect that the real import of these polls is that it indeed will galvanize the get-out-the-vote efforts on both sides. Speaking of which, I suspect you've already seen this little article in today's Times, but perhaps others haven't. Ol' Pat is Still There, Folks! 43233. ycmeehan - 9/27/2000 10:51:27 AM The Mysterious Stolen Bush Tape 43234. JudithAtHome - 9/27/2000 11:01:36 AM Ducks: 43235. JudithAtHome - 9/27/2000 11:04:58 AM Sorry...I didn't read YCs link before my last post... 43236. robertjayb - 9/27/2000 12:05:48 PM . 43237. Dusty - 9/27/2000 12:06:56 PM janjon 43238. ycmeehan - 9/27/2000 12:18:37 PM I asserted the following in Message # 42743: 43239. robertjayb - 9/27/2000 12:22:23 PM . 43240. glendajean - 9/27/2000 12:23:53 PM I had forgotten about them finding a bug in Bill Clements campaign office. At the time, there was some question if it was by the Democrats or if it was a campaign ploy. 43241. robertjayb - 9/27/2000 12:36:04 PM Not tape, but pants says McKinnon aide... 43242. janjon - 9/27/2000 12:37:50 PM Hillary and Hadassah campaigned together in the Bronx yesterday. A lot of focus on the national ticket - time to replace Clinton/Gore with Gore/Lieberman etc. 43243. Wombat - 9/27/2000 12:39:06 PM So is Tom Downey now walking around in a new pair of Dockers? Return the tape, keep the pants. 43244. Thoughtful - 9/27/2000 12:42:36 PM bbbtt, I may be too cynical, but I suspect the legislation introduced in congress that's related to campaign funding is much, much higher. Remember there's so much legislation going on that we never hear about that's done to favor a particular constituency. I mean really, does anybody take national pickle month seriously? 43245. janjon - 9/27/2000 12:55:38 PM The most logical rationale to that mail delivery to Downey is that it was done by some malcontent who, on his or her own, enveigled a job that allowed access to such material. Certainly if the Dems. had a mole in the W. camp (not unheard of in politics), the delivery would not have been done in this manner. The second most logical rationale is that it was some sort of trap. (Not unheard of in the annals of politics). Either to mislead the Dems. or to set up things to create a public scandal later in the campaign about the Dems. misusing W's preparation material etc. (this latter, of course, assumes that people would not be able to figure out or care just how the Dems. got the material.) 43246. JJBiener - 9/27/2000 1:08:02 PM Thoughtful - I understand the impulse to be cynical. However, you have to remember that campaign contributions are only a means to an end. The ultimate end is votes. I will grant you that there is some relationship between money and votes, but we've seen too many cases where money didn't translate into votes to believe that the two are interchangeable. I think things like National Pickle Month and Hot Dog Appreciation Day are more about appealing to specific constituencies rather a quid pro quo for donations. 43247. Rick Norwood - 9/27/2000 1:10:57 PM I think the debates will carry Al Gore across the finish line, but I'm still not happy with him. I remember that one comment as Clinton was being run through the ringer was that nobody any good would even consent to run for president. The current election proves it, as the best qualified person for the job, Colin Powell, turned it down. 43248. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 1:28:14 PM Thoughtful 43249. ranheim - 9/27/2000 2:05:59 PM Are there still some lawyers active in the Mote? In appointing Supreme Court justices I would like to go back to the days PRIOR to Marbury vs Madison. John Marshall significantly changed the way our government runs by his influence in that decision. Lawyers could tell how much that decision changed our government better than can I. 43250. Rick Norwood - 9/27/2000 2:10:07 PM The fact that our government doesn't make sense is what keeps us free. Sensible governments always take away the freedom of the people first thing. I'm reading Coleen McCullough's Caesar currently -- great book -- and the Roman system of government made even less sense than ours does. If we lived under the Roman system, we could have gladitorial games without prudish VP candidates objecting. 43251. Wombat - 9/27/2000 2:12:00 PM Ranheim: 43252. janjon - 9/27/2000 2:12:03 PM ranheim's post consists of six sentences (including both declarative and interrogatory). That much sense I can make of it. 43253. Wombat - 9/27/2000 2:15:13 PM Rick: 43254. ranheim - 9/27/2000 2:18:10 PM #43251 43255. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 2:18:14 PM It seems to me that the judiciary is necessary to resolve disputes between the executive and the legislative branches. Unless you just want to fight to the finish. 43256. Wombat - 9/27/2000 2:18:46 PM During the time of the Articles of Confederation, of course, there was no Federal government, per se, so that would no doubt be preferable for Ranheim. Was the Constitution a "socialist" plot? 43257. Wombat - 9/27/2000 2:20:37 PM Ranheim: 43258. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/27/2000 2:20:45 PM 43259. ranheim - 9/27/2000 2:21:42 PM Doubtful. 43260. Wombat - 9/27/2000 2:23:53 PM Ranheim: 43261. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 2:28:01 PM I want a monarchy with Martha Stewart as queen. That way everything will be tidy and color coordinated. 43262. ranheim - 9/27/2000 2:28:13 PM I like the colorful faces! 43263. janjon - 9/27/2000 2:30:32 PM Much of this country is desert too. 43264. ranheim - 9/27/2000 2:32:30 PM As I don't live in CA that is a matter of indifferance to me. 43265. Rick Norwood - 9/27/2000 2:39:55 PM Well, time for class, so I guess I'll never know if the Allience overthrows the Evil Empire and returns to the days of the Old Republic or not. See you around. 43266. Wombat - 9/27/2000 2:45:30 PM Well, Ranheim: 43267. CalGal - 9/27/2000 2:49:11 PM Gosh, I was going to say that I would be a Californio, but I'm not sure my ancestors would have ever bothered immigrating to the new world if it hadn't been the cool place to be. 43268. janjon - 9/27/2000 2:57:16 PM Wombat is correct. The number of wars between neighboring "countries", either because of local issues or because of being constantly dragged into the fights between or among the various European parent countries would have been incredible. 43269. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 3:02:14 PM Let's hear it for Republican fiscal responsibility!! Our state governor was recently found to have dipped into this year's budget last year in order to pay for a "tax cut" that he championed but whose cost has been growing and growing. 43270. janjon - 9/27/2000 3:08:59 PM bub - any way this can be tied to George Allen? Gawd, I would like to think so. 43271. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 3:11:39 PM No, not Allen but his ideological soul mate Jim Gilmore. The Gov's idiot press staff is trying to play it as if the legislative auditor who found out about it is implying that the tax cut itself is illegal. 43272. janjon - 9/27/2000 3:15:42 PM Bub's comment, writ large: It's Oink Oink Time In Congress, Guys and Gals! 43273. robertjayb - 9/27/2000 3:50:39 PM . 43274. robertjayb - 9/27/2000 3:55:14 PM Help, CalGal, 43275. rubberducky - 9/27/2000 3:59:25 PM do what? 43276. Jack Vincennes - 9/27/2000 4:12:12 PM Another barf moment, from the Post: 43277. rubberducky - 9/27/2000 4:14:53 PM ick 43278. CalGal - 9/27/2000 4:17:31 PM What was barfy about Gore's reaction? I mean, what are you going to do when someone goes on a self-pitying, self-congralatory rant like that? 43279. glendajean - 9/27/2000 4:23:13 PM From what I've read, the Bush campaign has been working overtime to find so-called average folk who are not affected positively by Gore's targeted tax cuts -- he uses them at local rallies as examples. Sounds like the Gore people found a colorful one. 43280. Jack Vincennes - 9/27/2000 4:27:44 PM Cal 43281. robertjayb - 9/27/2000 4:28:49 PM . 43282. CalGal - 9/27/2000 4:29:27 PM Well, yeah. But that shit works. What are you gonna do? 43283. rubberducky - 9/27/2000 4:30:15 PM RJB 43284. Jack Vincennes - 9/27/2000 4:30:50 PM Cal 43285. glendajean - 9/27/2000 4:31:12 PM Phil Gramm used to always reference a printer named Dickey Flatt from Limestone County in Central Texas -- and talk about the ink stain on his fingers, and how hard he worked and sweated, blah, blah, blah, and said that he always thought of Dickey when he voted on government policies that could adversely affect this proud, indepenent small business owner. 43286. CalGal - 9/27/2000 4:32:28 PM Jack, 43287. Jack Vincennes - 9/27/2000 4:33:01 PM Oh, Lord. 43288. Jack Vincennes - 9/27/2000 4:33:27 PM Cal 43289. glendajean - 9/27/2000 4:36:40 PM Well, I know you think of England at certain times. 43290. robertjayb - 9/27/2000 4:38:59 PM . 43291. JudithAtHome - 9/27/2000 4:57:59 PM That's an excellent place for him, Robert... 43292. Ronski - 9/27/2000 4:59:10 PM Okay, the economic models say Gore should win. But then the tradition is for most of the undecideds to break at the last minute for the challenger, who is arguably Bush, especially if it is a close race. Could this fact spell trouble for Gore? Or will economic well-being helping the incumbent party rule the day? Or will it all be dependent on the debates? 43293. CalGal - 9/27/2000 4:59:11 PM Jack, 43294. robertjayb - 9/27/2000 5:01:35 PM . 43295. glendajean - 9/27/2000 5:03:53 PM Ronski -- I am a fatalist about elections. For almost a year, I've sulked about Bush's free ride and Gore's bumbling and bad press. Since the Democratic Party, I've been unusually chipper about the elections. Lately, I am feeling moody again. I'm just happy I've had a month or so of feeling great. 43296. Ronski - 9/27/2000 5:08:14 PM glenda, 43297. glendajean - 9/27/2000 5:09:23 PM Ronski -- I'm not worried. And wasn't even thinking about your vote. I know that you have an interest in the marriage issue. 43298. Ronski - 9/27/2000 5:18:57 PM glenda, 43299. glendajean - 9/27/2000 5:24:08 PM Ronski -- particularly if you compared it to 4 or 8 years ago. 43300. glendajean - 9/27/2000 5:25:02 PM More stuff on presidential polling issues from the Washington Post. 43301. janjon - 9/27/2000 5:37:04 PM Ronski and Glenda. I hope that somewhere along the road in the debates that W. is asked to respond to the same question that Gore did in his MTV gig. 43302. glendajean - 9/27/2000 5:55:13 PM Janjon -- I think that would be that gay marriage/civil unions would be a big question in the debates. 43303. janjon - 9/27/2000 6:02:47 PM Glenda. As you mentioned above, the times they are a'changin'. 43304. glendajean - 9/27/2000 6:08:45 PM Pandering is a political necessity. Take Bush (please ...rim show. He's a compassionate conservative until John McCain beats him in New Hampshire. On to South Carolina and he's Pat Robertson's best friend. Is for or against abortion? Well, he's in between. That's what politicians do. They vary a bit. 43305. glendajean - 9/27/2000 6:09:13 PM uh, would that be ... rim shot 43306. glendajean - 9/27/2000 6:11:39 PM I give up on spelling the English language correctly. It's a lost cause. 43307. glendajean - 9/27/2000 6:12:03 PM or using html 43308. janjon - 9/27/2000 6:12:52 PM Well, I've heard of rim shots, but rim show made me feel as if I had somehow led a sheltered life. 43309. glendajean - 9/27/2000 6:15:09 PM (blush) 43310. robertjayb - 9/27/2000 6:22:57 PM . 43311. ranheim - 9/27/2000 6:23:03 PM #43266 43312. ranheim - 9/27/2000 6:32:27 PM #43266 43313. msgreer - 9/27/2000 6:37:32 PM Did you hear GW decided not to address the Christian Coalition? I haven't heard his campaign explain why but it doesn't take a rocket 43314. janjon - 9/27/2000 6:42:43 PM msgreer. Indeed. It is part of his wink and nod strategy. There are other ways for the Christian Coalition and the NRA, just to name two, to get the word. In the meantime, the great unwashed "undecideds" presumably are too distracted or inattentive to notice (or care). 43315. ranheim - 9/27/2000 6:44:54 PM We had a flash of lightning here. Would that cause a post to occur in mid-stream? 43316. msgreer - 9/27/2000 6:50:20 PM janjon Remember the NRA's famous words,'if George W. Bush becomes The thought GW may become President should make any thinking person vote for Gore or Browne or Nadar. My feeling is GW is an idiot...a puppet being held up by the likes of his father's croonies..ie George Schultz to name one. Perhaps even more scary is the thought of Dick Cheney being a heart beat away. His wife Lynn is even worse. If anyone is in doubt of what I am saying take a true and hard look at how he ran TX. Oh I don't want to leave out Cheney's TX voting record. There isn't one. How many times did Cheney not vote..some 13 or 14 times. Yet he is 43317. JJBiener - 9/27/2000 6:58:40 PM Ronski - Gore is my second choice, now, after Browne 43318. JJBiener - 9/27/2000 7:04:16 PM MsGreer - Considering that you are normally a calm, rational person, your screed in #43316 is out of character and rather troubling. You should start by listening to the people who know Bush and have worked with him instead of listening to those who are trying to defeat him. You are normally a fair person. I hope you take the time and effort to be fair in this case. 43319. Nostradamus - 9/27/2000 7:21:43 PM JJ 43320. msgreer - 9/27/2000 7:28:18 PM JJ My dear friend... I have done MY homework. I have no intentions of taking back what I said or how I feel. No, I am not thrilled with Gore. I'm not blind and dumb. GW is making his issues and how he would handle our country everyday. Please know I am listening to what he has to say as well as Gore. BTW, your email finally came through. If I can get my daughter to sleep at a reasonable time I will answer you tonight. And you are right. I am rational person. Without saying a word we have always agreed to disagree. I have enormous respect for you, JJ. Let it be said our politics couldn't be further apart and yet I read all you post. I am always interested in what your point of view is. Oh hell, I better save this for an email. I am about to go into true confessions when it comes to politics. 43321. msgreer - 9/27/2000 7:31:23 PM Nos No one was addressing you. Butt out. 43322. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 7:48:02 PM Gay marriage was an issue in the Va. Senate debate on Sunday -- with George "kick their soft teeth down their whiney throats" Allen saying that Chuck Robb was out of touch with the good citizens of the commonwealth for voting against the defense of marriage bill and Robb responding that he voted against it because it was a states' right issue. I don't know that gays would derive much comfort out of the exchange on either side. 43323. ChristinO - 9/27/2000 7:49:02 PM B'bette, 43324. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 7:51:09 PM I saw the woman who so disgusts Jack109 on the news tonight. She didn't strike me as whining about her plight. In fact, she seemed kind of fiesty --doing what she needed to do to get by. 43325. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 7:51:41 PM Christino 43326. ChristinO - 9/27/2000 7:55:06 PM coolio.....no I just have to find that addy again. I think I got it. 43327. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 8:02:48 PM ChristinO 43328. ChristinO - 9/27/2000 8:07:11 PM darn. i had an extry letter in thar. 43329. jonesatlaw - 9/27/2000 8:22:43 PM 43249. ranheim - 9/27/00 7:05:59 PM 43330. Al D - 9/27/2000 9:17:22 PM I would like to suggest that you all go over to Salon and read Divid Horowitz's article about what a miricle it is that GW is running neck and neck with Gore. While I don't think anyone will receive sainthood for this miricle, it is sort of a conundrum, don't you think? I have always enjoyed reading Horowitz, even back when he wrote for Ramparts. 43331. Michael Mele - 9/27/2000 9:56:48 PM Bubbaette -- 43332. CalGal - 9/27/2000 10:01:15 PM Actually, I think states' rights is an excellent reason to vote against DOMA. 43333. RosettaStone - 9/27/2000 10:02:21 PM MM: I want to thank you for coming to mote. It's slower than TT but you'll find many good writers here. 43334. Cellar Door - 9/27/2000 10:04:01 PM Michael Mele is a treasure. 43335. Al D - 9/27/2000 10:14:00 PM Do any of you believe that in the debates, either Gore or Bush could garner votes by saying they are for same sex marriage? I don't think so. 43336. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 10:19:02 PM Michael 43337. Al D - 9/27/2000 10:27:15 PM More tolerance from the Liberal: don't think my way and you are a rube and a boob, and probably a Republican at that. 43338. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 10:29:47 PM Maybe then you can explain to me how your marriage is threatened by allowing gay marriage? 43339. Michael Mele - 9/27/2000 10:31:04 PM Al D -- 43340. CalGal - 9/27/2000 11:00:28 PM Michael, 43341. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 11:08:17 PM Candidates have few negative consequences to face (in most areas of the nation) by not supporting gay rights issues and often face hell to pay if they do. 43342. CalGal - 9/27/2000 11:15:14 PM Well, hell yes. Haven't you heard what's happening in Vermont? 43343. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 11:17:58 PM No -- I haven't seen anything in my local paper at all about the aftermath. 43344. CalGal - 9/27/2000 11:26:36 PM Oh, there's been a lot of pressure on those who supported it--they are all facing tough re-election campaigns. I'll see if I can find a link on it somewhere. 43345. Al D - 9/27/2000 11:28:29 PM Michael 43346. CalGal - 9/27/2000 11:30:37 PM Just what it says, although it reflects my wacky syntax. 43347. CalGal - 9/27/2000 11:30:54 PM 43348. Cellar Door - 9/27/2000 11:31:03 PM "Do any of you believe that in the debates, either Gore or Bush could garner votes by saying they are for same sex marriage? I don't think so." 43349. Al D - 9/27/2000 11:34:16 PM CalGal 43350. CalGal - 9/27/2000 11:36:00 PM Al, 43351. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 11:36:03 PM I believe that Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in his first term of office in the White House. 43352. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 11:36:27 PM cross post 43353. Al D - 9/27/2000 11:42:53 PM Please forgive me for being so dense. I get it. 43354. JJBiener - 9/27/2000 11:44:21 PM Bubbaette - Robb responding that he voted against [DOMA] because it was a states' right issue. 43355. Michael Mele - 9/28/2000 12:13:14 AM JJ -- 43356. CalGal - 9/28/2000 12:16:17 AM It's actually kind of interesting--what will happen when, inevitably, DOMA is challenged in court? 43357. jonesatlaw - 9/28/2000 12:34:47 AM I've always been struck by the resistence to any kind of gay unions. YOu want to reserve the term marriage to men and women- okay, just let gays have similar property rights. Its, after all, THEIR MONEY (GW are you listening?) Let's get the government out of the private sector. 43358. Michael Mele - 9/28/2000 12:36:07 AM That's the $64 question, CalGal. 43359. CalGal - 9/28/2000 12:39:26 AM Michael, 43360. CalGal - 9/28/2000 12:40:02 AM BTW, Michael, Jack Vincennes was Cassius at TT for a while. Just so's you know. 43361. Stumbo - 9/28/2000 12:44:37 AM My apologies if this has been quoted here before, but I was up in VT last week. Apparently, one of the anti-civil-union side's slogans is: 43362. Michael Mele - 9/28/2000 12:46:16 AM But the plus side is that it's only causing symbolic harm at this point--not to dismiss it, but it's not like there are actual marriages being the subject of discrimination. 43363. Michael Mele - 9/28/2000 12:47:16 AM Toys. 43364. CalGal - 9/28/2000 12:47:27 AM 43365. CalGal - 9/28/2000 12:47:54 AM Don't worry; almost everyone does it sometime. I myself have done it one time this year. 43366. Michael Mele - 9/28/2000 12:49:12 AM But those "relationships" waddle and quack just like marriages. 43367. Michael Mele - 9/28/2000 12:50:23 AM Suggestion: Gail Collins should be added to the pundit list. She eats Dowds lunch often as not. 43368. CalGal - 9/28/2000 12:51:05 AM No argument. But I was using "marriage" in the technical sense. At some point in the future, I predict a state will actually legalize gay marriage, and at that point marriages in the true sense of the word will be discriminated against. 43369. CalGal - 9/28/2000 12:52:22 AM Was she the one who wrote the piece on women and nuclear weapons just recently? 43370. Michael Mele - 9/28/2000 3:13:25 AM Was [Gail Collins] the one who wrote the piece on women and nuclear weapons just recently? 43371. CalGal - 9/28/2000 3:24:08 AM What on earth are you doing up? 43372. Michael Mele - 9/28/2000 3:46:17 AM Curing my insomnia on the "stay awake til you drop" plan. 43373. JudithAtHome - 9/28/2000 9:26:01 AM Yesterday the city council of Fort Worth Texas voted to pass an anti-discrimination ordinance. This ordinance was proposed 2 years ago and after heated debate, Councilman Chuck Silcox made a motion to table it indefinitely. Mr. Silcox seems to be a decent man; he brought the ordinance forward this time and argued for its passage. Despite the long lines of people who spoke against the ordinance, including the Chairwoman of the local Republican Party, it passed with only one vote against (this by an elderly councilman who is set in his ways, to say the least). 43374. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/28/2000 9:55:45 AM 43375. Dusty - 9/28/2000 10:10:50 AM jonesatlaw Message # 43357 43376. CalGal - 9/28/2000 11:08:39 AM Jack, 43377. ranheim - 9/28/2000 11:15:41 AM I don't recall the city; but, there was an interesting group of people living together in an up-scale suburb. As I recall, six people were involved : 3 of each sex. 43378. janjon - 9/28/2000 12:09:16 PM that little anecdotal tale sounds tinny. I suspect that at its core the zoning restrictions of the up-scale suburb were being violated by having such a group of adults sharing a house, let alone in what I supposed possibly might be characterized as some sort of a commune. The census taker calling the cops also sounds suspect. 43379. ranheim - 9/28/2000 12:37:22 PM It was during a period in the USA when times were "difficult" - possibly the 1970 census? 43380. Ronski - 9/28/2000 1:17:30 PM Janjon is right. It was undoubtedly a violation of zoning regulations. 43381. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 1:19:34 PM When I was in college I lived in several "shared" houses that included both males and females. In order to "protect" neighborhoods, the Blacksburg town council passed an ordinance prohibiting more than 4 unrelated people from living in the same residence. 43382. glendajean - 9/28/2000 2:24:29 PM Group homes are fairly popular in Washington, DC, where you have a large population of college or immediately post college students who cannot afford the going rate for rentals. 43383. JJBiener - 9/28/2000 2:26:39 PM Bubbaette - When I was in college I lived in several "shared" houses that included both males and females. 43384. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 2:33:02 PM I lived in shared housing for the 4 years I lived in metro D.C. When I moved to Richmond and could rent a 2 bedroom apt. for what I was paying for 1 bedroom in a 4 bedroom house, I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. 43385. glendajean - 9/28/2000 2:35:13 PM But what about mechanics, fortunetellers and door-to-door salesmen? 43386. OhioSTOPAS - 9/28/2000 2:47:06 PM . . . and Yankee fans. 43387. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 3:02:24 PM Hey, I'm not too particular. But I might have to think awhile about those Yankees fans. 43388. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 3:06:55 PM And I have a mechanic for a roommate now. 43389. glendajean - 9/28/2000 3:08:21 PM Great line ... and great choice on your part. 43390. Ronski - 9/28/2000 3:08:47 PM 43391. glendajean - 9/28/2000 3:09:02 PM When I was in college, I lived with 5 other guys in a house. One of my roommates became an Amway salesman. We had a rule that he could not talk to us about it. 43392. JJBiener - 9/28/2000 3:13:18 PM Bubbaette - "why would you want to marry a grease monkey when you work all day with lawyers and politicians?" 43393. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 3:19:02 PM JJ 43394. janjon - 9/28/2000 3:20:00 PM Although not terribly high on the list of all-time bad room/apartment mate experiences, I had a doozy when in my early 20s. Perfectly rational guy until it came to his...tropical fish. Sounds harmless, right? Well, he loved them but it became painfully clear he didn't really have much experience with them. Many a morning would start for him by using his little scoop to take yet another bellyup one to the toilet for its efficient burial. But, he always persevered and bought replacements and new types. I remember vividly the time he shrieked and shrieked early one morning because one of his new acquisitions from the day before had eaten (large parts of, but alas not all) virtually all of the other fish in the rather large tank. 43395. JJBiener - 9/28/2000 3:21:57 PM Bubbaette - Didn't your mother warn you about what would happen if you hung around with the wrong crowd? 43396. JJBiener - 9/28/2000 3:24:33 PM janjon - Just be glad you didn't find a fish head in your bed. 43397. JJBiener - 9/28/2000 3:25:29 PM janjon - That would have made your roomate, the Codfather. 43398. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 3:26:53 PM My worst roommate ever in college was a music major -- voice, soprano. She used to sing along with all the commercial jingles on the t.v. Her boyfriend, who "lived" in the dorm and spent all his time at our apartment, was a t.v. addict who lunged for the remote and turned on the t.v. as soon as he entered the place and kept it on the entire time he was there. If the rest of us wanted to listen to music, he'd just turn up the volumn on the t.v. 43399. janjon - 9/28/2000 3:32:33 PM bub - I assume that the theft occurred just as they were moving out of the apt.? 43400. rubberducky - 9/28/2000 3:35:35 PM um 43401. Cellar Door - 9/28/2000 3:37:03 PM Has anybody found a copy of Lynne Cheney's novel yet? 43402. JJBiener - 9/28/2000 3:37:26 PM Bubbaette - It was horror stories like that which kept me from having an apartment with roomates. At least until Suzy-Q moved in, but that was different. 43403. JJBiener - 9/28/2000 3:39:12 PM Cellar - I have never found Lynne Cheney to particularly novel in any respect. Oh, that's not what you asked. Sorry. 43404. janjon - 9/28/2000 3:45:06 PM Cellar. haven't looked. But the plot description in the papers yesterday makes it sound steamy (with a lesbian love affair sub-plot no less) if not profound. 43408. janjon - 9/28/2000 4:30:45 PM Ronski. Are you suggesting that you think he has in fact or will blow it? 43409. msgreer - 9/28/2000 4:34:02 PM JJ Excuse the spam.Please go to Legal.Read my earlier posts as well as MsIvory's response. Then sit down when you read what I just posted. I have been calling your cell and 43410. Ronski - 9/28/2000 4:34:20 PM Not that he has or will, but rather I'm asking what would he have to do to blow it? My guess is that he will have to both stray too far to the left (frightening the center) and tell some more of those embroidered stories of his (raising doubts about his character) to do it. And it's hard for me to imagine that he is dumb enough to do those things. 43411. rubberducky - 9/28/2000 4:34:21 PM reasons why i adore Tom Tomorrow: 43412. JJBiener - 9/28/2000 4:35:18 PM Ronski - And how could Gore possibly blow an election in which there's 5.6 percent growth announced for most recent quarter (or something like that)? 43413. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 4:37:10 PM 43414. janjon - 9/28/2000 4:42:22 PM ronski. I agree. As for his saying something that might be deemed to be yet another exaggeration, the problem there is that EVERYTHING he says is examined now for that. Sloppiness (as in that staff fuckup re the dog medicine) becomes yet another example. In other words, no slack given on that point. 43415. phydeau - 9/28/2000 4:42:56 PM The question should be: Considering the state of the economy and the factors favoring the incumbent, why is Gore even with Bush and not up by 15-20 points. 43416. Ronski - 9/28/2000 4:45:02 PM I think Gore is not up there because of two things: the first is that there are questions about his character, whether one agrees with the Gore critics or not. 43417. Ronski - 9/28/2000 4:46:41 PM 43418. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 4:46:43 PM 43419. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 4:47:42 PM 43420. Ronski - 9/28/2000 4:49:48 PM It wouldn't necessarily be major media that would be giving the air time, since they do not own the stations (they are permitted to own only a handful). It would be individual stations around the country, and their financial situations vary. Large TV stations in large markets are indeed money mills. Small radio stations beyond the big cities are not. 43421. Al D - 9/28/2000 4:56:33 PM I tried to get something started on why Gore is just even with Bush when he should be far ahead. Horowitz calls it a miracle. It certainly doesn't make much sense with the economy as good as it is and Bush being such a lightweight. But it seems his supporters don't have any thoughts on the matter. 43422. janjon - 9/28/2000 4:58:53 PM I'm not so sure it is questions about his character, ronski. Maybe his wonkiness, his ultra-sincerity. 43423. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:02:28 PM 43424. Ronski - 9/28/2000 5:02:36 PM janjon, 43425. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:04:11 PM 43426. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:06:02 PM 43427. Ronski - 9/28/2000 5:07:25 PM I think a lot of the American public would like to embrace Kurt Warner. 43428. JJBiener - 9/28/2000 5:08:39 PM janjon - Maybe . . . his ultra-sincerity. 43429. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:09:39 PM 43430. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:16:47 PM 43431. Al D - 9/28/2000 5:17:23 PM Ace 43432. Al D - 9/28/2000 5:18:58 PM Nader thinks that the Mississippi river starts in Montana. Rosie O'Fatass doesn't know where Argentina and the Falklands are. But Liberals adore them both. 43433. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:21:21 PM 43434. janjon - 9/28/2000 5:22:05 PM AlD - It is indeed true that W. has been spouting off for the couple of weeks that he is the underdog and that its really just surprising that he should even be as close as he is given the good economy etc. 43435. robertjayb - 9/28/2000 5:22:29 PM Ho, Hum. It's still a tie. 43436. OhioSTOPAS - 9/28/2000 5:23:11 PM Dubya would say that's just antidotal evidence. 43437. OhioSTOPAS - 9/28/2000 5:24:34 PM (43436 responded to Al D's 43432.) 43438. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:25:07 PM 43439. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:26:18 PM 43440. janjon - 9/28/2000 5:27:31 PM Ace. Good to see you back. Even if you slipped right back into your old ways. 43441. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:28:41 PM 43442. janjon - 9/28/2000 5:29:44 PM W. has pronounced that the FDA made a mistake. Declined to say, however, whether he would overturn the decision. Predictably, he's being peppered with requests (make it demands if you want) that he just simply answer yes or no. 43443. Dusty - 9/28/2000 5:31:57 PM It's good to have ya back ACE 43444. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:32:21 PM 43445. Al D - 9/28/2000 5:34:40 PM Ace. Good to see you back. Even if you slipped right back into your old ways. 43446. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:35:02 PM 43447. Raskolnikov - 9/28/2000 5:37:08 PM "I tried to get something started on why Gore is just even with Bush when he should be far ahead. Horowitz calls it a miracle. " 43448. janjon - 9/28/2000 5:37:10 PM Ace, dear boy. I actually think you understood what I was saying. You just decided to twist it around and then go off on a toot. In your typically agitated way. 43449. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:37:26 PM 43450. janjon - 9/28/2000 5:41:44 PM Al D - I doubt anyone would have a good time here if he or she didn't have a sense of humor AND a sense of irony. 43451. Raskolnikov - 9/28/2000 5:42:02 PM Ick. Ford wasn't a sitting veep, of course. Scratch him from the analysis. He was a weak case anyway, as the economy weren't all that hot. 43452. janjon - 9/28/2000 5:43:19 PM Ace - hey, it worked with Ronnie. W.'s handlers obviously thought they could pull it off this time too. 43453. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:44:40 PM 43454. Al D - 9/28/2000 5:46:15 PM Raskolnikov 43455. Don S. - 9/28/2000 5:46:44 PM Has anyone offered their condolences to Rosella Stone on the apparent electoral defeat of his patron? 43456. janjon - 9/28/2000 5:47:01 PM Unanswered negative ads, Willie Horton in particular, and the head shot in the tank. 43457. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:47:38 PM 43458. janjon - 9/28/2000 5:49:09 PM whoa. W. leads in West Virginia? Maryland? (Forget Louisiana.) 43459. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:50:43 PM 43460. glendajean - 9/28/2000 5:52:39 PM Ace -- that's a statistical deadheat in West Virgina. (If the margin of error is +/- 3) 43461. janjon - 9/28/2000 5:53:32 PM well what do you know. 43462. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:56:04 PM Maryland Results 9/25/00 43463. Raskolnikov - 9/28/2000 5:56:33 PM Ace: and why do you attribute that to the quality of the candidate, rather than the quality of their campaign? Dukakis was ahead for most of 1988, indicating that Bush wasn't well-loved by the public. But Bush Sr ran an excellent campaign, outmaneuvering Dukakis on every turn - destroying his perceived strengths (Boston harbor, for instance), and amplifying his weaknesses (Horton, the tank shot, etc.). Dukakis ran a horrible campaign, letting Bush get away with call himself the education and environmental President, and responding weakly to Bush's attacks ("this isn't about labels. It is about competence"). Neither Gore nor Bush have proven themselves a consistently competent, or incompetent campaigner. They each have good weeks and bad weeks, making it difficult for one to dominate the other. 43464. Al D - 9/28/2000 5:56:56 PM glendajean 43465. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:57:01 PM 43467. Raskolnikov - 9/28/2000 6:00:03 PM "It seems to me that what you say is not to the point of Horowitz's 43468. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 6:00:21 PM 43471. janjon - 9/28/2000 6:03:15 PM If anything, I fear he's too good of a debater, and will come off as appearing to be too wonkish and ultra-sincere. 43472. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 6:03:52 PM 43473. Raskolnikov - 9/28/2000 6:04:14 PM By the way: here is an update on the Minnesota Senate race. Dayton is considerably ahead of Grams in the most recent poll, 49% to 35%. This despite the fact that Dayton has been taking a lot of heat from Grams and the press for owning shares of drug companies while blasting their profiteering (Dayton's explanation is that others manage his wealth, and he sold off the stock when he found out he owned it). 43474. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 6:04:33 PM 43476. Al D - 9/28/2000 6:07:18 PM Raskolnikov 43478. JJBiener - 9/28/2000 6:08:39 PM Al D - If Kennedy hadn't died in office, he would not be treated with reverence today. 43479. janjon - 9/28/2000 6:09:33 PM Hard to know, living in this t.v. vacuum insofar as the Presidential race is concerned, but I suspect that a fair amount of the W. uptick comes from his use of his attack and negative ads the last week or so. 43480. glendajean - 9/28/2000 6:12:28 PM glendajean 43481. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 6:12:54 PM 43483. Raskolnikov - 9/28/2000 6:15:00 PM "Gore counted on a similar "super-bounce." It seemed, for a time, he 43484. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 6:15:52 PM 43485. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 6:17:05 PM 43486. JJBiener - 9/28/2000 6:17:15 PM It is funny how when Bush is talking about the problems in education, that's negative campaigning. But when Gore lies about Bush's record and programs, that isn't. Gore's campaign has been consistently negative since day 1. 43487. Raskolnikov - 9/28/2000 6:17:43 PM "I had no idea you were a National Review fan." 43488. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 6:18:07 PM 43489. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 6:19:54 PM 43491. JJBiener - 9/28/2000 6:28:16 PM The latest attack ads from Gore claim Bush will cut $250 billion from Medicare and give that money to the rich. It claims that Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut will use up all of the $4.6 trillion surplus, raid the social securty trust fund forcing deep cuts in benefits and destroy Medicare. 43492. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 6:31:45 PM 43493. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 6:33:34 PM 43494. CalGal - 9/28/2000 6:34:11 PM Rask, 43495. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 6:40:20 PM 43496. CalGal - 9/28/2000 6:42:56 PM I dunno. Feminists have never required permission to be righteous self-serving hypocrites. 43497. dusty - 9/28/2000 7:12:28 PM janjon 43499. Al D - 9/28/2000 7:28:58 PM Washington -- America's progressives, liberals, 43500. Cellar Door - 9/28/2000 7:31:44 PM Well I guess you can chalk it up to progress, Al. From spitting on Our Brave Gook-Killing Vietnam Vets to spitting on our Deeply Moral Fag-Bashing Boy Scouts. 43501. Cellar Door - 9/28/2000 7:32:33 PM R. Emmett Tyrell has his nerve. I've fucked moe Boy Scouts than he has. 43502. Al D - 9/28/2000 7:38:36 PM Cellar 43503. dusty - 9/28/2000 7:40:06 PM Cellar Door 43508. Cellar Door - 9/28/2000 8:40:04 PM "Do you think the Boy Scouts (the kids, as opposed to the leaders) are making the decisions?" 43510. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 9:04:25 PM please delete the above post -- I've copied it to the right thread. 43511. phydeau - 9/28/2000 9:19:08 PM Think of it: Phydeau is a fucking moron. 43512. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/28/2000 9:22:26 PM Cellar- 43513. CalGal - 9/28/2000 9:24:29 PM Phydeau, 43514. phydeau - 9/28/2000 9:43:16 PM Thx... want to know the players, gotta have a scorecard... 43515. Al D - 9/28/2000 9:49:44 PM Is there someone on the Mote Ace hasn't insulted. I don't think so. His doing so, Phydeau, means he thinks you belong here. And CalGal is half right, he is very funny, and she loves him dearly. 43516. phydeau - 9/28/2000 9:50:33 PM Aw shucks... you like me! You really like me! 43517. Al D - 9/28/2000 9:51:23 PM Phydeau 43518. Al D - 9/28/2000 9:55:51 PM Phydeau 43519. phydeau - 9/28/2000 10:00:44 PM Al, I've been over there occasionally, conversed with some in places like this. Most of them seem like hardcore Clinton haters, in the most irrational sense. Also I recall reading somewhere that this place was a combination of freepers and folks from that Salon Table Chat place, who are more "liberal". (?) 43520. jonesatlaw - 9/28/2000 10:04:38 PM Ace is back! Bush's numbers must be up. 43521. CalGal - 9/28/2000 10:06:33 PM Phydeau, 43522. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 10:26:48 PM phydeau 43523. Al D - 9/28/2000 10:35:22 PM I know one. Name the other. I was a freeper and believe me the Mote is nothing like Free Republic. First off, it (Mote) has .00001 the action, which is a +- sort of thing. TT to me is an unmigagated disaster. No matter where you are on the political scale, the Mote is the best site for my money. Of course, money is not envolved, as it was on the Fray. Does anyone need a Fray umbrella? I have 4. 43524. Al D - 9/28/2000 10:37:36 PM Oh yeah, the great thing about Liberals is they never name call. They just calmly discuss issues. 43525. phydeau - 9/28/2000 10:45:17 PM Are you one of the name callers Al? I haven't seen Bush called names at all here, in the couple weeks I've been reading it. 43526. Al D - 9/28/2000 11:06:39 PM Phydeau 43527. Al D - 9/28/2000 11:08:14 PM Also, is it really, as has been claimed, a violation to release oil reserves to manipulate price? And did Gore give that as a reason when he called for the release of 5,000,000 barrels? 43528. Orca - 9/28/2000 11:19:38 PM AlD: A hydrologist will tell you that, map designations notwithstanding, the Mississippi River indeed starts in Montana. Its official headwaters lie in Minnesota, but it is really not a major river until it joins the Missouri River, which is the larger tributary at that juncture by nearly twice the cfps. And the Missouri, which is the longest river in the nation, in fact originates in Montana. In other words, the original mapmakers chose the wrong channel for designating the Mississippi's headwaters. 43529. joezan - 9/28/2000 11:39:14 PM 43530. joezan - 9/28/2000 11:40:24 PM 43531. EricCartman - 9/28/2000 11:43:30 PM Ace Message # 43429: 43532. EricCartman - 9/28/2000 11:45:12 PM The other day, I noticed that Biener posed a perfectly good Clinton question, and went largely ignored. I wonder if this is one of those things that's conspicuous by the silence around it or what: 43533. Al D - 9/28/2000 11:47:01 PM Orca 43534. CalGal - 9/28/2000 11:50:24 PM Cart, 43535. CalGal - 9/28/2000 11:51:31 PM I said that wrong--couldn't it be true that they sent over someone to pick up the files, lied about it because it looked bad, and still be unjustly linked to Foster's death? 43536. Orca - 9/29/2000 12:00:40 AM Al: Well, then, what Nader was saying was perfectly correct. Once any drop of water from Montana travels down the Missouri far enough, it certainly becomes part of the Mississippi. 43537. Al D - 9/29/2000 12:01:32 AM Eric 43538. phydeau - 9/29/2000 12:11:26 AM So, Eric, Al... who are you guys voting for THIS time, the veteran or the draft dodger? 43539. Al D - 9/29/2000 12:14:53 AM Phydeau 43540. phydeau - 9/29/2000 12:19:01 AM Al, we have a veteran and a draft dodger in this race, in case you didn't notice. 43541. phydeau - 9/29/2000 12:20:22 AM Not only a draft dodger, but one who went AWOL from his cushy, safe, National Guard gig, coincidentally just before they started mandatory drug testing. 43542. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 12:28:05 AM Al D -- 43543. CalGal - 9/29/2000 12:30:52 AM Yes, I am bothered by it. On the other hand, our energy usage is so cavalier in general it seems a bit silly to quibble. A billion barrels here, a couple million SUVs there, what's the big? 43544. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 12:56:35 AM You would know better than a NYC boy like me, CalGal, living on the left coast and all, do SUV drivers refrain from wearing bumper stikers about the earth or the whales or that sort of thing? Or do they fail to make connections like most people do? 43545. CalGal - 9/29/2000 1:07:21 AM I don't usually see bumper stickers, but I'm not terribly observant. 43546. Stumbo - 9/29/2000 1:14:04 AM Fido: 43547. Stumbo - 9/29/2000 1:19:01 AM As for the gas-price thing: 43548. EricCartman - 9/29/2000 1:28:46 AM Cal Message # 43535: 43549. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 1:29:20 AM Yawn, indeed. 43550. EricCartman - 9/29/2000 1:31:55 AM Al Message # 43537: 43551. EricCartman - 9/29/2000 1:34:13 AM Phydeau Message # 43538: 43552. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 1:36:32 AM Eric -- 43553. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 1:40:06 AM >I realize I'm all over the place here, but what the fuck. 43554. CalGal - 9/29/2000 1:44:40 AM too much smoke not to be a little fire; 43555. EricCartman - 9/29/2000 1:49:12 AM Stumbo Message # 43547: 43556. EricCartman - 9/29/2000 1:49:26 AM And that was supposedly the tack Clinton/Gore were going to take -- nothing radical, just recognizing that taking these few simple steps are part of progress. But they betrayed that entire ethos with their wholesale encouragement of the SUV craze. I'm not saying that they should have killed it, but they didn't have to allow their own CAFE standards to be specially circumvented by them. That, imho, qualifies as the antithesis of any real environmental plan. 43557. EricCartman - 9/29/2000 2:09:10 AM Michael: 43558. EricCartman - 9/29/2000 2:09:31 AM Take my personal favorite example, the War on Some Drugs. No sensible person could read all the stats, assimilate all the data, scrutinize the manifold hypocrisies and lunacies inherent in our current drug policy, and conclude that it's even close to working. It's a complete and total waste of money, and gets us involved in various levels of anti-democratic activities to boot. 43559. EricCartman - 9/29/2000 2:09:50 AM Cal: 43560. CalGal - 9/29/2000 2:13:33 AM I think the vindication comes in when you consider that a whole bunch of people were seriously out to get him, and he made it through. 43561. EricCartman - 9/29/2000 2:25:50 AM Cal: 43562. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 2:30:44 AM >That's just the man's luck. 43563. CalGal - 9/29/2000 2:35:21 AM Eric, 43564. CalGal - 9/29/2000 2:42:51 AM Michael, 43565. RosettaStone - 9/29/2000 7:21:22 AM Clinton's pro-homosexual backlash is real, even in ultra-liberal Montgomery County, Maryland. 43566. bubbaette - 9/29/2000 8:24:09 AM Gore may have been drawing a perfectly reasonable distinction between Medicare as an entitlement that folks shouldn't have to run the gauntlet to get, as opposed to welfare, where you want the applicants to jump through lots of hoops to prove they deserve your money. 43567. TabouliJones - 9/29/2000 8:37:15 AM R.I.P Pierre Elliot Trudeau, a wise, often irrascible, and always straight shooting voice for Canada -- a poltical giant, really, 43568. RosettaStone - 9/29/2000 8:39:48 AM He'll be known for his wife who tried to fuck Mick Jagger, but ended up with bed with Ron Wood. 43569. TabouliJones - 9/29/2000 8:42:16 AM Oh fuddle duddle Rosetta. He will be known for much more than that; but, of course, you know that. Ten points to anyone who can explain the allusion in my first sentence. 43570. rubberducky - 9/29/2000 8:46:18 AM Re: Message # 43565, RosettaStone. 43571. rubberducky - 9/29/2000 8:59:25 AM all of the posts that were moved to the RU thread have been deleted. 43572. RosettaStone - 9/29/2000 9:22:08 AM rubber: Wait and see, darling. 43573. RosettaStone - 9/29/2000 9:24:00 AM delete "with"; insert "me" in last graph. 43574. rubberducky - 9/29/2000 9:29:30 AM Many are minorities, especially Asian. 43575. RosettaStone - 9/29/2000 9:41:38 AM You're needlessly getting me angry, darling, but since I know I'm on the hitlist and don't want to be banned, especially since Michael has joined, I will back off. 43576. rubberducky - 9/29/2000 9:43:39 AM nonsense 43577. phydeau - 9/29/2000 10:04:15 AM Re the draft dodger thing, I'd have a lot more respect for the Bush supporters if they admitted he dodged the draft but they're supporting him anyway because other factors outweigh it. Instead, we get spin. Whatever happened to "character counts"? 43578. Dusty - 9/29/2000 10:06:56 AM phydeau 43579. phydeau - 9/29/2000 10:14:32 AM Hey Dusty, I'm new here, I'm just trying to find out what people think. No one's given me a straight answer on the draft-dodging thing, which, come to think of it, is an answer in itself. 43580. RosettaStone - 9/29/2000 10:16:46 AM What you mean, Bush dodged the draft? 43581. Wombat - 9/29/2000 11:06:27 AM Rosie: 43582. Cellar Door - 9/29/2000 11:14:59 AM The Log Cabin Republicans have just endorsed Lazio. 43583. Ronski - 9/29/2000 11:19:42 AM 43584. RosettaStone - 9/29/2000 11:23:43 AM As wombat says about my defending a warrior who flys a dangerous jet figher, but is called a "draft dodger." Don't go there, CD. 43585. Ronski - 9/29/2000 11:26:49 AM 43586. janjon - 9/29/2000 11:32:41 AM Jack - are you around? Here's an article that you will find of interest: Not Just the Can Lady, But a Multi-Faceted Group, And All from Swing States Too 43587. janjon - 9/29/2000 11:41:09 AM Actually, I think it is brilliant if they DO succeed in getting that menagerie into the debate audience. Any efforts by W. to talk about his so-called real plans for so-called real people will be met by Gore asking how does that jibe with the problems that ___(whomever it will be who is appropriate for the point) sitting there in the first row has. Oh boy. 43588. robertjayb - 9/29/2000 11:51:23 AM . 43589. JJBiener - 9/29/2000 11:53:35 AM Phydeau - Joining the National Guard is not dodging the draft. Nothing but blind partisanship could make you think there is any similarity between Bush's actions and Clinton's actions during Vietnam. But then blind partisanship is the only explanation for most of your posts. 43590. robertjayb - 9/29/2000 11:56:51 AM . 43591. rubberducky - 9/29/2000 12:10:34 PM janjon: no, no problems 43592. robertjayb - 9/29/2000 12:18:22 PM . 43593. JJBiener - 9/29/2000 12:19:28 PM RJB - Even if everything claimed in that article is true, it still shows that Bush served 607 days of active duty. Gore served 653. Five weeks of service is hardly worth getting worked up about. Gore and Bush both received special treatment because of their family connections. It shouldn't be an issue. 43594. JJBiener - 9/29/2000 12:21:39 PM RJB - Powder Milk Biscuits Poll 43595. CalGal - 9/29/2000 12:23:33 PM Jan, 43596. jonesatlaw - 9/29/2000 12:29:15 PM Rosetta- 43597. jonesatlaw - 9/29/2000 1:01:43 PM Here is something for Ace and JJ to enjoy. Hopefully Concerned and Rosetta will be so engaged that they'll actually stay away untill they have something to say. Slap Hillary 43598. Ronski - 9/29/2000 1:01:49 PM My guess is the Boy Scouts will either rethink the policy largely due to complaints within their ranks, or become a smaller, niche-organization allied with the religious right. Neither way will it go out of business, but it will never have the same widespread, national, mainstream support it used to unless it drops its prejudice against gays. 43599. RosettaStone - 9/29/2000 1:07:19 PM Ronski: I have no problem with normal homosexuals in the Scouts. I just want them to keep it to themselves and not get their names in newspapers being political about it. 43600. Ronski - 9/29/2000 1:09:49 PM Rosie, 43601. phydeau - 9/29/2000 1:18:34 PM Good lord JJ, the man gets into the Guard, a known place to hide out during the Vietnam war, ahead of a lot of other people already waiting, and then he's AWOL his last year of service, and that's not dodging the draft? 43602. RosettaStone - 9/29/2000 1:22:15 PM He wasn't AWOL his last year, newbie. He was working on a top-secret CIA project. 43603. janjon - 9/29/2000 1:22:56 PM phydeau - reality checks around here usually are quite swiftly delivered. 43604. Dusty - 9/29/2000 1:28:15 PM phydeau 43605. Al D - 9/29/2000 1:34:59 PM bybbaette 43606. ranheim - 9/29/2000 1:36:41 PM Many of you quote polls. 43607. Raskolnikov - 9/29/2000 1:53:01 PM ranheim. There are roughly 200 million adult Americans. A poll requires around 1000 to be accurate. This puts the odds of you being selected for a given poll at around 1 in 200,000. Even with several polls per day during the couple of months before an election, the odds of your getting selected are pretty damned slim. 43608. bubbaette - 9/29/2000 1:54:38 PM Al 43609. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 1:54:47 PM phydeau 43610. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 1:58:12 PM 43611. CalGal - 9/29/2000 1:59:16 PM I've gotten called at least twice on polls. 43612. CalGal - 9/29/2000 2:00:01 PM I haven't heard any serious bitching about Cheney, either. So what's the problem? 43613. Wombat - 9/29/2000 2:09:23 PM Ace: 43614. janjon - 9/29/2000 2:11:39 PM If Gore and W.'s respective military records were reversed, Jack and Ace would be swarming all over the Natl.Guard vs. Vietnam comparison like flies on a fresh roadkill. 43615. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 2:14:40 PM jan 43616. Raskolnikov - 9/29/2000 2:15:34 PM Ace: the usual characterization of the problem is that it is one thing to legally evade Vietnam service if you are against the war, and another if you are in favor of it. The former can favorably be looked upon as conscientious objection (particular given the modern romanticization of the Vietnam protest movement), but for the latter, is hard to shrug off the image of "hypocrisy". I know nothing about Cheney's service, or Lieberman's, but this is the argument that was used against Quayle and GW. 43617. janjon - 9/29/2000 2:16:12 PM I'll take you at your word, Jack. 43618. phydeau - 9/29/2000 2:17:34 PM Well Jack, as you probably know, any service in Vietnam was potentially unsafe, with all the Viet Cong running around the south. Also, if I recall correctly, Bush went to the top of the list to get into the Guard, bypassing those less politically connected. Cushy, wasn't it? 43619. janjon - 9/29/2000 2:20:38 PM Gore also volunteered by showing up at the enlistment office in Newark, New Jersey one day. 43620. PsychProf - 9/29/2000 2:20:51 PM Harvard went and Yale ducked... 43621. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 2:20:52 PM Wombat 43622. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 2:21:42 PM Phydeau -- 43623. rubberducky - 9/29/2000 2:22:30 PM What makes it funny and slightly annoying is that the Republican party is supposedly the rah-rah America is so tough party and it's now being led by a bunch of chicken hawks. 43624. janjon - 9/29/2000 2:22:31 PM Psych - W. went to both. Incredible as it may seem. But, that gets us back into the influence arena. 43625. phydeau - 9/29/2000 2:23:06 PM Personally, I don't buy it. Being in favor of Vietnam doesn't mean you are obligated to sign up as a grunt any more than being in favor of stiffer law enforcement obligates you to be a cop. 43626. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 2:23:25 PM Gore struck just the right note about his Vietnam service, "I didn't have the most dangerous job, but I was proud to serve." 43627. Wombat - 9/29/2000 2:23:59 PM Jack: 43628. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 2:25:41 PM phy 43629. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 2:27:32 PM Michael 43630. CalGal - 9/29/2000 2:27:56 PM Michael, 43631. phydeau - 9/29/2000 2:28:36 PM What I can't figure out, Michael, and why I'm bringing it up, is why Clinton was given so much shit for being a draft-dodger, and why no one is bringing up military service now that the shoe is on the other foot. You can brush it off as old news, but the question remains. 43632. Wombat - 9/29/2000 2:29:19 PM Jack: 43633. janjon - 9/29/2000 2:30:15 PM Speaking of Cheyney, I gather our wonderful cyberspace is full of rumors that he will step down (on the grounds of health) and be replaced shortly by MCCAIN!!! All of this apparently started because at some recent posh GOP fundraiser, Cheyney was observed by the press as not exactly getting around the room and glad-handing and some GOP biggiewiggie who saw the same apparently said words to the effect that well, he's not been well. 43634. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 2:31:20 PM 43635. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 2:31:32 PM phy 43636. janjon - 9/29/2000 2:32:44 PM Interesting tack W. took yesterday, now trying to SEPARATE Gore from Clinton, and in a way that gave Clinton praise for the economy. The separation comes from the fact that W. now wants to tar Gore as being nothing more than an old-style tax and spend Dem. 43637. phydeau - 9/29/2000 2:33:08 PM This is such a bullshit issue, phydeau, on both sides. That's the reality. 43638. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 2:34:43 PM phydeau 43639. CalGal - 9/29/2000 2:34:56 PM Janjon, 43640. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 2:35:00 PM phydeau -- 43641. Dusty - 9/29/2000 2:37:10 PM phydeau 43642. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 2:37:44 PM jan 43643. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 2:38:26 PM 43644. janjon - 9/29/2000 2:39:17 PM CalGal. No, not out. Just cyberspace-concocted speculation and rumor based on a verrrry flimsy predicate. Not to say that there aren't a lot of Republicans out there who wouldn't love to see it happen, especially if the replacement was McCain. 43645. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 2:42:52 PM The problem is the disconnect between hard-leftist voters and the slightly-leftist Democratic Party. 43646. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 2:43:59 PM I love these bullshit rationalizations. 43647. Dusty - 9/29/2000 2:45:09 PM interesting distinctions, ACE 43648. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 2:47:39 PM 43649. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 2:47:44 PM When you mulch these bullshit rationalizations in TT, they send an email out to the rest of Stepford, and you may as well be Ward Connerly trying to speak over 30 subsidized by Daddy, hairy-armpitted, bespectacled, yelping undergrads at Yale, all screaming "Hate Must Go!" 43650. Dusty - 9/29/2000 2:47:54 PM Michael Mele 43651. CalGal - 9/29/2000 2:52:32 PM Ace, 43652. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 2:52:46 PM Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha: from Salon. 43653. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 2:53:27 PM Dusty -- 43654. bubbaette - 9/29/2000 2:53:47 PM The draft was cut off in 1972 -- right after my husband enlisted because he had such a low draft number. 43655. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 2:56:29 PM 43656. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 2:56:40 PM Thanks, Bubbaette. So pols born after 1954 will not have to run that particular gauntlet -- God speed the day. 43657. RosettaStone - 9/29/2000 2:57:11 PM bubba: Was that husband number one, two or three? 43658. bubbaette - 9/29/2000 2:58:07 PM Rosie 43659. Dusty - 9/29/2000 2:58:19 PM Michael Mele 43660. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 2:59:32 PM Ah, Stone... 43661. Wombat - 9/29/2000 3:02:22 PM Shoulda used a Yukon Gold for a model. 43662. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:07:13 PM 43663. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:09:28 PM 43664. phydeau - 9/29/2000 3:13:53 PM Thanks for all the input guys, I'm starting to see the lay of the land here. Ace, maybe if you type it in all caps it will be even more convincing. 43665. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:14:47 PM 43666. clydefo - 9/29/2000 3:15:44 PM Does Bush advisor Carl Rove have a history as a “dirty-trick” artist? Has this been discussed here recently in the context of the Bush debate materials sent to the Gore camp? If it has, might anyone provide a message number so I can go back and catch up? Thanks. 43667. CalGal - 9/29/2000 3:16:33 PM Ace, 43668. Raskolnikov - 9/29/2000 3:19:06 PM "So what are we to make of this? Obviously, leftists believe that Gore 43669. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:19:30 PM 43670. phydeau - 9/29/2000 3:20:02 PM Heh, good point CalGal... how many of those "family values" folks have been divorced and/or fucking around on their wives? 43671. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:20:53 PM 43672. janjon - 9/29/2000 3:21:17 PM Oh, phydeau. You know not what you might inspire. Granted, I at one time was guilty for a while of using caps and colors in my enthusiasm to elect Gore/defeat W., but encouraging Ace to use caps. etc. while at the same time making it clear that his huff and puff really is seen to be nothing more than huff and puff, is like waving the proverbial red cloth at the snorting-if-dim bull. 43673. phydeau - 9/29/2000 3:22:06 PM ole'! :) 43674. janjon - 9/29/2000 3:25:18 PM Actually - 43675. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:25:44 PM 43676. CalGal - 9/29/2000 3:26:14 PM Ace, 43677. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 3:26:20 PM Rask 43678. rubberducky - 9/29/2000 3:27:28 PM Re: Message # 43666, clydefo. 43679. janjon - 9/29/2000 3:27:46 PM Look at it this way, Ace. The Gores have raised FOUR good kids (by all appearances. That puts them way ahead of the Clintons, right? 43680. CalGal - 9/29/2000 3:30:28 PM I don't think that Dubya or Gore do all that badly on parenting issues, frankly. It will become more normal. But they both are politicians with "wives". Whatever you think of Hillary, she weren't no "wife". And Clinton consequently took on far more of the childrearing than is the norm for fathers anywhere--much less in politics. 43681. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:30:51 PM 43682. CalGal - 9/29/2000 3:32:06 PM Ace, 43683. CalGal - 9/29/2000 3:33:34 PM Operative word, not operative issue. 43684. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 3:33:46 PM Didn't one of the troopers allege that Clinton got a blow job in the parking lot of Chelsea's elementary school? If true, I think that undercores his commitment to his daughter through creative multi-tasking. 43685. Raskolnikov - 9/29/2000 3:34:23 PM "You make Ace's point. Gore is for it - with gusto, without 43686. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:34:58 PM 43687. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:35:37 PM 43688. Wombat - 9/29/2000 3:36:34 PM Reagan's kids speak less fondly of Nancy, who actually raised them. 43689. RosettaStone - 9/29/2000 3:37:02 PM The youngest Gore kid is an outlaw. Caught smoking dope in school and driving 98 mph on the road to Duck, NC. 43690. CalGal - 9/29/2000 3:37:11 PM Jack, 43691. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 3:37:45 PM Rask 43692. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:37:51 PM 43693. janjon - 9/29/2000 3:37:54 PM over 30 subsidized by Daddy, hairy-armpitted, bespectacled, yelping undergrads at Yale, all screaming "Hate Must Go!" 43694. jonesatlaw - 9/29/2000 3:38:02 PM Ace- You've been shown before by the same sources that you love to quote for the "college campus" base Gore was in, that on occasion his sleepaway was near the DMZ in a foxhole. He was not in combat then or during the other trips around Vietnam he took as part of his reporter duty. 43695. Raskolnikov - 9/29/2000 3:38:22 PM Basically, since Gore has no real track record in enforcing the death penalty, we don't really know how he would implement it. Would he be like the Governor from Illinois, or like Bush? Certainly dems are more inclined to imagine that Gore wouldn't really execute anyone if push came to shove, but there is no such question regarding Bush. 43696. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 3:38:30 PM Cal 43697. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 3:38:58 PM jan 43698. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:39:51 PM 43699. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 3:40:45 PM jones 43700. CalGal - 9/29/2000 3:40:55 PM There is no way to prove that Clinton "raised" Chelsea to the extent of your fevered, hero-worshipping imaginings. 43701. clydefo - 9/29/2000 3:42:27 PM rubberducky, Thanks for the message number. Yes, new poster. Later. 43702. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:42:44 PM 43703. Raskolnikov - 9/29/2000 3:44:22 PM "You have asserted his support is mere "lip service." This is based on a fact not in the record, or an assumption." 43704. jonesatlaw - 9/29/2000 3:44:58 PM Jack- as many times as Ace peddles the sleepaway camp, and you mention two deaths in training accidents with a war that produced 57,000 casualties, I'll bitch slap you both. 43705. CalGal - 9/29/2000 3:45:04 PM Hey, Clyde! 43706. janjon - 9/29/2000 3:45:21 PM Ace - any different than the wink and nodding that goes on on the GOP side regarding a whole range of social issues? Even this week, W. used six ways from Sunday to avoid using the word "vouchers" to describe his educational proposals. Do you really doubt that those of the religious right aren't convinced (fervently) that W. doesn't really believe a lot of stuff he's pushing out to get the support of the undecideds? 43707. jonesatlaw - 9/29/2000 3:46:26 PM should be "two deaths in training accidents in the same breath with" 43708. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:47:51 PM 43709. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 3:48:53 PM jones 43710. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:49:46 PM 43711. OhioSTOPAS - 9/29/2000 3:50:03 PM Jack: How did you know I was laughing? 43712. jonesatlaw - 9/29/2000 3:50:03 PM God Bless you too, Jack. 43713. Raskolnikov - 9/29/2000 3:50:42 PM "Your definition of "lip service" is peculiar." 43714. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:53:42 PM 43715. rubberducky - 9/29/2000 3:53:57 PM 43716. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 3:54:38 PM Rask 43717. CalGal - 9/29/2000 3:55:04 PM Ace, 43718. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 3:56:19 PM Ace 43719. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:57:21 PM 43720. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 3:57:47 PM What are we gonna do after 1/20/01? 43721. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 3:59:00 PM 43722. Al D - 9/29/2000 3:59:47 PM Look at it this way, Ace. The Gores have raised FOUR good kids 43723. jonesatlaw - 9/29/2000 4:00:14 PM Speeking of lip service- Arianna Huffington hits the nail on the head concerning the war on drugs. We are all for stiffer penalties for drugs used in greater numbers by African Americans and wink at middle class use. Powder cocaine and ecstacy get milder treatment than crack and meth. I would offer one critique, it is more class than race. Much meth manufacture and use in the midwest is run by rural poor whites, although there is a growth in import through Mexican rings as well. 43724. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 4:00:16 PM Last night, on Larry King, Gore intoned that he would always support a woman's right to choose, and King asked Gore, "Well, you used to have a different position on abortion?" and the little red light flickered just behind Gore's frontal lobe, and Gore said, "Only on federal funding. I have always supported Roe v. Wade" and King moved on to Tipper's dress and I turned on HBO2 and watched Ghostbusters. 43725. janjon - 9/29/2000 4:00:28 PM one of the so-called perks of being able to run on the record of having served in Congress as opposed to being a Governor. Of course, with that goes the stigma of being one of those Washington insiders. 43726. CalGal - 9/29/2000 4:01:03 PM Ace, 43727. janjon - 9/29/2000 4:01:24 PM jack - be honest. Ghostbusters was just then beginning, right? 43728. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 4:01:46 PM My god, how great would he be if he had 8? 43729. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 4:01:53 PM Congressman and senators are like people who mock bet and play the stocks without actually investing money. 43730. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 4:02:15 PM 43731. jonesatlaw - 9/29/2000 4:02:23 PM Was King inspecting Tipper's dress for stains? 43732. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 4:03:22 PM janjon 43733. janjon - 9/29/2000 4:03:43 PM Al D. 43734. CalGal - 9/29/2000 4:03:44 PM Jack, 43735. Jack Vincennes - 9/29/2000 4:04:54 PM Cal 43736. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 4:05:30 PM 43737. jonesatlaw - 9/29/2000 4:05:49 PM Ace- think about who controlls Congress and who approves the sentencing guidelines. Clinton, Gore, Bush, the GOP and the Dems in Congress are all on the bus. Trying to make this one parties problem is transparent (and predictable) hackery on your part. 43738. rubberducky - 9/29/2000 4:08:07 PM Ace: 43739. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 4:08:38 PM 43740. CalGal - 9/29/2000 4:09:02 PM Ace, 43741. janjon - 9/29/2000 4:11:19 PM Ace - leaving aside the fact that you yet again (and why would anyone be surprised) have totally distorted what I said and then have leapt with your little heap of distortions to yet another pithy little diatribe, surely you would admit there is a bit more of a balance in terms of real responsibility between state houses and Congress. 43742. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 4:11:38 PM 43743. Al D - 9/29/2000 4:12:12 PM Raskolnikov 43744. Wombat - 9/29/2000 4:13:37 PM Ace: 43745. Al D - 9/29/2000 4:13:56 PM Phydeau 43746. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 4:14:42 PM 43747. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 4:16:30 PM 43748. janjon - 9/29/2000 4:18:35 PM Leave aside technicalities as to whether they were called upon to declare or support, I do seem to recall a Senate resolution (where Gore broke with his party) concerning the Gulf War. That certainly makes a record. 43749. Al D - 9/29/2000 4:19:50 PM janjon 43750. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 4:20:02 PM 43751. Al D - 9/29/2000 4:20:41 PM And please be gentle, I may have misunderstood your post. hahahaha 43752. janjon - 9/29/2000 4:21:26 PM Al D. Technically, I believe the answer is World War II. Wombat would know. 43753. janjon - 9/29/2000 4:22:02 PM Al D. Yes, you probably did. 43754. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 4:24:34 PM 43755. Al D - 9/29/2000 4:24:52 PM janjon 43756. JJBiener - 9/29/2000 4:25:45 PM janjon - I do seem to recall a Senate resolution (where Gore broke with his party) concerning the Gulf War. That certainly makes a record. 43757. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 4:28:09 PM 43758. Al D - 9/29/2000 4:29:01 PM janjon 43759. OhioSTOPAS - 9/29/2000 4:30:04 PM 43756: No one believes Simpson's lie about Gore's Gulf War vote, JJ. 43760. Wombat - 9/29/2000 4:30:25 PM Ace: 43761. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 4:30:27 PM You guys are depriving me of Table Talk time. 43762. janjon - 9/29/2000 4:32:37 PM Ace. Not to get too technical here, but the point wasn't about making a record based on actual votes to declare war. It was about votes (support, funding, etc.) that make a record regarding wars/police actions/fights of the type that Governors don't have to worry about. 43763. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 4:33:06 PM 43764. OhioSTOPAS - 9/29/2000 4:35:20 PM I'll be whining, all right, if George W. Bush is making life-and-death decisions. From under my bed. 43765. Wombat - 9/29/2000 4:36:33 PM Don't count your chickens before they're elected, Ace. As to your hypothetical, that depends on the situation. 43766. janjon - 9/29/2000 4:37:31 PM Al D. You are beginning to try my patience. At least do us the benefit of reading carefully before blasting off yet another misguided post. 43767. Wombat - 9/29/2000 4:39:15 PM Al D: 43768. janjon - 9/29/2000 4:43:48 PM your version of excaprion usually only occurs if the bbq is being indirectly fueled by a hell of a good martini, thoughtful. A pitcher full, of course. 43769. janjon - 9/29/2000 4:44:23 PM Good God. I have no idea how that happened. 43770. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 4:53:17 PM 43771. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 4:55:07 PM 43772. janjon - 9/29/2000 4:56:58 PM Seems like you might be near tears, Ace. 43773. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 4:59:12 PM 43774. Al D - 9/29/2000 4:59:35 PM janjon 43775. jonesatlaw - 9/29/2000 5:05:45 PM What happened to original intent Ace? I thought that you'd be wearing war paint over protecting Congress's power to declare war, as being a check on the executive branch. I would think that engaging foreign troops would qualify as war, regardless of whether it was offensive or defensive. 43776. JJBiener - 9/29/2000 5:07:08 PM Ace - The law does not state by its own text that it only applies to Republican president 43777. janjon - 9/29/2000 5:08:33 PM It was, doofus. But, not in terms of the subtext (which was going on at the time you put your one-cent's worth in)about responding to Ace's little trick question about Congressional declarations of war. 43778. Raskolnikov - 9/29/2000 5:17:41 PM Ace, Jack: You still miss my point. It isn't that Gore has a perfect record on the death penalty as far as liberals are concerned. He doesn't. Its just that Bush's record annoys them a lot more, and this is justified, given the beliefs of the anti-death penalty crowd and Bush's record. 43779. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 5:17:57 PM "What happened to original intent Ace?" 43780. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 5:18:04 PM "Finally, since the US was responding to treaty obligations under the UN charter, and the same were approved by Congress, do you assert that there was no congressional approval for the actions?" 43781. Al D - 9/29/2000 5:19:40 PM Ace 43782. Ronski - 9/29/2000 5:20:07 PM Well, I for one am looking forward to the first debate on Tuesday. 43783. Raskolnikov - 9/29/2000 5:21:38 PM "Don't you think it's funny that liberals all seem to consider being in the 43784. Al D - 9/29/2000 5:21:55 PM ronske 43785. Raskolnikov - 9/29/2000 5:22:58 PM " think liberals just find reality "messy" and "icky," and therefore prefer 43786. janjon - 9/29/2000 5:25:43 PM Al D. 43787. janjon - 9/29/2000 5:26:43 PM ronski. Any interest in entering the little contest I scribbled about earlier today? 43788. Raskolnikov - 9/29/2000 5:32:20 PM "But your thesis means, ultimately, that Gore simply cannot be judged 43789. janjon - 9/29/2000 5:37:11 PM ronski. I don't have the exact quote, but Ricky today said something to the effect that the New York Senatorial election is a watershed events in terms of saving civilization as we now know it. Me thinks he's beginning to feel that things aren't going so well for him. 43790. Raskolnikov - 9/29/2000 5:37:51 PM And Ace: the argument last week wasn't over whether Gore's legislative experience trumped Bush Jr's, but over whether it trumped Bush Sr, who was never a governor either. For the record, I think Gore has much more relevant experience than Bush, but I wouldn't go so far as to call Bush any more underqualified than Reagan, Carter, Eisenhower, and several other 20th century presidents. 43791. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 5:39:08 PM Raskolnikov 43792. JJBiener - 9/29/2000 5:39:55 PM Rask - You are basically saying that the stands Gore takes which you agree with are meaningful and the stands he takes which you disagree with are meaningless. I think what your doing can best be described as wishful thinking. You want to believe that Gore believes the way you do, so you ignore anything that would bring that belief into question. 43793. labwabbit - 9/29/2000 5:41:04 PM Little minds lead little people. 43794. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 5:41:20 PM toys 43795. labwabbit - 9/29/2000 5:42:42 PM 43796. clydefo - 9/29/2000 5:45:54 PM Hi CalGal, You said in message # 43705 that you didn’t buy the rape charge against BC. I agree; it doesn’t fit his modus operandi. Also I saw one of those “in depth” cable tv documentaries about the case and the facts also don’t jibe with a rape. Juanita Broaddrick ran a string of nursing homes at the same time that related legislation was on Governor Clinton’s desk for his consideration. She invited him up to her hotel room and they had sex. She never claimed it was rape in the ensuing years and at one point in time when it had become an issue, she swore in an affidavit that it was consensual. She changed her story only after Kenneth Starr told her he would charge her with filing a false claim and ruin her with onerous legal fees. She didn’t have Susan McDougal’s integrity or courage and caved-in to Starr’s demand. IMO. 43797. janjon - 9/29/2000 5:47:33 PM Michael. I am a liberal member of the anti-death penalty crowd and agree with almost (more on that in a bit) everything you wrote in 43791. I certainly don't condone Gore's position and take very little comfort in believing that he is not as knee-jerk as W. clearly is in terms of the certainty of the process that brings people to the gurney. Your characterization of W. as lacking curiosity hits the nail on the proverbial head. 43798. Ronski - 9/29/2000 5:52:18 PM janjon, 43799. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 5:53:55 PM 43800. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 5:55:22 PM The quarrel or question I have about your post is whether it is accurate or fair to state that Gore is engaged in coldblooded pandering on this issue. Not so, if he believes in what he espouses. 43801. Michael Mele - 9/29/2000 5:57:19 PM Nice talking with you today. 43802. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 5:57:27 PM 43803. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 5:58:04 PM 43804. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 5:59:06 PM 43805. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 5:59:55 PM 43806. janjon - 9/29/2000 6:00:18 PM Michael. Nah. If he actually believes in the death penalty, his espousal of same can't be called pandering. 43807. janjon - 9/29/2000 6:05:52 PM Ace. The words he used were "commute or question". Presumably as in using the power he has to at least call into play the 30 day review period. 43808. Al D - 9/29/2000 6:22:09 PM Ace 43809. dusty - 9/29/2000 7:08:29 PM Raskolnikov 43810. dusty - 9/29/2000 7:11:40 PM clydefo 43811. CalGal - 9/29/2000 8:26:16 PM Hey, I said hi to Clyde! 43812. clydefo - 9/29/2000 8:49:03 PM dusty, Thanks for the greeting. The lively debate is the reason I dropped by. 43813. phydeau - 9/29/2000 8:58:03 PM Yo, Ace. The Texas Board of Paroles & Pardons is made up of members appointed by, you guessed it, the governor. If Bush wanted a pardon granted, it would be easy enough to make it known to the board. It's his pet board, he can do what he wants with it. 43814. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 9:03:19 PM 43815. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 9:07:14 PM 43816. dusty - 9/29/2000 9:14:40 PM I had no idea what seven of nine meant. 43817. dusty - 9/29/2000 9:22:30 PM A better site: 43818. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 9:27:34 PM 43819. AceofSpades - 9/29/2000 9:30:00 PM 43820. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 12:32:02 AM Ace -- 43821. AceofSpades - 9/30/2000 12:39:44 AM 43822. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 12:55:01 AM Ace -- 43823. CalGal - 9/30/2000 1:05:13 AM With luck, the DNA testing will pick up enough horror stories that Capital Punishment will finally be abandoned. 43824. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 1:16:42 AM CalGal 43825. Brad Ryerson - 9/30/2000 1:17:31 AM Dick Cheney's Defence Record 43826. jonesatlaw - 9/30/2000 1:22:13 AM Ace- this is a howler, even from you That's what the Texas Constitution says-- they took the politics out of the death penalty. 43827. AceofSpades - 9/30/2000 1:25:52 AM 43828. CalGal - 9/30/2000 1:26:53 AM Michael, 43829. joezan - 9/30/2000 1:27:20 AM 43830. Stumbo - 9/30/2000 1:29:56 AM Brad: 43831. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 1:44:08 AM Hi Brad -- 43832. jonesatlaw - 9/30/2000 1:51:48 AM Ace- No they insulated the political office holder from responsibility while allowing the office holder a measure of control. 43833. jonesatlaw - 9/30/2000 1:53:39 AM Yes I agree this is slanted to a anti death penalty view, but how can the Board of Pardons and Paroles be anything but a sham? Before you start in on Ann Richards, shame on her and her appointees as well. 43834. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 2:08:17 AM There is a "paint by numbers" quality to George W Bush's conservatism that's scares the shit out of me. 43835. RosettaStone - 9/30/2000 7:46:01 AM Bravo, gentleman. Wonderful reading for an early Saturday morning before chores. 43836. JudithAtHome - 9/30/2000 9:39:10 AM Isn't it funny that the powers of the Governor in Texas are always described as weak when the things the Governor does are dumb but when the Governor is speaking before voters, he gives the impression that he has single handedly changed the educational system, the healthcare system, and the quality of our very lives here in Texas by warrant of the fact he is "The Governor!" 43837. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/30/2000 10:56:58 AM It's easily explained Judith. W is the buffoon who can "bring people together!" So when these people do bad things it's their fault, but when they do good things, he gets the credit. 43838. RosettaStone - 9/30/2000 12:24:33 PM Wizard, there is nothing worse than a partisan hack, and you're proving it. 43839. JudithAtHome - 9/30/2000 12:47:16 PM Oh I don't know...it hasn't slowed you down any, Rosetta. 43840. RosettaStone - 9/30/2000 12:50:16 PM Judith: Why aren't you over in the tower of lust thread telling everyone about the 5000X time...and why it was so special. 43841. JudithAtHome - 9/30/2000 12:53:59 PM What are you talking about, Rose? 43842. robertjayb - 9/30/2000 1:09:11 PM Gallup has flip-flopped from yesterday and now shows Gore at 46% and Bush at 44%. 43843. CalGal - 9/30/2000 1:19:36 PM Safire actually wrote a column on the polls. One thing that may come out of this election is how worthless they are. Wouldn't that be nice? 43844. clydefo - 9/30/2000 1:20:01 PM George Bush said that he would let Big Oil leave its “footprints” on the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in order to extract its six-month supply of crude oil. I suspect that the good folks in Florida who worry about off-shore drilling are a bit uneasy as they stroll along their beaches today. 43845. RosettaStone - 9/30/2000 1:49:31 PM Six months? 43846. JudithAtHome - 9/30/2000 1:52:56 PM More generalization about people you don't know. 43847. JudithAtHome - 9/30/2000 1:53:37 PM Thanks, Clyde, for the information and welcome to the Mote. 43848. clydefo - 9/30/2000 1:55:32 PM Drain the Middle East first. 43849. CalGal - 9/30/2000 2:00:14 PM We were talking some other time about the fact that our progress in transportation in the past 50 years is nowhere near as impressive as our progress in medicine and other technology. 43850. ycmeehan - 9/30/2000 2:02:21 PM Judith, Message # 43836 43851. RosettaStone - 9/30/2000 2:03:03 PM Maybe, when you let someone else host the brain-dead Movies/TV thread. 43852. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 2:05:50 PM Safire actually wrote a column on the polls. One thing that may come out of this election is how worthless they are. Wouldn't that be nice? 43853. CalGal - 9/30/2000 2:10:14 PM Yeah, that's the article. It said that the polls consistently underrepresented Dole's support by a good percentage, I remember. 43854. ycmeehan - 9/30/2000 2:41:17 PM Message # 43848 43855. PelleNilsson - 9/30/2000 2:51:34 PM I've seen these grain production areas in SA from the air. Green flecks in the desert. Very strange. And Japan has a thriving business exporting camels to SA. Maybe you could go for that too? 43856. clydefo - 9/30/2000 2:51:56 PM CalGal, You asked in #43849: “I wonder when that[our reliance on oil] will change?” No doubt it won’t change until we run out. Even with the emerging fuel cell technology, gasoline will probably be the best fuel because of its ready availability. We’ll just need less of it and won’t be fouling the air. As for 50 years of transportation technology…imagine driving from New York to Miami in 1950. :) 43857. dusty - 9/30/2000 2:53:03 PM My daughter was polled last night, but she hung up on them. I'll have to suggest that she use the "good of the country" line next time. 43858. CalGal - 9/30/2000 3:02:57 PM Clyde, 43859. CalGal - 9/30/2000 3:07:02 PM As for 50 years of transportation technology…imagine driving from New York to Miami in 1950 43860. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 3:26:45 PM Whatever your environment persuasion -- tree hugger or eye roller -- hybrid vehicles and better trains make lots of sense in lots of places. Although someone may have to sneak in and put a pillow over Amtrak's face one night. Travel time between Boston and New York -- after the introduction of the new speedy trains will be 30 minutes less than it was fifty years ago. Boy howdy! 43861. CalGal - 9/30/2000 3:30:46 PM Although someone may have to sneak in and put a pillow over Amtrak's face one night. 43862. dusty - 9/30/2000 3:37:45 PM Michael Mele 43863. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 3:37:50 PM Scooter are big in Manhattan. But that paradigm isn't very helpful for people who spend for or five hours a day on a sixty mile round trip commute. 43864. CalGal - 9/30/2000 3:39:40 PM I tell you, I love cars. But the world would be a better place if there weren't so many incestuoss drivers. 43865. dusty - 9/30/2000 3:40:51 PM I'd like to see more encouragement of bikes as an alternative. I realize that this only applies to a subset of all people, but it could help. I've never been able to justify biking as a regular alternative because of the weather. Then it occurred to me that a covered bikeway would solve the problem. Obviously, a covered bikeway would be much more expensive than an open one, but how much more? 43866. CalGal - 9/30/2000 3:43:14 PM Scratch that third s, of course. 43867. robertjayb - 9/30/2000 3:43:42 PM . 43868. dusty - 9/30/2000 3:44:13 PM I've daydreamed about a car train combination. Sort of like the ferry concept. Drive to the train station, drive the car onto the train, then off again at the end. Solves the problem that the terminus may be a decent distance from the train station. I'm sure someone can point out problems, but I'm trying to engage in brainstorming mode. 43869. dusty - 9/30/2000 3:50:37 PM CalGal 43870. dusty - 9/30/2000 3:53:27 PM Nor should it, I think, unless there was a real commitment by a large group of people to use it. 43871. CalGal - 9/30/2000 4:03:53 PM Dusty, 43872. Al D - 9/30/2000 4:05:26 PM yc 43873. dusty - 9/30/2000 4:11:12 PM CalGal 43874. CalGal - 9/30/2000 4:16:11 PM I still don't follow the right of way point. 43875. PelleNilsson - 9/30/2000 4:16:58 PM Dusty --- Message # 43862 43876. PelleNilsson - 9/30/2000 4:18:11 PM Maybe that hyphen shouldn't be there. 43877. Cellar Door - 9/30/2000 4:19:23 PM "And he's got a bicycle." 43878. dusty - 9/30/2000 4:21:34 PM CalGal 43879. PelleNilsson - 9/30/2000 4:22:31 PM Al D 43880. dusty - 9/30/2000 4:23:59 PM PelleNilsson 43881. mgleason - 9/30/2000 4:26:55 PM Hey, Al Gore's in town prepping for the debate, right in the heart of Republican territory. 43882. CalGal - 9/30/2000 4:29:36 PM I proposed a solution. 43883. CalGal - 9/30/2000 4:30:41 PM Maria, 43884. PelleNilsson - 9/30/2000 4:31:47 PM Dusty 43885. dusty - 9/30/2000 4:44:27 PM CalGal 43886. dusty - 9/30/2000 4:45:52 PM Pelle 43887. PelleNilsson - 9/30/2000 4:49:48 PM I don't object per se. But how is it easier to type twelve characters than five? 43888. arkymalarky - 9/30/2000 4:51:24 PM Bush has been to AR twice since he began running, in the northwest and to visit our Baptist preacher governor. 43889. dusty - 9/30/2000 4:56:41 PM PelleNilsson 43890. PelleNilsson - 9/30/2000 4:59:21 PM Dusty 43891. CalGal - 9/30/2000 5:01:02 PM Wow, I can't imagine copying a name being faster than typing it. 43892. arkymalarky - 9/30/2000 5:04:21 PM I can't for me, but I could for Bob or my dad. I laughed reading that exchange, because the thought of cut&pasting names hadn't occurred to me, and I was wondering what Dusty's response to Pelle's question would be. 43893. mgleason - 9/30/2000 5:04:29 PM Dubya was also here this month, Arky and CalGal. The elderly ladies were going mental, reminding me of when Dan Quayle gave a speech at an outdoor rally in '92. My husband and I wore Clinton/Gore t-shirts, outraging one biddy so much that she hit me over the head with her Bush/Quayle sign. 43894. CalGal - 9/30/2000 5:13:03 PM It is tamer--but I must say that, to my surprise, it is quite interesting. I wouldn't have thought that possible. 43895. clydefo - 9/30/2000 5:25:51 PM Hasn’t someone invented a streamlined clear plastic bubble that entirely encloses the bike rider? Would two-seater tandem bikes be given priority bike lanes at rush hour? 43896. alistairconnor - 9/30/2000 5:42:33 PM There's no guarantee that running out of oil will enable us to develop new technologies 43897. alistairconnor - 9/30/2000 5:43:48 PM I'll buy an electric car as soon as fuel-cell models are available at a reasonable price. I'm picking that will be within 2 years, and I'm trying to make my current car last till then. No easy feat. 43898. stostosto - 9/30/2000 5:43:56 PM Dusty Message # 43868 43899. alistairconnor - 9/30/2000 5:51:29 PM Very impressive... but it's danish. 43900. alistairconnor - 9/30/2000 5:53:04 PM Dusty, a better example of the car/train thing is the Channel Tunnel. Drive on, drive off. There is a strong push for similar developments elsewhere in Europe, especially in the Alps, after the Mont Blanc tunnel disaster. 43901. dusty - 9/30/2000 6:06:54 PM stostosto 43902. alistairconnor - 9/30/2000 6:13:25 PM The Chunnel was a parody of capitalism. I remember all the papers saying what an excellent investment it would be for small investors. Of course, cost overruns and overstatement of future earnings meant that it lost huge amounts, and the stock turned to custard. The banks colluded with management to end up owning most of the equity at little cost, and the small investors got it in the neck. 43903. EricCartman - 9/30/2000 6:23:22 PM Sorry to backtrack so far, but hell, that's what weekends are for.... 43904. EricCartman - 9/30/2000 6:30:11 PM After wading through yesterday's morass of Ace's fulsome "analysis" of what "liberals" -- to Ace, anyone to the left of Attila the Hun is a red-diaper baby -- "think", I was mildly shocked by Message # 43821, because it is precisely my view of why capital punishment is a good thing. Almost word-for-word. 43905. Cellar Door - 9/30/2000 7:06:44 PM 43906. Cellar Door - 9/30/2000 7:07:03 PM Dubbya AWOL story finally surfaces in the press. 43907. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 7:15:15 PM Dusty, CalGal 43908. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 7:22:59 PM Eric Cartman -- 43909. CalGal - 9/30/2000 7:26:53 PM Michael, 43910. mgleason - 9/30/2000 7:30:07 PM NYT Poll: The Best First Lady of All Time 43911. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 7:31:59 PM CalGal -- 43912. CalGal - 9/30/2000 7:47:31 PM Maria, 43913. EricCartman - 9/30/2000 7:48:07 PM Michael: 43914. ycmeehan - 9/30/2000 7:48:37 PM Pelle, Al, 43915. dusty - 9/30/2000 7:53:31 PM MM 43916. mgleason - 9/30/2000 8:04:14 PM CG, 43917. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 8:34:01 PM Close. I'm 33. But Cal's right -- I'm not discussing it in the context of a hot-button issue, or what voters "think" of it. It is what it is -- only a chickenshit pussy weasels out of his draft obligation, knowing that some other unlucky sap has to take his place, and still has the nerve to "support" the war. Period. 43918. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 8:36:00 PM <<----- cont 43919. phydeau - 9/30/2000 8:55:12 PM 43917 and 43918 were a lot of nothing. No response to his statement, just a lot of empty verbiage. You don't directly address his point, you just say he wouldn't understand. That's weak. 43920. dusty - 9/30/2000 9:09:26 PM I thought those two posts were very nicely put. 43921. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 9:10:51 PM Phydeau -- 43922. EricCartman - 9/30/2000 9:29:31 PM You are blessed with the certitude of a fellow in his thirties who is talking about something he never experienced and never can experience. 43923. mgleason - 9/30/2000 9:41:13 PM As I read it, Cartman's point is that it's not a matter of what Cheney's opinion is now, but rather his ambiloquence at the time, 'supporting' the war in Vietnam while doing his best to get out of serving in it. 43924. mgleason - 9/30/2000 9:44:02 PM Sorry, my message took quite a while to post. I'd not seen Cartman's 43922 when I wrote it. 43925. phydeau - 9/30/2000 9:46:34 PM Michael, wittingly or not you serve a useful purpose for the Republicans. They bashed Clinton unmercifully about his military record when it suited their purpose, then when their guy is vulnerable to the same charge, they depend on folks like you tut-tutting that it really doesn't make a difference. Yeah right. 43926. EricCartman - 9/30/2000 9:55:37 PM mgleason: 43927. Wombat - 9/30/2000 10:13:20 PM I see Acey has been up to his usual intellectual dishonesty in re "leftists" and and their support of military action as used by presidents. 43928. EricCartman - 9/30/2000 10:46:06 PM Wombat: 43929. Stumbo - 9/30/2000 10:52:29 PM EC: 43930. EricCartman - 9/30/2000 10:58:54 PM Stumbo: 43931. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 10:58:59 PM Eric -- 43932. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 11:11:46 PM phydeau -- 43933. Jack Vincennes - 9/30/2000 11:14:48 PM I think some distinctions are being lost in the translation re: Vietnam service. If you are equivocal on the war at the time of the war, and you grab your deferment (or go to Canada), you have the cover of a certain intellectual consistency. You are still responsible for shirking your duty, as if you considered a draft optional, but your shirking, in the case of accepting a deferment was legal. Moroever, you have remained intellectually true. It was a war you thought dubious or did not support, and hence, you opted out. If, however, at the time of the war, you supported the war, you thought it was correct, and you supported a policy that had young men being drafted to fight it, yet you either sought a deferment or dodged service altogether, than you have committed a hypocritical and cowardly act. Unforgiveable? No. But certainly one for which you should be held accountable in the estimation of history. It is no more different being a capital punishment supporter in vote, but, in an executive capacity, suddenly becoming incapable of allowing the execution to go through. I respect that the game time decision makes the issue more personal, and I defer to the emotions of those who had to live through these choices. But that doesn't really skew the basic equation. In the case of Cheney or Lieberman, I've yet to see any evidence produced that they supported the war at a time they were enjoying deferments. Moreover, the chickenhawk charge is normally brought forward when a mature Cheney or Lieberman type supports military action of a different stripe (the Gulf War) and some Molly Ivins type derides them as bloodthirsty chickenhawks who support war now, but shirked when their ass was on the line. This sentiment is homogenized idiocy, as if a man who ran from fire during the battle of the Somme was thereafter precluded form speaking out against stopping Hitler twenty years later. 43934. Jack Vincennes - 9/30/2000 11:20:00 PM phydeau 43935. Jack Vincennes - 9/30/2000 11:21:47 PM Mele 43936. Stumbo - 9/30/2000 11:30:32 PM JV: 43937. Michael Mele - 9/30/2000 11:56:03 PM Jack -- 43938. Stumbo - 10/1/2000 12:02:26 AM Mêlée: 43939. Michael Mele - 10/1/2000 12:20:22 AM §tümbø -- 43940. Michael Mele - 10/1/2000 12:25:45 AM Jack -- 43941. Stumbo - 10/1/2000 12:27:51 AM Good riposte; no problemo. (My intent was to amuse, not insult.) 43942. Stumbo - 10/1/2000 12:29:16 AM #43941 was, of course, to #43939. 43943. Michael Mele - 10/1/2000 12:35:17 AM I was amused and had the same intent, Stumbo. 43944. Stumbo - 10/1/2000 1:06:57 AM All's well with the world, then. G'night. 43945. EricCartman - 10/1/2000 1:32:22 AM Michael Message # 43931: 43946. EricCartman - 10/1/2000 1:32:40 AM Robert McNamara's disgusting book a couple of years ago in which he confessed that he didn't think it was winnable but urged Johnson to carry on with it, put me in the Barry Goldwater camp for good -- if you ain't gonna fight to win, get the fuck out. 43947. Michael Mele - 10/1/2000 2:09:57 AM Eric -- 43948. EricCartman - 10/1/2000 3:07:43 AM ....(never underestimate the power of cowardice in the office holding classes, if you do they'll break you heart over and over again.) 43949. robertjayb - 10/1/2000 1:19:00 PM . 43950. robertjayb - 10/1/2000 1:24:05 PM Portrait of America tracking poll: 43951. CalGal - 10/1/2000 1:25:54 PM You know, I didn't realize that Lockhart was leaving. When did that happen? 43952. arkymalarky - 10/1/2000 1:30:21 PM I saw it Friday. I really liked him. 43953. RosettaStone - 10/1/2000 1:37:32 PM Yes, Joe proved the point that a mind becomes a detriment when it acquires more intelligence than its integrity can handle. 43954. CalGal - 10/1/2000 1:38:50 PM I liked McCurry and Lockhart both. Very funny guys. 43955. JudithAtHome - 10/1/2000 2:16:32 PM People may have to quit voting for Strom Thurmond; he was taken to the hospital after passing out earlier today. They are running tests. 43956. PelleNilsson - 10/1/2000 3:05:33 PM 43957. robertjayb - 10/1/2000 3:50:16 PM . 43958. robertjayb - 10/1/2000 3:55:43 PM . 43959. Michael Mele - 10/1/2000 4:29:37 PM The Trudeau obsequies will be just the thing for the soon to be newest member of the former head-honchos club. 43960. bloodnfire - 10/1/2000 5:09:28 PM Thanks for the link Robertjayb. Dave Barry is a very very funny man. 43961. robertjayb - 10/1/2000 5:14:47 PM . 43962. CalGal - 10/1/2000 6:16:34 PM I dunno--would it be beneath him to replace Jack Valenti? 43963. phydeau - 10/1/2000 7:27:09 PM My last word on the draft-dodger thing... When Bush went into the Guard he trained on F102s, which were already being phased out in favor of the newer F4s. There wasn't a chance in hell he would be sent to Vietnam, as it cost too much and took too much time to retrain the pilots. What a lucky coincidence, eh? 43964. Michael Mele - 10/1/2000 7:34:34 PM Phydeau -- 43965. Cellar Door - 10/1/2000 7:38:02 PM Dubbya's Moonie Ties. Will Korea Rule America? 43966. phydeau - 10/1/2000 7:49:34 PM Ok righties, I want to hear the spin on this. Moon has been quoted as saying all kinds of nasty things about the US... gives LOTS of money to right-wing causes... why are we not as worried about this guy as we are about the chinese buying influence? 43967. dusty - 10/1/2000 8:08:42 PM phydeau 43968. CalGal - 10/1/2000 8:15:22 PM Michael, 43969. Michael Mele - 10/1/2000 8:33:57 PM Phydeau -- 43970. Michael Mele - 10/1/2000 8:36:20 PM Correction: Drop the quotes around "righty" -- I'm still used to debating with hapless slugs. Mea culpa. 43971. Cellar Door - 10/1/2000 8:43:43 PM I'm upset that money constitutes speech, that religion gets such kid-glove treatment, that the right to assemble for petition of grievances is being denied this nation's citizens, and the press is "free" to the highest bidder. 43972. CalGal - 10/1/2000 8:48:12 PM Religion is given kid glove treatment because the majority of Americans like to pretend that they are religious and it gets them uncomfortable if it is stepped on too much. 43973. arkymalarky - 10/1/2000 9:07:22 PM I don't think I agree with Cal's 43972. The religious right wing is a pushy minority voice, but the majority of the people are uncomfortable with their tactics--their influence is in pockets of the country as opposed to having a broad base--I think the Republicans are finally beginning to get smart and figure that out when it comes to directing their presidential campaigns. State to state there's little to nothing they can do about it. I also don't think the public drives the news media (speaking of the Moonie influence), and I'd prefer lots of alternatives to money buying a voice in the government. 43974. arkymalarky - 10/1/2000 9:09:44 PM Well, I'd agree with the first point in thinking about it. Not stepping on something is not the same thing as supporting its influence. I don't know that it's religious pretending on the part of Americans, though. 43975. Autodaffy - 10/1/2000 9:10:27 PM EricCartman, 43976. phydeau - 10/1/2000 9:14:59 PM No Republican has given me a straight answer about Moon. Come to think of it, straight answers seem to be rare around here. 43977. phydeau - 10/1/2000 9:19:35 PM Or, to put it another way: As true-blue loyal Americans, how do rank and file Republicans feel about the leaders of their party taking money from someone who admittedly hates America and democracy? 43978. CalGal - 10/1/2000 9:22:23 PM Arky, 43979. arkymalarky - 10/1/2000 9:26:46 PM You're probably right about the nation as a whole. My view is skewed by where I live, but I'm also in one of those pockets. Bro calls it the buckle of the Bible Belt, though my particular part of the state isn't bad. 43980. arkymalarky - 10/1/2000 9:29:16 PM I think it speaks volumes that our current governor is a Republican Baptist preacher who at the moment lives in a double-wide. Yet we elected Clinton more often than any other governor, including (or except? I can't remember) Faubus. When you look at the big picture, Arkansas is a really weird state politically. 43981. arkymalarky - 10/1/2000 9:29:57 PM That previous post was a thinking-aloud sort of thing and not addressed to anyone or anything in particular. 43982. RosettaStone - 10/1/2000 9:34:42 PM Here an item I found buried on page A18 in the political news section of today's WPost. 43983. CalGal - 10/1/2000 9:34:54 PM Um. 43984. RosettaStone - 10/1/2000 9:36:44 PM correction: 15 point lead in Texas 43985. arkymalarky - 10/1/2000 9:36:59 PM a trailer--mobile home. 43986. CalGal - 10/1/2000 9:40:52 PM The governor doesn't live in the gov's mansion? 43987. arkymalarky - 10/1/2000 9:42:34 PM BTW, a double-wide is the most elegant in manufactured-home living, being twice as wide as the standard trailer and usually well over twice as big. They have to haul them in two parts down the highway when they set them up. 43988. arkymalarky - 10/1/2000 9:43:30 PM No, I think they're remodeling or something. 43989. Michael Mele - 10/1/2000 9:58:03 PM CalGal -- 43990. CalGal - 10/1/2000 10:07:54 PM I've never understood the fuss about money. What does it matter who gives a candidate money? 43991. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 12:30:26 AM Or maybe we should stop worrying so much about religion, speech, press, petition and assembly rights, and worry more about a "trading partner" who uses its trade surplus to finance a weapons industry and does arms business with bad guys. 43992. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 12:30:44 AM Autodaffy Message # 43975: 43993. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 12:35:05 AM Arky Message # 43980: 43994. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 12:39:54 AM CalGal: 43995. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 1:02:10 AM More fun with the Moonies: 43996. CalGal - 10/2/2000 1:04:36 AM Eric, 43997. joezan - 10/2/2000 1:06:35 AM 43998. Stumbo - 10/2/2000 1:09:02 AM In this should-we-be-more-worried-about-Moon-or-China discussion, has anyone yet mentioned the obscure fact that Moon doesn't have nukes? 43999. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 1:10:32 AM 44000. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 1:10:40 AM mil 44001. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 1:13:35 AM 44002. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 1:16:17 AM Cal: 44003. Stumbo - 10/2/2000 1:20:38 AM Ace: 44004. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 1:22:19 AM Hmmm. One, because "Eric the Red" hadn't occurred to me, and Two, because "Eric the Red" sounds sort of cool, rather than demeaning and insulting, which is my intent. 44005. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 1:22:50 AM Last time I checked, Lyndon LaRouche was a Democrat. 44006. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 1:24:14 AM 44007. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 1:27:37 AM Stumbo: 44008. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 1:28:45 AM 44009. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 1:29:43 AM 44010. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 1:30:33 AM Yeah, it figures. Make shit up, then you don't have the sack to defend it. Douchebag. 44011. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 1:32:06 AM 44012. Stumbo - 10/2/2000 1:34:55 AM Jeeez. I hate it when I make what seems (allowing for BAC) like a reasonably funny joke, and everyone reacts in a manner that leaves me guessing as to whether they simply didn't get it, or got it but didn't find it funny enough to be even worth acknowledging. 44013. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 1:37:15 AM No, don't give me this "oh, please" shit, Ace. You want to start talking shit like "Eric Communist thinks cutting taxes is crazy" or "Eric Communist attacks W but says nothing about Lieberman", then you fucking well better point out where those things are true. 44014. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 1:45:45 AM Stumbo: 44015. Stumbo - 10/2/2000 1:57:28 AM *phew* 44016. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 2:08:31 AM Stumbo: 44017. Michael Mele - 10/2/2000 2:43:15 AM I don't mind a slight misrepresentation here and there, but things like that are completely untrue 44018. Stumbo - 10/2/2000 2:45:41 AM EC: 44019. Cellar Door - 10/2/2000 10:30:33 AM No dear, his essential interest in America is to establish a power base for his brainwashing campaign -- strikingly similar to Stalinist brainwashing. Substitute "God" (ie.Moon) for Lenin, and you've got it. 44020. Cellar Door - 10/2/2000 10:32:35 AM Just because somene with huge amounts of private funds says they're anti-communist doesn't mean they're not totalitarian. Or just flat out Evil, is is the case with the "blessed" Reverend. 44021. Wombat - 10/2/2000 11:44:39 AM Shock Rock! 44022. Cellar Door - 10/2/2000 11:46:04 AM Why am I not surprised? 44023. Wombat - 10/2/2000 11:54:33 AM The second sentence is a joke, by the way. 44024. robertjayb - 10/2/2000 11:58:53 AM . 44025. bubbaette - 10/2/2000 12:07:44 PM I would think that endorsement by Marilyn Manson is a dubious honor. Sort of like endorsement by Lyndon LaRouche. 44026. glendajean - 10/2/2000 12:08:41 PM I hate debates. 44027. theDiva - 10/2/2000 12:09:43 PM watch the playoffs instead. 44028. glendajean - 10/2/2000 12:11:44 PM No, I'll watch the damn things and my nerves will be on edge and I'll have to leave the room. They have the feel of "sudden-death" playoffs in sports. 44029. theDiva - 10/2/2000 12:13:10 PM poor dear. 44030. JJBiener - 10/2/2000 12:13:55 PM glendajean - I hate debates, too. Or to be more precise, I hate what Presidential debates have become which really not a debate at all. They are more of an exercise to see who can best avoid answering direct questions while repeating the their market-tested soundbites. 44031. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 12:14:41 PM 44032. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 12:18:20 PM 44033. glendajean - 10/2/2000 12:20:18 PM JJ -- I agree. 44034. JudithAtHome - 10/2/2000 12:25:36 PM GJ: 44035. JJBiener - 10/2/2000 12:27:32 PM glendajean - The most surreal one for me was the 1996 debate between Gore and Kemp. Gore received a perfect score by not giving one straight answer throughout the entire debate. Kemp was completely non-plussed as Gore made one ridiculous accusation after another and no one called him on it. 44036. JudithAtHome - 10/2/2000 12:32:21 PM I signed up to score the debates as they are happening with FoxNews; I plan to do the first one but if it's too intrusive, I may opt out of the others. (By intrusive, I mean if I'm too busy answering questions on the computer to enjoy the debates.) I know Fox is a mickey mouse network but I figured not many liberals would offer to sign up there.... 44037. Raskolnikov - 10/2/2000 12:32:48 PM "Look back at *all* polls conducted over Fridays or Saturdays. You 44038. Raskolnikov - 10/2/2000 12:38:29 PM Ace also doesn't seem to be aware that pollsters *call back* if you aren't home. They are much more aware than he is of the potential impact of selection bias occurring via non-response. 44039. Raskolnikov - 10/2/2000 12:46:46 PM JJ: Kemp was just non-plussed. He was the epitome of the person who has just enough knowledge to be dangerous. He kept blathering about economic concepts in such a way that it was clear he was taking them on faith, without really understanding the logic behind them. 44040. OhioSTOPAS - 10/2/2000 12:54:58 PM Read the transcript of the 1996 Gore-Kemp debate for yourself and see if JJBiener's description of it reflects reality or merely JJ's Republican perspective. 44041. Jack Vincennes - 10/2/2000 1:07:14 PM Kemp was savaged and proven to be the preening, self-serving mullett-head that he is and always has been. Gore toyed with him, and then, used Kemp as the vehicle by which he could brand the entire GOP as Simians. And instead of protesting, and responding, "Mr. Gore, I love compliments, but not at the expense of the truth, and you are smearing etc . . . ", kemp took the compliments, remained silent as to Gore's assault on the party, and thereafter, got his ass handed to him. 44042. Cellar Door - 10/2/2000 1:09:30 PM "Worse, vice-presidential debates are not about the individuals. They are about the parties" 44043. Jack Vincennes - 10/2/2000 1:12:00 PM Cellar 44044. bubbaette - 10/2/2000 1:17:42 PM They also deal with the candidate's ability to think on his feet -- to be able to respond to what's been said rather than to keep to the set of talking points. But even that's pretty well scripted, which is why the debates seem to boil down to whether the opponents are able to rattle each other. 44045. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 1:47:04 PM 44046. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 1:48:52 PM Incidentally, John Zogby -- who took the poll in question -- has also spoken about the need to take weekend polls with a grain of salt. 44047. janjon - 10/2/2000 1:51:06 PM In view of the underwhelming response to my suggestion about a debate contest (for those of you who may not recall - ha -, it was to see who could come up with the slogans - a la "There you go again" - that are most like the ones the boys will spew forth tomorrow in their efforts to win the sound bite/image war), it will be cancelled. Unless there are responses like in the next hour or so. 44048. Ronski - 10/2/2000 1:54:25 PM The Newark Star-Ledger poll released yesterday has Bush trailing Gore by 14 points in NJ. 44049. janjon - 10/2/2000 1:57:57 PM Ronksi. Have you checked out the Iowa Electronic Poll on the Hillary/Ricky race? The last two weeks or so are very dramatic - she's soaring, he's in free-fall. And, the current spread is staggering. 44050. Raskolnikov - 10/2/2000 1:59:16 PM "I stand by my statements. Go read Rasmussen's site for the dangers 44051. janjon - 10/2/2000 1:59:34 PM I read somewhere (maybe here) that W. is only ahead by 15 in Texas. That seems not a lot. (I in no way am suggesting that I think Gore will win or even come close in Texas. I just assumed it was more like New York where I suspect Gore is now ahead by over 20 and approaching 30.) 44052. Ronski - 10/2/2000 1:59:55 PM janjon, 44053. rubberducky - 10/2/2000 2:00:04 PM i added some links under the new "Government" section title in the "butterscotch" bar (to the right). if there are some others you want to see, please let me know 44054. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 2:00:38 PM Poll Sharks 44055. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 2:00:51 PM 44056. janjon - 10/2/2000 2:01:48 PM Ronski. Oh no doubt. Same is true, of course, for W. 44057. Raskolnikov - 10/2/2000 2:01:54 PM "Incidentally, John Zogby -- who took the poll in question -- has also 44058. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 2:02:17 PM 44059. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 2:03:15 PM 44060. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 2:03:33 PM 44061. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 2:03:48 PM 44062. Raskolnikov - 10/2/2000 2:08:39 PM Ace: There is no question that poorly conducted polls can easily bias a survey result. The question is whether a sensibly conducted poll, with better methodology, can avoid the pitfalls that more amateur polls fall into. Looking at the results of such a sensibly conducted poll, at Gallup, leads me to believe that they can, at least for this particular methodology problem, since their data do not show the trend that you insisted was in every poll on every weekend. 44063. Raskolnikov - 10/2/2000 2:14:28 PM "The less mathematical massaging you have to do on the numbers, the 44064. Cellar Door - 10/2/2000 2:27:08 PM The main problem, IMO, is the media's addiction to polling."We have the latest poll results," the announcers scream, with no information about the poll itself or how it was conducted. Unless you're an expert in this field there's no way of knowing a "good" pool from a "bad" one. Moreover, all polls are treated as gospel truth. One of the byproducts of polling-mania is that the polls have come to replace the elections they're supposedly about. 44065. AceofSpades - 10/2/2000 2:31:39 PM 44066. Raskolnikov - 10/2/2000 2:32:24 PM Which is why I instinctively distrust everyone but Gallup, since they have a long history of a good reputation behind them. These newcomers just haven't been tested enough, and too often a major problem comes to light (Newsweek, Voter.com). Since Gallup publishes new results every day, I barely pay attention to other polls, as I wouldn't pay them much heed unless almost all of them point in a different direction. 44067. Raskolnikov - 10/2/2000 2:38:29 PM And I should mention that I even take Gallup with a grain of salt sometimes. They have a demonstrable tendency to understate the support of significant third party candidates. No pollster has yet come up with a reliable way of dealing with people who lie to you (Zogby has some method that he uses to deal with the tendency of Republicans to refuse to participate. I have never been able to find much out about it but I suspect he just weights responses by some separate method to determine party affiliation). If Nader and Buchanan start registering greater than 1 or 2%, understatement becomes more likely. Particularly for Buchanan. 44068. JJBiener - 10/2/2000 2:53:31 PM I wonder if Gore will have the temerity to repeat the claims made by the Missouri Democratic Party. Namely, that Bush will cut $250 billion from Medicare. You would think by now they could sing a different tune. 44069. JudithAtHome - 10/2/2000 2:57:44 PM Everyone is singing familiar tunes, JJ...not just Gore. 44070. JJBiener - 10/2/2000 3:01:44 PM Judith - I don't mind the tune being somewhat familiar. I mind that it is so far off key. 44071. JudithAtHome - 10/2/2000 3:03:33 PM ...or completely atonal. 44072. rubberducky - 10/2/2000 4:13:38 PM interesting money analysis: 44073. RosettaStone - 10/2/2000 6:30:09 PM Who says Rep. Barney Frank doesn't understand symbols? 44074. Al D - 10/2/2000 7:22:08 PM Browne refused the Federal Funds he could have had. 44075. Al D - 10/2/2000 7:25:30 PM Eric 44076. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 7:46:27 PM Michael Message # 44017: 44077. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 7:48:58 PM In response to my remark about China selling weapons to bad guys, I should have said "selling weapons and technology to our adversaries." In that way you would have been spared the necessity of making a neener-neener argument that we also sell weapons. 44078. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 7:49:21 PM People who get really fervent or peddle panic about Moon, fail to reckon with the fact that his essential interest in America....rests in anti-Communism. That is the source of his support of the right, that is the focus of his contributions and financing of political causes, the holding of symposia, etc. He's South Korean, they have been within artillery range (never mind nukes) of Commies for fifty years. 44079. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 7:49:36 PM Stumbo Message # 44018 44080. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 8:04:44 PM Al: 44081. EricCartman - 10/2/2000 8:05:06 PM Or is it simply because he says the war on drugs is wrong? 44082. Michael Mele - 10/2/2000 8:22:19 PM Eric 44083. Dusty - 10/2/2000 8:31:58 PM EricCartman 44084. Dusty - 10/2/2000 8:33:35 PM EricCartman 44085. Michael Mele - 10/2/2000 8:39:55 PM I don't, and I don't like the idea that so many influential politicians seem to heel at his beck and call. 44086. Al D - 10/2/2000 8:45:04 PM Both Nader and Browne said the War on Drugs was wrong, but it seems to me for different reasons. Nader says it isn't working, which I would agree is true, while Browne says that it is none of the government's business what people ingest, which from a philosopical perspective is the healthy view. 44087. Dusty - 10/2/2000 9:26:34 PM Al D 44088. Al D - 10/2/2000 10:08:52 PM Dusty 44089. Al D - 10/2/2000 10:13:45 PM I just finished listening to Nader on Larry King. He would have my vote if I believed was we needed a President to attack corporations. Now I realize IBM, Microsoft, Walmart, Bank of America, Visa, Mastercard, etc. are all big, but they are not the enemies in my life. 44090. jonesatlaw - 10/2/2000 11:17:39 PM The thing that has always bugged me about Nader is his anthropomorphizing corporations into some band of international hooligans on the world street corner. There's no disputing that at various times most major international corporations have done some pretty unsavory things. Nader's reputation was built off an incident with GM. There was the Pinto, and now bad tires and a top heavy Ford Explorer. There have been tons of others. I seriously doubt that many of these cases of corporate bad citizenship started out with an evil intent. There was plenty of shady to outright criminal ass covering, but I seriously doubt that any corporation wants to maximize this quarters return by setting out to kill a few thousand consumers. 44091. robertjayb - 10/2/2000 11:28:45 PM . 44092. Al D - 10/2/2000 11:52:02 PM robertjayb 44093. EricCartman - 10/3/2000 12:52:38 AM Michael Message # 44085: 44094. EricCartman - 10/3/2000 12:55:43 AM Whoops, that last post was in response to Michael's Message # 44082. 44095. EricCartman - 10/3/2000 1:00:29 AM Michael Message # 44085: 44096. EricCartman - 10/3/2000 1:00:44 AM Al: 44097. clydefo - 10/3/2000 1:22:28 AM It appears that George Bush plans to impose more under-funded Federal mandates on local school systems. He'll say, "Measure up to the imposed Federal standards or we'll cut off all funding and allow your local system to totally degenerate and fail in its The alternative offered will be vouchers to subsidize the affluent who can already afford the private schools. The Bevis and Butthead types won't be able to get into the private academies, and will be forever stuck in fifth grade rather than being "socially promoted" as the locals would have it. Holding back these kids harms them psychological 44098. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 1:26:28 AM >Holding back these kids harms them psychological 44099. Stumbo - 10/3/2000 1:30:58 AM EC: 44100. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 2:01:05 AM 44101. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 2:01:52 AM 44102. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 2:16:42 AM And please don't tell me you've never said we should confiscate the estates of rich people you don't like. I know you've never said that. 44103. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 2:20:54 AM Eric -- 44104. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 2:27:28 AM Eric (cont) 44105. EricCartman - 10/3/2000 2:29:34 AM Ace: 44106. EricCartman - 10/3/2000 2:30:25 AM So I'm watching Hannity & Colmes about ten minutes ago, and guess what? They're going fucking apeshit because Lieberman spoke with Farrakhan. 44107. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 2:30:58 AM Sorry. One last thing. 44108. EricCartman - 10/3/2000 2:34:20 AM Michael: 44109. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 2:35:33 AM 44110. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 2:36:54 AM 44111. EricCartman - 10/3/2000 2:40:18 AM Given the fact that in many minds the Cold War was a permanent state of affairs, it was predictable that getting rich with the aid and might of the US government behind you came to predominate in some quarters. 44112. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 2:40:47 AM 44113. EricCartman - 10/3/2000 2:43:40 AM What Eric doesn't seem to get is: You have to deal with the government in place in a country. 44114. EricCartman - 10/3/2000 2:47:12 AM One could say that David Duke is as threatening as a "fart in a thunderstorm" as well. 44115. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 2:51:17 AM Eric -- 44116. EricCartman - 10/3/2000 2:55:05 AM Indeed, EC was critical (If I remember right, though I'm sure I'll be accused of "making things up") of George W. Bush suggesting that the GOP would be stronger with Pat Buchanan in the party. 44117. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 2:55:38 AM Toys. 44118. EricCartman - 10/3/2000 2:57:54 AM toys 44119. EricCartman - 10/3/2000 3:02:47 AM After we've praised the thug Allende one more time.... 44120. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 3:05:11 AM Goodnight you guys. 44121. alistairconnor - 10/3/2000 3:08:01 AM Michael : Message # 44082 ...but many of the states that were victims of Czar Josef Stalin are doing pretty well. 44122. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 3:19:55 AM Allister -- 44123. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 3:27:34 AM Well, I didn't mention him specifically, but now that you mention it, I don't recall hearing anything about him herding undesirables into soccer stadiums for re-education. 44124. alistairconnor - 10/3/2000 3:33:42 AM .... teeny-weeny historical detail : Allende wasn't a Communist. 44125. Wombat - 10/3/2000 9:02:58 AM Alistair: 44126. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 9:08:29 AM I woke up this morning to a story in the newspaper about local city ordinances and how they can be enforced. A suburb of this fair city has a very vigilent ex-mayor; to say he is overly so might be true and it might be just MY mind set. 44127. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 9:10:41 AM I know I put them away... wrongly, I suppose. 44128. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 9:11:35 AM ?????? 44129. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 9:14:28 AM toys okay? 44130. bubbaette - 10/3/2000 9:14:35 AM now? 44131. rubberducky - 10/3/2000 9:15:10 AM 44132. bubbaette - 10/3/2000 9:15:56 AM Mornin Judith! 44133. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 9:16:01 AM Thanks...I know what I did wrong but that second post showed up okay in preview....??? 44134. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 9:17:32 AM Well, I'm wondering what it would be like serving on a city council that had a mayor like that. 44135. rubberducky - 10/3/2000 9:19:32 AM the 2nd posts (to fix "toys") will always look right in preview 44136. stostosto - 10/3/2000 9:19:32 AM 44137. stostosto - 10/3/2000 9:20:14 AM 44138. JudithAtHome - 10/3/2000 9:21:18 AM Thanks, ducky....and this, after I swore yesterday to always preview! How mortifying! 44139. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/3/2000 10:17:04 AM There is an R who represents my district in our state house who has a personal vendetta against state employees (my wife happens to be one). He continually cooks up schemes to ingratiate himself to the many conservative old farts who make up a large percentage of the voters in this old Yankee area. 44140. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/3/2000 10:20:20 AM 44141. robertjayb - 10/3/2000 10:40:59 AM . 44142. Ronski - 10/3/2000 11:13:50 AM And Here I Thought Tax Reform Would Make Things Simpler 44143. Wombat - 10/3/2000 11:23:46 AM Ronski: 44144. Ronski - 10/3/2000 11:26:44 AM Wombat, 44145. glendajean - 10/3/2000 11:50:40 AM re: Zogby poll -- Gore & Nader up, Bush down (all slightly). That's an unpredicted combination. 44146. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 12:01:20 PM Even if the WSJ is right, we aren't talking about a serious problem. Does anyone really think that a high marginal tax rate over a very short span of income is going to significantly distort behavior? 44147. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 12:14:24 PM Rask - Robin Hood is your hero, isn't he? 44148. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 12:15:13 PM "Rask - Robin Hood is your hero, isn't he?" 44149. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 12:16:20 PM Of course, a possible implication of your question is "stealing from the rich to give to the poor". Are you equating taxation to theft? 44150. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 12:20:14 PM But Robin Hood certainly rocked as well. Errol Flynn vs Tyrone Power is a tough call (boh fought Basil Rathbone, so that part is a wash), but Power could have turned Flynn into a shish kebob, so he wins. 44151. rubberducky - 10/3/2000 12:26:31 PM i'm more of a Tarzan man myself. 44152. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 12:36:07 PM Rask - Actually, Robin Hood's line was "take from the rich and give to the poor." He did not consider what he was doing to be stealing. I am surprised by how many liberals I've talked to who have equated government welfare programs to Robin Hood and his activities. 44153. Wombat - 10/3/2000 12:46:24 PM Robin Hood (mythic) was actually a supporter of Richard I (the Lionhearted) who was being held for ransom in Bohemia (or Bavaria) as he was returning from the Crusades. King John may have arranged this, and was certainly trying to impede the collection of the ransom. Much of Robin's loot probably went toward the ransom. When Richard I returned Robin was rewarded with an Earldom. 44154. Wombat - 10/3/2000 12:52:01 PM So the mythic Robin is: a democratic redistributor; a republican who returns to the people what is theirs in the first place; a partisan fundraiser who uses any means necessary to aid the interests of his "candidate" (both parties). 44155. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 12:52:48 PM 44156. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 12:53:35 PM You are fixated on the government aspect, ignoring the rich/poor axis which has always defined the Robin Hood myth. I have never seen or read a version of Robin Hood where the Sheriff of Nottingham is collecting taxes to fund good roads, improve public health, and protect the peasants from crime. The story of Robin Hood isn't any more of an example of a conservativism than the British poll tax riots. 44157. Wombat - 10/3/2000 12:55:24 PM "Rise Sir Robin, Earl of Huntingdon." 44158. Wombat - 10/3/2000 12:58:28 PM I prefer the ending of the otherwise appalling Disney version, when King Richard says: "I've got an outlaw for an in-law!" 44159. Cellar Door - 10/3/2000 1:02:23 PM Robin was also a Major Queen (like his King) Little John was his SO, and all the "Maid Marian" stuff was made up later. 44160. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 1:02:50 PM 44161. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 1:05:52 PM Rask - You really are an "ends justify the means" kind of guy, aren't you? 44162. Wombat - 10/3/2000 1:07:04 PM Ace: 44163. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 1:09:08 PM It doesn't seem to faze rask that making people pay $1.64 for an additional dollar earned is simply ludicrously unfair, even if it wouldn't "distort" economic behavior (i.e., even if people are too stupid to refuse the extra dollar of income). 44164. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 1:12:06 PM 44165. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 1:12:40 PM "Rask - You really are an "ends justify the means" kind of guy, aren't 44166. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 1:17:19 PM Rask - No, I am basing it on several comments you've made. This was just latest example. 44167. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 1:26:25 PM "It doesn't seem to faze rask that making people pay $1.64 for an 44168. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 1:26:32 PM "Which is why, I suspect, Gore's proposal includes the extreme phase-outs in the first place-- to hide the true likely cost of his program." 44169. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 1:28:25 PM "Rask - No, I am basing it on several comments you've made. This 44170. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 1:37:05 PM 44171. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 1:40:34 PM Robin was also a Major Queen 44172. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 1:41:49 PM "Compare the minor issues here with the the major consequences of Bush not bothering to fill in the details of his Social Security privatization plans..." 44173. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 1:51:43 PM 44174. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 1:55:06 PM Ace: "Fine. Then his program is less "generous" (which is to say, less 44175. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 1:55:42 PM 44176. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 2:04:58 PM "Do you find it wise to increase spending to unsustainable levels, as 44177. jonesatlaw - 10/3/2000 2:09:54 PM I agree with Ace that the lack of any needs testing is a serious flaw in the Gore plan. 44178. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 2:10:00 PM "It's funny that Rask is so gosh-darn enthusiastic about a risky scheme which takes more money from the young (many of whom are 44179. Michael Mele - 10/3/2000 2:23:22 PM Ace -- 44180. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 2:23:55 PM 44181. CalGal - 10/3/2000 2:31:42 PM I'm not sure it's true that we have a high taxation rate. I suppose we do if we only consider ourselves as a reference, though. 44182. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 2:32:50 PM 44183. Wombat - 10/3/2000 2:34:07 PM It's a WSJ editorial. It is highly likely the writer(s) don't know what the hell they are talking about. 44184. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 2:34:57 PM "Why won't Gore "fill in the blanks" regarding how he'd reconcile his 44185. CalGal - 10/3/2000 2:36:46 PM But what do they mean that someone has to pay 105%? 44186. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 2:38:41 PM Ace: well you don't raise taxes during a recession. You raise them when the recession is over and the economy is growing again. I wasn't aware we were quibbling over a 9 month lag. 44187. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 2:40:00 PM "Marginal rates" are the rates you pay on an additonal dollar of income. 44188. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 2:42:50 PM 44189. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 2:44:48 PM 44191. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 2:47:54 PM 44192. jonesatlaw - 10/3/2000 2:49:15 PM GW Bush will be a trophy head on Gore's wall by tommorrow morning. 44193. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 2:53:35 PM "I'm not sure it's true that we have a high taxation rate. I suppose we 44194. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 2:53:44 PM 44195. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 2:58:03 PM (sidenote to Ace: If you complain about counting tax cuts as spending, "Mr Consistency" should then also take the WSJ to task for counting spending as a tax) 44196. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 2:58:34 PM Ace: I think you did a better job explaining it than I did. 44197. jonesatlaw - 10/3/2000 2:59:43 PM GW Bush's response ignored all of the questions save for #5. He stated "I believe that we should also build a culture that respects life, where all unborn children are welcomed in life and protected in law. While I respect those with differing views, I am pro-life and support compassionate alternatives to abortion. I support the goal of a Human Life Amendment with exceptions for rape, incests and to save the life of the mother." 44198. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 3:03:41 PM Ace: I was actually criticizing your hysterical reaction to calling Bush's tax cuts "spending". I agree that it is right and proper to account income dependent subsidies in an analysis of effective marginal taxation. 44199. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 3:05:28 PM 44200. CalGal - 10/3/2000 3:06:27 PM Ace, Rask, 44201. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 3:08:09 PM 44202. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 3:10:30 PM 44204. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 3:17:55 PM 44210. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 3:26:22 PM 44211. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 3:27:17 PM "Rask, there's a move on to create a Debate thread that becomes the 44212. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 3:29:49 PM 44214. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 3:32:46 PM 44218. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 3:42:20 PM "Of course, the "rich" do benefit under any tax-cut plan -- because the rich pay 50% of the nation's taxes." 44219. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 3:43:35 PM 44220. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 3:45:50 PM 44222. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 3:48:47 PM 44223. rubberducky - 10/3/2000 3:49:17 PM Post Numbers: 44224. rubberducky - 10/3/2000 3:51:24 PM as was 44221 44225. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 3:51:50 PM 44226. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 3:52:25 PM "Rask seems to like the idea of paying people to be poor. It's a nice gig, I guess, but I'd prefer they just worked and paid taxes like the other 90% of Americans." 44227. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 3:53:49 PM I just don't understand the plan to have a "Debates" thread, which will then morph into an "Elections" thread. 44228. rubberducky - 10/3/2000 3:56:26 PM Ace 44229. rubberducky - 10/3/2000 3:57:46 PM Ace 44230. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 3:59:56 PM "Rask judges every policy, it seems, by the amount of wealth it 44231. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 4:01:45 PM 44232. Indiana Jones - 10/3/2000 4:02:59 PM Speaking of vague language in proposals, here's an analysis of Gore's tax plan. 44233. rubberducky - 10/3/2000 4:03:34 PM Ace 44234. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 4:04:26 PM I tend to agree with Ace that we don't need a separate thread. Electoral discussions account for 95% of this thread currently, and it isn't as if non-election issues are getting lost in the shuffle. 44235. CalGal - 10/3/2000 4:09:39 PM Thing is, we have a lot of newbies checking things out lately. If they come into it looking around, it makes it easier to find things. 44236. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 4:35:24 PM Indy - Thanks for the links to the tax proposal info. As I suspected all along, Gore's plan does absolutely nothing for me. Not a dime. I guess that means somewhere along the way I became rich and no bothered to tell me. 44237. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 4:42:41 PM Talk about single issue voting. 44238. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 4:43:20 PM By that criteria, you should be voting for Harry Browne. 44239. CalGal - 10/3/2000 4:46:47 PM I can never see getting fussed about taxes. Short of lifting the income cap on FICA payments, I don't think it could happen. 44240. Indiana Jones - 10/3/2000 4:51:15 PM JJ: Same here re the two tax plans. 44241. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 4:55:14 PM 44242. Ronski - 10/3/2000 4:57:10 PM Re: Message # 44238 44243. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 4:58:13 PM IJ: It isn't selfishness, but that it is the only thing JJ seems to be looking at, even in the narrow field of fiscal policy. If all we look at are tax cuts, without examining other aspects of fiscal policy, we end up with Reagan/Bush era deficits. Even if you are a completely selfish bastard, does it make sense to support tax cuts which benefit you in the short term, if those come at the expense of eliminating the surplus (or even returning to deficits) just at the time when we need to be preparing for a huge demographic shift? That is, what the hell is the point of tax cuts if you just have to raise taxes even more in the future in order to balance them, particularly when we might not be as fiscally flush as we are now? 44244. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 4:59:52 PM What democrats are levelling such criticisms? No one here. 44245. Ronski - 10/3/2000 5:00:48 PM No tax cuts without spending cuts. 44246. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 5:02:25 PM "What he didn't mention is that similar logic requires skepticism about a tax cut when your economy is running at full steam." 44247. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 5:05:32 PM 44248. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 5:06:26 PM Rask - The fact that I disagree with Gore on almost everything else makes the decision more certain. The larger point is that Gore is promising a "middle class" tax cut, but I as member of that middle class do not benefit. On the other hand, Bush's plan which supposedly only helps the rich helps me significantly. The conclusion I draw is that either I'm rich or as usual Gore is talking out of his ass. Since I am not rich, the conclusion should be obvious. 44249. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 5:08:20 PM 44250. CalGal - 10/3/2000 5:09:45 PM Ace, 44251. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 5:12:34 PM Ace - Your buddies whined and whined about the spending cuts and Reagan backed off. So the government spent more. 44252. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 5:16:51 PM "Yes, I do. "Voodoo economics" worked, despite the 44253. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 5:18:07 PM "Actually, the AMT doesn't only apply to the "rich". It kicks in pretty low--I forget exactly where, but unless it has changed recently, it's in the 100K range." 44254. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 5:18:57 PM "You forgot to mention that they didn't pass a budget for years and 44255. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 5:19:33 PM 44256. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 5:20:06 PM 44257. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 5:22:57 PM Ace: I also tthink we are due for a recession. But it is a matter of timing. Reagan presided over the worst recession since the 30s, and he almost broke records with his re-election, as the economy had rebounded by then. Bush had the bad luck of having the recession hit right before the election, with unemployment very slow to recover even after the recession technically ended. I would argue that voters are much more concerned about perceived vulnerability of their jobs than they are about GDP growth. I think if Gore is lucky the recession hits him early, or waits four years. 44258. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 5:23:35 PM 44259. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 5:25:17 PM 44260. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 5:28:21 PM 44261. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 5:30:51 PM Without the Reagan tax cuts in the 80's, there wouldn't have been the venture capital available in the 90's to fuel the growth in the technology sector which is responsible for our current level of prosperity. This should be obvious to anyone who doesn't believe that prosperity grows on government-owned trees. 44262. CalGal - 10/3/2000 5:31:54 PM Ace, 44263. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 5:32:20 PM "f you have proof I am wrong, cite it. I prefer not to be in error, and if 44264. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 5:33:48 PM "Clinton's much-more-modest "stimulus package," OTOH, spurred the 44265. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 5:37:43 PM "Without the Reagan tax cuts in the 80's, there wouldn't have been the 44266. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 5:40:58 PM Rask - Selective use of data? Like focusing on a small portion of domestic spending and ignoring that all of domestic spending almost doubled. 44267. Indiana Jones - 10/3/2000 5:44:48 PM Rask: You and I have a fundamental difference about taxes. We previously debated the idea of whether giving someone a tax credit was a subsidy or not, and I see that has briefly came up again between you and Ace. If you recall, my position is that the government levies taxes and takes from the citizenry, not that in its kindness and largesse the government allows the citizenry to keep some of what actually belongs to the state. 44268. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 5:45:47 PM Rask - Following JJ's logic. . . 44269. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 5:49:08 PM "Rask - Selective use of data? Like focusing on a small portion of 44270. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 5:52:23 PM IJ:"BTW, in general I think people are entitled to be "completely selfish bastards." Virtue by compulsion is no virtue. Moreover, I don't think a dollar spent by the public sector is inherently likely to do better works or do them more efficiently than a dollar spent by the private sector." 44271. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 5:54:59 PM 44272. Indiana Jones - 10/3/2000 5:55:35 PM Rask: I agree that certain government services are necessary, especially to prevent "Tragedy of the Commons"-type problems. And with that, you can have the last word for now, as I have to scoot. 44273. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 5:56:34 PM Rask - When every Reagan budget is pronounced "dead on arrival" by the Democratic Leadership in the House of Representatives, it is dishonest to blame Reagan to the budgets the Democrats write. 44274. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 5:58:22 PM 44275. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 5:59:09 PM "Invalid premise. Deficit spending (by the Democratic Congress) did 44276. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 6:00:11 PM "Since you, and your ilk, "Care" so much about the poor, please 44277. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 6:01:50 PM "Rask - When every Reagan budget is pronounced "dead on arrival" 44278. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 6:03:16 PM 44279. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 6:05:41 PM I am done on this for now. If JJ still wants to mix it up after I re-post the piece (that he hid from last time I posted it, despite the fact that I put it together at his request), I'll be happy to oblige him. 44280. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 6:06:30 PM 44281. Raskolnikov - 10/3/2000 6:10:38 PM "How much, Rask?" 44282. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 6:12:34 PM Rask - To head off JJ's inevitable next retort, yes appropriations bills start in the House, but appropriations bills don't cover entitlements, where spending is determined by law. 44283. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 6:20:08 PM "Because we can't." 44284. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 6:21:51 PM 44285. Al D - 10/3/2000 6:22:13 PM 44271. AceofSpades 44286. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 6:28:05 PM 44287. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 6:31:39 PM 44288. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 6:32:19 PM Rask - Congratulations. You have been the award the George Orwell Award for your truly masterful command of doublespeak. The winning entry: 44289. JJBiener - 10/3/2000 6:36:58 PM Ace - It is useful to note that when asked how the government is to pay for the largesse they want to spread around, they invariably call for tax increases on "the rich". It is rare to hear them say, "I want the government to raise my taxes." 44290. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 6:39:19 PM JJ: 44291. arkymalarky - 10/3/2000 7:30:07 PM I'd switch both tax brackets and incomes with either one of you in a heartbeat. Who's bitching that "others" should pay more? The only bitching and moaning I hear is from the poor-pitiful-me's who think they're paying too much. I can't speak for Rask, but for myself, I never complain about taxes, though I have more cause than any of the ones whining about them in here. Excuse me if I can't muster enough feeling for your pain to emit a "boo-hoo." 44292. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 7:37:33 PM 44293. arkymalarky - 10/3/2000 7:44:03 PM "You are. You say, "We must do more," but you really mean "Other people besides me should do more." 44294. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 7:50:41 PM 44295. jonesatlaw - 10/3/2000 8:01:24 PM Ace- You are definitely preaching at the wrong person. Arky is already supporting the poor of her state by educating them, and by accepting a salary that is far less than what she's worth. 44296. jonesatlaw - 10/3/2000 8:03:54 PM That includes the "Death Tax" 44297. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 8:06:30 PM 44298. jonesatlaw - 10/3/2000 8:11:10 PM David Spades- If you teach in several areas, you are taking a financial hit for teaching. Many secondary teachers have a BS or BA in their field like every other Joe and Josephine in the private sector, not an education degree. That's why there is such a shortage of teachers in math, the hard sciences and technical fields. They get tired of working for assholes who make 30%-50% more than they do bitching about the cost of their salaries, and go off for the money. I haven't noticed them crying in their beer over their taxes. 44299. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 8:13:28 PM 44300. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 8:17:00 PM 44301. jonesatlaw - 10/3/2000 8:20:05 PM In my experience, the people who have done the most bitching about high taxes are those who don't do anything for charity unless there's a swell party thrown in, preferably with only "people like us" invited. 44302. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 8:20:31 PM 44303. jonesatlaw - 10/3/2000 8:25:07 PM Ace- you have never taught a day in a public school in your life have you? I have been both an attorney and a teacher, and teaching is at times harder than being an attorney. 44304. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 8:34:42 PM Yes, I'm sure it's harder than being an attorney, a doctor, a scientist, a cop, and a plumber, all rolled up into one. 44305. Cellar Door - 10/3/2000 8:37:29 PM "I'm so sick of this bleat. " 44306. jonesatlaw - 10/3/2000 8:37:38 PM Ace- saying teaching a review course for Kaplan is the same as teaching in an average public high school is like saying teaching your cat Snowball to fetch makes you Clyde Fucking Beatty. 44307. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 8:39:40 PM 44308. jonesatlaw - 10/3/2000 8:40:12 PM No, it wasn't public school. I must say, however, that it was easy. 44309. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 8:41:49 PM 44310. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 8:42:11 PM Actually, I passed it after only studying for about two weeks. 44311. Al D - 10/3/2000 8:45:37 PM Ace 44312. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 8:46:58 PM 44313. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 8:50:18 PM 44314. jonesatlaw - 10/3/2000 8:54:46 PM Ace- The underpaid professions tend to be ones where women dominate- nursing, teaching, social work, daycare providers and nurses aides. I think ministers are underpaid, there's an exception to the women rule. Farmers are underpaid. Federal judges are underpaid. 44315. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 8:56:25 PM "I am sure that there are underpaid folks who run their own businesses if you look at it from an hourly basis." 44316. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 8:59:01 PM "The underpaid professions tend to be ones where women dominate- nursing..." 44317. Cellar Door - 10/3/2000 9:01:52 PM So you've been a janitor, eh? 44318. AceofSpades - 10/3/2000 9:04:09 PM 44319. Cellar Door - 10/3/2000 9:08:03 PM Oh I'm just insulting you on general principle. 44320. Cellar Door - 10/3/2000 9:09:30 PM You're a smug little creep and deserve to have your head shoved into the nearest commode at every opportunity. If you have a position as a janitor, then you'll get monetarily compensated for licking the shit out with your tongue. 44321. rubberducky - 10/3/2000 11:18:23 PM let's tone down the personal attacks please 44322. DaveM - 10/4/2000 3:36:15 AM Message # 44288. JJBiener - 10/3/00 11:32:19 PM 44323. DaveM - 10/4/2000 3:37:20 AM Ace - 44324. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/4/2000 9:45:38 AM 44325. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 10:42:20 AM Ace: "TRANSLATION: Just as I said-- we can't let those who "don't care" gain the benefits of a poverty-free nation unless they too pony up. 44326. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 10:48:02 AM Here is my Ace parody: 44327. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 10:54:07 AM JJ:"Only a master of doublespeak could claim that those who refuse to give up what they own are "freeriding" and those receive what they haven't earned are not. And you did it without even getting dizzy. Quite a feat. Really." 44328. JayAckroyd - 10/4/2000 10:59:24 AM Ah, Rask, I went through this years ago with JJB and Dusty (and a couple of others). 44329. Cellar Door - 10/4/2000 11:23:11 AM The George Michael Syndrome Strikes Again! 44330. OhioSTOPAS - 10/4/2000 11:31:27 AM Did Glavin have the Starr Report in his free hand? 44331. JudithAtHome - 10/4/2000 11:35:57 AM I guess it's true....those who yell the loudest about sin are usually engaged in it themselves. 44332. Wombat - 10/4/2000 11:47:17 AM Ya gotta do it to know it's a sin! 44333. Ronski - 10/4/2000 12:16:29 PM Re: Message # 44329 - 44334. glendajean - 10/4/2000 12:19:40 PM Gosh, I didn't know Glavin was so touchy-feely. 44335. janjon - 10/4/2000 12:23:25 PM The world would not be the same if it weren't for the inevitable and certainly recurrent examples of hypocrisy at play, especially when the perp is one who has espoused MORALITY in all of its glory. 44336. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 12:39:04 PM Jay: thanks for reminding me that I am not alone in the wilderness here. 44337. Cellar Door - 10/4/2000 12:53:30 PM Roy Cohn, J. Edgar Hoover, Cardinal Spellman, Arthur Finkelstein, Pete Williams, Mark Glavin. 44338. janjon - 10/4/2000 1:01:30 PM Maybe this is just a temporary memory lapse, but who is Pete Williams? 44339. Cellar Door - 10/4/2000 1:13:35 PM Pete Willimas was under-secretary of defense under Dick Cheney. He was the guy standing in front of the blackboard explaining how all our "smart bombs" made "surgical strikes" in the Gulf War. His "outing" in "The Advocate" jump-started the entire Gays in the Military "controversy." 44340. JJBiener - 10/4/2000 1:17:11 PM DaveM - Your automatic invocation of "Orwellian" whenever anyone disagrees with your ridiculous belief that vague notions like "ownership" or "freedom" have concrete meaning is quite fascinating, since it is, itself, completely Orwellian. 44341. Cellar Door - 10/4/2000 1:19:13 PM "Words mean things. Reality exists." 44342. msgreer - 10/4/2000 2:16:17 PM 800-973-2211 Curious? Go to Health Thread. 44343. glendajean - 10/4/2000 2:18:03 PM Cellar -- You lost me on the GE=Pentagon formula, but then, maybe that's why Saturday Night Live is so bad. 44344. Wombat - 10/4/2000 2:39:39 PM In 1981, Terry Dolan got himself in a lather over anatomically correct gingerbread men and women made by an Annapolis bakery. 44345. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 2:42:31 PM Per Ace's request: my piece on 1980 fiscal policy. 44346. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 2:42:55 PM Part I: What the hell happened? 44347. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 2:43:11 PM Table 1: Deficits, In 1983 dollars (billions) and as a percent of GDP 44348. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 2:43:34 PM 44349. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 2:43:49 PM Looking at these tables, we clearly see that revenue dropped in the early eighties, both in real terms and as a percent of GDP, and then stayed rather steady as a percentage of GDP until 1987, where it still didn't come back to pre-1983 levels. We can also see that of the three main tax categories, the drop occurred primarily in personal (which includes capital gains, which explains why the downward spike occurs in 1983 instead of 1982, since there was a rush to realize capital gains when the rates dropped) and corporate income taxes. 44350. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 2:44:00 PM Table 4: Discretionary Expenditures, in Billions (in 1983 dollars) 44351. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 2:44:16 PM Table 6: Entitlement Spending, in Billions (1983 dollars) 44352. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 2:44:29 PM The "means" category includes means tested entitlements other than Medicaid, such as AFDC, Food Stamps, WIC, etc. These two tables show that entitlements also grew during the Reagan era. The data breakouts indicate that more than 100% (meaning that there were some minor offsetting entitlement reductions in other areas) of total entitlement growth occurred in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Of these, only Medicare and Medicaid increased as a proportion of GDP. Means tested programs other than Medicaid experienced an extremely slight real increase, and declined as a percentage of GDP. Total entitlement spending remained pretty constant during the eighties as a proportion of GDP, except for the expected upward spike around the recession years. 44353. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 2:44:43 PM Part 2: Why did it happen? 44354. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 2:45:08 PM Part 3: Responsibility 44355. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 2:45:25 PM Now, let's look at Entitlements again. First I will reiterate that defense spending increases were more than twice the increases in combined Entitlement and Domestic Discretionary spending. So even if you want to lay the entire blame for Entitlement increases at the feet of the Democrats, "their" programs are only responsible for one third of spending increases, to say nothing about the impact of the 1981 GOP tax cut. If Entitlements had stayed at their 1981 level, the deficit would still have been alive and well. Hence, if you view Entitlements in the way most unfavorable to the Democrats, they are at best supporting players in the creation of the 80s deficits. 44356. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 2:51:29 PM One. 44357. CalGal - 10/4/2000 2:53:16 PM Rask, 44358. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 2:59:14 PM "In short, the biggest contributions to the deficits were tax cuts, defense increases, and Entitlement increases. Of these, the Democratic House only has partial complicity for the latter." 44359. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 3:03:41 PM Jack: Whether the deficits had a role in the benefits you describe is another matter, but it should be pretty damned clear that the deficits were extremely expensive. Interest on the national debt is still costing us about $200 billion a year. 44360. JJBiener - 10/4/2000 3:03:46 PM Rask - Please explain why free riding on the benefits of anti-poverty programs is any different than free riding on the benefits of national defense. 44361. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 3:04:16 PM 44362. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:05:49 PM The analysis was excellent, if largely irrelevant. The hurried conclusion, however, is questionable. 44363. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 3:07:20 PM Ace: 44364. Cellar Door - 10/4/2000 3:07:34 PM "Then there was the guys who worked with Ollie North in selling old Ellen Garwood of Austin, Texas that she should fund a helicopter for the Contras. They were outed during the Iran-Contra scandal.",?i> 44365. rubberducky - 10/4/2000 3:08:26 PM Re: Message # 44357, CalGal. 44366. rubberducky - 10/4/2000 3:09:15 PM picking up toys 44367. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 3:09:54 PM Ace: I wish you would actually read it. I did give cites for the CBO and the BLS. You can look the numbers up yourself and verify them. The only methodology you might need to know to duplicate my work is that lacking annual inflation rates from the BLS, I used the CPI from July to July as a close estimate of a midpoint. 44368. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 3:11:29 PM If someone wants to hypertext that, I would be eternally grateful. My knowledge of HTML pretty much stops at creating a link, and the above was written for a discussion in the Fray, which didn't take HTML. 44369. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 3:12:01 PM 44370. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 3:13:31 PM Jack: I think the "hurried conclusion" is quite correct, based on the numbers above. The main point of my argument is that when you look at the numbers, culpability for the debt becomes quite obvious. 44371. Cellar Door - 10/4/2000 3:14:11 PM What will Greta Van Sustern say? 44372. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 3:14:24 PM 44373. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 3:14:37 PM "1) CPI inflation is not the same as M1/M2 growth in the money supply 44374. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:16:02 PM Rask 44375. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 3:16:54 PM "It's also somewhat baffling that Rask admits that deficit spending is 44376. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 3:17:06 PM 44377. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 3:18:17 PM Jack: it isn't an assumption. Again, my point is that it is obvious based on the budget numbers. Unless you think that it was the Democrats who wanted to raise defense spending, cut taxes, and cut domestic discretionary spending. 44378. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 3:19:24 PM "That would have been a minor thing. But the deficits continued long passed the recession, which is a major thing." 44379. Jack Vincennes - 10/4/2000 3:21:02 PM Rask 44380. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 3:24:13 PM Ace: you clearly have no idea what you are looking at. You are calling the CBO and the BLS of dubious validity? Check the links, verify the math. 44381. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 3:25:28 PM 44382. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 3:28:06 PM 44383. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 3:29:12 PM "The deficits returned to their pre-recession level just a few years after the recession had passed." 44384. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 3:30:23 PM 44385. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 3:31:43 PM " You have admitted the proper inflation adjustment is based upon the 44386. CalGal - 10/4/2000 3:33:45 PM Rask, 44387. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 3:33:50 PM "Are you on crack? Deficits didn't return to their pre-Reagan level (as a percentage of GDP) until the mid-nineties." 44388. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 3:35:16 PM 44389. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 3:37:05 PM Ace: You are so wrong in post 44384 that I don't know where to start. For one thing, stagflation is *not* defined as the money supply not growing while the CPI does grow. It is defined as stagnant economic growth (GDP growth or high unemployment) coupled with inflation. Economic growth does not = money supply growth. 44390. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 3:41:20 PM "For one thing, stagflation is *not* defined as the money supply not growing while the CPI does grow." 44391. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 3:42:35 PM "M1/M2 growth in the money supply *is* the proper inflation 44392. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 3:44:00 PM 44393. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 3:46:53 PM 44394. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 3:58:54 PM 44395. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 3:59:45 PM Ace: the CPI is, hands down, the most widely accepted measure of inflation. I stand by my methodology, as it is one any other competent researcher would choose, and be able to duplicate if they questioned the results. Rather than actually go to the web sites mentioned, and verify the math for yourself (I am sure that even you are capable of this sort of rudimentary math), you just disparage the results. 44396. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:03:14 PM "It seems that you won't accept a fact from a primary source, unless it is filtered through a partisan hack that you happen to agree with." 44397. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 4:03:24 PM "Your insistence, then, that we must separate these taxes out of general revenue taxes for purposes of comparison is also quite dubious." 44398. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:06:07 PM "We were talking about determining the impact of an income tax cut. You claimed that it raised revenue." 44399. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:10:59 PM 44400. Dusty - 10/4/2000 4:12:21 PM rubberducky 44401. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 4:13:11 PM "You are not an economist. In short -- and I hate to say this -- you 44402. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:14:40 PM 44403. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:16:01 PM 44404. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 4:16:56 PM "The net change was a reduction in tax rates, but the net effect was a 44405. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:17:54 PM 44406. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:19:27 PM 44407. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:19:40 PM 44408. Thoughtful - 10/4/2000 4:20:17 PM Just to kick in my 2 cents worth.... M1 & M2 are not measures of inflation. They are the levels of money supply. Monetarists as forecasters are largely dead having suffered the basic truth of monetarism which as Milton Friedman put it: There is a relationship between money supply growth and inflation, but the lags are long and variable. In other words, money supply growth is not a good predictor of inflation. 44409. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 4:20:41 PM "Plus, keep in mind, that by raising payroll taxes, Reagan did less 44410. OhioSTOPAS - 10/4/2000 4:20:50 PM 44402: Actually, as Rask's tables show, the increase in revenue and reduction in deficits began in 1987, after the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1996. 44411. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 4:21:54 PM "Reagan cut taxes overall, and this *did* result in an overall increase in 44412. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:21:56 PM 44413. OhioSTOPAS - 10/4/2000 4:23:05 PM That should have been "very LIMITED deductions and tax shelters". 44414. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:24:21 PM 'You can read the CBO link yourself and look them up. As to why I didn't use them, the CBO didn't adjust for inflation, a necessary calculation in order to accurately compare values across different time periods.' 44415. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 4:24:34 PM "If you wish to post actual numbers, and then provide us with the 44416. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 4:25:29 PM "Then why doesn't the CBO provide such crucial data? " 44417. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:27:36 PM 44418. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 4:28:18 PM Dusty: I would apologize for going heavier on the invective if this was anyone but Ace. 44419. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 4:29:28 PM Ace: the URL wasn't in hypertext. 44420. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:36:09 PM 44421. OhioSTOPAS - 10/4/2000 4:39:54 PM Here's a table from http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/5Debt.htm 44422. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:42:01 PM 44423. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:43:06 PM not "effective rate of inflation" 44424. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:47:10 PM 44425. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 4:47:56 PM "Are you saying that between these years the effective rate of inflation was nearly 33%" 44426. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 4:51:42 PM Ace: recall that 1983 and 1984 had two of the highest rates of GDP growth since the 60s. But revenues *dropped* from 83 to 84. 44427. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:52:20 PM 44428. OhioSTOPAS - 10/4/2000 4:54:26 PM Remember, over time there's not only inflation affecting the value of money but also increases in population. The gross GDP number reflects both. Everything else being equal, tax revenues should increase proportionate to the increase in GDP. 44429. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:56:34 PM 44430. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 4:58:20 PM 44431. OhioSTOPAS - 10/4/2000 4:59:48 PM 44429: No, as a result of the tax rate cuts, tax revenues did not grow in proportion to the growing GDP. They were less than they would have been had tax rates not been cut, an unsurprising result. 44432. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 5:00:25 PM Ace: after four years of lower tax revenues, yes. Eventually economic growth caught up with the tax cut, and real numbers began to increase. 44433. OhioSTOPAS - 10/4/2000 5:02:02 PM 44430: More workers + inflated dollars = same revenues is hardly a resounding revenue success for Reaganomics. 44434. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 5:02:07 PM 44435. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 5:07:44 PM "after four years of lower tax revenues, yes. Eventually economic growth caught up with the tax cut, and real numbers began to increase." 44436. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 5:11:19 PM Ace: it is pretty damned unlikely that we would have had 4 straight years of zero growth in the absence of Reagan's tax cuts, so it should be pretty obvious that revenues would have risen with the economy, just as in the past. But even ignoring this, revenues still dropped. 44437. Cellar Door - 10/4/2000 5:13:27 PM 44438. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 5:14:08 PM "Four years? Regan's cuts weren't even in place in 1981, and we were 44439. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 5:15:32 PM "Ace: it is pretty damned unlikely that we would have had 4 straight years of zero growth in the absence of Reagan's tax cuts, so it should be pretty obvious that revenues would have risen with the economy, just as in the past." 44440. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 5:18:12 PM 44441. Dusty - 10/4/2000 5:19:55 PM Christ I missed that. 44442. Dusty - 10/4/2000 5:21:44 PM Oh, BTW, some people think it wasn't suicide. 44443. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 5:22:07 PM 44444. OhioSTOPAS - 10/4/2000 5:23:58 PM Dusty: The gross revenue numbers in Kangas's table are straight from the CBO. (To be precise, table 6 in the link to CBO tables provided by Rasky.) 44445. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 5:24:12 PM "...Are you liberals suggesting that we go back to the pre-Reagan rate of taxation?..." 44446. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 5:24:47 PM "The gross revenue numbers in Kangas's table are straight from the CBO. (To be precise, table 6 in the link to CBO tables provided by Rasky.)" 44447. OhioSTOPAS - 10/4/2000 5:26:03 PM 44439: True, spikes in economic growth don't "just happen". They often follow bad recessions, since there's nowhere to go but up. 44448. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 5:30:36 PM "Do you imagine that sudden spikes in economic growth "just 44449. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 5:30:40 PM 44450. OhioSTOPAS - 10/4/2000 5:32:34 PM You are if you cut taxes. 44451. Dusty - 10/4/2000 5:34:18 PM AceofSpades 44452. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 5:34:32 PM 44453. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 5:36:30 PM 44454. JJBiener - 10/4/2000 5:36:36 PM Ace - Do you imagine that sudden spikes in economic growth "just happen"? 44455. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 5:37:39 PM 44456. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 5:41:06 PM "If so, what you are saying is: Reagan was pretty much bang-on right. 44457. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 5:47:49 PM "Again, it makes no sense to look at taxation levels in a vacuum, as they go hand in hand with the funding of government programs." 44458. Dusty - 10/4/2000 5:52:29 PM Raskolnikov 44459. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 5:55:29 PM "Do you honestly believe that if we ratchet up marginal rates on "the 44460. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 6:02:23 PM 44461. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 6:09:59 PM 44462. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 6:11:17 PM Ace: The 86 tax reforms closed a lot of loopholes that existed in the Reagan, and pre-Reagan, tax code, hence you really can't compare the marginal tax rates in 2000 with the code in 1979 or 1985. You would have to look at *effective* marginal tax rates. I don't know enough about how those have changed over time to really have an opinion on which structure I would prefer. 44463. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 6:14:23 PM Ace: In criticizing Reagan, I made exclusive reference to total income tax levels, not the specific marginal tax rates. In order to pay for his defense expansion, we needed more tax revenue. Given the high top marginal tax rates at the time, I would agree that this would have been better done with a 1986-style simplification than a raising of the top marginal tax rate. 44464. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 6:17:26 PM "In order to pay for his defense expansion, we needed more tax revenue. " 44465. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 6:22:48 PM 44466. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 6:30:51 PM "Nonsense. This presumes that we must run a surplus or balanced 44467. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 6:32:45 PM 44468. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 6:32:53 PM And the biggest entitlements weren't even funded via the income tax, and were self-sustaining. 44469. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 6:33:33 PM "And the biggest entitlements weren't even funded via the income tax, and were self-sustaining." 44470. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 6:34:11 PM as such, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to even include Social Security and Medicare in discussing the sources of the deficit. They ran surpluses. 44471. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 6:36:47 PM So its the democrats fault that when Reagan insisted on irresponsibility, they didn't fall on their swords and rush to eliminate AFDC, WIC, Food Stamps, SSI, Unemployment insurance and veteran's benefits? 44472. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 6:39:54 PM 44473. AceofSpades - 10/4/2000 6:43:15 PM 44474. robertjayb - 10/4/2000 8:09:53 PM .Gallup Tracking poll.... 44475. Raskolnikov - 10/4/2000 9:22:00 PM Cal: did you get my e-mail? I sent it to what I think was your hotmail account. 44476. Al D - 10/4/2000 9:52:44 PM While I don't feel qualified to enter into this discussion, which I find interesting, I would like to add a point. 44477. Webfeet - 10/4/2000 11:28:17 PM Even though Im a Democrat, I find the way John Corzine is buying the senate seat in the New Jersey election to be really off-putting. Thanks to the fortune he made at Goldman, he can spend something close to 26 million on his icky, feel good, I-bring-Sunshine-to-the Land-ads that run relentlessly on prime time slots. If I lived in New Jersey, (which, thank god, I don't ha ha), I would vote for his conservative opponent out of spite. The man, I forget his name,is literally portrayed as the antichrist, which is fine with me at this point if it means putting an end to Corzine's calculated, dippy goodness. 44478. joezan - 10/4/2000 11:29:28 PM 44479. Webfeet - 10/4/2000 11:33:57 PM Joe, Im not that quick. What do you mean by the full boat? No, actually I was just checking to see if anyone responded to my contest (which they haven't) and decided to break from party orthodoxy. A Demo-hack, i believe you coined it... 44480. joezan - 10/4/2000 11:36:45 PM 44481. Webfeet - 10/4/2000 11:39:31 PM That should be a metaphor for how apolitical (and apathetic) motherhood has made me. I don't even play gin rummy, Joe. You have the wrong girl. 44482. joezan - 10/4/2000 11:42:20 PM 44483. Webfeet - 10/4/2000 11:43:32 PM ha ha ha, very funny. 'nite joe. I have to crash. 44484. joezan - 10/4/2000 11:49:01 PM 44485. Al D - 10/5/2000 12:11:28 AM George Bush wants to allow the option of putting a small amount of SS into some sort of an investment plan. The change is so small, I don't think it would make a huge difference, but let me pose a hypothetical. 44486. jonesatlaw - 10/5/2000 12:23:33 AM Cellar- great link re Bush and possible grounding to avoid the drug test. Too bad no one will take it up. 44487. robertjayb - 10/5/2000 1:17:14 AM A fruit loop nightmare: Clinton bests Bush in ABC poll. 44488. Stumbo - 10/5/2000 1:27:14 AM Rask: 44489. JudithAtHome - 10/5/2000 10:13:28 AM Ducky or RobertJ: 44490. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 10:24:06 AM Fort Worth Star Telegram 44491. Indiana Jones - 10/5/2000 10:30:39 AM Judith: This statement by Ivins is ludicrous... 44492. Indiana Jones - 10/5/2000 10:35:05 AM robertjayb: Yahoo had a Zogby poll yesterday showing Reagan beating Clinton by 10 points in a hypothetical 2000 matchup. 44493. Ronski - 10/5/2000 11:09:14 AM Rasmussen (POA) reports movement in Bush's direction both in Pennsylvania and Missouri, giving him a small lead in both states. 44494. glendajean - 10/5/2000 11:14:00 AM Indy -- I had the same reaction as Ivins did when I saw a clip about Bush appointing SC justices. Electing judges is big business in Texas, both on the side of business and trial lawyers. The ballot is endlessly long, and since the Supreme Court only hears civil cases (another appellate body of nine hears criminal appeals), the number of judges on the ballot is daunting. 44495. Ronski - 10/5/2000 11:22:27 AM I'd like to add that the judges Bush appointed are expected to overturn the state's anti-gay sodomy law. This does not change my opinion that Gore would be better for the gays, so to speak, than Bush. But I also think that Bush fils would be better on the issue than Bush pere was. Times have changed, a bit, even in the GOP. (One must balance this sunnyness with Bush's statement a few months ago that he would never agree to overturning the sodomy law even if the legislature passed a law doing so because it would be against the will of the people, as incoherent a view as one can hear from a politician.) 44496. glendajean - 10/5/2000 11:28:51 AM Ronski -- the problem with appellate review of Texas' sodomy law is which court has jurisdiction, the Supreme Court (civl) or the Court of Criminal Appeals. They've passed that around between the two. 44497. OhioSTOPAS - 10/5/2000 12:29:35 PM For your information, here is the newspaper story on which Al Gore based his anecdote of Kaylie Ellis, the deskless student. And here is an update appearing today, describing the still-crowded conditions at Ms. Ellis's high school. 44498. OhioSTOPAS - 10/5/2000 12:32:44 PM (Oops. I meant to post that in the "Presidential Debates" thread. I just re-posted it there.) 44499. janjon - 10/5/2000 12:34:59 PM So, because the girl had access to a lab stool, if not a desk, at least for a while, Gore is now to be characterized as a liar. 44500. Raskolnikov - 10/5/2000 2:00:08 PM Stumbo: "But looking at tax revenue as a percentage of GDP -- in a 44501. TabouliJones - 10/5/2000 2:14:50 PM 44502. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 2:44:53 PM taking dusty's advice, here's the 1980 fiscal policy conversation 44503. Jack Vincennes - 10/5/2000 2:50:09 PM duck 44504. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 2:52:48 PM so, jack, you suggest what? 44505. CalGal - 10/5/2000 2:53:07 PM Jack, 44506. Jack Vincennes - 10/5/2000 2:54:29 PM rubber 44507. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 2:57:56 PM well, Jack, the same could be said of keeping the posts themselves, so i'll leave the conversation and just not link it in the BS bar. 44508. CalGal - 10/5/2000 3:00:23 PM Ducky, 44509. Raskolnikov - 10/5/2000 3:03:48 PM The conversation took place yesterday. From Jack's perspective, that is just irrelevantly lingering in the past. :) 44510. Raskolnikov - 10/5/2000 3:04:40 PM I am not sure what these "conversations" mean anyway. What is the BS bar? How can I find the conversation again other than the link in this thread? I think I am missing something. 44511. Jack Vincennes - 10/5/2000 3:04:51 PM duck 44512. CalGal - 10/5/2000 3:04:54 PM I'm glad you said that; I had to practically chop off my fingers to avoid the same comment. 44513. Jack Vincennes - 10/5/2000 3:05:20 PM Rask 44514. Raskolnikov - 10/5/2000 3:06:43 PM is that what we are calling the yellow bar on the right? 44515. CalGal - 10/5/2000 3:06:45 PM Ack. Crosspost. My "exactly" was to Rask's comment about Jack. 44516. CalGal - 10/5/2000 3:08:27 PM BS--butterscotch bar. Reference to the color, actually. 44517. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 3:18:06 PM thanks, CG 44518. Jack Vincennes - 10/5/2000 3:20:40 PM Duck 44519. Thoughtful - 10/5/2000 4:29:24 PM Let me throw this into the conversation: Historical budget data from the congressional budget office. Make note of what is called the "standardized budget surplus or deficit". Recognizing the strong cyclical component to the deficit (deficits tend to rise in recessions and shrink in recoveries) the standardized series attempts to remove the effects of the economic cycle. 44520. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 4:34:03 PM i swear 44521. rubberducky - 10/5/2000 4:34:46 PM insert "is" as appropriate 44522. robertjayb - 10/5/2000 7:36:11 PM . 44523. CalGal - 10/5/2000 7:51:48 PM Angel, 44524. CalGal - 10/5/2000 7:54:32 PM These are still not widely held concerns, and, no, I'm not just talking about our policy WRT rebelling minorities in Iraq. 44525. CalGal - 10/5/2000 8:06:51 PM The military was known for having solved its racial issues early on? Do tell. 44526. CalGal - 10/5/2000 8:09:00 PM Now, I want to be clear, here: I'm pretty much done. I'm not interested in discussing this further, and you give me no reason to pursue it out of sheer politeness. 44527. angel-five - 10/5/2000 9:02:07 PM Um. Yeah. That's pretty much what I said was said. No, not at all. Janjon's statement includes the notion that Powell won't run because of his wife's fear of a white supremacist assassin. You just say the fear exists, then you say that no one's arguing that the fear of a white supremacist assassin has anything to do with Powell's refusal to run. In terms of advancement for blacks and intolerance for overt racism? Gawd. What I said was that fierce bigotry isn't uncommon and therefore armed fiercely bigoted killers aren't uncommon. Hotbed? Well, we can discuss that if you'd like. But the point on the table wasn't institutionalized racism; it was the existence of racist elements within the military. Just like, y'know, the existence of the Klan or AN as a dedicated minority in American society as posed earlier. The assassins are always such a minority, whether you're talking about GIs with fragmentation grenades, or lone psychos with a 22 full of Stingers. I think to make this comment about the Why, precisely, do you think the military has to work so hard? Or give off the impression that they do? 44528. angel-five - 10/5/2000 9:02:25 PM You were, but only indirectly. You said that Powell willingly assumed what you assert was a significant risk in accepting advancement in the military. This implies that he could have had much less risk in other careers. No, I never said ANYTHING like that, former or latter. What on earth are you smoking? I've been pointing out from the beginning that this 'significant risk' isn't really so significant as it's being portrayed, not in the larger scheme of things. You're failing to grasp the difference between making an argument and demonstrating why an argument is unsound. And as far as other careers... I can't believe I'm really addressing this crap, it's whole-cloth out of your head. Thankfully, it's as usual completely fallacious. Assuming that I had talked about other careers... implying that advancement in the military brings an increased risk of being shot by some vengeful racist in no way implies that some similar risk doesn't exist in other, civilian, careers or in advancement in them. It's academic, though, because the only one babbling about careers is you. I reiterate: you can't read. 44529. angel-five - 10/5/2000 9:10:39 PM Why should I be polite? You can't read back to discover what people are saying, and you can't address the argument at hand. This is probably the fiftieth time I've had to point it out after you made yet another one of your irrelevant non-arguments about something I said. It gets old, you know, and besides, you're a gabbling idiot who shouldn't be allowed to drive a car or vote anyway, in my book. This has been clear for a long time, I just enjoy saying it, partially because these discussions are always so ridiculous that it helps to ground them in a little accurate humor. Politeness be damned. And if it's sheer politeness on your part, not mine, (chuckle) well, it's an awfully convenient politeness. 44530. angel-five - 10/5/2000 9:11:48 PM I think I should just generate a macro for my dealings with CalGal. 44531. Stumbo - 10/6/2000 12:13:54 AM Rask, #44500: 44532. Stumbo - 10/6/2000 12:14:28 AM "... the question under discussion was [...] whether a tax cut could actually cause an increase in tax revenue. [...] We already *know* whether tax hikes cause revenue increases." -- #44404 44533. Stumbo - 10/6/2000 12:24:45 AM P.S.: to make readable tables in here, one doesn't need to use actual HTML tables; a simple <PRE> ... </PRE> (pre-formatting; i.e., what you see in the composing window is what you get) tag will do nicely. For instance: 44534. Michael Mele - 10/6/2000 12:34:17 AM Stumbo -- 44535. CalGal - 10/6/2000 12:35:44 AM You know, I keep forgetting about that, and it's a great idea when you figure how much room tables take up. Thanks, Stumbo. 44536. EricCartman - 10/6/2000 12:50:43 AM Football spreads are officially up in the Sports Thread! Get 'em while they're hot....and somebody volunteer to take over for a while, 'cause I'm outta here for a while. 44537. Cellar Door - 10/6/2000 12:52:44 AM "You were implying that the military is a hotbed of racism; had Powell been afraid of bein assassinated, he would have refused advancement in the military." 44538. Stumbo - 10/6/2000 1:17:36 AM Y'all are welcome; hope that makes up for any nastiness in my preceding posts. 44539. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 10:47:24 AM Stumbo: "If it doesn't advance your argument, why did you include it, and refer to it several times as if it did" 44540. glendajean - 10/6/2000 11:21:33 AM Ducky -- I just read your lead about Paulk. 44541. glendajean - 10/6/2000 11:22:03 AM In some usage of English (ala my garbled brain), lead = link 44542. glendajean - 10/6/2000 11:24:55 AM Switching subjects, I heard on the radio this morning that September's unemployment rates were lower than August's. 44543. Ronski - 10/6/2000 11:27:38 AM 44544. Thoughtful - 10/6/2000 11:44:46 AM Here's the data (besides, I wanted to try this pre function) on Standardized budget revenue as a percent of potential gdp -- both are adjusted for the economic cycle and as a ratio, the impact of inflation is removed. 44545. bubbaette - 10/6/2000 11:47:01 AM Unemployment is at its lowest in 32 years here in VA. 44546. robertjayb - 10/6/2000 11:47:05 AM . 44547. glendajean - 10/6/2000 11:49:47 AM We're limping along to election day. 44548. JudithAtHome - 10/6/2000 11:55:50 AM ....slouching toward Tuesday.... 44549. glendajean - 10/6/2000 11:59:03 AM Of course, if Clinton was on the ballot, we would be humping towards November. 44550. bubbaette - 10/6/2000 12:00:08 PM according to today's Richmond Times Disgrace, voter registrations are coming in like gangbusters -- today's the last day to register. Also per the RTD, the percentact of registered voters voting in the last presidential election in VA was 74.3% as compared with 33% in the last congressional races. 44551. JudithAtHome - 10/6/2000 12:02:30 PM 74%!! Wonder what the natonal average was? 44552. JudithAtHome - 10/6/2000 12:03:22 PM natonal=national 44553. CalGal - 10/6/2000 12:03:35 PM You know, I think it's a mistake to think that because political junkies (including all of us) think this election is a bore that this is also the feeling of the general public. Ratings on the debates were up, I hear. It will be interesting to see if registration is up as well. 44554. bubbaette - 10/6/2000 12:05:50 PM I suspect that the percent voting in Va. Congressional elections is so low because so many incumbents run unopposed -- why bother to go out? 44555. glendajean - 10/6/2000 12:08:54 PM Cal -- the elections aren't a bore given how unpredictable they are at this point. I, otoh, am bored -- as I usually am about this time and am ready to get on with them. Nervously bored. 44556. Stumbo - 10/6/2000 12:10:16 PM Rask, #44539: 44557. Ronski - 10/6/2000 12:21:56 PM And Now We Get to Hear From Republicans Who Don't Have a Lesbian Daughter 44558. Cellar Door - 10/6/2000 12:29:56 PM "A Senate conference committee working on the bill Thursday voted 11-9 to drop the hate crime language, said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee." 44559. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 12:41:38 PM "It does not advance your argument one frigging iota, and is useless in any relevant context. Again: taking numbers as a percentage of GDP 44560. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 12:41:47 PM "3) Your argument is circular, here. The whole issue is about what 44561. JJBiener - 10/6/2000 1:08:51 PM Rask - All you've done is demonstrated the futility in trying to prove your conclusions using data without a control group. 44562. JJBiener - 10/6/2000 1:15:59 PM Portrait of America Tracking Poll as of 10/6 44563. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 2:23:24 PM "Rask - All you've done is demonstrated the futility in trying to prove your conclusions using data without a control group." 44564. janjon - 10/6/2000 2:29:24 PM The Iowa Electronics Markets dramatic upward trend for Gore over the past week or so continues. Price spread is now at Gore over 7, W. at about 3, as compared to about 5.5-4.5 a week or so ago. Not quite as much of a spread as three weeks or so ago, but getting there. 44565. janjon - 10/6/2000 2:35:29 PM And, the new Gallup Poll has it Gore 51%, W. 40%. First time I've seen one of the reputable polls have Gore (or either of them as far as I know) over 50%. 44566. glendajean - 10/6/2000 2:39:44 PM Jack -- whereever you are -- what's going on in key congressional races? In the past, you (or your former self) were pretty good at keeping us posted on what's hot and not. 44567. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 2:39:55 PM POA's results have been very different from other pollsters with better reputations. Consider that this is a 15 point swing from Gallup's most recent numbers. They are beginning to remind me of Newsweek. 44568. JJBiener - 10/6/2000 2:44:29 PM Rask - you must not be familiar with a science called "meteorology" 44569. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 2:56:21 PM "The problem is that you and I can both look at the same data and 44570. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 3:02:02 PM 44571. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 3:03:52 PM Incidentally, Rasmussen's polls most closely mirrored actual primary voting, beating Gallup and Zogby. 44572. JJBiener - 10/6/2000 3:10:10 PM Rask - You consistently ignore the fact that revenues were declining based on the Carter's policies, the fact that the tax rate cuts were phased in, and the fact that there is about a two year lag time before tax policy can affect the economy. The economy was in desperate shape when Carter was President. You may not remember, but I remember Democrats claiming that economic malaise was the best we could hope for and prosperity would only exist in our fond memories. They claimed that a tax cut would plunge us into economic freefall which would threaten the very existence of our country. Granted much of this was overheated campaign rhetoric, but in 1980 no one was predicting rapid growth in the forseeable future. 44573. janjon - 10/6/2000 3:14:42 PM Add it all up and subtract it all out and it does indeed appear that we have a real crapshoot for the first time in the adult lives of most of the people here (as best I can tell.) 44574. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 3:20:58 PM 44575. rubberducky - 10/6/2000 3:21:17 PM Ace 44576. bubbaette - 10/6/2000 3:22:35 PM I nominate "obsequious" as the word of the day. 44577. Indiana Jones - 10/6/2000 3:25:04 PM JJ: Remember Lester Brown and Worldwatch? 44578. janjon - 10/6/2000 3:25:31 PM rd - because Republicans have a tendency to be more devoted to voting than a lot of Democrats. 44579. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 3:25:43 PM "POA's numbers jibe with Battleground's. " 44580. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 3:27:11 PM 44581. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 3:28:57 PM "Last I heard they were weighting to approximate an equal number of Democrats and Republicans - an inherent flaw." 44582. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 3:30:30 PM 44583. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 3:33:33 PM "Rask - You consistently ignore the fact that revenues were declining 44584. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 3:33:54 PM "Gallup doesn't weight on political party, according to their web site. Party identification changes cannot be independently verified." 44585. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 3:36:33 PM "It just seems odd to me that Gallup was weighting D's and R's roughly 44586. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 3:38:45 PM "Then it just turns out that their latest poll sampled too many 44587. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 3:38:51 PM 44588. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 3:39:39 PM Anyway: How about it, Ace. Care to put your money where your mouth is and have a bet on polling accuracy of the various polling companies? 44589. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 3:40:31 PM Ace: show me. Got link? 44590. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 3:41:20 PM 44591. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 3:42:10 PM 44592. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 3:50:01 PM 44593. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 3:50:29 PM 44594. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 4:01:44 PM "These polls ask about your voter *registration,* not how you're 44595. janjon - 10/6/2000 4:02:32 PM Meanwhile, back in the only game in town as far as we New Yorkers are concerned, Ricky has been caught in what clearly looks like a breach of the recent ban-on-soft-money agreement he so ardently pursued with Hillary. Turns out that he's running an ad the tagline of which makes it clear that it is being paid for by the RNC. Ricky claims that this is permissible under some obscure exception in the agreement but that seems dubious at best. Also turns out that the version shown to reporters (as opposed to the one on the air) didn't have the same legend and indicated only that it was from Lazio2000 or something like that. Ah, How Short But Sweet That Agreement Was, But Now the Floodgates, They Will Open!!!Bring On the ADS!!!! 44596. janjon - 10/6/2000 4:03:47 PM Iowa Electronic now shows Hillary at about 7.6 and Ricky at about 2.4, incidentally. 44597. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 4:05:53 PM 44598. janjon - 10/6/2000 4:16:55 PM I hadn't heard about any since they agreed to their ban, and I am surprised that if so Lazio wouldn't have defended this new one as being tit for tat. 44599. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 4:19:28 PM Aha! Found the link about Battleground's weighting methods. Uh, what's happening here? The all-star team of Republican Ed Goeas and Democrat Celinda Lake conduct the Battleground poll for Voter.com, the politics website. In an interview, Goeas acknowledged some start-up problems. Voter.com shouldn't have reported the fat Bush lead last Thursday, which was based on a likely voter model that "works better closer to the election." This week and for the time being, they've publicly retired that likely voter model – and, perhaps coincidentally, the horse race has tightened. Other factors, including weighting techniques and the order questions are asked, also help explain the differences between Battleground and Gallup tracking polls. Goeas and Lake adjust, or "weight," their survey results so that 35 percent of their tweaked sample are Democrats and 35 percent are Republicans. Setting the parties at parity could account for the slightly more favorable outcome for Bush – in the latest Gallup poll, Democrats outnumber Republicans by 4 percentage points. The true percentage of Democrats and Republicans is, of course, a mystery and varies as people fall in and out of love with one party or the other. In the network exit polls, self-described Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 percentage points in 1992 and 4 percentage points in 1996, respectively. (Goeas says they derived their estimate from their own past polling that showed Republicans with a 3-point advantage in 1992 and Democrats up 3 points four years ago.) 44600. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 4:21:19 PM In otherwords Ace: You Are Wrong. Battleground.com *does* weight GOP to be equal to Democrats in their polls. Now, *whose* mind is "clouded by partisan fog"? 44601. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 4:22:58 PM 44602. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 4:26:06 PM Rask: 44603. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 4:26:45 PM 44604. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 4:28:08 PM This is a game of assumptions. 44605. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 4:29:48 PM What a surprise. Rather than admit he was bluffing through foggy memory, Ace changes tactics. 44606. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 4:32:08 PM 44607. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 4:34:45 PM "I am right-- I told you the reason that particular poll was wrong: 44608. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 4:35:33 PM 44609. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 4:36:42 PM "They assume this because this is what past experience has shown. " 44610. glendajean - 10/6/2000 4:37:52 PM Rask, we have to assume, that in this discussion, you are the man. 44611. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 4:40:02 PM 44612. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 4:42:07 PM 44613. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 4:43:44 PM "Meanwhile, your asinine Gallup poll continues to overstate 44614. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 4:45:06 PM I find it inconceivable that Gallup, year after year, consistently errs on the SAME SIDE of the ledger, and yet never considers the possibility that perhaps it should modify its methodology. 44615. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 4:45:32 PM "Assuming that D's will turn out in greater numbers than R's is what 44616. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 4:48:06 PM The jury is still out on Zogby's methodology. But note that even *he* still has Gore in the lead. 44617. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 4:48:24 PM 44618. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 4:50:14 PM "The jury is still out on Zogby's methodology. But note that even *he* still has Gore in the lead." 44619. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 4:51:12 PM 44620. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 4:51:16 PM 1996 was well inside the margin of sample error. 1992 shows a bias against Perot supporters, not Republicans (I earlier mentioned that Gallup's methodology underestimates fringe candidates). 1988 errs on the side of Bush, but again within the sample error. 44621. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 4:53:30 PM I said this missed Clinton by 5.7 points, not the election. FWIW, they understated Bush (not Dole) that year by .7 44622. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 4:58:21 PM Ace: I am willing to consider it possible that GOP paranoia against the media makes them less willing to tell pollsters the truth. Or that they are harder to get a hold of at home, or some other factor. Zogby's 2-3% is certainly within the realm of possibility (but of course, that is well inside the sampling error anyway, and few people would call an election based on a poll of that small margin). 44623. janjon - 10/6/2000 4:59:07 PM Zogby: The last three days (each a rolling average of three days): 44624. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 5:00:08 PM But how about that bet, Ace? You never did respond. 44625. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 5:00:34 PM 44626. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 5:03:24 PM 44627. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 5:16:19 PM "You prefer polls that don't factor into consideration the fact that Democrats are more willing to respond to pollsters in the first place, and that core Democratic groups (miniorities, students, and low-income voters) simply do not show up at the polls at the rates they *claim* they will." 44628. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 5:24:39 PM 44629. Indiana Jones - 10/6/2000 5:27:03 PM This is CNN's poll for today 44630. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 5:27:55 PM 44631. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 5:28:11 PM That isn't what the Post article says they do. If they have more precise information on the extent to which polls overstate democratic votes, they should weight on that directly (which is what I suspect Zogby does). 44632. Indiana Jones - 10/6/2000 5:28:19 PM Oops, I guess that one is a 3-day as well, so I don't know why there's a discrepancy between the two. 44633. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 5:30:54 PM IJ: that is the same poll on Gallup's web site. 44634. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 5:31:49 PM 44635. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 5:33:15 PM 44636. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 5:33:18 PM Ye Gods, that is a hell of a one day shift. Since that puts this poll in the same time period as the POA poll, the differences between the two are much less significant. I just didn't deem it likely that a one day time differential would cause that big of difference, as Gallup's poll has never swung that fast since the conventions. 44637. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 5:35:31 PM "They have set the parties at parity not because they just like setting the parties at parity, but because past history *at the voting booth* suggests that actual turnout *IS* approximately at parity, though it can of course swing either way in a particular election. " 44638. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 5:36:23 PM "You're just pissed off that they don't, like Gallup, oversample 44639. Indiana Jones - 10/6/2000 5:36:54 PM Rask: Then why does one show a 1-point difference, the other 11? 44640. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 5:40:54 PM IJ: Gallup hasn't updated its web site yet. You will note that the CNN article has the dates as 10/3 - 10/5, and the Gallup site has 10/2-10/4. I am sure that their contract with CNN requires that CNN gets to post the numbers first. Gallup's site will get updated sometime tonight. 44641. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 5:44:05 PM 44642. JJBiener - 10/6/2000 5:45:14 PM Indy - Today's poll results would tend to indicate that yesterday's poll results were, uh, skewed. I wonder if this will shake Rask's confidence in Gallup. 44643. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 5:46:23 PM JJ: 44644. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 5:48:41 PM 44645. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 5:49:32 PM (assuming two days of Gore +11 or so... the last day would have to be HUGE for Bush to draw him to even.) 44646. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 5:54:48 PM Rask: Battleground weights Dems and Reps equally 44647. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 5:56:52 PM "One would have to imagine that the post debate numbers swung 44648. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 5:59:14 PM Rask, 44649. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 6:00:09 PM 44650. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 6:02:19 PM 44651. Jonesatlaw - 10/6/2000 6:03:18 PM Bush has a one-day +~20 swing -- this shows the voters are "volatile." 44652. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 6:03:46 PM 44653. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 6:05:14 PM "A twenty point swing is stable?" 44654. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 6:07:51 PM "I notice, however, you are sticking to your guns that Battleground 44655. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 6:10:05 PM "Rask is now beginning to think, "Hey, you know -- Zogby really *is* the more accurate polling company over the past eight years. And Zogby shows Gore up by 5. Zogby's great! Yayyy for Zogby's methodology!"" 44656. janjon - 10/6/2000 6:10:05 PM Does anyone have an analysis of what is going on currently in the swing states - Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Missouri? 44657. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 6:11:53 PM 44658. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 6:15:12 PM "Does this mean you will finally agree to take me up on my offer of a bet?" 44659. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 6:16:24 PM "You keep thinking they're just artificially setting it at 1:1, and would do 44660. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 6:18:16 PM "Thus, the ratio is actually 35:35:30. They didn't pick these ratios out of 44661. Indiana Jones - 10/6/2000 6:22:13 PM janjon: Real clear politics is a conservative site, so you may not like it, but they have some analysis of that as well as the senate/house that glendajean was asking about earlier. 44662. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 6:22:57 PM 44663. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 6:26:41 PM 44664. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 6:34:48 PM "Trouble is, actual history is a better guage than people's 44665. Raskolnikov - 10/6/2000 6:35:33 PM "Which model will be more accurate this time? 44666. AceofSpades - 10/6/2000 6:39:22 PM 44667. glendajean - 10/6/2000 7:42:56 PM Starr aide found not guilt. 44668. Cellar Door - 10/6/2000 8:00:24 PM No reason for Bakaly to take the fall for Starr's crimes. 44669. CalGal - 10/7/2000 12:09:00 AM Jeez, I caught the end of the McCain "interview" on Larry King. What the hell happened to his face? 44670. AceofSpades - 10/7/2000 12:15:13 AM 44671. AceofSpades - 10/7/2000 12:16:10 AM 44672. AceofSpades - 10/7/2000 12:24:08 AM Sorry. A verbal gaffe blew the whole point I was trying to make. 44673. joezan - 10/7/2000 12:28:35 AM 44674. Stumbo - 10/7/2000 12:43:22 AM Rask, #44559-60: 44675. Stumbo - 10/7/2000 12:46:31 AM "Only circular in the sense that it is a mathematical tautology that a tax cut in a growing economy will eventually catch up with total revenues under the previous tax regime. I point this out only because you are fallaciously ignoring this tautology to 'prove' that a tax cut *causes* revenue increases." 44676. vonKreedon - 10/7/2000 2:26:57 AM Over in the debates thread there is a discussion on whether the Dems "pander" so much more effectively than the Reps as to prevent intelligent conversation in the debates. 44677. Jack Vincennes - 10/7/2000 8:38:54 AM Ace 44678. Webfeet - 10/7/2000 9:21:56 AM At present, the Republicans can only obliquely refer to the excesses of the Clinton-Gore administration, for fear of disturbing the frail equilibrium of every Nancy and Barbara with a mini-van, a 30 minute kegel routine, and a zoning problem. 44679. OhioSTOPAS - 10/7/2000 9:34:09 AM Jack V: Although I know it's fun to call Mrs. Clinton a liar, Hillary Rodham WAS a Yankee fan (in addition to her hometown Cubs) as a girl. You can look it up. 44680. Webfeet - 10/7/2000 9:40:41 AM Rick Lazio looks like a little sneak, the kind of guy who makes nice nice with grandmas in front of the camera and then cuts their medicare with a carving knife. 44681. Jack Vincennes - 10/7/2000 10:51:09 AM Ohio 44682. Cellar Door - 10/7/2000 10:56:24 AM 44683. Cellar Door - 10/7/2000 10:57:55 AM 44684. RosettaStone - 10/7/2000 11:01:42 AM Everyone believes in full civil rights for normal homosexuals, Cellar Door. 44685. OhioSTOPAS - 10/7/2000 11:02:13 AM No, Jack, since Hillary Rodham was of course not a New Jersey Nets fan as a little girl, you were calling her a liar. 44686. CalGal - 10/7/2000 11:06:20 AM Jack, 44687. Jack Vincennes - 10/7/2000 11:21:16 AM Web 44688. CalGal - 10/7/2000 12:37:54 PM President's Role in Hillary's Campaign 44689. robertjayb - 10/7/2000 12:48:45 PM . 44690. robertjayb - 10/7/2000 12:51:53 PM . 44691. dusty - 10/7/2000 1:06:44 PM I caught a few minutes of Ralph Nader on Charlie Rose last night. Rose was asking Nader about areas where he would like specific reforms. Nader listed two items, one of which was the 1872 Mining Law. 44692. dusty - 10/7/2000 1:24:46 PM OhioSTOPAS 44693. CalGal - 10/7/2000 1:26:36 PM He said he was calling her opportunistic. But if she's not lying, I am not sure how her comment could be considered opportunistic, rather than a simple statement of fact. 44694. jexster - 10/7/2000 1:27:38 PM RLANDO, Fla., Oct. 6 — The "magic place" that Vice President Al Gore was talking about today was Walt Disney World, but in political terms, it could easily have been the state of Florida, which is becoming increasingly central to a strategy that his campaign believes could give him a landslide victory in November. 44695. jexster - 10/7/2000 1:29:44 PM Washington, Oct. 6 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore is 11 points ahead of Republican rival George W. Bush in the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, USA Today reported on its Web site. 44696. dusty - 10/7/2000 1:38:18 PM That "binnenhuisarchitecten" is the longest Dutch word comprised solely of chemical symbols for elements is just a statement of fact, but you won't hear any politicians reporting said fact. 44697. CalGal - 10/7/2000 1:48:34 PM By that standard, every politician's comment is opportunistic, and Jack had no reason to single out Hillary's statement. And yet he did, with no indication that he considered this politics
40271. Thoughtful -9/6/00 10:37:18 AM
Hey ducky, how 'bout posting a link to Nader's web site?
But, not very many parents live on top of a mountain and self-school at the same time. (And, those that do are usually religious nuts anyway, among their other peculiarities.)
Nah, the fingers don't just point to the parents.
what exactly would campaigning WITH a spine mean, in the context of addressing the various so-called sins of the entertainment industry?
oh, i dunno. how about being specific? what is an example of what Gore babbling about to win the soccer mom vote? what, exactly, would he do about it? how is this not gonna bring up free speech issues - etc.
Re: Message # 40698, jexster.
No I don't think I agree with your "no spine" remark. Actually its the tougher stance requiring substantial spine especially given the Democrat's relations with the entertainment industry.
Pish. it is simple as can be for Gore to attack the "entertainment industry" (whatever the hell that is) - who else are they gonna support? Bush? Nader? hahaha - as if.
If you've read my past posts here you would, I hope, realize that I was mocking RD's "spineless" comment.
yes, good. i like that.
Re: Message # 40700, jexster.
RD is now troubled that I might be right - again - thus the back-breaking, shoulder-dislocating reach.
um, i hate to break it to ya, but i'd rather the pandering Gore win than that idiot Bush.
whoops.
no slight intended, i really did miss that!
hun, i'm gay
no way in hell i'd vote for that idiot.
Over the past month, many of these male voters, who played a key role in presidential elections throughout the 1980s and who provided the margin in the 1994 Republican takeover of the House and Senate, have been shifting their allegiance to Gore.
"I'm liking him more, the more I see of him. I wasn't sure where he stood at first. As vice president, he was kind of hidden away," said Steve Burroughs, 48, who nine years ago shifted into public school teaching at much lower pay after he lost his job when the AC Delco spark plug plant cut its work force. More recently, Burroughs said, "Gore's more aggressive, more aggressive as far as economic issues are concerned."
Damnit I love straight men! All that testosterone just oozing from every pore, dripping in every comment. If they're gettin hard now, just wait, Gore-Lieberman ass kicking begins in earnest after the Olympics
That said, with young children one can exert a great deal of control over what they watch. At the Wombat household, as long as I remember to set the TV to PBS before going to bed on Friday and Saturday, my wife and I are secure that Wombette (6) and Wombino (3) will be watching reasonably wholesome fare if they get up before us. I just wonder when Wombette will figure out how to change channels through the VCR...
yes, i'm just sure all those honkies just love Reverend Al railing against the "entertainment industry".
it's so maddening - all this specific messages for specific groups bullshit.
Had he picked McCain, we wouldn't be as happy campers about now.
"Those who don't like it, well, they don't like it," he said.
And the Nyt also reports reaction from GOP leaders...once again, they don't know whether to shit or go brown
As for McCain, that never was in the cards, about as likely as Bush receiving a first-ever brain transplant
What with Holy Joe (as the great Maureen Dowd has pegged him) even possibly plucking off some of the religious right vote (!!!! - hey, those votes count), it is beginning to seem as if the only group left that W will be able to count on are (many but hardly all of)the rich and the disgruntled white middle to somewhat lower class male.)
Its this political environment that maddens, not the fact that politicians do what they are supposed to do in it.
That was pretty funny I thought, the White House releasing a picture of Lazio warmly shaking Arafat's hand, after Rick criticized the president for shaking Castro's.
Lazio then sputters that what he did was not the same as Clinton and Castro, or Hillary bussing Arafat's wife.
Lazio going after Bill Clinton on this one was quite dumb. First of all, there are not a lot of Cuban-Americans in NY. (In NJ, it would have made more sense.) Second, I think New Yorkers are actually aware of the fact that the president is not the Clinton who is running for the Senate seat, as they finally have figured out which George Bush is actually running for the presidency this year.
Rick is not getting very good advice. He'd have been better off sticking with the Governor's people.
We may be experiencing Gore's "Sister Souljah" moment.
janjon,
1948.
By the way have you seen the picture? It is not exactly a perfunctory little handshake. Warm and extra-claspy is what comes to mind.
Yes, it does seem clear that Lazio isn't getting the benefit of really clear-headed advice.
janjon,
True.
That depends on how often the griddles are wiped and how elderly the sausages are.
Its this political environment that maddens, not the fact that politicians do what they are supposed to do in it.
i'll agree with that. my point was just that i doubt all those white males (middle class, especially) would take very kindly to Rev Al & Holy Joe (that is cool - gonna steal it) bashing their favorite forms of entertainment.
sure, sounds good in the abstract - til WWF isn't shown in prime time any longer or Tomb Raider IVVIXXM isn't put out because it is too violent
and that's the point here. neither one of those two are going to do a damn thing about the "entertainment industry". that's the only reason Gore even speaks of it and the bucks keep on coming in.
Case in point, the Bushies are sharpening their knives for one of their own, Frank Farenkopf, co-chairman of the Bi-Partisan Debate Commission NYT article
Take the "gay rights" issue for example. Many gays are quick to criticize Clinton for not living up to every expectation that they had of him yet no President has done more for gay rights. They see compromise as sellout. They feel used.
That's really the same dynamic that is at work in your cynicism.
What is really happening is the reality of pluralist democracy at work in an atomized society operating with value-disconnects.
I'm not so certain that your cynicism is justified RD or at least it is misplaced.
[begin rant]
i'm not. honestly, what do you see Gore doing? telling “the entertainment industry” to not market to kids? please. let's not forget that the "ratings" system is completely voluntary. who rates this shit? they do. they control it all. so, all i can see them doing is trying to censor everything like movies are (which, again, isn't gov't controlled).
and yeah, Clinton played nothing but lip service to gays to get them to shut up, hold their nose, and vote for him. well, that's what he got for the most part. and it isn't just that moral less hack that has sparked my "cynicism" either. it's general disgust at the lies and people who are only too happy to swallow them as long as their little world is unmolested.
[end rant]
First, its credible because it runs counter to the views of an important Democratic interest group.
Anecdotally, I had lunch Friday with a good friend whose father is a retired US Senator and whose brother is also heavily involved in the Beltway political scene. Both are big time Gore supporters. My friend related that his brother who with dad knows Gore personally and fairly intimately, told him that Gore is in fact quite the "boy scout"
Gore: "'Oprah.'"
Winfrey, with a smile but insistently: "Favorite cereal!?"
Gore: "Oh, I thought you meant serialized TV show. . . . Ummm, Wheaties."
Winfrey: "For real?"
Gore: "Yeah!"
Winfrey: "Okay, when's the last time you had some?"
Gore: "Uh, it's been a while. I don't, I typically don't eat cereal in the morning now but sometimes I do. When I do, I like Wheaties."
how do you think Bush will answer the all important breakfast question when he goes on her show next week?
personally, i think he'll go with grits to show he's more of a man
I can hear it now: "Splash me a dash of those grits."
I must have been the only person to read the NY Times article this morning and missed the condom comments.
I let "Oh, I thought you meant serialized TV show. . . . Ummm, Wheaties" stand on its own merits.
Another anecdote. I was chatting with a radical lesbian classmate, one who I put in the class "pollyana progressive".
She's a mess - radical feminist, WTO rioter type. She was commenting on a professor's assertion that, contrary to the beliefs of some, the political system is really and truly a product of many actors acting in independent pursuit of their interests. She took strong exception. To her the world is a vast conspiracy against the poor and oppressed and women etc when in fact its more an oligopoly of interest, actors who only appear to act in concert who manage to develop alliances of interest with others of like mind, not in some meeting in a smoke-filled room, but rather by arriving independently at common positions on matters of common interest.
Blame instant communications, not conspiracies. Perhaps that's a distinction without a difference in the end for the result looks the same. Perhaps too such a view is emotionally comforting. Its also true that the view is not correct and ultimately because it obscures reality those who indulge its emotional consolations comforts are doomed for that reason to be totally powerless to change reality.
You cannnot change that which you do not know. This handicap has a curious consequence. Because you cannot change things to your liking, your self understanding as victim is reinforced.
Even though the context of the Times article today was W.'s relationship with his father, I do think that the inclusion of that little tidbit was a bit beneath them.
My point is that he's positively swell.
I also believe that gays should serve in the military yet believed at the time Clinton tried to achieve that result he was making a serious tactical error which would end up undermining achievement of the objective.
I also support Universal Health Insurance, yet I also believed at the time it was tried that trying was a mistake that would undermine achievement of the goal
I do not believe that Clinton was insincere, just stupid
The FTC report concludes that the entertainment industry's actions subvert their voluntary ratings system. ... Its akin to the tobacco companies putting warnings on cigarettes at the same time gutting them with Joe Camel.
nonsense. here's an article to tell you otherwise. a quote:
Video game makers stress that more than 70 percent of their customers are over 18. According to the Interactive Digital Software Association, the industry trade group, adults buy nine of every 10 video and computer games sold in the United States. Only 7 percent of video games sold and rated since 1995 fall into the mature category.
iow, the parents buy this shit for their own kids. but, some how, it's blaming the "victim" to point that out. no, it's the evvvvvvvvil money grubbing companies that make our pristine America befouled of bad, bad, children.
He's also an ass-kicker.
A report released Monday by the Federal Trade Commission says that even movies rated R - which require an adult to accompany children under 17 to the theater - and video games that carry an M rating for 17 and over are routinely targeted toward younger people.
i'm fully aware of that. still doesn't diminish the point of who is buying the agents of doom does it?
by the by, it is voluntary to put those silly arbitrary "ratings" on games, movies, and TV shows. it is not voluntary to do the same on liquor and cigarettes.
are the "subverting" by marketing to kids? eh, probably. they're just going where the money is. but, how can you "subvert" something they themselves set up? it's all a marketing ploy anyway.
insert "y" as needed
most assuredly is worth the bib, bad ole gummit involved. at least, that's what Gore tells the soccer moms.
He admits that video games are too violent. He admits that something should be done. He cannot agree that Gore has said anything that from his viewpoint makes great sense.
We should shame the industry into compliance
Has worked magnificently hasn't it?
What a fucking Moron! There are six billion reasons, all bearing the likeness of George Washington, that the industry has not and will not do anything
bib = big
I smoke cigarrettes. I started just about the time that the SG warnings appeared. At the same time, the tobacco companies were declaring that cigarettes were not hazardous to my health.
I make no claim for damages to my health but was the practice unfair and deceptive at the time? Sure it was. Should the practice have been enjoined? You bet.
CLEARWATER, Fla. (Reuters) -Hoping to ignite momentum in the presidential race, Republican nominee George W. Bush (news - web sites) armed himself with a new slogan and a fresh style on Monday, chatting informally with elderly voters on everything from Cuba to classrooms.
Preempting the usual bingo game at the Top of the World retirement complex that is home to 10,000 seniors, the Texas governor, in shirt-sleeves and microphone in hand, stood in the midst of a packed recreation room answering questions and stressing his ``Real Plans for Real People''
Gimme a slogan, gimme some slime, and I can fool enough of the people enough of the time!
Now who is "reinventing" himself?
Who is fool enough to be suckered by this marketing ploy?
Like stock options! Lots of them.
As one example.
You used this "dumbing down" phrase with regard to gay and heterosexual marriage before, and I still fail to see how expanding marriage to gay people would do this, given the shambles which heterosexuals have caused the institution to be in all by themselves. Please explain yourself, because you are sounding strangely like Pat Robertson on this subject.
If your answer is that some gays do not want marriage, my response is that those gays are not likely to sign up for it. If you are saying that gay men are more likely to be involved in serial relationships than heterosexual couples, my response is: show me that that would still be the case after the State stopped discouraging gay male relationships through various disincentives (and note that lesbians probably have higher rates of fidelity than heterosexuals do). And then explain to me why equal treatment under the law -- a product of the Enlightenment -- is no longer a good idea.
You also neglected once before to answer my question as to why children of gay couples should not have the same rights as children of heterosexual couples (which essentially cannot be achieved without giving gay couples the same rights of inheritance, social security, etc.).
And you did not answer my question why we gay people should be forced to enrich the legal profession in order to achieve some protection of assets from money-mad first cousins and other relatives if a partner dies, when straight couples do not need to do so.
Folks who cream to earth tones.
Or begins.
Well, no, actually that won't happen until Jan. 20, 2001.
I understand "real plans." That suggests plans that are good, are thought-out, would work well, etc.
What the hell is "real people" supposed to mean?
No androids need apply?
The process, from his calculated sucking the eyeballs out of his wife's head to being so gosh darn plucky on Oprah, has a steeling quality. Every day, the nausea induced by the campaign makes the actual expected governance all that more attractive.
Ricky had better eat up on those free sausages while he has a chance.
He admits that video games are too violent. He admits that something should be done. He cannot agree that Gore has said anything that from his viewpoint makes great sense.
hmm. i didn't see the interview, but could it be that Gore offered nothing more than meaningless platitudes and vague non-enforceable warnings?
could be.
"One of the reporters asked me afterward, 'Were you trying to send a message?'" Gore recalled in a tone of bemused shock at the idea. "I said I was trying to send a message to Tipper."
Gore Ahead by 25 Points in New York State - Poll
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Vice President Al Gore holds a 25-percentage-point lead over Texas Gov. George Bush among likely voters in New York state in the presidential campaign, a poll released on Monday said.
"The poll, by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, found Democrat Gore ahead of Republican Bush by 52 percent to 31 percent among registered voters, with 1 percent of respondents saying they would vote for Independent Pat Buchanan if the election were held now, and 4 percent favoring the Greens' Ralph Nader.
"Bush's support remained the same among likely voters, but Gore's increased to 56 percent, the poll found. Undecideds fell to 8 percent among likely voters from 11 percent among registered voters, with most skewing toward Gore."
The FTC also reports that violent videos are heavily marketed on MTV where 50% of the audience is under 18.
Joe Camel LIVES!
Holy Joe will see to that
heh
Could it be that JV never been kissed?
Are Republicans congenitally impotent or are they just hard up?
A sigh went up in the room.
About as spontaneous as Tim Russert's smile
Where is all this kissing leading?
Maybe Bush should up the ante by fucking Laura next time they're on camera together.
CNN/Gallup tracking poll:
"Results from Monday, September 11, show Vice President Gore stretching his lead over Texas Gov. George W. Bush to 7 percentage points, 49% to 42%. The lead is Gore's first outside the margin of error since the tracking poll began in April."
..maybe it's not just Tipper's he's been kissing.
As an FYI, they have an e-mail service where you can be notified when they update their Presidential election polls.
picking up lab's toys.
sorry...
please mind the one's in the dark stairwell.
RD - Gore said what he said RD....he wants the FTC to sanction deceptive advertising practice....You have no reason to doubt that statement. Neither can you challenge the certainty that the result cannot be achieved unless someone tries to do it!
um, whatever. i'll believe it when his holiness does something of substance (read: never)
btw, why haven't you answered Ronski's Message # 40773. i, for one, would be fascinated at the metal gymnastics required.
yes, mental. hell, it's late.. heh
And thanks, Rask, for linking it in.
Zogby & Gallup were added 
My wife watched Al on Oprah, said she hasn't felt this good about our political future since....well, since Al's speech at the DNC. Al seems to have managed to pick up some of Slick's slickness after all, hallelujah!
Anyway, it's just an extension of Tipper's placebo, begun in the '80s with her bipartisan group of Washington Wives that simply had too much time on their hands between hostessing, schmoozing, and lookin' purty next their man. I don't know if it's true anymore (but I wouldn't be surprised), but for several years after the PMRC labels took effect, the advisory sticker was a badge of honor and a useful sales gimmick.
The dark side of that was that a few record store owners in Florida did time and paid fines for selling 2LiveCrew tapes to 12-year-olds. Talk is cheap; exactly where does the moral rubber meet the road, when it comes to the inchoate phrase "marketing violence to youngsters"?
Asked what he likes to sleep in, Gore – whose wife once suggested in a broadcast interview that he sleeps in the buff – said with a guilty smile: "A bed."
Good lord. I'm afraid to ask if this is even true. Who the hell sleeps in pajamas, besides a six-year-old? Not that I want to hear lurid details about Rev. Al's adept and frequent waxing of Tipper's ample booty, but must people really be coy about sleeping in the nude? Are we catering to the giggling-third-grader demographic now?
But let's not pretend that the word of a guy who uses iced tea as an excuse actually has any worth.
That's as sober a political analysis of the current state of the US campaign as yet I have seen.
The Bush people are doing the same thing they did in '88....look honorable, stay above the fray, and behind the scenes encourage the Atwaters et.al. do their dirty work.
What's happening in politics that you want to discuss?
anyone have any ideas for a different thread tagline they want to see used (needs to be short)?
and, yes, i realize i'm opening myself open for some free shots, but i'm not scared.
An article in the magazine Vanity Fair by best-selling author Gail Sheehy, who frequently writes psychological portraits of politicians, concluded that the Texas governor's often-mocked malapropisms on the campaign trail could stem from dyslexia, a language-based disability in which the sufferer has trouble processing words or sentences.
...
Sheehy quotes several experts as saying those sorts of error could be caused by dyslexia. She also quoted Houston dyslexia expert Nancy LaFevers as saying, "The errors you've heard Gov. Bush make are consistent with dyslexia."
...
One of Bush's younger brothers, Neil, had been diagnosed as dyslexic, she said. 
A real gem.
Machinations of mans oldest sport...
We could quarrel, of course, as to whether what she advocated was censorship in the full sense of that word. Any more, say, than imposing a R rating on a movie and then enforcing the age limit rule that requires.
He was abfab. Smashing! The kind of guy you just want to squeeze.
Wow. The guy is a natural.
when are you gonna admit it too?
I get wood from the vice-president during his speeches. So personal.
then enforcing the age limit rule that requires.
Watch it....those drug-induced demeanors get a lot of stuff done in suburbia!
September 12, 2000
Presidential Tracking Poll
"In the race for the White House, George W. Bush and Al Gore are virtually tied in the popular vote. In Portrait of America's latest 3-day average Gore has 42.6% while Bush has 41.4%; Ralph Nader, 2.9%, Pat Buchanan, 1.6%, Harry Browne 1.0%, Howard Phillips .2%, and John Hagelin .3%. These results from a nightly Portrait of America Presidential Tracking Poll reflect interviews conducted September 9, 10 and 11."
Judith -- I can't imagine that that's true, but if it is...just think, a president like Harrision Ford and the guy from Independence Day,William somebody or other. He can fly the big one.
Bill Pullman
GJ:
I'm all for Presidents indulging in a little R&R but I think GW needs to devote those 3 hours a day to studying.
heh-heh.
Yesterday's news stories for Gore - Boffo Appearance on Oprah! Gore Warns Entertainment Industry
For Bush - Bush Fighting for Life in Florida! Bush To Modify Ad Calling Bureaucrats "rats"
Roadkill 2000 about sums this one up
This is Jack's idea of "wood" . . .
I assume he kisses her like that all the time, before and after her speeches.
I mean, I can't believe it would be a one-time tonscillectomy brought about by foucs groups and calculation.
Where are his hands???
By the way, I take the foucs to mean that, your current posture notwithstanding, Al the man is still on your list. You control your feelings pretty well, though.
And I had such hopes.
George W. - all hat, no cattle
How bout GWB's bloated maggot ridden corpse alongside the Campaign Trail
Won't somebody give him some toungue and shut him up already?
I nominate Cllrdr.
I'm comfortable with you taking the lead on discourse.
MsGW: *mmm* I don't rats know *mmmpf*
GW: RATS!!! BIG-TIME!
(To Dubya's credit, though, he wrestled "subliminal" to a draw.)
How bout GWB's bloated maggot ridden corpse alongside the Campaign Trail
now i'm curious. how does an equal footing to a slight trailing in most polls equate to the above?
P.S. i'd still love for you to answer Ronski's post to you from yesterday.
Conversely, I wouldn't be at all surprised if, say in a couple of more weeks, Lieberman indeed decides to give up the Senate race. That one seat might make the difference.
Either way, I think it will continue to be the GOP in the majority in the Senate, but by maybe two seats, like in 51-49.
Hasert, on the other hand, had better start thinking about going back to being a quiet go-with-the-flow backbencher, 'cause no way he will end up being in any of the GOP minority posts in the House. DeLay (and those he choses) all the way.
Consider the track record -
- identified Bush as a loser one year ago
- first to identify the Moron factor in November
- predicted before the first primaries that Bush would fall apart in any serious race
- from March to August correctly identified Bush lead as phantom
- first to spot this election as unprecedented in terms of voter decisions
- predicted Gore would make up at least 20-25 points in polls by Nov. 7
- predicted in outline the substance of Gore's acceptance speech change the race from personallity to issues
-while the pundits were pissing on Gore's speech, immediately saw that it changed the fundamentals of the race
I'm gonna win this race on issues the Rat's in the trap for sure
Instead of telling us what Bush is saying, they're talking about the Rat Ad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a Moron!
Don't hold your breath. You don't discourse with the rabid. You shoot them in the head.
Any composite look at polls shows Gore up by about 5% or so. Usually, convention bounces come down a bit. This has not happened in this race. In fact, the contrary has occured - Gore has gone up.
In every week for the last month, Gore has consistently dominated Bush who has been put on the defensive and can't get out of his rut.
This is starting to be reflected in the poll dynamics.
Gore is now seen as equally likeable
Gore now has the lead on "leadership" questions
Gore's lead on most issue questions is substantial, as high as 25%
Bush totally fucked his best weapon, the Buddhist Temple ad had no impact whatsoever.
{For those who have ever been to Texas, think dead armadillos on Farm to Market Roads)
Things in Va look like things in NV - the GOP will pick-up two seats. Robbhad to struggle against North. This does not bode well for him, given that Allen is hugely popular. Allen has also done the smart thing - he has gone negative in his ads early, and thereby, he is making Robb counterpunch, instead of getting any message out.
So, GOP +2 will make it 56-44. Add Connecticut (despite the giddiness of you and the rabid, the race is not quite yet over, and Lieberman will not give up his Senate seat).
57-43.
Then, the GOP has varying shots at NY, NJ and NE. Give them one. 58-42.
The Democrats have varying shots at seven seats (MN, MI, DE, WA, PA, MO, FL).
Give them 4.
And you get no change.
So . . . that's GOP
"(To Dubya's credit, though, he wrestled "subliminal" to a draw.)"
Being a born-again Texan, I thought he wrestled it to a drawl.
Moreover, he's checkmated Bush. Bush must go negative. But after all that whining about how Gore was about to go negative, Gore never did! Gore will only tallk about Bush's Texas record or Cheney's in terms of campaign issues, not personality. He's making the dim bulb case subtly and without direct personal attack.
Now what's a Moron to do having bitched about negative campaigning that never happened?
I notice that you put PA in there as a possible for the Dems. Don't I wish. Santorum was the one guy I really wanted to get rid of this time around, but the cards they do not look so great.
If you take PA out of the equation, then that only gives the Democrats 6 vulnerable seats. Which means, they must hold NV, hold VA, hold NY, hold NE, and hold NJ and still take 4 of those 6 seats to get to 51-49.
jexster
Go post something you just read or something.
Listen to me and learn
I wish I didn't have classes this semester.
My take on a Dayton/Grams match up. Grams will attack Dayton is too liberal, the same tactic he used successfully against Ann Wynia in 94. It isn't an unfair charge (which is why I dislike Dayton), given some of his policy proposals (his "all businesses of whatever size must offer health care to employees" plan is particularly vulnerable). Dayton is much fiestier than Wynia, however, and will counter-attack Grams as too far to the right (in a liberal state) and the tool of big business (evidently a Dem theme this year, dovetailing with some of Gore's rhetoric).
Key factor: Grams' campaign chest is comparatively low. Dayton has money to burn, and has been burning it very effectively in the primary, with some TV ads that sent him from third in a weak field to towering frontrunner in a couple of months.
current prediction: Dayton will buy himself a Senate seat.
I read something recently on that race--the Dems were caught off guard by having four contenders, so they really haven't had time to focus on ousting Grams yet?
I can't recall any election (memory starts 1968) where one candidate has so dominated the other for 4 sucessive weeks at this point in the election.
Anyone have suggestions?
Today's coverage for Bush - the Rat Ad.....
guard by having four contenders, so they really haven't had time to
focus on ousting Grams yet?"
yeah, but that won't matter. With less rich candidates it may have mattered, but Dayton successfully avoided going negative (while Ciresi and Yanisch had a very public squabble), and he has shown a strong determination to dig deep into his pocketbook to spend his fortune to buy the senate seat, and has also shown effectiveness in doing so.
Grams might try to make that an issue in itself in egalitarian Minnesota, but it has rarely been a successful campaign strategy, and Dayton is well-known enough, and has paid his dues in the public sector (two state cabinet appointments and a stint as state auditor, an elected position in our state), that I don't think the tactic would work.
RD - I think that the race is over, and Al has won, because Al has completely recaptured the women's vote. The things that Jack O'Niner decries, the kiss, the cutesey Oprah appearance, are things that women have received very positively, based on focus group reports and the reaction of my wife. Before the convention Gore was behind Bush in polling of women. Since then he has, aaccording to Gallup, taken an 18 point lead over Bush among women before the Oprah appearance. If Gore has a 20% lead among women he wins.
A while ago Ace ran a hilarious set of posts mocking how we kept hearing that Al was soo funny and articulate and at ease when he wasn't on camera. Ace posited that this was such desperate spin, since how smart/at ease/funny can a guy really be if no one ever sees it. Well Ace, there it is.
Anyone who believes that what has occurred in recent weeks is an indication that the race is over is an amateur.
What makes the race "over", however, are a few simple truths evident even before Bush was selected: a booming economy, a smart Democratic nominee, a dearth of issues that separates the candidates, a budget surplus that makes the race a bidding war (traditionally, fertile ground for a Democrat) and a GOP captive to the tut-tuts of the media when it comes to negative campaigning.
well, i agree it looks that way. but i just think that declaring anyone's campaign a "bloated" etc, etc "corpse" on a 5% lead is silly. it's not looking good for Bush - but it is only 5%.
i think Bush could put in some fluff and get women to like him more. as in he's going on Oprah's show next week too, you know. so, who knows? there's a month to go.
i'm just discovering this new "calendar" invention.
Jack wrote, ...a GOP captive to the tut-tuts of the media when it comes to negative campaigning. The Bush campaign hoisted this petard themselves, dear, when they lambasted Gore for his supposed personal attacks and promised to run a "different" campaign.
If, to your mind, negative=personal attacks, then your point might be valid. As it is, you can wage an entirely negative campaign without lodging one personal attack. Of course, the media makes no distinction. And the Bush campaign defers to the tut-tuts of Howard Kurtz. Which was my point.
And I publicly call for the dropping of the transatlantic, effeminate and lame use of "dear" in discussion.
he had a near coronary during the primaries when McCain (rightly) started kicking his ass
But once it was over, he reverted so smoothly to the amiable leader that you could almost swear it didn't happen.
He went negative (or the minions did) to get out of that. I wonder why he isn't doing it here?
But Jack, dear, the GOP made no such distinction, since what they were trying to accuse Gore of was the "negative" attacks on the Governor's record in Texas.
but Jack is correct when he points out "the media" makes no distinction when they bitch about "negative attacks" on character or on policy. from both sides of the isle, i admit, but still it is very annoying.
Meanwhile, one GOP strategist is complaining that the Bush campaign is "terminally gaffe prone"
As if on cue, Bush appears talking about the "subliminal" rat message and mispronounces the word not once but twice - "sublimable"
(My favorite part)
"Bush said Tuesday that he believes the ad's creator, Alex Castellanos,' assertion that it was not his intention to create a subliminal ad. Castellanos said he flashed the word --part of "bureaucrats" -- so it would look more visually interesting, and that it was just a coincidence that the letters appearing first spelled out "rats."
Now, an editing glitch I could believe...
In fact, every week the sum and substance of coverage has been Gore on Roll, Bush Getting Desperate...
Carter and Reagan were neck and neck until October. Bush didn't have Dukakis by the nads until October. Carter's lead continually slipped in 1976. HHH and Nixon went at it hammer and tong throughout.
JFK/Nixon is too far back for me.
There isn't too much that detailed studies of negative campaigning agree on except this one.
If anyone is interested I will dig up the citations to various professional journals that back up my claim
There are times when it is remarkably easy to cut through the fog of political analysis and the layers of campaign rhetoric and decipher, in a moment of unsurpassed clarity, just where the presidential candidates stand.
The contrast yesterday was unmistakable: Gore high-fiving Oprah; Bush struggling to explain why he isn't running away with Florida.
That's all you need to know. Today's press coverage continued to reflect the Gore-on-a-roll, Bush-in-a-tailspin tone that has been the dominant media story line since the Democrats decamped from Los Angeles.
That's all you need to know.
This guy has been yelping for months about politics of personal destruction when personal attack is his only salvation. So by fits and starts have the Republicans tried to employ there #1 weapon with remarkable fecklessness.
The fact that the media is on hair-trigger alert re: negative campaigning has absolutely everything to do with the inept campaigning of its nominee
Vaguely reminds me of the RoseMary Wood's heavy metal to the pedal erasure of those famous 18 minutes.
I would say, however, that "negative" gets confounded when policy criticisms involve things which are misleading or taken out of context. The Willie Horton ad is an example, and you always see ads for Congressional elections where "he voted for partial-birth abortions" (or something) is referring to some minor parasitic rider on an omnibus budget bill that the candidate voted for. That stuff annoys me more than personal attacks.
Amongst pollsters, there has been a debate over the appropriateness of "forcing the choice" issue. Gallup's people have been engaged in debates with the Vanishing Voter Project on this question. Gallup claims the past confirms the validity of forcing choice in poll questions while VVP claims that this is bad practice this year (until about now) due to volatility being without recent precedent. Under the VVP view, only about 60-70% of the electorate has made a choice that they will most likely stick with in Nov. The VVP is now finding a solidifying electorate in their most recent work.
So I ignore most past poll history including the Labor Day Rule and look to the visible campaign's content in these weeks immediately following the convention.
Now, they are hoist upon their own collective petards. And, hopefully, with a lot of dough tied up in ads that they now don't feel comfortable in using.
I also mentally tune out whenever I hear that ominous world-is-coming-to-an-anxious-end music at the beginning of an ad, usually coupled with some extraordinarily unflattering grainy black and white image of some candidate.
This is especially bad news for a Republican if you buy the theory that personality based attacks resonate much better with "their" voters than is the case for Demos
Horton was a product of Dukakis' policy, which had long been criticized in Massachusetts. The Horton ad is the inverse of an ad showing a "real" person (Edna Ferbish) who will lose her farm and tractor is she doesn't get prescription drug benefits, which Candidate X opposes, except Horton as outgrowth of policy is a proven fact, and the Ferbish situation is conjecture.
A true personal attack is "Bush is too stupid to be president" or "Gore is a liar." It goes to the heart of who you are, not your record or the results therefrom.
Of course, if you have evidence of both, the attacks seem perfectly legitimate.
In the end, all attacks that have a basis truth are legitimate and should be used with wild abandon.
Its a "sublimable" thing
I don't quarrel much with your comments about if it is truthful it is fair. It just has to be truthful within the complete context.
No, it doesn't. There is no time for context in a 30 second ad stating that the Bush environemntal record in Texas is dismal, and context is not in the interests of the campaign airing the ad.
But was it accurate?
Jack O'Peg O'My Heart - Are you saying that it is true that Bush's environmental record is dismal? Man, those ads are effective!
Easy, dear.
I don't expect my hopes to be realized.
I'm never easy, dear.
Its a short book well worth the time. It also contains a fine discussion of why Horton worked.
I sent Jacob Weisberg an e-mail detailing the relevance of the book to something he wrote on the subject in the spring. He answered that he'd heard good things about the book from colleagues and based on my e-mail, intended to read the copy he had lying around.
Yea he may have been feeding me BushShit but maybe not
the past 7 elections will show vastly more divergence this year than
previously"
Moreso than the incumbency ass-whuppings in 1972, 1984, and 1996, but not for the other four. That has been my point. Despite testaments to the volatility of voter preferences, trend lines of poll results are amazingly consistent, with major inflection points only occuring at predictable intervals, such as after each party convention.
Take a look at Gallup's trend line for this year. Doesn't it look quite a bit like the one in 1988?
and compare with...
1976
1980
and 1992.
This year has also been quite stable, with only one or two movements that extend outside of the sampling error.
This isn't worth writing a major treatise, but I had two points:
1) the past four weeks are nothing out of the ordinary for one candidate to dominate a campaign.
2) voter preferences are not as volatile as you seem to think, particularly after the conventions. You seem to be implying that Gore's recent run as an exception amidst volatile campaigns of yesteryear where voters preferences swing wildly from one candidate to another. If so, I think you are taking the horce race aspect of the journalistic coverage a bit too seriously.
criticized in Massachusetts. The Horton ad is the inverse of an ad
showing a "real" person (Edna Ferbish) who will lose her farm and
tractor is she doesn't get prescription drug benefits, which Candidate
X opposes, except Horton as outgrowth of policy is a proven fact,
and the Ferbish situation is conjecture."
It wasn't Dukakis' policy. It was his Republican predecessor's. Dukakis ended the policy after the Horton fiasco brought the problem to light. (going by memory from 1988, when I worked for the Dukakis campaign)
But I didn't bring this up to attack Bush/Atwater specifically. It is just the most famous instance of the ad type that I was describing. This sort of advertising disingenuity is a bipartisan problem, and I am sure we will see it from the Gore campaign (Gore has never been a fair fighter) before long.
Speaking of Poppy, how long before he decides that he also has to come charging out and rescue his boy?
Janjon, as I recall, it wasn't Poppy, but friends of Poppy who bailed W. out of his business jams in the past -- the question is, do they know anything about politics?
Or more as Maureen Dowd suggests, the royalty whose birthright is the presidency. This campaign nonsense is just to humor the little people.
But, as we all know, this is just part of some longstanding super duper masterplan, because W. certainly isn't going to reinvent himself this campaign. 
"Interviews with 732 likely voters, conducted September 9-11, found Gore -- the Democratic nominee for president -- holding a six-point lead over Republican rival Bush. Gore claimed 48 percent of the survey's likely voters, while Bush had the support of 42 percent. But with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent, Gore's advantage is statistically insignificant."
As Lily Tomlin said, the problem with the rat race is, if you win, you're still a rat.
Having not a statistically oriented bone in my body, I always get stopped short at how small these samplings are.
Independent, state-by-state polls from competitive states matter.
Recent state-by-states for those states in play, which are
AZ
AR
DE
FL
GA
KY
LA
MI
MO
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NC
OH
PA
GA (9/5-10)
Bush 46%
Gore 40%
IL (9/5-7)
Gore 50%
Bush 35%
MO (9/5-7)
Gore 45%
Bush 40%
NH (9/5-7)
Bush 42%
Gore 42%
fifty states? Weighted for the more electorally significant states?"
Looks to me like random sampling, with no weighting. An accurate poll which dealt with the vagaries of the electoral college would be very expensive, requiring 500-1000 respondents from all 50 states. But I don't mind ignoring the electoral college for the most part, as the results of the college are rarely different from the results of the popular vote, and none of these exceptions occurred in the past 100 years.
How about PA, OH and MI?
consistent 10%. "
I think that is an overstatement. Statistical significance in a CNN style poll occurs at an 8 point margin on *one* poll. If I see 5 of them all pointing toward a 5-9 point lead for Gore, I will consider myself justified in seeing that they collectively mean something, if only the preferences of the voters at the current time.
The issue/character questions that shows the real dynamic of things or more accurately is suggestive as one statistics wag once remarked
Statisticians use statistics much like drunkards use lightposts -more for support than for illumination
The wisdom of this, the danger of straining too hard at poll numbers becomes quite apparent when a series of polls taken of the same population (likely or registered voters) each claiming a 95% confidence level of accuracy within +/-3 or 4 point spread, wind up with figures well outside the confidence range.
Although Labor Day, the unofficial kick-off of the general election campaign, has passed, more than one-third of all Americans and one-quarter of registered voters have not yet picked a presidential candidate.
This finding is at odds with many national surveys, which show only a small percentage of uncommitted voters. But these surveys push respondents to choose from a list of candidates, not offering them the option of remaining undecided.
The Shorenstein Center poll poses the question differently: "Which
presidential candidate do you support at this time, or haven't you
picked a candidate yet?" The respondents who said "no candidate yet" were then asked whether they leaned towards one of the presidential candidates.
That said, the latest Voter Involvement Index:
===============================
VOTER INVOLVEMENT INDEX
Aug 30 - Sept 3 34%
Aug 23 - 27 34
Aug 16 - 20 42
Aug 9 - 13 38
Aug 2 - 6 39
July 26 - 30 32
Source: Shorenstein Center Poll
for the Vanishing Voter Project
Sampling error: +/- 3%
In March it was 43
becomes quite apparent when a series of polls taken of the same
population (likely or registered voters) each claiming a 95%
confidence level of accuracy within +/-3 or 4 point spread, wind up
with figures well outside the confidence range."
You are mis-stating the claim. It isn't a +/- 3 or for point spread, it is +/- 3 or 4 *points*, meaning that Gore's could be 3 or four points in either direction, which would probably drive Bush's score a similar number of points in the opposite direction. A poll showing Gore at 48 and Bush at 42 with 4% confidence interval means there is a 95% chance of the true result being Gore with 52 and Bush with 38, or Bush with 46 and Gore with 44. (the don't knows, naders, and buchanan's throw off the precision of this, but you get the picture).
An Israeli doctor said, "Medicine in my country is so
advanced, we can take a kidney out of one person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in six weeks."
> >
A German doctor said, "That's nothing! In Germany we can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in four weeks."
> >
A Russian doctor said, "In my country medicine is so advanced, we can take half a heart from one person, put it in another, and have them both looking for work in two weeks."
> >
The American doctor, not to be outdone, said, "Hah! We're about to take an asshole out of Texas, put him in the White House and half the
country will be loking for work the next day."
> >
Clinton, Lazio Polls:
"ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Two polls released Tuesday show Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Rick Lazio still locked in a tight Senate race after three months of campaign appearances, press releases and attack ads.
"A Marist College poll of 516 likely voters gave Clinton 50 percent and the Long Island congressman 47 percent. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 points. In a Marist poll in June, they were tied at 42 percent.
"A Quinnipiac University poll of 803 voters gave Clinton 49 percent and Lazio 44 percent. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 points. In Quinnipiac's June poll, they were tied at 44 percent.
"The telephone surveys were conducted Sept. 5-10.
"The numbers come on the eve of the candidates' first debate, planned for Wednesday, beginning at 7 p.m. EDT. MSNBC plans to broadcast the debate nationally at 10 p.m. EDT."
If published in the NYTimes, big problems for Hillary.
Monica Lewinsky, Dolly Kyle Browning, Kathleen Willey, and
Juanita Broaddrick. Are there any others that we should know
about?
2. Thank you for teaching my 8-year-old about oral sex. I had
really planned to wait until he was about 10 or so to discuss it
with them, but now he knows more about it than I did as a
senior in college.
3. Thank you for showing us that sexual harassment in the work
place (especially the White House) and on the job is OK, and
all you have to know is what the meaning of "IS" is. It really is
great to know that certain sexual acts are not sex and one
person may have sex while the other one involved does NOT.
4. Thank you for reintroducing the concept of impeachment to a
new generation and demonstrating that the ridiculous plot of
the movie, "Wag The Dog", could be plausible after all.
5. Thanks for making Jimmy Carter look competent, Gerald Ford
look graceful, Richard Nixon look honest, and Lyndon Johnson
look truthful.
6. Thank you for the 72 House and Senate witnesses who have
pleaded the 5th Amendment and 17 witnesses who have fled
the country to avoid testifying about Democrat campaign fund
raising.
7. Thank you for the 19 charges, 8 convictions, and 4 imprisonment's
from the Whitewater "mess" and the 55 criminal charges and 32
criminal convictions (so far) in the other "Clinton" scandals.
8. Thanks also for reducing our military by half, "gutting" much of our foreign policy, and flying all over the world on "vacations"
carefully disguised as necessary trips .
Also, please give my regards to Hillary, when/if you see her.
Tell her I'm working on a "Thank You" letter for her.
Ain't it great. See how even the baleful Rosetta's caught in the trap.
Kill All Serbs! Kill! Kill! Kill!
And several polls are outside that spread including Gallup though for some odd reason they have mixed apples and oranges.
In their latest tracking poll they have a +/- 3 spread @95% yet claim that their 4 way race showing Gore 49 Bush 42 is within the margin.
This is not correct for the 4 way race though it is for the 2 way, just barely.
As for other polls besides Gallup which exceed their margins of error, 2 Newsweeks and ACR show a definite movement in Gore's direction. No bounce deflation, bounce building
Look then at the trend of Gallup, one of Bush's strongest pollsters since they started in November: 
Larry Bartels of Princeton praised his colleagues at the American Political Science Assn convention for their election modeling. He said that the work was valuable because it refocuses attention from the horse race to the underlying fundamentals.
That means look at the questions asking "Regardless of who you plan to vote for who is better...." and look at gender gaps (Gore increasing lead with women, decreasing deficit with men) and look at the campaign itself (Gore scoring positive coverage, Bush cursing reporters, talking about rats, and begging coverage for issues - a return to Gore's turf!). In the fundamentals you will see a more powerful movement toward Gore than in the trial heats which you might think of as a lagging indicator.
So follow Larry Bartels suggestion - follow the fundamentals
From ABC News:
Sept. 12 — George W. Bush today denied suggestions his often mocked struggles with the English language mean that he has dyslexia, as a magazine article reports.
“I’m not dyslexic,” Bush said this morning in an interview with ABCNEWS’ Good Morning America.
“That’s all I can tell you.”
In an upcoming issue of Vanity Fair magazine, writer Gail Sheehy suggests that dyslexia runs in his family and quotes experts saying that Bush has exhibited behavior that could indicate dyslexia.
“The errors you’ve heard Governor Bush make are consistent with dyslexia,” the magazine quoted one speech expert saying.
That's all he can say about it because he's not dislexic, he's A MORON
Ain't this great!
Dude, the press keeps calling you a conservative, and that's not cool. But I thought about it, and realized that you are really a liberal. I know that you are really the cool liberal candidate.
Conservatives have urged Americans to "just say no" to drugs, while liberals talked about "experimentation" and youthful rebellion that didn't require long prison terms or limit their civil rights.
You showed that you could say yes to drugs, as long as you chill for seven years or so.
Conservatives think that teenagers shouldn't be coddled, and should grow up by the time they're 18, especially if they commit a felony like drug use.
Liberals said you should "do your own thing, man" and if you needed to, take a few more years to get your head together before you settle down in life. "Don't trust anyone over thirty." Being the cool liberal you are, you showed the conservatives that you can still party 'till you're 40, and the old man and his buds will get you a job where you can just chill and still have cash for your stash. No need to get too uptight and be a geezer with a regular job and a suit.
Conservatives get upset if somebody says a "bad word" on the radio. They want censorship and shit.
Liberals say express yourself, and want to validate your feelings, wherever you are comming from. You've set us free, man. Hey, if you feel that a guy's a major league asshole, you should be able to just say it without everyone going postal about it.
Liberals want to use affirmative action that looks at an indivdual without limiting choices to standardized tests, that looks at a person's involvement in their ethnic community as much as rankings or tests.
You have managed to get Yale and the Texas Air Guard pick you over people with higher test scores, because of your commitment to your people. I mean, just because your test scores were average,they shouldn't forget your involvement in the WASP community. No way that Texas had enough Yankee WASP's who were pilots for the Texas ANG.
Conservatives don't want the Federal Government involved in education, want to eliminate the Department of Education. Liberals want the Federal government to fund education and give the Department of Education even more money.
You showed your liberal stripes here to be sure. Keep the Department of education, and give it more money to hand out. You want the Department to hold the local school boards to demonstrate their success to the satisfaction of the Department of Education or they won't get federal funds.
Conservative like the death penalty. Liberals don't like it. This is the one thing I don't get. I mean, I understand how you would think that overdosing some dude on drugs is a lot cooler than frying somebody in the chair. You can tell me man, do you slip them some 'shrooms or something with the last meal, or is it just downers that these guys are shootin? I mean, downers can be real cool before you pass out, you know?
If you answer this last one right, you might be the most counter-culture liberal dude we've ever had run for President.
On sample error
with a sample size of 1,000 national adults, (derived using careful random selection procedures), the results are highly likely to be accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. Thus, if we find in a given poll that President Clinton’s approval rating is 50%, the margin of error indicates that the true rating is very likely to be between 53% and 47%. It is very unlikely to be higher or lower than that.
To be more specific, the laws of probability say that if we were to conduct the same survey 100 times, asking people in each survey to rate the job Bill Clinton is doing as president, in 95 out of those 100 polls, we would find his rating to be between 47% and 53%. In only five of those surveys would we expect his rating to be higher or lower than that due to chance error.
more on that "corpse" (emphasis mine) :
A NYT front-page effort says that the paper's fresh polling reveals the closest post-Labor Day presidential race in 20 years. The headline and accompanying graphic chalk it all up to Al Gore's increased and George W. Bush's slightly settling likeability.
(Slapping ducky's nano-rats away from keyboard.)
Not sure if I can dissect what you are saying here, but an additional factor could be that some polls include Nader and Buchanan, and others do not, which can easily throw off the results by another 3-4 percentage points.
I thought you were going to change the thread tagline......
well, i was going to, but couldn't think of anything to replace it with. i liked your 2 suggestions, but they didn't have the "oomph" i wanted.
also, is the name "Politics" interesting enough? that could change too.
thoughts anyone?
The Oomph Thread....
and we mean Politics, not old silent film starlets
"But that labelling wasn't what Tipper campaigned for. She and her accomplices wanted much more."
I am going by recollection here, but I could have sworn that I saw Tipper Gore, during the hearings, say several times to the press that they voluntary labelling was what they wanted. It was something I followed very closely at the time. Now, 15 year old memories can certainly be wrong, so if you have a cite on this I would be interested in seeing it (all my relevant reference books are at home, so I can look it up tonight if needed).
"
They came up far short of it -- and, if you're just talking about them coming out of the affair with some good press and a good photo op victory over scumbag rock, well, the hearings sort of put an end to that."
Huh? I am saying that the hearings were part of the good press. She certainly pissed off a lot of hardcore civil libertarians and rock fans, but everything I recall was that her spiel, and the hearings, played very well in Peoria. Keep in mind that I am not arguing whether her actions were right (although I think they were). I am just disagreeing with your earlier statement that her actions during the PMRC hearings showed poor judgment by creating a PR disaster for her. I am arguing that she was successful in her efforts (which were much more limited than most people seem to think - not surprising given the hysteria around the issue), and that her actions were generally a PR success, even more so in hindsight, given the current fashion for criticizing the entertainment industry.
Gore Leads Bush by 7 Points in Reuters/Zogby Poll
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore has opened a seven-point lead over Republican George W. Bush in the latest Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday -- the first time his lead has been outside the statistical margin of error."
"The poll of 1,005 people who said they were likely to vote in the Nov. 7 presidential election found the vice president leading the Texas governor by 46 to 39 percent. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader had 4 percent while Reform Party hopeful Pat Buchanan scored 1 percent.
"Gore's lead was just outside the statistical margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points in the survey conducted by pollster John Zogby from Sunday to Tuesday."
We're faced with the pending doom of socialism. Al Gore wants to ram it down our throats. True, Bush is a lighter flavor of socialism since he supports the dept. of ed, social security, medicare, and gov't provided prescription drugs. But, our first task should be to limit socialism's damage to our country. After all, when a doctor treats a mortal gunshot wound, the first thing he does is stop the bleeding. Then, he takes out the bullet. We have to stop the bleeding.
Subliminal or Subliminable - W. is doing an execrable job.
Because if it weren't for the handicapped, we'd never get parking places.
Anywho, I am leaning toward Gore, as Bush seems to be self-destructing daily, but my Canadian friend sent me this story on Gore's uncle--file under eccentric southern good ole boy tales--dark side:
Since the US government first became "Socialistic" in the 1930s, the US has somehow staggered through the rest of the century to become the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever seen.
Where is Ronski? We could use a Libertarian with brains.
Now?
Now!
Against what non-socialist country can you compare us? Give me a break nimrod.
Yes.
Twasn't you what killed the thread but I...mine was the last post in movies yesterday.
The poll of 1,005 people who said they were likely to vote in the Nov. 7 presidential election found the vice president leading the Texas governor by 46 to 39 percent. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader (news - web sites) had 4 percent while Reform Party hopeful Pat Buchanan (news - web sites) scored 1 percent.
Gore had drawn level with Bush among men while retaining a 15-point advantage among women. In fact, the result of the poll was similar to the outcome of the 1996 presidential election, which President Clinton (news - web sites) won by eight percentage points, beating Republican Bob Dole by 16 points among women while trailing by a single point among men.
``Gore is doing much better among men and especially independent voters. He is also performing better in the crucial Midwest region,'' said pollster John Zogby.
In English subliminal,/i>
In MoronSpeak sublimable
Incredible. This guy's vocabulary really sucks. Big Time or Major League - either way.
On Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer confronted him with two hot stories. The first, from the front page of this morning's New York Times, alleged that the Republican National Committee burned a subliminal message ("RATS") into one of its anti-Gore ads. The second, in the new issue of Vanity Fair, asserted Bush suffers from dyslexia.
More Hot Rats from Jacob Weisberg
A genetic condition according to Weisberg or he may just be a Moron
Dubya was still standing at the end of the bout, but it's "subliminal" by a unanimous decision.
But, boil it all down - he's still just a surface guy.
Can't we all just get along?
Can't we all just agree that he's impaired and leave it at that?
alan ladd,
Quite a story...almost a movie treatment. I suspect it has enough gritty elements to ensure we will hear of it again.
One thing, though, "Accuracy in Media," isn't always.
Maybe third party voters are voting against the status quo as much as they are voting ideologically?
All I am saying is don't be surprised if this happens or if pressure starts to build from the bottom up, from candidates in difficulty for such a move.
Charles Cook reports that the Republican House CC is unsually cash poor this year due to Bush fundraising and concentration of funds at the RNC.
But, even leaving his instantaneous disclaimer aside, I doubt it is dyslexia. He gives every evidence of having just been lazy when it comes to vocabulary.
sounded more like subliminable
Mason-Dixon Florida poll shows Bush at 45%, Gore at 43%
TAMPA, Fla. (Reuters) - Vice President Al Gore's support among voters in Republican-leaning Florida has surged, putting him in a statistical dead heat with Texas Gov. George W. Bush, according to a poll published on Wednesday.
Bush led with 45 percent, followed by Gore with 43 percent, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader with 2 percent and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan with 1 percent in a poll conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. for several Florida media organizations.
The telephone poll of 803 registered Florida voters who normally cast ballots in statewide races was conducted Sept. 8-11 and had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.
She won 82-18%. Ricky did a stupid thing, though. (duh). He had announced several days ago that anything over THIRTY percent for the opponent would show severe problems for Hillary, blah blah blah.
The sages and pundits then chimed in at about the 25% level.
Had Ricky started out at,say, the TEN percent level (which would have been highly defensible in my opinion, given Hillary's name recognition, official backing, etc., and the opponent's total anonymity), then eighteen wouldn't be looking too good.
So it goes.
There is nothing to compare the United States to. The central government plays a miniscule role in the US when compared to the failed socialist states, and with our social-democrat colleagues in Europe. You'll have to do better than that.
On a lighter note, a comedienne on WEVD radio in NY yesterday, when the topic of Bush and dyslexia came up, asked, "Did he call the reporter a Hole-A?"
It called to mind a supply/demand case from an econ prof. He claimed that college tuition inflation (I paid 6,000 for private law school in 1977 which now costs 22K+) is due to the increase in aid available to student - huge increases in college loan amounts and Pell grants which did not exist back then. The increased aid, in his view, has increased demand yet there has been no increase in the supply of college and university classrooms and instructors.
The result according to the prof is that tuition is grossly inflated and the money is going to pay higher salaries to and hire more administrators who figure out how to cram more students into the same space with the same teaching resources. Pay for college professors has not, according to this guy, increased very much. He advocated construction of more universities - a rather long lead time item it would seem to me.
Perhaps some of our education experts would like to speak to this. This professor is politically to the right of Genghis Kahn but often makes sense to me notwithstanding. I have noticed a huge increase in recent years in low over head, min cap trade schools and have often thought this the result of increase student aid.
Could all these extra funds to higher education be doing little more than creating an inflationnary spiral - more aid creates upward pressure on tuition which requires more aid and so on....
In 1998, his re-election was a cakewalk.
With the exception of John McCain's mini-run from New Hampshire to Michigan, he and his campaign have been quite used to being in front, with a strong and steady lead. Gore, oth, has suffered from attachment to Clinton, lousy press and a campaign staff that has been re-invented about 3 or 4 times.
Now Gore has Bill Daley running things, his press has improved, and his base has returned home. And Bush's strengths (not Clinton, doesn't scare women and children, and almost Clintonesque in making policy statements about little things) are no longer helpful to him.
I wonder how much longer before his conservative base will need some care and feeding, too? They put things on hold because it looked like Bush was going to win. With the race getting closer and the momentum shifting, will they start demanding more?
Ann Richards support was a mile wide and an inch deep. Texans have been increasingly republican over the past 30 years. They love their Bushes, resent Clinton's '92 win, and were happy to give W Revenge for Poppy.
Bush has never run in a difficult race save when he got his ass kicked running for Congress and now for President.
He simply is not what he's been cracked up to be by the media and hard up Republicans.
You raise an excellent point about Bush's base. Perhaps that is already starting to happen, as some GOP columnists are calling on W to start using the "L" word against Gore. What do you have in mind as to what the right will be asking Bush to do?
Of course, the right is unlikely to go to Harry Browne (pity) or Howard Phillips (chilling thought), or Buchanan (equally chilling), since there is still no sentiment for third-party candidates this year.
But they can stay home. D'Amato suffered from this in '98 (and several things of his own making). And one more thing, D'Amato's losing campaign was based largely on calling Schumer a liberal (it had worked in previous races), but it failed to do the trick. Perhaps liberal isn't as scary to some people as it once was.
This month's issue of Reason has some interesting interviews with the Representatives who actually are stepping down because of term-limit pledges, btw.
Well, Bush is behind, but he's been behind before. He was briefly behind Gore/tied with Gore during the bruising primary season.
Bush moved ahead again later.
That said, Bush wasn't behind or tied for more than a week before. This current trend is about three weeks old, which is cause for worry.
But then, Bush has been tied/behind in the past.
It should also be born in mind that while Zogby and a one-day CNN poll put Gore up by 7, the well-respected Battleground poll shows the race as a one-point dead heat, and Portrait of America shows a similar dead heat.
Ron - Yes, Bill and Al, with help for Newt et al as contrast, have rehibilitated the concept of Liberal. I was always dismayed by the way that Dems from Carter to Dukakis let the Repubs smear them as Liberals, as opposed to defining and embracing the term and taking the opportunity to label the Repubs as Conservative.
VonK:
The liberal-smearing is about to begin again.
You may believe that "liberal" is no longer a "bad word." Personally, I think it is.
We'll see what the American people think.
PS: According to Al Gore's own numbers, he spends *more* than the entire projected surplus. According to other people's numbers, he spends $900 billion more.
Will the American people care about that? We shall see.
Ace - Yeah, we will see about the public mood regarding both the concept of Liberal and the tactic of using the term as a smear.
Can you provide cites for your projected budget numbers vis a vis the projected surplus?
Wiz - that's gross.
Both good columns, as is Jerry Jasinowski's going after Gore for attacking the business community, despite the fact that it is business which is responsible for the current prosperity in the first place.
Neither Bush's nor Gore's numbers add up very well, and are based on rosey predictions.
And here is an interesting column from the Dismal Scientist.
Otoh, the author of that piece would apparently never consider the possibility that the entry-level worker who is denied a first job because of a rise in the minimum wage is due any consideration or sympathy.
And that should have been empathically challenged, I guess, though emphatically may do as well.
janjon,
So will Ricky get squashed by Hillary, or will it be a draw?
Forbes Seat Likely to Turn Republican, Again
"The apparent primary defeat last night of Rep. Michael P. Forbes (D-N.Y.), who switched parties last summer after accusing House GOP leaders of intolerance, dealt a blow to Democrats' hopes of recapturing the House this fall, political analysts said.
Regina Seltzer, a 71-year-old librarian who led the congressman by roughly 50 votes in yesterday's balloting, is little-known and has few financial resources. Brookhaven Town Supervisor Felix Grucci, who easily won the GOP primary, starts the general election campaign as a prohibitive favorite, political analysts said.
"This is seat-by-seat warfare, the battle for control for the House, and Democrats, who are already behind by six seats, can't afford to lose any more," said Amy Walter, House editor for the Cook Political Report.
National Republicans made defeating Forbes one of their top priorities this election. While they were focused on defeating him in the general election, they also ought to undercut him in the primary. The GOP provided New York Republicans with $80,000 so it could mail Democratic primary voters pamphlets touting the congressman's 100 percent Christian Coalition rating during his first term, as well as his opposition to abortion rights.
In other words, the I-hate-Hillary crowd is large enough (and comes in a significant measure from what otherwise would be good Democratic voters) to make this close, instead of a cakewalk.
She's doing a very good job consistently projecting herself as non-threatening, earnest, obviously quite intelligent, concerned, deeply knowledgeable, etc. He, on the other hand, has gathered no gravitas - none.
All said, Big Al's 25 plus spread will bring her in, at less than a 5 margin.
Also, I think the the get-out-the-vote efforts will favor the Dems., especially in areas where the anti-Hillary vote ain't so big. And, then there is that gushy Ricky/Arafat photo.
So you think the debate will not produce any clear winner?
national Republican trend. Remember the Congressional Class of '94?
Good point Ronski. I forgot to add the very important fact that GWB beat a woman in The Year of the Angry White Man.
behind Gore/tied with Gore during the bruising primary season.
Which only goes to prove the point that in a real race, Bush is a real loser.
20 point leads shadow boxing in phantom campaigns is one thing. This is the Big Show and all numbers for Gore have been moving up since his convention.
Call it the bounce that never came down.
Call Bush Roadkill 2000.
The NY Times story on their poll pressed that this will be one tight race. While Gore has retained his base and picked up some independent support, Bush has not disappeared. Gore has improved on his likeability, and that's a big killer for Bush. I guess this will make the debates more important than ever, and that Bush will need Gore to make a so-called gaffe. If I were the Gore people, I would be nervous about the good press. At some point, they'll get tired of Bush and go back to his failings and shortcomings.
Karl Grove, Bush' campaign guru, said a year ago that this 1896, the year McKinley ran by being statesman like from his Ohio porch. That's obviously not going to be the case.
My take on the health of the Mote, or the safety of the republic, or the state of the state?
Gore's Image as Potential President Improves One of Gore's major problems has been that many Americans did not see him as presidential material. For most of this year, until the Democratic convention, just about half the public said he has "the personality and leadership qualities a president should have." Since the convention, however, that proportion has risen to 62%.
By contrast, Bush was initially perceived very favorably by the public on this dimension, with about two-thirds of Americans saying he has those presidential qualities. However, since the Democratic convention, the proportion of voters with that opinion has dropped to 57% -- giving Gore a slight edge on a dimension that had been dominated by Bush for most of the past year. Gallup
The federal government is not supposed to make sure no one gets left behind. It’s supposed to make sure no one is held back.
Turns out, suburban women like gun control and are defensive about anti-abortion politics. And frankly, there hasn't been any overt McGovern type liberalism in a long time, not since Nixon was president and created EPA, relations with China, offered a guaranteed income, set up wage and price controls, and pressed for busing.
I'm certainly not predicting a Gore landslide. I don't predict final outcomes until mid October as a rule but I neither do I put much stock in these prognostications.
I wonder why high school dropouts would favor Gore? Could it be that the more ignorant you are the more susceptible you are to demagoguery?
nervous about the good press. At some point, they'll get tired of Bush
and go back to his failings and shortcomings. "
I think this is correct, so long as Bush stops giving the press a reason to beat up on him. My take is that Gore is taking the press' current bloodlust over Bush as an opportunity to act presidential, but that if the press turns its attention back to him, I think his best strategy would be to start attacking Bush's smoke and mirror economic plans. The latter would be more viable if his own plans were in better order, but switching the topic back to anything related to the economy is almost certainly a good plan in these times.
Oth, Clinton-hating is the briar patch for Republicans. They get into and they can't let it go. Nor do they appreciate that others don't share their passions. They spend an awful lot of energy kicking Bill Clinton, and I think it distracts from their selling their program to the rest of the country.
As far as the debates: I heard Ann Richards talk about her debate with Bush. No matter what was asked, he smiled and gave his "pat" answer. She said you could ask him if the weather was nice, and he would say one of his formulaic responses. She thought he was incredibly disciplined in staying on message. I'm not sure that kind of response will work in a national debate, but we'll see.
(Thanks Gertrude)
Neither can I!
I also agree that, perhaps as a desperation move, the "L" word will be unleashed. Gore has to be expecting that, and I think has positioned himself quite well to respond. Is it liberal to want his type of health care program? So be it. Is it liberal to want his type of tax cut? So be it. Say, by the way - did all of you people know what W. thinks about gun control or abortion? Lets talk about those issues a bit.
And it will be back to the drawing board for W. and his.
Cyg - Could you cite your numbers on HS drop out support of the candidates?
Another potential reason for the less educated supporting Gore is that they tend to be less well off and fit into his "working class" that he promises to fight for, they certainly don't seem to be people that Bush and the Repubs speak for.
Let's see, ignoring the 2nd Amendment, privatization, and fee-for-service health care for the moment (savor it!), I would say that the health of the Mote is fairly good for its first year, the Republic is in no real danger for the time being, and New York will see Hillary win narrowly and Gore win so hugely in the state that the GOP might actually lose a Senate seat or two (my state senator, who represents Rockland and Orange Counties, might be vulnerable). It was, as usual, a good night for the incumbents yesterday, and will be a fairly good one in November as well, but a surprise or two is possible if Gore wins by 20 points, which I think a real possibility.
Damn, that would, of course be a poll
But as Stu Rothenberg pointed out yesterday, these votes may have moved into the undecided category but are now moving to Gore. He went on to point out that Gore is nearing 50%, and that will be close to a point of no return for Bush.
If you go on a state-by-state basis, people will move to states that are more generous, placing an undue burden on those states.
I daresay many people are "held back" by the health care "system" that we have today. And while you are slinging trite truisms about the role of government, bear in mind that if you are "held back" often enough, you get "left behind."
Wanna bet Gore isn't ready for it?
I say the hope is slim because Gore has Bush in a box on two key points - the campaign is now defined in terms of issues and the media are on hair-trigger alert against the mudslinging we all expect Bush to resort to and which he needs to resort to in order to have any hope of making the race close in the last weeks.
If Bush actually had the knowledge to back up his easy going and spontaneous demeanor, he would kill Gore in a debate.
I'd hardly be surprised to see such a format for one debate
Wombat - I wouldn't bet on that either. Gore seems very at ease with his script at this point, while Bush is still searching for his motivation.
I went to the bushies web site yesterday and the cited a favorable article from 9/5 Boston Globe so I went there to find it -- it ain't there. Curious.
janjon,
I believe he is the one and the same.
debating Quayle in '92 and Perot on NAFTA. I think Dole/Kemp
was so far behind that it didn't matter much."
Gore did adequately against a lightweight Quayle, crushed Perot in what people thought beforehand was a very bad idea in that Perot would crush Gore, and he defeated Kemp largely on the basis that Kemp reminded people of Albert Brooks' anchoring fiasco in "Broadcast News". Bush won't have Kemp's problems, and the expectations game isn't skewed in Gore's direction this time like it was againt Perot. You can draw your own conclusions on a Quayle/Bush comparison.
Personally (from a campaign standpoint), I hate debates. They are large fields of land mines. As Darrell Royal once said about throwing a football (three things can happen and two of them are bad), debates are risky endeavors.
The two, in our era, who did well at them are Reagan and Clinton. Reagan's "There you go again" was a classic. He had problems in '84 with Mondale, but Sandy Vanocur saved his butt when he started talking about wandering down the California coastal highway. Clinton feeling that little girl's pain while Bush the Elder looked at his watch was another classic.
So it will be a contest between who will seem less scripted. Hmmm.
If Bush actually had the knowledge to back up his easy going and spontaneous demeanor, he would kill Gore in a debate.
But, he doesn't have the knowledge, Wombat. Far from it.
As things continue to go downhill for him, I wouldn't be at all surprised for him to haul out Colin Powell again and just declare that he will be his Secretary of State. The old-I'll-surround-myself-with-all-sorts-of-good-tried-and-true-(Daddy used them too and they are great)-experts effort to effect gravitas.
When will W. and his handlers wake up to the fact that Desert Storm is at best yesterday's news. It may have seemed glorious at the time, but I really don't think it has the afterglow that W. and his would like to think it does.
I wonder if it also contained GWB's copy of English for Dummies?
Gore Vote Share: .517
Bush Vote Share: .473
(this share pays off at the percentage of the vote that the candidate gets, so the price is an equilibrium between shares who think the candidate can do better and those who think he will do worse)
Gore, Winner Take All: .597
Bush, Winner Take All: .404
(this pays off $1 if you win, $0 if you lose, and therefore generally shows the markets' expected probability of each candidate winning)
Both of these show gains for Gore in the past week. Bush's WTA price is the worst it has been in the IAM's dataset.
Is this the brainchild of some bored porkbelly traders?
The Iowa Electronic Markets
I think this is also worthy of a sidebar link.
Hillary/Ricky is currently:
0.565/0.428.
Hillary's trend over the last month is up, Ricky's down. By a considerable amount.
Results for Sep 10-12, 2000 **
Bush: 41%
Gore: 49%
Buchanan: 1%
Nader: 4%
Don't Know: 5%" 
Click for better image
(I have some family in Iowa, by the way. "E-o-va" as my grandma used to call the place. Never thought it so sophisticated as to be able to come up with something like that IEM concept).
I have very fond memories of the town.
As far as proof of leadership -- I suppose, although the memory of seeing Carter and Ford standing there for 20 minutes in silence because the sound had gone out, scared to make a move, didn't inspire me about their leadership skills. They are a bit of a circus.
There was media research done on the Kennedy-Nixon debates. People who heard it on radio thought Nixon won. People who saw it on television thought Kennedy won. In McCluhan terms, tv is cool, radio is hot, and the two candidates were typed similarly.
I don't think that they're Lincoln-Douglas affairs now days. I suppose they do give us some sense about the candidates.
mainly because i don't subscribe to the site.
what's the link & i'll post it 
ducky, why isn't Krugman's NYT column on the sidebar?
We Want Krugman! We Want Krugman! (rats, rats rats)
_____________________________________________________________________
Bush Campaign Makes Misleading Attacks On Gore's Environmental Record Texas Ranks 49th in Spending on State Parks
Nashville - September 13 - George W. Bush's campaign today made
misleading attacks on Al Gore's environmental record. Gore has worked within the current Administration to protect the nation's environmental treasures and to create 13 new national parks. As governor of Texas, Bush has not made state parks a priority. Texas, Bush's home state, ranks 49th out of 50 states in spending on state parks.
Lick Bush! buttons
While Mr. Bush has repeatedly called upon Mr. Gore to elevate the discourse and not sink to harsh commercials, voters gave the vice president higher marks for his advertising campaign. Two-thirds of voters said Mr. Gore was spending more time explaining what he would do as president than he was spending attacking Mr. Bush; half said the same of Mr. Bush.
More than a third of voters have seen advertisements for Mr. Bush, and
they are divided over whether they mostly explain things about Mr. Bush or attack Mr. Gore. About a third have seen advertisements for Mr. Gore. But those viewers, decisively, say Mr. Gore's commercials explain things about Mr. Gore rather than attack Mr. Bush.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/#krugman
Maybe third party voters are voting against the status quo as much as they are voting ideologically?
Gosh Jex, ya think so? Sheesh.
....Bill and Al, with help for Newt et al as contrast, have rehibilitated the concept of Liberal. I was always dismayed by the way that Dems from Carter to Dukakis let the Repubs smear them as Liberals, as opposed to defining and embracing the term and taking the opportunity to label the Repubs as Conservative.
Come on, vonKreedon. "Bill and Al" didn't "define and embrace" the term "liberal", so much as co-opt it. Compared to, say, Trent Lott or Dick Armey, you could call them "liberal", but not under any neutral definition of the word, not by a long shot.
And that's where the post-Cold War neo-cons have won the war of words -- by successfully equating "liberal" with "communist" (ask Ace if you don't believe me), they forced the Democrats to abandon the idealistic wing of the party and haul ass to the center, snagging GOP ideas at will. Not altogether a bad thing, but not "liberal" either.
....I just heard that if you categorize people based on education level and look at for whom they intend to vote, the largest gap in favor of Gore is in the "high school dropout" category. By a 2-to-1 margin, high school dropouts favor Gore. You Gore lovers are in good company.
Heh. You heard that on Rush Limbaugh's show today, about 20 minutes before the end of the show. I know, because I heard it too. I won't bother to point out that using Rush Limbaugh as a source of statistical verity might not be such a great idea if one wishes to retain a veneer of intellectual honesty, but just for shits and giggles, let's say the stat is true. Hell, it probably is true, but I would be curious to know just how many high-school dropouts actually bother to vote in the first place.
But even idiots know who's more likely to help them when they're down and out, and who will just leave it all up to divine providence, or the magic of the "free market".
Could it be that the more ignorant you are the more susceptible you are to demagoguery?
Yes, that's why I now believe that bureaucrats are really rats, because I have been sublibiminably programmed to think so.
Can it be that the more ignorant you are, the more likely it is you'll believe a guy who decries politics-as-usual, and bleats about wanting to "change the tone" of political discourse, yet calls people "assholes" and "rats"?
If you had any balls, you'd have quoted the entire post instead of taking a sentence out of context but then I think yours belong to the ace of spades.
Do not trust the polls. Wanted to know if I was 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Claimed to be 'confused'. They said that made me a 'moderate'. Suggested 'mugrump' as alternative. If they are asking someone like me, who doesn't know if he is descended from the aristocracy or just white trash, lots of folks must be hanging up on them.
So I just lied in my answers. Had to! Only given two choices for answers. Support local control of schools; think parents should beat their children. Support the environment; think most of you assholes should leave the planet. Support gun control; don't think they should be allowed to breed or operate on their own. Know I have 'control' of my guns. Who am I voting for? That is the question. Well by God I just don't know. But it will definitley be for someone who doesn't win.
Plausible denial.
Did anybody read today's Maureen Dowd column?
FUNNY AS HELL!
Over Fund-Raising From Trial Lawyers
Wednesday, September 13, 2000
Sources tell Fox News that the Department of Justice is now investigating another fund-raising matter involving Al Gore.
Fox has obtained documents detailing Gore's efforts to raise money from trial lawyers back in 1995.
After attending a fund-raiser in Houston in November 1995, the documents show Gore tried to follow up several days later with a call to a Texas trial lawyer named Walter Umphrey, but Gore was unable to reach him.
A call sheet written by Democratic National Committee staffer Erica Payne was then given to DNC official Don Fowler to follow up with. The instructions for the call on Gore's behalf reads as follows.
(December 13, 1995)
"Reason for call is 'Sorry you missed the vice president. I know (you) will give 100 thousand dollars when the president vetoes tort reform but we really need it now. Please send asap.'"
The president did veto tort reform (which limits the amount of jury awards in lawsuits, anathema to trial lawyers) on May 2, 1996.
Umphrey did follow through with contributions after the veto. The exact date is not known, but FEC reports show a $30,000 contribution in the second quarter of 1996. He gave another $10,000 that November.
Over the last four years, he and his firm have given $800,000 to the Democrats. One source says before the veto, Umphrey had not contributed any money.
The bottom line is that the documents suggest that Gore was involved in a fund-raising effort in which there was a "quid pro quo" for contributions.
Interestingly, one of the senators who was most outspoken in opposition to Clinton's veto was one Joseph Lieberman — now, of course, Gore's running mate.
Umphrey is also under grand jury investigation in Texas for his tobacco-fee arrangement, under which he gets $25 million every three months. The Texas attorney general is looking into "misconduct and wrongdoing."
Time Magazine's version:
A Dinner, a Memo and a Gusher of Texas Law Money
TIME Special Report: In 1995, as a law harmful to trial lawyers hung in the balance, Vice President Gore traveled to the Lone Star State for a fund-raiser with top attorneys...
Trial lawyers, long a cornerstone of Democratic fundraising, have outdone themselves for Al Gore's presidential race. Even before the successful Democratic convention in August, they had given $7 million to the party's campaign committees. No surprise given Gore's consistent opposition to federal legislation that would limit court awards to victims of corporate negligence.
But roll back to fall 1995 when Republicans, in fresh control of both houses of Congress, were fashioning such tort-reform legislation. President Clinton, trying to position himself between the GOP and liberal Democrats as he prepared for his 1996 re-election campaign, alarmed the trial bar with talk of compromise. "He did indicate his willingness to sign a bill that met certain parameters," says Fred Baron, a Texan who is president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
At the time Clinton and Gore had committed themselves to raising $3 million for an end-of-the-year burst of campaign TV ads. On Nov. 28, 1995, Gore flew to Houston for a intimate fundraising dinner at the home of high-profile trial lawyer John Eddie Williams. His guests included attorneys who have made fortunes representing individuals claiming harm from asbestos, tobacco and other products.
Two days later, the vice president was given memos by a Democratic National Committee staffer, Erica Payne, suggesting follow-up calls to some of the Texas lawyers who attended the dinner. Among the names was Walter Umphrey of Beaumont, who made his fortune suing asbestos manufacturers and was the lead lawyer for the state of Texas in its suit against the tobacco industry. (He would later share $3.3 billion in attorneys' fees when the suit settled in 1998.) Umphrey is described in the memo as "close to" Williams, who hosted the event, although it is not clear that he was at the dinner. Regardless, the memo suggested asking Umphrey for $100,000 to help pay for the TV buys, noting that "Walter is closely following tort reform."
Just how closely was made clear in a similar memo two weeks later to DNC Chairman Don Fowler from party staffer Payne. The memo, obtained by TIME, provided a suggested script for Fowler to use in his call to Umphrey: "Sorry you missed the Vice President: I know [you] will give $100K when the President vetoes tort reform, but we really need it now. Please send ASAP if possible."
Fowler's lawyer, James Hamilton, said in an interview that "Don does not recall placing the call to him, talking to him or seeing the call sheet." Umphrey did not return a call seeking comment. In any case, he did not contribute immediately. Payne's lawyer, Thomas Dwyer, said she did not intend to suggest a quid pro quo between the president's veto and a contribution.
He waited until the tort reform bill reached a crucial moment — the day the legislation went to Clinton's desk. His firm, Provost & Umphrey, contributed $7,500 on April 30, 1996. The president vetoed the legislation two days later, May 2. On July 17, the firm gave another $30,000 to the DNC, with $10,000 more coming in the fall. In the 1998 mid-term elections, as Clinton's impeachment hung in the balance, Provost & Umphrey donated more than $260,000 to Democratic Party committees. And so far in this election, it has written checks totaling $420,000 to the party.
Gore's office said that the vice-president appears not to have made the late November call to Umphrey, but that in any case the two did not speak. Gore spokesman Jim Kennedy noted that the memos have long been in the possession of both Capitol Hill investigators and the Justice Department's campaign finance task force. "Republicans and others have had this for more than 1,000 days," Kennedy said. "No one found it interesting till 1,000 hours before the election."
But one informed source said the task force only recently discovered the memo to Fowler.
Let me guess:
"It's his private, personal business."
"Everybody does it."
"You can't proooooooooooooove anything."
"Let's move on. For the children."
NY Times and AP and USAToday to follow with similar stories...
I'll take B) Everyone does it, who cares?
God, VonKreedon, you're pretty disgusting.
Sure I'm disgusting; we're all disgusting, the system is disguting and we need to reform it. Until we do I'm sure as hell going to trust Al to play the game to the utmost of his abilities, to do less would be disgusting.
On a side note, did anyone notice they lawyer in question is being investigated for arranging $25 million per month as part of the tobacco litigation settlement? It's nice to see that "the people" are getting this settlement money and not "the powerful."
VonKreedon:
"We're" not disgusting; you are.
Please explain why Nixon had to resign if "everybody does it."
Christ, you people really are sick. Newt Gingrich was quite right to call you such.
"the system is disguting and we need to reform it."
Does this mean:
-- We need to pass new laws, because the Democratic candidates liberals support already break the laws presently on the books, and we need to give them new, more stringent laws to break;
or
-- Democrats just can't win without breaking the law, and we need to change the law to give Democrats a competitive advantange without lawbreaking; or
some combination of the above?
I love it. A charge of solemn bribery -- the very definition of corruption -- and VonKreedon robotically intones about "the system."
Hey idiot, bribery is illegal and has been since at least Imperial Rome. What new "reform" do we need to make it clear to your boys they can't take quid pro quo money?
And it's not like Gore superimposed "RATS" in an ad or anything.
(Let me guess: Umphrey missed Gore because one of them was out taking a "tea" break.)
Indy:
We need to "reform" the system to make it clear that bribery is illegal. Pass it on.
Amended list of crimes which "everybody does" and which are "old news" and "private, personal business" which "don't affect a politician's peformance":
-- perjury
-- obstruction of justice
and now:
--bribery
But, you know, Janet Reno is investingating this, so there's nothing to worry about.
Justice will be done.
(That sentiment from Free Republic.)
Oh no. I see that I've once again incurred the estimable wrath of The Oracle of the Tenderloin, fresh from another afternoon "polling" session at The Tool Chest, reeking of too many Sea Breezes, and irritated because his usual pickup line of once knowing one of Mo Udall's flunkies has failed him yet again.
No, I didn't reprint your entire post (though I did link it, doofus), because I saw no change in context. For the record, here's the whole thing: I was wondering about the third party effect myself. One would think that Nader would draw from Gore, Buchannan(sic) from Bush. But polls seem to suggest that Nader draws from Bush too.
Maybe third party voters are voting against the status quo as much as they are voting ideologically?
Perhaps I'm simply too dense to grok the subtle nuances in your prosaic design. Evidently the seamless transition between the two paragraphs was designed so as to fool the unwary (such as myself). But yes, I see now the full context of what you had posited. I stand corrected. (rolls eyes)
I don't think that Nader's necessarily going to take votes away from Gore.
Aside from mine, probably not. That has less to do with Gore's righteousness or Nader's badness, and more to do with sheer apathy and political inertia.
If you had any brains, you'd be pissed at your candidate's inchoate moralizing over video games and movies. You'd wonder why Your Hero is running in a statistical dead heat against a mumbling, stuttering fuck who has trouble enunciating multi-syllabic words. And you'd recognize that at the end of the day, after all the dog-ate-my-homework excuses and the shady fundraising tactics and the political waffling and fudging, there really isn't a huge difference between Frick and Frack.
Instead, every bit of fluff and flatulence that tumbles from Gore's ass to your ears gets regurgitated as if it were the Sermon on the Mount, with no real elucidation or allowance of the possibility that he's full of shit. No, as if in the throes of battered-wife syndrome, you breathlessly gush about how Gore will sign McCain-Feingold and really really do something about campaign finance reform. How do you know that? Why, because he said so at some $1000 a plate fundraiser!
I suppose it's about time for yet another poll indicating a tie, and some deathless prose valiantly attempting to frame that as some sort of victorious repudiation of marauding Huns.
Hey, don't fret EricFartman. I wasn't trying to insult you. You can always get your GED.
Oooh, ow. Ya really got me there, college boy. Clearly I'm dealing with the next Buck Henry.
But, you know, keep on keepin' on with those trenchant observations you pilfer from the Rush Limbaugh show.
No, he got a 4F because of a boil on his ass.
Wait. I'm thinking of how he avoided getting drafted for Vietnam. My bad.
Ace - I'm sorry but I have to stop talking to you because I just cannot take this, Christ, you people really are sick. I know, thin skinned of me, but I just can't handle the all you leftist Klowntoon impeached rapist enabling idiots... style of discourse from someone that I'd like to have a conversation with.
At any rate, this does indeed have the flavor of the hysteria that the Repubs here tried to whip up about the equally clear cut Wen Ho Lee treason case, all bluster and no real crime. But it may provide some cover to put the RATS fiasco behind us, for the children.
Mr. Fartman, are you suggesting I shouldn't listen to any talk radio?
Oh, let's dispense with the formalities. Mr. Fartman's my dad. You can call me Sir. No, I would never suggest that you stop listening to talk radio. Someone has to keep wastes of oxygen like Rush Limbaugh and Paul Harvey out of the unemployment line.
But you don't have to mindlessly parrot the guy, either.
And congratulations on successfully linking to Rush's "Stack Of Stuff". The only thing I want to know is whether Limbaugh really churns this crap out himself, or if it's one of those roomful-of-monkeys-with-typewriters deals. Maybe he has a set of flashcards, each with a buzzword or stock phrase -- like "Algore" or "liberals want everyone to be ignorant" -- and he and his staff just throw darts and assemble the pieces.
Like Mad-Libs for morons.
I am probably older than you, and have long since passed the stage where I would draw inspiration from someone as stupid as a talk radio host.
I will now curl up with an incredibly detailed history of the Nomonhan incident and leave you to your Playboy (assuming all the pages aren't stuck together).
Tuck your head under your wing and sleep tight.
VonKreedon,
I'm not sure I want to have a "conversation" with someone who laughs off corruption & bribery when it suits his political purposes.
I *thought* good people had, when push came to shove, an absolute bottom-line as far as gross political corruption.
I personally abhor Nixon's crimes. I do not excuse them due to any partisan sympathies. And I would not excuse such crimes committed by a Republican in the present day.
But apparently it's tough to be a liberal/socialist; it's just too difficult to convince the people of the rectitude of your bizarre agenda. So certain corners have to be cut, and certain laws must be broken.
And that's the way it is. And therefore it's all accepted and expected.
Very well. As you like it.
Personally, VonKreedon, I must decline your invitation to excuse gross corruption and law-breaking. I'll stick to my puritantical and prudish views on bribery & c.
And if that means we don't get to chat, so be it. It occurs to me, perhaps, that there really is no point talking to someone who excuses bribery by the Vice President, anyway.
Ace - I simply fail to see in the stories that you cite anything that appears out of the ordinary of modern US politics. Each of the parties has constituencies that they cater to and whom they hit of for contributions. The oil companies know that the Repubs butter their bread, the trial lawyers know that the Dems butter theirs. You wax indignant about the supposed bribery, but it is far from clear to me that bribery happened. As you say, the Dems will claim, correctly, that Clinton was going to veto the bill whether or not Mr. Umphrey wrote a check or not, so this is hardly bribery. If I believed bribery had occurred then I would hold a different position.
But roll back to fall 1995 when Republicans, in fresh control of both houses of Congress, were fashioning such tort-reform legislation. President Clinton, trying to position himself between the GOP and liberal Democrats as he prepared for his 1996 re-election campaign, alarmed the trial bar with talk of compromise. "He did indicate his willingness to sign a bill that met certain parameters," says Fred Baron, a Texan who is president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
Significance: Clinton's vote was not a no-brainer as the liberals insist. Tort reform is/was popular, and Clinton had indicated the possibility of compromise, which is anathema to the Trial Lawyers on this subject.
So...
[Umphrey] waited until the tort reform bill reached a crucial moment — the day the legislation went to Clinton's desk. His firm, Provost & Umphrey, contributed $7,500 on April 30, 1996. The president vetoed the legislation two days later, May 2. On July 17, the firm gave another $30,000 to the DNC, with $10,000 more coming in the fall. In the 1998 mid-term elections, as Clinton's impeachment hung in the balance, Provost & Umphrey donated more than $260,000 to Democratic Party committees. And so far in this election, it has written checks totaling $420,000 to the party.
I repeat:
The note said:
"We know you will give $100K when Clinton vetoes the legislation..."
VonK, why was Umphrey waiting to give his donation until after the veto if he was certain Clinton would veto it?
In addition, note that Gore and Umphrey had already agreed that the $100 K would come AFTER the veto.
Not that the $100 K would come by a certain date, or in a week, or in the unspecified future.
Nope.
The agreement was: Veto, then $100K.
Why did Gore and Umphrey agree to this curious linkage of executive action and money?
If the $100K was not to insure the veto, why was it only to come after the veto? Why not just give Gore the money right away? Or say, "I'll send you $100K in a month."
Nope. Veto, then you get your money.
+ 
= another Democrat in the senate.
Hey, dude, Hillary lost the debate tonight. Do you ever stop spinning?
I forgot the rules. If it comes from a conservative, it must be untrue.
I didn't say that at all; in fact, I already acknowledged that your Rush-stat probably is true. So what? What I contest is Limbaugh's analysis of that stat, faithfully parroted by you.
The fact (let's go ahead and just take the stat as a factual given) that 2 out of every 3 high-school dropouts vote Democrat strikes me as more of an economic factor, rather than an educational one. But because a big chunk of Limbaugh's über-thesis is that liberals want people to be dumb so that they'll have to depend on liberals, he does his little song-and-dance about how all these faithful morons are rewarding their benefactor Algore.
Well, sorry Jethro, but that smells like a huge load of hack bullshit to me. And so far, you've done absolutely nothing to back it up.
[Ace, I was around UCONN in the late sixties -- I wonder if we've met?]
jex
I agree. It's so much more inspired to, say, yell "moron!" three times a minute.
Good one, sto.
I have to say that vonKreedon's is the most frenetic performance of the old Demobot Bop I've ever seen.
I guess that's what comes of pretending to be a Libertarian for so long.
Perhaps Cygnus and Rush would be more comfortable with voting requirements that many of the southern states imposed back during "separate but equal" days -- literacy tests and poll taxes. After all, what the hell good is representative democracy if everyone has the vote.
I didn't watch the debate last night, but did see some clips on the pundit shows.
Lazio needs to relax. He seemed very uncomfortable, especially when on the attack. Still, I think his performance was pretty effective.
But what I'm sick of hearing is this hogwash about how connecting Hillary to her hubby only serves to increase the sympathy people feel for her. I think Maureen Dowd started this load of tripe a few months ago, and it's now the Demobot mantra.
In the first place, the Clintons have always claimed, since way back in the Arky days, that they are each other's closest, most trusted advisors. Then, upon assuming command of this country, Bill hands over the reins of his single largest domestic policy issue to her. For the last 8 years, every discussion of Hillary's role in national politics has been argued, from the conservative side - myself included - that she's had too much influence. This is always countered from the liberal side that that's how it should be, since Hillary is so "smart", etc.
You can't have it both ways, guys. Either accept that her role in state and national politics has been negligible at best - in which case she needs to stop touting her "experience working on issues which affect the entire nation" - or admit that, as Bill's "closest advisor" during his 20-odd years in politics, she is at least as responsible for his decisions - such as his failure to increase NY's rightful share of federal revenue, now at a deficit of $15,000,000,000 - as she wants Lazio to be for whatever decisions Newt Gingrich has made.
What is New York's "rightful" share of federal revenue?
so
owning land makes one non-ignorant? if not, how does the gov't determine this?
tests? witty bumper stickers?
Here's evidence. It's widely accepted that the public school system is failing. Despite decreases in class size and increases in funding, scores have either remained flat or declined. Anyone with half a brain should realize that the system needs to be reformed. Otherwise, we're going to end up with an ignorant populace. Conservatives would rather have an educated populace that can take care of themselves, so they support vouchers. Liberals like Al Gore oppose any reform whatsoever and propose no solutions to the problem. What else can we conclude other than that they actually want and ignorant populace?
I guess you should stick to parroting Rush.
What you are proposing is similar to the noises I hear from many conservatives -- that only conservatives should have the vote. Good thing your type is in the minority.
On Limbaugh's education stats. It is pretty common knowledge that higher education is linked to a tendency to vote Republican, but this is quite simply because education is strongly correlated with income, and if there is any defining difference between the two parties, it is that they primarily cater to different income groups. It should also be noted, however, that according to the most recent Gallup poll, Gore is favored by more college graduates than Bush, although the difference isn't statistically significant.
Actually, I don't hope to sway a Gore supporter to vote for Bush. That's getting a person to admit they're ignorant which is pretty tough to do the more ignorant a person is. I'm just hoping to shame them by their lack of understanding of our governing principles and the stupid things that substitute for that understanding they don't have. Hopefully, it will be enought that they just won't vote at all.
how much land does one need to stop being ignorant?
Anyone have balloons that need filling? Bicycle tires? Hot air now available in spades.
Never mind the rancid smell. It dissipates quickly. 
In the race for the White House, George W. Bush and Al Gore are virtually tied in the popular vote. In Portrait of America's latest 3-day average Bush has 43.2% while Gore has 42.1%; Ralph Nader, 2.8%, Pat Buchanan, 1.8%, Harry Browne .9%, Howard Phillips .2%, and John Hagelin .1%. These results from a nightly Portrait of America Presidential Tracking Poll reflect interviews conducted September 11, 12 and 13.
The Goofer isn't even dead yet (though some suspect his body is being kept in a Tarzana meatlocker for an October Surprise) and
GOP Congress About to Blight US Mall With Reagan Memorial
Hell he's already got an airport and an International Center (gross) named after his sorry ass.
In Reagan's case, any such memorial will seem like a hollow idea at the end of that time period.
I did not see anything but clips afterward, since I left a little late and the debate was on while I was driving home, and I did not hear quite all of it in the car (at some point the signal faded as I drove through our little mountains).
But from what I did see on the post-morti this morning I thought that Hillary looked senatorial, while Lazio looked a bit callow. Still, Rick had some good answers. Both were playing to their base. And lots of the usual groping for the center while trying to paint the opponent as an extremist.
Frankly, I would have found the debate noteworthy only if someone bombed, and I did not really expect that to happen. Hillary did not come apart at any time, and neither did Rick. No KO for either.
My biggest reactions are two that are negative for Lazio. I thought asking Hillary if she misled the American people was boorish. I think most people believe Hillary really did not know about the Lewinsky affair until the DNA surfaced and Bill asked his lawyer to fess up for him with Hillary (at which point the crockery flew).
So how the hell could Hillary have misled anyone? A stupid attempt to link Hillary to Bill's lie. Worse, it was a missed opportunity for Lazio to elevate himself above that kind of sniping.
The second was the theatricals at the end. Hey, this is New York. Do you anyone who is going to sign a paper without reading it first, much less a lawyer?
I give maybe a slight edge to Hillary, just on demeanor.
Bush up by six: voter.com poll......
WASHINGTON, DC (Voter.com, Sept. 14) - The lead that Al Gore once enjoyed in most presidential polls in wake of the Democratic convention has all but disappeared, according to the latest Voter.com Battleground 2000 poll released Thursday. The survey reports that the vice president’s numbers are slipping and George W. Bush is back on top for the first time in weeks. The survey, based on a four-day rolling sampling of a total of 1,000 likely voters, was conducted by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake of Lake, Snell, Perry & Associates and Republican pollster Ed Goeas of the Tarrance Group.
The most significant finding from the poll was that among a select group of voters deemed most likely to cast a ballot if the election were held today, 50 percent said they would pull the lever for Bush, 44 percent for Gore, 4 percent for Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader and 1 percent for Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan. The polls margin of error is 3.1 percent.
Seems voter.com is the skunk at the garden party.
Remember the different reactions of those who watched the Nixon-Kennedy debates and those who only heard them.
Hillary looked good, Lazio not quite as good.
There is only about ten percent of the electorate left for grabs, maybe less. These people are not particularly ideological, and will be impressed by such things as demeanor.
One wants to give a multi-billion dollars tax cut to the super-rich--the Bush version of the failed theory of trickle-down economics--the other proposes relief to the middle-class who will probably spend most of it and thereby avert a recession. For me, that in itself is enough to return the inept Bush leaguer back to Texas.
However, I really do believe that his decision to be as strident and as aggressive as he was was a bit of an overkill and indeed might have left a sour taste for many viewers. Especially in view of Hillary's very comforting demeanor.
By the way, the question about Hillary misleading the American people did not come from Rick directly. It was from Tim Russert. And, she responded beautifully. And, I would be confident that overall that questions/response created more goodwill for Hillary than not. (In other words, I certainly agree that most Americans do believe that she was misled, etc.)
I also agree that Rick's late debate tactic of pulling out the one-sheeter and DEMANDING that Hillary sign it RIGHT THEN AND NOW was too cute by a mile. Especially in the context of having had Russert earlier run a video of his famous soft-money "I'm tied to Moynihan" ad where he denied that it had come from his campaign etc. Lame.
I also think that in terms of upstate votes, Rick made a big mistake by simply saying that he thought the area had turned the corner in terms of economic improvement as compared to Hillary's sympathetic comments about how a masterplan was needed, and that it that included a casino so be it.
She certainly used "we" as in (but not expressed) "we New Yorkers", but it flowed o.k.
On to the next. Hopefully at a more civilized later hour.
concerned has better manners than Tim Russert.
We're in good company. Saletan concludes A candidate who puts pride before prudence, refuses to learn from his mistakes, and is capable of living for days in an alternate political universe can only survive while he's ahead....Stick a fork in him. He's done
Did Clinton know of the exchange between the democratic party operative and the trial attorney in question? Is is a bribe if one would have acted in the same manner without the contribution?
Finally Sherlock of Spades ignores the issue of whether the "tort reform" bill contained the provisions that Clinton wanted before he would support "tort reform."
I missed the question from Russert, as you can seee, but I now realize that I did hear someone on the radio point out that it came from Russert and not Lazio himself. Still, Lazio could have risen above that moment. And I agree that Hillary handled the upstate economy question pretty well. Mind you, the kind of master plan I would prefer for the region is pretty much opposite the one Hillary might have in mind (although I think casinoes are swell if that's what people want). The trouble for Rick is that he can't go the usual GOP route and call for lower taxes and fewer regulations to stimulate the upstate economy because he can't criticize the Governor (for not going far enough down that road). If he'd been smart, he'd have criticized the Assembly Democrats for standing in the way of development in the region, or something along those lines.
I apologize that this is off the top of my head. I have yet to read the complete transcript or any of the newspaper coverage, and, as I said, I did miss quite a chunk of it.
And, Jex hit it right on the head. Lazio would have scored many many points by being gracious after the Russert knifing. Instead, he chose to try to twist the blade a bit more.
I don't see where he comes off or what traction he gets calling Hillary "untrustworthy" anyway. Opportunist, carpetbagger, lacking real experience - all of those have at least the patina of some justification. But, untrustworthy?
Incidentally, Ricky also didn't do himself well upstate by rather proudly pointing out that he had been there SIX times already. He then parroted Schumer's comment that he would be around so much the next six years that people would get tired of him, but I don't think that carried as much water as the fact that six times ain't a lot. Hell, I suspect Hillary has been almost everywhere there is to go up there at least 15 times by now.
Gore led Bush 47 percent to 41 percent among all voters, according to the Pew Research Center poll of 1,999 registered voters, which had a 2.2 percent margin of error.
That's just outside the margin of error.
But I return to my oft made point "its the fundamentals stoopid!". The Saletan article does a good job analyzing those fundamentals.
Regarding the Bush 'team,' I am reminded of the Carterites' fumbles once they got to DC, but these guys are bombing on the road.
Never say never again.
"At issue the wording of a single phone call that may or may not have taken place."
Forget an independent counsel -- we've got to put Al in shackles and dump him in solitary confinement over this one!
Not only are we as a group fully familiar with that dreck, we are amused by it as well.
I am an endorser of the Communitarian Platform. I am thus committed to the re-education, forcible if necessary, of all liberatarians.
I also support the immediate confiscation of all firearms with use restricted to controlled gun and hunting clubs.
Has Ronski gone to watch the webcast or is the craven Libertarian running for his life!
Mz Phys lives in upstate NY and I've visited there more than Rick Lazio. Maybe I should run for the Senate.
But do I think for one minute that should he rule, he will be overtly
"liberal"? Of course not. I expect him to be solidly Clintonian. A
finger-to-the-wind DLC gradualist who will be long on symbol and speech, and short on expending anything for any cause that might require precious political capital. So some taxes will be cut; none will be raised; a conservative, pay-off-the-debt mentality will take precedence over any large entitlements; estate taxes will not be eliminated, but they will be lessened for those that require a hassle-free pass through for their wealth (in fact, the estate tax pass-through is scheduled to increase from $650,000 in 2002); capital gains tax reduction will occur; we'll get a hefty, if not astronomical, increase in defense spending, and nothing too crazy will emanate from the White House.
The most I'll have to suffer is ticky-tack FMLA proposals (to have it cover parent-teacher conferences and employers of 20 or more, as opposed to 50 or more), prescription drug benefits for the old folks, a hate crimes law, an attack on Jack Valenti and Marilyn Manson as the source for why Johnny has a gun, a few million FILL-IN-THE-BLANK marches and a reunion of Anne "I've lost my way and I'm looking for Robert Downey, Jr." Heche and Ellen "I Told Everybody I Was a Lesbian and I Became As Funny as Judy Tenuda Sniffing Her Armpits" Degeneres for state dinners.
And when the last few true liberals put down their latest Lapham column, Gore will shout "I kept abortion legal" and that will be that.
In contrast, I was convinced that Mondale and Dukakis were solid, old-line liberals, and even if they weren't, they were of the mealy stripe ill-equipped for 1980s foreign policy challenges. So, I actually worried about their possible ascensions. As with Gore, my revulsion for Clinton was almost purely personal. I can report that he met most of my expectations, but the fact that he buried modern liberalism under the weight of his excesses and timidity, essentially turned the Democratic Party into the Rockefeller (Nelson, not Jay) wing of the GOP, and handed Congress and the majority of governorships to the Republicans was a pleasant and unexpected surprise.
It took Reagan to lay down the slogans, but Bush, Clinton, and I suspect Gore will have been capable stewards for his pro-defense, anti-welfare, anti-big government line.
On the Ace/VK dustup, I'm with Ace (says Gary). VK's response to the allegation is an articulate part of the modern theme derived from the Godfather II, wherein Michael Corleone says to G.D. Spradlin "We are all part of the same hypocrisy, Senator."
That is a well-written line, but the Senator was a mere shill and briber. Corleone, conversely, was a brutal mass murderer whose victims came to include his brother-in-law, his own brother and a prostitute whose murder he tied to the Senator (for leverage).
But if one is inclined to minimize Corleone's heinous acts, in an intellectually breezy manner, one can wave a hand and say, "Ah, they are all part of the same hypocrisy."
Similarly, it is lazy, but en vogue, to look at a campaign finance system that can be criticized, and thereafter become intellectually incapable of divining raising soft money from, say, the allegations leveled against Mr. Gore.
Huh? I guess you mean "distinguishing" subuliminalbely speaking.
Even so, we're still left with jibberish (or is it ibberjish?).
Ah to hell with it. Just go watch the Gore/Schiff webcast JV
Actually, there is some truth to that. If the Senators didn't shill, the murder and brutality would be part of a different system.
That being said, likening Gore to Corleone is...well, it's almost Ace like in its overstatement.
I do. Unlike you, when viewing, I'm not parked on a bus bench looking through the window of a Sharper Image while bumming nickels and exclaiming, "I made Willie Brown! I did! He even sent me an email!"
Now back to the Sopranoes with you. Off you go.....
Well, I personally think campaign finance reform is idiotic, and I don't confuse the two. But to pretend that all politicians wouldn't use whatever power they can to get what they want seems a tad....silly.
I realize that you disagree--and of course, you Speak From Experience.
But that is undoubtedly part of the problem. The public doesn't think that what Gore (supposedly) did is all that appalling. They imagine it goes on all the time.
The public usually isn't all that imaginative, so it's hard to believe that they aren't correct.
(this presumes that you'll stop giving jexter the attention he craves and answer someone else. g)
Silliest ass thing I've heard since Howdy Doody's Acceptance Speech
That the public may be just as incapable as VK from making a distinction is irrelevant. They are both wayward and lazy. And I'm wedded to giving jexster the attention he craves. After all, I am a compassionate conservative.
I was careful to discuss the "allegations" against Gore. It was these allegations that VK dismissed with the modern "Oh, it's all the same" shorthand. Of course, if those who would otherwise endeavor to investigate the allegations are similarly inclined, or, as Cal points out, the public imagines it goes on all the time, the point is moot at birth.
I just hope you don't get misidentified as a Libertarian or a Serb.
No, you misread. I am not talking about campaign finance reform--although I realize that vK was. I am saying that the public doesn't really think it's all that shocking that these things might occur. Nothing to do with CRF.
BTW, I also don't think that this is proven, but that's kind of besides the point. What matters is whether anyone will care if it were proven--and I don't think they will.
At least part of this is due to the overblown rhetoric of both sides over the years. But I think part of it is also based in reality.
Message # 41262
I just engaged a nationally recognized polling company to query communitarians to find out whether they are happy to have you in their fold. I was informed that, due to the size of the communitarian movement, they would have to do a 100% poll to ensure statistical credibility.
The results are in.
The good news is that a clear majority, 67%, accepts you into the movement. The bad news is that there was one vote against you.
Message # 41278 is a repeat? i'll have to check
If your point is that the public does not care or will not care, I don't disagree.
it's the last time i think it needs to be posted, however.
Silliest ass thing I've heard since Howdy Doody's Acceptance Speech
Really? I thought for sure I had seen the communitarian platform posted recently. Surely you've read it?
Jack,
That is part of my point--but also that they might be right in not caring. I don't mean that they agree with me, but rather that the public is often surprisingly sensible.
Nicely said.
And they are often unsurprisingly idiots. In the end, I'll trust my own judgment in such matters over the "sense" of the public, even at the peril of being the minority voice. Besides, my lack of kinship with the public helps in keeping my streak of incorrect predictions intact.
I reccomend that all who post here do likewise.
(Though I doubt I'll get many takers.)
Judging from his post to Ronski, I don't think so.
To be honest, my dislike of Bush is also personal, and aside of his defeat of Ann Richards for which I hold him personally responsible (g), I think it probably centers around his expectation of coronation without his need to sweat for the crown. His father exhibited that a bit, too, now that I think about it. For me, he makes no compelling case that he has either the interest or the skill to be president. Perhaps, if he is elected, we will read glowing reports after the first year of his ability to "grow on the job."
When he ran for governor in 1992, he ran on the slogan of changing the status quo. But once in office, he did what many previous governors did, hide in the office, make a few efforts at something big, and then shrugged when it didn't happen. Of course, he got a state government that was in much better shape than his predecessor, but that's another argument.
I think that the Umphrey charge related to Gore is serious. Obviously, the Rs who sat on it for months and then orchestrated its release thought it was helpful. As I said yesterday, they put a lot of effort into this kind of stuff, and I am not sure it helps them as much as they imagine it does. We'll see what happens. Interesting if this is the first of... or the big bomb they've kept in a box for that special rainy day.
If that weren't a given, it wouldn't be a surprise when they are sensible now, would it?
. In the end, I'll trust my own judgment in such matters over the "sense" of the public, even at the peril of being the minority voice.
Honey, you wouldn't know what a minority voice was if a whole host of them sang the Hallelujah chorus in your ear. I don't mean in the EOE sense, either. You're status quo all the way, even to your disdain for the "public".
All I'm pointing out--and this is a minority view (although not as singular as some of mine)--is that the public has proved astonishingly correct over the years about what to care and not care about in the political arena. Would that they were as astute in other areas of interest.
I was nodding along with you up until the last sentence: (who the hell takes phone call wording recommendations from subordinates anyway?)
I have a book at home written by a Washington insider. One thing he said (about pols working in DC) "Never write what you sign, never sign what you write"
It isn't perfectly parallel to this situation, it emphasized that politicians are rarely the authors of things they say or write. While I have no doubt that any decent politician has enough common sense to make changes to material handed to him or her, I'll bet that a large percentage of phone call wordings are written by subordinates.
I'm in touch with the people. I watch Soul Train.
Glenda (and everyone else)
Read the Gail Sheehy piece on Bush in Vanity Fair (a woman named Hudson is on the cover; hopefully, she won't get the Gretchen Moll jinx). For those who loathe him, it will provide more fuel for their rages, but it is well-written and provides the most comprehensive insight into the guy I've yet read (so much better than these 12 part "And then Gore/Bush took a dump . .." pieces put out by the Post).
Hahahah!
Actually, I enjoyed the attempt at diagnosis. It was somewhat of a reach, but certainly not mean-spirited, and definitely not without some basis for the conjecture.
Raskolnikov
I'll admit to being disappointed in VK's response. The direct solicitation of a bribe is not something that *everybody does*.
Same here. In fact my take on the Ace/vk dustup, to pick up on the jack V theme, is that vk felt that Ace was over the top because vk's words didn't accurately describe what he truly believes, or at least the interpretation I (and others) have put on the words doesn't match the intended meaning of vk.
Two in a row.
I still think that the operative issue for Bush is that he is a comfortable winner, but a miserable fighter. I don't know that this has anything to do with class or money, in the end. How disappointing.
Oh, I know...many world leaders look like fools; the planet keeps spinning. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I want someone representing me who looks and sounds like a leader. A buffoonish Governor is fine but he's just too GOOFY to be a President. (I'll shut up about this now...I know I've said it all before.)
I am terribly concerned that he may flub words were he to be President. In fact, I can't believe we had a president in a wheelchair, and another one with crippling Addison's disease.
No difference whatsoever, no matter the reason, when the arbiter is the world stage. And if the world stage deems the disability/quirk foolish.
No, but they made him reaaaaaal cranky. In fact, it's why he cancelled the Olympics.
It's all suddenly clear to me now. He shoulda gotten one of those rubber donut cushions for his chair.
And I say now what I said then.
"Never let the French abuse our president. That's our job."
When I've heard Bush, he does no worse than his father (and in fact has managed to keep from puking on any foreign leaders).
Indy,
Well, so far.
Point taken. There were also plenty of Americans who thought that Carter must be a moron because of the southern accent.
But how many times has bush Jr. had the opportunity to ralph on foreign leaders? How do we know that he won't be barfing his guts out at every summit?
No. I know for a fact that the French attache' howled at the idea of Clinton masturbating in a sink.
And the Germans were passing jokes on his gift of a ceramic frog to Lewinsky for months.
But we are talking pikers in embarrasment. Remember the Reagan family? Horoscopes for the wife, bad ballet from the son, kleptomania from the other son, and a Playboy spread from the daughter that begged me off of sex for weeks (well, that and my own tongue-tied pick up line of "Me. You. Sack. Now. Erg").
Well, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Exceptions to every rule, and all that.
His father loses the "vomited on foreign head of state" contest 1-0, but Clinton loses the "used cruise missiles to relieve stress" contest going away. I think the latter is much worse in terms of international relations.
(Though I think most furriners have a worse opinion of the average Joe American than they do of our leaders. Not that any of these cosmetics really matter when it conflicts with national interest.)
I am currently reading the Lindbergh biography, which I very much recommend if you haven't read it. I'll be looking for a Churchill bio some day--any recommendations?
Bush came into to office and had the original football field size office rebuilt with private funds. He wasn't elected governor to preside over tiny office space.
Carry on!
Churchill's official biographer, Martin Gilbert, published a very manageable abridged version of his multi-volume biography. I do not hesitate to recommend it.
I've not read the Lindbergh, but it's on my 'to read' list. Thanks for the recommendation.
From The New Republic:
But, when Congress moved to correct its mistake, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah led a GOP effort to quash the correction. On June 28, one day after the Senate voted to not fix the mistake, Glaxo dumped $100,000 into the Republican National Committee. Two months later, it unloaded another $100,000. Overall that year, Glaxo contributed $487,500--nearly $400,000 more than in the previous Congress. And, while Glaxo could legally reward Hatch with only $5,000 in political action committee money, it was able to express its gratitude in larger terms by donating $15 million (at Hatch's encouragement) to a cancer center at a university in the senator's home state.
....
In the summer of 1995, GOP Conference Chairman John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, showed just how blurry the line between the interests of big business and the business of the country can be. During the same week the Appropriations Committee voted against ending a federal price support program for tobacco, Boehner walked the House floor and handed out $500 PAC checks to Republican members from tobacco giant Brown & Williamson
....
Now this is my favorite evolution of quid pro quo:
Some corporate lobbyists no longer bother with the fiction that they aren't buying law: they actually write the legislation they want and slip it to the lawmakers along with the money. Before the first vote was cast in the 104th Congress, a host of lobbyists who had helped fund the Republican revolution of 1994 sat in Tom DeLay's office penning the anti-regulatory provisions of their dreams.
But don't you know those are just minor instances? It's not as though they have any unsigned phone memos or anything....
2) Are you for or against a ban on partial birth abortions, except when the life or physical health of the mother is in jeopardy? AGAINST
3) Are you for or against hate crime laws? AGAINST
4) Are you for or against the death penalty? AGAINST
5) Are you for or against school vouchers? FOR
6) Are you for or against allowance of organized prayer in public school? AGAINST
7) Are you for or against allowance of an organized moment of silence in public school? AGAINST
8) Were you for or against the bombing campaign in Yugoslavia? FOR
10) Were you for or against a vote for conviction of President Clinton in the Senate? AGAINST
11) Are you for or against the ratification of the nuclear test ban treaty? FOR
12) Are you for or against the decriminalization of marijuana, cocaine and heroin? FOR
13) If you had to choose a president for the year 2000 from the announced candidates right now, whom would you choose? GORE
14) What political writer or pundit best represents your views? NONE
15) Are you for or against an across the board tax cut of 2%? DK
16) Are you for or against an across the board reduction in all government expenditures by 1.5%? DK
17) Are you for or against federal registration of all firearms? FOR
18) Are you for or against federal registration of all handguns and semi-automatic weapons? FOR
19) Are you for or against a 30 day waiting period prior to purchase of a gun? FOR
20) Are you for or against a criminal background check prior to purchase of a firearm? FOR
21) Are you for or against the allowance of women to serve in combat roles? FOR
22) Are you for or against a ban on soft monet (sic) contributions by corporations, labor unions and private individuals? AGAINST
23) Are you for or against continuation of the independent counsel law? FOR
When it comes to tobacco money, however, the real muscle for the Republican Party is the vast sum of soft money that Philip Morris, RJR Nabisco, Brown & Williamson and US Tobacco donate to the GOP in chunks of $10,000, $100,000 or more. Since 1991 the tobacco industry has contributed $15,570,000 to the Republican Party in soft money, with two-thirds of that coming during the last two election cycles. (Recently virtually all of tobacco's money has gone to the GOP--in 1999, by a factor of 10 to 1.)
....
Whether it's a result of the people he surrounds himself with, the money that the Republicans get from the industry or some natural proclivity to defend a pariah industry, Bush has compiled a significant string of actions on tobacco's behalf. In September, after President Clinton and the Justice Department announced a federal lawsuit against the industry seeking to recover billions of dollars in government expenditures to care for the health-related effects of tobacco, Bush was quick to announce his opposition.
....
In Texas, too, Bush has coddled the industry. When Texas's then-Attorney General Morales and a team of lawyers forced the industry to agree to pay Texas $17 billion in damages, allowing the state to recover some of what it has spent over the years caring for sick and dying smokers, Bush--who refused to back Morales's lawsuit--actually sued the Attorney General to block the payment of more than $2 billion in legal fees due to the private attorneys who handled the case. All by itself, Bush's action, if successful, could unravel the entire agreement, saving Philip Morris billions of dollars--and costing taxpayers in Texas an equal amount in lost revenue. (At the time, Morales said that Bush's lawsuit "is about one thing and one thing only: a Republican presidential campaign and political contributions from big tobacco.")
Then, earlier this year, a coalition of health groups, including the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, pressed Bush to support a $60-million-a-year smoking prevention program aimed at children, using money from the tobacco settlement. But Bush ignored the calls, which included a personal appeal from former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, with the result that the Texas legislature agreed to spend just $10 million. Matt Myers, executive vice president and general counsel of the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids, says that $10 million is about what the tiny state of Vermont spends on such programs.
Dan Burton (R-Indiana): Do you admit or deny that in 1997 you accepted illegal contributions from Sikh temples and from Zaire's reviled despot Mobuto Sese Seko, returned only after negative publicity? Do you admit or deny that you tried to extort a sizable donation from a lobbyist for Pakistan?
Tom DeLay (R-Texas): Do you admit or deny that in 1995 you drummed up Congressional support for an easing of anti-dumping regulations sought by a Mexican cement company for which your brother was the lobbyist?
Jay Kim (R-California): Do you admit or deny that between 1994 and '96 you received $230,000 in illegal contributions from South Korean corporations? Oops, you've already admitted it in a plea bargain, which is why you're wearing that electronic ankle bracelet and why your wife calls you "the most crime-committing person I know." You were defeated in a Republican primary, but if Hyde stays on schedule you'll still get to vote on Clinton's impeachment, ankle bracelet and all.
Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho): Do you admit or deny that in 1994 you accepted illegal campaign contributions originating in Hong Kong? And do you admit or deny that you failed to disclose $50,000 in under-the-table financing for your 1994 campaign, delaying an admission of fault until one day after the House deadline for filing ethics complaints?
Bill McCollum (R-Florida): Do you admit or deny that you paid your top Washington aide $100,000 in ethically dubious "consulting fees" for campaign work?
JackieO' refered to my attitude towards the accusations of bribery as "modern". This clearly incorrect. My attitude is a classic example of post-modern ironic detachment.
That is, until I resorted to research and citations to back up my attitude. A true post-modern would never have put in the effort when a simple "whatever..." would do as well.
well, that and my own tongue-tied pick up line of "Me. You. Sack. Now.
Really? That line worked for me. I wonder why it didn't work for you?
CNN Tracking Poll 
"Interviews with 701 likely voters conducted September 11-13 give Democrat presidential nominee Gore a seven point lead over Republican rival Bush. Gore claimed 49 percent of the survey's voters, while Bush had the support of 42 percent, a point higher than yesterday's results. As the poll has a sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points, the vice president's lead is once again within the statistical margin of error."
vk - you, of course, are absolutely right on in terms of the ludicrous sight of the GOP meowing about the Dems. when it comes to fund raising.
As a current example, I know of two and there have to be many more Big Time Corporations out there that are pissed off to beat the band with the really heavy handed fund raising "techniques" employed by the incomparable Mr. DeLay. (Those corporate boys talk among themselves about a lot more than topics that raise anti-trust hackles.) Now with it looking more and more like it will be at least 4 if not 8 more years of the Dems. in control, I doubt it would take much for a little "leak" to occur. What's to lose. Incurring the wrath of the soon-to-be Minority leader?
MARIETTA, Ohio (AP) - The gym was stuffy, the day long and the Republican vice presidential candidate prone to a few mistakes.
When Dick Cheney spoke at Marietta high school Thursday, he pitched ``Reagan'' proposals at one point when he meant those of presidential candidate George W. Bush. He also stumbled over the election date, saying Dec. 7 instead of Nov. 7. Then he corrected himself on both counts.
``I'm going home to Wyoming Saturday to rest,'' Cheney, 59, told reporters later.
I guess he can be forgiven for having RR on the brain. Seems Republicans do that often these days viz Congress considering a plan for another memorial, the Isore on the Mall. I guess they're all thinking about that October Surprise just sitting there waiting in the Tarzana meat locker.
The GOP is playing a verrry dangerous game by trying to get mileage
out of this so-called bribe fund raising flap.
JJ - The GOP is just beginning to get desperate. As Big AL might say, "You ain't seen nothin yet"
Ohiostopas is to be congratulated. Note the quote from unnamed GOP sources predicting that Gore moves ahead by the weekend.
Funny how many "unnamed GOP" sources are flapping their gums these days!
Bush with Gore's agenda! Now if that ain't some shit! Yes indeed, the race is being played out on Gore's turf.
issues is worse. Saletan
Bush be fixin up another batch of them half-baked slogans and a kettle 'o slime to get him to the finish line!
Hell even the beloved Poppy did better than that.
In 1987, presidential candidate Gore needed Hollywood's money. So, in October of that year, the Gores went to Los Angeles and humbled themselves before the almighties of the industry. In an unheralded and closed-to-the-press luncheon, the Gores apologized to a group that included television producer and liberal activist Norman Lear and music industry executive Irving Azoff.
"I understand that the hearings frightened the artistic community," said Mrs. Gore, quoted in a detailed account that appeared shortly afterward in Daily Variety. "If I could rewrite the script, I certainly would." Mrs. Gore said the hearings had been "a mistake." Her husband joined her in obeisance and regret, saying that he thought the hearings in which he had participated were "not a good idea," and that he had only been "a freshman minority member of the committee," powerless to oppose this not-good idea.
But Daily Variety reporter Henry Schipper checked the record, and he reported this about Gore's participation in the hearings: "Gore was among the first to arrive and the last to leave, he questioned, often vigorously and at length, every witness or group of witnesses to come before the panel, and in his opening statement he explicitly 'commended' committee chairman Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo., for convening the meeting." Well, to the memory hole with that.
Hee-hee-hee.
I love, well....really like Love and Hole. Does that make me an alien, or merely an abductee? What about the Golden Globe committee that gave her a best actress award?
If the parents won't regulate the kids, its doubtful that the government or Hollywood can do better. It would be appreciated if they wouldn't show trailers for R rated films in G rated shows, if only to lower the whine factor- "X's Dad let him see Friday the 13th Carrie Screamed at the Halloween Chain Saw Masacre of the Living Dead"
Listen, all you Courtney-lovers, it's not that I'm slamming the former Mrs C, but while I can see Al digging some of the less, um, earthy Zappa oeuvre, I cannot imagine him getting down to Live Through This.
Politically speaking, of course.
Jones:
I could give a shit about violent/sexual R rated movies, but you might as well know:
Theaters do not enforce age restrictions. At all. If you're a teenager (13+), they'll let you in to an R-rated movie.
This seems more of a theater problem than a Hollywood problem. But then, the two are joined at the hip. And Hollywood certainly markets a lot of this to a teen-age audience.
Is that bad?
I don't think so. I liked these kinds of movies as a teenager; I still like them.
But this attitudes that parents can somehow force theaters to enforce age-requirements is a cheap dodge. A cute way to avoid the issue.
"
If the parents won't regulate the kids, its doubtful that the government or Hollywood can do better."
Ridiculous rhetoric. OF COURSE the government can regulate better-- if these movies are OUTLAWED, kids will not see them.
OF COURSE Hollywood can regulate better -- if these movies aren't made, kids will not see them.
So fucking stupid. Typical knee-jerk "but who are we to judge/these guys aren't the Villains, THOSE guys are the villains!" bullshit.
I probably agree with the bottom-line of Jones' position: I don't want R-rated movies restricted. At all. I want more of them.
But goddamn if I can lower myself to these kinds of Oprah-esque applause lines.
Jones: "Now I wanna say something to the girl with the long hair--"
Oprah: "You mean LaShanda?"
Jones: "That's right, LaShanda. Let me tell you something LaShanda. You better respect your momma--"
Audience: "Mmm-hm, mmm-hm!"
Jones: "And if the parents won't regulate the kids, its doubtful that the government or Hollywood can do better."
Oprah: "Preach it, Sister."
So sophistic to try to claim that every single position one holds dear is a win-win proposition.
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Most propositions are win-lose -- if your proposition carries the day, one value will "win" and be strengthened, while another will "lose" and be weakened.
If Hollywood goes unregulated:
Freedom of speech thrives. But children, and society as a whole, are exposed to much coarser material than they might be.
If Hollywood is regulated:
Freedom of speech suffers. But children and society aren't exposed to quite so much coarse material.
I say, "Let's go with the first one."
I'm not idiot enough to claim that we get a win-win out of it. "Gee, if we don't regulate Hollywood, we'll have full freedom of speech, PLUS maybe Hollywood will self-regulate and produce more enlightening material on its own!"
Yeah. Sure. Whatever. 
The classic media cop out.
Guns don't kill people....
Yea sure guns and nasty videos are not the same thing. But the cop out of the NRA and the movie industry is identical in all fundamental respects.
significant margin, voters think that Democrat Al
Gore would be better at handling the economy
than his Republican rival, George W. Bush, and
that feeling is largely behind Gore’s recent gains
in the race for the White House, according to a
new NBC-Wall Street Journal survey.
bubbaette - Message # 41201:
What is New York's "rightful" share of federal revenue?
The money allotted to states from federal revenues - some states get more, some less. Some states, particularly in the south (like Arkansas and Tennessee, for some odd reason), get back as much as or more than they contribute.
NY, however, has been getting the royal shaft for some time, and its deficit was $15b last year.
Now, I know you're gonna want to argue that this is not true. But it was our president - your own namesake - who, in 1994 decried this terrible injustice, and promised, while campaigning for that loser Cuomo, to "return to the people of New York what is rightfully theirs."
The clock's been ticking on that promise for 6 long years.
I hear much the same stuff within our state. The D.C. suburbs in northern Virginia send more to Richmond than they get back. The coalfields in far southwest Virginia get more from Richmond than they send in the way of tax revenues. It doesn't seem fair to the folks in the D.C. suburbs, but then they have many more opportunities than the folks in the coalfields. Similarly, it doesn't seem fair to the folks in the coalfields that the D.C. suburbs can afford to spend much more per child in the schools yet the youth from the coalfields have to compete with the more affluent kids for space in state universities and are graded on the same curve.
Tax revenues are not some kind of regional savings account. I'm not guaranteed the same worth in government services that I put out in income taxes. The nature of taxes is to redistribute income.
A memorable example of this dichotomy between American conservatives and liberals circa 1980s was during the Bork confirmation hearings when Bork was being questioned by Paul Simon and Simon asked Bork didn't he think the Constitution evolved as we discovered new freedoms. That is, Simon waxed poetically, he liked to think of the Constitution as a document that was always creating new freedoms the longer our democracy lasted.
Bork replied that freedom was a limited quantity and that he saw no way to create new freedoms, but that the law reallocated and redistributed freedom.
What's preposterous about the request for entertainment legislation is that, worse than the law, the entertainment industry fears the market. If people really want Hollywood to make a different kind of movie, they should go to the movies they like and avoid the ones they don't. Hollywood will make more of the kind parents take their kids to because that's where the big bucks are. But as long as parents either take their kids to the movies or slip Biff and Buffy a twenty and say, "I don't care what the hell you see, just get out my hair," then Scary Movie is what you'll get.
Indy:
Are you suggesting that parents remove all autonomy from teenagers simply in order to keep them away from R-Rated movies?
Christ. Parents should give teenagers a certain amount of room to breathe. Allowing your teenagers to go alone to the mall for three hours is not, in my view, negligent parenting.
When I was growing up, I had older brothers who were real hell-raisers, but my mom never did the least bit to rein any of us in. (She had to work so it wasn't as though she really had a choice.)
I was never in trouble like three of my brothers were, but when I was only about seven I got curious about women and asked one of my brothers if I could look at his "magazines." My mom knew about the whole thing and didn't bat an eye.
Later on, there was alcohol around, and I asked whether I could try it. Same thing. Other drugs, too, though I passed on that.
In my case, I (naturally) don't think any of that caused problems, but for my siblings it did.
bubb:
Tax revenues are not some kind of regional savings account. I'm not
guaranteed the same worth in government services that I put out in
income taxes. The nature of taxes is to redistribute income.
Fair enough.
But do the math. New York's in the hole for $1000 for every man, woman and child.
And what would possess Mario Cuomo to demand, and our fearless leader to promise to return, New York's fair share?
I mean, I see these charts all the time about which states pay in more and which states receive more. Why is it then that a state like NY that supposedly receives so little from the federal government is staunchly Democratic (and usually big government)?
Something else has to be going on.
Why, for that matter, won't the Ace of Spades send Mr. Lee an apology?
Republicans have run the federal government for 12 of the past 20 years 20 of the past 32 if my 'rithmetic is right.
Talk about the politics of personal destruction. The culpablity of Janet Reno in this mess cannot be properly assessed or understood without a full review of the source of it all - House Republicans & Sen Richard Shelby (with a mighty assist from The Mote's own hysterical lunatic)
Indy:
I really couldn't tell you.
Right now, I consider myself a Michigander for life, so I couldn't care less if NY's tax burden/deficit was tripled.
More for me, I figure.
But the fact is that Clinton promised to even it up in 1994. But Cuomo lost to a Republican, and Clinton hasn't done a thing to make good on his promise, and the yearly disparity has grown. Strangely, states with Dem Govs have faired far better these past 8 years.
My original point being, of course, that when it suits her - like when she attacks Lazio for Newt Gingrich's sins - Hillary (and her bots) claim that she has no influence over such things as revenue returns. How dare the VRWC try to link her to...that man - her husband... (what was his name again?)
Forget about the fact that she claims to have had the interests of New Yorkers on her mind since she first visited the state decades ago.
Forget about the fact that both she and Bill have claimed to be each other's closest, most trusted advisor.
And forget about the fact that when her lack of legislative experience comes up in the NY Senate race, she's back to claiming personal involvement in all sorts of policy matters at both the state and national levels.
Am I worried about some 14 year old going to an R rated film? No. Am I worried about the impact of some slasher film or soft core porn on a 7 year old? You betcha.
Its anecdotal evidence, but my wife works as a child therapist, and notes that most of her patients who have histories of violence have frequent and early exposure to violent movies. That is not to say that there is a clear cause and effect relationship- human behavior is too complex for such a simple variable to determine whether someone will act violently or not. There does seem to be a correlation though.
Since most people are developmentally mature somewhere around 13 or so, how about banning admission to R rated movies to those under 12? Ace is right, theatres should be more willing to meet their responsibility here.
NC17. But zoning regulations and other public approved restrictions pretty much guarantees your NC17 movie will be a money loser.
Cal:
I never heard that "zoning regulations" hurt NC-17 movies. The problem, as I understand it, is that newspapers and local television stations often refuse to run ads for X or NC-17 movies, and many theaters simply not to show them, for obvious reasons.
Jones:
I skimmed your post. It seems you didn't grasp my criticism.
I doubt you and I disagree about the rectitude of "cleaning up Hollywood." We both think it's a bad idea (though Gore & Lieberman seem to think differently).
My problem is with your Oprah-esque, "Who says we can't have it all?" reasoning.
*Reality* says you can't have it all. You can have freedom of dirty/violent movies, but only at the expense of another "Good Thing" -- a nice environment for kids and people in general.
That's a tradeoff I'm willing to make. But I have little patience for those who refuse to admit that there *is* a tradeoff involved at all.
I'm pretty sure that a lot of theaters in malls only get their permits by agreeing not to show anything worse than an R.
"I'm pretty sure that a lot of theaters in malls only get their permits by agreeing not to show anything worse than an R."
Permits? Sounds more like a contractual provision, a covenant in the lease agreement between mall and theater.
Makes sense.
But I don't know of any "zoning" problems with NC-17 films. Actual pornography is subject to zoning restrictions. NC-17 movies wouldn't be, I wouldn't think.
NC-17 films are discriminated against by non-governmental bodies. Not by the government itself.
Gawd, the SC has ruled the government has virtually no right to restrict actual porn.
It's not censorship, though.
Cal,
No, I don't think you're squawking about censorship. I am disputing no other point than the one I expressly mention.
I just have never heard of "zoning regulations" restricting NC-17 movies. I could, easily, be wrong. But I have never heard of zoning contributing to the unprofitability of NC-17 movies.
I always hear:
-- refusal of newspapers & TV to run ads
-- refusal of many big-chain theaters to show films
I've never heard of zoning problems. Your Mall-covenant example sounds pefectly reasonable, and I'm guessing (without evidence) that you're right about that. That *sounds* like something a mall would insist on in its lease contract.
But zoning restrictions? Never, never heard that.
Interesting link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Congressional/cr-9_14_00_House_Table.html
Can't vouch for its accuracy. Never heard of the site/polling company before. But it *looks* authoritative.
Cal,
Well, let me suggest that municipalities have to fight for three or four years just to get Courts to uphold fairly modest zoning restrictions on full-out deep-throating jizz-spurting pornography.
And that's stuff that's actually legally obscene. (Or at least it was before 1974.)
Now, imagine the hurtles in trying to restrict legitimate movies.
Only one factor mitigates in your favor: Pornographers are professionals at it, and will fight tooth and nail for their provision.
On the other hand, legitimate theaters could probably give a shit about NC-17 movies, and perhaps wouldn't mount a legal defense over such a zoning restriction. After all, NC-17 movies are rare & unprofitable and they've got tons of other films to show.
I meant:
"Pornographers are professionals at it, and will fight tooth and nail for their profession."
Not only that, malls have something that porno areas don't have: parents.
Porno people pick their fights wisely.
"Oh, do you think I'm bitching about censorship? No, I'm not."
Incidentally, I know this. I know you're not someone who cries "censorship" at the drop of a hankie. Although, you know, government restrictions on x-rated material is actually censorship.
(Censorship broadly defined, at least.)
"Not only that, malls have something that porno areas don't have: parents."
But a private covenant between a mall and theater isn't a "zoning restriction." Zoning restrictions are imposed by the state.
It was no mistake that owning property used to be a prerequisite for voting. It was to keep idiots from casting misinformed or uninformed votes for demagogues intent on gaining power at the expense of the country (ie. Al Gore). Not all votes are equal. If you don't know anything about the issues or anything about the Constitution, I don't care what you "feel", you don't deserve to vote because you're ignorant.
In principle, this sounds good. Sure, who wants "idiots" to vote? They'll just screw it up, right? In practice, though, who decides who's stupid? Are all property owners automatically intelligent because they have acquired a deed? Are all renters to dumb to know what's what because they haven't acquired enough money to buy a place of their own? It's a false dividing line.
Not to mention the simple fact that since morons pay taxes just like everyone else, they get their say, if'n they want it. That's the difference between an actual democracy and having landed gentry run things like at the country club.
Not only do I completely agree with this, I wish such things didn't even get reported. I imagine it must be insulting to intelligent women to read this sort of condescending nonsense, as if all of them were dreamy-eyed dingbats just wanting to vote for Prince Charming.
But that's the downside of democracy -- a lot of people do vote on those intangibles. Charm, charisma, attire, looks, etc. It's stupid, but at the same time, those are essential qualities of getting people to follow your lead.
Message # 41204:
You continue to attack the messenger rather than the message. Are you sure you're not voting for Al Gore?
I'm sure. One doesn't have to be a Gore-bot to recognize Limbaugh for the shill that he is. An entertaining shill, to be sure, but a shill nonetheless.
Is this a serious question? You can conclude lots of other things. Maybe they just have their heads up their asses. Maybe they've taken sides with the teachers' unions. Maybe they don't want to kill off the public education system. Only a closet John Bircher, fearful of the flouride in his drinking water, would bother even speculating that "liberals" (which Gore is not) are deliberately fucking up the public school system so that the entire nation will eventually be dependent upon them.
You want better schools? Get better teachers. You want better teachers? Pay them more money. Funny how that simple notion attracts endless rounds of catcalls from folks who are more than happy to throw fistfuls of cash at every piece-of-shit Tinkertoy General Dynamics wants to triple-charge us for. But put money into repairing public schools and offering financial incentives to acquire better teachers? It's another damned liberal conspiracy!
Don't worry, sphincter boy. Al's one of you, and you'll make just as much money as you did before. Nothing to worry about.
"By the local ordinances, aren't they? It's not state, it's local."
Yes, zoning ordinances are usually done by municipalities; I meant "the state" as in "the government."
"And what I mean is that prudish activist parents would get involved quickly to change the zoning laws if they ever didn't restrict what movies were shown--and most of the rest of the population wouldn't care enough."
Eh, I really doubt it. I doubt there's a God-fearing Southern town in America that doesn't have a video-rental store with adult films in the back room.
And yet the government is going to restrict "Showgirls"? I just find it unlikely.
You may be right. This may happen on occasion. I just never heard of it, I just think the legal deck is well-stacked against such regulations, and I just think that if it happens at all, it happens in a trivial number of municipalities.
"You want better schools? Get better teachers. You want better teachers? Pay them more money. Funny how that simple notion attracts endless rounds of catcalls from folks"
Heh, heh, heh.
Riiiiiight, Eric Communist.
Let me ask: When we pay teachers more money to attract "better teachers," will we pay the old, bad teachers the same amount of money? Or will we fire them en masse in favor of the new, "good" teachers?
What bullshit. "Pay teachers more money to attract better teachers." The teachers we have NOW -- who suck by their own admission, since they all catterwaul about the need for new, more-qualified, better-educated teachers -- will get the higher pay.
This is such ridiculous tripe I'm shocked you stoop to peddle it.
If teachers are serious about the "higher pay for better teachers," then let us only pay NEW teachers the higher rates.
Think the teachers unions really want that?
Hee, hee, hee.
That's different. Prudish parents pick their battles wisely, too.
Cal,
I don't know how much longer we can usefully debate this. You may be right. I don't know. I just never heard of zoning restrictions as a lodestone on NC-17 movies.
Why should Ace, or anyone else, for that matter, apologize to Wen Ho Lee?
From your own link:
Lee's case is obviously a murky one. He has been found guilty of downloading lots of classified information onto his own computer for reasons that remain unclear. (As part of his plea agreement, he's promised to explain.)
Well, I'm sure we're all ears, if Lee wouldn't mind explaining himself, why he's downloading classified info onto his own computer -- when he knows goddamn well he's not supposed to.
(And don't even bother bringing up John Deutch. Fine, investigate him, I say. But we know that'll never happen, because the CIA doesn't allow outside investigations. But securtiy breaches are security breaches, afaic.)
I have no problem with making pay merit-based. The best teachers should make the most money.
When the difference between X and NC-17 was blurred, the covenants and local zoning ordinances kicked in to but the economic clamp on NC-17, and we're stuck with the old system with a different label.
"think that CalGal is right- when the X rating was proposed to be replaced by NC-17, the idea was to differentiate between porno and "legitimate" films for adults."
Correct.
"Somehow this got lost in the shuffle."
Sort of correct. Newspapers which refuse to run ads for X-rated films often also refuse to run ads for NC-17 films.
"I think that many R rated films should be rated as for adults only, while some of the milder ones should be okay for 13-14 and up."
Eh, you're probably right. Reviewers now commonly discriminate between "Soft R's" (Stripes) and "Hard R's" (Starship Troopers, Something About Mary, Scary Movie).
Perhaps we do need another rating in between. But there comes a point when a proliferation of ratings becomes simply baffling.
"When the difference between X and NC-17 was blurred, the covenants and local zoning ordinances kicked in to but the economic clamp on NC-17, and we're stuck with the old system with a different label."
Agree with the stuff about covenants. Re: Local Zoning ordinances: I don't think so. Keep in mind, real porn is in a legal category called "obscene," which may be censored/restricted based on community standards.
"Showgirls" could NEVER be deemed legally obscene.
There are a number of people in the NEA and AFT who have called for merit pay, testing of teachers, and other reforms called for by critics of public education. In turn, they want to have greater say in the administration of schools, selection of course materials, curriculum decisions etc. They also would like to have sufficent and stable levels of funding for deteriorating school facilities, education materials, and some let up in the administrative work that is shoved onto teachers by the layers of supervision that seem to keep growing.
Hell of a notion that the federal constitutional guarantee of free speech is locally determined, isn't it? I don't care what a video shows so long as it doesn't involve a "snuff film" or children, I don't see it as obscene. I differentiate between protected filth and crimes by the lack of consent involved by the actors. Kids and crime victims by definition can't consent.
That "community standards" thing can sometimes be a sticking point, like when you have people being arrested for renting The Tin Drum.
If you don't like the political system as it is -- corrupt, decaying -- and you go vote for the Democrats, what are you saying to the Democrats? "We forgive you. You're OK because you're not as bad as the other guy. We're voting for you, Democrats, because Republicans are worse." What does that say? It encourages them to go more toward the Republicans!
Because you've fallen for it. You got taken. There is no end to the logic of least/worst. Fifty years from now, 100 years from now, one will always be slightly worse than the other! The only question I ask the least/worst people is: When are you gonna say, "Enough is enough"? When are you gonna deny them the vote? Put it in the Green column. Tell the Democrats you got somewhere to go. Then either they shape up or shrink down....Remember: The Republicans lost their first election, too....in 1854. Think about those early Republicans who were told, "You're taking away votes from the Whigs!"
Do a search on theater zoning laws unrated (or NC-17). See the things that turn up.
I guess everybody has their hangup.
Frick and Frack, Eric? You can't mean that, not you, not really.
Sure I can, and I do. They are both bought and paid for by the same people. What makes you think one has more backbone than the other?
One wants to give a multi-billion dollars tax cut to the super-rich--the Bush version of the failed theory of trickle-down economics--the other proposes relief to the middle-class who will probably spend most of it and thereby avert a recession.
Well, Gore proposes lots of things. Supposedly he also promises to sign McCain-Feingold, which is kind of like Willie Nelson becoming an IRS agent.
Gore's main skill thus far as been blowing smoke up everyone's ass, with his bullshit excuses, his crocodile tears, his pontificating at former ideological equals who failed to see the light when he did. Al Gore's "word" is fit for bumwipe, and little else. He's like a department-store Santa, swearing up and down he'll leave a pony under your Xmas tree.
I agree that Bush needs to go back to Texas, and take a few years of remedial English and math. His "ideas" wilt under scrutiny, he's as much of a hack cronyist as Gore, and he's clearly in over his head already.
So Gore wins by default, but not by virtue of being a truly good man. Good men don't browbeat countries like South Africa, fighting a devastating AIDS epidemic, into abandoning a licensing law that would have drastically lowered drug prices, and allowed more people to get treatment. Good men don't allow drug companies, much of whose research is taxpayer-subsidized, to fuck the American consumer so hard that they have to go to Canada or Mexico to find something they can afford. Good men don't invade oil-rich countries and train their already murderous army in more efficient peasant-killing tactics and the spreading of "fungicide".
Al Gore is qualified for the job, YC, but he's not a good guy, and he's not "fighting for you". Unless you'd like to make a donation....
Me, I got $50 in my pocket right now, which probably isn't enough to even use the Lincoln Bathroom. Maybe if I offered to bring the iced tea....
But do the math. New York's in the hole for $1000 for every man, woman and child.
The first question is -- how was the math done? Does the figure take into account transfer payments like TANF, Unemployment, Social Security, Medicare? How about federal government contracts and facilities in the state that provide jobs? Does it count the subsidies for student loans for students within the state? How about fed research grants for the colleges? Road building? Air traffic control? Because much of federal spending is to the individual, then more populated areas (like NY)attract more of those types of federal funds.
As to why a politician would make pitches to voters that pit state against state or district against district, I would think the answer is obvious -- they're asking to be elected to represent that state or that district -- not the district or state that they portray as the rival. That's where the term pork barrel comes from -- elect the man who promises to bring home the most bacon. I don't know why Clinton would join in this, though, since I think that anyone who is asking to be elected to national office would be foolish to appear to favor one region over another.
The Republicans got a lot more than your projected 4% of the vote in 1856. Fremont was a loon, however, so I guess there is that much in common. Also, of course, the two principal parties now show no signs of fragmenting--unlike the Whigs.
According to an AP dispatch running inside the papers, an FDA advisory panel narrowly rejected easing the current ban on blood donations by gay men. What had been contemplated was going to banning only those men who've had sex with another man in the preceding five years, a change that would have produced an estimated additional 62,000 blood donors.
sigh. this is how far we've come.
I know Tipper and Al have been together since the dawn of time.
Thanks.
I hesitate to urge anyone to actually purchase Vanity Fair but you really should read the article on GW...
Lieberman's lounge act (singing My Way surprisingly well) was particularly interesting.
It would be nice if you could sum up conservatives as simply as that, wouldn't it? It would make debating them so much easier. Atlas Shrugged, if nothing else, should help show why the world works like it does. But you can't read it and simplistically say "Greed is good. Charity is bad. Each man for himself." I don't think any reasonable conservative does.
The #1 thing to get out of Atlas Shrugged is that to be successful, reason must trump emotion. I'm sure it does your emotional hearts good to think of the wonderful safety net provided be Medicare. But your brain should be telling you that such a massive federal program would be rife with fraud and abuse - and it is. A recent investigation found that the cost of fraud and mismanagement in Medicare would more than pay for the repeal of the estate tax. Sadly, however, when a prosperous person dies, we have to take half of his estate and piss it into the wind.
You want compassion? You want charity? Be smart about it. Feed a man fish and you've made him dependent on your generosity. Teach a man to fish and you've freed him to take care of himself.
That's all fine and good but some men are unable to fish...
I'll consider denying the major parties a vote when the third parties nominate a better alternative. Despite the fact that I am staunch environmentalist, I would vote for Bush over Nader.
1) I know better than to take your word for such an investigation. Cite, please.
2) Of course there will be some fraud in a program like Medicare (I just question where it would exceed the revenue from an estate tax). The question is whether such fraud is sufficient to make the program not worth having. If not, the argument is for fraud prevention, not abolishing the program (But the GOP has shown its remarkable tolerance for defrauding the government in its IRS "reforms" a couple of years ago, so I am not holding my breath - if nothing else, Medicare fraud gives right wing hysterics something to shriek at, so it would be inconvenient for the GOP to get rid of it, as how else could they prove that government was incompetent?). You completely ignore the good that Medicare has done in improving the health of the elderly.
are you voting for Bush? if so, why? (if Gore, why as well)
...The United States doesn't really have a two-party system, because the Democrats and the Republicans aren't really parties. What we have is a two-coalition system. The Democrats and the Republicans are vast coalitions -- sprawling, ramshackle, heterogeneous, and open -- which approximate left and right and overlap in the middle. Their dominance is not some élite Republicrat conspiracy. It's simply the only way, given our constitutional and electoral arrangements, that the voters can have a shot at something within hailing distance of majority rule. That doesn't mean that a non-Democrat or non-Republican could never prevail; under exceptional but imaginable circumstances, an independent or third-party Presidential candidate might readily sweep to victory on some combination of Caesarism, money, and public despair. But no third party based on ideas can win the Presidency, because no set of ideas that is too weak to capture half the country can be strong enough to capture all of it.
I'm not denying that Medicare improves the health of seniors. I will say this though:
1) It makes them dependent on government and therefore gives legislators power over them.
2) If each state ran its own system, it would be more efficient. Sure, there would be disparities in quality. But take a laxative, life's not fair.
Now who's spending more wastefully?
Nader, willy-nilly, is now a politician, and now, willy-nilly, he is acting like one; for political advantage, he says things he knows to be untrue. Notably, he says that there's no difference worth talking about (or worth voting about) between the Democrats and the Republicans. This is a bigger whopper than any uttered by the Vice-President or the Governor of Texas, as Nader, whose previous career has been marked as much by practical realism as by lofty idealism, must know. But it would cost him votes to say what he apparently believes: that the differences -- on social security privitization, progressive taxation, health care, gun control, abortion, conservation, and a host of other issues -- are very important indeed. They're just not as important as hoisting the Greens over the five-per-cent mark.
Note: The Greens get federal matching dollars in 2004 election if they pull in 5% of the vote in this election.
yesterday is that Gore (using Letterman as a foil) made no bones
about his intentions about targeting global warming as "priority # 1"
for his administration."
Meaning that he will suggest something like a 25% tax deduction for purchasing an alternative-fuel car. This is one thing that annoys me about Gore. He has a track record for grandstanding on goals, but where the rubber meets the road, we see some minor tax credit. I forgive him because I see it as politicking - energizing the Democratic left without actually doing anything dangerous.
But in this case, I hope he will actually do more. There is a hell of a lot that could be done regarding global warming that would actually be a good idea even if global warming weren't a problem, such as the elimination of the grandfathering of coal-power plants that were online before the passage of the Clean Air Act.
Does it bother you that the author contributes money to Hillary's campaign? Is objectivity an important factor in judging the quality of the "journalism" you read?
What are your qualms, if you don't mind listing them.
legislators power over them."
BFD. Same thing applies to insurance companies. At least my legislators are accountable every couple of years. And if anything, I would argue that Medicare gives the elderly too much power over legislators, as its existence (along with Social Security) has served as a focal point for formidable political coordination.
"2) If each state ran its own system, it would be more efficient."
Like Medicaid is run? I guess I don't really care if the program is run by the Feds or the states, so long as it is run. I haven't seen anything particularly convincing on the comparative efficiency of Medicaid v. Medicare.
And even if this wild fancy were true, why are we forced into Medicare? Why can't we choose to participate?
Past experience with states running their own welfare systems tends to show that people living in less generous states move to more generous states, which either overstrains the generous states' budgets, triggers a "race to the bottom" to see which state can cut benefits the most, or leads to attempts to restrict people's residency and movements, which is definitely indicative of a move to Soviet-style government. And of course the potential for fraud would not go away, but would be multiplied by 50, and be much less accountable.
His claim: "A recent investigation found that the cost of fraud
and mismanagement in Medicare would more than pay for the repeal
of the estate tax"
What his cite actually says. Total amount of fraud in the US government was estimated by the GAO (probably the most reputable source possible for stat like this) add up to 20.7 billion, more than enough to pay for the elimination of the *marriage tax* (not the estate tax). Medicare's share of this, in the most recent completed fiscal year, was 14 billion.
either choose another one or choose not to buy insurance at all. This
is not true with Medicare. We're forced to pay for it, under penalty of
imprisonment, whether we want it or not."
I am fully in favor of mandatory health insurance, just as I am favor of mandatory liability insurance for drivers. But if you want the Feds to administrate Medicare via a basket of subcontracted providers, I don't have a conceptual problem with that, but I just don't think that problems with Medicare indicate that it is in need of that sort of solution. Hell, looking at Bubbaette's numbers and the fraud report you cite, I would argue that Medicare needs more administrative funding to track down fraud.
Re: Message # 41486
Yes, I do take into account that Gail Sheehy is a fried of Hillarys but she is also a respected journalist and the quotes from Bushs friends are direct quotes...it shouldn't matter who transcribes them. I'm not claiming this is the definitive word on Bush; it is an interesting article.
And with the subject of his possibly having dyslexia, it was telling to me that his mother spent hours and hours with flash cards drilling him on vocabulary. This in and of itself is no big deal; I did the same for my son. The difference is, my son can speak very well in public without stumbling over words and transposing letters in words. Anecdotal evidence, sure, but I'm not trying to put my son forth for the job of leader of the free world and Barbara Bush is doing this with her kid. I would think if he were dyslexic, he would jump at the opportunity to admit it so he would have a valid reason for all his gaffes...
I know Vanity Fair is a puff magazine and not to be taken seriously. But that doesn't preclude the fact that sometimes, well written articles appear in its pages.
Why do you assume state-run systems must be less efficient than federal systems? True, they get less funding; but, the cater to proportionately less people. How many times have we seen in the news how a particular states welfare model has become an example for all to follow because of how efficiently it's being run? Labratories of democracy. That's how our government is supposed to work. It's too bad demagogues feeding on class envy screw things up.
standard ones: ruthlessly ambitious, will compromise his principles and integrity too much in order to get elected (Elian Gonzales and his unfair attacks on Bradley, for instance), lack of public charm (necessary to mobilize the public), etc.
— Sen. Fred Thompson
Dyslexia affects how people READ and how they process the written word...if you are reading something aloud, it affects your speech.
I don't have hard data on this, but in several states, such as Wisconsin and Minnesota, welfare payments actually went up (mostly because they both extended health care bennies and welfare payments on a sliding income scale as welfare recpients received jobs). Minnesota did try to pass a law prohibiting welfare payments for about a year after moving to the state, but it was struck down by the state supreme court.
Rask:
Wipe the egg off your face. $14 billion is close enough to $20 billion to say that the fraud in Medicaid alone would *almost* pay for the entirety of the estate tax repeal.
Geeze, Louise.
But once again, GW could be corpse and I'd vote for him. At the national and state level, politicians are representatives of their politicial parties. I perceive the Democrats and the Republicans to have stark contrasts in governing philosophy. I perceive the Democrats to be dangerously misguided and the Republicans to be based on U.S. tradional government.
in government. They hoot and holler about it and grill government
bureaucrats in hearings; but if the agency or program in question
attempts to crack down, they hoot and holler about the persecution of individuals by a big government agency, and attempt to emasculate its
enforcement capabilities. Take the IRS, for instance."
Amen, Brother Wombat! And let's not forget that for the past 20 years, the GOP has done its damnedest, with some success, to cut administrative budgets which are where funds to pay for fraud prevention come from.
to say that the fraud in Medicaid alone would *almost* pay for the
entirety of the estate tax repeal. "
I consider a ~50% overstatement worth pointing out as an error. You evidently don't. To each their own.
I was referring to the welfare situation that existed in the 1960s and 70s before the Feds stepped in. I have no objection to block grants to states for them to use (within accepted parameters) as they see fit.
Rask:
Either Cygnus overstated the amount of fraud in medicaid by 42%, or he understated the cost of estate tax repeal by 30%.
In any event, his error was certainly not "~50%." I consider THAT to be an error, but to each his own.
(You will no doubt respond you were estimating, and your math was not off my a single order of magnitude. That's correct. But neither was Cygnus' "error.")
I thought Jackie Gleason was dead...
I've not had to face a hostile press while quoting government statistics and public policy but if it were my job to do so, I would certainly practice until I developed a skill at doing so. And if I continued to make mistakes, bad on me.
If Bush can't handle heat from the press without sounding like a tongue-tied idiot, he should get out of the kitchen...or take an ex-lax and suck it up. I mean, life is tough, right?
Rask:
Fine. I'll "round" 14.1 mil to 17.5 million, so long as we're "rounding" for no good reason.
Oh....you're one of those.
You are indeed a tendentious hack.
Did anyone happen to see Fox News the night the Gore bribery allegations were reported? Did you happen to take note of the name of the reporter talking to Bill O'Rielly? His name was Eric Shawn. Say that 10 times fast.
Rask:
When one rounds, one rounds to the nearest whole number, not to the nearest multiple of 5.
46.8 rounds to 47, not to 50.
This is of course ticky-tack. But you are being ticky-tack by not simply admitting your initial objection was misplaced.
Cygnus' original figures are good enough for extemporaneous argument. He didn't have the numbers precisely right, but they were close enough that his POINT is still correct. His statement was not misleading, nor "incorrect" in any meaningful sense.
PS: If one were to round 46.8 to the nearest multiple of 5, one would round to 45%, not to "~50%."
You are inflating/deflating numbers to put the best possible face on your argument. And yet your "argument" is that Cygnus understated the cost of estate tax relief by 30% (and that's a perfectly acceptable way to view the situation, which you choose not to do, of course, because you are interested in inflating his "error" while deflating your own).
"When one rounds, one rounds to the nearest whole number, not to
the nearest multiple of 5."
When one rounds, you can round it to whatever significant digit is warranted by the discussion at hand. You know, of course, that the Feds round their budget numbers to the nearest million, not the nearest "whole number"?
Since I was doing the math in my head, I rounded to nearest multiple of ten, not the nearest multiple of five (which would have been 45, not 50, for the mathematically impaired), and accounted for this by putting a "~" in front of the number, as I knew it wasn't precise.
"Cygnus' original figures are good enough for extemporaneous
argument. He didn't have the numbers precisely right, but they were
close enough that his POINT is still correct. His statement was not
misleading, nor "incorrect" in any meaningful sense."
Sure it was. He mis-stated that total government fraud as belonging to Medicare, an error which overstated the amount of Medicare fraud by ~46.8085106383%. I didn't accuse him of lying, I just said that his error was evidence that you need to ask for his sources.
Rask:
Or he underestimated the cost of estate tax relief by only 30%. Why do you insist on chosing the bigger number?
Let's face it: He was pretty much right. Your objection was pretty much wrong.
Funny that you let Gore get away with "errors" far, far larger. And Gore, presumably, has "studied" the figures and knows them by heart because he's so "smart."
your argument."
Ye Gods, man, I did the numbers in my head, rounded to the nearest 10 as result, and put a "~" in front to acknowledge that it was an approximation. How the hell can you get more intellectually honest than that?
"And yet your "argument" is that Cygnus understated
the cost of estate tax relief by 30% (and that's a perfectly acceptable
way to view the situation, which you choose not to do, of course,
because you are interested in inflating his "error" while deflating your
own)."
I should point out that the actual amount of tax relief underestimation is 31.88405797101%, which rounds to 32%. You wouldn't be underestimating as a way to mislead, would you? Of course not. You rounded to a perfectly acceptable number given the context of the debate (and you didn't even put a "~" in front).
I didn't make an error, so I have nothing to deflate.
Cygnus:
Nah, the 29.5% number doesn't fly. You're dividing the amount of error by 20, rather than by 14.1, which is the correct way to do it.
It is the details that count. The power of the executive orders.
I was curious, however, about one of your comments. The one to the effect that those who believe that W. equates to three new Supreme Court justices and that there goes Roe v. Wade are idiots. Before responding, I would appreciate your expanding on this a bit. Do you not think that Roe v. Wade is in jeopardy? Do you think that W. would not appoint justices who would make a difference on this? (I can see an argument along those lines, since any President (except perhaps a zealot like Buchanan) would know that if a dramatic turn occurs on basic abortion rights (forget the late term nonsense) that this will cause a tremendous political upheaval. But, as indicated, I would like to know why you think that any such concern over what will happen if W. were to be elected is idiotic.)
Well, Rask is not retreating from his gross mathematical error of ~20%.
It's time to move on.
For the Children.
You never said any such thing. You merely said that fraud in Medicare was more than what an estate tax cut would cost. This was flat out incorrect, as you grabbed the wrong number for Medicare.
"Funny that you let Gore get away with "errors" far, far larger. And
Gore, presumably, has "studied" the figures and knows them by heart
because he's so "smart."
When have I done any such thing?
Rask:
You do such a thing ~35% of the time.
~20%."
news flash: Ace- the tendentious hack who thinks that a 46.8085106383% overstatement in Medicare fraud should round to a greater than 0% understatement, thus making Cygnus essentially right- is mathematically impaired.
(I would also argue that since the topic was Medicare, not the estate tax, the proper contextual baseline was deviation fromactual Medicare fraud, not deviation from actual estate taxes.
Rask is posting ~300% too many times.
And he's ~500% too serious about this discussion and his ~60% error.
Rask is ~100% wrong about he and I "flirting."
"as should be evident by now, I take numerical accuracy much more seroius than you do."
It's not that evident, given as you are to rounding everything to ~50% and deliberately inflating numbers.
By the way, your reasoning for why the ~46% figure should be favored over the ~32% figure has nothing to do with "context" or mathematics, but has ~99% to do with stubborness and hackery.
"Rask is posting ~300% too many times."
This was ~100% deliberate, by the way. I know Rask only posted ~200% too many posts, but I make it a rule to round to the nearest ~300%.
I think the dead horse is now beaten ~700% more than he needed to be.
Pray, let's end this.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Trying to turn George W. Bush 's new slogan against him, the Democratic National Committee is set to air a new advertisement critical of the Texas governor on the minimum wage and children's health in Texas.
The ad ends with the tag line: ``George Bush: His real plans hurt real people,'' a skewering of Bush's slogan:``Real plans for real people.''
The DNC ad is to begin airing as soon as Friday in nine battleground states.
It's the first ad this year to attack Bush on the minimum wage, a perennial Democratic issue. It charges that Bush kept the Texas minimum wage at $3.35 per hour when the national minimum was raised to $5.15
WASHINGTON (Voter.com, Sept. 15) - The race for the White House remains extremely tight according to the latest Voter.com Battleground 2000 poll, released today. The survey shows George W. Bush with a 2-percent advantage over Al Gore -- but still within the poll's 3-point margin of error.
1.5 is not "one-third [33.333%] smaller" than 2.2 -in fact, it's only 31.82% smaller!!!
Oh, will the Mote never be free of liberal liars???
Bush is designing a tax cut to bankrupt the office he's running for?
what ridiculous hackery
Reagan cut taxes rather than going after any specific government program which were difficult to attack on their own merits. He pumped up defense and cut taxes in his first year in office then did nothing the remaining 7.
Think about it. Its not rocket science. 
Gavin Newsome, SF Supervisor, single, hot, and unfortunately straight.
A real up and commer, this straight heart-throb is, believe it or not, also a member of the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club. You should have seen the drooling queens at his appearance last month at the 2000 endorsement meeting!
The article attributed the difference to two things -- not having to advertise and not having to provide a dividend to investors.
Its not rocket science.
neither is understanding that Bush, or any politician, wouldn't devise a plan to bankrupt his/her source of power.
that being said the entire (unattributed) post in Message # 41558 sounds like hack work because of the silly opening lines - regardless if it has a "point" or not.
Ronski - you have to be more specific when you use the term "privatize". Clinton had a plan to privatize by allowing the Trust Fund to invest in the same manner as pension funds do. Allowing private individuals to use all or part of SS tax for private investment is also privatizing. Its also elimination of Social Security.
What it does effect is the private investment that massive deficits crowd out and the political feasibility of enacting or expanding social programs.
Did you fall off the turnip truck yesterday or the day before?
The US avoided financial disaster in the Reagan years because there were enough Japanese, Euro, and Arab investors willing to take US debt securities. The impact on private investment however was devastating as long term interest rates skyrocketed, capital was choked, and recession the result.
You don't add $1 trillion in debt without consequence.
I'd be more than happy to.
Did you fall off the turnip truck yesterday or the day before?
you are a piece of work
RR bankrupted America? i musta missed it. what year, exactly, were we bankrupt?
i now add "insane" to my description of you. this is in addition to "ridiculous" & "hack".
oh, and heaven forbid we stop making it "feasible" to "expand" our social programs. heh - please.
What it does effect is...the political feasibility of enacting or expanding social programs.
Say, jexster, can you reconcile those two statements? What do you see as a government's "source of power"?
RD - it is a well-documented fact that Reagan did exactly as Jexster has indicated. Don't try to actually cut very popular programs up front, do it by starving them to death through the effects of a tax cut and higher allocation of available funds to defense (and certain other "o.k." areas.)
"It's not that evident, given as you are to rounding everything to ~50%
and deliberately inflating numbers."
Now you are simply lying.
"By the way, your reasoning for why the ~46% figure should be
favored over the ~32% figure has nothing to do with "context" or
mathematics, but has ~99% to do with stubborness and hackery."
And here you just show that you wouldn't know decent quantitatitive methodology if it bit you in the ass. You place your own methods on others.
are you even following the conversation? my age has nothing to do with it
It is a well-documented fact that Reagan did exactly as Jexster has indicated.
Do you subscribe to this portion of what jexster said?
The impact on private investment however was devastating as long term interest rates skyrocketed, capital was choked, and recession the result.
"childish"? eh, perhaps.
not as "adult" as posting how hot Al Gore is, i grant you.
Indiana. No, not really. As indicated in my post, I was agreeing with Jex regarding the above-mentioned starve-the-programs policy. The quote you provided is over the top, in my opinion. Although, the massive deficits he bequeathed us certain led us down a bad economic path in terms of private economic investment and recession. However, the price was paid by Poppy.
RD - I was allowing you the benefit of youth to justify (a) first, your lack of awareness of the Reagan starve-the-programs policy and (b)the jumble of your thought processes.
i'll take that as a "no, i wasn't following the conversation, just jumping in"
i was chiding jex for his hackery, not (i repeat - not) getting into a debate on the RR administration.
Oops, you're right. The point I was trying to make was that I actually lowballed the $20.7 billion by $0.7 billion.
lowballed the $20.7 billion by $0.7 billion."
No, you are now confusing yourself with Fred Thompson.
Leaving aside your ideological sympathies, there is no similarity between Chile's former social security system and ours. There is a similarity between Chile's current system and ours.
Both systems are based on a minimum, state funded pension benefit (Chile's is much smaller than ours), supplemented by voluntary contributions to various retirement plans in the stock market. In Chile, these are subsumed into the goverment retirement plan--although retirees have to pay a percentage of their pension in broker's fees. In the US, these plans are administered through the workplace (401Ks), or as Keough plans or IRAs, giving the individual a great deal of choice in how to allocate their contributions.
The main difference between the US and Chile apparently was that the old system in Chile was inefficient and underresourced. Social Security in the United States is extremely efficient, and is currently in surplus. Minor adjustments (such as raising the income level that is subject to Social Security from its current level to $100,000) would, I have read, ensure its solvency through 2070, by which time all of us baby boomers will have passed on. Raising the minimum income level would also take advantage of the fact that, while there may be fewer workers today--and tomorrow--than in the past, today's workers are much better paid. 
Annual unemployment
For jexster's statement to be true, the high unemployment should have followed the budget deficits, when in fact the opposite happened. At the beginning of Reagan's first term (1981-1983) was when unemployment peaked. Once the deficits kicked in, unemployment dropped, until by 1989 it was 5.3%.
If government deficits cause unemployment, then it would seem a death-spiral condition, because unemployment certainly helps create government deficits.
You should be more sure of your grounding before jumping to such a silly reaction.
I meant to ask, why does this dissapoint you? Do you think the FDA should allow homosexual & bi-sexual men to donate blood?
This chart shows the big increase in interest rates occurred during the Carter administration, whereas interest rates declined during both Reagan terms.
And let's not forget the infamous misery index.
I meant to ask, why does this dissapoint you? Do you think the FDA should allow homosexual & bi-sexual men to donate blood?
why wouldn't it disappoint me? why shouldn't bi/gay men donate blood if they have had sex within 5 years. it’s a bigoted and discriminatory policy.
not all gay people are sluts. just cellar door.
I disagree. I think it is broken when a "retirement" system forces some people to pay in more than they can ever get out.
Surely there is a way to turn SocSec back into the insurance policy it should be.
but we were "bankrupt" too, don't forget that
pay in more than they can ever get out. "
But this is the inevitable result of a system which started out with a lot of people getting out a hell of a lot more than they paid in. It isn't the failure of the system, but of past IOUs coming due.
Inevitable. No matter how you change the system, even with Bush's privatization program, you still have to deal with this problem - what to do with all the people who have contributed into Social Security during their employment, and I expect bennies upon retirement. Bush's refusal to answer this is finally annoying me. I cut him some slack back when he first proposed it because it was early on and it was forgivable to not have the details out. But at this point it is just irresponsibility.
Oh, so we should ignore all practical considerations?
why is a man sticking his dick in a man more of a "consideration" than a man sticking his dick in a woman?
because of the natural bigotry towards gay/bi people.
Do you have total faith in blood screening procedures?
again, why would you be any more concerned that the person you are getting blood from has sex with a person of the same sex versus sex with someone of the opposite sex? sex is sex. oh wait, i know. it's because of the natural bigotry towards gay/bi people.
After all, homosexuality & intravenous drug use are lifestyle choices, right?
yes, just as being a heterosexual is a lifestyle choice. one i don't agree with, btw, but i understand some people think it's somehow morally superior.
Well, the reason I think SocSec should be an insurance program is so that I would pay less in and wouldn't expect to see anything out unless disaster happened.
As for the crossover--why is a one-time grit your teeth and bear it spend the extra money for the next ten years so unworkable? (I'm asking you to remind me, not challenging you)
My 401k, which makes up a larger proportion of my retirement contribution than SS witholding, is mine to do what I want with, as is my IRA. If I happen to make some wrong choices in investments, or be unfortunate to retire during an economic slump, I will appreciate SS's safety net. I don't want ideological or greedy hacks messing with it.
But shouldn't insurance cost less than the payout, as a general rule?
Huh? I dunno about Ducky but I certainly didn't "choose" to be gay. I knew I was when I was 8 years old, maybe earlier. Maybe heteros make theirs a "lifestyle choice". Not having had the chance to choose, I have no earthly idea.
I never claimed heterosexuality was morally superior to homosexuality - just biologically superior.
Look, it's simple. If you want to give blood, don't be a homosexual male.
some people to pay in more than they can ever get out. "
But what about those who pay in less than they get out? It all has to do with how long you live.
hahahahahaha!
BTW, did you get my email saying yeah, those are the dates?
If you have insurance and never use it, do you get more out of it than you pay in? Do you benefit from the life insurance that you pay for?
Oops....too late.
Cal -- no, but I'll check.
I dunno about Ducky but I certainly didn't "choose" to be gay.
i was making a joke. i've found that unless you equate heterosexuality with homosexuality on the "choice" question, then most people don't get the point. my fault for not being more clear.
efforts?
On the one hand it helps. He can screw up to his heart's content and no one will be paying attention.
On the other it hurts. He can try to mount a come back and no one will be paying attention.
The Olympics helped Reagan in 1984 and Clinton in 1992 because they were held here. Especially in the former instance, RR was able to use a highly successful LA Olympics to reinforce his campaign message "Why is the tax and spend liberal squawking, look you ARE better off than you were 4 years ago"
In fact I remember watching the Olympics with a Reagan supporter. At the opening ceremony Reagan was there. "Look at this! The election's over"
I'm talking about paying in far more than you could possibly ever get out, which is (I believe) the truth about those who pay in the maximum at this stage in the game. And this is the same group who would be subject to any means testing.
I would like to see SocSec be an insurance program, one that you pay for all your life and only tap into if your retirement income becomes less than X. So it's not like I think it should be done away with, or that I'm unwilling to pay. But I don't like paying in the mockery that this is a retirement program--safety net or otherwise. I also think that the system is broken, and I dislike that as well.
Depending on how one defines disaster (um, such as in ending up at retirement without sufficient private resources as supplemented by a reduced soc. sec. benefit due to having paid in less), therein lies the rub.
Disaster equates to having the good ol' gov't. safety blanket around, just in case. Fair enough, if the same rules and consequences apply to all.
Ah ha! So, can we categorize you mentally or physically disabled?
Don't think that is true Cal. I may have to repost my SS Myths article. You can check back a week or so for the link though.
If the lifetime cost of my insurance is greater than the potential payout, I'm doing something wrong. Ditto with earthquake insurance. So when I pay out more in "premiums" than I would ever receive if I were to collect, something is off.
And remember, as SocSec exists now it isn't insurance.
If data is statistically significant (discrimination based on the facts), why do you call it bigotry?
"Probably" don't cut it, pal. Not for my safety net, or anyone else's.
I think it is true if you pay the max. It's what--15,000/year now?
you're neglecting to include the fact that a much higher percentage of the male homosexual population is infected with HIV than the heterosexual population.
the percentage may be - i don't really care enough to look it up. the raw numbers, however, show that there are more heterosexual males than homosexual males with HIV/AIDS. so, therefore, the policy is bullshit and unnecessarily discriminating.
Look, it's simple. If you want to give blood, don't be a homosexual male.
i know - it's "simple" but bigoted. bigotry you are fine with, or not - either of which i don't really care about.
I'm not sure of your point (in the post where you quoted me). Yes, that is what I mean by "disaster".
Well, I got 100% on that test.
The answer is "TRUE". On average, workers receive back their contributions (and that of their employers) in the first 11 or 12 years of benefits. Obviously, a number of factors can change this figure.
On average. Let us all remember what the "average" income is in this country. I'm not talking about them.
If data is statistically significant (discrimination based on the facts), why do you call it bigotry?
see Message # 41629
It isn't impossible. It just isn't fair to say "the system is broke because you pay in more than you get out" and have the solution be "most people who has paid in during their careers will get screwed so that we can use what you thought would be your bennies to fund a more privatized system". The solution at least as much suffers from "people paying more in they get out" than the current system does.
I am not particularly opposed to some form of social security privatization (for reasons related to how it impacts the national savings rate). But the devil is in the details. No matter what your solution, I want to know how you will handle the obligations of the current system. Do we just end it and screw retirees who have been counting on that money? Or do we have two systems in place simultaneously (more akin to Gore's modest reform plan).
Well, of course not. There'd have to be a period of phasing in. That's the one-time cost I was talking of.
If SS was an insurance policy as you propose, the same people who would get less than they put in may well get nothing instead.
More generally - why shouldn't some people pay in more to SS than they realistically (actuarily) can expect to receive back. Some of these will live longer, some will start receiving benefits earlier than expected due to disability, etc. In a broad sense, this type of "gamble" is where an equation to insurance principles come in. I pay a fortune in auto insurance and hope to hell never to get back or have paid to others on my behalf more than I pay in. But it is nice to know that that resource is there. Just in case.
contributions (and that of their employers) in the first 11 or 12 years of benefits. Obviously, a number of factors can change this figure. "
They don't say how this is defined. Are contributions adjusted for inflation? Are they compared to what they would have received in a very safe alternative investment, such as government bonds?
Actually, earthquake insurance costs a fortune for exactly that reason.
But again--SocSec isn't an insurance program now. Why not turn it into one?
Individuals' retirements can be improved, and certainly their options or choices can be improved, by giving people the right to hold onto more of their own money to do what they see fit with it. As for social security being administrated efficiently, I think that that is so as far as government programs go. But the government's claims about such efficiency are exaggerated: they do not factor in the costs of using government-owned facilties, the time spent on social security issues by federal legislators, or the greater benefits that could accrue in privately-run accounts.
As for ignoring ideology, it is pretty hard to overlook a long-held belief that people should pretty much be left -- on moral grounds -- to do what they like with their assets without interference from the state, as long as they don't frighten the horses.
your neck of the woods, and everyone who had earthquake insurance
submitted their claims, there would either be some quick renegotiating
by the insurance companies, pleas for Federal relief, and/or a passel
of lawsuits. "
I thought insurance companies had re-insurers with very deep pockets for just such a problem.
Someone may spend fifteen years paying for nursing care coverage and then die in the first six months. But if they had lived another fifteen years, the cost of the policy would be less than the payout.
But I can't think of an insurance program that says that it will cost more than the maximum payout expected.
And--again, a small point--SocSec is not an insurance program. It is a retirement program. I'm suggesting it move back to an insurance program.
For those REALLY interested in SS, try a Yahoo search "SS" AND "reform". You 'll get a ton of returns. I found a George Mason Univ. seminar VERY informative.
Bottom line is that there's a wild divergence of opinion as to what will happen to a system that is solvent for at least the next 40 years . Most of the debate is about the period 70 years out. Its no surprise then, given, the impossible complexity of economic modeling over such a long period of time, that views do diverge with a vengeance.
Statement 6:
Most people will get
more out of Social
Security than they put
in.
The answer is "TRUE". On average,
workers receive back their
contributions (and that of their
employers) in the first 11 or 12 years of
benefits. Obviously, a number of
factors can change this figure.
Less than one third of the general public
(29%) answered this question
correctly.
rubber, Actually, it's not bullshit. The fact of the matter is this: If a homosexual and hetersexual man give blood, you are much more likely that the former's blood is infected. I'm tellin' ya. Learn to love broads.
i'm gonna say this so that even you should be able to catch on.
bull.
fucking.
shit.
but, whatever, how about a cite that proves your point?
I agree. It wouldn't be fair, and it's not what I would suggest. I think SocSec should be a mandatory insurance program, with a maximum payout of X. You pay a percentage of your income; it's just a lot smaller--and the cap still exists. People whose income is greater than X after retirement don't collect at all.
As Rask points out, the only thing expensive about it is the cutover costs--but I think we should just choke up and pay them for ten years, tops.
In economic concept, but most importantly in its political concept, SS has stood the test of time and was brilliantly conceived.
9 Misconceptions About Social Security - Atlantic Monthly
I don't see how you can consider those like scenarios.
BTW, there is an announcement in Philosophy that you all might want to check out. Go back about 20-30 posts.
Nixon only added COLAs with a massive one in 1973.
It would be nice if you could sum up conservatives as simply as that, wouldn't it? It would make debating them so much easier.
Yeah. Just fighting polemic with polemic. Seriously though, when trying to counter that nonsense from Rush's "Stack O' Stuff", it's a pretty easy counterargument.
Atlas Shrugged, if nothing else, should help show why the world works like it does. But you can't read it and simplistically say "Greed is good. Charity is bad. Each man for himself." I don't think any reasonable conservative does.
Atlas Shrugged does attempt to illustrate some decent philosophical principles here and there, but it is so way over the top, so cartoonish, so Manichean, so masturbatory in its fawning excesses and purple soliloquies, it's just draining to read, and ultimately rather depressing.
The #1 thing to get out of Atlas Shrugged is that to be successful, reason must trump emotion.
Well, I certainly agree that that's a valuable way to view things, but I don't know that that's the main point of the book. It seems to be positing that the great doers and thinkers of the world are held back from further greatness by the small thinking of proletarian, non-achieving concerns. It's an apologia for laissez-faire capitalism, a propaganda tract insisting that big business always wants to do the right thing and never harm anyone, but the Evil Government won't get out of their way. It's a tremendously silly book, made more so by its overblown pomposity and self-consciousness.
But thanks to its size, it's been a perfect replacement for the busted foot on my couch.
Well, yeah, although my grandparents are all long dead, I am glad that other people's parents and grandparents have something to help them out, so that maybe they don't have to live on cat food to afford the medication and care they need to survive. Call me a bleeding heart.
But your brain should be telling you that such a massive federal program would be rife with fraud and abuse - and it is.
Is this supposed to imply that private industry would never do such a thing? $800 screwdrivers, anybody? Hel-lo?!?
A recent investigation found that the cost of fraud and mismanagement in Medicare would more than pay for the repeal of the estate tax.
Yeah, and I'm sure if you investigated you'd find that the money we spend on planes the Air Force doesn't even want would send a few thousand kids to college. And I have no doubt that Medicare isn't half the nightmare that HMOs are.
Sadly, however, when a prosperous person dies, we have to take half of his estate and piss it into the wind.
Oh yes, a thousand pities for the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers, driven into the soup line by harsh and uncaring government thieves and pencil-pushers. Boo-fucking-hoo.
I should tell you about recent experiences at the straight sex club the Power Exchange in SF. I still have nightmares about all the preversions I saw, not to mention all the naked women who tried to molest me.
But that's for another thread.
Divert government money into a fish hatchery with one of your golf buddies, run it into bankruptcy, and split the profits. That's the Washington way, dude.
Seriously, I agree 100% with that. For the leading economy in the world, and the most powerful industrialized nation, we seem to place alarmingly low compared to other, smaller, European countries. Now, is it fair to lay that all at the feet of the state of public education? I don't think so.
Teachers have to work with what parents send to school, and if Johnny shows up not knowing how to tie his shoes or recognize letters or whatever, that means teacher has to waste class time (and your money) teaching a kid how to do shit his goddamned parents should have dialed him in on long before he got to school.
Don't think it happens? Talk to a teacher sometime. For every diligent parent who reads to their kids at bedtime, and monitors their habits, and does their best with their kid, there's another who lets the kid watch whatever he wants if he'll just shut up, and the only book in the house is the current edition of TV Guide.
What I'm saying is, back on our earlier take on "liberals" and education, is that it's impossible to distill all the variables, look at the state of public education, and simply say, "Liberals want our kids to be dumb so they'll have to depend on liberals." You simply cannot use logic and reason and deductive thinking, and arrive at such a bizarre theory of social engineering. Thus it is a conclusion based on emotion, on getting the ideologues' dander up, and whatever points of value there may be in the argument are lost amidst the foam and froth.
Well, they stand no chance at all, not just some chance. And it's not just the self-employed, but anyone who pays the max. (that other 7% is a bitch, ain't it? It's one of the reasons I limit my 1099 income).
And it's a substantial percentage of one's income--that is primarily used to benefit others. At least in an insurance program it would be a smaller amount that one truly didn't expect to recoup.
And i'm quite happy to miss it
You want private bureaucracy at work? Look no further than your local Safeway store or recent headlines - United Airlines, Firestone, Ford...the list is endless
We live in a bureaucratic age. It matters not one wit whether the bureaucracy is private or public. Its not like RATS staff public bureaucracy now is it?
In fact, against the argument that private bureaucracies operate more efficiently because of their "competitive" nature, one need only have worked in one or two and failing that consider that the "competitive" econonomy is rarely competitive but oligarchic.
Against whatever efficiency advantage that nets out in favor of private bureaucracies, one must take into account the greater effectiveness in serving broader goals and public accountability advantages of public bureaucRATS
I agree that reason over emotion was not the the main point of Atlas Shrugged; and, yes, it did go a bit overboard. But, it was ground breaking in its original way of attacking the disease known as western guilt.
The best way to relieve families from time is to let them keep some of their own money."
"They have miscalculated me as a leader."
"I don't think we need to be subliminable about the differences between our views on prescription drugs."
"This is what I'm good at. I like meeting people, my fellow citizens, I like interfacing with them."
"That's Washington. That's the place where you find people getting ready to jump out of the foxholes before the first shot is fired."
"Listen, Al Gore is a very tough opponent. He is the incumbent. He represents the incumbency. And a challenger is somebody who generally comes from the pack and wins, if you're going to win. And that's where I'm coming from."
"We'll let our friends be the peacekeepers and the great country called America will be the pacemakers."
"We don't believe in planners and deciders making the decisions on behalf of Americans."
"I regret that a private comment I made to the vice-presidential candidate made it through the public airways."-
Is he stoopid or is he stoopid?
I thought that the blood questions were aimed at behavior, but the above exchange just made me realize that I haven't been asked if I engaged in hetrosexual unprotected anal intercourse.
yes, exactly. link that to a straight porn site and maybe X-51 will get it.
The author does not make the point in Point 1 but I believe he does elsewhere that SS serves as a counter to steadily decreasing US savings rates. In other words, if there were no SS tax, the money would not go "into your pocket" in the sense that it went to savings.
You'd buy a Beamer.
If anything, the top rate is too low.
X-51: why you assume that i wouldn't know "what i was missing" is beyond me. some can look at the options ... some go with, er, conventional choices.
It's not enough that it's your opinion that [Limbaugh is] bad.
Oh, I don't think he's bad -- he's probably a perfectly nice guy. And he's clearly not an idiot, despite the contention of Al Franken's book. But his statistics and conclusions are relentlessly colored with such ideological bias (and he admits that right up front) that it seems not to be such a hot idea to regard what he says as much more than just entertainment.
The fact of the matter is, in this example, he's right about high-school dropouts favoring Al Gore.
Yes, I imagine he is correct with that stat. Once again, though, the analysis seems flawed. The reasons behind that stat are more likely to have economic and racial factors than anything else.
But, it's not meant to be taken literally that liberals want everyone to be stupid.
Sure it is. It's fodder for the ideologues. That's why you brought it up in the first place.
It's a good vehicle to illustrate how liberal policies keep people stupid.
Oh. I thought we had Funniest Home Videos for that. I like the one where the guy gets hit by a football in the groin.
* the Canadian progressive-wank band, not the big fat idiot.
Well, you won't get any argument from me there, but are you really gonna sit there and say that this is something only so-called "liberals" are guilty of?
I agree that reason over emotion was not the the main point of Atlas Shrugged; and, yes, it did go a bit overboard. But, it was ground breaking in its original way of attacking the disease known as western guilt.
Indeed. Lord knows Whitey suffered enough having to recall all the little brown people he enslaved and exterminated. Better we should return to our safe niche of noblesse oblige, and constantly remind ourselves that progress requires some eggs to be broken.
As long as they're someone else's eggs, eh?
Which is MY point exactly. We have no earthly idea what's going to happen in 2070. If we did or if I did, WOOOPEEEE!!!!!
That's why all these fancy experts, great economists all I am sure, arrive at such wildly different conclusions.
As for productivity you are correct that it hit the skids in the 70's and 80's and that we don't KNOW why.
Some ideas - the social upheavals of the 60's - people didn't want to work as hard or save; similarly the retirement of those who were adults during the depression, and along with them, their frugal ways...
I found one explanation somewhat persuasive ie that there is a 20-30 year lag between techno innovations and incorporation into the economy . One study purports to find such a correllation from the beginning of the industrial age.
On this theory, 2 world wars disrupted the process. The 50's and 60's saw dramatic gains in productivity from the incorporation of new inventions not only from 20 years earlier but also from the early 20th century. The 90's are explained as biotech and computer tech hitting the market.
But nobody KNOWS and nobody can really prove this in any scientific sense.
Heh. I'm sure he knows what he's missing. I've always wondered at people referring to sexuality as a "choice". I assumed it was either biological, like being left-handed, or environmental, something one gets accustomed.
But I don't know, nor do I really care. To each their own.
Don Message # 41687:
Hey now, easy on the Rush-bashing there. (Although you're right, it's not one of their better songs, but the 11/8 part at the end was fairly innovative for a hard rock band.)
You see, you suffer from western guilt as well. Should we apologize for slavery? If yes, then shouldn't the African and central american nations apologize as well? Or, should we consider that if these slave holding nations didn't have slaves and advance their power, they may have been slaves themselves. Brutal times call for brutal measures. Oh sure, their consciences could have prevented them from being brutal, but then they wouldn't have written the history books.
As for Mr. Limbaugh, don't you think it's useful to remind people that while Derek Jeter may sign a $100 million contract with the Yankees, then the IRS has a contract for $50 million - without doing a thing? Or, that that Erin chick who was everyone's hero only got to see $0.9 million of her $2 million bonus?
And someone pointed out here that the higher up the education scale you go, the more likely you'll find Republicans. They attributed this to wealth rather than education. My question to this is, so is the insidious plan of the Democrats to keep everyone poor so they can stay in power?
I stand by "lame-ass song" but I hereby retract "progressive-wank band."
But I haven't had lunch yet and its getting late. Maybe I'm missing something due to low blood sugar levels.
I'm off to replenish and maybe that will make sense to me.
Baker's point was that SS has been preparing itself for the boomer boomlet in benes...others, economists, in the GMU forum take this argument to the conclusion that talk of an SS crisis is overblown....
I'm off.
You are reaching again. The IRS doesn't take half of Derek Jeter's salary. It takes an increasingly larger proportion of his income over certain amounts. A half-blind accountant--and I assume Jeter has someone better than that--can further reduce the tax bite. Are you using Limbaugh again, or are you doing this figgerin' by your own self?
However, given the govt is on a cash accounting basis, there is no such thing as a trust fund -- the money comes in; the money goes out. If more comes in, then you're in surplus regardless of where on an accounting basis you wish to allocate the funds. If more goes out, then you're in a deficit position that requires borrowing.
Obviously, first generation wealth hasn't skipped a generation. Tough shit.
I repeat.
Poor Bill.
Let me put it this way. Bill Gates has been lucky to live in a system where he could accumulate the wealth he has. Tax him to the hilt. Now and as he enters into the thereafter. His heirs can always rent out the back 200 rooms at that mansion to make ends meet.
Your overblown language reminds me of the left-wing idiots who used to refer to the US as the "United States of Amerika." Get a grip.
Analysts gave Bush little chance of winning California, with John Pitney, a former Republican Party (news - web sites) official now a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College, saying he thought Bush's prospects were ``starting to look remote.''
``He will do some campaigning here to keep the Gore campaign guessing and to keep the Republican base here mobilized and to help Republican candidates, but in reality his chances in California are pretty slim,'' he said.
"`They are close to zero,'' added Gary Jacobson, who teaches political science at the University of California at San Diego. ''Strategically, if the race stays this tight, he'll show up in California but he'd be crazy if he invests much of his resources here because it is not a decisive state for him.''
Think about it. You pay sales tax on money that has already been income taxed. You pay two different payroll taxes and (probably) two different income taxes (federal and state, plus maybe local) on any paycheck. You pay property taxes on a house that you purchased with taxed income (and you paid sales tax on the house). Etc.
The "double taxation" argument, whether applied to estate, capital gains, or any other tax is a red herring which deserves to be eaten quickly by one of our resident scandinavians.
Looks like a floor for Gore may be building at 49%
Of course, technically speaking, even as to money of the decendent that has previously been taxed while in her hands, the imposition of the estate tax is not "double taxation" in any sense of the term for last time I checked - when you're dead, you're dead.
The estate tax then is a tax on income to the beneficiary not the decendent (a physical as well as logical impossibility)
As Rask points out there are numerous instances in which people are taxed on money that has already been taxed. However, the question about which part of the Gate's fortune has not been yet taxed the answer is almost all of it! Capital gains is not taxed until it is realized, so the vast majority of the ~40-50 billion of Gates wealth has not been taxed. If Bill and Melinda were to die today in a tragic accident the vast majority of the estate tax would be first time taxation on that wealth. When you are dealing with capital wealth of over a million dollars you will find that much of the capital involved in an estate has in fact never been taxed.
piss, piss, piss, [flush]
The range of questions reflected the diverse group of honor students--mostly juniors and seniors--who said they went to the meeting curious and unsure of Bush's plan for the country, but came out with a "pretty good idea" of his priorities if elected in November.
The consensus? "I can totally see him as president," said Jose Castaneda, 16, who shook Bush's hand as he strolled onto campus during second period Thursday. "He was very comfortable talking to us. He just acted like a president, you know?"
Poll: Gore Leads Bush in 3 Industrial States
Friday, September 15, 2000
DETROIT (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore has opened significant leads over his Republican rival, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, in the vote rich industrial states of Michigan, Illinois and Pennsylvania, the Detroit Free Press and Wayne State University said on Friday.
The poll of 1,800 voters also showed the race in Ohio is a statistical dead heat, the newspaper and university said.
Gore leads Bush 45 percent to 37 percent in Michigan, 48 percent to 33 percent in Illinois, and 51 percent to 33 percent in Pennsylvania, while Bush holds a two-point edge, 43 percent to 41 percent, in Ohio.
Michigan, Illinois and Pennsylvania are worth a combined 63 electoral votes of the 270 needed to win the presidential election. Ohio is worth 21 electoral votes.
The margin of error for the poll was plus or minus 4 percentage points in Michigan, and 4.9 percentage points in the other states. Six hundred voters were polled in Michigan, while 400 were polled in each of the other states.
The poll also found more than 80 percent of voters in each state said they were satisfied with the condition of the nation's economy.
CBS's electoral map moving to Gore. With the Olympics on, Bush is going to have to rely on the hope of the underdog - debates.
CBS's electoral map moving to Gore. With the Olympics on, Bush is going to have to rely on the hope of the underdog - debates.
You're a day late and a dollar short with your flush which you prematurely let loose before checking the toilet for your brains.
Most Polls Show Gore Up 7
George Bush said 'sublimable' twice but he was probably distracted by executing so many 'crimables'
Cyg -hang 'round here long enuf, you'll learn that yours is a hope most forlorn indeed. 
Gore Does Letterman - Nite Cyg!
Eric (is your last name Shawn?)
Nope. Guess again.
You see, you suffer from western guilt as well.
Oh, not overtly so. I just don't think it's so easy to gloss over with just an embarrassed half-smile and a mumbled, "Well shucks, times was dif'rent then."
Should we apologize for slavery?
I thought we recently did. Didn't Clinton -- who, by the way, is America's first black president, or so they say -- ceremonially invoke some sort of public apology a few years ago? Kinda like the Pope apologizing for the Inquisition and the Crusades -- ehhh, so what? Action talks, bullshit walks. Anyone can say they're sorry -- demonstrating that you really understand the error of your ways and are actively changing them is a whole 'nother deal.
If yes, then shouldn't the African and central american nations apologize as well? Or, should we consider that if these slave holding nations didn't have slaves and advance their power, they may have been slaves themselves.
Yes, yes, Western slave traders bought their cargo from other blacks. I know. And slavery and genocide still occur in parts of that benighted continent. Plenty of white folk from certain ethnic stocks have slave ancestry as well. I'm referring more to the way blacks were literally treated as subhumans once they got here, and for decades after they were freed. There is no legitimate excuse for that sort of thing.
Catchy slogan. Right up there with "Less is more" and "We only did as we were told".
As for Mr. Limbaugh, don't you think it's useful to remind people that while Derek Jeter may sign a $100 million contract with the Yankees, then the IRS has a contract for $50 million - without doing a thing?
I don't know what all that has to do with Limbaugh, nor do I for a second believe that Derek Jeter got stuck with a $50 million tax bill. That's why they have loopholes, Chief, and no one jumps through 'em better than the most wealthy. Even so, if poor Derek only picks up $50 mil for chasing a ball around for a half-dozen years, life will go on.
And someone pointed out here that the higher up the education scale you go, the more likely you'll find Republicans. They attributed this to wealth rather than education.
Right. Like I said before, voting preferences have economic components. Which doesn't mean that poor folk won't vote GOP; I live in a county that voted 72% for Bob Dole in '96. I am not making that up; in fact, I'm surprised the percentage was that low.
My question to this is, so is the insidious plan of the Democrats to keep everyone poor so they can stay in power?
Seriously, wouldn't that be a self-dooming plan? Are there vast numbers of illiterate drones just itching to put down the remote and the warm can of Old Milwaukee, and pull the votin' lever? Of course not. Apathy is the natural by-product of stupidity, so even if dumbing down were the nefarious plan of the eeevil Demobots, it'd bite 'em in the ass eventually.
A woman there asked Mr. Bush about an article in Vanity Fair magazine that postulates a cause for his frequent malapropisms and lapses of grammar: dyslexia.
Mr. Bush has laughed off that theory and did so on this occasion by pointing out how little contact he had had with the writer of the Vanity Fair article, Gail Sheehy.
"The woman who knew that I had dyslexia — I never interviewed her," Mr. Bush said.
He did not appear to be making what would have been an incredibly clever joke.
Powerful U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott put it on the line for Georgia voters Friday: Elect Republican Mack Mattingly to the Senate or run the risk of losing valuable C-130 military contracts.
"You don't want all those C-130s built in Meridian, Miss. But if Mack is not up there, I will do everything I can to move the whole operation to Mississippi," the Mississippi senator said in a brief appearance for Mattingly at Atlanta's Peachtree-DeKalb Airport.
``This underscores the clear direction in the momentum of the campaign that Gore has established in the last couple of weeks,'' he said.
Meanwhile, Annual Industry Ranking Says Show "Big Loss" for Studio Execs
Washington, DC --The walkout by advertisers from the "Dr. Laura" TV show became a full parade today as 12 more companies announced they would no longer be associated with the program. Meanwhile, an annual ranking of the most powerful executives of the information age has cited the "Dr. Laura" TV show as a negative mark against the heads of the companies that offer the program.
11 More Companies Pull Ads
For one advertiser, Schlessinger's anti-gay rhetoric hit close to home. When ads for the Los Angeles law firm Jacoby & Meyers appeared during the "Dr. Laura" show, the firm's vice president took quick action. "My daughter is gay," the firm's vice president, Mindy Gandin, told Variety. "I'm just as upset as anyone that our ads ran during 'Dr. Laura'."
in the future," and added that the hotel "does not condone in any way
discrimination on any basis." Conair, Brink's, GEICO, International House of Pancakes, Ontel, Volvo of Brentwood, CA and Closet World in Los Angeles also pulled their advertising.
Schlessinger Begins to Tarnish Studio Brass
Meanwhile, the release of a much-anticipated ranking of the most powerful media executives said that "Dr. Laura" was a negative mark against the chiefs at Paramount and Viacom.
"The New Establishment 2000," Vanity Fair magazine's annual ranking of the top fifty leaders of the information age, directly cited "Dr. Laura" as a "Big Loss" in its ranking of Sherry Lansing, Chairman of Paramount and Jonathan L. Dolgen, Chairman of Viacom Entertainment Group.
Lansing and Dolgen share Vanity Fair's 41st spot among the top 50, up three spots from last year -- but not without a warning about "Dr. Laura." "In terms of enduring P.R. unpleasantness, Paramount took its biggest hit courtesy of Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the popular radio talk-show windbag who has described gays as 'deviant'," Vanity Fair wrote. "...the most recent talk show produced by Paramount Television; if Dr. Laura is the model, let's hope it's the last." "The New Establishment 2000" appears in Vanity Fair's
October edition.
Executives at both Paramount and Viacom have been largely silent in the face of the ongoing controversy over Schlessinger's anti-gay comments. The "Dr. Laura" TV show debuted Monday to poor reviews, light advertising and low ratings.
Bush Skips CA GOP Convention For Fourth Straight Time
bwahahahahahaha!
Luxor Las Vegas Resort and Casino, New Jersey U.S. Senate candidate Jon Corzine and International House of Pancakes are the latest in a string of advertisers to pull their spots from week-old Dr. Laura. Luxor had bought ads to run in Los Angeles, San Diego and Phoenix, but only designated which daypart it wanted them seen in. When the organizers of Web site StopDrLaura.com informed the company that its ads were appearing on Dr. Laura, Luxor told its media buyer to solicit other shows in similar time periods.
“It’s real simple,” said Scott Voeller, Luxor’s director of marketing and advertising. “The Luxor in no way, shape or form promotes discrimination on any basis and from what I can tell she blatantly condones it on a sexual preference basis.” He also pointed out that his casino’s nightclub sponsors an alternative lifestyle “Freedom Night” every Thursday.
Through all this (other spots have been pulled by local advertisers Bally’s Total Fitness, Verizon Online DSL and Jacoby & Meyers law practice) Paramount has said that the effect on the production of Dr. Laura is insignificant. The show’s national advertisers are “still intact,” explained a source. Procter & Gamble has been the only one to drop out since last spring. However, all this “does impact the ability of stations to sell time on that show,” says Katz TV’s Bill Carroll. Yet, “if the show does well, there will be advertisers willing to place ads, but if it doesn’t (it’s currently tracking below how other shows made out last year) all this will be a moot point,” he says.
Bush's best hope may not be the debates, slim though that undoubtedly is, but rather the Olympic hiatus.
Bush really does quite well when he's waging a phantom campaign. Its the Real Deal he seems to have trouble with.
Fox News did that story two weeks ago on its Sunday morning Tony Snow program and Brit Hume contacted the Times about doing a funny sidebar but the flounders at the Times didn't bite until their lovers at the DNC came a-calling.
So what?
Gore leads by 14 points thanks to that debate strategy that got you all wet.
do anything wrong," said Slate reporter Jacob Weisberg. "And now it seems exactly the opposite." Weisberg gives Gore only limited credit, saying that "some of these flaps are of Bush's own making" and that "on any given day reporters would rather write a story about how the campaign is running into trouble."
And boy do they have a TON of material....this ain't the Bush Leagues Rosie
Cheney’s strategic blueprint, faithfully followed by the Clinton administration, rested on the conviction that America’s safety and prosperity depend on stability in vast stretches of the globe, from the Taiwan Straits to the Persian Gulf and Central Europe.
“Cheney today is running against the sorts of things he endorsed back in the early 1990s,” said James Lindsay, a senior foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “But this is really more about slogans than substance.” MSNBC
Fishing tomorrow with the Boy Scouts on Potomac River near Ridge, MD.
He said the push for impeachment came (this is sure to warm connie's dark heart) from showing the senators the Juanita Broadderick material.
In other words, Clinton was impeached for someone else's lies.
But he's not sincere is he? 
Bush Gore Nader Buchanan
People keep sending me quotations from George W. Bush. And there's usually a sarcastic note attached. Such as: "Did you see George W.'s latest gem the other day?" Or: "Get a load of what Yogi Bush said last week."
Rarely a day goes by without somebody e-mailing a remark made by the hard-riding Texan along the ol' campaign trail. Or somebody sticking a Post-It note on a magazine article and dropping into a mailbox some dumb comment by the Republican candidate.
Oh its only a 3 point race, much too early to count Bush out!
The media ALWAYS stokes a race even when or even especially when there are only smoldering embers.
Huffington Political Comeback?
PALM SPRINGS, Calif. (AP) - Banking and oil heir Michael Huffington, who waged a bitter 1994 campaign against Sen. Dianne Feinstein, is again eying a role in California politics.
The last time the 53-year-old Republican made headlines was in 1998, when he disclosed that he was bisexual.
At the Republican state convention over the weekend, Huffington grabbed the spotlight again, declaring that he is not through with politics.
Promoting tolerance within the Republican Party (news - web sites) - for diversity of race, ethnicity, and particularly sexual preference - is at the top of his agenda, he said. His goal to help promote that: winning the office of mayor or governor.
``The reason I came out is to say, 'Hey, let's open the door to the last bastion of discrimination,''' Huffington said Saturday. ``The party of Lincoln should be reaching out to blacks, Hispanics gays and so forth and so on.''
Now just who are these so forth and so on folks?
I was wondering why La Huffington made an appearance on a local political talk show.
I guess when it comes to politics The Girl Can't Help It !
Created by JennyQ and swiped by me from bartcop.com: 
Ohio Holding Steady for Bush...R.W. Apple, Jr., noted gourmand, in The NYTimes:
COLUMBUS, Ohio, Sept. 15 — Pennsylvania and several other swing states may have shifted toward Vice President Al Gore in the presidential race in the last three weeks, but so far Ohio has more or less stayed put, if surveys of voters are to be believed.
In polls by various organizations starting in May, Mr. Gore's main rival, Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, has held a reasonably steady lead. A recent survey, completed before Labor Day by The Columbus Dispatch, gave him a lead of six percentage points, 49 to 43, with a margin of sampling error of 2 percent.***
***The infamous mail-in poll resurfaces in our newspaper of record.
"I was curious, however, about one of your comments. The one to the effect that those who believe that W. equates to three new Supreme Court justices and that there goes Roe v. Wade are idiots. Before responding, I would appreciate your expanding on this a bit. Do you not think that Roe v. Wade is in jeopardy? Do you think that W. would not appoint justices who would make a difference on this? (I can see an argument along those lines, since any President (except perhaps a zealot like Buchanan) would know that if a dramatic turn occurs on basic abortion rights (forget the late term nonsense) that this will cause a tremendous political upheaval. But, as indicated, I would like to know why you think that any such concern over what will happen if W. were to be elected is idiotic.)"
The political upheaval would be too great, so if Bush gets a shot at appointing 3 justices (presumably the conservative Rehnquist, the moderate O'Connor and the liberal Stevens), his political team will find those who have no record whatsoever on abortion (not very difficult when you are choosing from the ranks of the federal judiciary), they will be vetted privately on the issue, the nominees will steadfastly refuse to discuss the issue during confirmation hearings, and to the extent there is fear that more than one of the nominees is inclined towards a reversal of Roe v. Wade, he or she will be destroyed in the confirmation process.
So, you'll get ideological replacements for each of the retiring members.
I think history bears me out. Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. appointees included Stevens, O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy, and they have all supported Roe. Thomas and Scalia have not favored Roe, but when 66% of GOP pro-life appointees turn out to be Roe supporters, that should tell you something. Indeed, none other than Dick Cheney was Ford's chief of staff when Stevens was nominated.
"They have to do something that's different and dramatic," Mr. Deaver
said.
Asked what would that be, he replied, "I don't know."
Jex- It also means that it's time for GOP desperate measures and dirty tricks.
I expect the piranhas to start biting while Jr. appeals to our more selfish "angels" . . . 
Granted it would be difficult to get an openly anti-Roe justice nominee confirmed, do you think that such an "anti-litmus" test would be reliable?
Bush has said he likes jurists of the Kennedy-Scalia mold. Do you think that it would be hard to find jurists of that type who have never voted on an abortion case? Are abortion cases that prevalent on appellate dockets? What about on state appellate courts?
I think he won't have a litmus test, as he says, because 1) he said it and 2) it is good politics not to have one. Moreover, like his father, he is a pragmatist.
Abortion cases are incredibly rare on the state or federal level.
If the "litmus test" itself is bad, surely one should examine Gore's predilection for it? Or is only the test subject?
If your question is, "Is there a guranteed, locked down assurance that Bush won't get three anti-Roe justices on the Court?" the answer is no. Of course, it is possible that you may someday produce less than 86% of the posts in Politics.
This is to my original point. Acknowledging the political value and legitimacy of the prediction does not mean you have to join the idiots in believing it. Extreme rhetoric and fear-mongering can be fun, but ultimately, it is for dummies.
No. It was effortless, and hopefully dispensed with your "But can we be sure the moon is not made of green cheese?" line.
George Bush has a Real Plan for Real People
and
Ian Thorpe has 17" feet!
Gore Moves Ahead of Bush in Electoral College
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
(Alan Elsner, Political Correspondent)
---Having trailed for months, Democrat Al Gore has moved ahead of Republican George W. Bush in the state-by-state race to get the 270 votes in the Electoral College needed to win the presidential election, independent surveys showed.
Most independent counts now give Vice President Gore a narrow lead over Texas Gov. Bush in the crucial state contests. But there are still enough battleground states, where the race is too close, that either man could win the Nov. 7 election.
``Gore is in the lead but it's not by any means solid. There are eight to 10 big states out there that he has to win and he's not there yet,'' said Peter Steinberger, a political scientist at Reed College in Portland, Oregon who studies the electoral geography of U.S. elections.
-Gore's 49 to 41 lead over Bush is exactly the same as Poppy's over Dukakis at this point
- Contrary to widespread belief and my own, voter attention to the campaign is at exactly the level it was in '96
Mensch: a good person.
Yiddishe neshoma: a Jewish soul.
Nuchshleppers: afterthoughts.
Tachlis: to tell it like it is.
Tuchis: a person's rear end.
Chutzpah: gumption or nerve.
Mazel tov: congratulations.
And some other Yiddish words commonly used in the United States:
Kvetch: to complain.
Meshugina: crazy person.
Nosh: to eat a little something.
Schtick: routine.
Nudnick: a pest.
Bush is spending money in California. In NORTHERN California. In the Peoples' Republic of San Francisco!
That's my Moron!!!
God Bless his pointy, empty head. Amen.
Vote Share:
Gore:.528
Bush: .464
Winner Take All
Gore: .668
Bush: .315
New York Senate Winner Take All
Clinton: .592
Lazio: .407
Congressional Control
GOP House and Senate: .410
GOP House, Dem Senate: .013
Dem House, GOP Senate: .478
Dem House, Dem Senate: .108
Summary: Bush is dropping fast in the WTA, down to the point where the markets want more than 2 to 1 odds in order to bet on his victory, down from a Bush lead before Labor Day. Clinton is slowly extending her lead over Lazio. The possibility of Gore coattails doesn't seem to be moving the Congressional market much, so traders evidently expect those coattails to be short.
--Paul Gigot (NH)
Of course, that doesn't include their sex lives, given Bush's support of the Texas sodomy law.
(I haven't ranted about that for a couple of weeks, at least.)
The Democrats will get into your wallet, but stay out of your bedroom.
The Republicans will get out of your wallet, but will get into your bedroom.
I know. That's why I vote (and rant) the way I do. As it was said during the 80s, "Reagan wants the government to get off our backs and onto our fronts."
statistically significant?"
The IEM is a project run by the University of Iowa Business school. It is basically a political futures market, where the prices reflect the perceptions of people betting real money. That is, if you buy a Bush share right now, and Bush wins, you get twice your money back. The price therefore reflects the rough fact that as many shares are willing to take that bet as there are shares offering it.
What I find interesting is that these are prices are, in theory, based on coldly rational and informed political observers betting against each other, and therefore the prices should be the best indication of a candidate's chance of winning, free from all the spin and political posturing that normally interferes with such frank assessments.
The question is, "How efficient is the market". That is still an open question, but based on my observations, it seems quite efficient. Prices are generally quite stable (except when some surprise occurs, like Guliani's admission of having cancer), barely budging during political conventions for instance (because the informed and observant traders are quite aware that both candidates will get bounces). The IEM has also accurately predicted every Presidential election since it was created a dozen years ago.
The reason I post the prices is that I think they are an interesting gauge of a campaign. The press doesn't mind saying when someone is behind in the polls, but they massively hedge their bets when it comes to saying how likely a turnaround could be. The IEM, in my opinion, is the most objective method available of answering that question.
Still, its got to be a damned sight better than the talking heads of the punditocracy who because they are afraid of being shown up; because they talk to each other way too much, and, above all, because they promote a horse race to sell their medium, are rarely, if ever, correct.
1) You're comparing apples & oranges. Al Gore is proposing sweeping federal control of large pieces of the economy that will drain our wallets. George Bush is proposing no federal regulation of "our bedrooms".
2) There is already precedent for the unconstitutional power grab Al Gore is after. There is no precedent for the federal government being able to regulate "our bedrooms".
3) Proposing that states be able to regulate "our bedrooms" is quite different from proposing that the federal government do so.
Back in the Dark Days of June & July I posited a cosmic connection between the fortunes of Al Gore and the San Francisco Giants which has also proved quite accurate thus far.
If the Giants win the NL West, Gore will win the Election due to a confluence in the cosmos.
wisdom or an amalgam of it is superior to the genius of one "coldly
rational" political observer. "
But the IEM isn't one observer. It is thousands, betting against each other.
Must be a lag in the map.
The difference is that there is no intelligent reason why the Giants would be an accurate predictor of a Presidential election, whereas there is a hell of a lot of evidence of the ability of a market to deal with uncertain outcomes in just such a manner.
Beg to differ. My cosmic intuition.
I understand the difference between Gore's federal plans for intrusion into the economy, and repeat Bush's history on the sodomy law merely as an expression of my lack of trust in his judgment to deal well with gay issues when such matters come to the fore at the federal level (as they do from time to time nowadays), should Bush win.
The Dismal Scientist formula does not use polling data, so the surge in Pennsylvania changes nothing, but you could say it would appear to confirm the methodology they use for that state.
Another anomaly is Tennessee, which is generally predicted to be safe for Gore. But favorite son status is probably not used, either, in their figuring. Otherwise Texas would be solid Bush, rather than leaning so.
There was some grumbling by my Republican neighbors that he should be blowing Gore away in Indiana. In other state races here, Lugar is blowing away Paul Johnson for Senate and Gov. Frank O'Bannon appears to be holding his own against the Republican McIntosh in the governor's race.
OTH, Nader is killing Gore in Oregon, and to some extent Washington State (according to the NY Times article by Clymer on Sunday). Without Nader, Gore would be leading in both. He has a tenuous lead in Washington State and it's a dead heat in Oregon.
HEEELLLLLOOOOOO Mrs. Desembler!!! Keep talking about the vile hate language of Rap whileSmirkN'Sneer/Minor League & Big Timeget more tobacco and gun money stuffed up their butts than a G-String Diva. Of course words are always worse than cancer and mayhem to a Conservative -- heaven forbid you should be honest and bite the hand that bribes you! 
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Tracking poll: Gore continues narrow lead 
"The numbers reveal a presidential race essentially unchanged, with the Democrat Gore's support remaining in the high 40s while Republican Bush's numbers are in the low- to mid-40s. Interviews with 741 likely voters, conducted September 15-17, show Gore drawing 48 percent of the survey's voters, while Bush pulls the support of 43 percent, a lead of five points."
........................................
"For the first time in this campaign, more voters believe that Al Gore will win the election: 54 percent now think Gore will win in November, up from 34 percent in late August. And Gore's favorable rating, which rose to a new high of 61 percent after the Democratic convention, has maintained at that level since then."
Gore may also win Colorado, and probably will take New Mexico, two other states where the Green vote has been strong (in '96 Clinton lost CO because of it).
Nader was strong in Michigan but has faded there, placing that state in Gore's column. That suggests to me that Nader's support is weak, and that he won't prove to be all that much of a factor.
How come, Al Gore?
What's this I'm reading that the cost of a gallon of home heating oil will double this winter. And natural gas will go up 60%.
How come, Al Gore?
Where do you think all the money is coming from to buy the lead in the polls? It can't be all campaign contribution you know.
New Jersey Men Favor Gore 47-32 percent
"TRENTON, N.J. (Reuters) - Vice President Al Gore has a solid double-digit lead over Texas Gov. George W. Bush in the important swing state of New Jersey, where his campaign has found growing support among independents and men, a new poll concluded on Monday.
"A Star Ledger/Eagleton-Rutgers poll showed the Democratic presidential nominee leading Republican Bush 47-34 percent among all registered voters, and gave him a 10-point, 46-36 percent edge over his Republican rival among people likely to cast ballots in the Nov. 7 election."
and now for each of those persons detached from mortality, how many of their children weren't born? Seems to go into the billions if that is taken into account.
In absurdity.
Wrong thread.
*apologies* to all.
damn
What's this I'm reading that the cost of a gallon of home heating oil will double this winter. And natural gas will go up 60%.
How come, Al Gore?
Rose I got this straight from my friend for you.
Hi there Rosie! Tipper sends her best to you and your brood.
Now for your question. I really don't know the answer. But I bet my Big Oil opponent and his Halliburton running mate might know the answer. If not, I am sure that Poppy can call his old friend, the Emir of Kuwait.
Love and Kisses,
Al Gore, next President of the US
They are showing roughly the same result no?
This is the GOP we all know and love:
[AP]A conservative group is airing TV ads that urge voters to support Republicans, featuring a woman who says she pulled her son out of public school because there was drugs, violence and ``a bit more diversity than he could handle
Yahoo! Looks like we're headed for forty-dollar oil...maybe I'll get a drilling lease. I've got some leftover "Let the Bastards Freeze in the Dark!" bumper stickers around here somewhere.
Yes, I realize this can cut both ways.
By the way, if Bush really starts to tank, à la Dukakis (no pun intended), which I think is entirely possible, you might see Republicans stay home, which could indeed put Arizona in the Democratic column again. The hispanic vote, which was largely credited for Clinton's win here, has only grown, and so far there have been no credible efforts by the local GOP to woo it.
Will Pseudo-Scandals Decide the Election?...The American Prospect...(Sean Wilentz)
Excerpts:
"Despite the chastening experience of McCarthyism, the media have now become both more scandal-hungry and more vulnerable to pseudo-scandals, thanks to the vast expansion of cable television, talk radio, and the Internet, and the consequent radical shortening of news cycles. Apart from technological innovations, the pseudo-scandal owes its emergence to three disastrous developments of the 1980s and 1990s: the growth of antipolitical media sensationalism, the post-Watergate tendency to criminalize political differences, and the development of an absurd and degrading soft money campaign finance system that has widened opportunities for genuine corruption and pseudo-scandals alike."
................................
"In this year's presidential race, the appearance of corruption has dogged one candidate, Al Gore. Between April and June 2000, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 76 percent of the media coverage of Gore focused on two negative themes: his alleged lies and exaggerations and his alleged scandals. (Over the same period, the survey found, the bulk of the coverage of George W. Bush involved his putative move to the center and elaborations of "compassionate conservatism.") In the past year, painstaking articles in several publications have exposed the emptiness of the allegations against Gore. Nonetheless, the charges linger in the public mind as commonplace knowledge, and the repeated depiction of Gore as scandal-tainted could prove important, perhaps even decisive, in November. If it does, it will be the ultimate triumph of the pseudo-scandal."
But seriously, I see the Repubs in the WH and the Senate as a serious threat to lock in decades long anti-choice precedent creep from the SC, and this is a major reason to vote for Frick over Frack. That and the environment.
All of that assumes that you get a court that would overturn Roe vs. Wade, and given that the court has regularly reaffirmed it, that seems a bit silly. Even in the glory days of the 70s, women never had an unlimited right to abortion.
Bush could, but probably wouldn't, appoint an anti-Roe justice. Its not the constraint the senate imposes on him, but the constraint imposed by voters - women voters in particular. Politicians shy away from making "hard choices," to use Gore's line from the convention speech - endorsing the overthrow of Roe is one of the hardest choices out there, in terms of the political feedback.
The judiciary problem is more subtle than that, in my opinion - further restrictions on the Commerce clause, entrenching ideological interpretive frameworks (originalism as "natural"), etc.
Hilarious hyprocrite. The typical Algore fan.
Most of the Bush stories I've read are about his aledged stupidity.
We get to chose between Pinnochio and Elmer Fudd.
Has there ever been a less inspiring presidential campaign? Not in my lifetime.
Rick Norwood
www.io.com/~norwoodr
Some choice.
Rick Norwood
www.io.com/~norwoodr
The poll is a snapshot of the current mood of the electorate. The IEM is a forecast of electoral vitory made by people with a financial stake in the outcome who have presumably rationally consumed a lot of election information. They are measuring different things.
"They are showing roughly the same result no?"
Currently both are pointing toward a Bush victory, but this has not always been the case. Gallup had shown Bush ahead for most of the year, but the IEM had Gore in the lead until his campaign derailed in the spring. I would assume that the market was quite aware that Bush's lead in the polls was the temporarily-untarnished appeal of the charming newcomer, and not something to be taken seriously until Gore started screwing up. Similarly, even though the polls showed a Gore lead after the Dem convention, the IEM believed it was a temporary bounce that would fade, and Bush's lead was maintained until after Labor Day. His stock has been in free fall ever since.
Also, the Winner-Take-All market is doing more than the polls: estimating the *probability* of a Gore or Bush victory. You don't get that from Gallup.
I suspect that you are overestimating the predictive ability of people in the market. The only difference between participants in the market and participants in the polls is the financial stake - the people participating in the market are self-selected as having expendable resources and confidence in their political knowledge. I usually think that the more confident one is in his ability to predict political events, the less likely he is to be accurate.
The Gore campaign admitted that it lifted those costs not from his family's bills, but from a House Democratic study, and that Gore misused even those numbers: They represent the manufacturer's price to wholesalers, not the retail price of the brand-name product....
For Gore, who has a history of embellishing facts about himself and his family, the remarks he made in Florida are a blend of erroneous family detail and questionable statistics on an election issue of growing significance.
Rats.
But it's quite clear that Drudge still fantasizes about doing it with Alec Baldwin.
In the shower.
Full dressed.
Scarfing down an "Entemann's" while blowing him.
You know, the usual.
Gore misstates facts in drug-cost pitch
BTW, EricCartman, if you're listening, I was turned onto this by Rush Limbaugh. Does that make the whole story invalid?
Just don't "forget" this part of the same article you link to:
"Those facts aside, Gore's overall message was accurate - that many
brand-name drugs that have both human and animal applications are much
more expensive for people than for pets."
I'll also bet that Limbaugh doesn't mention that prescriptions of the same drugs for humans and for animals are often less costly for animals. That is the difference between a partisan site and a reputable source.
One should wonder why costs for animal drugs would cost less than the same drug prescribed for humans? What could possibly be different about the two healthcare systems? Hmmm.... Could it be that one is virtually unregulated and the other is awash in bureaucratic red tape? But, vote for Gore anyway. He want's to add even more red tape. Hell, he'll throw in some purple & pink tape to appease the gays.
How so? I haven't really made any bold statements about the market's predictive accuracy.
"The only difference between participants in the market and participants in the polls is the financial stake - the people participating in the market are self-selected as having expendable resources and confidence in their political knowledge. I usually think that the more confident one is in his ability to predict political events, the less likely he is to be accurate."
While there are assuredly some of these, if there is a bias, I think it is toward Bush because of the greater likelihood of market players to be Republicans. But do keep in mind that the people you describe are going to punished by the market, which rewards an accurate assessment of a politician's chances.
I find the IEM of interest for two primary reasons. 1) For exploring the ability of markets to make accurate predictions about future events. I participated for a while in the Hollywood Stock Exchange for the same reason. 2) the additional information that the IEM gives regarding perceived probabilities. For instance, while the polls have been fairly steady for the past two weeks, the markets have shown Bush's stock steadily falling, showing greater uncertainty in his ability to switch things around as time passes.
Pat Roars Back at BJU
I know you would like it to fit your free-market fantasy, but the reason why the costs are different (according to the drug industry--also cited in the article that you obviously just read the headline of) is that the R&D costs for human consumption are vastly more than than those for animals, which the drug companies can "piggy back" once the FDA approves their use for humans. But you probably think the FDA is part of what makes the US "socialist."
Additionally, if the costs of treating Fido's various ills get too expensive...good night Fido. Would you do the same for your mother?
I am surprised they even let Buchanan speak at BJU...him being a Catholic and all.
What evidence does the reporter of this factual story cite to back up Gore's and his claim? Even if Gore's story were true, one anectdote doesn't back up the claim. Why does this reporter feel so compelled to support Gore's claim? No one backs up Bush's claim that real people want real tax relief. Or, that given the choice of more federal spending or tax cuts, Greenspan himself prefers tax cuts.
I think BJU is a place of "Chrisitian" forgiveness above all else, especially when fed raw meat like
"Can you imagine in the 1960's, a first lady of the United States, as happened in June, marching up Fifth Avenue to celebrate a lifestyle, a homosexual lifestyle, that has always been associated with social decadence and national decline?" he said, to applause. "And today it is associated as the prime means by which the AIDS virus, a terrible disease, is spread."
The polls don't seem to bear you out on tax relief. Sorry if Bush hasn't cottoned on to that yet.
Also, in the press coverage of Greenspan's remarks on the surplus, Greenspan stated that he preferred that the surplus go toward paying down the debt; but if he had to choose between tax cuts and givernment spending, he would choose the former. Note that Gore has explicitly stated that part of the surplus will go toward paying off the debt, which is more than Bush has done.
1) Ignore chances to grow your salary and instead focus your efforts on paying off your debt immediately at the expense of future salary growth.
2) Take opportunities to grow your salary so that the $1,000 in debt is proportionately a much smaller piece of your income?
Now, before you answer, ask yourself: How would an "internet" CEO answer?
I wonder if that will come soon, and what it might be.
Those whose work is finance know that Bush's tax cuts hearken back to Reaganomics, to what Poppy rightly called "voodoo" economics that led to unprecedented debt; that crowded out private investment; that added trillions to the national debt, and that were the cause of repeated local and national recessions during the Reagan Bush years.
I have to ask, if Hillary really is inviting these people over to "get to know them", why doesn't she invite them to her house in New York?
What's that way way down there? Oh, that's deviance.
Do you believe in paying down your credit cards in order to reduce interest charges? Doesn't that free up money that can be spent on other things, and/or invested?
I also notice that you are pretty quick to abandon Greenspan when what he says doesn't suit your ideology.
The ad, running on television stations in Kansas City, promotes the GOP and its policies that would help parents who send their children to private schools. Seated on a couch, an actress playing a worried mother says her son Ralph was "hanging with the wrong crowd" at his public school.
"We didn't want him in a place where drugs and violence were fashionable," she says. "That was a bit more diversity than he could handle." On the screen, a white teenager at a cafeteria table pulls a pistol on a racially mixed group of students. Then the message flashes: "Vote Republican."
Of course that came from the Washington Post. Cyg will probably jabber on about how we shouldn't trust the liberal media.
I think that newspapers tend to have biases, depending on the reporters own experiences. Some newspapers are more biased than others. My own hometown newspaper, the Richmond Times Disgrace, could be called the house organ of the republican party. Does that mean that the news reporting in the paper can't be trusted?
Their primary cause was not as Republicans at the time would have it, evidence of the "invisible" hand of some malignant economic god but were due to the crowding out of private investment that voodoo economics caused.
That is why finance experts condemn as utter and dangerous flim-flam, the Bush tax cuts.
The only people that support the idiocy are the same who always have..the Laffer curve fools who write editorials for the Wall Street Journal
How in the world do you reach this conclusion?
CEO answer?"
Well, if I am you, I increase my consumption, arguing that my extra consumption will stimulate the economy to the point where I actually begin to earn more income.
I poo-poo'ed the whole notion. In the 1970's the US economy, in the words of Big Al, "hadn't seen nothin yet" when it came to dangerous deficits.
Now the Republicans are strangely silent......
I'll give a brief excerpt:
The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2 percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began. Figure 1 shows the economic growth rate by president since World War II. That rate was higher in the 1980s than in the 1950s and 1970s but was substantially lower than the rapid economic growth rate of more than 4 percent per year in the 1960s. The Kennedy income tax rate cuts of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5 percent annual real growth.
1) Keep my kid home from school and go to jail.
2) Send my kid to school where he/she may die a violent death or get involved in crime and drug use.
Also, in your response you criticize Limbaugh as being partisan. Is Limbaugh any more partisan than Gore? Doesn't Gore as a candidate have a greater responsibility to be accurate than a radio personality or a message board poster does? Why be so much more forgiving of Gore's distortion then, than that of Limbaugh or Cygnus? Is addressing the issue of prescription drugs served well when anyone muddles the facts?
As far as the actual cost differential, I think there are a lot of valid reasons for its existence. I have a relative who is a veterinarian and who often gives "animal" drugs to his family members because he professionally believes there's really no difference. But other people when they hear about this are horrified or at least amused by his practice. They would be quite willing to pay extra to receive drugs prescribed for human beings whether or not a vet tells them there's no difference.
It often costs more for an oil change at a BMW dealer than at a Yugo dealer, too.
The biggest trick involves counting $400 billion of Medicare funds in the budget surplus number, even though the Republican Congress insists that these funds are in a "lock-box." Another big trick involves not mentioning that the tax cut will reduce the rate at which the federal debt is paid down, indirectly costing an extra $300 billion or so in interest payments. Then there is a series of little accounting tricks — a hundred billion here, another hundred billion there, eventually adding up to real money.
And a trillon+ for SS privatization, 250 billion for StarWars II, several billions in "compassionate conservative" social spending, and you can readily see why Paul Krugman thinks Bush is either stupid or he is a liar.
But wasn't there a better class of bullying, drugs, and bad influences there?
(Just kidding.)
Where do you live that you would not be permitted to home school if you were so inclined?
I would also think that statistically speaking, your children would be less likely to be injured or killed at school than at home.
If you want to credit Reagan for economic growth, then do the same for Clinton.
1) Why would an ignorant welfare mother want to homeschool her children?
2) Shouldn't it burn homeschooler's asses that to get a quality education for their children, they have to homeschool without getting a refund for their taxes?
[Temp link]
George W. Bush stepped in Tuesday and gave Oprah what Al Gore didn't -- a kiss -- and told the talk show diva that the public's biggest misconception of him is that ''I'm running on my daddy's name.''
Krugman: On a scale from 0 to 10, the Clinton administration deserves between 6 and 7. Not that they have done anything special, but they have avoided big mistakes. No unwise tax cut. No insane trade war. They got GATT and Nafta approved and made a contribution to reducing the federal deficit. That is quite different from saying that Clinton deserves credit for the economic recovery. But looking at his predecessors, you can say that not making a mess is already a big step forward.
I don't have any children in school and I don't get a tax break. What's more, the average person with 3 children or more will never pay enough in taxes to cover the cost of providing a public education for his children.
I don't know why any ignorant people would want to homeschool their children, but they still do it. My cousin with the IQ of dirt homeschools her children so that they are assured of being as stupid as she is. Is it criminal?
Ronski: I'll say this, there were very few blacks there. And they were not the bullying kind.
Indy: The lame (and I expect the correct) response is that Gore was parroting information given him by some staffer, which was not checked. As someone who is niggely about facts, I find this deplorable. Does that make him worse than any other politician?
And why is Cheney there to baby sit him? 
George Bush is peachy keen. That's why I gave him $1000. Pat Boone
I am on the school board of such a private school. We have never turned away the child of a parishoner for lack of funds. In our dioscese there is a middle school operated by the Jesuits in the poorest part of town that is widely supported by the community that educates young men who almost without exception cannot afford tuition for private education.
The question is, do we want such institutions to operate independantly, or do we want government funding and interference? You seem to think that there is something magical about private ownership and control of schools. Why then do you advocate injecting government into them? If government corrupts state schools to the point that they are harmful, why should it spread to private ones?
Bush-Clinton years.
This is all the funny money nonsense you need to know about your link.
If I average the worst economic performance in 50 years with the best ever, what horseshit do you think I might come up with.
So much for the Cato Insititute - credibility shot to shit before the close of the first paragraph.
Instead, focus on the matters which *are* substantially in the President's control, such as fiscal policy, tax policy, and management of Federal programs.
And Cato's "tax cuts stimulate the economy" argument is looking even weaker given the current state of the economy following tax hikes in 1990 and 1993.
Some voucher plans will create a market competition to charitable private schools that could harm them as well, while replacing them with an system of unknown effectiveness.
That's just more voodoo economic Bush flim-flam and people know it. That's why Cheney's getting his ass handed him on the stump WRT this issue.
On another subject, I think you and I discussed the '48 campaign earlier and can't remember if you recommended The Last Campaign to me or not, but I just finished reading it and it's very timely and a quick read. One interesting point it makes is that Truman mounted his comeback by using virulent, "class warfare" rhetoric against the Republicans, and the author blames that for some of the bad things that occurred in Truman's second term (such as McCarthyism). In general, though, it's a very pro Truman book, and he comes off far and away better than the other three major candidates that year.
Two interesting tidbits: if the popular vote data at the end of the book is correct, Truman didn't receive a single vote in Alabama, which I find astounding and haven't discovered any explanation for. Number two, the Progressive candidate Henry Wallace polled more than a million votes nationally, but according to the book almost half of them were from New York City.
I didn't recommend the book, but it sounds interesting. No votes in Alabama? I'd believe the Henry Wallace stat.
Houston Intercontinental Balllistic Airport is now Bush Intercontinental Ballistic Airport.
Texans are such losers.
Sorry Robt, judith
why couldn't Reagan's fiscal policy have affected the economy.
It did! The highly stimulative policies Reagan followed propelled the economy out of one recession and into the biggest one since the Great Depression by choking off private capital with the largest budget deficits in US peace-time history.
As for your link, I think its worthless. Look no further than the first paragraph. I am really a simple kinda guy.
If a writer shovels manifest bullshit in the very first paragraph, he won't do better in the following 100 pictures or no pictures.
Now that you've accepted that administrations DO have an impact on the economy, I suppose you'll be voting for Gore inasmuch as the US has never achieved such prosperity as it has over the past 8 years.
Yes, now you can fly from Ronald Reagan National Airport (Alexandria, VA) to George Bush International in Houston. The groundswell for re-naming Indianapolis International to Quayle has yet to be heard.
In the highly and increasingly unlikely event the Reformer with Results (and/or Real Plans for Real People) wins, I think we might consider renaming Bush Aiport,
Poppy's Plane Place
You know something crooked had to be going on. I'm really curious as to what it was.
I am waiting for some public school to be named after out illustrious Governor: George W. Bush Elementary School, Where Our Children Is Learning.
Bush kissed Oprah Winfrey today on her TV show (without invading her space), and cried when talking about the birth of his twins.
Women love that sort of stuff, I'm told.
I'm speaking, of course of the Great Doggie Poo
The newspaper said it appeared Gore took the figures from a study by Democrats in the House of Representatives rather than from family medical bills.
The Gore campaign said the figures were correct and that both the mother-in-law and the dog did take the drug.
and note well, the Bushies do not dispute the truth of the substance of the charge, ie that the same drug costs less for a dog than for a person.
It would be interesting to know how that came about.
why couldn't Reagan's fiscal policy have affected the economy."
There are two arguments used for the fiscal impacts of Reagan's policies. One is the Keynesian in nature, that his tax cuts and spending increases acted as a fiscal stimulus at a time when the economy was lackluster. There may be some merit to this, but given that the '81 recession was deliberately induced by the Fed to wring inflation out of the economy, and that the economy rebounded quickly when they loosened the screws, any impact of Reagan's on the business cycle was swamped (Volcker was a Carter appointee, you know, and Reagan frequently criticized him). Also, the logic of fiscal stimulus is that you then run surpluses in times of prosperity, which Reagan didn't do, and fiscal policy is increasingly recognized as a very imprecise tool in managing macroeconomic policy. Anyway, this is an argument that the Reaganites rarely make.
The second argument is that tax cuts themselves directly stimulated the economy by reducing disincentives for work and providing a greater amount of money to those with the greatest "marginal propensity to save". The latter argument is easily dealt with by pointing out that it doesn't do squat to help the national savings rate if the government just borrows all of the money that it lost in tax revenues (indeed, the national savings rate plummeted in the 80s), so let us focus on the former.
Growth during the Reagan era was nothing special. Cato has fun carefully selecting specific dates for comparison, but it is an unavoidable truth that the 80s were actually the worst postwar decade for GDP growth, even (slightly) worse than the 70s. The biggest growth years under Reagan were in 1983 and 1984 (7.6 and 5.6% respectively) following the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, so of course the economy did well - it is what is known as a cyclical recovery. Sorting the effects of a tax cut out of this cyclical effect is quite difficult. So basically, there just isn't any evidence that the tax cut actually stimulated growth, since growth was higher in decades with higher tax rates. I don't think you will get to much argument that judicious tax cuts *in concert with spending cuts* can potentially stimulate economic growth, but the evidence that a tax cut in concert with spending increases will stimulate non-cyclical growth is just non-existent. Again, just try to reconcile this argument with the phenomenal growth we have seen in the past several years, following a succession of tax hikes.
Is that really you?
That is, JadeGold of the old Fray?
Yes, and right after the birth of those twins, he started drinking like a fish because he couldn't handle the pressure of being a family man...
And then he went back to fucking teenage Mexican hookers.
Women love that.
Reagan also reappointed Volcker to his second term.
Hey jexster, there are some pretty pictures in this one.
Equally surprising was the impact of the Wallaceite and Dixiecrat defections. Truman was hurt, but not as badly as anticipated. His loss in the South was limited to the four states in which the Dixiecrats took over the Democratic party label-Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina-whose electoral vote totaled 38. (Thurmond's 39th electoral vote came from a Democratic elector in Tennessee who could not abide Truman.) Irwin Ross, The Loneliest Campaign, 1968
Bush crying publically
Rev Baker...
This is NOT a favorable trend imo.
Perhaps Gore now should kiss Tip while crying. Sheesh...
" which worst recession since the Great Depression
would be the one to which you are referring? Is it the same one that
Al Gore talks about? The one that was over before the press even
knew it was happening? The one that was over before Clinton even
took office?"
" What do you mean by selecting specific dates for comparison? It was
an average of the entire administration."
Of course, you overlook that he combined Bush and Clinton for several different measures.
"Worst GDP growth? Did you bother to look at the link, or are you just drudging up some liberal hack"
I don't know where Cato got it's raw numbers from, but take a look here. The Bureau of Economic Analysis isn't a liberal hack. It is the primary source for all GDP data.
Average annual growth in the:
50s: 4.16%
60s: 4.43%
70s: 3.27%
80s: 3.01% (70s had barely better growth than 80s)
90s: 3.03%
Look at the link and do your own math, if you don't believe me.
FWIW: growth from 81-88, inclusive (Reagan's term): 3.36.
Nothing to write home about.
Welcome back. I was hoping that you'd drop in.
The good old days.
I imagine that in those three other states Truman's name was placed on the ballot under a different banner.
Really, what is one to believe when listening to Mrs. William Clinton?
That she had one hell of a teacher.
is it worth linking in this thread's sidebar?
From The Last Campaign:
"By early October, the States' Rights Democrats, as they were called everywhere except for Mississippi, were on the ballot in thirteen states, twelve in the South, plus North Dakota, whose conditions for eligibility were easily met. In the month before the election, they would also meet requirements in Maryland and California."
So it sounds as though they were listed as an additional party, not as the Democrats. The book also talks about the struggle in the hardline Southern states for control of the established political machinery, including local personalities, so perhaps in Alabama no one was willing to stand as a Truman elector.
Whatever the explanation, I just find it astounding that in the post-WWII U.S. it was still possible for an incumbent president to be denied votes throughout an entire state. With party machines like that, no wonder it was the "solid" South for so long.
(but I do agree that we could write another better one – if there is interest)
any others to offer?
On top of all that, Ed Flanagan, the state auditor, and the only openly gay statewide elected official in US barely squeaked by in the Democratic primary and will now challenge Jeffords, one of the best (if not the best) Republican incumbment Senator on gay issues.
Painful election.
Gore widens lead over Bush in Michigan poll
Jeffords is a shoo-in. Dean will beat Dwyer, but if he does not get 50% of the vote (which is a slight-to-moderate possibility), the election goes to the state legislature. It is expected the GOP will pick up a few seats, and that these will be conservatives, not moderate Republicans.
While I think it unlikely that Dean would not be picked as governor, I think it is more likely, though by no means certain, that the civil unions bill will be re-opened and perhaps watered down a bit.
Then there is the possibility that a new, more conservative legislature will vote what the current one refused to do, that is, to schedule a constitutional amendment vote on dumbing down the civil unions law or overturning it entirely. This thing is not over. But some form of civil unions may still survive after the whole affair has quieted down in a couple of years. It is a hard one to predict.
The issue is complicated by an underlying resentment against the court-ordered statewide funding of schools last year. It is not only the civil unions issue which has some people unhappy with Dean, the Court, and moderate GOPers.
And before someone proposes that Bush is going to be slobbering all over himself, remember that he did pretty well debating McCain in South Carolina.
A CNN-USA Today-Gallup tracking poll also reflects a close race with Gore at 48 percent and Bush at 43 percent, just outside the error margin of 4 percentage points.
Actually, as Rask points out (if I've learned my lesson!?), this result is within the margin of error which must be applied to both figures ie Gore might be as low as 44, as high as 52. Bush might be as high as 47 and as low as 39. Thus the result is within the margin of error.
My only thought is, at this point, disregard the expectations game which the media and the candidates will be spinning. I don't think that most voters pay that close attention to the race to begin with and while the debates will draw a large audience, most will not be pre-conditioned by the expectations spin.
I don't really know how far Gore will be ahead of Bush by the first debate. One instinct is that the trial heats will begin to reflect the campaign to date more accurately - Gore +8 or so on average.
Another instinct is that Bush benefits when people aren't paying attention to his idiocies. This results in dead heat by Oct. 3.
Call me conflicted.
It is interesting to note how many elections could have been decided differently with just the switch of ten or twenty thousand votes in a few states here and there.
While I think Gore will win narrowly in the popular vote and more convincingly in the electoral college vote, I still think Gore has the capacity to blow it, and Bush the capacity to get lucky.
And is it really Thorpe's feet people are thinking about?
The office is at 479-10th St (betweeen Harrison & Bryant-across from
Costco). Accessible by MUNI Lines #9 San Bruno, #27 Bryant, and #42
Downtown Loop.
To kick off the site, there be a rally and mobilization.
Come Join Us!
Saturday, September 23 at 10 a.m.
Now that I have purchased my SPSS statistics software and finished three chapters of the text, I am dangerous!
I suspect that Gallup is right on - Gore is up by 5 at present and while I don't make official predictions until October 22nd, I predict that my prediction will be just about that...
I also predict that the Ian Thorpe's size is about........
One thing you can't ever be sure of, is how the polls measure the likely voter. Each claims that its "proprietary" model is better than the next guy's. Gallup, for instance, sniffs that its been working on its model for 50 years.
The best way that I know of to determine likely voters is to draw the sample directly from the voter rolls of those who have voted at least 3 times in each of the last 4 elections (Dick Cheney would miss that sample by a mile!)
Trouble is no national poll can afford this approach, though I know that local polls do and believe some state polls do too.
They rely instead on their "models" which, of course, we don't know beans about.
What movement in the race is happening right now is probably related to the gobs of advertizing going on right now. Since NY, NJ and CN have been all but abandoned by the GOP, I get to see none of these ads (save Hillary vs. Rick). Not that I'm complaining.
I suspect there are still doubts about Gore's character and about his spending plans, just as there are doubts about whether Bush is really up to the job, the tax cut proposal, and his spending plans.
AP
...BUT WHEN his drug tale was challenged, Gore’s campaign refused to back it up with details. “We’re not going to give out his mother’s private medical information,” said Doug Hattaway, speaking for Gore.
Gore told seniors in Tallahassee on Aug. 28 that his mother-in-law Margaret Ann Aitcheson pays $108 a month for the brand-name drug Lodine while it only costs $37.80 a month to administer the same drug to his arthritic dog Shiloh, The Boston Globe reported in its Monday editions. Those figures actually were national averages taken from a House Democratic study. Moreover, the numbers referred to the price paid by wholesalers, not consumers.
I mean, you've gotta wonder - does Algore even own a dog.
Is his mother-in-law even alive?
That's Vice-President Antichrist to you, pal.
stir=disturb
Gore told seniors in Tallahassee on Aug. 28 that his mother-in-law Margaret Ann Aitcheson pays $108 a month for the brand-name drug Lodine.
“We’re not going to give out his mother’s private medical information,” said Doug Hattaway, speaking for Gore.
...anyone else note the exquisite irony here?
Or is it Auntie-Christ?
Can you spell "Hippocratic Oath"?
I meant that as being directed to Gorey, Uncle Al to the family...Not intended fer you Joe.
George W. Bush in the state a month ago, has
pulled away to a 48 percent to 39 percent lead
among likely voters, according to a new poll by the
Public Policy Institute of California.
The survey, which gave Gore a slim 40 percent to
37 percent edge in August, shows that much of the
vice president's growing support seems to come
from voter confidence in his ability to deal with the
issues that concern them most: education, health
care and Social Security.
The poll also echoed the gender gap Bush is facing
throughout the nation. California women are
backing Gore over Bush, 54 percent to 34 percent,
while the Republican's lead among men has fallen to
two percentage points, 44 percent to 42 percent.
VOUCHER INITIATIVE TRAILING
The latest survey also showed a big turnaround in
the support for school vouchers under Proposition
38. While voucher supporters had a tiny 45 percent
to 44 percent edge last month, voters now oppose
vouchers by a 53 percent to 37 percent ratio. That
lead grows to 21 points among female voters.
I figure Algore's got 3 daughters, a son, and a wife he can still lie about.
If he rations 'em out right, this election will be a snap.
Let's see...
...in Michigan, he can tell the one about his daughter being run over by a school bus - driven by a non-union driver...
No single prize in national politics this fall is bigger than California. To presidential candidates, the nation's most populous and racially diverse state offers 54 electoral votes, one-fifth of the total needed to win the White House. Voter turnout in the state also could affect several close House races that both parties call critical to having the majority in the next Congress.
Instead, political analysts say Bush is struggling in California partly because core themes of his candidacy – his pledges to make deep tax cuts and to improve the military – don't match the new mind-set of the state's voters.
Bush faces other obstacles. No candidate mostly opposed to abortion has won a statewide election here in more than 10 years.
And The Moron has spent over $1 million on cable TV ads.
A dim bulb indeed!
Now he needs to stop playing defense and drive the b-ball downcourt and do a hook shot.
Two points!
Al Gore was always second sting, and always will be.
The Democratic presidential candidate leads his Republican rival Bush by 52 percent to 41 percent in the survey of 600 likely voters conducted last weekend by SurveyUSA for WDIV-TV in Detroit.
and/or, what's good for the goose is good for the gander...
(AP) LAZIO CALLS NOTION THAT HE WAS TOO AGGRESSIVE 'SEXIST'
Rep. Rick Lazio said Tuesday that it's "sexist" to portray his behavior during the Senate debate as too aggressive toward Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"The idea that somehow that there's a double standard because you're a man or a woman, and you can't make a point forcefully if you're a man, and the person you're making the point with is a woman, I just think that's sexist," he said during a campaign stop at an Internet company in Buffalo.
Deviation = 3.00
The voters appreciated it so much that those who watched the debate said Hillary won by a substantial margin.
Or,as Bill said to Hillary after the debate when she was crying in her wine.
"Shit happens."
``Boy, I wish all of you were 21 years old right now,''
Great ticket Bush-Lazio
Lazio came back with his own sibling story, saying: "If she wants to characterize me as, you, debating with her brother, that's fine. Listen, I have three older sisters. I know what that's like."
The Daily News/WCBS-TV poll of 274 people in New York state found 49
percent thought Clinton had performed better in the first face-off, while 36 percent gave Lazio the nod.
Bite me Rosie
The reason why Hillary is calling Lazio a "bully" and "invading my space" is because she lost.
Clinton 302 34.5%
Lazio 574 65.5%
Now Rose, shall I splain the difference between an unscientific on-line poll and a scientific one?
Jex:
So...what are the DNC Talking Points e-mails saying about the latest Gore family tragedy?
- you wouldn't have bought Serb war bonds with your kids' college fund
- you wouldn't have wasted the balance of the Fund on tickets to Bush fundraisers
- you wouldn't have thought the GOP convention a success
- you wouldn't have pronounced Gallup polls thru July showing 15 point Bush leads as "trends"
- you wouldn't have cackled like some hen in heat about the Bush Debate Debacle
-and you would know the difference between an on-line and a real poll
A realy New Yorker doesn't play the "victim" after telling us that she tried to enlist in the Marines after college but those big bad leathernecks wouldn't let her in to their elite fighting force because they're "sexist."
As the worm turns.
Ummm...I don't know, jex.
Must you always speak in Jr. HS code?
Here's the story:
BUT WHEN his drug tale was challenged, Gore’s campaign refused to back it up with details. “We’re not going to give out his mother’s private medical information,” said Doug Hattaway, speaking for Gore.
Gore told seniors in Tallahassee on Aug. 28 that his mother-in-law Margaret Ann Aitcheson pays $108 a month for the brand-name drug Lodine while it only costs $37.80 a month to administer the same drug to his arthritic dog Shiloh, The Boston Globe reported in its Monday editions.
Here's the link to the AP article.
“We’re not going to give out his mother’s private medical information,” said Doug Hattaway, speaking for Gore.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Did you see the Buffalo debate? Without the Secret Service, aides and spinners, Hillary isn't ready for prime-time.
And real New Yorkers want prime-time people who don't complain about real debates.
Oh...
and btw...
Those figures actually were national averages taken from a House Democratic study. Moreover, the numbers referred to the price paid by wholesalers, not consumers.
“It looks like another Al Gore invention,” said Republican vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney, campaigning in Seattle.
Uh oh...is Cheney engaging in "negative campaigning" now?
Well looks like you stepped in it - again. If only people weren't paying more attention to the size of Ian Thorpe's feet than to the Moron Who Would Be King!
`The wholesale price is accurate ... and the retail price is very similar, but the more accurate measure nationwide is the wholesale price,'' Gore said.
Asked whether he should have consulted his mother-in-law before citing her as an example in a campaign speech, he said, ''The issue is not her, the issueis what seniors around the country are paying and the wholesale price is between two and three times as much as what is charged for pets.''
The Gore campaign then issued a note detailing that Gore's mother-in-law pays $2.13 per capsule of Lodine, 232 percent more than Shiloh's version of the drug, which costs 92 cents per capsule. The congressional study indicated a wider price difference of 286 percent.
Just wipe your feet before you go inside Joey
jex:
The fact is, Gore was out there using another one of his relatives as an example when he had no idea what she was paying for her drugs.
Plus, although scrip drug prices are a real issue, Gore is perfectly aware that animal drugs are 1/3 the price for many good reasons, and will always be 1/3 the price. They are of lower quality, much less consistent in actual dosages, subject to a fraction of the quality control, and drug companies spend zip on research and promotion of them.
And they taste awful.
BTW, EricCartman, if you're listening, I was turned onto this [Algore drug price story] by Rush Limbaugh. Does that make the whole story invalid?
No. And at least this time you were smart enough to also link an account from an actual newspaper, instead of just Limbaugh's standard breathless chunder.
Once again, it is not just the bare fact that Limbaugh "reports" on something that makes me skeptical. It's his "analysis" of the situation, generally, that bugs me.
See, Limbaugh could, if he wanted to, expound on how pharmaceutical conglomerates get us to pay for some or all of their R&D, then gouge us for their wares, all the while running advertising blitzes encouraging folks to self-medicate. And how these same legal drug companies pump lots of campaign $$$ into both parties, the better to laissez les bon temps roulez.
Or something.
But nooooo -- instead, you get the usual furiously-metered grumbling in the usual coded syntax about how "Algore" is "always lying" and he's such a liar and you can never trust these godless liberals to tell the truth and women should know that they'll just fuck ya and chuck ya ad infinitum. It's yet more of the standard chapter and verse from the King Newt Version of the Conservative Bible -- they are "liberals", they are eeevil, we are good. The requisite buzzwords, as always, are in abundance.
And of course we know that Republicans never lie or fuck around on their wives or fudge the details or pork-barrel needless high-dollar defense contracts to their districts. No sirree Bob. It's always them damned liberals, and their enablers in the media.
The antibiotics I give my cat are the exact product that my nephew gets for earache.
- Boston Globe notices that a Congressional report "looks similar" to example Gore used in stump speech
- Bush campaign desperate to say *something* leaps on story says Gore made something up
- Gore made nothing up as is indicated by fact that the example appearing in the Congressional report does not match the factual experience of his relative
Now if you idiots have nothing better to talk about, I assure you its fine with the Gore people 
I agree, jex. I think it'd be much more interesting to ask Rev. Al how he feels about companies who receive taxpayer-funded R&D, who then turn around and gouge those same taxpayers for their pharmaceutical curatives.
See, even if you take Al's stat as fact, it asks the wrong questions. Al's just offering to foot the whole bill for the old folks, but he doesn't say shit about why the price is so fucking high, about out-and-out price-fixing.
Nor will Al ever say anything about his pressuring the South African gov't against their efforts to acquire and license generic AIDS drugs, to attempt to counter the epidemic sweeping their country.
Nope. Al will hem and haw about his dog's arthritis meds, the hangers-on and chatterers will swoon on his every evasion and waffle, and the real questions of import -- such as why taxpayers, through Medicare, should pay yet again for drugs they funded in the first place -- will go completely unasked.
And we'll still be getting cornholed at the fucking gas station.
The congressional study indicated a wider price difference of 286 percent.
Actual Congressional Study
"Lodine is an arthritis medication. A common prescription for Lodine is ninety 300 mg. capsules. Fort Dodge, a subsidiary of American Home Products, sells this quantity of Lodine for only $37.80 when the intended end-users are dogs or cats. But when the intended end-users are humans, Wyeth-Ayerst, another subsidiary of American Home Products, sells the same quantity of the drug for $108.90 -- a price differential of 188%." [Emphasis mine]
And isn't it strange how similar Gore's "personal" story is to this USA today account from December 1999?
Meanwhile, aides concede Gore made up story
"Mr. Gore, who told the anecdote in Florida to illustrate the need for his $253 billion drug plan for seniors, fabricated the cost of the drug itself, the comparative doses for his pet and for Tipper's mom, and his family's bills for them.
"In fact, Gore aides yesterday could not say whether the candidate's mother-in-law, Margaret Ann Aitcheson, pays for the arthritis medication Lodine out of her own pocket or if the cost is covered by insurance." 
Tune in A&E tonight. Biography's doing a segment on your hero, Slobo.
"Vice President Al Gore's indignant tale of a prescription drug costing more for his mother-in-law than for his dog came back to bite him yesterday when aides said the story was made up. Mr. Gore, who told the anecdote in Florida to illustrate the need for his $253 billion drug plan for seniors, fabricated the cost of the drug itself, the comparative doses for his pet and for Tipper's mom, and his family's bills for them.
In fact, Gore aides yesterday could not say whether the candidate's
mother-in-law, Margaret Ann Aitcheson, pays for the arthritis medication Lodine out of her own pocket or if the cost is covered by insurance.
* * *
"A Gore spokesman, Jano Cabrera, responded, "The only one who's inventing facts here are the Bush campaign. The facts are that Miss Aitcheson is prescribed Lodine."
* * *
But other details that Mr. Gore presented as facts on Aug. 28 in Tallahassee are clearly wrong. Mr. Gore said he pays $37.80 per month for Shiloh, his 14-year-old black Labrador retriever, to take Etogesic, the animal version of Lodine. He said his mother-in-law's monthly bill is $108. At the time, Mr. Gore said of his family's predicament: "That's pretty bad when you have got to pretend to be a dog or a cat to get a price break." However, Gore aides acknowledged yesterday that those figures are not the actual costs for Mr. Gore's family. They were borrowed instead from a House Democratic study on
rising drug prices. Mr. Cabrera could not say yesterday what the actual costs are for either the dog or Mrs. Aitcheson.
"I'm not sure exactly what levels she takes or Shiloh takes," he said.
Batta boom.
Mr. Cabrera presented that inaccuracy yesterday as a positive for his boss.
"Keep in mind they're paying retail costs, so [the disparity] is going to be only higher," he said.
I offer these snippets not in condemnation or Mr. Gore's fakery, though I do like the new mixture of massive exaggeration and tacky trading-in on family members. Normally, he delivers these gifts singularly.
Rather, at the beginning of our day, no matter what travails await, or what headaches will come in our collective professional lives, I ask that we all now bow our heads and give thanks that we are not in such a low place as the ass-sniffing, butthole wiping ilk that calls as a member poor Mr. Cabrera (apparently, not even Chris Lehane would handle this particular chore).
If that is indeed the case.
Now, the Gore Fan Club can't even be counted on to label his lie "stoopid".
Every time you inveigh against the "liberal press," you blame the messenger for information you do not agree with.
As to how the Republican form of government is supposed to work: You and the few cranks (apologies, Ronski) who take the Constitution literally (and ahistorically) have your heads about as far up your anal orifices as those who take the Bible literally.
It appears the Vice-president has now been diagnosed with a virulent strain of Biden-Toricelli Syndrome.
But he didn't.
So he's a bad, bad man.
He got caught fabricating a personalization and he got caught basically lying about facts.
Let me give you an example.
Okay: "The war in Vietnam is wrong and we should end it."
Bad: "My brother was killed during Tet, the war in Vietnam is wrong, and we should end it."
It's really quite simple, unless you need a reason to complicate it.
Since he will win this race, I suggest that your reason is not great enough. Don't denigrate yourself. Play mute and all will be well.
In fact, Gore's figures were based on an equal dosage of 300mg (see Message # 42052).
Please stop.
You really don't need to do this.
Studies show that .09% of parents still sing lullabies to their 27 year-old children. So, where's the problem?
Now, you're truly reaching.
I've never made such a claim. Ever.
Don't take it out on me because you choose to wipe the man's ass and declare the results ambrosia.
[Jack V. sounds more like Dick Tracy as Tess Trueheart in drag; his cynical facade hides his longing for Dudley Doright to untie him from the"IRS twaintwacks."]
Jack, truth be told, you probably long for the days when presidential candidates didn't go on Oprah. I missed your report on how yesterday went.
Agreed. But you gotta' go where the turnips grow.
I saw neither performance, but read an article on the unctuous Gore. How was Bush? I heard he smooched Oprah and then got a little teary.
Pussy.
On the other hand, if Al could just resist stretch to fit family stories, we could talk about the issue.
Tomorrow I'm watching him on Live With Regis because Susan from Survivor is co-host. This may be dangerous....
Meanwhile, Lieberman has his own "clarifications" to issue:
Sen. Lieberman: Intermarriage is kosher
Lieberman, who recently changed his long-time self-description from "Orthodox" to "observant" after cyber columnist Matt Drudge reported he was caught eating on Tisha Be'av, made the declaration Friday on Don Imus's syndicated radio talk show.
Lieberman was asked whether Judaism places a ban on "interracial or interreligious marriage or dating or that sort of thing." Lieberman answered, "No, there is no ban whatsoever. Certainly not on interracial. And not on interreligious."
....As could be imagined, the reaction was swift in coming. There is a "clear and irrevocable Torah prohibition" against a Jew intermarrying, Rabbi Avi Shafran, spokesman for the Orthodox group Agudath Israel of America, told JewishWorldReview.com. "It has nothing to do with race, as anyone from any ethnicity can become a Jew if he or she is sincerely motivated and willing to undergo halachic conversion."
Of course I understand that Lieberman's would-be boss has a daughter who is married to a Jew, so one can understand his quandary.
It depends on the denomination (acceptability of intermarriage).
From a political standpoint, I doubt if it hurts Lieberman to have religious leaders ragging on him. It highlights his independence. I would imagine Bush could do with a little carping from Fallwell or Robertson, too. BTW, whatever happened to James Dobson? Has he gone out of the political business?
Begala, a Democratic consultant turned TV pundit, has the added advantage of just having published a book that is a harsh indictment of Bush and his record. "Is Our Children Learning? The Case Against George W. Bush" describes Bush as someone with "all the intellectual curiosity of a slug" and "worse than dumb. He's lazy, arrogant, and defiantly ignorant." The title is a direct quote from Bush, according to Begala.
A MUST read 
Only Ten Bucks from Amazon.com!
Bush's Lead Shrinks to 4 Percent in Ohio
CINCINNATI (Reuters) - Ohio narrowly remains in Republican George W. Bush's column in the presidential race despite a national momentum swing to Democrat Al Gore, a new Ohio Poll concluded on Wednesday.
The Ohio Poll, conducted Sept. 5-16 by the University of Cincinnati Institute for Policy Research, had the Texas governor leading the vice president 47 percent to 43 percent with 21 electoral votes at stake in Ohio. A candidate must receive at least 270 electoral votes to be elected president.
The survey of 628 likely voters gave Bush a lead just barely outside the poll's 3.9 percent margin of error, poll director Eric Rademacher said.
PA - Gore +18
Ill - Gore +11?
Mich -Gore +11
AZ - Gore +10
Nevada - Bush +4
Ohio - Bush +4
FL - Bush +3
CA - Gore +9
NY - Gore +25
Bush on top of everything is spending TV money in California, albeit a modest cable buy.
Late breaking news on Whitewater.
1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal
funding.
2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th
graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same
kids about sex.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding
Americans are more of a threat than US nuclear weapons technology
in the hands of Chinese Communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more
affected by yuppies driving SUVs.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but
homosexuality is genetic.
7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on
demand.
8. You have to believe that businesses created oppression and
governments create prosperity.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but
looney activists who've never been outside of Seattle do.
(CON)
actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe the military starts wars.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain
parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it
supports certain parts of the Consitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too
high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are
more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Abraham
Lincoln, or Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but
racial quotas and set-asides aren't.
16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady.
17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been
in charge.
18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in
jail but a liar and sex offfender belongs in the White House.
19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag,
transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected
and manger scenes ar Christmas should be illegal.
Yup. Makes perfect sense to me.
You mean to say there's actually a republican list?
I don't see why not; they are as screwed up as the Democrats...
Why Bush will never be president...Call in the hounds and piss on the fire, a Gene Lyons column:
...a choice bit:
"After persuading absolutely nobody that Gore feared him, Bush then rolled over, peed on his belly like a beagle puppy and agreed to the original debate schedule. And this is the guy we want negotiating with the Chinese and the Russians? Moreover, these are the kinds of indelible impressions all but impossible to reverse: that the GOP has sent a boy to do a man's job."
Throughout the 2000 presidential race, the factor most closely
associated with Americans' involvement in the campaign has been news coverage. When coverage increases, public involvement also rises. When it declines, so too does public involvement.
Since last November, the Shorenstein Center weekly national poll has
tracked involvement in the presidential election by asking a
cross-section of Americans adults whether they are currently paying attention to the campaign and whether they have recently thought or talked about it. When the campaign has received heavy coverage, people have been much more likely to think and talk about the campaign, and to give it their attention.
"Our polls show that heavier news coverage produces deeper public
involvement in the campaign," says Marvin Kalb, Executive Director of the Shorenstein Center's Washington office. "Twice in 2000, it's been proven -- first during the February primary struggles and second during the Party conventions in August."
The role that news coverage plays in stimulating or inhibiting public
interest may be among the most important of media effects during
election campaigns. "We know from past research that a more involved public is likely to become a more informed and participatory public," says Tami Buhr, research coordinator for the Shorenstein Center. "As people become more interested in an election, they also are more willing to listen and learn, and more eager to go to the polls on Election Day."
All of which is BAD news for Bush for there is also a negative and "robust" correlation between the Voter Involvement index and Bush poll numbers ie more coverage, Bush drops.
RD - Sorry for the length but this is from a VVP e-mail to me.
Of course, I posted the Saletan column but I also think I deserve some ink for "pissing on the fire" first here on the Mote. I've been singing the same tune since February fer Chrissakes
Re: Message # 42061 --Although perhaps taking the Constitution too seriously is an insult (g) I can easily live with, if you peruse my posts on the Constitution I think you'll see I understand the ahistorical nature of the strict constructionalist position. I have said that the Constitution is pretty much what we say it is. As for how I choose to read the document, I do indeed prefer the Lochner oscillation, so to speak, to the one which followed.
(Gently chiding) I said too literally, not too seriously. I appreciate your grasp of the constitution. Too bad others who proclaim its sacrosanctity (neologism alert?) lack it.
The USA Today story is more evidence for my Iron Rule -Media always promotes, overblows horse race.
More Here
Please Ignore Warnings of Dire Nuclear Peril...Joe Conason:
"Aside from embarrassing the Justice Department and the F.B.I., the release of Wen Ho Lee marks the conclusion of yet another once-horrifying scandal now relegated to a fat file under the heading of "Oh, Never Mind." There the voluminous clippings about what not long ago was deemed the "worst national security breach since the Rosenberg case"—by knowledgeable unnamed sources—will rest for eternity next to such other recent classics as Waco, Travelgate, Filegate and, of course, the soon-to-be-completed Whitewater case."
Average Gore lead for polls conducted 9.11-9.18 is 5.48% Std
Deviation = 3.06
Truly geekified and armed with my trusty scientific calculator and mega-powerful
statistics software, I have determined:
Average Gore lead for polls conducted 9.11-9.18 is 5.48% Std
Deviation = 3.06
Average Gore lead for polls conducted 9.6-9.11 is 3% Std
Deviation = 3.00
What do you mean that I blame the messenger when I assail the liberal press? How could I when the don't even report the story? Most of the problem is that the liberal press doesn't report stories that are unfavorable to their cause.
Gore Opens Big Lead Over Bush in Connecticut...Well, sure...
HARTFORD, Conn. (Reuters) - Democrat Al Gore has vaulted to a 17-point lead in Connecticut over Republican George W. Bush in the U.S. presidential race, according to a survey of registered voters released on Wednesday.
Gore leads Bush 50 percent to 33 percent, up from his 38 percent to 37 percent lead in mid-July, according to the poll conducted Sept. 13-18 by Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Connecticut.
You are tying yourself up in knots with your "liberal press" thesis. Which leading newspaper put out the most detailed coverage of Whitewater, which triggered the just-ending investigation? The New York Times, of course, and not the Washington Times.
What may disturb you is that most reputable media sources have sometimes been slow to report as "fact" some of the wilder accusations that you "Conservatives" take as gospel truth.
"I am a person who recognizes the fallacy of humans."--Oprah, Sept. 19, 2000
Is our children learning yet?
I admit to purposefully reading into your post a somewhat different meaning, if only for diplomatic purposes.
And I could not be a supporter of the Vermont Supreme Court decision demanding a near-equivalent of marriage for gays if I thought the Courts should never be permitted to tread in areas that have generally been in the purview of legislatures. It is probably better for legislatures to right wrongs, but there are instances when the Courts must step in.
We use our best judgment to determine which cases merit such intervention.
And kayaking. DC residents are probably white-water kayaking deprived, given the topography. (Of course it should be run by private interests, charging what the market will bear.)
When I lived in DC, my co-workers and I went white-water rafting around Harpers Ferry, West VA, an hour or so drive from DC, on the Shanandoah River.
The thing about polling is that the +/- 3% only measures the amount of sampling error. Sampling error can be mathematicaly calculated by knowing or estimating a few different variables, such as population size, sample size, and heterogeneity of the population. But there are many other types of error, which can have a much more devastating effect on the sample, such as coverage error (never reaching a certain percentage of your sample - I once worked on an annual survey which had a huge problem here - surveyers only called during the day, and the results were thus skewed toward retirees - I finally made enough of a fuss that they did some evening calls the next year). The fact that a lot of pollsters haven't had as much experience in avoiding these errors makes me often take their results with a few grains of salt.
Btw, a while back someone (Don S. I think) asked why Indiana was so reliably Republican in presidential contests. I thought you might answer that one. (Or Indy?)
My take would be that it remains one of the few truly rural states East of the Mississippi. Think Northern New England before all the New Yorkers and Bostonians moved in and the farms shrank.
The Ohio counties adjacent to Indiana are also reliably Republican, with the state going to the Democrats if the northern and southern cities and the counties along Pennsylvania tilt toward the Dems.
Thank you for the lesson. I've noticed water in D.C., but the stretch I've always seen is quite calm.
Do people actually use the local resource?
Of course, what D.C. really needs is a ski area in the city limits. Years ago, just outside of Detroit I think, a huge garbage dump was covered with earth, and a lift and snow machines were installed. I don't know what happened to the area. It probably just petered out, like the Metropolitan Ski Slopes opened by Mayor Lindsay in Van Cortlandt Park in the 60s.
Rafters and kayakers are always getting stuck in the Great Falls rapids. Several have died.
Suggestion for Whitewater monument: Statue of an elephant with excrement dripping off of it.
Womat,
Wow. I must see that place.
But put few a couple of feet of snow on it, it'll look lovely.
Indiana reminds me of Texas pre-70s. I find people somewhat isolated from the rest of the country. I've met college students from Purdue who have either never been out of the state or who have only been to Chicago and no other big city. People who live here are Hoosiers, they're proud of Indiana and the culture. They don't have a strong curiosity about other places.
It probably takes newcomers to stir up political patterns.
The Republicanism started of course, as part of midwestern attachment, similar to its midwestern neighbors. I would imagine that in the late 19th century, early 20th century, the bloody red shirt kept people loyal to the Republican party. Indiana venerates its civil war participation with a giant monument in the middle of Indianapolis.
That said, it has one quite liberal Republican Senator (by that party's standards), one very moderate to conservative Democratic Senator (by that party's standards), and the largest city now has a Democratic Mayor. The Indianapolis City County Council is split 15 Republicans and 14 Democrats. Both parties are still in a bit of shock over that. The Governor is Democratic (again quite conservative) and it looks like he will be re-elected. The congressional delegation has some of the more conservative members of Congress.
So there is probably a transition going on.
In the north part of the state (heavy industry), in Indy (some heavy industry) and in the southern part of the state, the traditonal Democratic vote clumps together. The central part of the state is mostly Republican (with the exception of Indianapolis, which has seen its African American population increase in voter activity, something else that has reflected on the city's politics).
SW DC is fine, and I would count on the Cato Institute to supply a proportionally large amount of paper trash for it, since intellectual trash is so...evanescent.
In 1996, during Marion Barry's second year of his last term, we got 3 feet of snow in two days. It was during the shutdown of the federal government, too, now that I remember it.
The city basically had no ability to plow its streets. It was financially broke and we had a lunatic for a mayor (he flew over the city in a helicopter and announced that 2/3rds of the city was plowed and accessible -- which had about as much truth as me saying I have a million dollars in my bank account). Lot of skiing. I finally was able to get my car out of my garage two weeks later.
The methodology of these big polls is really quite complicated but boils down to achieving accurate results with statistical methods of sample selection at an affordable price.
State and local polls at this point, I suspect are far more reliable. First, their sample size is larger relative to the population. Second, its not prohibitively expensive for a local pollster to get actual voter records from the Dept of Elections and select actual frequent voters for her sample.
Following the specifications provided by the NES Project Staff, the Survey Research Center Sampling Section draws the samples from their national sample frame. The sample universe is U.S. households in the continental United States. (The most recent SRC National Sample Frame extends the sample to Alaska and Hawaii).
SRC National Samples are multi-stage area probability designs. That is, in a series of hierarchical steps, geographically defined sampling units of decreasing size (size is measured by the most recent U.S. census data) are selected with probability proportionate to their total number of occupied housing units. Prior to the first stage
selection, the primary areas (SMSA's, counties, and county groups) are stratified within each of the four Census regions by geography and size. One primary sampling unit is selected from each stratum using a controlled selection procedure. Sixteen of the 84 selections comprise the entire SMSA and are designated as "self-representing."
The second stage sampling units are comprised of Census Blocks (in metropolitan primary areas) or Enumeration Districts (in some rural areas). Sampling of second stage units is performed with probability proportionate to number of occupied housing units in the area. Before second stage selection takes place, the second stage sampling units are stratified by geography, size, and in 36 of the 84 primary areas (where the data are available) by median per capita income. Within the 6 largest primary areas, between 6 to 25 segments are selected; in all other areas, 6 secondary selections are made.
At the third, and final stage, the SRC field staff lists all the housing units within each segment and selects a random subset. Once a household is selected, the interviewer lists all eligible adults residing there. (For NES studies, eligibility is defined as being able to vote at the November general election: i.e., citizens of voting age.) To insure that all people in the household have an equal probability of being chosen, in the final stage the interviewer uses a selection table to choose randomly the respondent to be
interviewed.
Study designs in different years have introduced occasional modifications into this process. Where the design calls for empaneling the respondents to the previous election study, the inevitable panel attrition has been compensated for by supplemental cross-section respondents. Also, in some years, over-sampling of African-Americans has been done.
This is ominous news indeed for Bush. Nebraska has not voted democratic since LBJ in '64. The fact that he is close in any one of our districts is a sign that the campaign is spiraling down the porcelain convenience.
You must not have hit sampling theory yet. The difference in population sizes becomes surprising irrelevant once populations get over a certain size (around 5 or 10 thousand people). The sample size needed to get within a margin of error of 3% for a state population of one million, and a national population of 275 million, for instance, will one be smaller by one or two people.
"Second, its not prohibitively expensive for a local pollster to get actual voter records from the Dept of Elections and select actual frequent voters for her sample. "
Even this has problems. If you only sample people that have voted in the last few years, you miss people that just came of voting age, new migrants to the state, or people that are generally disenfranchised. This latter is partly why Ventura surprised in Minnesota. A huge portion of the populace who voted for him had never voted before. Jesse Jackson often caused the same behavior among different demographic groups. Other methods of determining "likely voters" have the potential to be more accurate. Gallup does random digit dialing, and I *think* they just ask people if they intend to vote in the upcoming election as a screening question to see if they belong in the sample.
Some states have laws demanding that the electors vote for whom they are pledged to, but most states don't, so you have the occasional protest votes in the electoral college that don't really change the outcome.
Better government, brought to you by Nebraskans. For such a conservative state, we have fairly progressive governmental structures. Public power districts, a unicameral legislature that has fairly regular turn over without term limits (a function of its non professional status) reasonable referendum and recall laws etc. Perhaps it has something to do with the meeting of the plains and the West. Manitoba is the only unicameral provincial government in Canada.
Gallup v. Battleground...Why the diff?---a Washington Post article...
Finally I beat you. 
Bush Gore Nader
Gallup
But you see sampling size does make a difference - 50 state polls @1000 each are more reliable nationwide than 674 people though hardly in proportion to the 43,000 difference
Right now I am the Queen of Standard Deviations, and Non-Standard ones too.
glendajean - My wife and I lived in Washington, D.C. for about 15 months in 1965/66. There was not one snowplow available then! Despite the fact that they could plan on a snow that would cause people to be unable to get their cars out of their garages every 2 to 3 years. As best as I recall, Congress had much more control of D.C. back then than it did in the Barry days. We always were informed that the federal employees wanted more paid "holidays" than were already on the calendar. Seemed to us to be a logical explanation.
How does the IEM movement compare with Vegas spreads on the Presidential election?
Hillary In High Gear
Clinton Leads Lazio, 48% To 39%, In N.Y. Senate Race
First Lady Has 18-Point Edge Among Women
(CBS News/New York Times Poll, Sept. 14-19)
EricCartman, the reason Rush doesn't cover all aspects of an issue is because the liberal media covers their side ad nauseam.
Right. Which is why you also linked the ultra-conservative Boston Globe for details on Gore's anecdote hoo-ha.
I realize that the Moonie Times crowd has managed to convince themselves that commie liberal reporters are doing the bidding of their dark masters in the White House, and skewing the news so as to make common folk dumb and dependent on liberal do-gooders, but come on.
A liberal media would decline to report every salacious detail of a Democrat sex scandal. A liberal media would tear Clinton apart for his foreign policy hypocrisies and his resolutely non-liberal domestic policies, not his glandular exploits. A liberal media wouldn't have let a doofus like W get anywhere near where he is now, without repeatedly and consistently questioning his qualifications, and scrutinizing his proposals.
Anyway, this all presupposes the goofy notion that Gore and Clinton are, in any real definition of the term, true "liberals". They are not, and anyone whose brain hasn't been cooked by the incessant buzzword barrage that has rendered that word almost meaningless, knows the difference.
Also, what difference does it make if I link to an "unbiased" source or to Rush Limbaugh?
Hey, knock yourself out. Just don't pretend that everyone else will regard it as factual as you seem to.
As I've been trying to point out, attacking the messenger only keeps your head in the sand.
Well, if you honestly believe that Rush Limbaugh is some sort of "light of truth" in a "liberal media" fog, you're nuts.
As for the Lewinsky matter, you liberals love to parrot that one as evidence that there is no bias. Well, that was a lost cause for you. Clinton flat out lied under oath and was caught. The only way to fight that was to report the Clintonista's spin that it was all about sex. Never mind that people have gone and will go to jail for the same behavior. You had to change the argument from one that you lost to one that you could win - even if it was irrelevant. I just saw Richard Dryfeus say that presidents have been committing adultry since the country began but Clinton was the first to get in trouble for it. But, Clinton didn't get in trouble for having sex. It just seems in his mind to be a good point for him to make.
Arguing that there isn't a media bias is a losing cause. I could bury you with evidence. But, just as I won't try and convince you that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, neither will I continue to try to prove that the press has a liberal bias. I hold them as axioms.
Now Eric, realize that I've been gone for awhile and you may have explained all this and I just missed it.
By the way, what is this story from Gore about being rocked to sleep as a child by a song that was written when he was 27? Did I just imagine that?
Yeah, did you read the [Boston Globe] article EricCartman? Did you happen to notice that the reporter claimed that Al Gore's basic premise was correct without providing a shred of evidence?
Yes I read the article, and yes I noticed the lack of actual numbers. Is that omission the result of laziness? Maybe an overzealous copy editor removing too much so's the article doesn't get in the way of the lingerie/penis enlargement ads? No, of course not -- it must be because of liberal bias.
Incidentally, other papers, in jumping on this story, seem to confirm that Gore's basic premise is correct. (What a shock -- animal meds are generally cheaper than similar human meds. Who'da thunk it?) Naturally, his numbers -- and the anecdote itself -- appear to possibly be yet another Algore Production, from the Needless Embellishments Division. Being a purist, I tired of Gore's crocodile tears and impassioned pleas years ago, so it's not like you coulda knocked me over with a feather on this one.
Nor did he bother to explore why human drugs might cost more than dog drugs. You can ignore that, I don't.
Nor do I ignore it. I didn't say anything about it earlier because Wombat beat me to it, almost word-for-word. I know the Randian free-market fantasists would like to ascribe it to the magic of allowing the marketplace to work, unfettered by the evils of regulation, but it seems far simpler than that.
R&D for human drugs is bound to be much higher than that for animal drugs, even if they're essentially the same drug. And people are only going to pay so much to relieve Fido's woes, generally a tad less than they will to save Grandpa. That's the marketplace at work for you right there, Chief -- price setting to demand, as well as the lack of viable alternatives for the consumer.
Well, you have to admit, they didn't exactly shy away from reporting every sordid, embarrassing detail, as often as possible.
Clinton flat out lied under oath and was caught. The only way to fight that was to report the Clintonista's spin that it was all about sex.
Okay, let's examine this for a bit. You seem to imply that "the press" or "the liberal media" had some sort of vested interest in ensuring Clinton's acquittal, or at least lightening his punishment. I agree that the spin was lame, but all spin is. Nonetheless, I'd love to see your elaboration on exactly how and why the monolithic liberal media would go about attempting to get BC off the hook.
Never mind that people have gone and will go to jail for the same behavior.
I agree. You won't get any argument from me on categorizing Bill Clinton as an unctuous lying scumbag, totally devoid of any true principle. Still, that has nothing to do with supposed bias.
Arguing that there isn't a media bias is a losing cause.
Well, anyone can go out and find a multitude of specific cases of biased reporting, from all points on the political spectrum. But a Grand Unified Theory of real institutionalized liberal media bias? No way.
I could bury you with evidence.
Go for it.
Ah. I see. As many times as I've argued over this issue, more often than not the crux of the biscuit has been just that -- the "liberal media" bias is axiomatic. It's something "everybody knows". How convenient.
It's right up there with the old "elephant repellant" deal. I got me a special tree in my front yard, guaranteed to keep elephants away. How do I know it works? Because elephants never get in my front yard.
See, here's the problem with your "liberal media" theory. Here's what you don't get: the whole thing is based on false premises, wrt what "liberal" means. The term has basically become a post-Cold War synonym for "communist", and has been "liberally" applied (scuse the pun) to people who are not liberals, in any traditional sense of the word. It's an ideologue's tool straight out of 1984, fergodssake -- you change the definitions of the terms, as well as the application of them, inflame your side with rhetoric, demonize the opposition, and ultimately say very little of actual fact.
About the only "liberal" thing Clinton has done, once you cut through the bullshit of what he says, is get the minimum wage raised. (Which, I realize, is like a wreath of garlic to your average Randian vampire.) But in today's dollars, the minimum wage was $7 back in 1969, so even that ain't all that liberal.
So the richest have gotten richer, real wages are still lower than they were 25 years ago, the minimum wage is still lower than it was 30 years ago, we have so many people in jail that it must artificially skew the unemployment stats. Explain to me exactly how Clinton or Gore is a true "liberal". Ralph Nader is a true liberal, and Clinton/Gore are closer to Bush than to Nader, ideologically -- a lot closer. They might talk the talk, but that's all it is -- talk.
Add in vertically-integrated ownership of virtually all mainstream media, conservative corporate oversight (including defense contractors) of said ownership, and there's just no way that there's any institutionalized bias towards liberalism -- it's towards money, towards power.
Hey Al, long time no see. No, I pretty much ignored the whole "RATS" thing, I think. About the only thing I found significant was that it seemed odd, coming from a guy who has insisted for months that he's all about "changing the tone", that politics is just too durn nasty and that ain't right.
This just in -- that whole "change the tone" deal? It's about as real as Gore's promise for campaign finance reform, which he passionately repeats at every $1000/plate fundraiser, I'm sure. I think Jexster and maybe a half-dozen other crack-addled shut-ins are the only ones buying that dog. I mean, you can almost see the phrases in the playbook that Clinton highlighted eight years ago. Second verse, same as the first.
Look Al, it's simple. Individual articles do indeed exhibit a reportorial bias sometimes. That's human nature; it's tough to weed out, and people seem to prefer an angle anyway. But not only does an institutionalized liberal bias not exist, there's no reason for it to exist.
Think about it -- media outlets are owned by corporations. Corporations exist to acquire as much money as possible. That is their sole mission in life.
Now, why on earth would these same corporations allow the media outlets that they own and operate to give a pass to those tax-and-spend liberals, who just want to take everyone's money and piss it away?
QED, Al. It's just your basic survival instinct at work. Everything else is just marketing techniques designed to rouse the rabble. Unfortunately, they're getting worked up over mirages and phantoms.
At Bush Austin HQ, They're Blamin' Poor Ole Poppy for His Moron Son's Slide
That's about the most pleasant thing Sheehy says about the Shrubster.
A prominent ex-gay leader once featured as "going straight" on the cover of Newsweek magazine was confronted and photographed by activists Tuesday night patronizing a gay bar in Washington, D.C.
Whoops.
What a story!
I know the guy Daryl that is quoted in the article. I'm going to write him about it.
probably a stupid question
How the New York Times helped railroad Wen Ho Lee...a biting look at the depredations of the newspaper of record and its leading reporter/stenographer...in Salon:
"For those who connect the dots between the three major Jeff Gerth stories (Whitewater, the satellite technology dispute, Wen Ho Lee), there's an unmistakable sense of déjà vu. Each contains ominous conclusions drawn from questionable evidence, lots of loaded language, loyalty to flawed sources with axes to grind, cheerleading from the editorial page and, most importantly, central accusations that simply never pan out. To some, the Wen Ho Lee saga reads an awful lot like Whitewater."
I just talked to my friend Daryl. He said that he recogized Paulk, didn't think much of it, and then he turned around and the guy was standing there. So he started talking to him. The guy said he was from Colorado Springs and Daryl said that was a conservative place, are you active politically. The guy said, "Yes, I vote Democratic." He told Daryl that his last name was Clint. Daryl asked him if he was gay. He said yes. Then Daryl said, "You look familiar. Aren't you that Paulk guy that's having trouble with your sexuality?" The guy denied it and then asked him if wanted a drink. Daryl left, called Wayne Besen, the guy who took the picture. He was hanging in Mr P's for sometime.
A GOP plan to begin sending key spending bills to President Clinton collapsed yesterday in a cross-fire between Democrats and conservative Republicans, and congressional leaders all but conceded they will be unable to wrap up work on the budget by the time they are scheduled to adjourn Oct. 6.
The impasse has serious political ramifications because incumbents of both parties are eager to get back onto the campaign trail but could be trapped in Washington until close to the Nov. 7 elections.Post
Bush Cuts Gore Lead to 4 Points in Reuters/Zogby Poll
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican George W. Bush has cut Democrat Al Gore's lead almost in half over the past week and the vice president now leads the presidential race by only four percentage points in a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Thursday.
"The poll of 1,202 people who said they were likely to vote in the Nov. 7 presidential election found the vice president leading the Texas governor by 45 to 41 percent. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader had 5 percent while Reform Party hopeful Pat Buchanan and Libertarian Harry Browne had 1 percent each.
"Gore's lead was within the boundaries of the statistical margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points in the survey conducted by pollster John Zogby from Monday to Wednesday. In the previous Reuters/Zogby poll released on Sept. 13, Gore led by seven percentage points."
Re: Message # 42164 -Elton John's comments about Bush leading us back to the Dark Ages are idiotic, and typical of such celebrities. As for male strippers dressed, or undressed, as Boy Scouts doing more harm to the gay cause than the religious right, maybe yes, maybe no. Sometimes a joke is just a joke, even if some would consider it in bad taste.
Exhibitionism in the gay community has been an issue that gays have fought about with each other for years. Certain gays who might be described as conservative old fuddyduddies -- like me -- tend to view nudity and such in gay parades as excesses we would do better without.
And the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in San Francisco, whom conservative Catholics find offensive, are also talked about endlessly. But the latter, like the Boy Scout strippers, can be viewed as satire. And straights have been satirizing gays for millennia, not always in a gentle and kindly way.
A difference between Elton John's choreographers and Pat Buchanan is that the latter is running for the presidency, the top position in our government, and government has a monopoly on force. Whatever the government does or does not do with regard to gays will have the power of the state behind it. What Elton John or the Sisters do or not do will not have such power. All this should be taken with the large grain of salt inherent in the reality that Buchanan will not be elected to anything.
My preference is that Buchanan should stop rhetorically bashing gays and Elton John and the Sisters should take a little more care not to offend people whose attitudes they presumably would like to see change for the better. But I don't expect either to happen soon.
No gay person would have taken that bet.
You might have gotten Lynne Cheney to bite, though.
However, the fundamentals of the poll still seemed to favor Gore. Almost half of those surveyed said he deserved to be elected because of the economy; 60 percent said the country was on the right track, and slightly more of the undecided voters said they leaned his way.
Even the prospect of rising gasoline and home heating costs seemed unlikely in itself to derail the Gore campaign. Asked whom they blamed most for the rise in gasoline prices, 40 percent said the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, 34 percent said oil companies and only 16 percent singled out the Clinton/Gore administration.
Respondents were asked to rate the candidates on nine qualities of presidential leadership. The two were virtually tied on three but Gore was clearly ahead on the other six.
Gore had a 36-point advantage on foreign policy expertise; a seven-point lead on understanding the problems of the middle class; a 15-point lead on caring for the less fortunate; a 16-point lead on promoting better race relations; a 12-point lead of being sufficiently knowledgeable to run the country, and a five-point lead on being president in a crisis.
The two were roughly tied on personal honesty and integrity, handling an economic downturn and being commander-in-chief.
``You have to conclude that while this remains a close race, Gore is still the favorite,'' said Zogby.
Go to any major American sporting event.
Go to Mardi Gras.
Go to Spring Break beaches.
Watch MTV.
We can't compete with Straight Stripping, ogling, and dressing in weird costumes.
As far as making fun of the boy scouts, where was Cygnus when the straight boys in this forum were drooling over Brittany Spears in Catholic girls school costume.
Gimme a break.
I don't see this as newsworthy.
The difference between us and them is that they are not trying to change attitudes so that they will be afforded equality.
And I think what Cygnus is getting at is that the Boy Scouts are an institution revered by some (although by perhaps fewer than it was before the Court case), same as the Catholic Church, while the examples of lewd and raucous behavior that you cite are not particularly aimed at any distinct institution.
Mardis Gras, for example, represents an ancient tradition of mocking convention for a brief period out of the year, but it isn't specifically anti-Catholic, at least, not any more.
True enough about Britanny I suppose, but was she really mocking the church per se, or just trying to look naughty? (I don't remember the event.)
The fact is that Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts have political agendas as well as religious ones, and while it is expected that gays will speak against those agendas, doing it with a little more care might help us in the long run.
And if Ricky Martin came out of the closet and performed a video about a Catholic school boy, it would have been interpreted a lot differently, don't you think? As would gay men's drooling over the video the way the straight boys did hers.
I was just ranting (per usual).
jones,
That is like so grownup of you.
You are completely right that there is a double standard, and some people on the other side (from us) are always looking for nits to pick.
But then I suppose we do that too, sometimes.
Everybody is sensitive these days. Probably because times are relatively good and so with we have the leisure to be so.
And as I said, I was ranting.
Poll Shows Debate Performance Hurt Lazio the Light
any of us.
What about the death tax, the poor victim of more tax 'n spend?
Poor Mark McKinnon. He left the Dems (and they're mad at him) and he's working for the Repubs (and they're mad at him).
MORE THAN most people in public life, Vice President Gore has mastered the intricacies of public issues like arms control and the environment. His current rhetoric demonizing business is a blemish on that serious record. In lashing out against big oil, big pharmaceutical firms and big health maintenance organizations, Mr. Gore is playing the demagogue, and he himself must know it.
Std Deviation 3.13
It was said in jest, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) insisted later, but Lott raised a few eyebrows in Georgia last weekend when he warned that Mississippi might snatch a lucrative military contract from the Atlanta area if Georgia does not elect a Republican to the Senate this fall.
Lott was in Atlanta last Friday to help raise money for former GOP senator Mack Mattingly's uphill campaign against Sen. Zell Miller (D), who was appointed to fill the seat of the late senator Paul Coverdell (R) and is running in November to fill out the remainder of Coverdell's term.
"If Mack is not there, I will do everything I can to move the whole operation to Mississippi," Lott was reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to have told a crowd of about 50 Mattingly supporters in reference to a new generation of C-130J Hercules aircraft that are to be assembled near Atlanta. "If Mack is there, we'll split the difference. We'll build the fuselage and you'll do the rest. You get my drift here?"
I get the drift - we need a new majority leader!
Lott is never shy about reeling in military contracts for Mississippi but told a reporter after his remarks that he was just kidding. Miller's campaign officials expressed
indignation, accusing Lott of "threaten[ing] the jobs of Georgia workers if they don't vote like he wants them to." Former Macon mayor Jim Marshall, who is challenging
Rep. C. Saxby Chambliss (R), had a more graphic response. Using a live donkey as a prop, Marshall told Lott to "kiss my donkey . . . that's my reply to partisanship."
Mississippi find yourself another country to be part of.... Phil Ochs
Second, his approaching Mrs. Clinton was aggressive, and she parlayed that move in two ways. First, she appeared senatorial and reserved. Second, afterwards, she played victim. Both tacts work with softies.
Lazio played to those who wouldn't vote for Mrs. Clinton if she was handing out $100 bills.
All weekend and Monday night, I was caught in a channel surfing frenzy from football games, to baseball games, to the Olympics and back again.
How many people are watching news programs if I'm not?
Mississippi, God Damn.-- Nina Simone.
Iowa: Gateway to Kansas
Arkansas: At least we aren't Mississippi
Louisiana: At least we aren't Mississippi
Mississippi: At least we aren't Haiti
MS ain't that bad
i say that while living in OH, natch
Good one, and similar to a NY Times op-ed piece the other day, which I think I posted. Just as I worry about anti-gay rhetoric from the Right, I think there is a certain level of danger from this kind of populist pandering from Gore. The danger being that people will actually start believing that the free lunch is possible if we just vote in the right people. 
(With Florida "in play," I doubt either Gore or Bush will be bringing up these charts.)
That's taking one for the team.
For underneath her borders
the devil draws no line
If you drag her muddy rivers
nameless bodies you will find
Oh the fat trees of the forest
have hid a thousand crimes
The calendar is lyin'
when it reads the present time
Oh here's to the land you've torn out the heart of
Mississippi find yourself another country to be part of!
From the other side, Gore Vidal in an interview at Salon says that much of Clinton's trouble stems from taking on the health care industry (others have said tobacco) early in his presidency so that they retaliated by sending the VRWC against him. Although there may be some element of truth in that, I don't buy it generally.
Regarding Lazio, I received a request to donate to his campaign the other day (even though I'm out-of-state). All it said was I should give him money because he wasn't Hillary Clinton.
Lame and off-putting, to say the least (and that was the reaction of someone--me--who hopes she loses).
Certainly custodial nursing home care is one of the most expensive services Medicaid covers. And as the population as a whole ages, a larger proportion of total Medicaid spending will be used for services to the elderly. Still, even if 50% of current benefits are paid to the elderly, I don't think the program can be characterized as a "seniors'" program.
In the swamp of their bureaucracy they're always boggin down
and criminals reposing as the mayors of their towns
and they hope that no one sees the sights or hears the sounds
and the speeches of their [senator] are the ravings of a clown
Oh here's to the land you've torn out the heart of
Mississippi find yourself another country to be part of!
Thanks Napster!
There is that about the strength of business today, and also the tendency for the public to revolt when the tax rate goes above 40 percent. But just as I believe that anti-gay rhetoric will not unleash a government-sponsored pogrom but may contribute to heightened tensions around the gay-rights issue (including anti-gay violence), I think the anti-business diatribes may have some negative consequences. I don't think we need more people believing that American business is standing in the way of their well-being.
GOP: Stench of Death in the Air
As far as letting "loose the dogs of war" with his words, perhaps Gore should be a little more careful because of riots like in Seattle, but I just don't see him as being able to stir people up given his speaking style and that none of the true radicals mistake him for the genuine article (well, except for those "radicals" who consider message-board posting a revolutionary act).
Of course all bets are off should the economy really sour. I saw Boone Pickens paint a grim picture of the oil situation earlier today, and that is certainly something that can kick the legs out from under our current prosperity. Judging from past history, expensive gasoline is something that can make Americans get pretty ugly in a hurry.
There have been complaints, but this election is for the masses, not for the true believers. Makes for interesting coverage, but it's a bit spooky.
Well, I forget where, but a couple of days ago I saw where Gore actually went to the Hollywood crowd he'd offended, and apologized.
Brought a few younguns along, and told everyone, "Here ya go - swear at 'em, beat each other bloody, have sex right there on the floor while they watch. I was only kiddin', guys!"
(or something similar).
As a small town GP, I don't fall in either group. I intend to vote for Harry Browne. I am particularly interested in one of the things he is saying - "I will eliminate the Executive Orders of past presidents".
Being old enough to remember WW II, it is my recollection that it was and FDR Executive Order to take a portion of everyone's paycheck for their taxes. I believe that the year was 1943; and Washington - borrowing money hand over fist to finance the war - wanted taxes to be coming in on a regular basis. Until then, each citizen who owed taxes paid - lump sum - on March 15. Again, as best as I recall, Congress never considered adopting or rejecting this method of tax collection after the "emergency" was over.
I would love to see the USA go back to that system! The huge majority of people would not - in a lump sum - be able to come up with their federal taxes. The government's hands would be tied to a certain extent as they can't put that many people in jail. Plus, I doubt that most people who receive a paycheck actually figure out how muxh their YEARLY federal tax; social security; and Medicare taxes actually amount to.
I would predict much weeping and gnashing of teeth. And once taxpayers actually found out how the government is costing them, the size of government would shrink.
The point is so obvious it's painful to make, but do New Yorkers want a senator who doesn't read the newspapers--or who is so intimidating that nobody (not even, or especially, her husband) dares to inform her when they contain bad news? What if the numbers in one of her legislative initiatives don't add up? Who will tell her? And what if David Kendall's not available?
Do you think that people don't realize they are being pandered to, or is it just that they only object when someone else is being pandered to.
Some social conservatives also consider the First Amendment a problem, see Bill Kristol's rants against "choice," meaning choice in general, or freedom, not just abortion.
There have been complaints from libertarians, but we don't count for much. For an example, see here: What Culture of Carnage?
What fun!
Whitewater -- the long, futile coup-by-court ends...a Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial:
"It took six years, $52 million and three special prosecutors, but President Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton now have been essentially cleared of wrongdoing in the Whitewater land deal --the granddaddy of all the inquisitions, which morphed eventually into the investigation of Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. Independent Counsel Robert Ray announced Wednesday that he had found "insufficient evidence" to charge the Clintons with wrongdoing. If you cannot find enough evidence to charge, let alone convict, in that time and with those resources, the evidence doesn't exist. The Clintons have been vindicated."
Ronski, I agree that there is little downside for Gore, as his backers don't really believe he'll do anything, and they support him on too many other issues. The only downside for the rest of us is that he's breaking a taboo against censorship that many many people would dearly like broken. (Anybody read Slouching to Gemorrah?) But hey what the hell does he care? He'll be long in retirement when that chicken comes home to roost.
You missed it. Gore threatened to use the some existing law (Truth in Advertising, I think) to regulate the promotion of material inappropriate for children if Hollywood didn't regulate itself. This of course gives Gore his out. Regardless of what Hollywood does, Gore will pronounce it suficient, claim credit, and pronounce the issue closed. I just can't figure out why anyone would fall for such an obvious stunt.
Safe food and drugs? Who needs em!!!
Hip Hip Hooray!!!
Its been a long time since I have had time to look at the Mote. But, best as I recall, you and I were never in agreement previously.
The government - as we know it now - would go to Hell. But, if they were in session for only a couple of months every 2 years - not in constant session as they are today - think of how much less time they would have to think about new ways of spending/wasting our money.
Why not make the people that drive, pay. Toll roads. Same for the people that fly - add air traffic control to the price of their tickets.
If I had the money taken from me in the guise of Social Security and Medicare and had invested it in conservative stocks, I would have one Hell of lot more money than the figure that I have just been quoted. I turn 65 in Oct. and the literature sent out to people going to be 65 gives one these figures. They are very fresh in my mind.
I doubt very much that the colleges and universities would ALL fold. The one thing that bothers me in this area is where is the research money going to come from. But, that is one problem that should be able to be overcome.
My welfare patients are given a plastic card that looks like a credit card. They can't take care of it! Each day, we have potential patients presenting cards that won't go through the machine - similar to the machines at businesses - we have due to crimps; plain filth; etc. When someone gets something for nothing - that something loses its value.
We are responcible for the "lame, the halt, and the blind". Everyone else should pay their own way - without government subsidies.
Lest someone accuse me of hysteria, I should clarify that I don't think Gore is a fascist. I'm not fond of the man, but I think this censorship noise is nothing more than an ill-advised and despicable political stunt. His real power ambitions seem to lie more in the economic and technological sphere.
When did "insufficient evidence" become "no evidence"? It is sad to find this kind of thinking in a large newspaper. Are these people so naive that they believe a prosecutor would charge the President and First Lady without overwhelming evidence? To assume that anything short of that equals "no evidence" is childish.
Your notion is so very simplistic that I was sure you hadn't thought it through. No matter since it would never happen.
The government you despise so is responsible in large measure for the social stability that makes our prosperity possible.
What we do need is to arm the parent who will take appropriate action with information. I get satelite TV, and have had the equivalent of the V-chip for some time now. We use it, and appreciate it. Movies don't just come with the PG, PG-13, R or NC-17 ratings- there is a code to descibe whether there is violence, whether it is "real" or simulated, how graphic or frequent it is etc. The same is true for adult situations and sex. If a movie has an R rating for some infrequent violence but a "fuck" or two in the dialogue, I would be far more willing to allow my kid to see it, than if it had a depicted fuck or two, or horrific on screen violence.
The theory is that defense-related research would continue, while non-defense research would be funded by businesses themselves (much of it already is).
Of course, this is not going to happen.
Actually, arming other parents with information has somewhere near zero priority on my to-do list, right after "help the French Cinema with its inferiority complex."
And how cost effective is it going to be to station toll-takers on all the byways in rural areas? Hell, it's going to cost more to hire toll takers than you'll make.
That also ignores the fact that most jobs REQUIRE transportation. You want to ensure that the underclass is locked in at current levels of poverty or worse, just charge them to get out.
I know this kind of empty promising works for Gore (and Democrats in general). I just can't figure out why. I don't think that people are too ignorant to figure it out. I think that maybe they just want to believe.
But I think the privatization of roads is not a crying need right now.
This is sounding like the kind of debate only libertarians engage in with themselves (since usually no one else will bother to engage them, I suppose).
Insufficient evidence is only exoneration in the lexicon of mutts who view all things political as a "win" or a "loss."
Under the same concept, Cisneros was honored by his guilty plea; Espy dignified by his acquittal; and Gore celebrated by four separate decisions not to appoint a special prosecutor.
The U.S. has prospered probably because of this classical liberalism, and because a central state was strong enough to hold it together while remaining not too intrusive in people's affairs. Has the U.S. ever been truly, totally libertarian? Well, no. Not even in the last century. And it never will be, is my guess. But I think liberty works better than authoritarianism.
We probably have a pretty good balance here right now, but I think we would be doing even better if we tilted away from expanding government. Neither the Republican nor Democrat parties stands for doing that. Both want to increase government. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party wants to be ideologically pure and thus will remain inconsequential. But I'm still voting for them.
Of course, what I want our government to be is never going to happen. But, play Lets Pretend. Pretend that in 1946 Congress had taken up FDR's "emergency" method of getting taxes to Washington on a regular basis so that the borrowings, made necessary by the war, could be more accurately figured. Assume that Congress - a much more conservative group back in 1946 - had said to Truman that the "emergency" was over. "The IRS will go back to the old way - everyone pays on March 15th". The incremental enlargement of government would have been one Hell of a lot slower than what we have actually experienced.
You don't miss what you don't have. Look at the South prior to the war(WW II). Air conditioning was a rarity. I don't have an atlas handy, but, will wager that most cities of the South are 5 - 10 times greater in population than they were in 1940.
You would not miss subsidized college tuition; subsidized air traffic controllers; and all the other things that government does for us today - that we should be doing for ourselves - if you had never experienced them in the first place.
Atlanta would be a sleepy southern city - a reminder of "Gone With The Wind" - had air conditioning not been made available and cheaply available. And some of us would prefer things to have remained that way. I will be the first to admit that I am an old curmudgeon.
so what?
culture and government matures and grows along with the population.
sheesh, cry me a river.
I think air conditioning would have happened no matter what. Too many people, for reasons I find incomprehensible, like warm winters and would have moved south. But they hate long, stifling summers, and where there is a need, someone steps in to fill it eventually.
(And then those bad government interstates gave people easy routes south, too.)
I think that we'd first have to come to some definition of what constitutes the "welfare state". Is it welfare to subsidize job training for employers? How about tax loopholes for favored activities like homebuilding? The home mortgage exemption is a greater "tax expenditure" than the welfare, medicaid and foodstamps combined. Do you trust Smithfield foods to operate in the best interest of consumers and not try to pass off tainted food if there were no oversight? Given that they've been dumping raw sewage into the watershed even while in court to halt the practice, I'm not so trusting.
Cheap shot. An affinity for times of yore doesn't mean you long for polio.
Sounds like a plan. I've noted that my neices had great limits to the amount of information and stimulation that they wanted. I think kids often instinctively know what they are ready to handle and when, but simultaneously they appreciate the control and concern parents exercise, even if they occasionally squawk about it.
For companies that screw up, like a certain tire manufacturer to ue a different business, there are obvious consequences.
And no, we don't have to eliminate all regulation, but we don't have to expand it indefinitely either.
well, i guess i just grow a little tired of hearing how evil and misplaced our gov't is and seeing the past thru those pretty pink colored glasses.
but, it's easy to do when all there is else to talk about is a dog and pony show for an election and major networks turning what should be the most exciting sporting event in four years into a weepy eyed mush fest while sitting in and bitching about the best government on the planet right now and has been for years and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
(this rant brought to you by rubberducky – the youngest curmudgeon in theMote.)
Lassiez faire economics were an aberration, not the norm in our history. Its time has not returned.
Ah yes, the inevitable accusations of racism. How charming.
would that be the point, yes, it would be. decidedly so. bubbaette has already pointed out to you what Message # 42285 should make clear.
It would be akin to my meeting Jones' post about the fine job of the government with "Oh, sure. I guess you laud the Tuskegee experiments."
In other words, the Republicans. And you know what?
THEY'RE LOSERS
LOSERS !LOSERS !
LOSERS !LOSERS !
LOSERS !LOSERS !
LOSERS !LOSERS !
LOSERS !LOSERS !
LOSERS !LOSERS !
LOSERS !LOSERS !
LOSERS !LOSERS !
LOSERS !LOSERS !
LOSERS !LOSERS !
LOSERS !LOSERS !
LOSERS !LOSERS !
A fine exclamation to my point.
Steer clear of those Dupont circle men's rooms, Jack. You never know who you'll meetthere.
Aspects of the past are attractive to old and young alike. I just think it extreme to collar all attemots at nostalgia with the evils of the past.
of course, a little thing called context trips you up here, Jack. you can't, in all intellectual honesty, pick a time frame from history as pristine and flawless without seeing the things that went on.
i mean, that bit about air conditioning was a scream. of all the things to bitch about. not how people were mistreated, not how domestic violence was high in the pretty days of black and white television. no, all was fine for white heterosexual men, so why can't we go back to that? makes me ill.
I don't think anyone would argue that universal health care access would not be a good thing. The question then is why has the market not produced it if it is demanded by consumers and affordable to the economy? Can the government shape the market into acheiving the goal through the private economy? If not, how should the government acheive our shared goal?
I can't take on all your examples right now, but health care has been affected by government intrusions since at least the mid 40s. Before that, physicians regularly gave up to 40 percent of their time to the poor, and charities ran hospitals efficiently. Bear in mind that in the mid century we were in a Depression, itself caused more by government than by any natural business cycle, and you cannot look at health care or anything else in isolation. But given the level of what doctors could actually do to help people (sulfa drugs in the 20s, pennicillin in the 30s, aspirin, etc.), the health care afforded people before government stepped in was probably pretty good given the times. Once health care became the prerogative of government and political society, people started demanding more care at less cost, something which government will be less able to deliver than the marketplace would be, imo. Most people do not believe the free market could ever deliver health care well, so we will stay pretty much with the system we have, but don't expect any of the whining over health costs to end anytime in the next few decades. And don't expect the politicians ever to make it better. It will defy any political solution.
I saw earlier today that a mayor had decreed death illegal within his city's limits.
He was French, however, and therefore it was a vain attemot.
And they're right!
my humor often doesn't translate all that well to written text.
It also depends on what you mean by universal access to health care. By some definitions, we have that already. In most parts of the country (some rural areas may be exceptions, and people who live a hundred miles from neighbors do not usually expect a lot of attention), people can get basic care even if they have no health plan. The question is what level of health care should be available to everyone. Does everyone have the right to a multi-organ transplant, for example? Even if the organs were available, which they are not (not until we perfect xenotransplants, at least). Does absolutely everyone have the right to the latest drugs, as opposed to older generic models.
So when I say "that the wrong side won the War Between the States" it is not from indoctrination I recieved as a child.
I prefer the slower pace and the generally present politeness of the people to the MN that I recall - and see yearly on visits to my mother and siblings.
What you mean is there is a government-mandated minimum wage and 40-hour workweek because they were mandated by the government, which seems rather circular.
Most people receive more than the minimum wage, and apparently most are working more than 40 hours per week.
As for the minimum wage, even if its negative effects are minimal and acceptable to most people, it is not true that it only helps people. It keeps unskilled people from getting their first jobs in places where the economy is not strong.
I don't mean to say that if the government suddenly ordered that we all make a million bucks a year that we'd all be rich. I do mean that establishing a floor changes the market, and that it protects those who are least able to fend for themselves in the market.
It protects a floor for those who are fortunate enough to already be in the building, but there are those outside knocking on the door who are out of luck. Organized labor likes the minimum wage because it protects its members from competition from people who are completely outside the system.
And you know those votes aren't likely to go to Bush when/if Nader support declines.
It is not news that Gore is in trouble in Oregon, and he's doing better in Florida than anyone expected a few months ago if he's tied with Bush. I think Oregon will drift towards Gore, but he has to work for it. Florida will remain a tossup towards the end, but Lieberman and the drug plan might bring it home for the Dems.
What is the minimum wage?
It always gets hiked eventually. As I said, the bad effects are minimal, but it is not the untainted, univeral blessing its supporters say it is.
And I agree with you.
The actual average hourly wage was $13.68 last month, with more than $5.58 in benefits.
$5.15 an hour is enough to raise a single, childless, person out of poverty in all but the most expensive parts of the country. Also, the Earned Income Tax Credit can potentially increase this by up to 40%, depending on the number of dependents and total annual income.
I tend to think the minimum wage is a second-best solution, as only a fraction of the beneficiaries really need the income hike (people with dependents). The rest are single teens and young adults, many of whom are living at home with middle class parents, or are just working for pocket money while getting an education for a real job. I prefer raising the EITC, which targets those who actually need it.
Still, I would rather the working poor get *some* assistance from a poorly targeted minimum wage law than no assistance at all.
Averages are tricky stuff. Are you saying that nobody works at the minimum wage (or in the case of illegals, below it)? And my question stands: what kind of life is possible at the minimum wage?
Do you think that the coal mine owners would provide adequate ventilation or workers' compensation if it weren't mandated? Funny, less than a century ago, miners were paid in scrip redeemable only in the company store and if the mine caved, the miner and his family were shit out of luck.
We still find instances of sweat shops and enslaved workers -- even in America as recently as last year.
So no, I'm not all that sanguine about employers providing a living wage or not using their employees up and throwing them out if not compelled to do otherwise.
In answer to your question, I'd say for the vast majority of people in this country today there is no reason to stay stuck at a minimum wage job and all kinds of opportunity to do better. Except possibly in the case of illegal aliens, I truly doubt many Americans are impoverished because their employers are exploiting them.
should be based on whether the person "needs" it or not. I'm more
comfortable with the notion of the same pay for the same job,
regardless of who holds it."
This is why I prefer the EITC. The market can then set whatever wages it deems necessary, and if people who can't find any other job can find one for $3 an hour, they can take it. The government can then determine needs, and make sure that those who need more money can get it.
My point is just that the minimum wage is a sloppy policy tool for fighting poverty, but it is better than no policy tool.
Scroll down to table number 706.
Absolutely. The labor unions would demand it and coal companies would comply. What you fail to realize is that companies need labor as much as people need jobs. It is the proper role for labor unions to act in these matters for their members. What has happened is that Labor has used the government to achieve its ends rather than negotiation.
point taken. However, I do think that the government gets some credit. For example, the state courts here in Virginia actually decided that employers can't fire pregnant women in 1994! Professional women weren't the ones who benefitted most from that court decision -- women in the lower echelons of the workforce were. I don't think that the decision was irrelevant simply because I didn't have a problem like that.
I really wasn't trying to make the case that government labor laws are responsible for the present healthy state of the economy. The case I was trying to make is that the country WOULD go to hell in a handbasket if we just decided to defund the federal government as Ranheim was suggesting. However, there are several government programs that contribute substantially to a robust economy -- education, for example. Government programs -- unemployment insurance, workers compensation, minimum wage, FLSA, etc., also provide a minimum standard that one would think not only possible but desirable in a country with our resources.
ooops, toys
The Pinkerton co in West Virginia and in Southwest Virginia actually OPENED FIRE on it's employees when they first tried to unionize. Miners were only able to organize with the intervention of the government.
would comply."
You don't think the clout that laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act gives to Labor Unions has anything to do with Union effectiveness at getting employers to comply? Or the ability to sue for violation of OSHA?
Conservatives conveniently forget that regulation via the judiciary branch is just as regulatory as that which is done via the executive branch.
Results for Sep 18-20, 2000 **
Bush: 41%
Gore: 51%
Buchanan: 1%
Nader: 3%
Don't Know: 4%
Not everything that is desirable should be mandated by government. Also you are free to do whatever you want to with your resources. The problem is you are talking about "our resources" as if you have a right to tell other people what to do with theirs. I have enough faith in the generosity of the American people and the strength of our economy to trust that people would not be dying in the streets without government intervention. To think that there are millions of people in this country who would allow their fellow humans to starve to death is more cynical that I can manage.
I don't know whether you are just feigning naivete or are willfully ignorant. Before the advent of government programs to fight poverty, people *were* being allowed to starve on the street. You seem to think that there aren't any homeless even now.
JJ
How many employer exploiting their employees IS acceptable? Is there a certain level of, say, sweatshop slave labor that should be tolerated before government intervenes? Because most employers don't pay wages in scrip, and those wages are, after all, the resources of the employers, should this be acceptable if the numbers are small enough?
Government regulation has taken over much of the work that originally was job of the unions. It has reduced the need for unions and therefore reduced the power of the unions' negotiating positions. Without government intervention we would have much stronger unions who would be able to accomplish the same (or better) worker protections we have now.
While I will concede that government has no magic wand and that there is no magic wand when it acts, I think the same could said for the private sector.
To me, ideology (either left or right) to the extent that it demands total belief as a solution for all problems, real or potential, is useless.
50 State Poll Shows Gore Up 4, Up 72 Electoral Votes
Before the advent of government programs there wasn't enough food to feed the population. That is no longer the case. Even in spite of a lack of resources, starvation was extremely rare. Given the abundance that is now available, it is extremely short sighted to claim that generosity would not be manifest now and be sufficient to meet the needs.
As for the homeless now, how many die from starvation every year beause the have no access to assistance?
Gore Breaks 50% in Gallup Track - Stick a Fork in That Turkey 
How can an employer exploit an employee when the employee can merely quit any time he pleases? Employers cannot dictate wages and working conditions and force people to work for him. Employment is voluntary. As long as it is, your predictions of doom are meaningless. I will grant you that government has a role in ensuring that employment really is voluntary and that slavery and indentured servitude are not allowed.
Bush has the same lead in Texas as in Utah (28%)
10% lead -- Virginia, and Oklahoma (thought that would be higher)
5% lead -- New Hampshire (his only New England lead)
Gore has a 11% lead in Tennesee
8% lead -- Michigan, Washington State
7% lead -- Louisiana (what's that about?)
6% lead --New Mexico, Oregon
Hell's Bells!!!
I dunno. Mike and I are not wealthy by any means, but I don't begrudge paying my taxes. Would I donate the same amount of money if it weren't deducted from my paycheck? I doubt it, and I sincerely doubt that most people would.
And I seem to recall (looking at Better Business Bureau's philanthropy advisory) that most government programs have much lower administrative costs (services delivered per dollar donated) than most charities. This means that donated money is not providing services as efficiently as the government.
Now if you ask whether the government should be engaged in everything it does, I'd have to agree that it shouldn't. But the notion that the poor, sick and elderly would be taken care of out of the goodness of our hearts has been disproven enough.
Yo Glenda. LA has gone demo in the past 2 elections.
Only steers and queers come from Texas!!!!
It never ends...
That assumes that employees can quit and find another job. As you know, this is not always the case. There are people now in 3rd world countries (there was an article on the shipbreaking yards in India and Bangladesh in Harpers recently that documents this) where people work in hideous conditions for less money than it costs to replace the calories they burn up by working. But working for for slow starvation beats doing nothing and starving outright, I guess.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe this. I've known you a long time now, and I don't believe you would allow people to starve to death and not do everything in your power to help. I don't believe it of most people.
And I seem to recall (looking at Better Business Bureau's philanthropy advisory) that most government programs have much lower administrative costs (services delivered per dollar donated) than most charities.
All the studies I've seen say the opposite except for a handfull of the most poorly run charities.
But the notion that the poor, sick and elderly would be taken care of out of the goodness of our hearts has been disproven enough.
Disproven? I don't think so. I guess I have more faith in people than you do.
Last time I checked, we weren't living in a third world country. Well at least not unless Gore becomes President, then anything is possible.
Emirs
West Texas Morons
Ex-CEO's of Halliburton.
Typical politicians. They want to take credit for everything good that has happened whether they were responsible for it or not. And they want to blame all their failures on someone else. As I said earlier, I am amazed that anyone actually falls for it.
jj
As my egyptian former roommate, Waffaa Mustafa Abdul El Aziz, was fond of saying, "peoples are peoples, everywhere." It wasn't always a cheerful thought, human nature having it's downside as well.
Anyhow, we'll just have to agree to disagree since it's time for me to wake the sleeping Irishman for dinner.
HELL's BELLS!
With things starting to solidify it looks to remain a close presidential race. Trends are starting to show in states where the race had been close. As such, I've done some computing on a virtual electoral college web site) and have put together a LOOSE prediction of the electoral college outcome.
I agree with Rask about using the EITC rather than the minimum wage to help the working poor. I fall well to the right of bubba but a good bit to the left of JJ in terms of government and employment laws.
Employment laws should be minimal and basic, and you should pretty much accept it as a given that any new employment law will hurt current employees as much or more as it will help.
Disproven? I don't think so. I guess I have more faith in people than you do.
JJB- You never read Dickens did you?
toys
42376. jexster -9/22/00 1:04:19 AM
42377. jexster - 9/22/00 1:04:32 AM
toys
Talk about 'toys in the attic'.
Moron.
Is Our Children Learning George W. Bush
Let's not leave ThomasD behind any longer!!
Don't let this dangerous loser in the Oval Office. The entire country will suffer if he wins the election.
Clearly, you missed the reference to the six Nobel Prize Winning economists who have endorsed George W. Bush's tax plan.
Which means, ipso facto, that Pinocchio Bore doesn't know shit about tax plans. Or maybe what he does know is shit. Take your pick, Jexster.
Go ahead and try.
My advice for you would be to pack you bags and move to someplace safe like the Antilles. Cause when Gore becomes President there's going to be Payback -- and it's not going to be pretty. Remember all those hysterical fantasies you and you ilk had about Clinton Death Squads? Well they're all going to come true with Al. You don'tknow the meaning of the word "fear" until you've seen Tipper.
with an AK-47.
She's got a list and she's checking it twice.
AND YOU'RE ON IT !!!
And neither does this trashy editorial from fuckin England.
And neither will ThomasD be able to find the names.
They don't exist.
Is our children learning yet?
Nobody with a three digit IQ and in reasonable mental health would vote for Pinocchio Bore as president.
We're well aware of your contempt for the American people, connie.
Pinocchio Bore, the Southern Patrician Slumlord and condescending liar haling from the state from which the KKK sprang is the one with the contempt for the American People.
Don't reward his contempt by voting for him.
CHESTERFIELD, Mo. (AP) - Dick Cheney (news - web sites) derided Al Gore (news - web sites) for the threat of brownouts in California, but the Republican vice presidential candidate couldn't blame Gore for the blackout Thursday at his hotel near St. Louis.
`It's a media plot,'' Cheney said as he sat in his car outside the Doubletree Hotel, which was totally darkened by a power outage that lasted about 45 minutes.
What an idiot. This man has absolutely no clue about California's brownouts. He also hasn't clued into the fact that Gore's going to take the Golden State by 10 points+ 
Governor Bush's proposal has not one new penny for Social Security, not one penny for to pay down the debt, not one penny for Medicare. There's a difference there. He puts all the extra surplus into tax cuts. I don't think we need that. And by the way, thirty-eight percent of his tax cuts goes to the wealthiest one percent of Americans. I don't think they need that. I think working families need that tax cut rather than the wealthiest. [Date: 2/12/00, Darlington, SC]
"By not shoring up the Social Security system now with surplus funds we are, by fiat, agreeing to raise payroll taxes in the future,' added McCain, whose own plan is roughly half the size of Bush's. I have called this kind of economics fiscally irresponsible.'" [Associated Press/Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 1/14/99]
"Your tax plan over the next five years not only spends all of the surplus, it spends twenty billion dollars in addition to that. I'm sure we'll have that figured out. But this idea that somehow, if the money is left in order to salvage the Social Security for America and Medicare and the debt * that * you don't understand the role of the president of the United States. The president of the United States will veto bills * will veto bills that spend too much."\ [MSNBC/WOOD-TV GOP Debate, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI, 1/10/00]
Dyslexic, Impaired or Just A Moron - Bush INSecurity.com 
Chilling statement.
Mr Bush scored in the top 10% of the country in his SATs—in the same region as Al Gore. Nor is high intelligence the most important qualification for the presidency. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were both intellectually outstanding; Ronald Reagan was not....
What matters, surely, is Mr Bush’s record rather than his syntax....
There are plenty of good reasons to reject him as president, but not many being considered by the American press at the moment. At its heart, the election offers a choice between two well-qualified, if not outstanding, candidates, and between two contrasting philosophies, one rooted in the protective power of the government, the other in the liberating effects of the market.
Even the House Democratic study from which Gore lifted manufacturer wholesale prices and presented them as his family's own retail cost notes that just eight of the 200 best-selling drugs in the United States can be used for both humans and animals.
Those numbers suggest that comparing human and animal drug costs to underscore the high cost of prescription drugs, as Gore has done, is irrelevant except for a tiny fraction of the drugs that are prescribed....
Doug Hattaway, the Gore campaign spokesman, said he did not know whether Gore was aware how few drugs are used for both animals and humans. ''But that's beside the point,'' Hattaway said, since ''it was just one way to illustrate why seniors pay so much for prescription drugs.''
hahaha
how? being governor for 8 measly years?
"not outstanding" is an understatement
i'm not saying there is a check list of things to do, but the man hasn't done anything prior to 8 years of being a mediocre governor. some sort of interest in public works around 10 years before running for POTUS would be nice, but that's just me
6? thought he was elected in '92, but yeah, '94 does sound right.
whoops
America. I gave you the internet, and I can take it away." "
You know that this was on Letterman, right?
No, he just copied it off the Freeper site.
That was a great list he did, btw. I particularly liked his "24x6" adlib.
He'll believe in whatever preseves his prejudice and hatred for Clinton/Gore.
Gallup: Gore leads by ten points
As an organized crime family or merely into the ground?
Why? Are they more drunk by then?
We're at home working on our cars. The gentry are at play.
Favorite bumpersticker of the summer:
"UNIONS: the people who brought you weekends"
Favorite T=shirt of the summer (worn by a youngish dad herding kids at an I-35 rest stop):
Get in!
Sit down!
Shut up!
Notice that the attack is not directed to the essential point made by Gore- that some drugs prices are inflated for human use far beyond their costs in vetrinary use. That is not to say that there are not points to be made in favor of the practice- but apparantly they are not strong enough to merit response by the Bush campaign. It is the actual state of granny's and the dog's state of affairs that Bush goes after.
black panther named Alex Rackley needed to die. Rackley was
suspected of disloyalty. Rackley was first tied to a chair. Once
safely immobilized, his friends tortured him for hours by, among
other things, pouring boiling water on him.
When they got tired of torturing Rackley, Black Panther
member Warren Kimbo took Rackley outside and put a bullet in his
head.
Rackley's body was later found floating in a river about 25
miles north of New Haven, Conn.
Perhaps at this point you're curious as to what happened to
these Black Panthers.
In 1977, that's only eight years later, only one of the
killers was still in jail. The shooter, Warren Kimbro, managed to
get a scholarship to Harvard. He later became an assistant dean at
Eastern Connecticut State College.
Isn't that something? As a '60s radical who can pump a
bullet into someone's head, and a few years later, in the same
state, you can become an assistant college dean! Only in America!
Erica Huggins was the lady who served the Panthers by
boiling the water for Mr. Rackley's torture. Some years later Ms.
Huggins was elected to a California School Board.
(con)
easy? Maybe it was in some part due to the efforts of two people
who came to the defense of the Panthers. These two people
actually went so far as to shut down Yale University with
demonstrations in defense of the accused Black Panthers during
their trial. One of these people was none other than Bill Lan
Lee. Mr. Lee, or Mr. Lan Lee, as the case may be, isn't a
college dean.
He isn't a member of a California School Board. He is now
head of the US Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
O.K., so who was the other Panther defender?
Is this other notable Panther defender now a school
board member? Is this other Panther apologist now an assistant
college dean? No, Neither!
The other Panther defender was, like Lee, a radical law
student at Yale University at the time. She is now known as The
"smartestwoman in the world." She is none other than the
Democratic candidate for the US Senate from the State of New York- ---our lovely First Lady, the incredible Hillary Rodham
Clinton.
I don't know how true, or how skewered, this info is, taken for consideration that all the facts are not present. This was sent to me in part this morning by a college Asst. Dean with whom I had discussed the absurdities of American justice with a short time ago.
Perhaps someone can shed some light on this?
Lawyerin' Cuz: I linked a story upthread from the Boston Globe that says the substance of Gore's accusation was questionable as well (i.e., that drugs for pets cost less than drugs for humans). Such cost differentials may exist, but they have to be rare as according to the story only eight of the top 200 best-selling drugs are regularly prescribed for both animals and humans.
The way I heard it, Hillary was the one boiling the water.
The essential point of any political prevarication not in response to an allegation of wrongdoing is almost always magnanimous.
It is certainly a legitimate criticism if Mr. Gore is consistently willing to misrepresent facts - and not just any facts, but personal facts - for political gain.
Following your reasoning to its logical conclusion, he could have said that his wife pays $769 a week for her _____ drug, and this would be hunky-dorey, even if false, because his essential point - that prescription drugs are expensive - is true.
Is the sin singularly critical? Maybe not.
Is a multitude of similar prevarications cause for concern? Obvioulsy, not to many, but one could not only wonder about Mr. Gore's honesty (and taste), but also his tie to the truth on the promises and pledges he makes.
And a politican in an election year is no more than the sum of his resolve, his pledges and his promises.
Like Biden and Toricelli before him, Gore gussies up the facts, engages in occasional distortion, and sometimes, flat-out lies.
You do him no service by offering him absolution for each failure.
No matter your position, the Bush campaign remains impotent.
Jack -- so you're thinking that Bush will follow Dole's footsteps and do erectile dysfunction/Viagra ads after the election?
Nope. As Gail Sheehy wrote, he'll parlay this run into the job he really wants - Commissioner of Baseball.
Maybe that's because Gore's essential point was so obviously invalid that it did not need comment. It is common knowledge that the approval time and therefore the cost of approving medicine for humans is far higher than it is for animals. This additional cost is reflected in the higher cost of prescriptions for humans. As usual Gore is trying to manufacture an issue out of nothing.
The writer also conveniently ignores the fact that a loose--and eventually not so loose--cabal of people were smearing Clinton from the beginning of his Presidency. What he went through would make anyone defensive, even before he was "hoist on his own petard."
--Bill Clinton on Black Entertainment TV, Nov. 2, 1994
MSNBC Electoral Vote Projections:
Bush.............188
Gore.............242
Toss-up..........108
A case so overwhelming that you hear not a peep about it out of Bush who prefers dog poop.
There's a very good reason that Bush doesn't speak to the specifics of the argument and that reason is he cannot win that debate.
The drugs are identical. In the US animal versions of drugs used in humans are manufactured to the same quality standards. The reason that they cost less is a matter of simple microeconomics, a topic called "market segmentation"
Market segmentation is academically imposing jargon for a simple concept - market prices are "segmented", different prices for consumers with different "indifference curves". The idea is that by pricing the drugs at levels less than humans, new consumers will enter the market, ie consumers for their pets, at prices that would otherwise not attract entry into the market.
The writer ignores a lot of things, not even mentioning, as Abe Rosenthal does today in the NY Daily News, that Sen. Kerrey called Clinton, years ago, "an unusually good liar."
But the fact is that Cato supports a variety of voices, not all in agreement with one another.
Seeing as how he doesn't have a White House to let out.
The bottom line on drugs - dogs, cats, Canadians, Mexicans all pay less for the same medication than US consumers who effectively subsidize, either via insurance or their own pockets (often at the expense of food etc), the marginal market entrants
And we don't just subsidize research into fantastic new drugs....the drug industry spends more on advertising than research ... much more
It ain't rocket science, its economics folks
Just run your own cross-tabulations on the relevant questions - any year, either survey
There are lies, there are damn lies, then there are statistics. – Mark Twain
You are aware that there is a relationship between the cost to produce a product and the price charged, aren't you? 
And I don't know about you, but I think it's damn time those dogs and cats started paying just as much as red-blooded Americans!
For more fun stuff Here
Of course it does. You are ignoring the cost of bringing the product to market. It takes about 10 years and $500 million dollars to bring a new drug to the US market. It costs a fraction of that in the other markets. That difference is reflected in the price in each market as it should. Unless you can justify why Mexicans and Canadians should be subsidizing our drug costs.
That's naive.
traditionally favors Democrats."
This is completely false. Gallup's tracking poll is conducted every day. If JJ would bother to consider information pointing to a result he didn't like, he would have noticed that the dates of the most recent Gallup poll are 9/18-9/20. That is, this Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Not a weekend in sight.
The cost of producing that pink anti-biotic made by Pfizer that I recently gave my cat is the same as the cost (R&D, advertising, capital, labor, misc overhead) as the drug, identical in every respect, that my little nephew took for his earache.
Sure, when we pay 250% more than a Canadian we are funding new research into new and better drugs. But we are paying, in actual fact, more to advertise.....
The response by the Republicans? Granny's car is a Nash-Rambler and she paid $2.39.9
Dat's bi'ness
OTOH, high oil prices are the result of ologopolistic price fixing which benefits Arab Oil states and international oil companies...whereas drug prices are more a reflection of what is technically called "monopolistic competition" and not a "free market", oil prices are a rig
Bush and Gore do not differ on the essential problem ie unaffordable medications....IMO Bush's plan to rely on HMO's will not work as effectively.
To the extent however that Gore's is more effective, it will also have the undesireable effect of putting upward pressure on prices....
I think the same can be said for school voucher schemes of all types, college education aid, etc.
Most of them big DNC donors.
The Clinton legacy
You do try that, but you are less successful at it in those countries where prices are controlled (downward) by the government. This is true of pharmaceuticals, which are controlled in most countries outside the U.S.
The danger in the Gore prescription drug plan for seniors (and perhaps Bush's as well, to a lesser extent) is that a limited new intrusion into the market may well lead to actual price controls, since he who pays the piper calls the tune.
And this arguably would have an adverse effect on R&D.
Otoh, the drug companies may prove successful in the long run in fighting federal efforts to dictate prices should the feds try to do that. Or the eventual ill effects may be minimal or acceptable for most people. We shall see, since I think Gore is going to win the election, and I think his plan or something similar to it will pass.
The gas company charges $2.40 for the gas, while when they gas up his plane, the company charges $.30.
If the government imposes additional costs on producing gasoline for cars that they don't impose on gasoline for airplanes, then a difference in price is justified.
They made a lot of them in cream and tan. 
Its one of the costs of production I have spoken to along with labor, ADVERTISING, R&D, capital, etc...and its the same for the drug manufactured in North Carolina regardless of whether it is sold in Tijuana or San Diego
Gallup: Gore Now Has More Positive Image Than Bush
Much mo betta we talk about the Moron, Pinnocio Bore, The White House Rapist, the slimy Cohiba, the stained dress and the Lincoln bedroom, n'est-ce pas? 
That's because he's out of his league - big time
Which reminds me, forget the polls...the Jexster Cosmic Connection has come true...the Giants won the NL West so Gore will win on 11/7...take it to the bank
Who let the DOGS OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes. These countries are smart enough not to force the prices down to where the companies would be losing money in the market.
Here ya go, JJB:
Begrudging Report Leaves
Cloud Over First Couple...by Lars Erik Nelson, bearded com-simp Clinton apologist (What the hell kind of name is Lars, anyway?)
...a new twist on U.S. law: Defend yourself in an investigation into false charges against you, and you're obstructing a prosecutor.
...The New York Times, which initiated this ludicrous waste of time and money with its first incomprehensible Whitewater charges*** eight years ago, blamed the Clintons for their ordeal.
...this has not been a good month for the once-magisterial Times. Two scandals that it created out of nonsensical charges from dubious and biased sources — Whitewater and the Wen Ho Lee spy case — have both collapsed in dust.
***see Jeff Gerth (Pulitzer-prize-sharing transcriber of innuendo and gossip and according to the always-objective James B. Stewart, book peddler, a model investigative reporter).
The "just price" is long dead as an economic idea, but different prices in different markets that do not have a *unitary* relationship (not just any monotone relationship) with cost is evidence of some departure from the competitive case.
Coincidentally, the mathematics behind optimal price discrimination is the same as the mathematics behind rocket science: optimal control theory/the calculus of variations.
Then maybe you just don't understand them.
Clearly sales in Canada and Mexico are profitable, even at the lower rates.
They are profitable because the additional cost of FDA regulations are not being amortized against them.
Why must R&D costs be solely recouped on US consumers?
Some of the R&D costs are being recouped from the other markets. The additional costs imposed by the FDA are not and should not. The FDA demands far more from drug companies before a drug is allowed into the US market. This means we are less likely to be harmed by new drugs, but it also means that those drugs will be more expensive for us. You can't demand years of additional testing and trials for the US market and expect people in other countries to pick up the tab.
How can you possibly know this? How can any of us know the opposite? If you don't know, why speculate? All it does it telegraph the well known ideologies around here.
I'm sad to say that Lars is a common Swedish name. As is Erik.
It is a standard business practice taught in most business schools. It also makes sense from a business perspective.
the same situation we have with Canada and Mexico."
Regardless of what you think is fair, there is nothing to indicate that it will necessarily happen that way. Surely you understand that the company will try to charge the price in each country that will allow it to maximize its profits, regardless of whether this is in proportion to the cost of any government regulations.
42513. pellenilsson - 9/22/00 2:29:08 PM
robert
I'm sad to say that Lars is a common Swedish name. As is Erik.
Well, there you go. One of those Scandahoovian socialists.
Why shouldn't the Chinese share the $500 million too? This is clearly a fixed cost while the additional $100 million is a marginal cost to be borne by China alone. Hence the drug should have a higher price in China.
But this is what is happening now with drug prices in US, Canada and Mexico and for veterinary use. Gore has been demonizing drug companies for their pricing schedules claiming price gouging. I demonstrated that there is a legitimate business reason for them. I know other economic factors also play a part in determining price, cost is a major factor. When cost is different from one market to another, the price will reflect that.
They would.
This is clearly a fixed cost while the additional $100 million is a marginal cost to be borne by China alone. Hence the drug should have a higher price in China.
My point exactly. There is higher marginal cost to producing a drug for the US market compared to Canada and Mexico so the price is higher in the US.
Why does it matter? Whether the cost was for additional trials or to modify the manufacturing process, the cost is specific to that market. That market should bear the cost.
And that is true if the elasticity of demand in Canada is so high relative to elasticity of demand in the US that shifting some US regulation costs from the average consumer here to the average consumer there will cause a dramatic drop off in profits there from lost business relative to the gain here from extra business. And none of us has any clue whether that's true.
My point exactly
So you agree the drug should have a higher price in China?
Mexico and for veterinary use"
One could easily argue that other factors are the reason for this. For instance, Canada has some price controls on drugs. Mexicans are much poorer than their northern neighbor, and cannot afford high drug prices. Most American insurance companies pay all prescription costs above the co-pay, making price considerations in choosing medications almost irrelevant. All of these are factors will directly affect local supply, demand, or price. FDA regulations just affect producer costs, which will probably have an impact on price, but there is no particular reason to believe that the price will directly fall on those who impose the costs.
For instance, who do you think is paying more for drugs because of Canadian price controls? Canadians or Americans?
42518. Indiana Jones - 9/22/00 2:53:46 PM
Clinton is releasing the strategic petroleum reserve.
Sumbitches forcing me to agree with Shrub. Bad policy. Maybe good politics but pregnant with peril this far ahead of the election. If it must be done, and I doubt it, far better to wait untill it gets nippy in New England.
And what's the big deal, anyway? Oil prices go up. Oil prices go down. Within the past year gas prices were lower than when I was a teenager...and that's a while.
I filled up yesterday for $1.40 per gallon. I would much rather pay two bucks for a gallon of gas than two bucks for a box of crackers or four for a box of cereal.
As my fellow alumnus of an East Texas Harvard, Dan Rather, says, much too often: Context and perspective. We must have context and perspective.
Assuming that the hypothetical I used was true, yes. That was the point.
If you assert (with no proof in sight) that fixed costs are borne in proportion to their occurrence, you are manifestly ignoring both price discrimination and cross subsidization. This is because you ignore the possibility that one market bears less than proportional fixed costs, because demand in another market is such that it will bear those fixed costs with less distortion.
Suppose US demand is totally elastic, while Canadian demand is totally inelastic. Suppose further that fixed costs in the US are positive, and 0 in Canada. In optimal pricing, who bears those fixed costs? Canada.
The marketing costs for drugs are huge. I don't think a doctor in America has bought a pen, note pad, calendar, Rx pad or golf ball in years. My wife works in a university psychiatry department. Every Friday there is a lunch provided courtesy of a drug rep for everybody, including support staff. There are seminars galore sponsored by drug companies etc. Now that the companies feel free to advertise prescription drugs in the mass media, the costs have to be going even higher.
That is, he asserts the fixed cost imposed by FDA burdens is borne in the market where it occurs.
And the way it's being done is just shameless.
You could argue that the flapping of a butterfly's wings in China is the cause, but why not look at the most obvious cause? I guess it is uncomfortable for some people to admit that government regulations actually cost people money, but it is still a fact. And this is a good example. Most people would probably agree that the trade off is worth it. They also need to accept the consequences.
Coincidentally (I'm sure) the other headline on their site is that the White House is also releasing the names of the overnight guests.
"There is no easy answer as to whether price discrimination, in general, is a good thing or a bad thing. It tends to raise additional revenue that can be plowed back into research & development, which creates better incentives to invest in drug development. When it allows markets to be served that would otherwise be ignored, price discrimination will tend to be socially useful. But if differential prices is just an excuse to raise prices that would otherwise be low, it doesn't have much to recommend it."
Suppose US demand is totally elastic, while Canadian demand is totally inelastic.
Why? We are talking about reality. Yes, you can come up with a situation which would distort normal business functions, but why bother?
I am making one point here. Gore is demonizing drug companies claiming that the only explanation for their pricing schedules is price gouging. I have provided a legitimate business reason for them demonstrating that Gore is wrong. Since the point I am making is a rather simple one, one must conclude that Gore is either a complete idiot to not know or he is being dishonest in his attacks on the drug companies. I don't think Gore is an idiot, but I will reserve judgement.
Do you assume that drug companies have any other goal than maximizing profit?
We should bother because, though you are capable only of understanding a highly parametric example, there's nothing pathological about it. Who here would be better off if I demonstrate the same exact thing as at the bottom of #42534 with a demand function parameterized by an n dimensional vector, for each of m markets, and go through the combinatorics to find the cutoff values for each parameter such that your claim is false? That is simply the cleanest case, and the shortest example, to show that there is something wrong with your logic.
Your statement about the relative burden of fixed costs of regulation implies a statement about elasticity, a statement which you are not prepared to prove, and no one here is prepared to disprove. Anyone who claims, nevertheless, to know the truth, or makes an assertion about it, is categorically a hack.
Certainly. It is a far improvement from a promise to reform social security without saying how it will be paid for. The idealist in me wishes that politicians didn't have to pander to get elected - that "appearing to do something", even if it had a negative effect, would not be preferable to doing nothing. But that isn't the world we live in, and I actually find Gore's trait of feigning to tilt at windmills rather endearing.
The causes I suggest are much more obvious than yours, which flies in the face of economic logic. You really think you have a better idea than Slackjaw of how price discrimination works???
"I guess it is uncomfortable for some people to admit that government regulations actually cost people money, but it is still a fact. And this is a good example. Most people would probably agree that the trade off is worth it. They also need to accept the consequences."
No one is disputing your tired little straw man. Of course the FDA imposes costs (and avoids them - the FDA was solely responsible for the US mostly avoiding the problems of thalydomide). It is just that there is no guarantee that the impact of those costs are going to fall solely, or even at all, on the country which imposes them. That is, where the cost impact falls is completely dependent on other factors.
Using Biener's logic, one would think that farmer's subsidized by the government would automatically sell their crops to US customers cheaper than they would sell them to furriners.
Did I get nasty with you? If all you have to offer is insults, perhaps there is a better thread for you to hang out in.
I happen to depend on drug companies and their research more than most people do to my health. Since I have benefited greatly from their research, I object when they get demonized for political purposes. I certainly don't begrudge them their profit.
Do you assume that drug companies have any other goal than maximizing profit?
Businesses exist to make profits. I don't have a problem with that. Everything I have been discussing relates to how business show profits in differing markets. Drug companies would not amortize costs relating to FDA approval against Canadian profits because those costs are not related to Canadian distribution and doing so would likely show those operations as unprofitable. It would give them a distorted view of their operations.
That isn't to say that they couldn't do it. If Canadian operations were unusually profitable, it might make sense, but we are not talking about exceptional cases here.
As I said above, the purpose of this discussion is not to analyze arcane details of pricing structures but to expose Gore as the liar he is.
profits in differing markets. Drug companies would not amortize costs
relating to FDA approval against Canadian profits because those
costs are not related to Canadian distribution"
You confuse accounting practice for marketing policy. How they amortize their costs has absolutely nothing to do with how they determine their prices.
Let's look at price discrimination and dogs. Drug companies know that people will shell out more bucks for drugs for themselves than they would for their dogs. Thus a free market would suggest two different prices based on the elasticities of demand for different customer groups -- people will pay more, even if it's the same drug and even if it requires extra testing before it can be approved for veterinary use.
BTW, the dog never bears the cost of the drug.
Fuck you, too.
That is simply the cleanest case, and the shortest example, to show that there is something wrong with your logic.
There is nothing wrong with my logic. If it cost more to bring a drug to market in the US, then it is reasonable to assume that there will be a comparable difference in price. Are there other forces that can distort this? Yes! I've said so several times. Until you demonstrate that these forces are actually in play, I will stick with my analysis.
Your statement about the relative burden of fixed costs of regulation implies a statement about elasticity, a statement which you are not prepared to prove, and no one here is prepared to disprove.
It implies that elasticity is approximately the same here and in Canada. I think that is a safe assumption. If you don't think so, that is your perogative.
Anyone who claims, nevertheless, to know the truth, or makes an assertion about it, is categorically a hack.
Put your contacts in. I am not claiming some divine truth. As I said above, I am making one point. Gore claimed that the drug companies were guilty of price gouging because of the differences in their pricing schedules. Gore's only evidence was those pricing schedules. I provided an alternate explanation for those pricing schedules demonstrating Gore's claim is invalid. If Gore or someone else would like to prove the charge of price gouging or least provide some actual evidence, we can get this discussion back on track.
This is true for marginal costs (distribution costs for instance), but not fixed costs. Dealing with FDA regulations is a fixed cost.
You didn't. The market will handle this just fine. Here's an example. Company A and Company B are developing similar drugs to treat diabetes. Company A is in the US and B is in Canada. A and B both spend $300 million to bring their drugs to the Canadian market. They set their prices at similar levels to stay competitive with the other.
Company A also wants to market the drug in the US. They spend an additional $200 million to comply with the FDA. They cannot raise their prices in Canada because they would lose market share to their competitor. That additional $200 million will be recouped from the US market.
No need for government intervention.
A couple of things. First, I am not blaming the FDA for anything. I am just pointing out that their cost will be reflected in drug prices and it is naive to think that compliance is free.
Second, since the price of the drugs can be justified based on R&D costs, it isn't price gouging. Unless of course you redefine "price gouging" which is certainly not beyond the current Adminstration.
Complying with FDA regulations is a marginal cost. Drugs can be and are marketed around the world without FDA approval. Compliance represents a marginal cost for US distribution.
Gore at 50% in CNN tracking poll
The differentials in drug prices are NOT a supply side problem they are DEMAND DRIVEN 
Thoughtful:
Any thoughts on the concerted intervention by the G-7 central banks to shore up the euro? You might like to take a look in International. 
Inspired by such leadership and a subliminable message over pot stickers at lunch, I have dropped my drawers, stuck my butt out the window of my apartment, and even as I type this, am announcing my write in candidacy for President....
- I promise to shoot the moon EVERY DAY
- Bush promises $1 trillion for social security privatization, I promise 2 trillion
- Bush will spend 91 billion on medical matters, I'll go 200 billion
-Bush will give the wealthy a $1 trillion tax cut, I'll give 'em 2
- Bush will leave no child behind, I'll also give 'em a $50 gift certificate to Toys 'r US
- Bush will spend over 250 billion for StarWars II protection from them pesky rogue nations, I'll protect all states against any threat conceivable for the next 100 years for 1 trillion
Write in Jexster/Rosetta Stone on November 7th!!!!!!!!
I would like your people to speak with my people. Let's see if we can get you a place in the Campaign to Restore Integrity to the White House!!!!
My own sense is that the race is tight, and that little sliver left of undecideds are volatile. So now we go on the debate roller coaster and see what happens.
I've enjoyed the past few weeks of Gore ascending and Bush descending, but my fatalistic mood is emerging. 
A $20 Ninth St. crack whore awaits each $500 contributor in the above palatial accomodations.
Gay Politics: Online & With an Edge
September 20, 2000
BREAKING NEWS: #1 EX-GAY LEADER REPORTEDLY CAUGHT IN DC GAY BAR
Claims he was only peeing; 40 minutes and a drink later
It's been a bad couple of weeks for celebrity gay couples.
First Anne and Ellen, then Melissa and Julie, now John and Anne.
John and Anne?
John Paulk -the nation's most famous "ex-gay" - was reportedly
caught in a gay bar in Washington, DC late last night by Wayne Besen
and Darryl Herrschaft of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
Paulk, you'll recall, was on the cover of Newsweek on August
17, 1998, with his "wife" Anne, proclaiming that they used to
be gay, but now are cured. John Paulk is currently Chairman
of the North American Board of Exodus International, "the largest
homosexual-recovery organization in the world" (they say). Paulk is
literally the militant fundamentalist's number one poster boy
for "ex-gays" - his wife even appeared in the infamous "ex-
gay" ads two years back. Read his bio here:
http://www.exodusnorthamerica.org/speakers/speakers/a0000165.html
[You can read Joel Lawson's breaking story about Paulk's
"outing" at Southern Voice's Web site =96 Lawson=92s story includes
photos taken on the scene by HRC=92s Besen:
http://www.southernvoice.com/southernvoice/news/record.html?record=3D10262 ]
It all began when HRC staffer Daryl Herrschaft, 27, decided
to grab a drink at a local bar to unwind. "I wanted to get a
drink where I didn't think I'd know anybody," Herrschaft told
me. Unfortunately for Herrschaft, about 9:45PM last night
someone walked in who looked very much like someone he knew:
"ex-gay" celebrity John Paulk.
focus on the import of what he'd seen until he turned around
about 15 minutes later and the man was standing right behind
him. Herrschaft said hi, and struck up a conversation with
the Paulk look-alike in which the individual admitted his name
was John, and that he was from Colorado Springs (Paulk does in fact live
in Colorado Springs). Herrschaft says he asked if the man was gay,
and he said yes. The man then reportedly offered to buy him a drink
(Herrschaft declined).
"He was a hostile witness," Herrschaft told me. "He was
evasive, but he kept me engaged. He wouldn't let the
conversation die." The man claimed he worked in "graphic
design," and when Herrschaft asked him his last name, he said
said "Clint." Herrschaft responded, "are you sure it's not
Paulk?" The man said no. After about 5 to 7 minutes,
Herrschaft excused himself, found a phone, and called HRC's
Wayne Besen.
Wayne Besen, HRC's deputy press secretary, is an expert on
the "ex-gays" and has debated Paulk and met him more than
once. Besen arrived at the bar, camera in tow, about 40
minutes after Herrschaft initially saw reputed "ex-gay" enter the bar.
As soon as Besen entered, the man apparently recognized him
- and Besen absolutely recognized the man as Paulk. According to
witnesses, the man tried to hide, so Besen started
snapping photos. The bar owner, unaware of who Besen was, or
what was going on, escorted him out of the bar (presumably
because he thought this was perhaps some homophobe harassing
a gay customer). Besen then explained to the bouncer what was
going on, while the reputed "ex-gay" reportedly asked a bar employee if
there was a back way out of the establishment - the employee
reportedly refused to help.
A few minutes later, Herrschaft says the man exited the bar's
front door, "head down, walking in a straight line up the
street very quickly." HRC's camera-toting Besen followed him
all the way to the Dupont Circle metro stop, about 2 blocks.
How is Besen sure this was Paulk? First, because Paulk reportedly
phoned Besen today and told him he was at the bar, and just
stepping in to use the bathroom, he now claims (Focus on the
Family also confirmed to Southern Voice's Lawson this morning
that Paulk was in DC on business). Paulk also reportedly called Lawson,
and told him the same "bathroom" story he gave Besen. Besen
reportedly asked Paulk why it took him over 40 minutes to use
the bathroom (the amount of time between when Paulk was first
spotted by HRC staff, and Besen's arrival), and why, if he
was just using the bathroom, was Paulk reportedly seated at the bar,
drink in hand (Lawson says Paulk told him it was water), reportedly in
intimate conversation with another male customer?
Paulk simply using the bathroom, why did he reportedly lie to HRC's
staff when they confronted him, pretending he was really
"John Clint"?
I had raised doubts about Paulk's "cure" two years ago. At
the time, I reported that "In a previously forgotten Wall
Street Journal interview, the nation's most prominent 'ex-
gay,' John Paulk, admitted to not being 100% cured of his
homosexuality even though he was already married to a woman."
On April 21, 1993, John Paulk admitted to the Wall Street
Journal that his new-found straight orientation was not as
intense as that of the "average man on the street." Paulk
confessed that he was unsure he would ever have the
"intensity for sex with women" that most straight men have.
In the same interview, Paulk also put cold water on the
notion that he and his wife were yet cured of their gay
orientations: "To say that we've arrived at this place of
total heterosexuality - that we're totally healed - is
misleading," Paulk told the Journal. Time magazine added
further fuel to the Paulk credibility fire. On July
27, 1998, the magazine reported being unable to find even one
former girlfriend of the supposedly former-lesbian Anne
Paulk. Mrs. Paulk refused to offer the name of a single
lesbian lover. In addition, Time reports that Paulk "conceded
that her ties to women in college were 'more emotional than
sexual.'" Things that make you go hmmmm.
Paulk picked one hell of a place to pee, if that's his final
answer to the accusations. Mr. P's is not exactly the Taj Mahal
of gay bars in Washington, DC (and is conveniently kitty-corner
from the most notorious pick-up spot in the city: P-Street
Beach, which is actually a dark wooded area.) And there are
lots of places nearby that Paulk could have chosen to go to
the bathroom - like an enormous coffee shop right across
the street, and the Barcelo hotel literally next door - rather
than a small hole-in-the-wall bar, that frankly, to me at least,
has always looked kind of scary. (And Paulk ain't exactly the
butchest guy you've seen - you can catch his picture here:
http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=3D1010&sid=3D0&pid=3D0
In the end, "Pee-gate" came about because some smart HRC
staffers were on the ball in the right place at the right
time. "It was not the night I was expecting to have, or
wanted to have," HRC's Herrschaft told me. "This guy [Paulk]
has made a cottage industry out of preying on people's
insecurities. I felt I had to do my part to expose this man
for who he is."
Atta boy, HRC.
I finally did it. I went down yesterday and changed my registration from Democrat to Republican and, you know what? It kinda feels like it would be to take a long, hot, soapy shower after being immersed in a cesspool for a few years. I just couldn't take any more of being associated with or identified with the slime of the Clinton/Gore crowd. I voted for Clinton twice but this time I WILL vote for Bush.
Someone asked why I had made the switch and the responses to my answer really opened my eyes even more than they had been. Please stay with me while I take you on a short journey. I offer this sincerely to the anti-Bush people on this board because as you are so once was I. I enjoyed bashing Newt Gingrich for his wanting to see Medicare "wither on the vine." I deplored the Republican witch hunt directed at Clinton, etc., etc., etc.
My journey starts shortly after the killing of the students at Columbine High School in Colorado. My initial, gut reaction was, "My God, we have to get rid of the guns!" But then I stopped and thought for a moment. If the people trying to get rid of the guns had been around and been successful when I was young, I wouldn't be here.
armed. But all I was doing was simply telling what had happened to me.
I understand this. Two years ago, I probably would have had the same
response, "What a bunch of propaganda." But after the Columbine killings I recognized that what Clinton/Gore/ Feinstein/ Boxer/Schumer (CGFBS) were advocating would not accomplish what they said it would.
I spent a few days lurking on one of the message boards covering the
Columbine killings and, mixed in with all the accusations and counter
accusations, were a few, factual offerings with links to where they came from. I didn't really want to hear any of the tripe from the people defending guns but I clicked on one of those links and from it to others. And then did my own research into Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice, Center for Disease Control, etc. and discovered that everything coming from CGFBS were lies. Not a thing they were saying would stand up in the cold light of day. When the Million Moms March came along, they simply repeated the lies.
One of the things that had always bothered me was how the NRA had opposed the ban on Cop Killer Bullets and then we were told that Cheney had voted against it. I couldn't understand how anyone could hold their head up in public if they had not supported getting rid of those terrible things. Then, on this board, someone posted a pretty thorough description of how that whole thing had been just another lie. I started to just kiss if off as more stuff from the right wing but then, thought, no, check it out. I copied the posting and
e-mailed it to my father and asked him if was true, knowing he would never lie to me. He came right back with the statement that there never had been any such thing as Cop Killer bullets and the only people who had that kind of ammunition was SWAT Teams. I believed him but his answer planted another idea. Without having to tell them why I wanted it, I arranged an early morning meeting with our local SWAT Team. They were a little suspicious and leery, but after saying "Good Morning" I gave each one of them a copy to read with the request, "Would you tell me if this is true of false." They all said
it was completely accurate. Another lie, a big one, had been exposed.
I checked on the School Lunch Program the Republicans supposedly wanted to cut. False. In the lexicon of the contemporary Democrats, if they want to increase the appropriation by $10 and the Republicans proposes only a $9.50 increase then that means those nasty Republicans want to cut the program and "starve our children." There was no cutting. The Democrats proposed increases that were outlandish and then when the Republicans wanted to bring them within a reasonable amount it gave them the opportunity they had set up to
demonize their opposition. That's the way it worked on all the budgets for the social programs and regulatory agencies. A reduction from what the Democrats demanded for the EPA brought on the "want to poison the water" litany. Nothing was safe or sacred. The Democrats' definition of bi-partisan emerged to be, "Do it exactly the way we want it to be or we will demonize you and if you do it exactly the way we want it then we'll announce that you don't have the courage of your convictions and caved in."
I had just about decided to abandon politics altogether because I could no longer be associated with the new breed of Democrats. And then you folks on this board came along and I got angry. Not at you. At myself for having once been what you are, a blind follower. I admit, I was teetering, but you provided the last nudge that pushed me over the edge by your constant attempt to demonize anyone and everyone who disagrees with you.
We cannot rely on either the politicians or the media to give us the
straight facts. The politicians are not going to do it and the media is too lazy to do the digging that has to be done in order to get the truth. What I'm saying is two fold. Don't just accept what the politicians or the media say, none of them, dig in, discover the facts for yourself. You have the internet. It's a wonderful tool that can set you free as it has done for me. Don't just sit there throwing stones and insults, dig in, get the facts. Both parties. If your guys are lying, call them on it. Bring it out. Get the truth out and then cast your vote.
And you few people who have the facts and the sources, post them. There might be a million like me who are just lurking hoping to find something to give them a starting point to do their own research.
Both parties are corrupt because the process inevitably corrupts them. That ain't news.
Would either candidate lie through his teeth and sell his mother into slavery if that would deliver him the Presidency? Of course. People with true integrity and honor never make it that far, so fucking what?
It seems to me that it boils down to a question of whether you want to reward the Democrats for the last 8 years of unprecedented prosperity or reward the Republicans for impeaching Clinton. That seems like pretty much a no-brainer to me.
Clinton has always been a womanizer and always will be (I recently read Bill and Hillary The Marriage by Christopher Andersen, I highly recommend it), big fucking deal. For those who were stupid enough to think otherwise, well, what can I say, I'm sorry you're so goddamn stupid. But that has nothing to do with Gore.
I was a huge fan of Newt when the Republican Revolution swept into power in 1994, but they've lost their way. Bush's tax plan is just plain irresponsible unless it's coupled with significant spending cuts, which he has failed to propose and could never push through Congress, anyway. A return to the Reagan deficits of the 80's is not the answer. Everyone wants to know 'What should we do with the surplus?' Well, the answer is pretty goddamn obvious, as soon as you 'do something' with it (other than pay down the massive national debt) it stops being a surplus. It's time to repair the foundation before you talk about putting an addition on. Let Gore finish what Clinton started. It's the economy, stupid.
It is my hope that the % of vote received by the various 3rd parties in this election puts the fear of God into one or both parties. Neither party has much to be proud of; and much to apologize for.
And can you remember an election of two lessor lights. I could look it up; but, I would imagine Warren G. Harding and his opponent were on a par with Bush and Gore. Lightweights!
Seems the campaign is really getting to W. Our lil Moron has gone from misspeaking to unintelligible
"Well, that's going to be up to the pundits and the people to make up their mind. I'll tell you what is a president for him, for example, talking about my record in the state of Texas. I mean, he's willing to say anything in order to convince people that I haven't had a good record in Texas."
Now the really sad thing about this statement is not that its goobledygook but that poor little George is still waiting for Big Al to say something bad about his Texas record.
That's being done very lightly to date by surrogates. W.'s people from the Demo convention on have been expecting the attack that has yet to materialize.
Now the candidate is hallucinating.
Most of the credit for the current Federal budget & general state of the economy (that can be assigned to individuals) goes to the Fed Chairman and the Republican Controlled Congress for their monetary and fiscal restraint.
The DNC's bogus Texas 'travel advisory' was 'light'? Sounds pretty damned heavy handed to me, not to mention outright dishonest.
GWB appears to have been misquoted in jexster's post, since he said 'precedent', not 'president'.
Unless of course, you are the pitful Moron from Austin who, being out of his Bush League, is seeing things that you and I cannot....
W. truly sees beyond for he's been in the shit for far too long....
The man is impaired. But does he suffer from dyslexia, attention deficit disorder, or just an abnormally low IQ?
Americans are, for the most part, greedy, selfish, bastards. Rich people like tax cuts. Old people like prescription drugs. Unfortunately for the Republicans, there are more greedy, selfish, old bastards than greedy, selfish, rich ones.
If George Bush had enough spine to say 'Look Grandma, I'm sorry you've squandered your health on booze and junk food, but that's not my fucking problem. My opponent tells me that you can get good drugs from a vet for 2/3 off.' Then he'd have my vote (theoretically). But he can't ask people to be accountable and responsible for their own lives because it's not what America stands for anymore. So he's got to promise to spend like a Democrat and cut taxes like a Republican and that dog just won't fuckin' hunt anymore.
Or if one of the candidates said 'The War on Drugs is a sham that wastes billions of dollars to imprison peaceful, productive Americans in order to employ thousands of cops and to enrich hundreds of drug lords and thousands of common criminals.' Wouldn't that be something? But that side of the debate is too sophisticated for the vast majority of Americans and the election would be lost in the blink of an eye.
NBC to Air Baseball Instead of Debates (1 for sure, maybe 2)
Who Let the Dogs Out!!!
I forgot about the conflict myself and will truly be torn.
Puhleeze. Sometimes, I suspect Pinocchio Bore is deliberately attempting to be as self contradictory and nonsensical as possible, just to test the stupidity, er, 'loyalty' of American Socialists.
You are either mistaken or a liar, I'll let you decide. I watched Bush on Oprah and he said precedent.
After just listening to the Nader rally on C-Span, I can't figure out why you aren't backing him? I'd be curious to know just which of his ideas you disagree with. Of course, much of it is already being said by Gore, but as Nader pointed out, the last eight years has proved that Clinton/Gore had no intention of keeping their promises. Take for example, their rhetoric before the election in '92 about gays and their eventual don't ask, don't tell policy. More servicemen have been kicked out since that policy was instituted (at least according to Nader) than ever before.
I guess the truth is that you are such a party hack that no behavior of a Democrat can give you pause.
And of course W. wouldneverpander . . . 
Nader made a point of the fact that Bill Gates is more than wealthy. Does Gates get this wealth honestly by giving people what they think they want and need. Seems so to me, so why should I get excersized by Gates's wealth? I could go on, but the point is made. Now, I can understand why many on the Mote might see Nader as the great choice as many here seem to denegrate profit. Pelle, of course, doesn't really count since in his country, profits are outlawed, I think. To me a fair profit is all one can get, and to think otherwise seems silly, at least to this ancient imbecile.
Only career politicians will be exempt from injection with this drug.
Incidentally, Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated Social Security 65 years ago.
Coffees at White House Were CalledFund-Raisers
New York Times
Author: DON VAN NATTA Jr.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 — Retrieved White House e-mail messages turned over today to federal and Congressional investigators show that Vice President Al Gore's senior aides routinely characterized White House coffee sessions as fund-raising events in early 1996.
The vice president said the 103 coffee gatherings with campaign donors held at the White House before the 1996 election had not been "fund-raising tools."
Mr. Gore's remarks in the four- hour interview led a senior Justice Department prosecutor, Robert J. Conrad Jr., to recommend that Attorney General Janet Reno appoint a special counsel to investigate the truthfulness of Mr. Gore's remarks.
The e-mail messages had been subpoenaed by a Congressional committee and the Justice Department investigating allegations of campaign finance abuses and other matters in the Clinton administration. Their release today came after months of complaining by members of Congress that the White House was trying to withhold them.
Republicans quickly seized on the contents as evidence that the vice president and the White House had not been truthful in earlier explanations of the purpose of the coffees and an event at a Buddhist Temple in Hacienda Heights, Calif., before the 1996 election.
The e-mail messages released by the White House are among a cache of nearly 150,000 messages that the White House failed to properly archive from 1996 to 1998.
Karen P. Hughes, the communications director for Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, said the e-mail notes are "another piece of evidence that calls into question the vice president's credibility when he says he did not know that a fund-raising event was a fund-raising event."
This is not true. The easiest way to see this is that heating oil and other kinds of oil are substitutes in production: the more you make of one, the less you make of others. Petroleum releases ease that tradeoff, and therefore what you have to give up to make an extra unit of heating oil. That is just one way of seeing the opportunity cost, which is related to the market price (if not necessarily equal to it due to market imperfections).
It is true that these releases can't necessarily get more heating oil into people's homes. But that's a question of quantity, not price.
By the way, you can learn more about the math behind optimal price discrimination here, at the Nobel e-museum. I have linked this piece many times, because it's really good. Substantively it's about optimal taxation and auctions, but price discrimination (not to mention optimal rocket trajectory) is treated in essentially the same way. The 1978 article by Mussa and Rosen cited at the bottom is a seminal modern piece on price discrimination.
No, the ammunition was designed for miltary use- it was designed to kill soldiers with body armor, like cops wear, and armored vehicles, like an APC or a VIP's limo.
I'm sure that the cops who seized a .50 caliber sniper rifle from a mentally ill man who had killed a cop sleep much better after the NRA made the distinction.
jones:
You are correct in your description of cop-killer bullets.
However, the fact that they have been around for 75 years, but have only recently become a "problem" is testament to the fact that they are not the problem.
Also, please note that it is only the anti-gun lobby which calls them "cop-killers".
I only mention this because of the number of times liberals have taken me to task for calling gov't subsidized abortion "abortion-on-demand", and affirmative action "quotas".
Hey, it worked for Franco.
Vice President Gore enters the final phase of the election with a $10 million advantage over Republican George W. Bush, an edge the Gore team plans to use to blanket the airwaves in key states between now and Election Day.
The financial gap comes as the Texas governor is struggling to regain his lead in the polls and calm party leaders who fear he has squandered precious time and money since the Republican National Convention.
Bush's heavy spending during August--$21 million to Gore's $11 million--is significant because both candidates began the general election with the same amount of public funding, about $67 million apiece.
Bush's quick spending during a month in which his advantage in the polls evaporated has raised questions among some of his own supporters about the GOP nominee's judgment
More
Econ 101: Now where are those flower nursery profits now?
Cheney Said OPEC's Actions Justified "Optimism."
In April 1999, Cheney praised OPEC's decision to cut world oil supply by 2.1 million barrels per day. "I've been struck by the extent OPEC seems to have gotten its act together," said Cheney. "My perception is that the odds for compliance are better than I would ever have previously thought ... and a certain amount of near-term optimism is justified...." [Reuters, 4/12/99]
Cheney Said There Was Cause for "Hope."
Going further, Cheney said, "Recent events have given us hope. Nevertheless, the devastation to the exploration and production business has been enormous." [Reuters, 4/12/99]
On the contrary, the Republican congress has consistently and persistently pushed for tax cuts which would have broken the budget; the express purpose was to ensure retaking the Presidency with contributions from the super-rich and industrial interests such as the polluters presently running rampant in Texas.
As for Greenspan, Bush had made no secret of his decision not to reappoint him were he to win the Presidency (Everybody knows that and why). It was Clinton's ability to recognize Greenspan's talent to do his job well that helped the economy.
The quote from news reports was "president", either way the Bush comment makes no sense....more MoronSpeak from a clearly impaired mind.
Slack:
With Pscyh prof helping out in Stats and your links for my Microeconomics Applications course, and my vast experience in Public Policy Formation, I'm lookin at a 4.0 this semester!
Thanks!!
I am not backing Nader for 3 reasons.
1. He's incompetent
2. He's a fearful petit bourgeois moralist without political center
3. If I voted for him, Al Gore would lose a vote
Hey, jexster,
How much longer is your economics class goint to last?
Just asking...
Damn I can't wait til that Moron returns to Austin!
"It is time for all Americans to recognize that the issues that face gays and lesbians in this country are not narrow, special interests, they are matters of basic human and civil rights."
- Al Gore, at the Annual Award Ceremony of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Gore was the first Vice President to speak at a gay rights event.
Fortunately for the Blumenthal family and the good doctors at Johns Hopkins, Sid's cancer is gone after a successful operation.
1) Clinton to tap into oil reserves; Gore flip-flops on issue.
2) Reno won't investigate Gore on the quid pro quo trial lawyer matter.
3) Fully 1/4 of White House overnight guests contributed to Hilary's campaign, to the tune of $600,000 (no released dates on the visits).
4) Long-missing White House emails many of Gore's contentions regarding the Hsia fundraiser.
5) Mysterious monkeys seen in Southern Virginia.
Baylor president lobbies for George W. Bush presidential library
WACO, Texas (AP) - A key part of the name is missing, but that isn't stopping the president of Baylor University from lobbying to make the university the home of the George W. Bush Presidential Library.
In an interview with the Waco Tribune-Herald, Baylor president Robert B. Sloan Jr. said he has begun plans for a library to house the papers and mementos of a George W. Bush presidency.
``You have to take a few risks in life to be on the cutting edge,'' Sloan told the newspaper in Saturday's editions.
Landing a presidential library would put Baylor on par with the University of Texas, home to The Lyndon B. Johnson presidential library, and Texas A&M University, home to the George Bush presidential library. Both schools have public affairs schools named after the former presidents.
(Perhaps they should plan a department concerned with the art and practice of counting chickens.)
And Carl Rowan died.
WRT Message # 42630 ... Doesn't it occur to you that all these "scandal" related stories are in the press because that has been the GOP's chief form of warfare for the past three years: If you can't beat them on policy and pure political appeal, try to drag them down with scandal. We aren't hearing issues from the GOP -- just what rotten people those Gores and Clintons are. It's a loser tactic. The voters have caught on. Check the polls.
Funny thing is, the farther Bush sinks, the more desperate Republicans are getting and trotting out just about any ol' turkey to see if it will fly. I just loved Shilohgate. And have you checked Drudge the past day or so?
A new Gallup has Bush at 45%...Gore at 48%. Quite a climbdown from yesterday's Bush 41 and Gore 51.
Three things occur to me. First, the lexicon has changed. What was scandalous once (remember the days of "the appearence of impropriety") is scandalous no longer. The higher bar went by the wayside shortly after the promises for the most ethical administration in history and the wholesale exploitation of everyone from the President's Secret Service detail to his cabinet members to his personal secretary, all in the aim of keeping a tryst with a chunky cheerleader quiet.
The second thing that occurs to me is that the GOP has not really learned how to function effectively in the new, "everybody does it" world. As usuual, the party is always one fashion behind. Similarly, for example, they reacted like anti-Communist, cold warriors during the Elian Gonzales situation, when, in fact, this year's (and probably this decade's) model is soccer mommy kissy face. This is not shock. The Republicans still think Chuck Norris and Tina Louise are celebrities.
The third thing is that the press reports, as it always has, but the press is more reliant on public reaction. And if the public is not biting (in times of excess, they rarely are), the press moves on to Johhny Depp's latest arrest. The only institutional fortitude the press shows (i.e., the only time it bucks public apathy on a scand-related story) is when the visual is good or the charge salacious, because the press knows that even if the public feigns apathy, no one can resist a good T&A story.
But lying, and emails, and influence-peddling.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
As for the polls, you demonstrate well the new mantra. "Check the polls, buddy! Because, success is the new barometer of character."
1) Clinton to tap into oil reserves; Gore flip-flops on issue.
2) Reno won't investigate Gore on the quid pro quo trial lawyer matter.
3) Fully 1/4 of White House overnight guests contributed to Hilary's campaign, to the tune of $600,000 (no released dates on the visits).
4) Long-missing White House emails many of Gore's contentions regarding the Hsia fundraiser.
5) Mysterious monkeys seen in Southern Virginia.
And the next important headline you'll read: "Bush Beats Gore!"
followed by a retraction two days later.
LOL!
It is almost as if the public is telling the press that they'd rather have the days of yore, when mistresses and alcoholism were discreetly ignored.
Now they get the best of both worlds. They get the fun titillation, but they don't have to give a damn when they vote.
A charge is bought forward.
The person bringing the charge is savaged; "everybody does it" is trotted out; the person on the receiving end of the charge obfuscates and delays, knowing full well that the attention span of the public is at about the same level as that of Brian Williams; as the story develops, if the charges is in any way discredited, cries of "witchhunt" and "exoneration" are raised to the heavens; and if the charge is credited, we hear "Can't we just move on?" and "No one cares about this old news?"
And the validity of the charge is commensurate with the popularity of the accused.
On that note, adios.
Sure, but that's just part of the hack game. I'm talking about "the public", who has no real vested interest in either party. So the game that you describe really is irrelevant to them. They decide what they care about or don't care about.
There is only one syllabus for this course in the whole country.
As always, you are also helpful in making my point.
No context necessary.
No facts necessary.
It happened to Clinton/Gore, so it must happen to whoever is next. Fair, after all, is fair.
Actions be damned.
It's as if every scandal encountered by any administration official in the last 8 years materialized out of thin air, the work of Gingrich, Delay and Falwell, over a boiling cauldron.
"Can't we just move on?"
It's not a matter of fair's fair. It's the game. But the point is, doe the game change anything?
You mistake the public's perceptiveness for endemic cynicism or hollow values. The public would be outraged if there had been anything to any of these scandals. We've had eight years of this nonsense. Whitewater. Filegate. Vince Foster. Mena. Los Alamos. Chinagate. The Buddhist Temple. And none of them has proven to have any there there. It's just been eight years of "let's fling shit at them and see what sticks." The best you could do was a tawdry burrowing into the president's sex life that left most people wondering whose privacy would be invaded next. Great way to win votes. And gee, it sure is a highly moral way to win at politics.
Besides, I just love it when conservatives tell the rest of us what horrible, amoral louts the rest of us are. Uh-huh.
The Central Park melee where many women were molested by packs of inebriated men.
Is it a story because it is wrong and awful and police response was tepid and the issue is of societal importance?
No.
It is a story because there was video.
Trust me. There would be greater press scruitiny if the White House had just released email pornographic with pornographic attachments than the release of emails detailing even further the prevarication and/or legalese of Gore and his staff on the Hsia fundraiser.
Now, if Hsia had gone down on Gore, we'd have a humdinger.
- in tommorrow's Chicago Tribune: Gore ahead by 15 in PA; "substantially" in Illinois; ahead in Michigan AND OHIO!
- Gore ahead in Florida
- Hillary +9
The Moron's caught in Gore riptide!
As an example of your hackery, 14 convictions and plea agreements emanating from Whitewater took a great toll on the poor, exhausted public, I know. Tell it to a sitting governor and the then-number three at Justice. Regardless, you've shown your cards. Let's move on. Check the polls. Conservative uptight and bad, you Conason loose and good. I got it.
Though I'll be happy to answer any further questions you may have of me in the future.
Yes, it is a story because there was video. But you seem to confuse the story with the results.
Very Confucian indeed.
Wouldn't that be a hummerdinger?
Appears you're right on about calculus (thank GOD) Intro to Econometrics prerequisite
A course "Statistical methods essential in solving economic problems, including probability theory, methods of statistical description and inference, sampling theory, estimation, and tests of hypotheses; linear regression and correlation analysis."
WHEW!!!
Speaking of which, I stepped in some Gore dog doo. I need an internship for my master's program, so I corraled a guy I know in Da Mayor's office.
"No sweat you're in John"
Then I found out that Da Mayor has seconded Alex Tourk to the Gore campaign. Looks like I just bought, not an internship, but 15+ hours/wk doin shitty campaign work. :(
I don't see why that is Confucian. Sometimes a lot of press attention will affect the outcome of a situation. But I'm not sure that's the case anymore--certainly not in the political arena.
So you are bitching about the story and the hack reaction. I'm saying, yes, but how did it affect the outcome? If the public cares, they care. If they don't, they don't.
> The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
> The New York Times is read by people who think they run the country.
- The Washington Post is read by people who think they ought to run
the country.
- USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country
but don't understand the Washington Post.
- The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running
the country, if they could spare the time.
- The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the
country.
- The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's
running the country.
- The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the
country, as long as they do something scandalous.
- The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country, or that anyone is running it.
-The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country.
12 point lead in Ohio. No Republican has ever won the presidency without Ohio.
ROADKILL 2000!!!!
Where have you been for the last 8 years? There were 14 convictions in Whitewater. There were 900 illegal FBI files in the White House. Files were removed from Foster's office by members of the Administration before the FBI could investigate. The DOJ so badly botched the Los Alamos investigation the truth will never be known. Gore appeared at a fundraiser at a Buddhist Temple. Clinton was found in contempt for lying under oath. Clinton bombed Kosovo and Sudan to distract from his legal problems. Fundraisers working directly with Clinton and Gore have been convicted or pled guilty to illegal fundraising activities. Many others have fled the country.
How much more "there" do you need? Do the Clintons and Gore have to actually serve jail time for you to believe there is any "there" there? It boggles my mind that people like you can still persist.
An editorial today in the Baton Rouge Advocate, written by Richard Reeves, commented on the amount of money being spent on the various political campaigns this year. He writes that Paine-Webber has estimated that the total is going to be $1 billion; or more. Yes! that is a B as in billion.
Reeves specifically mentioned Jon Corzine, former CEO of Goldman-Sachs, who has, to date, spent $35 million in becoming the Democratic Party's candidate for Senator in New Jersey. Corzine's main opposition was Jim Florio, the former Democratic governor of the State. The current governor, Christine Whitman chose not to run as she determined that she could not raise enough money to take on Corzine in the fashion that she wanted to. Corzine's Republican opposition in the up-coming election is the current Representative, Bob Franks.
The previous record for spending was held by Michael Huffington; who spent $30 million in his un-successful run for the position of Governor of California. Reeves writes - my paraphrase - "the only two things Huffington got from spending $30 million was that he made his wife, Arianna, famous; then she divorced him".
For any of you who are aghast at the amount of money being spent in the various elections this year, a return to the days prior to 1913 would eliminate the 2 elections for Senator every 6 years. That would be a start!
On a slightly different subject, following the Braves' loss last night I went channel surfing. C-Span was covering a Nader political rally from Minneapolis. One of the speakers leading up to Nader was a documentary film maker with whom I am not familar. These are his figures; I have not checked them. The film maker's home town is Flint, Michigan. He said that in the Reagan years there were 80,000 jobs in Flint. After the first 4 years of Clinton, there were 40,000 jobs. Currently, there are 15,000 jobs.
That is why I am against free trade. We should go back to the days of the tariff; and make it against individual countries. If the EU does not like our vegetables and fruits because the seeds could have been played with genetically, place one Hell of a tariff on French wines and German cars. If we have a trade dis-agreement with Sweden, place a huge tariff on Volvos. NAFTA; the IMF; those other international business organizations are screwing the ordinary American worker. The only way to protect jobs in the USA is to deal, individually, with our various trading partners. Not allow some international, bureaucratic organization tell us what we can and cannot do.
Huffington lost. Maria Cantwell (D) is an internet millionaire who just used a bunch of her money to defeat Deborah Senn for the opportunity to take on Slade Gorton (R) in Washington state. Corzine (D) got his money from Goldman Sachs, and despite his green, he's making a regular and consistent ass of himself in his race against Franks (R) to succeed Frank Lautenberg.
Money can't buy everything. Moreover, if Cantwell and Corzine win with the bulk of their funds coming from their personal accounts, and the people of Washington and New Jersey don't particularly mind, where's the problem?
In fact, given concerns about vote-buying and influence peedling and the quid pro quo of soft and hard money, as well as the strains of fundraising, perhaps the model Senate is one made up of millionaires who self-financed their campaigns. They would be beholden to no-one, from the NRA to NARAL, for want of campaign dollars.
We could call it the House of Lords.
I'm guessing the filmmaker was Michael Moore. Chubby wise ass with a a baseball cap?
There was a Algore spy in the George Bush campaign. The FBI caught him though his e-mail.
Another example of MOLES turning into RATS!
I just read a New Yorker article on Maria Hsia, or whatever her name is, and I'm amazed. That's what the fuss is about?
Gore lead now 2% in Newsweek survey...
Sounds like the name I heard + you described him perfectly. The one thing that made an impression on me were his statistics on his home town of Flint. A horrible loss of jobs; more that likely to NAFTA.
I have a daughter teaching at the American School Foundation of Monterrey (Mexico). She says the if Monterrey is not booming, it is very close. And I suspect that many of those jobs have been exported from the USA.
Moore gave figures about jobs in Flint in the Reagan years : 80,000; after Clinton's 1st 4 years : 40,000; currently : 15,000.
NAFTA was alive during a portion of these years. As I mentioned, I am not familar with Moore's documentary films.
So dignified Jack, such mature tut-tutting! What's new is not that a President has an affair, much less a political office holder. What's new is that this has become fair game for political discourse. The fact that this is a sea change is evidenced by the number of office holders immediately caught up in the firestorm.
You want to know why Clinton was not convicted? Everybody knew that if he only got the votes of the senators that had themselves had affairs and hid and lied about them, there wouldn't be a conviction and if they left office, there wouldn't be a quorum.
Flint has lost jobs primarily because it is a manufacturing town, and America's manufacturing productivity has grown far faster than America's manufacturing demand. It just takes fewer people in manufacturing to make the stuff that America needs to produce to satisfy demand.
Ranheim's take on international trade politics clearly strikes a chord with many voters. Which is strange, because they are the same ones who suffer real utility losses when the Volvos and Chateau Margaux they want to buy are suddenly out of their budgets due to tariffs. But presumably labor in exchange for money is worthwhile because it allows us to buy stuff that provides utility.
What everbody doesn't do is attack a political office holders personal life from every front and spread a few juicy lies as well.
Lets take stock. Clinton was accused of:
-having people killed
-smuggling drugs into Arkansas
-fathering a baby by a black prostitute
-raping a woman
-sexually assaulting a woman
-having intercourse with Monica Lewinsky
-having some sort of sexual contact/affair with Lewinsky
-Whitewater
-Travelgate
-Filegate
So far, some heavy petting and oral sex are the only things that are true.
What about the appearance of impropriety? Asks Jack- What about double sources for stories in the press. What about honor amoungst office holders, and having some certainty and proof before one makes scandalous statements in the Congressional record? What about standing behind ones word, and apologizing for harming someone's reputation unjustly?
Clearly, Clinton did whatever he could to hide his relationship with Lewinsky. His relationship was immoral. I believe that marriage vows are not to be taken lightly, and that it is probably one of the meanest, basest and most vile things a person can do to break them. He apparently did everything within the law to avoid admitting the relationship. The court found him in contempt for failing to disclose the relationship in questions put to him. I have no doubt that were he to be a private citizen and behave the same way, he would have faced no sanction whatsoever.
Yes, we know that the reports say that they can PROVE that Clinton is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but you know he's guilty anyway. He was just clever enough to stonewall, to hide the evidence to get people to lie for him.
I'm sure you would have been very helpful in Stalin's purges.
From what Ranheim is saying, he's talking about something that was said after the film was made. Michael Moore had a TV show for a while. But that's quite apart from whether the Flint's decline had anything to do with NAFTA.
Ranheim,
Eliminating the senate elections wouldn't eliminate the money that was spent. It'd just figure out a different way in. And I can't say I'm comfortable with senators being chosen by some backroom gang.
It would be quite something to find that one drop of water that starts old Miss, but once you found it, it would be gone, I guess.
What they should have you do is spam web sites with useless polling information--all of it dated and wrong.
If you can get Willy (Brown that is) to score me some tickets for the play off games, I vow to vote for Gore. I was a Giant fan before you were born. I grew up going to almost every Seals game (paid for the first one, collected seat cushions for freeby from then on). I can still name many of the players, and as you must realize, my mind is half gone by now.
Four Dollar Bills and Dog Drugs...Paul Krugman in The NYTimes...
"...both cases involve misstated fractions, they are very different in other ways. Mr. Gore's numbers were off, but the thrust of his story — that drug companies engage in price discrimination, charging what the traffic will bear — is true. On the other hand, the intended moral of Mr. Bush's story — that the budget will easily accommodate his tax cut, that it leaves plenty of money with which to secure the future of retirees, rebuild the military, and all that — isn't at all true."
"So Mr. Gore got the details wrong but represented the basic situation correctly; Mr. Bush also got the details wrong but fundamentally misrepresented the situation. And that's not the only difference. Mr. Gore told his story once, and didn't repeat it after the details were questioned. Mr. Bush continues to tell his story even though it is demonstrably inconsistent with the numbers his own campaign has put out."
"If a candidate were to declare that gasoline costs $1 a gallon when everyone knows that it costs at least $1.60, he would be shouted off the stage. But when Mr. Bush declares (as he often does on the stump) that his tax cut will cost $1 trillion, when his own budget numbers indicate that the right number is roughly $1.6 trillion, everyone shrugs."
Yet Jack is focused on Clinton's moral failure. Take the beam out of your eye first, Jack.
Actually, you can have fun in cyberspace too! Join the Gore I-Team!
and while you're busy fightin the GOP forces of darkness, Al's pals will baby sit your brood at GoreNet - Where Young Americans Can Learn to Lick Bush!
Ole Willy was bedecked in Gigantes attire today. Not just any ole off the rack stuff either. It was VINTAGE SF Giants from the early 60's.
As for tickets, I hear they're goin at 500-1000 face!
Looks like Prof Krugman gives Jexster an "A". I wonder if the prof for my MicroEcon Apps course will accept my analysis for my term paper.
Being a lawyer, you are well acquainted with the level of evidence required to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. You are also well aware that many guilty individuals are never brought to trial or even charged with the crimes they have committed because the prosecutor has evidence but not enough to ensure a conviction. You also know that without physical evidence or witnesses friendly to the prosecution, there is very little a prosecutor can do. Given the number of witnesses in the various Clinton scandals who refused to cooperate and the opportunities that existed for members of the Administration to destroy physical evidence, I am surprised that you would so quickly translate "inconclusive evidence" into "So far, some heavy petting and oral sex are the only things that are true."
You conveniently forgot the comtempt charge. You also seem to forget that there is a difference between guilt in the eyes of the law and the truth. Gotti walked around free for years in spite of the numerous law he violated, and even now there are many of those crimes he has never been convicted of. That doesn't make him innocent. Maybe since you are a lawyer, serving jail time is the criteria you use for guilt. It is not mine.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that Clinton be convicted without proper evidence. There is a difference between believing someone guilty and convicting them. You of course know this, but it doesn't stop you from making profoundly ignorant remarks.
That isn't something to be proud of.
You seem to be under the delusion that I am from Kansas. I shouldn't be too surprised considering the numerous delusions you suffer from. You are also deluded if you think I am a creationist. As far as your efforts are concerned, they wouldn't pass muster in a 4th grade class. They might earn you a trip to detention but little else.
I am also familiar with exactly how easy it is to get a grand jury indictment in the federal system. The fact that Starr and Ray haven't managed to get an indictment against the President speaks volumes. That they haven't even attempted to after the political damages is done, says it all.
Yes, it is possible that Clinton destroyed every shred of evidence and conspired with every possible witness or intimidated every possible witness into lying for him. But that sounds a little like Tommy D, or Tommy Flanagen Yeah that's the ticket, we weren't on a jihad against Clinton, changing all the unwritten rules of Washington journalism and politics to get to him; he was just too clever and evil- he destroyed all the evidence
"If you look at the trends," said Del Ali with Research 2000 in Rockville, Md., which conducted the survey for The Examiner and KTVU, "given the fact that Bush is in the state and has spent some time there, as much as he has pledges not to abandon California, he may seriously want to considered writing this state off because I would put his chances at slim and none."
I like your repartees, I really do.
Aren't you supposed to be in church at this hour?
We're now part of the 6 pm est mass community because two oldest girls are part of their choir.
Sweet soul music.
you are aware that the Landover Baptist Church site is ... satire, right?
Sometimes it's too hard to tell...we have a local church that puts on a Haunted House around Hallowe'en that includes "fake" abortion victims and drug addicts that have ODed and "gay teens who have contracted AIDS" and are in the throes of death. It is truly gruesome and they allow very young children to attend (half price, too, because naturally you have to pay to view this crap) and who cares if a child is scarred for life by being exposed to these realistic horrors; he's "saved" and that's all that counts. It's called "The Living Hell" and the churchpeople who "act" in it seem very happy to do so, enthusiastic even.
'Okay Billy, now you and Suzy have to portray the evil kids who have premarital sex.'
Latest Gallup poll shows Bush ahead of Gore, 47% to 46%.
Sometimes it's too hard to tell...
yes, i agree. good satire is like that. moreover, things like "Christianity" are so rife with potential material it's almost a crime not to satirize it.
but then, what is to be expected from people that are looking to a "risen savior" that, every year, they are sure is jes a comin' - like Santa - just less punctual?
Do you know how to keep Jews out of your country club?
Let one in, and he'll keep the rest out.
not funny - as the others you posted before it.
this is not a joke posting thread, RS
What sort of Catholic ARE you? I'm sure they cringe when you claim alliance with them...do you think your children would be proud if they could read some of the "jokes" you tell in here? Do you honestly think your wife would bristle with pride should she read this thread and see your "gems of humor"?
See my post to you in The Mote thread, please.
You and Cellar are hilarious.
Rosetta,
I just want to show Pelle that I am making a serious effort at posting.
Noted. But we need to put some vigour into Language too (sorry ducky for promoting another thread).
One of the most damning and telling is that the lead FBI investigator seems to have mislead the court in his testimony at the bail hearing. He swore that Lee had asked to use some computer equipment used to copy files for a resume and had mislead FBI investigators. However, Lee had not mislead them or asked to copy a resume. Additionally, the government manipulated Lee's conditions of confinement in order to extract a confession from him, holding him in solitary confinement usually reserved for violent and incorrigable inmates, denying him reading material, forcing him to wear shackles for the hour a day of physical exercise allowed him and restricting family visits. These are restrictions usualy reserved for someone who has assaulted guards or other inmates.
Clinton has distanced himself from Reno and Freeh on this, wondering how someone is a threat to national security one day such that denying bail is appropriate, and relasing him on a misdemeanor plea bargain the next. Well Mr. President, who's Justice Department is it? This is a high profile case, and the national security issues had to be reviewed by people in the cabinet and national security advisors. You didn't know what the hell was going on? If you did, you blew it. If you didn't, what the hell do you think your job is?
Why is the GOP is fairly quiet on this? Could it be the Red China scare they created has come back to bite them? You betcha, Red Rider.
re Message # 42729
Did you catch one of Gore's people on Wolf Blitzer explaining that poll numbers don't matter?
When asked why Bush was catching up, he said that Bush started out the week by talking about issues, but ended up the week making negative comments.
Is it really the position of Gore's camp that when Bush talks about issues he outpolls Gore?
Or is he saying that negative campaigning works?
What I found truly appalling was the fact that no one knew what exactly Lee had downloaded and where it was. Someone should have known. There should have been markers in place in the system for that type of eventuality. For all we know, Lee may have bargained his release with his bosses just by restitution and also by giving the names of those who saw the material (if that was the case, of course). We will never know exactly what really happened.
I get so tired of the Republican Party hacks and their constant critiques of the White House. Take this blatant example of the contributions given to the Democrats by movie actors: So what if Meryls Streep gives the Dems $1 million? Streep is not expecting something from Gore were he to be elected President. She may want some help for the downtrodden, I suppose but for herself, her family, and friends, she needs nothing. When the so-nicknamed “Coyotes’ brothers” from Texas give $2 millions, they certainly aren’t giving such an amount for no favor from Bush, are they? These brothers already hold some contracts for all the public schools in Texas; either they want to keep them or get more. Oh, well, I better not get started on these people, Jones... or I will get a calvacade after me on this thread. Anyway, it is rather amusing to watch the Republicans adopt the same complains about soft money and other things that the Democrats had in the previous presidential elections against them.
That's true. Hollywood gives money because they are self-important and pretentious and feel that they have the opportunity to "do good". One may disagree, but at least they don't want anything for their money.
I've been a fan of Krugman's for some time, even those his politics differ from mine. He used to show a non-partisan interest in getting economic facts and conclusions right, no matter which side it gored.
I've been less impressed since he joined the NYT, and his latest column is an example of his partisanship trumping his search for the truth.
He tried to compare two less than accurate statements by Bush and Gore, and wonder why Gore is getting more heat for a smaller error than Bush. I won't even get into the issue of whether a metaphorical illustration allows more leeway than an appearance of a factual statement. I think Krugman is missing (deliberately or accidentally) the key issue in the Gore Gaffe.
When I returned to the country Saturday, I was told about the Gore incident. The misuse of wholesale versus retail wasn't even mentioned. I was told that Gore told a story about a medicine his mother-in-law was taking, and it turns out she isn't taking it. It appears he took some numbers from a study, and decided to personalize them, using his mother-in-law as a example.
In other words, he lied.
The issue isn't, as Krugman would have us believe, whether one persons approximation of one third by one quarter is more egregious than the other person, the issue is whether it is acceptable to tell a story about your mother-in-law when it isn't true.
Sloppy use of figures is, well, sloppy, and we ought to push our politicians to use the right numbers. But lying is more serious (at least to me).
One may disagree, but at least they don't want anything for their money.
Excuse me while I barf.
Silliest statement I've seen in here for quite some time, and I remind you that Rosetta Stone posts in here.
I had almost come to the conclusion that Gore had disdain for thosehe speaks to, but it is not disdain, it is knowledge. He has learned that the group he appeals to don't care about lies. They care about winning, and if a lie will serve that end, it is more than accepable, it is preferred. That is why when Clinton lied about his affair with Flowers when any thinking person knew she was thelling the truth, all the Liberals came to his defense. The tapes had been altered. Everybody does it. She was just trying to make money. It was all bullshit, a VRWC. But Clinton felt compelled to call Cuomo and apologise for his remarks about him being like a mafia guy.
The assertion that a mild statement like mine could be as silly as anthing the PLF says is well down the path of stupidity itself. Not as stupid as Stone's, just an overstatement brought on by too much vehemence.
If you wish to equate the preening power that Hollywood icons get from donating money to politicians with the influence in political decisions that corporations or industries purchase, go ahead. That would be approaching Stone silly, though.
I guess we have some major fibbers in both partis, I grant you that.
What do you call Bush's constant bragging about his record in Texas? The truth? Have you studied the state's constitution and particularly the powers bestowed upon the governor in that state? What record does that man have worth bragging about?
Look, even if Bush had a sterling record in Texas, the very fact that he has been a drinker, and by all reports, rather a heavy one just ten years or so ago, would scare me anyway. I would feel the same way about Gore had he been a drinker too. I wouldn't want someone who had liquor soaking his brain for so long to have his finger on the nuclear button, for heavens' sake!
He'll have his heart on that button so we're supposed to feel safe....
Hey, BigAl: Howzit?
Tempting idea.
I used to post actively in the NYT forum, but it doesn't hold a candle to this place, so I quit.
If you wish to equate the preening power that Hollywood icons get from donating money to politicians with the influence in political decisions that corporations or industries purchase, go ahead.
If you wish to disagree with me, start with something I said.
You claimed the Hollywood people don't want anything for their money, and I disagreed.
We weren't discussing what they might actually get for their money. Another subject entirely.
What do you call Bush's constant bragging about his record in Texas?
I haven't paid particular attention, so I don't have an opinion.
Still leqding the good life on Kauai. Tried to get your attention on several threads, but you were off to wine and cheese. Is wine allowed in Texas? I couldn't get a beer in Mississippi on Sunday or wine for my dinner. Nearly died.
No, by and large they think they are "doing good" and "using their name" for a good cause.
Different thing entirely.
Wine is allowed in my part of the state; not at the Governors Mansion, though.
Nice straw man destruction.
You've effectively cut down two statements I haven't made.
If you care to respond to something I've said, I'll respond. Otherwise, it seems to be a waste of time.
Al, no one would bother to even point out to you that you make mistakes. You remember how much we enjoyed Stamper's writings, at least for a while we did. Do you plan to go to Europe eventually?
You said that my statement that Hollywood donors don't want anything for their money was silly.
This means that you think they do want something for their money. I have made a straightforward assessment of that assertion and pointed out that no, they don't want something for their money.
If you meant something else, you have only yourself to blame for the miscommunication.
Why is Gore slipping in the polls? That mother-in-law medical statement? What?
You said that my statement that Hollywood donors don't want anything for their money was silly.
Yes, it is.
This means that you think they do want something for their money.
Yes, they do. It doesn't mean they get what they want. Not everyone gets what they want.
I have made a straightforward assessment of that assertion and pointed out that no, they don't want something for their money.
Actually, you went on to argue that equating what Hollywood donors get for their money with what corporations get for their money would be silly. I agree. But I didn't make the comparison.
If Hollywood donors really didn't want something for their money, they would donate anonymously. (I'll bet some do.)
But I think Gore is still ahead.
According to a Gore spokesperson, it is because Bush started talking about the issues. (Although I don't think he meant to say that.)
I didn't argue that. I pointed it out. But the fact is that my original statement was that they didn't want anything for their money.
That is quite true. They may get an ephemeral feeling of accomplishment or power as a result of donating money, but that's a different thing entirely.
However, even if I were making the statement that you interpreted, it's absurd to say that it was silly. There is no comparison between Hollywood donors and corporate donors, and you know it. So even if I were saying that they didn't get anything for their money, it would at most have required a mild clarification. For you to declare that it was sillier than anything Stone has posted is indication of a slightly unbalanced perspective.
Cal
According to FT, Gore's lead has diminished from 14 points to 3. Even though he is still ahead, couldn't such a slide be called "slipping"? (I ask because I want to know).
I give up. You must use a different dictionary for words.
You think Hollywood donors don't want anything for their donations. Fine. I think that is laughably silly.
So go rant about corporate donors and other unrelated subjects to your heart's content. And if you want to pretend you are being responsive, I cannot stop you.
I'll return to ignoring you.
I couldn't get that link to work, but there have been a variety of different polls, reflecting all sorts of results. I haven't gotten the sense that anyone thinks Gore is slipping. Just watched all the talking head shows today and they think that Bush is behind, and that it will be a close race.
The real issue isn't the overall polls, but the individual state results. There, I've read that Gore is a good bit ahead. For example, Bush seems to have taken Florida for granted, and Gore is either ahead or tied there. So Bush is having to spend a lot of time and money in Florida when he could better be using that money in the midwest.
Keep in mind, of course, that this could all change and things that seem "obvious" now could become indicators of Gore's certain loss. I can only say that there is no coverage indicating that Gore is currently slipping.
For Bush, Difficult Choices Ahead (on where to spend his money)
G.O.P. Pointing Fingers Over Gore's Stunning Florida Gains
Surge by Gore Is Helping Party Raise Millions
A Little Relief For George
I'm all the happier for your ignorance. But you won't find a rant by me about corporate donors. Just because I compare motives doesn't mean that I oppose one over the other.
Thanks, CalGal, nice work.
I may have used the term "slip" incorrectly. But I mostly wondered why Gore's lead was dwindling. You seem to be saying it's more to do with Bush pulling a better act, is that correct?
Yes, so did I. I read the Time.com's take that you linked: Gore was stuck in that mother-in-law gaffe while Bush did well on Oprah by kissing her on the cheek and talking heartwarmingly about his love for his wife and daughters. That shifted the dynamics of the race, securing Bush his first week for a long time in which he outdid Gore.
Interesting. Kissing seems to have become a central theme of the campaign. Personally, I think you could do a lot worse over there.
Many of us are citizens of the USA. This is your government. You, who do not live in the USA will find yourselves thanful!
Of the 535 menbers of Congress :
3 Arrested for assault
7 Arrested for fraud
8 Arrested for shoplifting
14 Arrested on drug-related charges
19 Have been accused of writing bad checks
21 Are currently defendants in law suits
29 Have been accused of spousal abuse
71 Cannot get a credit card due to history of bad credit
84 Were stopped for drunk driving in 1998
117 Have bankrupted two or more businesses
This information is from a source I trust in Phoenix; I will not name him.
Deep Phoenix Throat.
Of course, the total # may be 117, but they would have to be fairly active rapscalions. Who was it who said "You can teach a congressman to do anything a dog could do." Twain, perhaps.
I thought it was I think,therefore I am.
Now it seems it is I think, therefore I'm right
yc
Well, Trial was always pretty hard on me, but I don't see him around. There was another guy, but I forget his name. No one ever got on stamper's case 'cause youall just accepted him for the fool he was.
A seemingly interesting idea. But would it be fair to use salary as part? After all, there are some in Congress would could never make as much as they do now in private enterprise and others that could make much more. What would be more interesting to me would to compare this Congress with one from the '50's or 30's. That might tell us more about the State of the Union. You are fond of pointing out in defense of Clinton that he is not the first to have a sordid life, if that is a fair statement. Some of us think there is a difference in degree if not in kind.
While Bush went on to earn an MBA at Harvard after graduating from Yale, li'l Pinocchio was busy flunking out of Vanderbilt University's Divinity School (eight classes, 5 Fs) and dropping out of the Law School.
Lefties also like to have "fun" with how George W. Bush "mangles" the English language. To imply that George W.'s occasional malapropisms are evidence of his stupidity is both cruel and wrong.
That's old news. Let's move along now, right smartly.
God help us if GW wins the presidency on a wink and a smile.
Oh, and for Niner's eddification, George referred several times during the debate to his daughter, Tyler, and how he knew his daughter's name and cared about her education. Does he get points off for referring to family members? (He doesn't get any points in my view for knowing his daughter's name but maybe he figures that this is an accomplishment since he mentioned it 3 times.
Chuck Robb was hurt by Allen's bringing up the 50 cent/gal gas tax Robb proposed after the Gulf War. He may have been hurt as well by his attempt to explain his positions rather than deal in sound bites.
That gas tax is an eminently sound idea, and I partly blame the US's failure to levy it for the present high prices.
Are you aware that Murcans use fully twice the amount of energy that Europeans do?
I have also noticed a bit of a pattern in Gore's campaign. When he is or appears to be ahead, he and his staff start getting overconfident and sloppy; when he is behind, he and his staff tend to focus better, and hone their attack.
re Message # 42791
What high prices?
re Message # 42792
What's your point? I'm sure the average European uses a multiple of the amount of energy that Africans do. Do you think this is a bad thing?
Exactly Robb's point when he introduced it. But "tax" is a four-letter word in Amurca.
Dusty
It's a question of economising a scarce resource, developing conservation enhancing behaviour and technology, and alternative, sustainable sources of energy. Plus, fossil fuels emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
As for the Africans, and other poor countries, they will be better off if they don't have to compete as mercilessly for the scarce oil with rich countries that can much better afford alternatives.
Dusty, what do you mean what high prices? Are you sarcastic? The oil price has nearly tripled over the last 18 months. While still much lower in real terms than during the early eigthties, it's a real problem. Not least for the beginning recovery in Asia.
Like Larry Summers said yesterday: The oil price is the biggest cloud on an otherwise fairly blue world economic sky. (Quoting from memory, sorry).
I did see much of the debate. They were strikingly similar. If it was a question they didn't want to answer (Allen on the front end of a pregnancy, Robb on the back end), they didn't answer it. The problem, as always with these things, is format. The questioners are not given an opportunity to follow-up, and this allows the candidates to "stay on message", the modern parlance for not answering a question. You are correct in that Robb seemed less comfortable.
Wombat
Perhaps the same goes for the Bush campaign? I've seen much commentary to the effect that the GOPs have been 'whistling past the graveyard' for too long for their own good. For example, they were completely caught off guard by Gore's surge in Florida and have been forced to make those 'hard choices' on where to spend their campaign money (even though one should think scarcity isn't the issue there given those much-vaunted burgeoning war chests).
The election has always been Gore's to lose, which is why I am more concerned about how his campaign manages itself.
Wombat
That, and you root for Gore, right? Can't say I blame you, but I am just a wretched fyrrina.
"So dignified Jack, such mature tut-tutting! What's new is not that a
President has an affair, much less a political office holder. What's new is that this has become fair game for political discourse. The fact that this is a sea change is evidenced by the number of office holders immediately caught up in the firestorm. You want to know why Clinton was not convicted? Everybody knew that if he only got the votes of the senators that had themselves had affairs and hid and lied about them, there wouldn't be a conviction and if they left office, there wouldn't be a quorum."
My rebuttal: The above line is worthy of Sally Jessy, the kind of conclusion that brings fat, uneducated television audience members to their feet, clapping and jiggling "You go girl!" Regardless, Clinton was not convicted because some senators felt he did not commit high crimes or misdemeanors, and many who did saw that he was going to ride it out and survive. Ask Joe Lieberman, or Pat Moynihan, or Bob Kerrey or Russell Feingold how they came to their conclusions. Unlike the standard dullard line of "It was just about sex!" these folks, good Democrats all, wrestled mightily with the proper
sanction for his misdeeds, misdeeds grave enough to put him on the brink, and even have his own party selling an ignominious condemnation and loss of pension as a compromise. You may buy the "it was only an affair" line, and that is to be expected, because it was manufactured, packaged, and market-tested for wide-eyed consumers who mistake the conventional wisdom for insight (after all, it is part of the K-Tel offering, featuring such other hits as "Let's Move On" and "They All Do It" and "Can't We Get back to the Nation's Business?") Not much of a meal, but enjoy.
"What everbody doesn't do is attack a political office holders personal life from every front and spread a few juicy lies as well. Lets take stock. Clinton was accused of: having people killed; smuggling drugs into Arkansas; fathering a baby by a black prostitute; raping a woman; sexually assaulting a woman; having intercourse with Monica Lewinsky; having some sort of sexual
contact/affair with Lewinsky; Whitewater; Travelgate; Filegate. So far, some heavy petting and oral sex are the only things that are true."
My rebuttal: Why would you lump in the Reno authorized investigations with the Drudge/Star silliness, and make them all the same? Since you can't make the distinction, how could anyone else? No one but the hopelessly addled or the fundamentally dishonest could equate the tabloid rumor of Clinton's child out-of-wedlock with the Whitewater investigation. Unless you are suggesting that the Justice Department recommended independent prosecutors for the drug and rape allegations. So, strip away your feint, and the Clinton administration has been investigated for possible violations of law in a matter involving the release of FBI files, the firing of the White House travel office staff, land deals and S&L irregularities in Arkansas, and potential perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. More than administrations prior, but not excessively so (ask Raymond Donovan, or Edwin Meese, or Rita Lavelle, or Anne Burford, or Sam Pierce, or Oliver North, or any of the more than 225 Reagan aides deemed guilty of ethical or criminal wrongdoing by the House Subcommittee on Civil Service). Yet, you persist in
expressing shock at lawful, DOJ-sanctioned investigations, lumping same with cheap innuendo from other sources in an effort to smear the entire lot, and sanctifying the Clinton administration in the process.
Fair-mindedness divests me of my assuredness as to the "truth."
jones says:
"Clearly, Clinton did whatever he could to hide his relationship with
Lewinsky. His relationship was immoral. I believe that marriage vows are not to be taken lightly, and that it is probably one of the meanest, basest and most vile things a person can do to break them. He apparently did everything within the law to avoid admitting the relationship. The court found him in contempt for failing to disclose the relationship in questions put to him. I have no doubt that were he to be a private citizen and behave the same way, he would have faced no sanction whatsoever."
My rebuttal: The invocation of your sexual ethics is unnecessary. As with Clinton, the issue of morality is irrelevant. Had, however, he been any defendant in a federal sexual harassment suit, and so blatantly lied during sworn deposition and by sworn interrogatory response, he would have been subject to a Rule 11 motion, his counsel would probably have resigned, he probably would have been sanctioned (as he was) and he would almost assuredly have been forced to pay a big settlement (imagine that cross-examination, jones, and your mouth might water).
"Yes there were 14 convictions in whitewater, but none were against Clinton or his wife, which was the whole reason for the inquiry."
My rebuttal: This is ignorant. Your zeal to defend the man has you
denigrate a proper investigation, with appropriate results. You're the flip side of the Scaife crowd, who somewhere are muttering, "Why did we get only these 14 convictions? Clinton was the whole reason for the inquiry."
jones says
"Yes, we know that the reports say that they can PROVE that Clinton is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but you know he's guilty anyway. He was just clever enough to stonewall, to hide the evidence to get people to lie for him. I'm sure you would have been very helpful in Stalin's purges."
My rebuttal: This is feeble straw man-ism. Rather than wait for rebuttal, you create your own, make it a softball, and knock it out of the park with righteous indignation and grandiose comparison. Now, for the true believer, Clinton has been elevated to Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
jones says
"Yet Jack is focused on Clinton's moral failure. Take the beam out of your eye first, Jack."
My rebuttal: Any reasoned reader would have to conclude that you are the only one making moral judgments. You have gone so far as to label Clinton a sinner. You have also stated, "His relationship was immoral. I believe that marriage vows are not to be taken lightly, and that it is probably one of the meanest, basest and most vile things a person can do to break them." My matter-of-fact judgment is mundane, more of-this-world, and in line with that of the Democratic authors of the compromise censure-plus resolution. And the terse legal sanction of Judge Wright. Moreover, my judgments deal with his
actions with regard to the law and governance. I just don't go in for the fire and brimstone stuff like you.
"Yes, it is possible that Clinton destroyed every shred of evidence and conspired with every possible witness or intimidated every possible witness into lying for him. But that sounds a little like Tommy D, or Tommy Flanagen. Yeah that's the ticket, we weren't on a jihad against Clinton, changing all the unwritten rules of Washington journalism and politics to get to him; he was just too clever and evil- he destroyed all the evidence."
My rebuttal: Again with the straw man. While no one made this claim, it sure makes argument easier when you can craft your own rebuttals.
Many, if not all, Democrats in the Senate would have entertained and probably voted for a resolution censuring President Clinton, which I think most Motiers--other than Clinton foamers (pro and con)--would agree best suited his "crimes." The House Republicans had to have Clinton's head mounted in their trophy room (which would have justified--to them--the years and expense of the investigation, plus the fact that some of them just plain hated the man).
I notice in your fairness you evade the main point- all of the accusations, both official and unofficial produced exactly nothing, except Monica.
I wonder if Clinton has been getting any at all since that Starr/Lewinsky/impeachment shambackle...
Somehow I don't see Hillary obliging.
And -- where else would he turn to??? Even he must calculate and trade off risks with benefits sometimes, even when it comes to sex.
If the huffing and puffing didn't get Clinton impeached, at least it succeeded in his virtual castration. I imagine he must be up in knots in frustration...
---
Forgive this vulgar and irreverend train of thoughts.
Your list of congressional sins has been circulating the Internet for months, uncited every time it appears. All your "source" did was to forward another anonymous urban legend to you. I would have thought that you had been online long enough to not fall for that shit anymore.
I addresed every one of your points, major and minor. Conversely, you continue to rely on platitude and truism.
Wombat
A censure such as the one proposed by the Democrats suggests serious wrongdoing just below the high standard of high crime and misdemeanor. It also categorically rejects the infantile proposition that Mr. Clinton was the victim of vendetta, as jones puts it, solely "because Clinton got a blow job and evaded questions about it in a deposition."
DaveM
I'm swamped as well. Email me. Tell me how the hunt is going.
Sexual harassment/discrimination suits are rarely, if ever, dismissed prior to discovery, much as folks would like to believe otherwise. The case was properly dismissed on summary judgment.
I doubt anyone thinks Clinton was "innocent" of everything he was accused of, and a censure resolution would have reflected that. However, Clinton was subject to a vendetta, not for his sexual activity, but by his enemies in Arkansas, aided and abetted by newfound enemies in Washington. Has there ever been an Independent Counsel appointed to investigate actions that took place when the subject was not already in office as President?
Powerful men have powerful enemies, and I won't take the polar opposite of jones' infantilism by suggesting that Clinton was not beset by enemies. But, in the end, Whitewater was borne of a legitimate scandal (toppling a sitting governor and the number 3 man at Justice); the release of FBI files (which resulted in criminal conviction during Watergate) should most certainly have been investigated; the Travel office firings (which had little to do with Clinton) were beset by enough skullduggery to justify investigation; and the propriety of the Lewinsky perjury/obstruction investigation was formalized by the Democrats in Congress.
And all the aforementioned investigations were at the behest of the Attorney General.
Unlike true believers, I don't equate a criminal indictment of Clinton with the success of the investigation. If there is "insufficient evidence" or if anyone is cleared outright, good.
Dusty, what do you mean what high prices? Are you sarcastic? The oil price has nearly tripled over the last 18 months. While still much lower in real terms than during the early eigthties, it's a real problem.
I haven't checked closely, but I am pretty sure that current prices are well below historic highs. Probably not far off historic averages.
Like Larry Summers said yesterday: The oil price is the biggest cloud on an otherwise fairly blue world economic sky.
I like that quote. Pretty apt.
Note that it is a cloud—not a hurricane, not a tornado, not even a rainstorm. A cloud.
It's a question of economising a scarce resource, developing conservation enhancing behaviour and technology, and alternative, sustainable sources of energy. Plus, fossil fuels emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
How does this relate to your comparison of relative uses of energy? Nuclear energy is "greener" if scarcity and CO2 emissions are the judge, yet many of the same people who are complaining about energy usage are the same people who shut down the nuclear industry.
Dusty, nuclear energy is not without problems.
The point about relative use of energy is in my view related to economic level. Europe has succeeded much better at decoupling economic growth from growth in energy consumption, and there's no question that taxing oil is part of that story.
Under Jack's rules, you're allowed to refer to your daughter. She can even be prominent in your campaign. You can even have your daughter (or your nephew) speak at the convention that nominates you for the presidency.
Exhumation of one's sister or recitation of your personal anguish as you measure your son's flight via auto accident in feet and inches or heartfelt tears as you speak of the loss of an infant sister are curmudgeony Jack no-nos. But hell, the Bush Sr./McCain/Robb "I'm a war hero, see my sacrifice" strategy makes Jack sick to his stomach, so you'd be well to find a more reasonable barometer.
Dusty, nuclear energy is not without problems.
I hope you didn't think I was suggesting otherwise.
Europe has succeeded much better at decoupling economic growth from growth in energy consumption, and there's no question that taxing oil is part of that story.
There's no doubt that Europe's penchant for high taxes on oil helps explain why oil usage is lower (per person) in Europe compared to the US. The US has also materially reduced its energy consumption per $ of GDP, while maintaining a higher GDP per person (and possibly growth of GDP).
Accepting as factual that Europe has decoupled energy from economic growth more than the US, the question remains, is this a good thing?
Shouldn't it translate into higher GDP growth, or higher GDP per person? Fully recognizing that there are a host of other factors, are there any economic studies suggesting that the European approach to taxation of oil creates more of a benefit that the lower US rate?
We need better choices.
I disagree. I like them both very much. They've both been governors, so they've actually run something, Robb is refreshingly honest and he has an stubborn independence on some issues, and Allen is engaging and attractive. Moreover, despite their broadsides at each other, they were both good governors.
Allen I despise because of the morale problems he's caused in the state workforce and because his people are such bullies. Per the Allen administration, you're either a true believer or you're and enemy, and every issue has a political answer.
However, in Va., there's really not a whole lot of difference btwn Repubs and Dems.
Electoral College Calculator (Have Fun.)
I love it! You don't need top actually have been convicted of anything, Jones. You just need to be accused of it. Who cares that the accusations are coming from partisan whackos who take shots at watermelons in their back yards? There doesn't need to be any truth to it. You just need to be able to jump and down loud enough -- and have enough money and pull in D.C. -- to force an investigation. The accusation itself is proof of guilt!
We'll have to remember this the next time there is a GOP president.
Which, if the party follows the Jack-style strategy -- hoping to win by telling the public what awful people the Clintons and Gores are and what awful people the public is for voting for them -- will be in roughly, say, 2052.
But of course, they'll get to console themselves all that time by nursing their well-fed (if ill-deserved) sense of moral superiority. 
POA Presidential Tracking Poll has Bush up 1.2%
In the race for the White House, George W. Bush and Al Gore are virtually tied in the popular vote. In Portrait of America's latest 3-day average Bush has 42.0% while Gore has 40.8%; Ralph Nader, 3.0%, Pat Buchanan, 1.5%, Harry Browne .7%, Howard Phillips .2%, and John Hagelin .2%. These results from a nightly Portrait of America Presidential Tracking Poll reflect interviews conducted September 21, 23 and 24.
"I love it! You don't need top actually have been convicted of anything, Jones. You just need to be accused of it. Who cares that the accusations are coming from partisan whackos who take shots at watermelons in their back yards? There doesn't need to be any truth to it. You just need to be able to jump and down loud enough -- and have enough money and pull in D.C. --to force an investigation. The accusation itself is proof of guilt!"
I was unaware that Ms. Reno, who authorized an independent counsel for the FBI file matter, Whitewater, the Travel office matter, and the perjury/obstruction matter, was a watermelon shooter.
I don't get it.
You obviously have a very short memory. Democrats perfected this during the last two Republican Presidents. Have you forgotten the Democratic Senator who said, "There is no evidence of wrongdoing. That's why we have to investigate"? Democrats invented politics by scandal. I imagine that is a genie they wish they had never let out of the bottle.
Spies and conspirators everywhere.
If you choose to substitute childish fantasy with adult perspective, take a tray and have a seat over there with the Kennedy assassination folks. And lament the day that the likes of Larry Klayman and Lucianne Goldberg pushed a sitting President of the United States to the brink. Tough adversaries indeed.
Of course Orca believes it. Orca cannot afford not to, for believing otherwise would rob Orca of cause and righteousness, a necessary predicate to the willful self-delusion that every investigation that has haunted the Clinton administration emanated from rogue congressman, a cheezy publicity hound, a wacky, bespectacled lawyer, and a rich, spooky Pittsburgh right-winger.
I'm sure even Clinton cringes at the motley cast of usurpers provided to him by Orca.
But, he'll take 'em.
Anyone see Jim Lerher's piece on the debates last night?
It was interesting in many ways -- a retrospective commentary from the participants. Of course they've all had plenty of time to put a positive spin on their screw-ups; but still, fascinating stuff. I had forgotten a lot of the details; it will make the upcoming debates all the more interesting. Don't miss it if it is rerun on PBS.
OK, fine. But let's just say that your suggestion that yours is the only grown-up reality is pretty damned funny.
After all, you've already established your moral superiority.
"I see. If an established fact -- such as the participation of the above-named people in the origination of all these groundless scandals --fails to fit your neat little GOP model of the universe, it is deemed merely another black helicopter sighting.
OK, fine. But let's just say that your suggestion that yours is the only grown-up reality is pretty damned funny."
I don't deny their parts in the melodrama. But as I said, if your Tiger Beat enthusiasm for the president has you cast these trifling buffoons and hangers-on as starring characters in "The Crucufixion of William Jefferson Clinton", feel free.
I just don't think yours is a mature position.
As for moral superiority, you're confused.
I've established intellectual superiority over you. Kudos, however, are not required. It was a small feat.
Moral superiority is jones' ("The president is a SINNER! A SINNER I TELL YOU!!!!") department.
I saw some of that series a while back. I was struck by Clinton's honesty as to the mistakes made by Bush in the 1992 debates; Quayle's forthright analysis of why he was unprepared in his debate with Bensten; Dukakis' stubborness on why he was so miserable in his debate with Bush in 1988; and Bush's candor when he told Lehrer that he was looking at his watch because he "wanted to get out of there" and the debates were not debates, but rather, extended news conferences.
You already seem to believe it is possible that Clinton's closest associates can be guilty of various crimes but Clinton himself is as pure as the wind driven snow, so you might believe anything.
Jonesatlaw, and to his credit, he was not arguing that we should not elect a president who has not sinned. He was, however, eloquent in his explication of the president's moral failings as a husband, a father, and a chief executive.
1) Cheney is a pretty bright guy and very politically earnest. not an ounce of personability, however, and i wonder why he chose himself for the running mate role. intelligence isn't what this year's beauty queen pageant is about
2) Hillary was, much to my surprise, within the law using the WH as an expensive Motel 6. best line was along the lines of well, if the WH was just for friends, how many of those same "friends" stayed up at the Clinton's new home in upstate New York, especially when the Clintons weren't there ...
Ha ha. Good one. All in the Kid Rock school of macho humor, I assume.
She gave overnight stays to individuals who contributed $600,000 to her Senate campaign. We know when the contributions were made. The White House will not reveal when the overnites stays occurred.
Does this trouble you?
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Exactly.
A physics professor is lecturing to his class one day. As he is working through a series of mathmatical formulas he says, "From this equation it is obvious that equation is true." The professor stops and looks quizzically at the two equations. He then spends the next 20 minutes scribbling on the board. Finally he turns to the class and says, "I was right, it is obvious."
but, even if it can be shown to be a strong correlation between donations and WH stays, it is still technically legal.
it's just slimy
and abusive of power
but, then, after 8 years, who does that surprise?
It is refreshing to seem them somewhat out of the constraints of their offices (or the role of office-seeker). I imagine that a rare agreement between right/left, Democrat/Republican, Clinton-hater/Clinton-sanctifier is less canned response, more natural expression (though, Bush Jr., when natural, would attack the language with even more gusto, and Gore, when natural, would probably melt-down in paroxyms of self-disapproval).
Ducky,
I saw Cheney, too, and was struck by the same thing. He looked like a policy wonk, not the veep. 
Thanks for the tip on the debates special. Was it a Frontline piece, or part of the Newshour, or what?
But any discussion that begins with the argument that Gore is a rotten human being is not exactly mature.
My own estimation is that the two men have roughly equivalent amounts of basic integrity and phoniness. Arguments can be made for either side, neither of which strike me as germane.
A mature discussion, I think, would revolve around more basic qualifications: Intellect (Bush loses) and policy (Bush loses).
OK, I see why you're taking this tack.
"But any discussion that begins with the argument that Gore is a rotten human being is not exactly mature."
I'm saddled with a conviction that he is a talented but flawed character, uneasy with himself, and thus prone to reimaging and bouts of insecurity. This concerns me.
"My own estimation is that the two men have roughly equivalent amounts of basic integrity and phoniness. Arguments can be made for either side, neither of which strike me as germane."
I tend to agree with your analysis vis-a-vis phoniness. The process, unfortunately, creates brown-suited, power-tie wearing monsters. I think Gore loses in the integrity category, but that may be a fact of character, or it may be that Bush is simply new to the system, and has yet to throw his requisite number on interceptions.
"A mature discussion, I think, would revolve around more basic qualifications: Intellect (Bush loses) and policy (Bush loses)."
Policy is a draw. Both men espouse basically the same, mealy, Rockefeller-Republicanism. I do not quarrel with Gore being of greater intellect than Bush, but I find them both qualified for the job.
I mentioned this show on Saturday and watched it last night; I thought it was interesting in the interview with Bush that all the things he felt about the debates are currently being echoed by his son. A natural thing, after all, but it made me wonder how much else about running the country little Bush has accepted whole cloth from his daddy.
I imagine quite a lot. Cobblers learn the shoe business from their fathers. If your father is a former president, I imagine you'd be quite reliant on his experience.
there are certainly worse presidents to model oneself after
heh
well, my list would, of course, be totally subjective and worth nothing. i just point out that Bush was a completely average politician and POTUS
I don't see JR. as having the qualifications his "Daddy" had. W. is a hollow cast of his father -- who wasn't very good with words either -- and words are the tools of every statesman.
SR's point about not wanting to make the debates mandatory because a guy who stutters can be brilliant, didn't hold water for me. It's like not giving a formal interview to the perspective CEO of a large company to see what kind of impression he or she will make under public stress and pressure.
I keep wondering what would have happened if Dole went for Clinton's jugular. Mondale was the same kind of gentleman and I suspect it may have been a generational thing, but then again George Sr. had no problem attacking Dukakis.
"I don't see JR. as having the qualifications his "Daddy" had."
Nor do I. I don't think anyone said he did, and as far as resumes go, Bush Sr. could arguable be considered the most qualified president in history.
"W. is a hollow cast of his father -- who wasn't very good with words either -- and words are the tools of every statesman."
Not really. Words are the tools of speeches. Grainy, black-and-white footage aside, Eisenhower amd FDR were staccato and dull. And while Reagan could give a speech, he was not good with words in unguarded moments. Yet, all three were statesmen.
"SR's point about not wanting to make the debates mandatory because a guy who stutters can be brilliant, didn't hold water for me. It's like not giving a formal interview to the perspective CEO of a large company to see what kind of impression he or she will make under public stress and pressure."
This concept simply favors the glib and attractive.
"I keep wondering what would have happened if Dole went for Clinton's jugular. Mondale was the same kind of gentleman and I suspect it may have been a generational thing, but then again George Sr. had no problem attacking Dukakis."
Nothing. Clinton had overseen good times, and his performance from 1992 to 1996 was commendable. Conversely, Dole was lurching all over the place and offering nothing.
I think not, although he certainly had a good resume. Gore, if he wins, will be more qualified. Nixon probably does best of those who've actually made it. At least for this century.
One of the biggest reasons sited? They're pretty confident of a GOP Congress and like gridlock -- prevents the govt from doing too much damage.
Gore has been a congressman, a senator and a vice-president for eight years. Bush Sr. was a congressman, head of the CIA, ambassador to China, head of the RNC, and vice president for 8 years. Of course, subjectively, Gore may be more qualified. Of course, subjectively, Perot may be more qualified.
By objective standards, however, it is no contest.
A GOP Congress is an adequate consolation prize.
I wasn't alluding to speech-making with regard to words, but rather communicating to affect change. W. is painfully limited in his use of them and words need to convince people -- not seduce them; I think there's a distinction. Words with conviction, experience and knowledge can convince -- JR has none ...while Clinton and Reagan probably exhibited only one of the three. 
Perhaps his "personability" is "subliminable."
JJBiener: "Democrats invented politics by scandal."
You're funny, mister.
Actually, I liked "effeci" better.
I pronounced it like, well, use your imagination, and it seemed to fit. I thinked you've coined a new word.
You seem to think being head of RNC counts as experience--if so, fine. But I think Gore's growing seniority as a congressman and Senator counts for more than head of RNC. Bush was only congressman for a short time. As I recall, he wasn't head of CIA or ambassador to China for that long, either. I think length of experience has to be factored in, and on that scale Gore wins out. They both were veep for the same time, but Bush's longterm positions weren't in the same league. BTW, I thought he was Ambassador to the UN, not China.
But Nixon had 8 years of veepdom, governor of California, and he was a congressman to boot.
Dry your eyes, dear friend, and be strong: I saw this story on CNN this morning. I think CNN is generally considered a media outlet.
so there
As usual, you miss the point of the article, as did Gore's staff.
The Republicans are likely to lose the House, no matter who wins the Presidency.
"I wasn't alluding to speech-making with regard to words, but rather communicating to affect change. W. is painfully limited in his use of them and words need to convince people -- not seduce them; I think there's a distinction. Words with conviction, experience and knowledge can convince -- JR has none ...while Clinton and Reagan probably exhibited only one of the three."
I don't think he advocates much change, so his assault on the King's English won't be much of a problem.
Cal
I don't agree with your comparisons. Moreover, Nixon was not governor of California. He lost his race for the governship to Pat Brown in 1962. Moreover, Bush was ambassador to China.
Also (and I just looked this up), the whitehouse.gov site says this about his experience:
Like his father, Prescott Bush, who was elected a Senator from Connecticut in 1952, George became interested in public service and politics. He served two terms as a Representative to Congress from Texas. Twice he ran unsuccessfully for the Senate. Then he was appointed to a series of high-level positions: Ambassador to the United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Chief of the U. S. Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
So I think you might have got the ambassador to China bit wrong (or they did).
I also seem to recall that his combined experience in all the appointed positions here isn't much more than ten years. Toss in the fact that much of it is in the RNC and I still give it to Gore. Diplomacy is also pretty low-rank as far as experience goes.
I realize you probably meant that as an insult, but I was thinking the same thing.
Qualified to do what? Same for Dubbya. Same for Albert for that matter.
They're all just Hall Monitors for the Corporations.
So, Bush is now more qualified on paper than Nixon, but Gore tops Bush even though ambassador to the U.N. has been added to his resume?
As for ambassador to China, he was envoy, but the titles are used interchangeably as they are the functional equivalent. I'm guessing that we didn't recognize China given our relationship with Taiwan, so we didn't confer upon them someone with the title of "ambassador" or that Bush was appointed without senatorial confirmation during a recess. But these are mere guesses.
"Diplomacy is also pretty low-rank as far as experience goes."
Your conclusion becomes more understandable each post you make.
Your worst condemnations are my fondest hopes sometimes.
You beat me to it. I was going to guess that Bush didn't have the formal title of Ambassador, because of the special staus of China. One site says, "President Bush was formally Ambassador (or the official liaison) Bush to China during the Ford Administration."
It is good to have one's guess confirmed by that of another.
No, my comparison to Nixon was only because my brain wants to insist he was governor.
Your conclusion becomes more understandable each post you make.
Don't be snotty; can't you just discuss things without being shitty? I haven't dismissed Bush's experience. I've already said he has an excellent resume. So we're now at the point of comparing a long career in Congress, with increasing seniority and a lot of power with an about as long career of appointed but each relatively brief positions in diplomacy, partisan policy-making, and the CIA.
Relax. Your conclusion does become more understandable each post you make. I find the elevation of Gore's experience over that of Bush Sr. to be without merit from an objective standpoint. But it seems less so when you first discount the value of heading a party organization, and later, even less so, when you discount the value of foreign diplomatic experience.
Two days later, Bush met Ford at the White House. Bush claims that Ford told him that he could choose between a future as US envoy to the Court of St. James in London, or presenting his credentials to the Palais de l'Elysee in Paris. Bush would have us believe that he then told Ford that he wanted neither London nor Paris, but Beijing....The first consideration, and it was an imperative one, was that under no circumstances could Bush face Senate confirmation hearings for any executive branch appointment for at least one to two years....As Bush himself slyly notes: "The United States didn't maintain formal diplomatic relations with the People's Republic at the time, so my appointment wouldn't need Senate confirmation." An asterisk sends us to the additional fact that "because I'd been ambassador to the United Nations I carried the title 'ambassador' to China."...In 1974, what Bush was asking for was the US Laison Office (USLO), which did not have the official status of an embassy. The chief of that office was the president's personal representative in China, but it was a post that did not require senate confirmation.
You make me look so good.
There is such a thing as a foreign policy pie-in-the-face?
I didn't discount it out of hand, I said that brief periods in these positions come up short of a steady career in Congress with increasing seniority and a variety of committee memberships.
It certainly isn't the no-brainer you present it as, in your haste to dismiss Gore. And you're a hell of a lot more biased than I am.
Okely-dokely.
Repetition is the very essence of farce. That's way the China business always made me smile.
Oops! I forgot. If you count all their vacation time and junkets and stuff, they are part timers!
Books on the impeachment saga at this stage will be no more educational than simultaneous coverage. Fifteen years must pass, when asses no longer need be covered.
What is disappointing is that you feel it necessary to make snide comments about "the most ethical administration ever" when the results of the investigations are as paltry as they are. The Clinton administrations record, besmirched as it is, is no worse than those immediately prior to his.
As in the Wen Ho Lee case, we learn that the closer the political process comes to the judicial process, the more corrupted and distorted the judicial process becomes.
It's always mind-blowing to read how little you people know, or remember, about America's "foreign policy"...
I'm not about to take this head-on—I'm a firm believer that the average American is abysmally clueless about the world beyond the waters edge, but I'm curious what event prompted you to utter this?
Did you think anyone here misremembered the fact of the special relationship with China? It is one thing to remember that China wasn't officially recognized for some time. I've seen no evidence that anyone here didn't know that. It is quite another thing to memorize details such as the proper title of a diplomatic representative, and whether it is proper today to use the current or the prior title. Do you think average citizens of the world can keep such trivia at their disposal?
"However, each was driven by the fact that Clinton was the target of the investigation. Without Clinton, no special prosecutor and everything proceeds in a garden variety manner."
Of course. Take a look at the independent counsel statute.
"What is disappointing is that you feel it necessary to make snide comments about "the most ethical administration ever" when the results of the investigations are as paltry as they are. The Clinton administrations record, besmirched as it is, is no worse than those immediately prior to his."
I'm sorry you are disappointed. I did not make the pledge. It was made by Mr. Clinton, and by extension, Mr. Gore, Mr. Espy, Mr. Cisneros and many others. Moreover, your admission that the Clinton record "is no worse than those immediately prior to his" must mean one of two things. Either the Reagan and/or Bush administrations were the most ethical administration ever, or the Clinton administration has fallen far short of that mark (as Clinton derided the ethics of the Bush administration).
eight years. Bush Sr. was a congressman, head of the CIA,
ambassador to China, head of the RNC, and vice president for 8
years. Of course, subjectively, Gore may be more qualified. Of
course, subjectively, Perot may be more qualified.
By objective standards, however, it is no contest. "
veep time is equal. Gore had 8 years in the House to Bush's four. By Jack's reckoning, Gore's 4 more years in the house and 8 years in the Senate is "objectively" exceeded by Bush's stints as CIA chief, UN ambassador, China ambassador, and RNC head, none of which Bush held for more than two years.
Sorry, it ain't "no contest" to me. Bush's resume, to me, screams "job hopper".
Depends from which job one hops. But eight years in the House and eight in the Senate (or 4 in the House for Bush Sr.) basically mean making sure the autopen doesn't break down. His VP experience, however, is key.
eight in the Senate (or 4 in the House for Bush Sr.) basically mean
making sure the autopen doesn't break down. His VP experience,
however, is key. "
Yeah, keeping in mind that by most accounts Gore is the most actively involved veep this century, and Bush was usually the out-of-the-loop funeral-goer.
I do think this is quibbling. Both have two of the best resume credentials qualifying them for the presidency this century. I just don't see it as clear-cut which resume is stronger. If anything tilts it in Bush's favor, it is his business experience.
Once again in your suit of lights, you whirl deftly around the point, evading it entirely though giving the impression that you have come close to it.
The investigations themselves whether by Justice alone or through an IC etc, were driven by the fact that Clinton was the target. There was no shortage of savings and loan skullduggery, and there were far fewer prosecutions. It was the political opportunity that created the drive prosecution in this case.
It is mind-blowing to realize how little most Americans know about their own history, or at least that history which has not appeared in a major motion picture. This is even true for history they've lived through. This is illustrated by Don S. apparently being unaware of the constant Democratic scandal-mongering during the Reagan and Bush Administrations as they attempted to relive their glory days of Watergate.
By whose accounts?
Things I read in the paper. I have read quite a bit about Bush being out of the loop during the Reagan administration insiders, and Gore being very involved according to Clinton administration insiders. Are you really disputing this?
Well said.
In the 60's the popular social chant was "Live for the Day"! It appears that now, for many, an option doesn't exist.
"The investigations themselves whether by Justice alone or through an IC etc, were driven by the fact that Clinton was the target. There was no shortage of savings and loan skullduggery, and there were far fewer prosecutions. It was the political opportunity that created the drive prosecution in this case."
You misunderstand. The statute authorized the Attorney General to apply for an Independent Counsel to investigate any officials or citizens for whom a routine DOJ investigation might result in a conflict of interest. This generally means "the administration."
Moreover, in a point you've never been able to rebut, the statute's triggering mechanism allows the Attorney General to weigh the specificity and credibility of evidence before conducting a preliminary investigation.
Begging the question:
Was Janet Reno gunning for Bill Clinton?
The "loop" concept was generally based on Bush's own statements that he was out of the loop on the Iran-Contra matter, much as Gore was having full bladder problems during meetings on the Buddhist temple fundraising.
Reno's weighing of the evidence seems to be something that you've had a problem with- recall the latest Gore reccomendation?
Precisely because of the "career prosecutors recomended an investigation, Reno must be covering for the Administration" crap that you yourself have argued, the process is skewed by political presure. Reno does not live in a vaccuum.
Are you really buying this? Clinton has been notorious for micromanaging everything in his Administration. The running joke a couple of years ago was that Clinton didn't even allow Al Gore to be in the China Room by himself. Now that Clinton sees his legacy dependent on his VP being elected President suddenly Gore was right there on every policy move.
I did a search on "out of the loop Bush" to see what would pop up.
I found a reference Loop stating "Far from being "out of the loop", Bush..."
I had a chuckle when I saw the source was a speech by SENATOR AL GORE.
micromanaging everything in his Administration."
What??? You confuse him with Carter. He is "notorious" for no such thing. I have friends who have worked for the Clinton administration (OMB), who have all said that Gore was quite heavily involved in a lot of policy decisions. All this on top of the many press accounts which describe Gore as actively involved. I have never seen an account which maintained otherwise.
And we all know the Clinton administration and the press wouldn't have any bias wrt Gore.
"Reno's weighing of the evidence seems to be something that you've had a problem with- recall the latest Gore reccomendation?"
I recall it well. I trust that her judgment was devoid of politics, but did suggest that when 4 other individuals within Justice recommend appointment of a special prosecutor (as the IC law is now lapsed), it is hardly the epitome of Gore-hating to determine that such an appointment is warranted. Do you disagree?
"Precisely because of the 'career prosecutors recomended an investigation, Reno must be covering for the Administration' crap that you yourself have argued, the process is skewed by political presure. Reno does not live in a vaccuum."
I defy you to find where I posted anything resembling your facsimile of my argument. Again, when pressed, you resort to the strawman. You seem hell-bent on pulling me into your acrid pull of hackery.
I decline.
Uh, at the risk of picking nits, shouldn't you be "challenging" rather than "defying"? Or is this some inside baseball legal jargon?
It is illegal to accept campaign contributions from religious organizations. To get around this, the donations came supposedly from the nuns. The monastery however gave the nuns the money to contribute. In other words, Hsia and Huang set up a money laundering scheme to funnel funds from the monastery to the DNC. When the incense hit the fan, Gore tried to claim he didn't even know the event was a fundraiser. He supposedly never questioned how nuns who live in poverty could come up with $5,000 dollars apiece.
This should be troubling to most people on several levels. He either knew or was willfully ignorant of illegal activity right under his nose. This certainly isn't the kind of person I want as President.
have any bias wrt Gore."
You make it sound like my friends are PR flaks. These were informal conversations, and they were, in fact, bitching about some of the decisions Gore was making as part of the National Performance Review. They were irked as hell that he was trying to use "saving money" as one of the selling points for re-inventing government.
As for press bias, I don't believe it has an impact here. How the hell can you sit through 8 years of whitewater, file gate, chinagate, buddhagate, travelgate, lincolnbedroom gate, doggydruggate, and still maintain with a straight face that the press is biased into putting a positive spin on the Clinton-Gore administration?
You're right, but "defy" seemed cooler at the time.
Defy - v. a legal order in a civil court compelling testimony, especially when used by height-challenged basketball players.
I stand corrected.
I personally liked the phrase "acrid hackery".....nice flow, like the best of Dickens character names.
It is the natural reaction when Clinton has sudden memory loss about his questionable activities. Considering Clinton is also known for having an excellent memory, his sudden memory loss is even more troubling.
I doubt anything Clinton could do would impress you, in much the same way nothing GW could attempt would faze me.
Very kind. Thank you.
If you actually watched the coverage, how could you not? The press has been a willing accomplice in the trashing of anyone who dared to accuse Clinton of wrong-doing. The bias of the media (outside of FOX) is so obvious, I can't believe you even try to deny it.
I note that Rask made the same argument that I did (even to saying they were both highly experienced) and you didn't make snotty comments about his criteria.
He must be taller than you.
I always thought the christian coalition was careful just to protect their tax-exempt status --though obviously the IRS didn't think they were carfeul enough. I knew they didn't actually "endorse" a candidate, but I thought they did give money to political campaigns -- or is it they just suggest their followers give?
Are nuns not a religious institution? So it's OK for the Pope to give as long as it's not done in a church or in the name of the church?
Had he resigned instead of putting the country through impeachment and war, I would have been impressed. I would have believed that in spite of everything, deep down, he care more for his country than he did for himself. He was not able to do that.
has been a willing accomplice in the trashing of anyone who dared to
accuse Clinton of wrong-doing. The bias of the media (outside of
FOX) is so obvious, I can't believe you even try to deny it."
I am one of those who believes that no bias is going to steer a reporter away from a good story, and the past 8 years has provided ample evidence of this. You conveniently forget how heavily all these stories have been reported by the media, and you somehow equate a handful of isolated and unwarranted character assassinations (Paula Jones, for instance) to evidence that media trashed "anyone who dared to accuse Clinton of wrong-doing".
As far as I know the CC did not contribute to political campaigns. It was not illegal for its members to support candidates who support the CC's agenda.
Are the distinctions arbitrary and obscure? Sure, but it still is the law. And it is the law that the Democrats put in place in the 70's to protect their majority.
Possibly your bias against Gore is aiding your perplexion. Better than chocolate.
It is you who seems to deny Gore's resume oomph. Rask and I both grant Bush has a good one.
Yes, that's what I was saying as well--it was the brief period of time for each and the nature of the posts. Had each of those posts been a cabinet secretary position, for example, as well as the Director of CIA, that would be different. That's what I was trying to say in saying that diplomatic/partisan leadership posts count for a bit less. I wasn't saying they were worthless.
Besides, Gore was quite a powerful representative and Senator. Bush wasn't. I think you already compared their veep activities.
I think you could debate the relative merits. I think Gore wins out, but I agree that it's the "objective" bit of Jack's assessment I find puzzling.
Please. A donkey could be appointed to the RNC, or to the UN ambassadorship. For that matter, you cited Bush's experience as congressman--and yet he made no waves.
And even if you want to assert that a donkey could be a congressman, not all of them rise to positions of power and influence. Gore unquestionably did. He was a young, but reasonably creditable candidate for President in 1988, after two terms in Congress and an incomplete Senate term.
Oh, and by the way--Bush couldn't get elected to the Senate after two tries. Does that make him more of an ass?
Any muddle-head can also be a CIA head, an ambassador, or an RNC head.
Obviously, the question now becomes one of whether Gore was a good Senator and Congressman, and whether Bush was a good CIA chief, etc. So much for objectivity.
The answer to your question is yes, although I think it is irrelevant.
The reason it is irrelevant is that Bush was appointed to China to avoid vetting by the donkeys.
The reason the answer is yes, is becuase the American people manage to elect somone far more qualified than they collectively are. (Ducking for the inevitable onslaught from some.)
2) Let the record show that the CIA campus in McLean is now the George Bush Intelligence Center.
3) Comparing Clinton scandals to Watergate (The Republican majority House Judiciary Committee often used Rodino's work as a shell or guideline for their proceedings, rules and the Articles of Impeachment)... Peter Baker suggests that this got Clinton off the hook so to speak, because what he did (lying, misleading, obstructing justice related to his testimony in the Paula Jones suit and before the grand jury -- pick all, one or none of the above) didn't have the feel of breaking and entering, slush funds, etc. of Nixon. Semen stains on a blue dress and smoking gun tapes, aside.
Lord knows, a knowledge as to the median income in Tennessee is nice, but I'd prefer some hands on experience with your CIA, or some negotiation with world leaders and superpowers, or even the burden of directing the political activities of one of the major parties.
Not that falling asleep during committee hearings and hounding your press flacks becuase the Tennessean didn't catch your good side is valueless.
He he he.
So what?
There's got to be several "Al Gore Mud Hollers" in Tennessee.
So there!
I don't disagree. That is why the various scandals were covered. The bias exists in how the stories were handled.
you somehow equate a handful of isolated and unwarranted character assassinations (Paula Jones, for instance) to evidence that media trashed "anyone who dared to accuse Clinton of wrong-doing".
Isolated? You can start with Jones. Then follow it with Starr, his staff, Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Monica, the AR Trooper who confirmed Jones' story, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Rutherford Institute, Gingrich, Delay, Hyde, Lott, any other Republican who voted for impeachment or spoke out, Robert Byrd before he retreated back to the party line, and the list goes on.
It would be easier to mention an accuser or critic who wasn't trashed by the White House and the media. I would but I can't think of one. Imagine if a member of Bush's administration had "declared war" on Walsh during Iran-Contra. The media would have gone ballistic. Carville declares war on Starr and the networks fall all over themselves to put him on television.
If you don't see the bias, you aren't looking.
Well that was the plan, J.J. But from Week One it was clear that Clinton wasn't going along with it. Everybody talks about the wagging finger (lord knows it was repeated a zillion times), but the thing I remember most about Clinton is when a reporter asked him whether he was making plans to resign. And with out missing a beat, he barked "Never!"
In fact, that's the ONLY thing about him that I admire.
But he was approved for CIA chief and UN ambassador.
Rick Norwood
www.io.com/~norwoodr
It is dishonest to support one set of rules when it serves your purposes and then condemn those same rules when the tide turns against you. Democrats created those laws to protect their majority in Congress. Now they want to change the laws to give them a better shot at retaking the Congress. All of their rhetoric on the subject is just self-serving political gamesmanship. Their definition of "fair" is any policy which gives them a political advantage.
argument relies upon a faith in the resume value of representing a
district and then a state in Congress over an extended period of time."
And your argument relies on faith in the resume value of being an administrative appointee.
I have seen many senators, and appointees, who were wastes of space. I don't know if I could really say whether one group outnumbered the other in its proportional share of incompetents. Was James Watt more qualified for the Presidency than LBJ? Would Ron Brown have been more qualified than Bob Dole?
As I said, it is a judgment call. Nothing objective about it.
As of Monday, Sept. 25, Texas Gov. George W. Bush has pulled ahead of Vice President Gore and leads by three points, 47% to 44%. Yesterday's Gallup Poll showed Bush up by 1 point.
Gore had as much as a 10-point lead over Bush last week.
You are correct that the nuns weren't required to take vows of poverty.
Nevertheless, how many nuns do you know that had enough disposable income to write $5000 checks for political candidates?
As I understand it, the main legal question revolves around the prohibition against fund-raising on the property of religious organizations, but surely one can question whether Gore honestly thought nuns could be funding this amount out of theri own pocket.
I don't believe they take vows of poverty, but by all accounts they do live in personal poverty. They don't generally have $5000 dollars to contribute to political parties.
I have found one candidate I like. I heard him speak Saturday, on NPR. I don't remember his name, but his party is the Natural Law Party. If Gore keeps messing up, the Natural Law party may get my vote.
Rick Norwood
www.io.com/~norwoodr
I know no nuns of any pursuasion.
Was it in the New Yorker? They had an interesting article on Maria whatshername.
The media provides the forum and the distribution of those attacks.
Natural Law guy is John Hagelin, I believe, a Harvard educated physicist, or something. A little kooky (yogic flying???) but smart fellow.
They also provided the forum and distribution for all of the attacks on Clinton and Gore.
I usually argue that the media's bias is toward equivocation. They just present both sides of the argument rather uncritically, even if one of the sides is completely full of shit.
Here is a prediction. The media will portray Gore as heroically fighting to regain the lead in the polls. He will be battling to get his message to the people. This will be in stark contrast to their coverage of Bush over the last few weeks. Bush has been portrayed in consistently negative terms since the Dem convention. Gore will be portrayed in positive terms even though the situations are the same.
That's Maria what's her name. It was an interesting article. I'm surprised at how little she did. I had envisioned her as dragon lady or something.
Of course we're all anxious to sell all our worthless shit to the Chinese, but nevermind. In the world of RealRepublicanPolitick,they're THE ENEMY. And anyone seen in their presence is OBVIOUSLY A TRAITOR!
Why Al Gore hasn't been put in shackles and thrown into solitary for his OBVIOUS CRIMES is beyond me!
Obviously the notorious WHITE HOUSE SPIN-MACHINE has been working overtime on this one.
Oh, the humanity!
Will the evil Dragon Lady Mary Hisa triumph? Tune in tomorrow for another exciting episode of --
"Dubbya and the Pirates"
But any data which doesn't support your belief in a vast liberal media conspiracy seems to be edited from your mind.
You remind me of those leftist media critics who use the exact same coverage you do to prove that the media is serving the interests of its millionaire corporate masters.
I would be more than happy to take that bet. Gore will be portrayed as having put his foot in his mouth re: drug prices and pandering.
Jack -
Why do people always seem to pick on short basketball players?
I am not sure that I would presume that most Congresspeople/Senators are jackasses. Gore's specific record is pretty good, re: Arms control, technology issues, and the environment.
Wait for it. Give it a week.
There are differences between the substantive charges underlying Starr's and Walsh's investigations.
to attack Walsh the way Carville attacked Starr?"
I would argue that there was a lot more to attack in Walsh's case. All Special Prosecutions are not equal. Starr had a massive "mission creep" problem. When Walsh eventually suffered from some of the same problems, going after George Schultz for some questionable travel expenses, Walsh was also criticized.
" Would they have
invited him back week after week to voice his attacks unchallenged?"
Unchallenged? What planet were you on?
That is a safe bet if there ever was one: that the media favorite will change. And change. And change.
Was Starr merely criticized? Is that how you saw it?
Unchallenged? What planet were you on?
The planet where Carville was never taken to task for declaring war on Ken Starr.
Geez, it's clear to me that I've got to clear out of this thread til after election.
Think about the coverage of Bush over the past few weeks. He was described as fumbling, bumbling, stumbling, struggling, desperate, etc. You won't see similar terms applied to Gore.
Another case in point. CNN reported Gore leading Bush a couple of weeks ago even though Gore's lead was with in the margin of error. Now that Bush is up by 3 in their poll, the headline reads Stalemate Continues.
1. Gore doesn't fumble, bumble, stumble or struggle with language nearly as much as Bush (mammogram aside - he kept calling it sonogram the other day).
2. You will see prevaricating, pandering, lying and shifting applied to Gore. You won't see similar terms applied to Bush. Lies don't play as well in the popular media because they require background information (i.e., some conception of truth).
3. Both of the above critiques are generally only hurled by the announced partisans on opinion pages. The main reporters are more subtle: "Bush, down in the polls because of concerns about his grasp of the issues;" "Gore, down in the polls because of concerns about his truthfulness and leadership..."
But they can't be serious because as we all know the media is run by liberals.
A couple weeks ago, Gore *was* leading Bush by a statistically significant margin. For the past week, he has not, so indeed, "the stalemate continues". If you want to whine that CNN didn't give a headline when Gore's lead dropped from significant to insignificant, give their copy editor a buzz.
M E D I S C A R E -- Bring out The Embalmer! 
re Message # 42981
Sorry, I thought we were just debating China. (For no good reason, except that I was trying to pay some attention to work)
Luckily, I covered the alternative.
I still have a disconbobulation discussing the relative merits of Gore and Bush senior. I went back to find out why, and I even found the answer, but it still seems weird given that they aren't competing against each other.
Cellar nabs a millennial and no one even notices.
C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S
C E L L A R
D O O R
And congrats to Rosetta for nabbing the gorsennial
I will probably vote for Bush, if not for Browne, but there is no man running who really should be elected President. Neither Bush or Gore would be running if it were not for their family background. I do not want to see Gore elected because I am afraid that every thing he says is not a lie. I think he will work hard to make government bigger, to make medicare a drug provider for all seniors, to keep backing the educational system to please the N.E.A and A.F.T. In the 1994 election nominees will go on the Springer show to garner votes.
The media is giving Bush a free pass on policy issues as reported by Krugman in the NY Times?
I used to think that the NY Times was part of the media. When did this change?
And, as I reported earlier, Krugman's pretense that the GoreGaffe was about the distinction between 1/3 and 1/4 is disingenuous.
Did he sell his soul to the NYT? He used to be more objective.
No, we will see prevaricating, pandering, lying and shifting FROM Gore, but it will be rare to see him actually called on it.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the "truth in advertising" laws were applied to political campaigns? I think we would find that the candidates on all sides had a lot less to say.
Time for Li'l Pinocchio to up the ante. Cleaning Tipper's tonsils with his tongue was good for 20 points last time. Maybe if he groped her in front of cameras......?
DaveM
The political gamesmanship, aside, what do you make of Freeh in 1997, LaBella in 1998 and now Conrad in 2000 (the latter two chosen by the Attorney General to look into the matter) all recommending to Reno an independent counsel or a special counsel with regard to Gore?
Bad luck, political hits from closet GOP renegades at Justice, or something to with with the stars?
By the way, anybody want to hazard an over-under on Reno going 3 for 3 on rejecting a recommendation for special counsel with regard to Gore and the 1996 fundraising improprieties?
First Freeh.
Then LaBella (who she charged to give a recommendation).
And now this new cat
______
*I'd say any
I believe the difference between you and me is that you view the above as a strictly democratic phenomenon. I see it as inherent in both parties -- an element of the political process itself.
The eye-popping authenticity and veracity in this Christiane Amanpour speech has made my day:
"All my reporting life I have thrown small pebbles into a very large pond, and have no way of knowing whether any ebble caused the slightest ripple. I don't need to worry
about that. My responsibility was the effort. I belong to a global fellowship, men and women, concerned with the welfare of the planet, and its least protected inhabitants.
I plan to spend the rest of my years applauding that fellowship and cheering from the sidelines...."[Martha Gelhorn]
Plain speakin' for plain folks.
We've been down this road before. And you still haven't learned. I can only asume at this point that your ignorance is willful. Perhaps this snippet will end your mistaken accusations that I have alleged that Reno made a political calculation in refusing to appoint a special prosecutor:
32246. Jack Vincennes - 6/30/00 7:50:47 PM
jones
You're a peach.
You start the discussion by calling Specter a McCarthyite.
You then withdraw the aspersion in ignominy.
Only to return to accuse me of attacking Reno as a partisan when all I have done is suggest that the recommendations of Freeh, LaBella and Conrad make the discussion of an independent counsel/special counsel something less than the antics of David Schine.
You create your own phantoms so as to avoid addressing a reasonable question that need not implicate Ms. Reno's objectivity.
Indded, she may just be stupid or a poor delegator or correct in her assessment or prideful. Hell, she may even be fucking Gore (ick).
You have finally become mired in the muck of your own bombast. The same instinct that allows you to defend Lehane and the smear of McCarthyism leads yo to assume that all other participants in the discussion are as extremist and intellectually-blinkered as you.
Which explains why you and others of the "How could this possibly be questioned?" crowd never deign to answer a question, and how you can alternatively applaud Reno's decision to weigh all the evidence, while simultaneously advocating that the verdict is in, there is no need to prosecute.
Krugman in the NY Times?
I used to think that the NY Times was part of the media. When did
this change?"
By your logic, one Safire column proves that the media never gave Clinton a free ride. One columnist paying attention doesn't mean that the media isn't largely giving Bush a free pass.
"And, as I reported earlier, Krugman's pretense that the GoreGaffe was
about the distinction between 1/3 and 1/4 is disingenuous.
Did he sell his soul to the NYT? He used to be more objective."
I thought Krugman made a valid point. Bush's number fudging is far more egregious in my book, as it relates to a significant difference in policy outcomes, as well as relating to a character issue.
Bush, Gore tied at 42% in Portrait of America tracking poll...
I believe this is Gore's highest placing to date in the POA poll.
In the Florida Senate election this year, will you vote for Democrat Bill Nelson, Republican Bill McCollum, Independent Willie Logan, or Reform party candidate Joel Deckard?
46% Bill Nelson
40% Bill McCollum
2% Willie Logan
2% Joel Deckard
1% Some other candidate
9% Not
Still, it is good news for Gore when Gallup has Bush leading by three. All goes to show how close this thing is today. Still, if the election were held today, I think Gore would win by at least three electoral votes, and probably by thirty, according to the little games I've been playing with the Electoral College Calculator.
For once, the electoral college seems to be favoring Gore, simply because he has, among some of the biggest states, NY, CA, IL, MI, and PA, while Bush only has TX and OH, with FL in play. I think Bush's strong numbers in the polls right now indicate huge leads in most of the south and west, but Gore leads where it really counts, the big electoral prizes. When you add the economic models suggesting a Gore win, it still looks good for Gore.
All this subject to change over the next 40 days or so.
Any news on NY Senate race in terms of how either candidate is doing? There was an article in NY Times today about pressure on Lieberman to give up Senate run --some actually think Dems have a shot at taking over this time and don't want Repub governor to appoint Lieberman replacement.
No doubt this remains a close race. But, no doubt that in terms of who's winning it in the states that count re the electoral race, Gore remains ahead.
Someone wise said recently that the way you can tell who'se winning is to determine where they focus their campaigning the last six weeks or so, and that if you find Gore spending a lot of time in California that means that W. is going to win, but if you see W. spending a lot of time in Florida, it means that he's going to lose.
W. is in the process of getting a terrific Florida suntan.
Glenda - Hillary has been beginning to show some real daylight in numbers over Ricky of late, primarily because of the reactions to his grandstanding and demanding use of the purported one-page soft money ban agreement at their first debate.
He's gained a bit of traction lately because of the drawn out aftermath on the soft money, ending up in an agreement which both she and he now take credit for. It probably will in fact hurt her since a lot of Ricky's money comes in the form of $2000 or less donations from individuals who go bananas when Hillary's name is mentioned.
I certainly envision that the letters I get asking for more money (the computers don't know that I've capped out on Hillary) will increase dramatically.
At any rate, in part because Gore is now seen as ahead of W. here in New York State by about 2 to 1, in part because the get-out-the-vote campaign will be very well organized, and in part because Hillary continues to win over people with her methodical, calm and non-threatening way, she will win. It will be a lot closer than Gore over W, but it won't be by an eyelash either. Hillary by 6.
International Communications Research* poll shows Gore lead of 46% to 40%.
*never heard of 'em...
Hillary still has to worry about undecideds breaking for Lazio at the end of the campaign. Dick Morris has been pushing this notion. It is based on the idea that most of the undecideds go for the challenger and against the incumbent, and he claims that Hillary represents the incumbent, as Gore does nationally.
I think the case that Gore plays the role of the incumbent is a strong one, given that he represents the incumbent party and has served as VP for two terms. I think it is less likely that Hillary serves as an incumbent in voters' minds on a statewide level. So Morris may be off base on this one.
Still, add Gore's massive lead, and I think Hillary will pull it out by two or three points.
Dick Morris, eh. Who in the world still pays that sop for his views?
As for the so-called incumbency factor, what did you think about the Lazio ad that tied Hillary to having been in favor of all sorts of tax increases (about 15 as I recall) - all the way back to when she was ARKANSAS's first lady!!!! Quite a stretch. Some would say that an ad like that bespeaks either desperation or a paucity of ideas or both.
To me the striking thing about the campaign so far is Ricky's absolute failure to develop/create a sense of gravitas. He really has to stop getting photographed eating yet another foot long hot dog or whatever.
The NY Post pays him, which may not surprise you. (But the undecideds did break for Schumer in a big way.)
Not at all. I am just pointing out the rank hypocrisy of the Democrats on the issue. Republicans are going to support laws that give them advantage. I wouldn't expect them to do otherwise. What you didn't see was the GOP when they were in the minority whining at every opportunity about how unfair the funding laws were. Democrats aren't interested in making funding more fair. They are interested regaining their advantage. Everytime they claim otherwise, they are lying.
Not an easy task, given that he is behind in Arizona and Wisconsin, but the others are still rated as tossups by many. (LA should be a slam dunk for the Dems, since even Dukakis carried it, but it's W's neighbor and they may not like all of that Big Oil bashing Gore's been doing.)
A Whitewater Trilogy...Clintonphobes are encouraged to print and save...you know who you are:
Standing by their stories...anti-Clinton propagandists decline well-earned servings of crow...Joe Conason in Salon.
Whitewater ruling shows Clintonphobes wrong from start...Tom Teepen, Cox News service.
Media Abused Their Power on the Whitewater Probe...Robert Scheer, latimes.com.
By your logic, one Safire column proves that the media never gave Clinton a free ride.
You won't catch me arguing that the media gave Clinton a free ride. I think a significant proportion (but less than 100%) think Clinton is a better choice for President than those who ran against him, but visions of a Pulitzer will trump personal idealogy any day.
Solid Bush 121
Lean Bush 89
Solid Gore 52
Lean Gore 161
Toss Up 115
I would say that predictions of W's demise are premature at best.
JJB,
Good line. Hardly apt. But a good line.
Being the sentimental old fool I am, I won't let their heads pop off.
Would you pop over to the Inferno and explain your post to me in Suggestions? I don't want to re-hash it in that thread...thanks!
My guess is also that these voters are not moving firmly into Bush's camp, but rather that they can be enticed back by a good showing by Gore in the debates, and the general good economic times. But the debates also give Bush a good opportunity to make his case.
Regardless of party affiliation, just seeing the totals suggests the strong need for campaign finance reform. This much $$ can only be corrupting...the numbers above are for the first 6 mos of this year.
This also suggests that what you are calling hypocrisy may just be a willingness to admit a mistake and a desire to correct it. Clearly the polls show the people want this thing fixed. The only worry is that the fix will be worse than the problem. I don't see how any politician can walk away from the money or the opportunity to use it as a bludgeon against your opponent as in Lazio/Clinton.
I predict that stuff will be gone entirely by the time the first debate gets under way.
If you boil it all down, though, whatever traction W. gained last week came on stuff like "flip-flopper". I think it still holds true that he can't win on so-called character issues alone. And, HIS solutions to the issues, especially his incredibly wrong-headed tax cut, just aren't sticking.
Hard to believe that anything will happen in the debates that will dramatically change the dynamics of this election, but anything is possible I suppose. (God, I hope that W.'s handlers decide to go the "there you go again" route. W. may try his durnest to emulate Ronny, but Ronny he ain't.)
If your eyes hadn't been covered so tightly for the last 8 years you wouldn't even have to ask.
Here a list I found online. I had forgotten some of them.
1) Used State Police for personal purposes. (2)Directed State Police to fabricate incriminating evidence against political opponents: Steve Clark, Terry Reed, and Larry Nichols. (3) Conspired to defraud the Small Business Administration. (4) Was complicit in the shipment of drugs through Arkansas. (5)Laundered drug money through ADFA. (6) Protected incompetent State Medical Examiner to protect Clinton's Mother (7) Has never accounted for his actions during 40 days behind the Iron Curtain during the Vietnam War. (8) Tipped off Governor Tucker about upcoming criminal referral. (9) Violated Arkansas campaign finance laws. (10) Violated his oath of office to uphold the Constitution by signing into law an ex post facto law, a retroactive tax increase. (11) Fired RTC chief Albert Casey to allow his friend Roger Altman to monitor and block Whitewater investigations. (12) Fired FBI director William Sessions to prevent an autonomous FBI from investigating the Foster suicide and other scandals. (13) Fired all U.S. Attorneys to allow Paula Casey to prevent Judge David Hale from testifying against Clinton. (14) Offered State Troopers federal jobs in return for their silence about Clinton's crimes. (15) Blocked Justice Department indictments after Inspector General Sherman Funk found "criminal violations of the Privacy Act provable beyond reasonable doubt" when former Bush employee files were searched and leaked to the press. (16) Had Whitewater criminal referrals quashed in the Justice Department. (17) Blocked the criminal trial of Representative Ford, a Tennessee Democrat.
My, my. All that. You would think they would nail the bastard for something besides getting his knob polished.
Conason, Teepen and Scheer are journalistic remoras.
Another fine, vivid phrase. But to whom/what is/are they attached?
And you are, following your MO, omitting any evidence. Do keep in mind that after 6 years of investigating, the team of prosecuters couldn't come up with enough evidence to even bother to ask for an indictment against Clinton. You evidently have more faith in the evidence than the Independent Council staff.
The theme seems to be that Clinton is somehow a mastermind at covering up some poorly defined financial crime, while being utterly inept at hiding the evidence of a cover-up.
Considering the threats Democrats make against business, is this really a surprise?
). The totals are closer . . . as the dems make it up with labor and lawyers.
Given the ties between Labor and Organized Crime and the generally disreputable nature of the legal profession, I'll take business every time.
Regardless of party affiliation, just seeing the totals suggests the strong need for campaign finance reform. This much $$ can only be corrupting
The totals suggest no such thing. This is large country with a diverse population. Whether you like it or not, huge amounts of money are necessary for candidates to get their message out. I certainly don't want to depend on the media for fair and accurate information.
Money is not in and of itself corrupting. Just like guns don't kill people, money does not corrupt. What is corrupting the lengths candidates have to go to to acquire the funds they need to run a campaign. We should be making it easier for them to raise money rather than more difficult. The proposals that further restrict fundraising will have the effect of forcing candidates to spend even more time and effort fundraising. This doesn't help democracy.
This also suggests that what you are calling hypocrisy may just be a willingness to admit a mistake and a desire to correct it.
Only if you are incredibly naive.
The question is - has that later date come and gone and we just didn't notice? Gawd, that KGB was subtle.
In 1985 the Whitewater land investment of the Clintons and McDougals was in trouble. The individual lots of the land development were not selling. Jim McDougal approached David Hale of Capital Management Services, Inc. Hale's firm was authorized by the federal Small Business Administration to lend federally guaranteed and subsidized loans to small businesses operated by minorities and the disadvantaged. "McDougal told me he wanted to CLEAN UP some problem loans with our friends in the 'POLITICAL FAMILY'," Hale said.
Just before Christmas, Governor Clinton approached Hale at the steps of the Capitol building. "Are you going to HELP Jim and me out?" Clinton asked according to Hale. The meeting was WITNESSED by Trooper L.D. Brown who in recent weeks confirmed Hale's version to Whitewater investigators.
The next meeting was in February, 1986, where Hale, Clinton and McDougal were present. Hale said he felt pressured into approving an SBA loan for $300,000 to Susan McDougal who was a partner in Whitewater. Susan McDougal, a millionaire, was not legally qualified for an SBA loan. Clinton, Hale and McDougal conspired to DEFRAUD the federal government. The loan was never paid back, and RECORDS show that $110,000 of it found its way into the Whitewater account.
In February of 1994, Skip Rutherford PRESSURED Trooper Brown, who WITNESSED the Christmas meeting between Clinton and Hale, NOT TO COOPERATE WITH Whitewater investigators. After the meeting, Rutherford met with White House officials Bruce Lindsey and Betsey Wright. Knowing that Arkansas is a violent state, Trooper Brown recorded a fully protected disclosure of all the illegalities he witnessed during his service on Clinton's security detail, and started singing to Whitewater investigators.
JJ -- slur all of organized labor. My dad worked in a tire factory for 30 years and was a union steward for some of that time and a union member for all of it. I don't believe that his local was ever labeled, criticized or whispered about organized crime, muchless indicted. The one union that has the longest, biggest ties to organized crime, the Teamsters, also endorsed Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
CNN Tracking Poll 
Interviews with 710 likely voters conducted September 23-25 gave Bush 46 percent of the vote to Gore's 44 percent. As the survey has a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points, the edge is statistically insignificant.
Republican nominee Bush has made significant gains in the past days, while Democrat nominee Gore's share of the vote has not been this low since the bounce he received at the Democratic National Convention. It appears that the race has entered a new and increasingly more competitive phase.
As Susan MacDougall said the other day - real men would have just admitted they couldn't find anything. None of this "insufficient evidence for a jury to blah blah blah blah."
Ludicrous just doesn't do all of this crap justice.
But, witness the above....
My point remains. Given the choice of a party support by business and a party supported by labor and lawyers, I'll take business every time.
Would you? I certainly wouldn't. The testimony would certainly be damaging, but I doubt an impartial jury would find it sufficient to indict the President. Why are you so intent on conflating insufficient evidence with no evidence?
"Why are you so intent on conflating insufficient evidence with no evidence?"
Because of innocent until proven guilty?
wink wink wink, nudge nudge nudge. Big Bill is just a baddy, but for ________________(insert rationale of the moment), we just wouldn't be able to make it stick so we won't try.
$52 million and thats just the upfront money on the Whitewater stuff, folks.
I am not into this at all so I may be using the wrong terminology; so please forgive me in advance. I believe that they are called ham radios - not the CBs for which truckers are famous. I have an acquaintance who does indulge. He told me years ago that the Clinton medical records would never be released as "he has no nasal septum left". He claimed this accusation was used again and again during Clinton's first run for president. It is almost never heard any more.
As a physician, I draw certain conclusions from that. All of you can draw your own conclusion.
There is something called "Avoyelles Parish Rumnor" in my locality. This ort of information definitely falls into that category. Not substantiated rumor.
No more so than the voices who keep insisting there is no evidence rather than insufficient evidence.
Would that be enough of a mea culpa for you?
A simple admission of guilt would be plenty. I would be happy if some of Clinton's loyal followers would just concede there really was some evidence of guilt worth investigating. Or an acknowledgement that it was Clinton's behavior that caused these scandals rather than some mythical Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Unfortunately that just doesn't seem possible.
That applies to the courts, not to you. You are free to look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions. However, looking at the evidence and pretending it doesn't exist just makes you look silly.
I admire your tenacity. You stay cool, continue to make your case with reports the Liberals and media know about, and even if you could produce a swarn statement by Clinton himself that he has doen every thing he has been accused of, folks like janjon would say, "You know what a liar Clinton is, don't you? You don't expect us to take his word, do you?"
They scoff at the idea that the Clinton's are complicit in Foster's death. The fact that he killed himself after meeting with his attorneys raises questions in my mind. Did he ask his lawyers if he would have to be completly honest if asked questions about the Clinton's activities? Did he, like a good servent, fall on his sword? We will never know, because his lawyers will not, and should not, tell us what his concerns were. But Clinton's defenders do not bother their minds about any accusations. For them, it is as Hillary said, a VRWC
It happens all the time. There was a child abuse case a few years ago where the prosecutor had a medical report stating the children had been abused, pictures of children with bruises and the testimony of the oldest child. It should have been a slam dunk. The prosecutor declined to prosecute because he had already lost two cases and was afraid he would lose this one.
If you want to assume that the failure of a prosecutor to prosecute is the equivalent of having no evidence, you are only fooling yourself.
.
A simple admission of guilt would be plenty.
Guilt to what, specifically, beyond unauthorized canoodling?
What do I know:
He lied in the Paula Jones deposition. The judge has held hin in contempt and the Arkansas Bar has recommended his disbarment.
In his testimony, he played footsie with the grand jury, but he seems to be slick enough to not have broken the law.
There are grounds that he tampered with Bettie Curie, but again, even the prosecutor couldn't "prove" that.
The US Senate held an impeachment trial and not a majority voted to convict.
Worst of all, he lied to the American people about his affair. Not a nice guy.
Balance that against the constant attacks, slander and lies against him, the investigations that most elected prosecutors would not have done, the well financed dirt diggers -- and I find myself thinking we've lost our ability to have a political conversation.
I provided a list earlier. Take your pick.
To you, in your mind, it's settled. They killed Vince and hid the truth. No compelling evidence. Two investigations said so. But then we're off on a flight of fantasy land.
Mission Accomplished. Right J.J.?
No fact bothers Clinton supporters. I don't know wheather to laugh or cry and the likes of janjon and jexster. Nonetheless, there is something about Clinton I admire: he has a fantastic personality and ability to turn on the charm, he is one of the best politicians I have ever seen, and I've been around as long as anyone on the Mote. I do believe at heart he is an evil man. But he is soon gone, so as I said once before, it is good riddance to bad rubbish.
Not worth the effort.
It takes my breath away, too. I have a hard time accepting that there is so much smoke from so many sources and there absolutely no fire.
No one person can do all the things that he is accused of doing -- and there not be enough evidence to convict in court.
Nixon would have walked without the tapes. The mere existence of organized crime suggests that with careful planning and strong loyalty, a person in a position of authority can get away with almost anything, even murder.
There are grounds that he tampered with Bettie Curie, but again, even the prosecutor couldn't "prove" that.
Without Curie's cooperation, how could he prove it? There were no witnesses and no physical evidence. What else could a prosecutor do?
Balance that against the constant attacks, slander and lies against him, the investigations that most elected prosecutors would not have done, the well financed dirt diggers -- and I find myself thinking we've lost our ability to have a political conversation.
We lost that ability 20 years ago when Democrats set out to destroy Reagan.
You misunderstand. No, they didn't kill Vince. They may have contributed to his suicide, but that is irrelevant.
There was evidence of something in Foster's office, or at least they believed there was evidence. Whether it was Whitewater or something else, I have no idea. I just get suspicious when a person's first reaction after hearing of a dear friend's suicide is to ransack his office and remove files. That tells me that there is something seriously wrong.
I'll be back later to see if your up for it.
Substantive responses to those ridiculous lists you spewed forth? to those wispy theories and that so-called "evidence" or "facts"?
A waste of my time. Especially since I really don't think it is any type of game with you - you really believe it. Now, THAT I find incredible.
"You can start with Jones. Then follow it with Starr, his staff, Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Monica, the AR Trooper who confirmed Jones' story, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Rutherford Institute, Gingrich, Delay, Hyde, Lott, any other Republican who voted for impeachment or spoke out, Robert Byrd before he retreated back to the party line, and the list goes on."
How sad that such an intelligent man as the President involved himself with this gallery of sub-standard, below-par, unpalatable characters, as these persons? How could the women go on national TV and talk about their sex lives with the President? The men are no better: Starr, Delay, Lott, Hyde, Gingrich, some of them having had the gall of wanting to shut the government, ugh!. JJ, you are such a nice man. How can you defend such persons.?
Well then JJ, maybe you can answer the question: What is it exactly that Clinton is supposed to have done, and what is the evidence for it?
Well, I'm not Biener, but I'll hazard an answer. A very conscientious Democrat, David Schippers, has written a book about Clowntoonian wrongdoing. Methinks Raskolnikov needs to read the book and take it seriously or he will be in the same blinkered position as the US Lefties of the 30's and 40's who thought Stalin was a secular deity, so to speak.
Apeaking of 'subpar', the WH Rapist is the nadir of trashiness himself. A relatively brainy scumbag, but what is that worth?
What stands out is the sheer gross disingenuousness of the most bootlicking of Clowntoon defenders. They would normally reject slime like him instantly but, for them, political considerations win over ethics, truth and justice every time.
Are you serious or are you being ironic? If you are serious, do you admire people who look you in the eye and lie? Clinton's first lie I am awaure of concerns the Flowers accusation. And the press bought it and dragged red herrings all over the trail: the tapes were doctored, she sold her story to a scandal rag. 60 Minutes provided the Clinton's the platform to make the story go away. The point being that Clinton, while super slick, has no moral center. The fact that his defenders do not really seem to care astounds me. History will judge the man, and I do not think it will do so kindly. The fact that he has popular support is more troubleing that comforting. but really no surprise. O.J. is mobbed for autographs wherever he goes.
Mental lightweights.
Draft dodger, went AWOL from Texas Nat. Guard when they started drug testing. Whatever happened to "character counts"? Just applies to Democrats, I guess.
Refuses to disclose drug use before age 40. Can you imagine what a field day the "liberal" media would have if Gore dared to say that? I for one don't want a president who might have an alcohol/drug problem. Again, what happened to "character counts"?
Failed oil businessman, bailed out by his daddy's rich friends.
No political experience -- one-term governor of Texas, a do-nothing job that is the fifth most powerful office in TX after the Lt. Governor, Speaker of the Texas House, Comptroller, and one other I forget. (Result of civil war, believe it or not.) Is on the record (Talk Magazine) as saying he doesn't like policy meetings or reading about legislation.
In general comes across as a smirking frat-boy lightweight.
I don't give a damn about the man's politics, he's unfit to hold the most powerful office in the free world. If he was the Democratic candidate, I'd be voting for Ralph Nader.
I don't see much real debate here, I think because a debate needs two sides. And there is no Republican side.
Woof.
Personally, I'd prefer that you just keep all of your crooks, rapists, liars, impeached losers, pornographers, sanctimous hypocrites, slimeballers, race baiters, religious baiters, cheap shot artists and Leftists idiots off my back.
That's not what America is about. But it is what today's Democrats are about.
Deal?
Besides, I don't think that most people in the country vote based on whether or not they think the guy is a lightweight.
Or a hypocrite, of course.
Well. Of course. And you're so moderate, too.
Phydeau,
I think he chose a veep who would pretty much run the country while he went out gladhanding the stockholders. It's what worked for him in Texas. Given that he did choose such a person, I don't think the country's in any terrible position should he win. Besides, I don't think he's incapable of running the country. Frankly, almost anyone with the ambition and ability to get the party nomination is basically qualified, whether I'd like what they do or not.
Well, I'll never have to face telling my grandchildren why I supported the impeached WH Rapist.
You are for sure not new here or you would not know I was a freeper (haven't been over there for a long time). From what of my posts do you get the idea I hate Clinton? That's just Liberal crap. Your mind seems to operate on a very shallow level: to notice a character flaw is hate. I love all my fellow man, even you, even though you may be a retarded Liberal. Everybody has to be something.
As far as pleasantly vapid figurehead--assuming it's true, so what? We lived through Reagan.
I disagree about his ambition and ability. I think he does have both. His main problem is that he's not particularly good when things start going wrong--he loses focus. And that's probably the character trait I'm most leary of.
There is no shame in being half right.
First, and most importantly
WELCOME
But ither I don't know what a freeper is, or you haven't been reading very much.
Concerned? Sure
JJ? Today he is on a rant (well-deserved, I might add), but most days he is pretty even-keeled.
Jack V? Surely you jest. Sure, he has a visceral hatred for Gore, but beyond that, freeper? No way. For a start, he can write. That alone should disqualify him.
Al D? I'll let him make the call. yes, his opinions are well away from center, but he doesn't have the pit bull mentality I had thought freepers required.
Yes, but you did live through him. And it's really rather difficult to fuss over corruption, given that we just had 8 years of Clinton.
I think both Reagan and Clinton demonstrate that corruption and effective government aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Al D, I'm glad to give you the opportunity to demonstrate your command of witty repartee...
I love you too, man!
How deep in the scum can the Left lower the bar?
Such a person does not exist in US national politics.
Well, that's a matter of priorities. But I think it's fair to say that they both had quite a few special/independent prosecutors, both had quite a few people leave their cabinet under questionable circumstances, and it's quite probable that a few people might not have told all the truth under oath.
I frankly don't think Iran/Contra was all that big a deal. Reagan certainly sold his staff down the river, but that's how it goes.
Concerned -
The problem with Reagan is that he acted as though he had a popular mandate for his ideological program when there simply wasn't one. The fundamentalist worldview (political - not religious) he foisted upon the republican party has created the divisive political atmosphere that pervades the country at the moment. Of course, Democrats can be blamed for not acquiescing, but that seems a stretch.
I don't know, whaddaya think? I read somewhere that Las Vegas already has odds on whether he'll die before the election.
Remember, this is the party that sabotaged the Paris Peace talks in 1968, leading to the deaths of who knows how many more people by extending the Vietnam war. What's the death of an altzheimer-ridden ex-president compared to that???
Wrong. I feel that public officials need to observe certain standards of ethicality and legality. Too many in the Left are in 'anything goes' self delusionary rut. These mentally vacuous types like propaganda, sloganeering and being manipulated by Big Brother.
Oh, be silly. In the first place, fundamentalist is inaccurate. He can't be a fundamentalist. At best you mean evangelical, and what you really mean is that the Republicans picked up the conservative Christians and embraced them with open arms. There was no foisting. Besides, much of America agreed with milder versions of their goals, unfortunately, and didn't mind these goals nearly as much as they disliked the Democrats vision for the country.
Fortunately, starting in 1994, they actually got the opportunity to start to try to implement these goals, and that's when the majority of America said "Uh, no thanks". And here we are.
But the notion that Reagan just launched this agenda on us poor unwilling helpless souls is a total non-starter.
Wrongo. Clowntoon/Bore did the 'oil price thing' with their stupid petroleum reserve stunt. Or do you think they are Republicans?
Um, no, "they" didn't. Clinton did.
Democrats are members of the War Party. The Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Kosovo were all started or entered into by Democrat administrations. And Republicans have, more than once, had to get us out of these messes that Democrats got us into.
Make no mistake. Democrats, through stupidity, duplicity and weakness have indelibly cast themselves as the War Party.
You always were a poor loser.
Substantive responses to those ridiculous lists you spewed forth? to those wispy theories and that so-called "evidence" or "facts"?
You mean like the eyewitness testimony?
Especially since I really don't think it is any type of game with you - you really believe it. Now, THAT I find incredible.
I find your position equally incredible. If you don't want to respond to me, that is entirely up to you.
1. Apparently you missed the (political-not religious) paranthetical in my above quote. I wasn't talking about religion in the slightest.
2. Usually there is a lot of agreement between "competing" ideologies in presidential elections - this year is a good example. Reagan-Carter was characterized by vast, and fundamentally imcompatible visions of what constituted appropriate government action. Reagan was fundamentalist because of his supporter's dogmatic attraction to a fictionalized early era -the "founding." Carter's was institutionalist - he was glorified the New Deal.
3. The legacy of that brief political mess was increasingly vitriolic discourse - more ad homs than usual. This sort of situation arise periodically, usually preceding an actual major ideological shift. The jury is still out on whether Reagan will, or has, produced one (Mao, when asked what he thought about the French Revolution, responded: "it's to early to tell.").
I am being serious and ironic, both, but I will tell you this: I will never understand the persons who paraded their President's indiscretions for all the world to see. I wouldn't want to know persons who are judgemental of other people's foibles but not of their own, persons who are always brandishing their religion and their love of the truth in our faces.
Concerned,
As for historians, they will wonder why we were so cruel and unthinking toward Chelsea and her fellow Americans, why we subjected them to a tawdry rendition on TV and on the Internet of the President's affair with Monica. By comparison with these kinds of people, Clinton will come out better.
Phydeau, Nice name!
Welcome!
Thank you for the compliment, and right back atcha. How can I defend them? Whatever their sins may or may not be, only the lowest order of mankind would try to defend himself by destroying anyone who speaks against him. Cinton was acting more like a mafia don than a President. The scorched earth, win-at-any-cost mentality has no place in the highest office in the land.
So what? Bush and Cheney weren't marinated in crude like Alphalfa Bore. And didn't Bore brag about all the cancer sticks he raised?
What a leftist icon! Absolute hypocrisy.
That brings up the metaphysical question of whether today's Leftists will ever be able to understand themselves. You know, the tens of millions of droolers who spent years sticking their heads in Clarence Thomas's shorts.
JJ, from Clinton's perspective, the Republicans were doing this exact thing to him. He fought fire with fire. Both are wrong, but you always seem blinded by your elephant-colored classes.
That I no longer consider the USA the "greatest country of the world" and have succeeded in getting 1 or my 3 kids out of the country; a batting average of .333.
Might as well let phydeau know how crazy I am right away.
Gee! I didn't know that Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and Monica were Republicans. What a friggin' MAN the WH Rapist is -- he used the full power of the White House (or was about to) to destroy these eee-vile women who were erstwhile supporters. And we all know that this type of Clowntoonian exercise of power is something our National Socialists really can support.
The result? The government is almost totally in the pocket of the big business interests. The litany of Texas "worsts" has already been aired in many places. Bottom line: it's great to be a businessman in Texas, not so great to be a working person.
BTW, As for your suggestion that I am a freeper, you aren't even close. I've never been there. However, if you feel more comfortable placing people in neat, convenient, little boxes, knock yourself out.
With all the nice things you have say about them, I am sure they miss you terribly.
BTW, JJ, are you voting for the veteran or the draft-dodger this year?
Why? What could possibly instill this much hatred in someone?
Now, why do you believe this?
Fido
If you are new to the Mote, welcome, and please don't be put off by my rants. The Mote needs a strong Liberal new voice. Most Moties are RW zealots, with little or no sense.
BTW, JJ, are you voting for the veteran or the draft-dodger this year?
I think you are being too hard on Gore. While being the son of a Senator kept him out of harm's way, I would not go so far as to call Gore a draft-dodger.
Soon I will posting on the Bildiburgers. (sp.)?
Surely you can do better than that. Big business? You aren't so naive to believe that business is some monolithic evil out to control the government, are you?
Clinton had a record in Arkansas. He ran that state as his personal feifdom. Clinton was eminently corruptible and as such was no threat to business. This doesn't explain the virulent hatred Democrats claim is the cause of all Clinton's problems.
Try again.
Be man enough (woman enough?) to answer straight.
Are you serious? How many people did you get to know and know well? Do you feel you knew enough to make generlization about "Texans"? I spend my summers in Ilwaco, Wa. and everybody I know there is real good people, generous, friendly, kind. 'Corse the town has only 1000 residents, but I'm sure the whole State is like that.
Any Lefty would say: "Of course it is! Except for Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, that is."
I admit to at least sounding 'wild-eyed' at times. What it really is is that I'm serving up Lefty attitude right back atcha Socialists, but with quite a lot more truthfulness and wit.
I don't want to be disrespectful but did it ever occur to you that Cal's brand of irony may just be...just...how can I say that?...well, it is kind of...here it goes: not of your time, not of your frame of reference, if you see what I mean?
Not good to be half with this one.
For the record, I am voting for Bush. I would explain why, but from your previous posts on the subject it is obvious that your view of reality is completely distorted.
I am assuming that since you quote Democratic talking points verbatim, you are voting for Gore. You really should try to broaden your horizons.
Also, since you seem so intent on knowing, I am male.
You were serious? I apologize. Please explain how Big Biz is to blame for all of Clinton problems. This should be fascinating.
I just adore it when some one starts out, "I don't mean to be disrectful but" or "Please don't take this personally." While I certainly don't mean to be disrespecful, get a grip on yourself. I was just spoofing CalGal, and she has the sense to see that. But I admire your comming to her defense. She needs defenders, as she can not do it herself. You must have noticed that.
Why do you often call Gore 'Li'l? He is taller than Bush. Next to Gore, Bush will seem puny. I am sure that Bush's handlers will see that both men will not stand together.
I thought they were both listed at 6' even and 190-200lb. Maybe Alphalfa's planed off head makes him look taller.
None of the Bushes are short. President Bush, I think, is 6'4". I had a chance to meet him in Houston. He has a way of standing so that he does not tower over one. I am not short either. I am 5'9" almost.
ROTFALMAO!!!!
See, this is what I mean -- I thought you were serious, and here you are wondering why serving in the Texas National Guard during the Vietname war instead of going to Vietnam could be considered draft dodging. Either you're stupid, or you're dissembling. I don't think you're stupid.
And yes, Clinton dodged the draft most adeptly, as did the Republican chick hawks... Cheney, Quayle (hint: Indiana National Guard), Safire, Limbaugh, the list goes on and on...
Gore is taller than Bush, no doubt about that. He is almost as tall as Clinton. He is stocky next to Bush but definitely taller. I know that for certain. 43126. concerned - 9/27/00 1:43:23 AM
"I'm a political centrist, of course. . ." 
Welcome phydeau. I see you've learned to be patient with the piffle-minded around here very quickly -- good for you!
The bull has left the arena, but you still feint and swirls admist the bullshit.
Please enlighten us on how the Democrats started the Civil War, World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam.
As to being a "centrist:" just because you get into the occasional fight with fellow freepers over Pat Buchanan's politics doesn't make you a centrist (how do they feel about him choosing a black woman for his running mate, by the way?)
Phydeau:
"Concerned" is the only real raving Clinton foamer left.
I'd suggest you go back and read the exchange. My position is now what is was then. I don't know why Reno did not appoint an IC/SP with regard to the Gore allegations, but I thought it laughable that when 4 Justice officials recommended appointment, and Reno did not, that such a recommendation could still be considered by some to be unjustifiable (of course, for some, like Joe Conason, the mere fact that one of the recommenders - Mr. Conrad - made a political contribution to Senator Helms was all the evidence of bias they needed to smear a justice official lauded by Ms. Reno upon appointment). I also laid odds she would not change her mind after three previous like decisions. And, naturally, I was correct. You probably didn't get that, since, at the time, you were regaling us with your "Specter is a McCarthyite" mantra.
Simply put, your political worldview disallows nuance. One is an enemy or a friend. If one questions Reno, as I did, it must be political. When, in fact, she can be criticized on the merits of a particular decision (though this requires actually thinking about the issue instead of reflexively manning the battlements).
Indeed, I've asked you to provide your criticisms of Reno's appointment of an IC in the Travelgate, Whitewater, and Filegate matters. I even provided you the statutory standard as an aid. As I've said before, attacking Reno for "partisanship" in the non-appointment of an IC/SP for Gore is akin to those who support the President attacking Judge Wright for her sanctions order - they conveniently forget that Judge Wright granted the President summary judgment (of course, you think the case should have been kicked on a motion to dismiss because . . . well, because you do). Or attacking Judge Norma Holloway Johnson for directing certain cases to Clinton appointees, when, in fact, she sided with Starr on every evidentiary motion made before her during the Lewinsky investigation.
Obviously they spend to gain access and influence. They are also sophisticated and know which legislators can be pushed and how far on a particular issue. No legislator wants to commit political suicide unless he/she is not going to stand for reelection. The win/win for legislators is to have the interest groups build 'support' through public relations so that the legislator can claim 'popular sentiment' as a fig leaf for his corrupt decision. What is truly lost is not popular will (since that can be manipulated), but national good.
Every knows Joe Kennedy fired the first shot at Sumter, you hack.
And me thinking it was Honey Fitz all that time. Mea Culpa.
Why do you think that all these groups are willing to shell out so much money to politicians and political parties? Do you think they are all strictly altruists?... They want to be able to influence the outcome of legislation which will affect them monetarily either favorably or unfavorably.
Absolutely.
I hope you will repeat this whenever someone starts moaning about wanting campaign finance reform. As long as politicians can write laws with the impact of billions, groups will view the spending of mere millions as chump change, and will not let anyone stop it.
Gore Staffer Suspended
W A S H I N G T O N, Sept. 24 — Al Gore’s presidential campaign Saturday suspended a staffer after he boasted about knowing of a mole in the rival Bush camp.
The suspension of 28-year-old Michael Doyne, assistant to the Democratic candidate’s field director, came after questions were raised about his response to inquiries from ABC News.
A source said that in late August Doyne claimed there was a mole in the Bush campaign who “knew where Bush was going before Bush knew.”
Two weeks later, Doyne cautioned the source to be “hush-hush” about the mole issue.
and
Spy Game?
W A S H I N G T O N, Sept. 25 — Vice President Al Gore denies he is receiving sensitive information from a mole in his Republican rival’s presidential campaign.
Seeking to end a growing controversy, Gore’s aides suspended a campaign staffer this weekend after he bragged about knowing of a secret operative in the camp of Republican candidate George W. Bush.
Michael Doyne, 28-year-old assistant to Gore’s field director, was suspended with pay after questions were raised about his response to inquiries from ABCNEWS.
A source told ABCNEWS that in late August, Doyne claimed there was a mole in the Texas governor’s campaign who “knew where Bush was going before Bush knew.”
Two weeks later, Doyne cautioned the source to be “hush-hush” about the mole issue.
hmmmmm - something is stinky. even if it's found that there was a mole and Gore knew "nothing", i think that's all Bush needs to win. this is just too Clinton-esque to ignore.
Unfortunately for Bush, one of his advisors has a long history of shady activities of the ilk mentioned in the latter article. Hopefully both sides will play it straight and let the FBI sort it out.
I think that there's talk of a mole in every campaign --at least everyone that I've ever participated in. I don't think it's really a story.
And even assuming that it were true (which I doubt), the Bush campaign presumably hired the person.
As for the rest, I now understand. Your post to Eric really didn't have a point at all. It was just nuanced observation of obvious fact.
which advisor? even if that's so, how relevant is that?
Bubb:
not every campaign has some evidence of the possibility in such a public manner (the mailing of the tape), so i'm not sure history is reliable here. and, yeah, they hired the mole, but i seriously doubt that would sway public opinion. mainly, because this is exactly what Gore needs least - a way for Bush to re-link Gore to Clinton style slime.
Today's Washington Post has a long article on the "mole." It spends a good part of its time on Karl Rove's alleged activities to assist his candidates through various shady activities.
There is always the possibility of a "set-up." Plus it took a trusted Gore advisor (Tom Downey) out of the debate preparations.
I don't recall when the Reagan campaign revealed that they had access to briefing materials. I don't know what federal law would have been violated by either using the materials or not.
well, possible, but sounds a little far fetched to me
J@L:
as i understand it, laws probably weren't broken as the facts today show. i don't think the public will be all that concerned about the law, however, just how all this will look
The guy who was Reagan's from OMB director, former congressman and Daniel Monihan family babysitter at Harvard, prematurely gray, got taken to the wood shed by Reagan, admitted it at some point. I can't remember his name -- David Stockwell or something like that.
He got "taken to the woodshed" for publicizing his discovery that Reagan's tax cut plan without the draconian and politically unpalatable cuts that Stockman proposed would not add up. Duh.
(temp. link)
Putting it another way, if you want more of Scalia and Thomas go W., if you prefer it to be more Ginsberg and Breyer, go for you know who.
A no-brainer, again in my humble opinion.
Check out Mark McKinnon and Karl Rove and their actions in the Governors race in Texas between Mark White and his opponenet. They were on different sides of the fence back then; both were investigated by the FBI for the same sort of dirty tricks; and now BOTH are working together for GW...no, I guess it doesn't sound fishy at all, does it? Just the merest coincidence that both have been tarred with this sort of stuff before and both are working together now.....strange bedfellows.
And the fact that the person in Gores camp who received the tape immediately called the FBI just screams "bad on Gore"? Politics is indeed strange.
Portrait of America Presidential Tracking Poll
"On Wednesday morning, George W. Bush has a 2-point lead over Al Gore in the race for the White House. Polling conducted on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday night find the Republican attracting 44% of the vote and his Democratic opponent with 42% support from likely voters. Over the last couple of weeks, Portrait of America Tracking Polls conducted by Rasmussen Research have consistently found a very close race with a modest edge for Bush. During that period, Bush's biggest lead was three points (September 18 and 19) and his worst day was a dead heat (September 25)."
Putting it another way, if you want more of Scalia and Thomas go W., if you prefer it to be more Ginsberg and Breyer, go for you know who.
A no-brainer, again in my humble opinion.
Hey, this doesn't happen often enough, but you said something I agree with.
"For all we know, Lee may have bargained his release with his bosses just by restitution and also by giving the names of those who saw the material (if that was the case, of course). We will never know exactly what really happened."
Maybe I wasn't so wrong after all.
Who Was Watching The Store?
Hillary at 50% in New York Senate Race
NEW YORK (Reuters) - First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton has the support of 50 percent of likely New York voters for the first time in her U.S. Senate race against Republican congressman Rick Lazio, according to a poll released on Wednesday.
The Quinnipiac University poll found that Democrat Clinton, whose poll numbers have hovered in the mid-40s for most of the past year, held a 50 percent to 43 percent lead over Rep. Lazio, who is from suburban Long Island.
"Mrs. Clinton went from 49 percent in the last Quinnipiac poll (September 12) to the magic 50 percent mark today," Maurice Carroll, director of the Hamden, Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said in a statement. "Now she must hold on to that 50 percent for six more weeks."
The institute polled 899 likely New York State voters Sept. 20 to Sept. 25 to ask them who they would vote for Nov. 7 in one of the most closely watched and expensive campaigns in years. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.3 percent.
McKinnon is in no-man's land. The Dems no longer trust him, and I assume there are a few Repubs that don't trust him, either. If Bush wins, he'll do fine, but if not, I assume he'll have to sit out a few elections before he returns.
Of course, Dick Morris did both sides with the ease of, say, hiring a hooker and bringing her to the Jefferson Hotel. But McKinnon is no Morris.
AUSTIN (AP) - A worker for George W. Bush's media consultant who was the focus of an FBI inquiry said Tuesday that a package she was videotaped mailing last week contained a pair of Gap pants, not debate preparation materials from the Bush campaign...
Ricky, on the other hand, almost never mentions his national ticket. (He would, however, graft John McCain to his side if he could).
Hillary's steady steady steady way is beginning to erode some of that massive "unfavorable" number she's consistently carried here since announcing she was running.
That is not to say there aren't quid pro quos. There is a provision in the tax law (or there was, it may be gone now) that granted a tax credit for donating a specific set of prints to the National Gallery. It is there because a prominent contributor had donated those prints and wanted a tax credit for it.
Rick Norwood
www.io.com/~norwoodr
You're probably right -- 30% is low if you consider all the joint resolutions.
The "Warren Court" would not have been possible without John Marshall.
I want a return to the days when our elected representatives legislate. I don't want legislation decided by 9 lawyers wearing high school graduation gowns.
Rick Norwood
www.io.com/~norwoodr
Hell, the republic was 12 years old when the actions that led to Marbury v. Madison took place. Why not hearken back to the good ol' days of the Articles of Confederation?
And you could put your children to death if you wanted. Sounds great! Ironic, that in Rome the hereditary aristocracy were the democrats (very loosely defined) and that monarchs (actual and potential) were associated with the great unwashed.
Your on!
The amount of taxes that I would send to Washington D.C. would be insignificant under the Articles of Confederation. Not the horrendous amount that I am forced to send them each year under the present, rotten system we have in DC.
Of course, you would probably be a citizen of lower Canada by now. Or upper Mexico or Haiti.
". . .I don't want legislation decided by 9 lawyers wearing high school graduation gowns."
...and make up! 
But, all of you know that I have no use for democracy.
A return to the days of the Republic is needed. Of course, none of us will live long enough to see that day.
Which Republic? The Roman one?
Seems to me that we have been through this before. Canada taking over? I don't think so! Their population is mostly on our northern border as the rest of the country is tundra.
And Mexico? Or Haiti? My daughter lives in Monterrey. She says that when someone describes Mexico at the country of manana, they are giving an accurate description. And much of that country is desert.
I don't think those two countries would have been of any danger to the USA and Manifest Destiny.
And, when the water runs out or has to be apportioned into even teenier little spigots, much of California will return to its natural state as well.
Can't wait.
I came home for a sandwich.
I am back to the office to work. Will be back later.
Rick Norwood
www.io.com/~norwoodr
If the US had remained under the Articles of Confederation, it would have most likely disintegrated, with the New England and mid-Atlantic states seceding and either reestablishing ties with Britain, or existing as a British puppet state. Florida would have remained Spanish or become English, and the Louisiana territories would have remained Spanish or become French. You would be left with a rump Republic utterly dependent on slavery, with no maritime, merchantile, or industrial development. What are now Ohio and Indiana would be under British domination.
So let that be a lesson to you -- if you want to cut a tax, be sure to cut a tax that your level of government actually levies. In this case, the gov. "cut" a tax that was levied by local governments and he replaced the lost revenues through the state general fund. Will he have to increase state taxes to pay for tax cut? Stay tuned.
(I still have hopes of seeing Trent Lott have to move out of his Majority Leader digs.)
Just more of that Republican credit card spending.
An addendum to yesterday's assigned reading on Whitewater (Message # 43055)...At last, Whitewater delusion is over...Gene Lyons, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette columnist and author, in 1966, of the prescient Fools for Scandal: How the Media Invented Whitewater
Did I do this?
Again?
"Skinner, a white-haired 79-year-old retiree, came to the Gore event at the invitation of the United Auto Workers, which represented her when she worked at an Amoco plant until her 1986 retirement. She got up to announce that, because her Social Security and pension weren't enough to cover her expenses, she had to walk the streets collecting cans to make ends meet. Skinner said her $800 monthly income wasn't enough to live on after prescription bills of $230 to $250 a month for heart problems, blood pressure and her nerves. "I walk an hour and a half, two hours, sometimes three hours and pick up cans," she said. "That's what puts food on my table. . .. I'm a proud person. I don't ask for a handout." For Gore, it was like an early Christmas present, proving his theme du jour: That the lack of prescription-drug coverage under Medicare was a major problem for the elderly, and that Gore's prescription-drug plan is much, much better than Bush's plan. That's just the point, Gore said. "We've got to avoid making these income programs like welfare," he said. "This is what Medicare and Social Security are supposed to be like." Gore asked the woman how much she earned from the cans. "You're not gonna tell the government, are ya?" the woman asked. The audience of 200 roared, and Gore replied, "I withdraw that question." Skinner told the crowd about how a pickup driver once shouted at her to "get a life," but, she said, "If it weren't for these cans, I wouldn't have a life."
Gore went over and hugged her. "I think you've got a wonderful life." Reporters crowded around and the audience gave her a standing ovation. "Bless your heart," Gore said. Later, when the woman raised a hand to say something else, Gore told her: "You can say anything you want." He turned her toward the cameras and gave her a kiss on the head."
to me, that's just gov't in action
those cans have got to get picked up somehow
Hug them, kiss them on the head, and if you are dealing with a bassett hound, give it a good scratch behind the ears.
rubberducky,
...the margins went off and I feared it was associated with my Message # 43273.
no, it was because of WoW's pic which, if you have it set at 20 posts per page, is not a problem any longer.
Retch.
You are saying that Republicans don't descend to this sort of garbage? Or is it merely your discomfort with the great unwashed and their fondness for Oprah and Sally Jesse, as manifested by their happiness with the can lady?
I remember that Dickie Flatt story. He used it at a convention.
Indigestion.
But barf-inducing if in fact, as Dickie told his tale of woe, Gramm hugged him and then kissed him on the forehead.
I'm saying what I said and no more.
Barf.
Good ol' Phil. Since the economy during the Clinton-Gore admin has performed almost exactly opposite of his dire predictions, the distinguished professor of economics seems to be hiding in the weeds.
Or, as someone suggested on the radio yesterday, was Gore hurt by the ending of the Clinton investigations? A brief revival of Clinton fatigue casting doubts about Gore's character, that Gore will recover from next week? Or is the country seriously wondering whether it wants all the government the Democrats are promising?
Just asking.
So it was the kiss that made it barfworthy, or the story?
Another keeper:
HOW WHITEWATER STARTED: A Political Witchhunt the Media Misunderstood...Mollie Dickenson in tompaine.com
Students of the genre should see Message # 43005 and Message # 43273.
BTW, did you read about Gore's comments on MTV last night (re: gay marriage/union)?
Yes. Gore is my second choice, now, after Browne.
(Don't worry about my not voting for Gore; if he doesn't take my state he doesn't take any.)
As I read it I just thought at how we continue to move in the right direction, and such comments by a presidential candidate are another one of those small steps leading to the day when we will be treated like everyone else.
It is time that people begin to realize that there truly are significant differences between the two and that their respective Presidencies indeed would affect many distinct constituencies quite differently.
That said, national reporters in the past have often ignored gay related questions.
I am glad that kid asked Gore.
This somehow takes me to make a comment on Gore's so-called pandering.
Rubbish. In the final analysis, what people call pandering is indeed his Populism at work. He does believe that government has a positive role to play and that means new and improved programs.
But, he's also taking strong and unequivocal positions on issues where he obviously does run the risk of losing some of the so-called undecideds who may have strong views on particular issues, such as gay marriage/civil unions, affirmative action, racial profiling and the old biggies - abortion and gun control.
Pandering? Rubbish.
Gore's problem is that almost any pronouncement from his comes across as insincere or as if he's a smarty pants. He managed to reign that in at the DNC in LA.
The sad, sad state of the Democratic Party in Texas...
Dems have only 3 statewide candidates...Repubs, 9...Libertarians, 7...Greens, 4.
With people like Madison; Hamilton; Washington; etc. around I beleive a stronger central government - as was indeed formerd - was inevitable. I just liked the idea of paying taxes under the Article of Confederation.
The beauty of a Republic is that you have choice. If you liked cold weather; 'fire and brimstone' religion; and lots of government, Mass. would have been a good choice. Mass. had about as much government as any area of the USA in the late 1700s. If one liked warmer weather;
With men like Madison; Hamilton; Washington; etc. around, I believe that we would have ended up with what we got. I was mainly interested in what taxes I would have had to pay to the tax man of the Articles of Confederation.
The beauty of a Republic is that one has choices. If one liked colder weather; fire and brimstone religion; and lots of
scientist to figure this one out.
If W. were to be elected for some extraordinarily-horrible-to- contemplate reason, you can bet heavily that the CC and the NRA will be out and around in great abundance in D.C. come Jan. 20 and thereafter.
Remember that fabulous really high ticket (I think the top category was $250,000) fundraiser W. held in D.C. earlier this year? Wayne LaPierre (exec. director or Pres. of the NRA) was right there at the top.
Cont. from 43312
and lots of government, Mass. might be a good choice. Mass. had about as much government as anyone in the late 1790s. If one liked warmer weather and a more congenial religion, possibly VA would be a better choice. The government in VA was also "softer and gentler". Later on one could follow Brigham Young to Utah and points west. I have all I can do to put up with one wife. But, if one were of that persuasion, multiple wives were legal.
In all examples, Wahsington D.C. was very far away and of very little import.
Today, with democracy, Wahsington D.C. has its nose in EVERONE'S busines - to the detriment of all.
Give me a Republic any day.
President we will have an office in the White House'.
out there telling everyone to go out and vote. Pleasssse.
I never pegged you as a single-issue voter.
Are we talking about the same MsGreer?
are you available at your home email right now?
Yep ma'am
You can reach me at coughlin@mindspring.com
Are there still some lawyers active in the Mote? In appointing Supreme Court justices I would like to go back to the days PRIOR to Marbury vs Madison. [snip!]
I want a return to the days when our elected representatives legislate. I don't want legislation decided by 9 lawyers wearing high school graduation gowns.
Ranheim, you are a throwback with no taste for the fashion of the days you long for. Those gowns hearken back to the days that nobility had privileges of infangtheif etc, and heard cases in their formal livery.
Besides, Rhenquist has been doing everything he can to give them a spiffy 90's neo-aristocracy theme, adding gold stripes he finds to be tres chic.
Robb responding that he voted against it [DOMA] because it was a states' right issue. I don't know that gays would derive much comfort out of the exchange on either side.
Given the fact that a majority of Republicans and Democrats voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, this Gay will take a little comfort from Rob. The "States Rights" idea is a cute wiggle on Robb's part, but it's boob-bait given the fact that the purpose of DOMA was to get around the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. Pre-Doma: If one state allows same sex marriage all the other states will be compelled to recognize it. Post-Doma (in theory): States are not required to recognize marriages other than those involving on man and one woman.
Good for Chuck.
It's unfortunate, but a fact, that it's impossible for politicians to say what they believe. I think that Chuck Robb showed more spine than most of the rest of the Virginia delegation and now he's being made to pay for it by shallow appeals to rubes and boobs.
As a married person, I'd like for George Allen to explain how my marriage is threatened so that it needs to be defended by the likes of him and DOMA.
Do any of you believe that in the debates, either Gore or Bush could garner votes by saying they are for same sex marriage? I don't think so.
A kid on MTV asked Gore (paraphrase), "I can drive to Las Vegas, tonight and marry a stripper in the morning. We will instantly acquire all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Why can't I drive to Las Vegas and marry my boyfriend?"
You gotta love young gay kids! It doesn't occur to them (or at least a lot of them) to be other than open.
Gore talked positively about the Vermont Civil Unions law. So maybe Gore has a spine, or at least a nose for an issue that is in play and moving in the direction of greater equality.
Spine doesn't always have a lot to do with it. I always wonder if Clinton would have won if he hadn't signed DOMA--or if the Republicans would have fielded a better competitor for a better fight.
It might play on MTV, just as Clinton's comment when asked if he smoked pot again, would he inhale? He said, "Yeah, I probably would." Of course, that was on Arsinia Hall's show. Clinton is way too smart to say that where normal people can hear it, and Gore is at least that smart. If he is asked his position on same sex marriage, he will slither like a snake. Bush would say he doesn't believe in it, because he doesn't believe in it. Not that he would not cavil on other issues.
CalGal
What does this mean?
I always wonder if Clinton would haveWON if he hadn't signed DOMA-
If Clinton hadn't signed DOMA, would he have been re-elected?
toy check
Neither do I. Gore's comments, cited by Michael above, are about as far as anyone should be prepared to go on the matter at this point in time. In many ways gay issues are neutralized. Thanks to Mary Cheney, Bush isn't about to adopt a Fundie stance on the matter.He'll simply avoid it. And Gore needn't bring up Bush's avoidance. Gays and lesbians are here to stay, and our issues are now woven into the context of other minority issues.
Is this something he did in Arkansas? I am unaware of anything he did as Governor
DOMA. Defense of Marriage Act. Law that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. He did it while he was president.
Can you explain what Robb meant? I thought the whole point of DOMA was that the Federal government was not going to force states to recognize gay marriages deemed legal in other states. I would think voting FOR it would be the "states' rights" position.
I'll take a shot at that.
DOMA certainly attempts to give states the right to define marriage. However the Full Faith and Credit Clause give states the right to expect that legally executed contracts in their states will be honored and enforceable in the other states. It depends which "rights" you want to assert you are protecting. You can teach it round or you can teach it flat.
BTW, I say "attempts to give" because I doubt that DOMA is Constitutional. However, until one state enacts a "marriage" law, and another state attempts to ignore that marriage under the protection of DOMA, it's just one of those dumb laws pols pass (and sign) in order to take a stand.
Interesting question: Is the way DOMA is written such that a Vermont couple could compel other states to recognize their Civil Union under Full Faith and Credit? It is possible that in an effort to "defend" marriage they may have outfoxed themselves by drawing the statute too narrowly.
I gag whenever I hear Defense of Marriage. It evokes images of fault divorce, waiting periods, mandatory counseling, reviving alienation of affections suits, re-criminalizing adultry and hetrosexual sodomy etc. But no, we hetros don't want to deal with how we've attacked marriage. We just don't want Bruce and Bruce down the street to get in on the fun.
It seems like an attempt to amend the Constitution by statute.
But until someone has "standing" to bring a case (e.g. has a California marriage that Kansas won't recognise) the law will just lay there, like a lox.
Yep. But the plus side is that it's only causing symbolic harm at this point--not to dismiss it, but it's not like there are actual marriages being the subject of discrimination.
And I really do think that a state will get around to it one day. Don't know which, although Hawaii really did seem likely for a while there.
Jones,
I know. The name is far more retchworthy than Jack's can lady.
"Real Vermonters shovel manure... They don't pack it."
Correction, DOMA is causing no "additional" harm.
There are lots of actual marriages being subjected to all sorts of discrimination.
I know that's what you meant, but I'm a sucker for plain words.
Oh, I'm so ashamed.
Michael,
There are certainly a lot of relationships that are subject to discrimination.
Yes, New York Times op-ed, Tuesdays and Fridays.
This one from on 9/19/00 is kinda typical. "http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/19/opinion/19COLL.html">The Plus Spin of Pickiness. She has a dry wit, and a sceptical point of view, and she writes about issues as opposed to Dowd, who never quite lets you forget that she is Dowd. Less contrivance, more meat. She was at the Daily News for years.
Actually, I got the two of them confused for a while until I read that nuclear column. I agree with your assessment of their differences.
Mr. Silcox said he decided to change his attitude after a friend of his was fired because he was suspected of being gay. Mr. Silcox is a politician who's willing to listen.
Yayyyyyy! Another exorcism worked! 
That's pretty much my position.
Can Lady is on the news!
5 left each morning to their conventional jobs; one remained at home and was responcible for washing; cleaning of house; cooking; etc.
This situation went one for many months.
A census taker came by and, being more observant and persistant than most census takers, discoverd that the living arrangement was not the most standard. She reported the group to the police who investigated.
As this was some years ago, needless to say, that was the end of this living arrangemetn! While no one went to jail, all were fined on some sort of morals charge. NONE of the people involved had ever been married.
I thought at the time that this was a clever way to pay for a house! Five out drawing their various salaries; one at home for the housework. I only wish that I could remember where - and when - I read about this "arrangement".
Also - what is the point you were trying to make? The only thing that would be plausible is that it was some sort of statement about the morality of such a group arrangement.
I repeat : I thought it a clever way to buy a house! The morals of those involved don't interest me at all.
Didn't they turn this idea into a sit-com?
The biggest problem with living in shared housing is changing compatability. You can choose your roommate, but you can't choose your roommate's boyfriend. In one case I had a roommate who started dealing cocaine after I'd moved in. Think of 4 different adult personalities and all the difficulties that can arise.
After a couple of experiences I came up with a list of things about which I was not willing to negotiate and put those upfront before I would even consider sharing housing. (ie, no drug dealers, alcoholics, people with children, or couples.)
I've probably told you this story before -- sure sign of geezerhood:
Before we got married, in a moment when Mike was feeling low he said somthing to the effect of "why would you want to marry a grease monkey when you work all day with lawyers and politicians?" I asked him who he would rather spend his life with -- someone who argues for a living or someone who fixes things. I've never had reason to regret the choice.
It's a lovely story and well worth repeating.
I would think the answer was obvious. I just can't figure out why you would willingly work with lawyers and politicians. Don't you find yourself washing your hands an inordinate number of times per day?
It just goes to demonstrate that when someone starts out on the wrong path in life, there's no telling where you might end up.
But, the topper came later in the year (this was a graduate school rooming situation). Apartmentmate had a new set of fish, all of whom got along with one another etc. Shrieks again one morning. One of the fish (about six inches long and cylindrical and white. Sort of like an albino cigar or a penis, your choice.) was discovered by him to be on the floor outside the tank. Still alive but shriveled. There then ensued two (whole) days of trying to save that damned fish, which involved wrapping it in wet tissue and on and on.
Fish died. Then, about three days later came the insinuation that I - mois - had DELIBERATELY taken the fish from its home and had caused its demise. Irrational but, hey, it was the guy's pet....
He was wrong in his suspicion. I suspect that he got the germ of it when he recalled my reaction to the Great Tank Massacre. I fear I wasn't terribly sympathetic (how in hell can anyone love a fish). I also fear that my comment that "well, at least the survivor now looks fat enough that you can salvage something by frying him up" wasn't well received.
Blame it on my youth.
As if this arrangement weren't bad enough, they'd invited some lowlife scumball to crash at "her" apartment while he looked for a job. Uh uh -- enough -- I put my foot down and told them in no uncertain terms that their friends were not living with us and that if she couldn't stand being separated from her true love, she should spend half her time at his place.
They stole my checkbook and went on a spending spree.
this is Politics
i understand it's a slow newsday, but let's move the chat to another thread
That was some staggering growth figure.
all I get is beeps. I left messages. Perhaps I have the incorrect number.
He's been blowing Clinton for 8 years. Anything is possible.
The question should be: Considering the state of the economy and the factors favoring the incumbent, why is Gore even with Bush and not up by 15-20 points.
JJ,
And that puts the lie to the constant shrieking that "no one cares about these scandals."
If no one cared, one would expect Gore to be up by fifteen or twenty. And to ALWAYS have been up by fifteen or twenty.
Fair enough.
Same happens to W. of course in terms of his grammar and mangled words. (Did you see the Sunday Doonesbury? priceless.)
I would bet on W. continuing to screw up a lot more than Gore, because with W. it is ingrained.
As for why the race is as close as it is - no question that the Clinton fatigue still has some resonance. And, the second banana image is a hard one to overcome. But, at bottom, I think it really boils down to the fact that in times as good as these no one is really concerned enough to look at the differences. At least, not until recently.
I still think it will end up being a collosal electoral vote for Gore.
Follow the money. Who loses if Gore has a big lead? Polling companies. The major media, because no one will be watching, reading, listening, etc. And fewer political ads will be bought. A tight race makes for exciting news. I wouldn't be surprised if Gore wins by a large margin. In other words, the major media may be making it look more like a horse race because it makes money for them.
Think of it... where do all those hundreds of millions in campaign financing end up? In the pockets of the networks for broadcasting political ads.
Personally, I think that as part of the privilege of having a broadcasting license and making buckets of money, the major media should give free advertising for major elections. Of course, this assumes that corporate interests are not the most important in the country, which is against the conventional wisdom.
The second is that the country is not particularly far to the left, and the Democrat Party has not entirely shed its image of favoring bigger and more intrusive government.
Americans are centrist, and conservative in the way George Will described them, that is that they want to conserve certain government programs like social security and medicare. But I also think that Americans on the whole do not want to expand government very much, and I think they fear Gore does.
Mind you, I still think the odds favor Gore, simply because of the economy.
Al Gore:
The Bush tax plan will be the "end of our gropes... Er, the end of our growth, and the end of our hopes."
He just said this.
I guess he's a fucking moron, eh?
"Think of it... where do all those hundreds of millions in campaign financing end up? In the pockets of the networks for broadcasting political ads."
Think of it: Phydeau is a fucking moron.
What I don't understand is W. being perceived as being more likeable. He may be an absolute charmer one on one or in small groups, but (and I am trying hard to assess this as objectively as I can given my, um, bias) he just doesn't come over as anything other than bland in any other type of setting.
"Maybe his wonkiness, his ultra-sincerity."
Laugh. Like when you get asked at an interview what your worst flaw is, you're supposed to name a virtue: "I'm too much of a perfectionist." "I'm too dedicated to my work."
Asked why Gore is only tied with Bush, JanJon postulates: Perhaps because Gore is just too damn smart. Perhaps he cares just too damn much.
Fucking hilarious.
Yeah, I'm sure that's it, JanJon. It couldn't simply be that Gore's flaws are holding him back -- because he has none. No, it must be his incredible intellect, his amazing attention to detail, and his "ultra-sincerity" which turn voters off.
I think the stuff about the internet, Love Canal, etc., whether one thinks Gore's been handled fairly on this or not, is the kind of thing that makes some people question his character.
I agree with you about Bush, however. I don't find him particularly likeable, but then when I was in college I had very few friends in DEKE.
(Curiously, some of those guys have been very interesting and friendly at college reunions. Age does something to us all.)
You know why Kurt Warner isn't more of a celebrity?
Because his passes are just too damn accurate. Because he piles up just too many passing yards.
That's why the American public isn't embracing Kurt Warner like it should: Because Kurt Warner is just too good for them to handle.
Hey-- maybe Bush lost his 17-point lead because he's just too likeable, and possesses far too much charisma and natural leadership ablility.
Ya think?
You have it bad, my friend. One of Gore's problems is that many see him as insincere and willing to say anything to get elected. His statement about Clinton being one of the greatest Presidents right after Clinton had been impeached didn't help in that respect.
Yes, but he's "tied" with Tiki Barber.
Why can't Warner beat Tiki Barber in popularity?
Because Warner cares too much about football, and because Warner is just too good to break the tie.
It's amazing.
JanJon will tell you that the vast majority of the American people "agree with Gore on the issues."
He'll tell you that the American people support the continuance of Clintonism, and the Clinton "economic miracle" (which began under Bush, btw.)
So, asked why Bush is tied up with Gore, he suggests:
Because the American people are afraid of Gore's imposing intellect, his staggering competence, and his amazing experience.
And, also, they're turned off by how much he really, really cares about them.
Oh, they're for Gore in every meaningful way-- but they're suspicious of how smart he is, and they'd prefer a President who was more indifferent to their plights.
I love the way you cut to the heart. Keep in mind that poor janjon thinks Clinton has great character. Could it be that Bush is neck and neck because of Clinton's behavior and Goe's slavish defense of him?
"Could it be that Bush is neck and neck because of Clinton's behavior and Goe's slavish defense of him?"
Nah, too simple. Attribute it to the American people's intense desire for an intellectually-mediocre leader, and their dream of being led by someone who isn't quite so sincere and who doesn't care quite so much about them.
We Americans are a silly bunch.
This is known as spin.
This is the same W. who at or around the time of his Philadelphia lovefest was trumpeting about how the American people wanted - make that were going to demand - to bring honor, integrity, etc. back to the White House, etc etc etc.
Ace is correct in some respects. W got his initial big lead in large measure because of the Clinton fatigue and Gore's then image as a wimpy second banana. Gore's been able to get rid of that image and the issues are beginning to count, but the Clinton fatigue (alright, scandals) AND the tendency of people to like change AND not focus on what the change might mean when times are good combine to make it close.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CNN/USA Today/Gallup tracking poll for Thursday reveals a dead-even presidential race, with Republican nominee Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Democratic nominee Vice President Al Gore exactly tied at 46% each.
Gore would say that we cannot "stifle our gropes, er, stifle our growth and end our hopes."
Compare:
"This is known as spin."
with:
Gore isn't beating Bush because people find him "too wonkish, and ultra-sincere."
Ah well, I always marvel at how you can twist, turn and obfuscate.
Vote for G. W. Bush
He's not nearly as "ultra-sincere" as Gore.
Paid for by the Committee to Elect Bush.
W.'s handlers needed this like another hole in their collective heads.
"I always marvel at how you can twist, turn and obfuscate"
My friend, I haven't twisted, turned, our obfuscated. Quite the opposite. I am merely throwing white-hot halogen spotlights on your own words and showing you up for the dunce-capped drooler you are.
Confronted with the inanity of what you yourself said, you accuse me of "obfuscating."
Oh, really? What precisely have I distored?
"I'm givin' him the truth, and he thinks I'm givin' him hell"
-- Al Gore, quoting Harry Truman as he lied about Bill Bradley's health-care plan
Ah well, I always marvel at how you can twist, turn and obfuscate.
janjon
And I was beginning to think you lacked a sense of humor. If Ace were a carpenter, he'd be driving those 16 penny nails with one blow. You strike like lightning: never in the same place twice.
Vote for GW Bush
He just doesn't know as much about "the issues" as Al Gore. And that's what America wants.
Paid for by the Committee to Elect GW Bush.
Horowitz doesn't know his history (or more likely has selective recall, since the "curse of Martin Van Buren" was well publicized back in 1988, as an omen of doom for Bush). Take a look at the last several elections where a sitting vice president ran during a year of economic growth: 1988, 1976, 1968, and 1960. In three out of the four, the sitting veep lost. In the exception (also the only race which wasn't extremely close), 1988, Dukakis was ahead most of the year, until his campaign derailed due to ineptness in late August. Now, in all of these incumbent losses, there was some exceptional circumstance, such as Watergate aftermath, Vietnam, and the charismatic JFK. But that many exceptions just proves that the rule ain't all that strong in the first place, and it doesn't take a miracle to overcome it.
Bush has been ahead most of the year for the same reasons: Gore is a known quantity, and has a lot of strong negatives (as did Bush sr, Ford, Humphrey and Nixon). Bush is an unknown, and is as such extremely succeptible to short term changes in perception.
Basically, this ain't all that unordinary, and isn't a sign that people don't particularly like Gore (at least any more than they don't particularly like any sitting vice president).
So be it.
George W. Bush
Wrong on the issues.
Wrong for America.
Drop-dead stupid.
And isn't that what you're really looking for in a leader?
Paid for by the Committe to Elect GW Bush.
Memo to Rask:
Bush Sr, who is/was the model for Gore's campaign, was ahead and running away with it at this point in 1998.
He bounced at his convention, and his lead grew, and he never lost it.
It seems to me that what you say is not to the point of Horowitz's article. One could make the argument that the 1960 election is somewhat suspect. But, do you really believe that Kennedy was a lightweight, as Bush obviously is? I did not get the impression Horowitz was saying Veeps have a better chance of getting elected.
Bush now leads in Louisiana, Maryland (!), and West Virginina (!!).
This doesn't bode well for Gore.
Then again, it all could change by next week, and it probably will.
Still, for all the geschreien about Gore tying Bush in Fla, it's important to note that Bush is ahead in usually-safe Democratic bastions.
cite, please.
POA: West Virginia Results Reveal...
Politics/Elections Breaking News Opinion (Published) Keywords: BUSH, GORE, WEST VIRGINIA
Source: POA/Rasmussen
West Virginia Results 9/28/00
Question Wording:
1. In the Presidential election this year, will you vote for Democrat Al Gore, Republican George W. Bush, Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne, or Natural Law Party candidate John Hagelin?
41% Gore
45% Bush
1% Buchanan
2% Nader
1% Browne
0% Hagelin
11% Not sure
Question Wording:
1. In the Presidential election this year, will you vote for Democrat Al Gore, Republican George W. Bush, Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne, or Constitution Party candidate Howard Phillips?
39% Gore
48% Bush
1% Buchanan
3% Nader
0% Browne
0% Phillips
10% Not sure
That's not a statistical dead heat.
PS, POA's polls are usually +/- 2.2.
And you ignore 1968 and 1960.
Do you remember all the skepticism about Bush, due to the fact that no sitting veep had ever won the election since Van Buren? My point is just that Gore's situation is not at all remarkable, making it tough to say that his failure to blow Bush away is a sign of a particular weakness on Gore's part.
Did you rush in when Gore was ahead by the margin of error and everyone in the media was saying, what has happened to Bush? I guess you probably did.
Bush has also pulled ahead in Iowa, which had been leaning Gore in recent weeks.
article. One could make the argument that the 1960 election is
somewhat suspect. But, do you really believe that Kennedy was a
lightweight, as Bush obviously is? I did not get the impression
Horowitz was saying Veeps have a better chance of getting elected."
Horowitz was saying that it is a miracle that the election is even close. He is wrong. It is par for the course based on the existence of very similar conditions in the past.
And yes, Kennedy was often perceived as a lightweight. Young, not much experience, child of privilege, etc.
"for most of 1988, indicating that Bush wasn't well-loved by the public. But Bush Sr ran an excellent campaign..."
Bush's vault into the lead began and pretty much ended at the convention, where he obliterated an 18 point Dukkakis lead and moved ahead by five or six points. (The biggest bounce on record, AFAIK.)
He never lost this lead. He added a bit to it, but not much.
Gore counted on a similar "super-bounce." It seemed, for a time, he had it. But now he is back neck-and-neck with Bush, and behind in some polls (POA and Battleground still show Bush ahead by one, well within the margin.)
Gore's main hope is the debates. I hope for all you liberals' sakes that Gore is as good a debater as you claim.
But I don't think he is, and I think you suspect he's not, either.
Funny.
I think that -- as suggested by Jeff Birnbaum -- perhaps Al Gore just doesn't "wear well" with voters. The more you see him, the less you like him.
I had no idea you were a National Review fan. As one who voted for Kennedy, I sure do not remember him getting the flack from media that Bush has gotten. While your comments about Kennedy are accurate, he was and is to this day depicted as a brilliant War hero, only to be spoken of with reverant awe.
I must say that his use of the phrase "educational recession" is quite clever. Bound to make some people think of recession per se and to at least be left with the image that there might be something wrong with the economy.
As for the debates - I suspect that given the chance Gore will hone in on the economy again quite heavily.
Did you rush in when Gore was ahead by the margin of error and everyone in the media was saying, what has happened to Bush? I guess you probably did.
Al -- I doubt if I did. I like good news. However, I've posted links about bad news for the Gore campaign in the past, particularly ones from Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post.
"I suspect that a fair amount of the W. uptick comes from his use of his attack and negative ads the last week or so."
Hee, hee. Oh. Well, then, it doesn't count.
I suspect, personally, that Gore's uptick came from blanketing the airwaves with anti-Bush ads. That's what most people attribute his bounce to, given that too few people watched the convention to credit his bounce to "The Kiss."
had it. But now he is back neck-and-neck with Bush, and behind in
some polls (POA and Battleground still show Bush ahead by one,
well within the margin.)"
Of course, Gore made a mistep, Bush got back on track. This didn't happen back in 1988, where Bush rarely stumbled and Dukakis was never able to figure out how to campaign when you are opposed.
"Gore's main hope is the debates. I hope for all you liberals' sakes that Gore is as good a debater as you claim."
His best hopes are the debates, an end to the free ride the media has given some of Bush's policy initiatives, Bush's lack of gravitas, and the lack of definition Bush has in the eyes of the public. He has quite a bit of time to exploit all of this.
Gore isn't as great as liberals are making him out to be, but he is solid. He probably won't score a "you are no JFK", or come across as being able to feel our pain, but it is likely that he will demonstrate a command of policy issues, will attack Bush's weaknesses, and it is extremely unlikely that he will make a gaffe (at least not one which will be caught during the debate, when it matters most).
Incidentally, who used the following "coded race baiting":
"[My opponent] will force you poor seniors to get your Medicare benefits at welfare offices (unsaid suggestion: with all the schwartzas and spics)"
Your choices:
a) Bush
b) Gore
Hint: This bit of racial code-wording came from the man who invented Willie Horton.
Further hints to come.
Don't be insulting.
"While your comments about Kennedy are
accurate, he was and is to this day depicted as a brilliant War hero, only to be spoken of with reverant awe."
Because he was killed in Dallas. No one likes to speak ill of the dead. He wasn't a bad President, and given more time he may have been a great one. But he assuredly wasn't as good as his reputation with the public. I doubt you will find anyone here who will say otherwise.
Question: Why would a senior care if he got his benefits at a welfare office (which he won't; the man who said this simply invented that), as opposed to any other government office, if not for fear of the darkies?
Any guesses?
Come on, someone guess. Someone guess who tried to scare seniors with visions of collecting Medicaid benefits on-line with all the darkies.
Now who is guilty of negative campaigning? Why should we vote for Gore when he can't do simple math?
Why should we vote for Gore when he once again resorts to "racial code-words"?
I don't understand how Bush Sr. talking about "welfare queens" is a "racial code-word," but Gore scaring seniors with visions of having to go to welfare offices is not a racial code-word.
If one is intended to conjure images of lazy, dagerous blacks, so is the other.
The media, as usual, doesn't bother taking the Democrat to task for playing the race card.
Dayton is the millionaire, yes?
NARAL has announced it will not abide by the Clinton-Lazio soft-money ban agreement, stating that the organization has a "fundamental right" to be heard in the public arena.
Hmmm. That sort of makes sense. Too bad, though, that only liberal/leftist groups have this right. When conservative groups run such ads, they're threatening the very roots of democracy and suborning corruption.
In any event, it's pretty transparent HRC asked NARAL to do this, because she never wanted to ban soft money in the first place.
...I suspect that a fair amount of the W. uptick comes from his use of his attack and negative ads the last week or so
I thought negative ads were ineffective. Is this incorrect?
humanitarians, and other self-satisfied poseurs have found a
new group to outlaw, the Boy Scouts. We should have seen
it coming. On the Tuesday night of the Democratic National
Convention a troop of Scouts was booed when it appeared.
The rancorous scene reminded me of that police color guard
whom progressive Democrats booed a few weeks earlier at
their New York state convention. This is serious. As can be
seen from the presidential campaign the Democrats'
presidential and vice presidential candidates favor law and
order and morally upright youths. It is just the agents of law
and order and organizations of morally upright youths that
makes them uncomfortable. Scholars call this incoherence.
To others it is hypocrisy.
From an article by R. Emmet Tyrell of the American Spectator
I would imagine the booing of the Boy Scouts pleased many on the Mote, and I hope the event is used by Rebublicans. It is good for the average person who vote for Democrats understand their leaders.
I'm sure R. Tyrell would agree. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could get all of your nice comments on a Gore support web site?
Do you think the Boy Scouts (the kids, as opposed to the leaders) are making the decisions?
It's the top leaders of the org. -- not the people who actuallly work in scouting day to day.
Over in TT, there's a really wonderful guy named Ron Fox. He's straight and he loves scouting. He doesn't know a whole lot about gay issues, but he's more than willing to listen. My friend Steven Bradford, a former Eagle Scout, has been having a teriffic dialogue with him about the whole deal.
I can't begin to tell you hom many gay Eagle Scouts there are. Guys who go the limit in scouting tend to be over-achieving gay men, longing for acceptance form a social order that only wants to stifle them.
If the BSA hadn't taken it to the Supremes the "problem" of gays in scouting would have been dealt with on the local level by reasonable, rational people like Ron Fox. Now Ron and others like him have been left holding the bag for the orgs PR vanity.
And nice to meet you too, Mr. AoS. Are you a freeper, or just obnoxious? But I'm glad you have the chance to vent your bile
somewhere. Have a nice day.
Executive Privilege, by Lynne Cheney
He's just obnoxious. But he is well-loved, and damn funny.
Just for curiosity, what do you have against freepers? Have you been to Free Republic enough that you think they are all the same, or is anyone of a conservative bent not to your liking?
Another thing you need to know is that after office hours, say 5p.m. PDT, there is not too much action on the Mote. Sometimes, late in the evening, I suspect some go back to their office to get away from the old lady and there is some action. I'm apt to be here any time, since I don't have to work.
I have seen a lot of juvenile name calling here, clowntoon, pinocchio bore, etc. That usually goes along with irrational hatred.
No, we're from the Fray originally. When it closed down, we built our own forum.
Tabletalk skews more extreme on the left than we do, and we really don't have that many hard core rightists. The balance hits reasonably close to center.
the "clowntoon" and "pinnochio" stuff comes from one or two posters who are pretty much discounted by the rest of us -- even those who aren't fond of Clinton or Gore. I think you'll find that that type of rhetoric is not the typical level of debate.
No, I don't call names. I have respect for Democrat politicians as I do for all politicians. They are, after all, our public service. Most go to Washington to do good, and most end up doing very well. I like to be snide and I strive to be ironic, with little success in most Moties minds.
I love serious discussion, when there is time. For example, did Clinton release the oil reserves because there is a real shortage of home heating oil? Are the critics correct that oil refineries are at capacity and the release will have no real effect? If it were done for political reasons, is that an abuse of power? Does the Mississippi River really start in Montana?
The tendency is to react to these questions knee jerk: Liberal, of course it was the right thing to do. Do you want people in Minnesota to freeze this winter? 2. Conservative, of course it was wrong. After all Clinton doeseverything for political gain, not to solve a problem.
But there is truth somewhere in this conundrum, don't you think?
But officially, yeah. The Mississippi River originates out of Lake Itasca.
Just so you know where the confusion originates.
Cellar:
Guys who go the limit in scouting tend to be over-achieving gay men, longing for acceptance form a social order that only wants to stifle them.
All the more reason not to accept them.
I mean, once you atart accepting them, where's the incentive?
Uhhh..."once you start accepting..."
Yeah, but it's impossible to compete with a name like "Tiki".
(paraphrasing Biener) If the Clintons are so honest, so innocent, so unjustly accused and persecuted, then why was their first action after Vince Foster's suicide to send Maggie Williams over to his place to retrieve boxes of files, before the FBI or the cops could get there to close the scene?
It's a very legitimate question, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the various and sundry Clinton conspiracy theories. Innocent people have nothing to worry about, no reason to haul ass over to their dead friend's office before the cops get there and start, you know, investigating. And not only has the question never been answered, but Williams and the White House initially tried to deny ever sending her over for retrieval purposes.
Unfortunately, the cops got there while she was coming out with a box of files in her arms.
So really, what's the deal here? Is it truly a case of Innocent Bubba Done Wrong, or just blind luck for BC that his pursuers looked worse than he did? Nothing to be proud of, folks, just a guy walking away from 6 years of "dog ate my homework" excuses, missing/strangely reappearing files, and other assorted bits of legal detritus. Not the eeevil feller the Klayman Krowd wants to believe, but BC was wrongly persecuted like OJ was.
Very interesting, and thanks for pointing that out. But I was kind of poking fun at Nader who used the analogy of a river starting with one drop of water in Montana and becomming the mighty Mississippi. I don't think, but I might be wrong, he was speaking from a hydrologists point of view. If I'm wrong, I guess the joke is on me.
Couldn't both be true?
So glad to see your very reasonable presense here. for a commie liberal, you seem quite sane.
J.J. question was not the only one that goes unanswered. Ace pointed out Gore's race baiting statement: zero response.
When one says, "Isn't it possible..." they is nothing that can be said other that, yeah.
It may come as a big shock to you, but this is 2000 and the race is not between Dole and Clinton.
Also, is it really, as has been claimed, a violation to release oil reserves to manipulate price? And did Gore give that as a reason when he called for the release of 5,000,000 barrels?
Part Two is the easy part. Pols seldom speak so plainly.
My concern about the first part is for the future. Given that oil is by no means traded in a pristine free market, and that governments on the sale side manipulate supply all the time, the short answer is "Why shouldn't we, on the consumer side also manipulate supply to our advantage?" Easy answer: No reason at all.
The longer, opposite answer, is that we have never tapped the reserves for this purpose. The last time we used it was during the Gulf War when the reasons for doing it were obvious and readily understood. Using the reserve to manipulate price, will place that policy on the list of "obvious and readily understood" reasons. I resist handing pols that kind of tool for the purchase of votes. It strikes me as imprudent, and a policy that may come back again -- (maybe moving elections to May instead of November would be a good idea.) Whether the world price is $40/bbl or $28/bbl people (voters) will always be happy to have a lower price.
I guess I'm making a slippery slope argument -- an inherently tricky thing to do -- but I don't think you can go far wrong in assuming that pols (even more than most people) will often act from self-interest. Establishing this precedent seems to me like "a risky energy scheme."
I run into them everywhere, but I take my revenge on Hwy 5, driving down to LA. I'm happy to say that many an leather seat has been ruined with pee stains thanks to the fear I have put in those bastard owners' hearts and bladders.
Yawn. This has been rehashed here over and over. If you'd like to dazzle us with a persuasive argument that Gore faced a greater physical danger than Bush did, go for it -- but it better be damn good to generate much interest.
What I find absurd is not that Gore has changed his mind, but by how much. I mean, consider the following range of positions:
1) X is so bad that the gov't ought to take active steps to discourage it.
2) X is bad, but not enough so to justify gov't action against it.
3) X is neutral, so the gov't should certainly do nothing.
4) X is good, but not enough so to justify gov't action in its favor.
5) X is so good that the gov't ought to take active steps to promote it.
Gore went from 1) straight to 5), skipping right over 2), 3), and 4). That seems like one hell of a switch to make, a mere few weeks before an election.
(Of course, it's also possible that in Gore's mind, 2), 3), and 4) simply don't exist -- i.e., you name it, the gov't ought to do something about it.)
....couldn't it be true that they sent over someone to pick up the files, lied about it because it looked bad, and still be unjustly linked to Foster's death?
Absolutely -- in fact, put in those terms, I think that is true. I don't think they had Foster killed; that has nothing to do with anything. But Foster's suicide seems to have been the nexus for all this "persecution" the poor, poor Clintons had to endure, and I say that their actions and their attitude and their brazenly lame excuses brought a lot of it on.
It's even possible that retrieving Foster's files was purely reflexive, and not caused by any particular malfeasance. But anything's possible; what's likely is that the WH had their reasons for not wanting investigators peering into some of Foster's stuff.
I dunno, it doesn't actually convict 'em of anything, but I don't get the few die-hards out there crowing "vindication". Too much smoke not to be a little fire; just because it may not the bonfire the Klayman Krowd assumed doesn't mean it ain't fuckin' hinky.
At the end of the day, I just hate to see weasels -- and Clinton is a grade-A weasel -- get so many props, untempered by common sense. Folks, if your next door neighbor pulled that kind of shit, you might not be so sanguine about it.
Despite the fact that Vietnam era military status doesn't seem to matter to most voters (Dan Quayle, Bill Clinton) there are partisans who keep making the same mistake over and over again.
A huge number of my generation (born 1948, age 18 in 1966) did all sorts of things vis a vis the draft. I think that those of us who are honest decline to get heated because we mostly know that either our own storries, or the stories of our friends could be made to look very "iffy" by a nosey press. That includes the boys who got spots in the Guard, or the guys who got married, or the guys who pursued "vital national interest" grad-school places, lots of guys.
One of the few blessings of the Hillary/Lazio campaign is that Lazio was twelve or something when the draft ended. Soon most of our pols will be free of the "what did you do about Vietnam" question.
So glad to see your very reasonable presense here. for a commie liberal, you seem quite sane.
Heh. Good to see you back in here as well. Fortunately I'm able to temper my red-diaper nature with mighty doses of pro-capital punishment, pro-Second Amendment, anti-wasting taxpayers money rhetoric. Get on the Cartman bus, Al -- sensible people realize already that I'm right and Ace is wrong, almost 100% of the time.
But it's good to see Ace back in as well. It's just not the same without him -- he takes spurious hackery to unprecedented levels.
J.J. question was not the only one that goes unanswered. Ace pointed out Gore's race baiting statement: zero response.
Yeah, I saw that. I'd have to see the context whence that came, me. For all I know, Gore may have been drawing a perfectly reasonable distinction between Medicare as an entitlement that folks shouldn't have to run the gauntlet to get, as opposed to welfare, where you want the applicants to jump through lots of hoops to prove they deserve your money.
But why beat around the bush (so to speak)? There's so much to nail Gore on, one doesn't even need to stoop to putative race-baiting. But yeah, if it's really there, crucify the bastard. I just wasn't terribly convinced that Gore's reference to "welfare" was code for schvartzes. I mean, does that shit still play in Hymietown?
So, Eric, Al... who are you guys voting for THIS time, the veteran or the draft dodger?
Neither. I'm voting for Ralph Nader, quite happily at that. Bush is an inchoate marionette, and Gore is an unctuous scoundrel, incapable of actually meaning what he says for longer than the lies take to fall out of his mouth.
But Gore is far more qualified than Bush. So there's that. But he's "fighting for us" about as much as Mike Tyson is. Do you seriously believe that a man who welcomes the benificence of oil/pharmaceutical/entertainment weasels really intends to even nip the hand feeding him? Nonsense. He's devolved into a low-rent William Jennings Bryan --except Bryan, thankfully, didn't have to play tonsil hockey with his woman up on stage, to please whatever focus groups needed pleasing that day.
For Senate, I will be voting for Tom Campbell, to hopefully unseat the execrable DiFi, a soulless, hypocritical, establishment hack if ever there was one. I like Campbell's energy, and he's got guts. Certainly DiFi will never break ranks and posit that maybe American taxpayers shouldn't be bankrolling Colombian death squads. And Lord knows DiFi will never say a discouraging word about our thuggish friends in China. Wouldn't want her hubby's business prospects to go south for asking them why they're torturing Tibetan children, or force-feeding Falun Gong prisoners to death.
I realize I'm all over the place here, but what the fuck. You should know right up front that I don't vote party. Ever.
>I just wasn't terribly convinced that Gore's reference to "welfare" was code for schvartzes. I mean, does that shit still play in Hymietown?
Only among those who have/had a vested interest in the welfare system, and the followers of poverty pimps like Al Sharpton.
Being all over the place seems more and more like the only reasonable place to be. The political realignments going on, and the increasing irrelevance of most pol rhetoric is astonishing.
Well, the smoke never lines up with the fire. The motivation never matches up with the crime. I reallythink that's part of the reason why he gets a pass from the people.
Although no one with a lick of sense (haven't seen much of Jexster the last few days) could possibly believe Clinton/Gore's rationale for tapping the SPR, what's disappointing is how they've gotten away with total betrayal of their principles, once again.
Think about it: Gore has been oft-chastised for his "radical" environmentalism, especially his reputed hatred of the internal combustion engine. Well, if we soften the rhetoric a bit, we can look at it another way -- the internal combustion engine creates a sizable degree of waste, and ensures our dependence on foreign oil sources, and the inherent geopolitical machinations.
Reasonable people should be able to agree that at least trying to find a way to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, curb (or at least not encourage) wasteful consumption of fuel, and look into making renewable energy sources more feasible are all sensible ideas.
And now the chickens have come home to roost, the Exploder owners are whining about $50 tanks of gas, and Something Must Be Done.
This would be a plum time for Gore to at least feign a nod toward his past enviromentalism, and offer to put some dough into researching renewable energy sources, for starters. But no, he panics and starts pandering to the SUV crowd, offering a totally useless band-aid for the "problem", meanwhile completely ignoring the real problem that he, reputed Nature Boy, helped cause.
Too bad he doesn't get called on that, because it's part of the bigger picture, of Al Gore's largely non-existent but highly-touted "core beliefs".
Only among those who have/had a vested interest in the welfare system, and the followers of poverty pimps like Al Sharpton.
Right, and really, even if Gore had been trying to subtly play some sort of race card with an elderly Jewish crowd, I can't imagine that it'd work, certainly not enough to make it worth sticking his neck out in the first place. You don't need to bring up race to pander to old people; all you need to do is tell them the other guy's going to take their check away. It's not something requiring a hell of a lot of finesse.
Being all over the place seems more and more like the only reasonable place to be. The political realignments going on, and the increasing irrelevance of most pol rhetoric is astonishing.
Eh, yes and no. The realignments are your basic "give the people what they want" moves. Part of being all over the place is my natural disdain for orthodoxy, and part is because the present political orthodoxies themselves have become so hard-boiled and senseless.
But not only will you not hear any power pol speak the truth, but they actually support it! They insist it's working. Why? Because the people most likely to vote want to hear it, they want to believe it.
And that's a natural consequence of people not voting. Because they're too smart; because they know their vote doesn't count anyway. What happens, though, is that they leave the country in the hands of flat-earthers. And it's just really sad and pathetic that pols, who know better, still have to trot out the big dog-and-pony show.
But that's what adhering to party orthodoxy gets you these days --people satisfied with Al Gore, simply because he ain't George Bush. I dunno, try as I might, I can't get that one to add up.
Well, the smoke never lines up with the fire. The motivation never matches up with the crime. I really think that's part of the reason why he gets a pass from the people.
Yeah, I agree. That's why he gets away with all this shit -- because his pursuers are goofy as hell, and some are flat-out paranoid.
But as they say, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean somebody's not after you, and I do believe the Clintons have gotten away with a few things. So to proclaim "vindication" merely because of the goofiness of the other side is chickenshit. IMHO, of course.
I remember when George Will compared Clinton favorably to Earnest Shackleton.
Who knows what would have happened to other pols if they were scrutinized as closely?
Now, do I consider it vindication that not enough evidence was found? Naw. That's just the man's luck.
No, I realize that you personally, don't consider Puffy "vindicated". But the Conason/Lyons crowd, and their disciples, are already on the bus.
And I just don't buy it. Okay, so he's not the Great Satan, as the Scaife/Klayman folk would have us believe. But "the most ethical administration in the history of the Republic"? Yeesh, makes my skin crawl thinking about it.
See, here's one area in which I agree 100% with Ace (yes, that Ace of Spades): Words mean things. Maybe that's naïve, maybe that's silly and old-fashioned and unrealistic, but there you have it. I actually expect pols to do what they say they're going to do, and I actually expect them to do the right thing and not fuck around in the netherworld of lawyerese where one can metaphysically contemplate what "is" means, to squirm out of a sexual-harassment suit.
So that's it. When files are missing for two years, and turn up on the second floor of the WH, and the "dog ate my homework" excuses come out, I find it insulting. It's like we, their employers, are children, and need to be soft-pedaled and talked down to. I fucking hate that shit, the useless artifice of stroking people with bullshit excuses. If I wanted Dennis the Menace for President, I woulda written him in.
You know ... Bill Clinton is a goddam political genius, and like many lucky men he has made a lot of that luck ... but it is undeniable that he also is one of the luckiest guys I've ever seen. Exhibit A: his enemies.
While acknowledging your point about hyperbole and rhetoric, I will observe one thing: for all their many faults, none of them ever seemed to be about graft or personal enrichment. Sure, the fundraising was sleazy, but does anyone think they used it to buy a Ferrari? And I don't just mean the Clintons, either, but the whole gang of folks who got busted or nearly busted. We're talking some seriously penny ante money here.
I dunno about that. Yes, his enemies were dimbulbs, but they were also fanatics, and were willing to go to lengths that your average dedicated political opponent wouldn't even consider.
But yes, he's a lucky guy. I've said this before, but not in a while--Starr and Clinton remind me of Khan and Kirk in Star Trek II. They survived a direct hit by Khan's ship, almost all the Genesis team has been killed, Paul Winfield has just offed himself rather than kill Kirk, Checkov loses that icky thing in his ear and they're finally safe for the moment, deep in the bowels of the Genesis planet.
Khan calls to talk to Paul Winfield, to pick him up now that he's killed Kirk. Kirk answers the communicator.
Khan is stunned. "Kiiiiiirrrrrk. Steeeell a-liiiiiive." He breathes the words.
"Yes. Still. Alive." Kirk spits. "You've managed to kill just about everyone else, but you keep. missing. me!"
We just had our recruitment-drive dinner for the Boy Scouts/Cub Scouts in one of our local churchs.
Last year we had 17 Boy Scouts. This year the troop in our neighborhood is over 50, almost all new. Five boys who dropped out last winter returned with their parents begging to be allowed to return.
(This should be fun. The church is affiliated with the Baptist Church but most of the new boys are Jewish.)
At another meeting this week for the Cub Scouts at our local school in Potomac, 40+ parents paid $50 dollars to get their boys into a program that had been disbanned for lack of interest two years ago.
Talking to the professional Boy Scout leadership who came to our meeting to help us with administration and to get their 30% cut of our dues, they tell us BSA programs are growing everywhere because of the publicity regarding the Supreme Court.
Even more offensive than jumping bureaucratic hoops, I suspect that the older voters in question see Medicare as an entitlement to reward them for living so long while they see welfare and medicaid as hat-in-hand charity. It's one thing to think that a program is earned by longevity and somthing else entirely to think that they are getting charity.
Any Rolling Stone in a storm.
it could be just me, but i consider the many companies and some counties and school districts considering (if not already) dropping the BSA from the list of recognized “charity” lists to be much more important to societal change than how many rednecks line up for $50 a pop.
The Marriott Corp. recently gave the Boy Scouts something of value. Something that doesn't disappear.
I'm talking about valuable real estate on Rockville Pike, near NIH, and the money to build a six-story brick national headquarters.
Had to go there yesterday to buy clothing and get free literature. Their big parking lot was packed with "redneck" BMWs and Mercedes from other parents doing the same thing.
Something else that impressed with about all the new kids who joined the scouts. Many are minorities, especially Asian.
yes, how precious that the minorities that aren't being discriminated against this year are paraded about.
it warms my heart
Toodle-oo.
i don't believe in banning, "darling"
and i almost give a fig what gets you "angry"
Are there other issues you can discuss, or do you have a draft-dodger jones?
I do wonder, however, if these same people overlooking Bush's draft-dodging are some of the same who reamed Clinton for it...
Idle speculation only. Subject closed.
When was the last time you flew a dangerous F-102 jet fighter to protect the southern flank of our country against Communist aggression from Cuba?
Everyone couldn't be writing military press releases on bogus VC body counts, you know.
Don't go there again.
Are These People Even Gay? I want proof!
Would you accept eye-witness testimony?
I still wonder why most homosexuals calls themselves "gay" when many are as unhappy as Cellar.
Really.
What, me worry?
Now, I realize that you might disagree, but I found it all to be just heartwarming. Especially about the can lady, who's afraid to fly, being driven to Boston. And with her only family, too. A (no doubt nice and photogenic, but hopefully not too healty looking) dog.
I doubt that they will be able to get the dog into the debate audience but you never know.
This leads me to suggest that we have a little contest around here concerning the first debate, namely:
What phrase will W. use in his efforts to emulate the Gipper's "There You Go Again"? What response phrase will Gore use?
So, its a two parter. Entrants have to answer both. Winner will be the poster who comes closest on both parts.
Hopefully, there will be no controversy here. If there is, I suggest that we put Diva to the test in making the final determination.
First (and only) prize is that the winner gets to have a day of throwing cyber-water balloons at Ace. If Ace should be the winner, he doesn't have to wear the bulls-eye target on his chest.
Deadline for entries (which should be posts in this thread) should be up to the moment the debate starts on Oct. 4.
(I realize I haven't consulted with the thread-head or whatever the title is, and if there are problems with this, so be it.)
Finally, the truth about Bush's military service record...George W.'s missing year...tompaine.com
Portrait of America Presidential Tracking Poll...
"On the last Friday morning before the debates, the Presidential race remains as close as it can be. George W. Bush holds a lead of just 1.4 percentage points (42.8% to 41.4%) in a survey with a 2.1% margin of sampling error
"Our analysis of the Electoral College also confirms just how tight the race has become. Bush leads in states with 210 Electoral Votes; Gore has 187 Electoral Votes; and, 141 Electoral Votes remain in the toss-up category."
(and the term is "host")
Gore 44%, Bush 43% in Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby/Powder Milk Biscuits Poll...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush were locked in a statistical dead heat in the Nov. 7 presidential race, according to the first Reuters/MSNBC daily tracking poll released on Friday.
The poll, conducted by John Zogby, surveyed 1,213 likely voters between Sept 26-28. It found the vice president leading the Texas governor by a statistically insignificant single percentage point.
Gore had 44 percent and Bush polled 43 percent. Following them were Green Party candidate Ralph Nader with 3 percent, Libertarian Party hopeful Harry Browne with 2 percent, and the Reform Party's Pat Buchanan with 1 percent. Seven percent were undecided and the margin of error was plus or minus 3 percent.
In the last Reuters poll, released on Sept. 21, Gore led Bush by 4 percentage points.
Now that's funny.
You mean he really does rig those people?
Do you suppose the Can Lady can train the poodle to doodle on Dubya?
I don't think that the Supreme Court case will help the BSA either in the short run or the long run.
Many of the traditional supporters of the BSA are scared off of contributions that they have traditionally given the Scouts. Some professional Scouters have resigned over the issue. I'm sure that some conservatives have been attracted to the issue, but their devotion is to anti-gay activism not to the boys. They'll fade away when the spotlight leaves.
That would be fine with me too, after gays have the exact same rights and privileges that every other group in society has.
You don't think that people like me actually enjoy being mouthy pains in the ass over these issues, do you?
Dang, I thought you were one of the thinking right-wingers.
And flying military jets for your country is unbelievably dangerous. Only the bravest warriors were picked to protect LBJ's Texas.
What does "case closed" mean?
If you like beating dead horses, go for it.
Even more offensive than jumping bureaucratic hoops, I suspect that the older voters in question see Medicare as an entitlement to reward them for living so long while they see welfare and medicaid as
hat-in-hand charity. It's one thing to think that a program is earned by longevity and somthing else entirely to think that they are getting
charity.
While I can agree that Gore's plan is just more welfare, it was Gore who said "we owe that that" when he promised to give free drugs to all senior citizens. Our beef should be with Gore for proposing such a stupid idea.
The drug companies must be laughing all the way to the bank with Gore's promise to go after them by having the government pay for all seniors drugs. If I owned a restaurant, and the government to pay for all seniors meals in my place, I'd be outraged, not.
I have never been polled - by anyone - in 65 years. Neither has my wife; apporximately the same age.
Is there anyone in the Mote who has actually been polled? Or do they just make these poll numbers up?
For what its worth, I have been polled twice, but only for state and local political issues.
You'll find no argument with me about the merits of prescrition drug funding for Seniors -- particularly when government spending is already higher for this group than for any others. I was trying to explain why I thought that a statement to the effect that Bush would require seniors to get their benefits at welfare offices might be an appeal based on the notion that Medicare is right and good and earned as opposed to welfare which is perceived as a charitable handout.
But then again, maybe it is a coded message for race.
"Good lord JJ, the man gets into the Guard, a known place to hide out during the Vietnam war, ahead of a lot of other people already waiting, and then he's AWOL his last year of service, and that's not dodging the draft?"
Use the same proper distinctions.
There are those who criminally dodged the draft (Oh Canada!)
There are those who performed no service after contorting their way out of the draft (Clinton).
There are those who took student or family-related deferments (Cheney).
There are those who served in the National Guard (Bush, Quayle).
There are those who were afforded cushy service (Gore, as in "It ain'tme, it ain't me, I ain't no Senator's son, no")
There are those who served whereever they were told after being drafted.
There are those who volunteered.
There are are those who served as existing members of the regual armed services.
In short, Gore is to be commended for his service. It was certainly more commendable than that of Bush. But being a notch above Bush does not immunize him from similar criticism (i.e., using his powerful status to avoid hard duty).
And to Bush's credit, he has yet to characterize his National Guard Service with heroic stripes. Gore, on the other hand, is clearly somewhat troubled by his cushy stint. Hence, his prior pronouncements of being David Hackworth.
"There are those who took student or family-related deferments (Cheney)."
And Lieberman.
Oddly enough, the media trumpeted the fact that Cheney took student & family deferments -- Democratic flacks all having press conferences about it -- but has spoken nary a peep about Lieberman taking the *same* deferments.
The Democrats have yet to be quizzed regarding why a student or family deferment is a black mark against Cheney yet not, apparently, against "Miracle Man" Lieberman.
Could it be that Cheney was an enthusiastic supporter of the war?
I'd be saying exactly what I'm saying, but the names would be reversed. I've said in the past that Gore chould be commended for his service.
Personally, I don't buy it. Being in favor of Vietnam doesn't mean you are obligated to sign up as a grunt any more than being in favor of stiffer law enforcement obligates you to be a cop.
Ace, on the other hand....
What makes it funny and slightly annoying is that the Republican party is supposedly the rah-rah America is so tough party and it's now being led by a bunch of chicken hawks.
I have no idea where he stood on the draft list. I have no idea why he choose Newark. I have no idea how thereafter the fact that he was a Senator's son influenced where/how he was treated or the amount of sheltering he received.
I have heard often the chickenhawk charge, but normally, in conjunction with a lawmaker's support of a later war (i.e., the Gulf War) in comparison to his earlier lack of duty in Vietnam.
Are you saying Cheney was a vocal supporter of the war during his deferment?
Here's what's fascinating to me ... It seems that neither the Republicans, nor the Democrats are capable of learning a goddamned thing when they get their teeth into an issue that should cut but doesn't.
The most obvious example is the Republicans inability to accept the fact that even if they were personally outraged or disgusted, the American people were unwilling to see Bill Clinton punished politically on account of his penis. Probably there are too many people in glass houses out there, along with some clear thinkers. Gennifer couldn't deny him the nomination, Monica didn't lose him the Presidency.
Vietnam era military service is another issue that the parties (although this time we're really talking about the fringe press and the cyber-frothers) just can't figure out. The Dukakis Democrats hoped the raging news packs would get Quayle on the how and why of his National Guard slot, it didn't work. The Bush Republicans try to get Bill Clinton in his creative writing to the National Guard commander in Arkansas it didn't work.
Now we have TomPaine and Phydeau trying to get a little outrage going about Bush's service in the Guard. Bush says he had a leave to go and campaign for a friend, the General in charge says, it was thirty years ago and he just can't be sure, but George was a real nice young man. Or whatever ... It's not working. Not even the newsies can get excited about it. (At least someone is learning, I guess.)
hmm, didn't know cellar door was a member of the GOP
That's true. However, if you claim to be a red-blooded patriot, and want people to vote for your party because it's the red-blooded patriot party, it's a wee bit inconvenient if you dodged military service rather than volunteering like a red-blooded patriot.
What's funny is that the top 4 or 5 Democrats in Congress all served in the military, and the top 4 or 5 Republicans didn't.
Talk to guys who were in Vietnam, no matter who you were -- Senator's son or not -- there was no where in South Vietnam that was "un-dangerous" or safe.
I know this because I tried singing the song some people are still singing about Gore's situation and got slapped down by guys who saw combat in Vietnam -- and they weren't only Democrats doing the slapping either. People who were there, don't have boo to say about Gore -- lots of rich or powerful men's sons died in Vietnam.
This is such a bullshit issue, phydeau, on both sides. That's the reality.
I believe Cheney was quoted as saying he supported the war. Enthusiasm doesn't appear to be part of his make up so I will confess to some hyperbole.
"Well Jack, as you probably know, any service in Vietnam was potentially unsafe, with all the Viet Cong running around the south. Also, if I recall correctly, Bush went to the top of the list to get into the Guard, bypassing those less politically connected. Cushy, wasn't it? What makes it funny and slightly annoying is that the Republican party is supposedly the rah-rah America is so tough party and it's now being led by a bunch of chicken hawks."
You are guilty of the same inconsistencies of those who would make Bush's service the most laudable. Revisit your argument.
If potential danger is the benchmark, Bush becomes a more heroic figure than Gore. More people died in his unit, and flying planes is inherently riskier than pulling pencil duty in Vietnam.
If getting to the top of the list is the black mark, Gore's didn't serve his full year, he was babysat, and he had cushy duty. So, on that score, they are moral equivalents.
The most honest appraisal is that two sons of rich, powerful men used that power to make their service cushier. In terms of service, however, that of Gore was more laudable than that of Bush.
"Gore struck just the right note about his Vietnam service, "I didn't have the most dangerous job, but I was proud to serve.""
I could not agree more.
However, to his detriment, in earlier incarnations, he yammered on about being Sergeant Rock.
We're just an ornery public, aren't we?
Not Sergeant Fury (and his howling commandos)?
Or Sad Sack?
Or Beetle Bailey?
Flimsy as hell. But, picked up by the Times today, nevertheless.
He really is gonna regret having had to give up his job.
Gore was in Sleepaway-Camp-Vietnam for five moths.
He spent an incredible fourteen months in the States, "Training" and "reporting" on what was going on in his camp.
He then pulled five months (!) in a safe rear area called a "college campus" by those who served with him. Then he applied for an early discharge and, no surprise, was granted it.
In other words, he spent so much time at a base in the states that by the time he went to Vietnam, he was officially a "short-timer" and eligible for early discharge. He applied for early discharge the moment he was eligible and he was granted it. While "other boys from Carthage" were being killed in the field.
The stuff of heroism? Snort.
Your problem, again, is distinctions. Clinton is not Quayle is not Gore is not Bush. Clinton's evasion is accompanied by certain facts, recollections, statements, and untruths - of which I am sure you are aware -which differentiates his case from others. It is as if you would take the case of a man who hid in the wheel well of a VW on his way to Ontario, ignore any untruths he foisted upon you after the fact, and equate it with Lieberman because, after all, neither man served.
In the end, it smells like the same dissembling stew of "They all do it".
On it goes.
Oh, I agree 100%, Michael. The thing is, the R's were flogging it when it benefited them, and are quiet as mice when it goes against them. That's my point. The D's did it a little with Dan Quayle but not nearly as much as the R's.
The Democrats were rabid on Quayle. The Republicans were rabid on Clinton. Each case, to the extent one has criticisms, can actually be assessed on its own merits, without resort to the dullard's shorthand.
No, not really. Cheney's out? Got link?
What I can't figure out, Michael, and why I'm bringing it up, is why Clinton was given so much shit for being a draft-dodger, and why no one is bringing up military service now that the shoe is on the other foot. You can brush it off as old news, but the question remains.
Clinton was given so much shit because Quayle was given so much shit. Payback's a bitch. Quayle was the first Boomer on a national ticket, with luck Bush and Gore will be the last. Pols born after about 1955 are too young to have been eligible for the draft. (When did the draft end? 1972? It was the same year the steam went out of the peace movement -- anyone wanna look long and hard at that?)
You can't figure it out, after the insightful and indepth analysis presented here by Michael, Jack, and others?
BTW - if the rumor were true, it would be a stroke of genius. End up with the guy who helps you more, the story itself will artifically dominate the airwaves for two weeks, and you will have cut-off the time when the press was in a slower news cycle, during which they would have poked and prodded about your past antipathy.
Its brilliance denotes its falsity.
I love these bullshit rationalizations.
Wombat claims that Cheney's record is impeachable because he "was for the war." Phydeau similarly claims that Cheney is "worse" than Lieberman because Cheney belongs to the "patriotic party."
Ha, ha. Does the Democratic Party claim to be less patriotic than the Republican Party? Of course not. Do they claim to be less interested in national security? No.
This is just the same old bullshit, folks. We've heard that it's okay for Clinton to have an affair, but not Newt Gingrich, because the Republicans claim to be the "moral party." Ha, ha. And have the Democrats conceded this? Do they claim to be the Party of Immorality or libertines?
Or that it's okay for Clinton and Gore to both have taken drugs, and yet have jailed the most drug offenders (for the longest sentences) in American history, and that they're *not* hypocrites, but that Bush *is* a hypocrite, for also being tough-on-drugs. Once again, has the Democratic Party claimed to be easy-on-drugs? Far from it. The Democratic Party makes great hay of the fact that they're now just as tough-on-crime as the Republicans.
Ace - why don't you regale us with a similarly concise and snappy summary about W's tour in the National Guard.
Hard-leftist *voters* will readily admit they hate the military, and would like to see it dismantled, and therefore there is no hypocrisy in they themselves dodging the draft.
But leftist Democratic *candidates* do not make such admissions. Quite the contrary. According to their rhetoric, they're just as willing to bomb foreigners as the Republicans.
Similarly, leftist *voters* are pro-drug-taking and pro-drug-legalization. No hypocrisy (though much stupidity and irresponsibility). But Democratic *candidates* have taken drugs, and yet are just as lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key as Republicans. Even moreso, in fact -- as I mentioned, more drug-offenders have been jailed in Clinton's "Amerikkka" than in any previous administration in history, and for significantly longer periods of incarceration.
Finally, many leftists will gladly admit they're a bunch of religion-despising, same-sex-sodomizing, adulterous sexual libertines. And thus, Clinton's affairs are no big whoop to them.
But Democratic *candidates* make a great show of their committment to church, wife, country, and family.
H.L. Mencken is roaring with laughter in the heaven he never believed in, that's for damn sure. Al Kapp is feeding him lines from dogpatch and the tears roll down and extinguish his everpresent stogie.
If a Democratic candidate ever admits he is anti-military, then I will gladly concede that draft-avoidance is not hypocrisy.
If a Democratic candidate ever concedes that he is soft-on-crime and pro-drug, then I will glanly concede that prior drug use is not hypocrisy.
If a Democratic candidate ever states that his family values are less than savory, and that he's pro-adultery and pro-sexual-harassment, then I will gladly concede that his acts of adultery, sexual harassment, and rape are not hypocrisy.
But no Democratic candidate will ever admit such things, for good reason.
So it is ludicrous to continue excusing Democratic lapses in responsibility, morality, and legality on the basis that the Democratic party is in favor of libertinism and illegality.
Last time I checked, that wasn't in the Democratic platform.
Meaning what?
Do you think it is the official position of the Democratic Party that it is the less patriotic party?
Or do you deny that phydeau in Message # 43625 appealed to this distinction?
But it isn't the job of the Dems to be "left". It's their job to get elected, presumably. So what is the point of comparing the two?
A 6-foot Mr. Potato Head statue, one of dozens dotting Rhode Island as part of a tourism campaign, will be taken down because of complaints that the grinning, brown-skinned figure appeared racist.
The "Tourist Tater" was painted dark brown to appear suntanned and wore an ill-fitting Hawaiian shirt, glasses and a hat . . . .
Kathy Szarko, the artist who designed "Tourist Tater," said that she meant no offense and that several other spud statues are a similar color.
"He's a potato. That's why he's brown," Szarko said.
He he he he he he he.
If you're asking about the Mencken/Kapp reference I mean that they were both men who not only understood but enjoyed the facility of politicians in the peddling of snake oil, and the ravenous hunger of the people for those substances.
In a race between two members in good standing of the Ruling Class the foolishness is less toothsome perhaps, but these boys are all the spriritual sons of William Jennings Bryan.
The death penalty is quite similar.
Leftists excorciate Bush as "Governor Death" while, apparently, conveniently forgetting that Al Gore supports the death penalty, and supported Clinton's initiatives to make certain federal offenses punishable by death.
As far as I know, Gore has not changed his position.
So what are we to make of this? Obviously, leftists believe that Gore isn't really for the Death Penalty-- that he's just lying to the rubes of flyover country. As opposed to Bush, who really is for the death penalty.
Thus we understand the leftists double-standard-- based on Democrats' actual words and stated positions, they are superficially hypocritical on issues.
But based on the knowlege that they are secretly lying to the public, they are not guilty of hypocrisy.
Just lying.
Why lying is preferable to hypocrisy is a mystery that awaits explication.
What are you blathering about now?
Thanks. I misunderstood your point.
You can take the boy out of TT, but getting TT out of the boy is a little harder, huh?
"But it isn't the job of the Dems to be "left". It's their job to get elected, presumably. So what is the point of comparing the two?"
I think I was reasonably clear. Perhaps not. I'll try again:
Because leftists excuse, for example, Democratic adultery & perjury on the basis that leftists themselves don't think adultery & perjury are a big deal. Thus, Clinton comitting adultery & perjury is not hypocritical, while Newt Gingrich's adultery (without perjury) *IS* hypocritical.
One problem: Clinton champions "family values" and "law and order." He has never, never claimed to be pro-immorality and pro-illegality as the leftists postulate.
Were he to so proclaim himself, then indeed, he would not be guilty of hypcrisy.
But he made/makes a great show of attending church, holding hands with his wife, etc. All the "sins" that Phydeau lays at the feet of his Republican tormentors.
And therefore he is guilty of hypocrisy.
Leftists' words and beliefs aren't relevant for a discussion of *Clinton's* hypocrisy. Only Clinton's words, actions, and stated beliefs are relevant for such a discussion.
And the record shows that:
--Clinton makes a great show of his love of family
-- Clinton makes a great show of his religiosity
-- Clinton locks up more petty pot-dealers than even "Zero Tolerance" Ronald Reagan
-- Clinton believes that men accused of sexual harassment can and should be asked questions about other office dalliances -- and he promoted and signed that bill into law in 1994
etc.
Leftists keep trying to Compare Clinton's actions with *leftists'* words and beliefs in order to adjudge Clinton innocent of hypocrisy.
That's irrelevant.
What's relevant is a comparison of Clinton's actions with *CLINTON'S* words and stated beliefs.
And by that comparison, he is just as hypocritical (if not moreso) than Barr, Gingrich, etc.
We could go on and on.
Leftists excorciate Republicans for DOMA, for example, while apparently giving Clinton/Gore a pass. The secret knowlege which makes this double-standard understandable:
Clinton and Gore are liars who cynically signed DOMA into existance despite the fact that they're really on "our side."
That may be so. But the fact remains:
He signed DOMA into law. If he secretly didn't like the bill-- well, who fucking cares? It's LAW now, boyzzzz.
It seems that your argument is that many devout leftists are hacks without a shred of intellectual integrity. But surely, this was a given.
One thing about Clinton, though: I don't think it is hypocrisy to make a show of loving your wife and still do the deal with the intern and the cigar. Tacky. But not hypocritical. And as a general rule, I don't see him touting family values. Were he to do so, I think the fact that he's still married and has a good kid counts for something.
isn't really for the Death Penalty-- that he's just lying to the rubes of
flyover country. As opposed to Bush, who really is for the death
penalty. "
You have a problem with anti-death penalty advocates seeing a distinction between a pol who has paid lip service to the death penalty (how many people have been executed under federal death penalty statutes?) and a pol who has embraced the penalty with gusto?
Regarding your overall point (although curiously you only discuss one of the two parties) that people in one part are much more forgiving of of transgressions of party members than they are of the same transgressions in the opposing party - alert the media. I don't think this has ever occurred to anyone before.
Or are you just saying that they are different sorts of hypocrisies, in that Dems don't really believe that the transgressions of their leaders are sins, but GOPpers do. In which case, I am not sure why you consider the former situation more alarming.
"Were he to do so, I think the fact that he's still married and has a good kid counts for something."
Jesus Christ. Review Chris Rock's "Bring the Pain" for a discussion on people asking for credit for "shit they're just supposed to do."
Clinton has a "good kid." Jesus Fucking Christ. One, who knows how "good" she is, and Two, who fucking cares?
Clinton's kid isn't in jail? Am I supposed to applaud? Has the Kennedy Klan become the standard by which all political children are to be judged?
Am I supposed to hoot-n-holler because none of Clinton's kids have committed rape, statutory rape, criminal possession, etc.?
I'd say the all-time champ has to be Newt Gingrich babbling about "we are the party of family values" while carrying on an affair with a woman not his wife, who mysteriously got a cushy job in the House without any noticable skill in that area (agriculture, I believe).
Any other nominees?
Yayyyy for the Clintons -- they raised a child who hasn't been arrested and who has gone to college.
Alert the media.
Oh well.
for Ace and Jack:
PRESIDENT GORE. GET USED TO IT!
I've heard the "Chelsea-is-a-good-kid" defense a thousand fucking times from a thousand Clinton defenders. Pretty cynical, to inject a child into the debate.
Conservatives, confronted with "Chelsea is a good kid," always demure and say Yes, she is a wonderful kid. What the fuck else can they say?
But I don't quite understand how "Chelsea is a good kid" is some sort of talisman.
MILLIONS of people in America raise "good kids." Tens of millions. Hell, approaching a hundred million.
Only one or two percent of kids are "bad," just like only one or two percent of the population are "bad" -- criminals, etc.
And yet we're supposed to sing hoseannas because the Clintons accomplished what 97% of parents are able to accomplish.
In the first place, you ignored the gist of my post. Rask asked the same thing. I mean, whooopdedo.
As far as Clinton goes, the emphasis was more on "raised" than "good kid". He was and is an actively involved father, and while that may be what all male politicians are supposed to do, quite a few just leave it to the wife. He did not.
And the issue isn't giving him credit or lauding him, it is saying that it doesn't leave him open to an attack on his family values.
"You have a problem with anti-death penalty advocates seeing a distinction between a pol who has paid lip service to the death penalty (how many people have been executed under federal death penalty statutes?) and a pol who has embraced the penalty with gusto?"
You make Ace's point. Gore is for it - with gusto, without equivocation. His comments are steadfast. But you assume he only gives it "lip service" as if you are privvy to a more humane approach he secretly keeps (an approach he hides from the dumb rubes cleaning cow shit, but which the smart set can glean).
He is not, however, a governor, so, unlike Clinton and Bush, he has not been able to oversee an execution.
i mentioned it in my Message # 43215, and there was a brief conversation.
PS - welcome, if a new poster to theMote. welcome back if not!
Meanwhile, the count for W. and Laura is two.
So, there.
"He was and is an actively involved father, and while that may be what all male politicians are supposed to do, quite a few just leave it to the wife. He did not."
Absurd. You have no basis for asserting this, other than PR from the Clintons.
You have no fucking idea how much parenting he did.
But let me concede, arguendo, he did lots and lots and lots of parenting. Let me concede, arguendo, he taught Chelsea how to read and gave her love and support.
Once again:
YOU'RE FUCKING SUPPOSED TO TEACH AND LOVE YOUR CHILDREN.
Please cite me a big-time politician's child (who have, let's face it, all of the advantages in life, and who all come from better-than-average gene pools) who is NOT a "good kid."
Do not cite any children with the last names of Grams or Kennedy. We know about these. Please cite all of the malfunction political children, so we can judge how heroic an effort it was to keep Chelsea from raping or dealing drugs.
Please cite me a big-time politician's child (who have, let's face it, all of the advantages in life, and who all come from better-than-average gene pools) who is NOT a "good kid."
Again. The operative issue was "raised".
Please cite me a big-time politician who was as actively involved in the raising of their child as Clinton was. You've already conceded it, I think, if that's what arguendo means.
equivocation. His comments are steadfast. But you assume he only
gives it "lip service" as if you are privvy to a more humane approach
he secretly keeps (an approach he hides from the dumb rubes
cleaning cow shit, but which the smart set can glean). "
It is "lip service" in that it is a mostly meaningless pronouncement, as the Federal Government (Gore's exclusive venue) has damned little to do with the death penalty. I am saying that there is nothing weird, or wrong, about seeing a distinction between someone who supports the death penalty in principle, and someone who has enthusiastically supported it in practice.
"arguendo" means "for the sake of argument." It is a provisional, let's-pretend concession, not a bona-fide "you're right" concession.
There is no way to prove that Clinton "raised" Chelsea to the extent of your fevered, hero-worshipping imaginings. There is no way to prove that Reagan didn't "raise" his children to the same extent (indeed, they all speak extremely fondly of the Old Man, even Ron, who despises him on a political level).
Jack:
"Compartmentalizing," you know.
Not cool since I was on that same road, the same week.
Sorry, but I don't buy the notion that infidelity has much to do with quality of parenting. The world is full of fathers who screw around and love their kids.
Ace, please try and remember here that I am not touting Clinton as a paragon of family values. Only that he isn't a hypocrite were he to make mention of them now and again. He's not known for being terribly moral on the subject.
You have asserted his support is mere "lip service." This is based on a fact not in the record, or an assumption. And the distinction you draw is convenient, but meaningless. You ask both men whether they suppport it, and they say "yes." That one has the job of actually overseeing it means nothing.
Under your distinction, when Clinton ran against Bush in 1992, his support for the Gulf War was mere "lip service" because, in fact, he had not overseen prosecution of the Gulf War.
"I am saying that there is nothing weird, or wrong, about seeing a distinction between someone who supports the death penalty in principle, and someone who has enthusiastically supported it in practice..."
That is the advantage of never having served in a position of executive, "buck stops here" responsibility.
You can cast lots of votes and make lots of speeches without ever having to act and without ever having to actually make a consequential decision.
Clinton "killed" quite a few men, too. I give him high snaps for that.
Jack - that is scary. Not liking Yale I can understand, but what do you have against glasses and hirsute armpits. Let alone, generous Daddies.
As for Jack's rationalization for Bush's duty as being more hazardous, it conviently compares Gore's small unit with a much larger Air Force unit. I would wager that more people were killed in Jeeps in Vietnam than in training aircraft in the US in the same period.
Ace seems to think that the death penalty is a black and white issue. I am saying that there are shades of gray, and while liberals don't know Gore's specific shade of gray, they know Bush's is charcoal.
Nor do I. It was a joke. Next time, I'll type (slaps knee).
It is the combination of the three that so haunts me.
If Gore ever had any qualms about Clinton's "bloodthirstiness" in executing brain-damaged Ricky Ray Rector, he sure the hell has kept awfully quiet about it.
Democrats:
For the stupid masses, we're gung-ho for the death penalty.
For the effete intellectuals, we're very much against it. Shhhh. Don't tell anybody.
Don't start. The issue of Gore's cushy service has been documented and re-documented on this thread. Trust me. You've written enough valentines to the man, and I happen to know that Chris Lehane is personally thankful to you.
But in your first post, you said that you accepted it for the sake of argument--and said that's what he was supposed to do.
Now you are questioning it?
I wouldn't, btw. The stories are pretty common, and they aren't the sort that would be made up. They were also around for a long time before he was President.
Besides, what's the big deal? I granted your point--there are many hacks on both sides of the spectrum. Who gives a damn? I only quibbled slightly with your assertion that Clinton moralizes on family values (compared to any Republican, he certainly doesn't) and that he could be particularly slammed on the subject, given the fact that his marriage is still intact and he was actively involved in raising his child.
"The stories are pretty common, and they aren't the sort that would be made up. They were also around for a long time before he was President. "
Cal, there are a LOT of stories about Clinton -- which have been around for "long before he was President," including tales of rape and corruption --but oddly you don't give these stories much credence as Clinton-cronies' self-serving statements to the Parade Sunday Supplement.
It is definitional. Lip service = "verbal expression unsupported by conviction or action". I am saying that Gore has done very little along the lines of the death penalty.
"And the distinction you draw is convenient, but meaningless. You ask both men whether they suppport it, and they say "yes." That one has the job of actually overseeing it means nothing. "
Of course it means something. It tells you how the person would implement such a policy. Look. On one hand we have a pol who favors the death penalty, but has never (due to his position) implemented it. On the other, you have a pol who has presided over a very disproportionately high number of executions, in a state with a poor reputation for judical accuracy, and is on record supporting those executions.
"Under your distinction, when Clinton ran against Bush in 1992, his
support for the Gulf War was mere "lip service" because, in fact, he
had not overseen prosecution of the Gulf War."
I suppose. It is certainly easy to support a successful war effort after the fact. What is your point?
Ace,
You went from ranting about leftist hacks to arguing with me about whether or not Clinton's a good daddy. All because I wouldn't argue with you about leftist hacks. Really, it's unfair. Why not find something to discuss?
I think there is only one story I don't buy about Clinton, and that's the rape. That's because it's not in keeping with the many other flaws he so prominently displays, not because of any hackdom on my part.
And Cal, you don't seem to understand the point of my conceding the point "arguendo."
I only conceded your point arguendo so that I could get to my larger point -- even if your horseshit tales of parental love are true, who fucking gives a shit? 95% of fathers are in moony-eyed love with their children -- especially their daughters -- and yet you wish to make some kind of issue of this.
But the fact that I conceded your point "arguendo" for the purpose of getting to a "Who fucking cares?" doesn't mean I actually concede your point.
You don't know how good a Dad Clinton was. Neither do I.
I do know he spent lots and lots of hours talking to Monica Lewinsky on the phone, hours which could have been more constructively spent chatting with Chelsea. I do know he spent huge amounts of time having affairs after-hours, and covering up these affairs from his wife, hours which could have been better spent teaching his child.
But, apparently, Clinton's day consists of forty hours, and thus he can work for ten hours, have affairs for ten hours, sleep for eight hours, and be a dutiful father and husband for the remaining twelve hours.
The rest of us poor men have only twenty-four hours in a day, and therefore any time we spend having affairs and/or covering these affairs up must, by necessity, come out of the time we spend working or parenting our children.
But not Clinton. His forty-hour day allows him to be the hardest-working, hardest-whoring, hardest-parenting man who has ever lived.
Ha ha ha ha. You've made an old man laugh. God bless you
Rask
Your definition of "lip service" is peculiar.
Who says you can't have it all??!!
I don't think so. I cribbed it from a dictionary.
Jack:
Gore's "lip service" for the Death Penalty apparently consists of voting for federal death penalty statutes, supporting such initiatives as Vice President, and running on a death penalty national platform in not one but four consecutive presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000).
Then again, we know he only gave "lip service" to the Siljander Amendment, "lip service" to abortion rights, "lip service" to gun-rights, "lip service" to gun control, "lip service" to improved CAFE standards, and "lip service" to lowering CAFE standards in order to help the ailing American auto industry.
When you're on both sides of each and every issue, simple luck dictates that you will always be right at one time or another.
Mine says "insincere expression or respect, loyalty, support etc." Moreover, the "or action" part of your definition presumes that the individual gaiving "lip service' is actually in a position to effectuate action.
What I know is that you spent some ten posts ranting about leftist hypocrites. I agreed with you, inquired why you were so upset when it was a given, and made one mild qualifier about Clinton.
You then spent five or more posts raving about that one qualifier--and have missed the point consistently, acting as if I have nominated the man for the Robert Young award, rather than saying that a guy who is a good dad and in the same first marriage can't really be crucified on family values by a bunch of divorced pols on trophy wife 2 with child support payments up the yinyang. It's a small point, and surely not terribly controversial. It also isn't the point that you are answering. Why? Well, because you'd have to agree with me, and then you wouldn't be able to rant.
BTW, I'm divorced and work many hours away from home and quite often enjoy sexual escapades when instead I should be conversing with my son. So really, I have no reason to be assessing Clinton on family values.
Go find a sense of proportion. Me, I'm off to take my kid to the doctor and find out if this damn problem he's got is recurrent or curable.
No, no, no.
Unless he actually pulls down the big hammer on some killer, no matter his votes, pronouncements, public policy positions, or other statements of support, it is mere "lip service."
Even if he has never held a position that requires that he oversee executions.
Once again, Gore is lucky that he doesn't have a record of actual consequential action, as a Governor would.
By remaining in positions of dilluted or nominal responsibility for his entire political career, his acolytes can plausibly claim that Gore supports whatever the fuck Gore claims he supports this week.
After all, no real record. Votes for the Siljander Amendment are "procedural votes"; a twenty-year history of supporting the death penalty is just an "abstract" support of capital punishment "in principle," which is really just a wink to the Unwashed Moron Voters and a nod to the New York Times' editorial page; etc.
I just wanna live long enough to see the Opera, the Movie, the Series, and all the revisionist History on Our Bill.
In my Clinton Opera, Our Bill will get his comeuppance when Hillary runs of literally and figurativly to the Isle of Lesbos with
Cal,
You're funny. You agree with me on four points, disagree with me on one, and then expect me to discuss our points of agreement rather than our point of contention.
Ah, well. That's women for ya.
For the record, thank you for agreeing with me on four points. But, as a contentions male, I prefer to discuss our points of disagreement rather than our points of accord.
(by all appearances. That puts them way ahead of the Clintons, right?
I know this was not meant to be funny, but a far out Liberal lauding one for having 4 kids is a hoot. My god, how great would he be if he had 8?
And, governors certainly are able to take pot shots on a number of issues - foreign policy comes to mind - without having what might be a contradictory record to defend or explain.
Well, heavens. Why didn't you say so?
In that case, you still miss my point by interpreting it as if I were a leftist hack. I find this upsetting. Couldn't you ask me if he lied under oath? Then we could be properly contentious.
Bobby Kennedy times.8 great.
"We are all for stiffer penalties for drugs used in greater numbers by African Americans and wink at middle class use."
We are for it?
No, no, no. Clinton/Gore/Lieberman is for it. It's their policy, buckeroo, and they've not made the slightest gesture at changing it.
Ghostbusters is a fine film. I find myself in the same moral dilemma every time I watch it. Sigourney Weaver is so attractive when she wants Bill Murray to be her keymaster, yet, he does not take advantage of her. I don't have that kind of strength.
Let me put this gently.
You didn't understand my post.
Yesterday they were donkeys.
Horses.
Jack,
Don't you think it's funny that liberals all seem to consider being in the Senate "great experience," while conservatives prefer gubernatorial experience?
This isn't just because Gore's a Senator, and Bush is a governor. This is standard.
I think liberals just find reality "messy" and "icky," and therefore prefer their leaders come from an effete, elite debating society rather than actually having to make icky, win-lose decisions of actual consequence.
I think liberals just find reality "messy" and "icky," and therefore prefer their leaders come from an effete, elite debating society rather than actually having to make icky, win-lose decisions of actual consequence.
how do the actions in the Senate not matter as much? they (i.e. the Congress) only control the purse strings - arguably the most important thing in all of governance.
Jones--
Of course Republicans support tough drug laws. So do I. I was merely giving jan "You can't be too far left for me" jon a little poke.
Jack--
Re: Senate v. Governor's Mansion
I noticed last week all the liberals lined up to declaim how "important" a Senator's work is, while you sputtered in disbelief.
Meanwhile, of course, you championed Bush Sr.'s actual EXECUTIVE, command-decision experience, while they all poo-poohed, finding debating and voting more important than an ambassadorship to China.
Lord, can't you get off this kick? I mean, it's funny periodically but I can't remember the last time you talked about anything else.
When was the last time a Governor ever had to decide to go to war?
Mind you, I don't really have a lot of respect for Congresss OR statehouses, but...effete my eye. Especially if compared to all-American red meat governors.
RD:
The Senate, and the House, are very important, of course --as a *whole.*
Just like the Department of Health and Human Services is important -- as a *whole*.
I would not argue, however, that being the Sub-Vice-Secretary for the Delivery of Prenatal Health Benefits is a position that gives you "great experience" to actually lead a country.
You are absolutely right about Gore and poor Ace is wrong. One must conclude with Gore that all of his utterances have a good chace of being mere "lip service."
Presumably you felt the same way about the Senate when Dole was running against Clinton.
Way back you asked who I was voteing for. Since you know nothing about me, I suspect you think you know. It is Harry Browne, and if you are curious as to why, go to www.harrybrowne.org
"When was the last time a Governor ever had to decide to go to war?"
When was the last time a Senator had to decide to go to war?
Every President since at least Johnson has claimed that he himself had all the authority necessary to commit troops to our various minor wars.
Bush Sr, you will remember, did not seek Senate approval for the Gulf War, and stated quite forcefully he would go to war whether the Senate gave its blessing or not.
"Presumably you felt the same way about the Senate when Dole was running against Clinton."
Actually, I did. Senator Dole was a better man than Clinton, but it is beyond dispute that actual executive experience is the best training for a President.
The Vietnam saga is filled with all sorts of Congressional votes, none of which were declarations.
The Korean War wasn't a war as I recall (just a police action).
So, by gum, you are correct. World War II is a long time ago.
Can you tell me the last time a decision to go to war was made by Congress?
Rask,
Apparently, your "lip service" thesis gives you license to disbelieve Gore on any point you find too "icky" for you.
That's fine. I don't believe a word he says, either.
But your thesis means, ultimately, that Gore simply cannot be judged by his record on any point, since what you are actually arguing is that he pays "lip service" to any policy as long as it's popular with the electorate-- at the moment.
-- I do seem to recall a Senate resolution (where Gore broke with his party) concerning the Gulf War. That certainly makes a record.
Um, as I said, Bush did not ask for the Senate's support, and would have gone to war without it. Making the Senate's resolution a nice gesture, and a politically helpful one, but nothing more than a gesture.
Incidentally, Gore sold his Gulf War vote for TV time. But I digress.
--The Vietnam saga is filled with all sorts of Congressional votes, none of which were declarations.
"All sorts of... votes"? I only recall the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Once again, Johnson stated he didn't need the resolution (though he did in fact seek it, claiming it would only be used to show the North Vietnamese that America was "serious").
--The Korean War wasn't a war as I recall (just a police action).
Ha, ha. Okay.
--So, by gum, you are correct. World War II is a long time ago.
Indeed, I am correct, and World War II *was* a long time ago. Lots of books have been written on the subject of the "Declaration of War" being outmoded in the Cold War era. Certainly it has been disused.
Yeah, Congress declared war right after Roosevelt manipulated us into it. But that's a whole other Thread.
According to Sen. Alan Simpson, Gore went to both parties and stated that whichever would give him the most time on the floor would get his vote. Since Dole agreed to give him the most time, he voted with the Republicans. That is certainly a record, but probably not the kind you were hoping for.
PS:
Clinton violated the War Powers Act in Serbia. He did not, as the Act requires, get Congressional approval after the specified 60 (or 90) days after troops had been committed.
No big deal. No President has ever taken the Watergate Era War Powers Act seriously, including Reagan and Bush. So I can hardly fault Clinton for following precedent.
But don't go whining when President George W. Bush similarly ignores it (which he will, and of course you *will* whine like bitches).
GWB will have even *stronger* precendent on his side-- a federal court ruled against some Congressmen who sought an injunction against Clinton based on a violation of the War Powers Act.
You know, I am beginning to suspect you have a problem seeing how things actually work. You made an indefensable statement, Ace points out your error, and you go on. War is made by the President and either supported or not supported by Congress. All they can do is withhold funding. Fat chance of that ever happening
You'll have to take Alan Simpson's word on Gore "selling" his vote. Simpson, the same Senator who commiserated with Saddam on how the US media made him look bad when visiting Iraq on a "fact" finding trip. Now there's a disinterested source for you.
Not that I'm complaining.
As for the Gore lore, quote me a Dem. in the Senate at the time who collaborates this little boffo, and I'll pay attention.
Ohio, Wombat--
How about it? Do you admit you will whine like bitches when President GWB disregards the War Powers Act, despite your fervent support of Clinton for doing the same?
In the spirit of always trying to be helpful, let me be a bit redundant here.
This little discussion has been about votes required of/taken by Congress which, for better or worse but for posterity, make a record -which can come back to bite a candidate in the ass later on - on issues where Governors have the luxury of sitting it out, so to speak.
It never - never - and I mean never turned on whether or not those votes were formal declarations of war.
That would be idiotic.
If you want to air your theories on how Roosevelt conspired to get the Japanese to attack, I will look forward to reading about them in the WWII thread
43764. OhioSTOPAS - 9/29/00 9:35:20 PM
I'll be whining, all right, if George W. Bush is making life-and-death decisions. From under my bed.
43765. Wombat - 9/29/00 9:36:33 PM
Don't count your chickens before they're elected, Ace. As to your hypothetical, that depends on the situation.
Ha, ha, ha.
Ohio and Wombat both ducking hypotheticals-- who would have guessed?
At least Wombat signals his real answer-- and his real hypocrisy:
"As to your hypothetical, that depends on the situation."
But of course it "depends," darrrling. It depends on whether the President in question is a semi-liberal Democrat. If he's a Republican, facing a Democratic Congress, the law applies in full effect. If he's a semi-liberal fatboy Democrat facing a Big Meanie Republican Congress, the law doesn't apply.
Laws either mean something or they don't, Wombat. The law does not state by its own text that it only applies to Republican president, and no Constitutional "penumbra" supports such a ridiculous-on-its-face interpretation.
It doesn't matter if *you* support the war in question, Dope. Either the law applies to all Presidents fighting all wars, or it applies to none of them.
What happened to a nation of laws, not men?
Liberals apparently don't believe in such a simple axiom.
Whether or not a law applies always seems to "depend" on the man in question.
Four legs good, two legs better.
Buck up.
This is so ridiculous.
I'm a partisan. But I'm consistent.
I don't waffle on the War Powers Act, depending on whether I approve of the President at the time. I have ONE standard -- it's constitutionally dubious, and impossible to enforce, so it doesn't apply.
Sure, I *could* have disingenously cried havoc about Clinton violating it while giving Republicans a pass. But I didn't. I have chosen my standard; I shall live with it, and I shall apply that standard to all.
But life is always more "complex" and "nuanced" to first-rate dunces like Wombat. Like a woman, he refuses to take a position. Everything always "depends" on a myriad of circumstances-- well, ONE circumstance, at least... the party affiliation of the President in question.
He excuses Clinton for violating the act. But he's absolutely unapologetic about the fact that he will shriek "Unconstitutional and Illegal war!" if a Republican does the same.
What a fucking chump.
Oh, I stand corrected. I was under the impression the discussion was about which prepared one more for leadership, executive or legislative experience. Please accept my apology for my misunderstanding, for I am old and feeble of mind, while you are young and facile.
Apparantly you don't distinguish between peacekeeping and war making as well. Or do you believe the balkans actions featured offensive operations by US troops? Finally, since the US was responding to treaty obligations under the UN charter, and the same were approved by Congress, do you assert that there was no congressional approval for the actions?
You have to take into account the Congress' intent. When the Democratic Congress passed the law, they intended it to be applied only to Republican Presidents. It was inconceivable to them that they might ever lose control of Congress.
"Original intent" indeed gave Congress the Power to Delcare War. "Original Intent" ALSO made the President the Commander-in-Chief, with the power to order his troops hither and thither. "Original intent" never explained, precisely, what to do when the the two Powers came into conflict.
And thus the problem.
We've been having this debate SINCE WASHINGTON'S FIRST TERM.
"I thought that you'd be wearing war paint over protecting Congress's power to declare war, as being a check on the executive branch. I would think that engaging foreign troops would qualify as war, regardless of whether it was offensive or defensive."
This is a fine definition, if you're consistent with it. Your definition is far, far too broad for me, personally, and I doubt you'd find any Presidents or even many Congressment who agreed that any engagement of foreign troops counts as "war" requiring a declaration.
But if this is your definition, fine. I only ask that you admit that Clinton has violated the principles you espouse, as has Jimmy Carter, as has every Republican. And I only ask that you don't shriek "Unconstitional, illegal war" if/when GWB engages w/o a declaration, just like you stayed mum when Clinton did the same.
Yes, that's what I assert. If this is the slender reed you hang your distinctions on, you're in big trouble. Because Korea too was just a "police action" authorized by the UN. Further, if you claim that a previous treaty obligation (like our treaty obligation to the UN's Security Counsel) trumps the need for Congressional authority, I'm at wit's end to figure out what undeclared war *wouldn't* be Constitutional, as we have treaty obligations pledging collective defense with half the countries on the face of the Earth.
(We had such a pledge of collective defense with Vietnam, by the way, which was added as a protocol state to SEATO. And SEATO promised collective defense against aggression.)
I suppose you'll claim that our UN treaty obligations are "different" than our other treay obligations. As far as I know, the Constitution doesn't make such distinctions.
Finally, the fact that NATO or the UN "authorizes" us to use force does not REQUIRE us to use force. The President could say, "Fuck off." The Congress could say, "Fuck off." "Authorization" is permission, not a command order.
So "The UN made him do it" defense doesn't fly. Congress had this debate in the forties/fifties -- the great Taft/Vandenberg debates, I believe -- and Congress decided that our UN treaty obligations did NOT trump the Constitutional requirement that Congress declare war.
Quite frankly, I don't think Congress *could* trump the Constitution, even if it wanted to. You need a Constitutional amendment for that, and there is no "UN Treaty Override" amendment.
Don't you think it's funny that liberals all seem to consider being in the
Senate "great experience," while conservatives prefer gubernatorial
experience?
janjon
When was the last time a Governor ever had to decide to go to war?
Now I am really confused. Is it possible that the old man got it right all along, and the young facile janjon, no doubt injected with eel blood, slithers out of the argument?
I'm sure we will find a consensus as to whom the winner is.
Senate "great experience," while conservatives prefer gubernatorial
experience? "
Who the hell ever said this? The last two Democratic presidents have been governors, and Reagan is the only GOP president since Calvin Coolidge to have been a governor. This is one of the weakest straw men I have ever seen you put up, and you are the king of straw man arguments.
Not only good grammer, but fine irony.
their leaders come from an effete, elite debating society rather than
actually having to make icky, win-lose decisions of actual
consequence. "
Gosh, I guess given the facts in my last post, Ace "Mr Consistency" Spades must now believe that the reverse is true.
I'll be charitable and (a) assume you didn't read this and (b) save you the effort of trying to find it by reading back, since it is obviously not something you do well:
43777. janjon - 9/29/00 10:08:33 PM
It was, doofus. But, not in terms of the subtext (which was going on at the time you put your one-cent's worth in)about responding to Ace's little trick question about Congressional declarations of war.
Sorry. Perhaps I should have identified you as being doofus. But, in the context it was self-evident.
Now, I'll continue this little minuet if you like or persist. But, I would prefer not to.
by his record on any point, since what you are actually arguing is that he pays "lip service" to any policy as long as it's popular with the electorate-- at the moment."
Don't be silly. Of course Gore has a record. My point was just that he doesn't have much of a record on the death penalty, as his stances have been largely meaningless, since the Feds have little to do with death penalty issues. Gore is very proficient at taking meaningless, symbolic stances which are politically popular. I have frequently said as much. He also has a track record on other issues which are *not* meaningless. I generally think that track record is good. You don't.
Its just that Bush's record annoys them a lot more, and this is justified, given the beliefs of the anti-death penalty crowd and Bush's record.
This non-liberal member of the anti-death penalty crowd thinks liberals fail to understand that whether you call for the death penalty to win votes, or implement the death penalty to keep them, you are pandering to the worst instincts of the mob. Liberals can't bring themselves to mention the mob very often, but those who cry out for vengeance, retribution, and blood (however sanitized it may be) are a mob. There is no colder blood than that which takes life via execution.
My problem with Bush is not that he does what he is required to do, what he favors doing, and what the people of his state, in mob assembled, desire him to do.
The problem with Bush is the he lacks curiosity. When the state sends him 200 people to be executed, to think he would commute 10% is lunacy, that he has found no reason to commute or question any execution is a sign of excessive detatchment that is excessively troubling in terms of other issues.
None of that has the least bit to do with the cold blooded pandering to the mob done by Al Gore on the issue.
Quite mindless of me...
The quarrel or question I have about your post is whether it is accurate or fair to state that Gore is engaged in coldblooded pandering on this issue. Not so, if he believes in what he espouses.
As for the contest, I'm afraid I would be at a loss to predict the candidates' best zingers. I'm sure gobs have been written and tried out in the rehearsals. And I'm sure there are plenty in the tapes the FBI is reviewing.
But I think it's kind of like predicting what Paul Lynde might have said on any given Hollywood Squares outing.
I mean, who could have predicted that there would be a question, "The Civil War's General Sherman said that BLANK is hell. Fill in the blank."
Or that Lynde would reply, "The pastry business."
No one except Lynde's writer, of course.
And as for Ricky, even I do not believe that civilization will be unalterably changed for the worse if Hillary Clinton represents New York in the Senate. On the other hand, it may not be improved a lot, either.
"that he has found no reason to commute or question any execution is a sign of excessive detatchment that is excessively troubling in terms of other issues."
He does not have the power to commute sentences, or grant clemency, or pardons. Only the Texas Board of Paroles & Pardons has that power.
That's what the Texas Constitution says-- they took the politics out of the death penalty.
The Texas Governor has only one power as regards mercy & the like-- he may grant a single 30 day stay of execution.
Bush has done so twice.
The last time he did it was for Ricky McGinn, executed two days ago. McGinn claimed that DNA tests would prove him innocent of the brutal rape and murder of his stepdaughter.
Bush authorized a stay of execution for the DNA tests.
The DNA tests were conducted. They proved McGinn *did* rape his stepdaughter.
McGinn was put to death.
It is a childish fantasy that innocent men are being executed. Not one -- not ONE -- single person executed since the fifties has ever been proven, or even strongly evidenced, as innocent.
There have been men on death row proven innocent; but then, they weren't exectued. The system works, by and large.
Will there be an innocent man executed at some point? In all likelihood, there will be. But then, there are innocent men sent to dehumanizing confinement for their entire lives, confinement filled with rape, beatings, and worse, and yet that does not make life-without-parole an invalid punishment.
True, then it would be hot-blooded pandering.
I'm off to dine with friends.
Michael Mele really ought to look up the facts before he pontificates.
He finds it "troubling" that Bush hasn't granted more clemencies (apparently Mele believes that at least 10% of convicted capital-murderers should be granted mercy), and yet he doesn't know that the Texas Constitution expressly disbars the Governor from granting such relief.
In order to spare a capital murderer from death, Bush would literally have to break the convict out of prison and smuggle him to the border of Mexico.
He simply does not have the power of clemency Mele wishes him to wield more often.
Sorry, Mele calls for more "commutations."
Same deal. No Texas Governor has such a power.
And so it goes...
Bush is blasted for not wielding a power which he simply doesn't have, and Gore is excused for consistently advocating (and voting for) a punishment he was under no obligation to support.
I repeat - I hardly applaud Gore for his position.
All I can say is holy shit. Does reality mean anything to these guys? It should make one blush to be as stupid as the above posters have been shown to be, but I see no evidence of it. I will be the first to admit, I say a lot of stupip things, but I at least have the good grace to say, yeah, that was wrong, wasn't it.
since the Feds have little to do with death penalty issues.
Accepting, arguendo, and noting that the office in question is a Federal one, doesn't it follow that positions on the death penalty shouldn't be an issue?
Welcome!!!
Sorry you didn't get much of a welcome, but this was a particularly busy thread, and people were too much into the debate to take time to say hello.
(Of course, if it had been a slow time, then you wouldn't get much of a welcome because there wouldn't have been anyone around.)
Clyde,
You know, I have done almost no reading on the Broderick case--well, I've read, but none of it has really filed away. It really doesn't matter to me--his other misbehaviors are exceptionally well documented, and they are completely at odds with a rapist profile.
I agree that they probably had sex, and that it was consensual.
Just a little reality injection. Carry on.
Phyedeau, Moron, Esq.:
He appoints them, then they serve for five year terms. They do not serve at his pleasure.
Thus, Bush's "wants" have nothing to do with them. They do not answer to Bush. He is not their boss. Once they are appointed, they are independent actors, and Bush's "wants" mean as much to them as, say, yours.
Well, not quite. You are a sub-moron, and your wants surely mean less to them than, say, the beliefs and desires of a game-hen.
For example, Clinton surely wants Alan Greenspan to endorse Gore's "Political Oil Reserve" initiative, but instead Greenspan has criticized it in no uncertaint terms.
Despite the fact that Clinton (re)appointed Greenspan.
See, Greenspan is an independent human being, and Clinton is not his boss, and therefore he can go against Clinton's wishes.
The notion of "independent minds" is rather foreign to most Clintonistas, however. Knowing only the cold comfort of the Hive Mind, they get a bit perplexed by notions of independence.
Clinton defenders are all sort of like Seven of Nine in this regard, except they're not good-looking.
So I checked.
Not surprisingly, it is a Star trek reference.
click on photo 
Ok, back to your regularly scheduled thrashings
I'm also perplexed at the leftists' attacks on "Governor Death" in this regard:
They always claim that Bush shouldn't be putting as many people to death. That he should be granting clemency and what not for "more" convicted murderers.
My simple question:
Which murderers would you have set free? They never want to actually name names, because they know damn well that all the convicts on Texas' death row are guilty and deserving of death. So they speak in numbers: This many have been killed; this many had bad lawyers; this many had less-than-average intelligence, etc.
Fair enough.
But name names.
Precisely WHO is innocent, and WHO is deserving of mercy?
Guaranteed, no one will come up with a single name. Except perhaps Gary Graham, who was I.D.'d committing the crime, and I.D.'d by another victim (whose leg he blew off with a shotgun in the course of an armed robbery).
So please, leftists--
please name the names of all these "innocent" men languishing on Texas' death row.
I really want to know who these innocent men are. I promise you, I have no desire to see innocent men put to death. Identify these "innocent men" for me, and I'll join your quest to free them.
See? It's very easy to say, ignorantly, "Geeze, so many men have been executed, some of them must have been innocent."
That's very vague.
It's harder to name names. Who are these innocent men? Surely there must be a list. Surely you must know their cases by heart for you to make the claim that Bush is putting so many "innocent men" to death.
I'm not immune from stupidity, or ignorance (and I know the difference) but sometimes my stupidity is in forgetting that an answer addressed to a specific, may be generalized in ways that do not follow.
My throw away line about Bush communting or not, or recommending for pardon or not, 10% was a "for instance". I was addressing the notion that a Governor who is required to oversee executions is somehow more culpable than a Senator or Vice-President or Candidate who merely advocates them.
I'm well aware of the fact that Texas has a weak Governor system, and that it is the Board of Pardons that makes the final decision about executions. Your notion that input about a pardon or commutation from the Governor would have zero effect on that board may be true, but it remains a "notion" because in fact Bush has never asked any such thing.
The identities of the executed, and the nature of their crimes is irrelevant to a moral or cultural objection to capital punishment. For many years I supported capital punishment because I doubted that the will existed to remove miscreants from society for life. I no longer doubt that. If we have the capacity to protect society from convicted first degree murderers without taking their lives, then the taking of life is simply barbaric. If there is no reason to kill other than as retribution, killing is murder.
People don't like to look at it in those terms. They like to forgive themselves, and the politicians they support with all sorts of specious arguments -- deterrence, "closure" for the families of the victims, and a lot of other horseshit.
I don't think that Al Gore, or George Bush or the voter down the street are any more or less culpable. That's part of the horror. The purpose of Civilization is to wring the outward expressions of barbarism from society. There is always work to do on that front.
Mele,
I like to look at it as simple vengeance, the vengeance of the wronged family/victim taking a life in turn through intervention of the state.
It *is* retribution, pure and simple. You need no further rationale.
I'm not afraid of that rationale, and I support it 100%.
We kill killers because they *deserve* it, and, on a basely animalistic (though just) level, because we *like* visiting* horror upon the makers of horror.
Do not be fooled. Justice *is* vengeance, and always has been.
You're honest, you don't kid yourself, and you say it plain. Fine with me. Some of my best friends are barbarians, few of them are willing to admit it. I love 'em anyway.
With luck, the DNA testing will pick up enough horror stories that Capital Punishment will finally be abandoned. That's my view.
But, DNA is a two edged sword, it opens a very small window when it may be possible to stop the killing. When that window closes, the barbarians (that would be friendly, honest people like you) will have an even stronger weapon in their hands -- certitude. Not all cases have DNA evidence, but a lot do. Those who would kill unnecessarily will be able to point to the DNA and say "fry the fucker." (Except of course we now kill people with the kind of humanity we used to save for dogs and cats, we just "put 'em to sleep." We've become such sensitive barbarians.)
It's a grim race -- your side will probably win. Blood lust is an older imperative than morality, a lot older.
Quite the contrary. DNA testing will make killing easier, because they can do it with certainty.
Quite the contrary. DNA testing will make killing easier, because they can do it with certainty.
Yes, that's what I said too.
It's a very small window. I think the Ace side will win. (I did say this you know.)
What advantage does Dick Cheney hope to achieve by Lying about something when Official Records are readily available to prove his Deceit?
January 2, 1990:
"....And recruiting will become far easier in coming years, for the military is bound to shrink. Last November the services drafted plans to cut overall manpower levels by 250,000, more than one-tenth of the force. The Army alone proposed eventually slashing 135,000 of 769,000 active duty soldiers, roughly 18 percent of its force. And in January Defense Secretary Richard Cheney announced that the Pentagon expected to eventually dismantle 5 of 28 active and reserve Army divisions...."
Source:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa130.html
Visit the Conservative Hall of Fame:
http://members.tripod.com/~TheCosmicDivide/Fame.html
As decadent as it gets!
Attorney Wanabe-
1. Texas elects its judges in partisan elections, some of the campaigns have featured support for the swift application of the death penalty as candidate promises.
2. The members of the pardons and paroles board are political appointees of the Governor. All present board members are Bush appointees.
3. Defense counsel in capital cases are frequently appointed despite incompetence or disability. Attorneys have been appointed to potential death penalty cases where they are having health problems such that they should not be practicing at all, let alone in probably the most difficult area of criminal law. Attorneys without criminal defense experinece, let alone capital experience are routinely appointed in these cases. Judges do this to insure that they are not perceived as soft on the death penalty issue.
Have you taken up glue sniffing? I expect you to be partisan, but you seem to be knocked stupid here.
Jonesataloss,
I meant they took the pardon/clemency thing out of the hands of an elected official. That's what I meant by "taking the politics out of the death penalty," which was fairly obvious.
You see, you can't pressure Bush politically to spare someone-- because he hasn't the power to grant clemency.
Get it?
I'm actually a bit tired; I somehow scrolled up and read your other post twice (this new computer has weird memory problems with cursor placement). Otherwise, I would have just said that I disagree about a window existing. DNA gives certainty. No window, no horror stories, just self-congratulation that they won't be risking executing the innocent.
Brad:
Where do I recognize that name from.
Anyway welcome.
And that's cute, that Cheney piece.
But entirely irrelevant.
In 1990, even the Republicans were hot for the post-Soviet era peace dividend. But nobody knew that our military was soon going to be spread out all over the globe putting out fires - and spending much longer doing so than it actually takes to fight a real war. In terms of the amount of military actually dedicated to defending our own country, or to go off to fight for our interests, we are at an all time low.
And what Advantage do you Hope to Achieve by Capitalizing certain Words?
This ain't 1776, y'know.
Can you explain the point of that 1990 quote, and where the lie is? It reads like testimony before a committee, are you saying projections didn't turn out the way Cheney predicted? Or what? Do you know what you are saying? Please share.
From an anti death penalty site- "So far, Bush's supposedly independent review of death sentences has tracked the recommendations of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles 100 percent of the time. That's not entirely surprising given that members of the board are not only his appointees, but also include prominent party regulars and at least 3 contributors to his presidential campaign.
Bush, however, doesn't just rely on the board; he virtually abdicates to it. "I know that I cannot possibly know all the information necessary to make good decisions about all the matters that come before different agencies, boards and commissions," Bush writes, referring to the Board of Pardons and Paroles. "I select people who are qualified, who share my conservative philosophy and approach to government, and then I expect them to make the calls as they see them."
What exactly is this 18-member board in which the governor invests so
much faith? The transcript of a 1998 civil lawsuit, brought by Stanley Faulder, who said the Board of Pardons and Paroles had violated his due-process rights, suggests that the board is a Potemkin village, its proceedings little more than a charade. The testimony, before U.S.District Judge Sam Sparks in Austin, revealed that the board had never held a hearing on a death row clemency appeal nor conducted a single meeting among its members--not even a telephone conference call--nor investigated a single case. "It is incredible testimony to me," Judge Sparks opined during the proceedings, "that in 70-plus cases [the board had considered since 1973], in an 18-member board, that no person has ever seen an application for clemency important enough to hold a hearing
on or to talk with each other about."
And I'm not speaking as a liberal. I have far more quarrels with the Liberals than I do with conservatives (TheoCons, populists and other snake-oil salesman are another kettle of fish.)
But GWB seems as risk averse as any other yuppie whiner.
The best thing to happen to this thread was Jexster, the Algore pollster poster, getting a job as an intern to the mayor of San Francisco. No puns intended.
I'm sure Willie Brown disproves the point that those who govern the most make the least noise.
Georgy developed his only skill asrush chairman,for the club of rich guys. He's entitled to this advantage of course -- it's part of the star clown's role under thr R's "big inclusive tent." 
What was once funny now is a yawn.
I guess all the conservatives who were blaming Gore for the "mole" can take some solace in the fact the real mole was working for Bushs PR flak, McKinnon. It ought to warm their hearts that the lady was a liberal with a history of lying, though. True to form, in their minds.
More propaganda from those of you who want us to buy more oil from Iraq and Iran and pay four dollars a gallon for gas.
There seems little question that it's because we've never gotten over our reliance on oil. I wonder when that will change?
It is difficult to discuss rationally with extremists whether they are Democrats or Republicans unless one doesn't mind to be shouted out, insulted, or called an imbecile by the most rabid among them.
What I find most interesting in this thread is the absolute conviction of the extremists of both parties that they are right and the opponent is wrong. Such conviction in its absoluteness is rather endearing when not at times right down frightening.
That would be spectacularly "nice." I've been urging friends to lie to pollsters and survey takers whenever possible for years. From info gleaned from Safire it looks like merely hanging up on them will do almost as much good.
Safire, The Wild Poll Pendulum
The word "respondent" sends shudders through the nose-counting community. The dirty secret of political surveys is this: As recently as 1984, the response rate to pollsters' questioning was 65 percent; that is, two out of three people reached would answer. Pollster friends whisper to me that the response rate is now down to 35 percent. (Two out of three pollsters I called went mum or hung up on me, thus validating this reported figure in my mind, which never leaves margin for error.)
An informative column.
If they are only getting that sort of response, it must increase to cost of polling. I'll have to remember that the next time I'm called.
"I'm hanging up on you, but it's for the good of the country."
Right! So Bush wants to drill in Alaska--It so happens the Saudis are determined to grow wheat in the Arabian Desert at a cost of $15 to $20 a bushel. The US doesn't want to be dependent on Saudi oil and the Saudis don't want to be dependent on US grain. Never mind that the US has been trying to get rid of surplus grain for the last 100 years and the Saudis can lift oil for 60 cents a barrel while we need more than $20 a barrel to break even in Alaska.
The obvious solution is for the US and Saudi Arabia to enter trade agreements ensuring a constant supply of oil for us and grain for them within certain pre-determined parameters.
Welcome, Clyde!
There's no guarantee that running out of oil will enable us to develop new technologies (as I'm sure you would agree). And unlike other issues where we ignore doom and gloom to the last moment, it seems odd that we'll allow the same thing to happen with oil.
But it's certainly possible for us to be that foolish.
Yeah, we got faster and the roads improved. But that's it. In fact, the Concorde crash just guaranteed the death of the plane--so a faster technology was ignored because it was impractical and expensive. No effort was made to find a way to improve speed--just size and efficiency.
Bush's line that Gore wants electric cars but doesn't want to make electricity was a good one.
hahahaha.
Electric cars aren't going to cut it, though. This I know, because it'd be a cold day in hell before I'd go near one.
I think a new paradigm is needed, rather than use of existing power sources in new ways. But that takes time and investment.
After riding Swiss trams and trains, I have to wonder why we do it so poorly here. Government control is part of the problem, but not all of the problem.
Hybrid cars look promising. I wouldn't consider an all-electirc in its present state, but the hybrids look interesting.
I'd be raging on the road too.
By scooters, do you mean the cool little foot things or an actual minimotorcycle?
Has anyone tried one anywhere?
Dusty,
I don't think covered bikeways would fly. Bikes have right of way on the road; to invest more money covering their own path would never be approved. Nor should it, I think, unless there was a real commitment by a large group of people to use it.
Gore leads Bush in Newsweek Poll. Or does he? I dunno. My head hurts.
NEW YORK, Sept. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Vice President Al Gore edges out Texas Gov. George W. Bush among registered voters but Bush takes a small lead among likely voters, according to the latest Newsweek Poll. In a four-way race, Gore leads Bush 47 to 42 percent among registered voters, with Green Party candidate Ralph Nader holding 3 percent and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan at 1 percent. Among likely voters, Bush edges Gore 45 to 44 percent. However, 26 percent of registered voters and 22 percent of likely voters are still not sure who they will vote for in the election. In last week's poll, Gore led Bush 46 to 43 percent among registered voters and 47 to 45 percent among likely voters.
Bikes have right of way on the road;
How is this relevant?
This criterion was never instituted when we approved billions to pay more mass transit systems. (Nor even for highways.) Why is this criterion relevant for bikes, but no other system?
It's relevant because it's not like we've funded bikeways in the past and now are changing the paradigm. For the most part, bikes use the same roads as cars. We then occasionally pay for bike tunnels, or overpasses, etc. But I don't see us funding covered bike roads.
This criterion was never instituted when we approved billions to pay more mass transit systems. (Nor even for highways.)
I believe when we paid for highways, we had a far higher percentage of auto ownership than we do for bikes. As for mass transit systems, in general those are bows to political correctness and for the most part, the public is becoming increasingly skeptical about funding them--just as they are about diamond lanes and other inducements to be virtuous. 20 years ago, the covered bike path might have flown in some places, but these days I don't see it happening--precisely because we've spent so much money on transit systems that no one uses.
I think Pelle missed your point, which I think is an excellent one. If you are correct that the Middle East can extract oil that much cheeper than we can, we should not be extracting oil at all. Of course, making an agreement that all nations would agree to is another matter. I also agree with you that beeen rabid in beliefs does not make for rational discussion.
Well, we have funded bikeways, but not ones useful for everyday commuting. Isn't that the question? It is the question I am addressing.
I still don't follow the right of way point. Yes, bikes are allowed on the road. So what? It isn't a viable commuting alternative in rain or snow.
And I don't follow you point regarding commitment, unless you are saying that all transportation expenditures should now require such a commitment. But it would be a stretch to impute that into your post.
Do you think that future government spending on all transportation should be contingent of getting a commitment as to usage?
The point is that bikes can use the road without any additional investment.
And I don't follow you point regarding commitment, unless you are saying that all transportation expenditures should now require such a commitment.
I said that it would not be approved. The public wouldn't support it. I then said that in my view, I am glad they wouldn't support it because I don't think lots of money should be spent on feelgood, little used commute alternatives. The first was my assessment of the public reaction, the second is my own personal opinion. And yes, I do apply that opinion to all public transportation initiatives.
Swiss trains and trams are all government-controlled are they not? So what's your point?
Quick -- what's that from?
The point is that bikes can use the road without any additional investment.
I was discussing the fact that open roads are not a viable alternative for commuting in the rain or snow. I proposed a solution. I don't disagree that bikers are legally allowed to use the road, but I do not see how that observation relates to my proposal.
And yes, I do apply that opinion to all public transportation initiatives.
Would you agree that this means zero government expenditure on public transportation initiatives? Not necessarily a bad thing, but not a position I expected you to espouse.
Hi. Long time.
If you think I missed yc's point you missed my point entirely, which was to emphasize that it is ridiculous to grow wheat in a desert where it rains every 10 years or so, when you can buy it at a tenth of the price on the international market. The last I heard SA runs a surplus of wheat so they actually export the stuff. At great loss of course.
Yes, they are. hence my point that one cannot take the lazy approach and blame the atrocious passenger train system in the US solely on government. (Note I said passenger train. There is a vibrant private sector freight train system.)
Yes, and I proposed the probable response to such a proposal. In doing so, I threw out one reason why--mainly in response to this statement: Obviously, a covered bikeway would be much more expensive than an open one, but how much more?
I was saying that there really aren't any open bikeways--the primary one is the road. So it's not like the public would be choosing between cost X for open bikeways and cost X + Y for closed bikeways.
Would you agree that this means zero government expenditure on public transportation initiatives?
No. For one thing, it's my own opinion. For another, I would approve government expenditure on public transportation initiatives that didn't involve wishful thinking. For example, I would support an initiative that required governments to install parking booths in the parking lots of all large businesses that bring traffic to a particular area. It may be that the cost of the booths wouldn't cover the cost of the parking fees, but that would be because people had decided not to bring their cars. Now there's a public transportation initiative that I wouldn't mind not making a profit.
Not necessarily a bad thing, but not a position I expected you to espouse.
I don't see why. While I'm not a libertarian, I'm certainly not someone who believes in government cure-alls.
I can top that. Dubya spoke at my old highschool a few days ago. I was shocked. There's a name I didn't ever expect to hear on the news.
You are allowed to call me Pelle.
Well, we do build bikeways. Just not covered ones. I just threw out the fact that they were more expensive, to head off the inevitiable objection that they would cost much more than uncovered ones. It seems to have been a problem for you, so let's start over and pretend I didn't mention that covered bikeways cost more than uncovered ones.
Michael.
One way to reduce the dependence on gasoline is to encourage more usage of bicycles for commuting. A major drawback to anyone considering it as an alternative is the fact that riding in the rain or snow is not desirable. Building a covered bikeway would address this problem.
What do you think?
Do you object to the full name? It is much easier.
I don't type twelve characters. I copy and paste your name. To use "Pelle" I would have to copy and paste then delete 7.
I see. Maybe I should re-register as Pelle. Have to talk to our new gatekeeper about it it,
Sadly, this political season is much tamer.
No, what will guarantee the rollout of existing replacement technologies will be the high price of oil, not running out of oil.
Sheik Yerbouti (or Yamani if you prefer), the guy who brought us the oil price rises of the 70s, is now saying that the absurdly high price imposed by OPEC will guarantee that a huge amount of oil will simply stay in the ground -particularly Saudi oil, because the rest of the world will learn to live without it.
I've daydreamed about a car train combination. Sort of like the ferry concept. Drive to the train station, drive the car onto the train, then off again at the end. Solves the problem that the terminus may be a decent distance from the train station. I'm sure someone can point out problems, but I'm trying to engage in brainstorming mode.
Perhaps this will interest you: 
"The RUF system is a Dual-Mode system. It combines the advantages of the car with the qualities of a train."
It's a dead serious project, and quite intriguing. They have already built a test track for it.
Which means it would probably stop working at the borders of the teeny-weeny small-minded foreign-fearing kingdom.
Very cool. Thanks
alistairconnor
I should have thought of the Chunnel. Yes, good example. (Although wasn't it horribly expensive?)
clydefo
Could be, but I didn't find any in a casual search. I did find some partial fairings, but not a complete, weather proof concept.
Moral : major infrastructure is rarely profitable; by nature it is more suited to government funding, because generally with the indirect (non-chargeable) benefits, it is profitable in a wider sense to the collectivity. You can't charge people for the improvement in quality of life when you diminish the number of cars on the road by building good railways. Well you can; you can charge them taxes.
Rask Message # 43616:
Personally, I don't buy it. Being in favor of Vietnam doesn't mean you are obligated to sign up as a grunt any more than being in favor of stiffer law enforcement obligates you to be a cop.
No, you're not obligated to sign up, but only a chickenshit pussy supports a war while simultaneously seeking a deferment. You don't get drafted into the police force. It's considered your fuckin' civic duty to defend this country when called upon, period.
Now, that's not to say that a man can't have genuine philosophical misgivings about a war, or a true physical ailment that prevents him from serving. Nor am I saying that everyone's gotta enlist in the Marines the very second war is declared -- or in the case of wars nowadays, officially "not-declared".
But for an able-bodied man to seek deferment (or in Cheney's case, five deferments), and simultaneously support the war effort, knowing full well that someone else will get sent up to take your lily-livered place, to step on a mine or get sniped by Charlie, well, that's the rank kind of chickenshit behavior that would prevent anyone with scruples for getting a good night's sleep.
It's not an abstract assessment; it's very real. While the chickenhawks stayed home "supporting the war effort", pursuing their deferment degrees in underwater basketweaving, or nursing their flat feet or the boil on their ass, somebody else -- who didn't have their money or connections -- went out and took the hit for their cowardly asses.
But hell, if you can't use poor people for cannon fodder, what fuckin' good are they?
Anyone who talks about "deterrents" is full of shit. It's retribution, pure and simple, and anyone who doesn't grok that, just ask yourself how you'd feel if Ted Bundy had whacked your daughter, or if your son or brother had wound up in John Gacy's basement or Jeff Dahmer's refrigerator. Not a tough call -- you'd throw the fuckin' switch yourself.
Is it wrong to personalize matters of law and punsihment to such a degree? Sure, but it's more wrong to allow an animal like Gacy to draw breath, and make his little clown paintings to sell to the likes of Tom Cruise. I mean.
I live in New York City -- well, across the Bridge in Brooklyn (we refer to Manhattan as "New York" as in, "I gotta go into New Yawk and return somethin', but I should be back around 3:00 or a little aftuh.") All transportation alternatives are implemented -- there are people who get to work on roller blades, bikes, SUVs, subways, buses, trains, ferrys, taxis, limos, helicopters, push scooters, and their own two feet. I imagine that the typical worker in Manhattan uses a combination of train, bus or subway, and feet. An enormous number of "gotta have my car" idiots drive into town through tunnels and across bridges and pay $20+ daily parking, or brag about $300 a month.
A lot of people ride bikes, many of them ride in crummy weather including light snow. Bike riders are hearty souls, and your neighbor with a great big backside following him around won't be using a bike anytime soon. But "a lot of people" isn't a very significant proportion of the millions who go into and out of Manhattan every business day. (Many thousand out of several million is what? Nuttin' that's what.) We have bike lanes, I can't imagine how covers would actually help much -- snow and rain fly every direction but up. If it's nasty enough to need the roof, the distance from the nearest cover to office or home would still discourage taking the bike on nasty days. Not a problem in cities with good transit systems (and ours really is servicable) because on miserable days you can take the train. How far will people ride each way? Ten miles? Seven? Twelve?
I think Park 'n' Ride systems work pretty well here. But NYC ain't like many other places.
What you do in most new American cities where the central business district is less compact I don't know. In places where home is fifteen or more miles from work it doesn't seem like bikes have a roll. Maybe bike racks on trains would help.
But for an able-bodied man to seek deferment (or in Cheney's case, five deferments), and simultaneously support the war effort, knowing full well that someone else will get sent up to take your lily-livered place, to step on a mine or get sniped by Charlie, well, that's the rank kind of chickenshit behavior that would prevent anyone with scruples for getting a good night's sleep.
Let me guess, either you're under thirty and have no idea what that era was like; or you're blowing smoke and having a grand time doing it? I pick the latter.
As much as partisans on both sides would like it, this issue doesn't cut with voters who were draft age or older in those days. It just doesn't. It didn't hurt Quayle in '88, it didn't hurt Clinton in '92, and when Bush/Cheney lose (please!) it won't be over this issue.
I don't see an assertion that it "cuts" with voters. I see a declaration that he thinks it's chickenshit.
I choose Eleanor Roosevelt, with Abigail Adams as runner-up.
Ah. I should have addressed the "cuts with voters wrinkle" to Cellar. And sent a "get real" to Cartman.
Hmm. Eleanor Roosevelt is a good pick, but it's always like eating vegetables.
As a person, Lou Hoover impressed me quite a bit. Adams is my all time favorite, although I don't know much about her as FL.
Close. I'm 33. But Cal's right -- I'm not discussing it in the context of a hot-button issue, or what voters "think" of it. It is what it is -- only a chickenshit pussy weasels out of his draft obligation, knowing that some other unlucky sap has to take his place, and still has the nerve to "support" the war. Period.
Like some pussy frat boy who slinks his way from a fight, then as soon as it's safe, tells his buddies, "I was gonna kick his ass. Good thing you guys stepped in; I might have hurt him." It's just fucking punk.
Talk is cheap. "Believing" in something, so long as you don't have to actually back it up, is just hollow talk, and far more telling of a man's character than merely whether he's fucking the help or not.
Again, this is manifestly distinct from being a truly conscientious objector (which Clinton, for all his perfidy, seems to actually have been), or having an actual physical ailment, or really finishing up one's master's degree at university. I dunno -- playing weekend warrior while letting someone else go get their ass shot by Charlie (and still saying that you "served") is not much of an example, any way you slice it. But people whose daddies aren't influential or wealthy tend to be pretty absolute on matters like this.
Either way, it doesn't affect my voting preference one iota. I'm just saying.
So here we are, the Saudis are growing wheat with water which costs them dearly to process. They pay, I bet, as much for a bottle of drinking water as they spend to lift a barrel of oil from their ground soaked with salt water. And our people went to Mexico not long ago and humiliated themselves when they asked the government there to increase their oil production and thereby reduce prices. They were told: Where were you when the oil was at $10 a barrel?
We could make a deal either with Mexico or our own drillers down in Texas and Oklahoma such as the following and be much better off. We will guarantee you a price of, say, $22 a barrel. When the price is below $22, we will continue to to buy and put our surplus into a reserve. When it is above, say, $27, we will pull out oil out of reserve, thereby, guaranteeing you a steady price so that you can increase production without fear of a price disaster. We will also adjust our price band annually to account for inflation, demand, and other conditions. Tax payers may not object to such a deal. After all, we are used to subside farmers in this country for...how long, 50 years or more?
Look, I am not suggesting this particular formula or any other. I am just giving an example of an approach. Maybe the Saudis like to distill salt water so they can grow grain and sell their suplus to Japan. Maybe they just like to have the power to dictate what we pay for oil. Maybe we should raise camels in Texas. Whatever, we should do something better because I think it is sad that we got scared when Clinton pulled oil out of reserve. There is no oil shortage, just a shortage of the right politics.
Thanks for the response.
I agree with the comment about bikes and trains. Some places prohibit them (at least during rush hour), make no attempt to be bike-friendly (how would one get a bike through a turnstile?). Improvements there would help.
I know what you mean about Eleanor Roosevelt, but she shattered the role of 'First Lady' and recast it in her own image. I admire her because she used her Uncle Teddy's 'bully pulpit' in a way that no presidential appendage had ever dared, without the baggage carried by Hillary Clinton.
Abigail Adams is my personal favorite, too. As her surviving letters demonstrate, she was a trusted advisor to her husband, and keenly intelligent. The Adamses were the first to occupy the White House, where Abigail famously hung her wash.
Ah, the big all purpose, "Period."
You are blessed with the certitude of a fellow in his thirties who is talking about something he never experienced and never can experience. Enjoy it, even without great upheavals, dangers, fears and uncertainty that feeling passes when children or health or life's horseshit gets a more prominent place.
I posted earlier on the topic of the draft. I'm don't like playing the age card, but I am also playing the experience card. If you didn't go through it, it won't be possible to help you understand it -- at least not for me, for a great novelist or a master of human understanding perhaps.
The draft was a fact of life. There were "rules", if the student deferrment, or the dependents, or the employed in a vital industry rules applied to you, you filled out the forms and hoped for a deferrment.
Hindsight is twenty-twenty.
Lots of things are chickenshit. I know way too much about me, and my friends, and Americans my age I met half way around the world and had an instant connection to over draft issues.
Cont --->>>
Eric --
And I'll tell you a little secret... a lot of people (we're talking kids of 18 you know) found their politics after they found their unwillingness to go to Vietnam. This becomes obvious when you examine that fact that the end of the draft took all the steam out of the peace movement. Lots of chicken shit. Lots of kids.
The war eventually united the most disparate elements of the political spectrum around one idea --it's gotta stop. That includes hawks who wanted to win it or get out, and people who said Ho Chi Mihn was God's gift. We weren't going to win, and Ho Chi Mihn was Indochina's problem.
I don't do Vietnam rehashes very well, Eric. They don't go anywhere. I'm saving my arguments for the old folks home. There'll be sunny days and lots of time for pointless conversations with people who remember those days.
Pretty soon your generation will be the political leaders, and you'll have to find some other yardstick to decide who was chicken shit when he was young -- because the handy-dandy Vietnam era draft card won't be there to help you. Period.
Here's my take on his point:
Will we now require that only persons who had fully formed world-views at 18, or 20, or 30 may be elected?
Don't we have rather too much infantilism in the society and the pols who so perfectly represent us as it is?
The presidential campaign has already been the scene of ponderous pronouncements by the chattering classes about the school boy days of Al Gore and George Bush -- to which I say, "Gimme a fuckin' break."
This whole "chicken-hawk" thing is a bullshit issue. If people who haven't changed since they were 18 are to be our leaders we're in big trouble. Except we're not talking about that at all, are we? We're just playing a posturing game about Republicans, or showing off our big balls about a draft letter that won't be coming.
Yes, since we were able to quash the Hitlerian menace of Saddam Hussein sans draft, I never had to worry about getting drafted. So I never had to "struggle" with such ethical frippery. I've also never raped a woman, killed a man, or tortured a cat. But I still know that those are indisputably fucked-up things also.
Mike, I understand a bit more than you seem to think I do. Once again, I am not talking about nervous kids trying to find a way, any way, out of a conflict that they don't support and don't want any part of. Nor am I trying to engage in any big picture scenario about the Vietnam War itself, an ethically-flawed conflict to its very core.
I am specifically referring to the level of chickenhawkery (if I can coin such a word) that went on -- the scions of the rich and powerful acquiring their outs and going back to their carefree lives, whilst the poor and ethnically-challenged got to fight their fights for them. Even this sort of thing is marginally acceptable if said swells keep their pieholes shut.
But once they decide to refer to weekend warrior duty, or Mickey Spillane duty for Stars & Stripes, or any other half-assed duty, as "serving", or "supporting the war effort", all bets are off. They are fair game for ethical sniping, afaic. Because if they had served, and really been in the shit, their daddies might not have been so sanguine about napalming children, or dumping Agent Orange on everything.
Hawks can afford to be hawkish, when it's someone else's kid getting wasted out there. Anyone can talk tough and be a "supporter" when it ain't his ass on the line.
No, your take on what my point is is essentially correct; Message # 43922 is in the same vein.
And it's not aimed at Cheney specifically, though he presents an ample target. I'd say the same about a Democratic pol who committed the same actions.
Where it's relevant today, though, is when we recall all the slamming of Clinton for being a draft dodger. Now, I've made my distaste for all things Clinton pretty clear in here, but this is one area where I credit the man for being intellectually honest, even if somewhat morally, um, "creative". The guy wanted a way out of a war that he found morally repugnant. Fine, I say. I can live with that. That's not what I would deem a hypocritical action.
What was funny was all the GOP pols and pundits, of Clinton's generation, excoriating him for his "draft dodging". And which of them was in the shit? None of 'em; not a damned one of 'em. Not Newt, not Rush, not Phil Gramm, or George Will (well, they still don't draft chicks), or Pat Buchanan, or Dan Quayle. Guys who got deferments, or weekend-warrior duty, have no right to point fingers at "draft dodgers". Period. (Sorry, Mike.)
So, you know, unfortunately it is still a tad relevant, in that it exposes the cowardly hearts and rhetorical hypocrisy behind the tough-guy talk.
Acey--and anyone else who has read my stuff here and the late Fray--knows that I have always come down in support of the use of military force by a President since Vietnam (often ahead of the curve). My usual criticism is that not enough was used, or that it is not used forcefully enough.
If anyone was "whining like bitches" at the use of force over the last few years, it has been "conservatives." Take Rosie on Kosovo, for example (please). Has Ace supported any of President Clinton's military actions? If not, is it due to partisanship?
While I always get a grin at Ace's carte blanche harangues at "lefties" -- which generally seem to be cribbed from The Way Things Ought To Be or some such -- it's even funnier when he goes after you for your "liberalism".
As I keep pointing out ad nauseam, it's because of the calculated redefinition of the very term "liberal" itself, that permits such blinkered intellectual dishonesty on the part of self-described neo-cons like Ace. The word has no real meaning anymore, so it can be "liberally" applied to Those Who Disagree With Ace. Even if they actually agree with him on some things.
For Ace, "liberal" presupposes a set of connotations and beliefs that are symbiotically shared by hedonistic sybarites everywhere, as if they were insects communing the power of one brain.
Personally, I've always found you rather hawkish for a "liberal", and even for a "centrist" (which seems a more apt category). But at least you seem to arrive at your conclusions from an intellectually honest standpoint, which is something.
"Because if they had served, and really been in the shit, their daddies might not have been so sanguine about napalming children..."
I don't see how that follows. If my kid is in the shit, I might be more likely to try to stop said shit altogether; but, barring that, it would make me more sanguine about napalming children, etc., so as to make my kid less likely to get killed.
Maybe (you heartless bastard), maybe not. It may just be my natural disdain for folks who use their power and privilege to keep their own kids out of the war they're running, and use the kids of people who have no power or privilege to fight their battles for them. I know that's "business as usual" for most people, but I tend to find that unacceptable.
And yes, once again, chickenshit.
I understand what you're saying. I just disagree. I was flat out against the war then, and I've gone back and forth since. I'll tell you a piece of truth, too. I was also scared shitless. But it's a lot easier to give voice to principled political positions than fear. I was against the war, long before I had any idea what the war was about -- first came fear, then came a political position, then came an understanding of the war. I'm not willing to believe that that is much more admirable than getting a deferrment and "supporting the war."
Robert McNamara's disgusting book a couple of years ago in which he confessed that he didn't think it was winnable but urged Johnson to carry on with it, put me in the Barry Goldwater camp for good -- if you ain't gonna fight to win, get the fuck out.
>But once they decide to refer to weekend warrior duty, or Mickey Spillane duty for Stars & Stripes, or any other half-assed duty, as "serving", or "supporting the war effort", all bets are off.
That's a little unfair. A lot of activated reservists died in, and over, Vietnam -- Bush had no guarantees. A lot of embassy personnel and support personnel of the Senator's son variety, variety died or could have in Vietnam, Gore had no guarantees either. His modesty of late is more becoming that some of his stretchers in the past -- but hell, he's a bred in the bone pol.
It wasn't my generation's war, Eric. We didn't start it, we didn't prosecute it, and contrary to our legend we didn't end it, and we probably didn't prolong it by our opposition. That includes everyone running for President or Vice President. Most of us just watched it happen on TV, or at the funerals of kids down the block, or in lottery drawings or letters from the draft board. If there were ways to get out of going we took 'em. And, you know something? Nobody really said boo about it if we did.
You are welcome to play payback all you want.
But that was my earlier point. It doesn't work. They used it against Quayle in '88, they "paid back" Clinton in '92 (for a much more ambiguous action on Clinton's part -- remember, Quayle used connections and went in the guard, Clinton used connections and didn't go into the guard.) Neither man hurt his ticket, it didn't work.
The issue doesn't cut. The people most likely to vote are people who remember those times, and they are for the most part unwilling to be swayed by the actions of kids thirty or more years ago when picking a President.
You can bay at the moon like a good dog, Phydeau, but it's just baying at the moon.
BTW, just so you know -- I'm supporting Gore for one reason only -- the Supreme Court. Period.
I'm opposed to Bush because he is a light weight, not because he was a fratboy.
I do appreciate your labeling Mele a conservative symp. Of course, when a thorough discussion of service in Vietnam works to morph all avoidance of service, and explanations therefor, into one, big conveniently amorphous ball, one wonders if you are even capable of making factual distinctions of the most basic questions.
Probably not, as again, in an effort to sanctify the the President, our national victim, Clinton becomes Lieberman, who becomes Cheney, who becomes whoever.
What works with the public is often at odds with what is right. I agree with your political analysis. I don't agree that the public's toleration of Vietnam-era hypocrisy serves as historical amnesty on the issue.
"... some Molly Ivins type derides them as bloodthirsty chickenhawks who support war now, but shirked when their ass was on the line."
That's an extra twist. Would a female candidate who had supported the war (but wasn't subject to the draft, and wouldn't have been allowed in combat even if she wanted to) be similarly criticised? And, by the same token, should a female pundit have standing to criticise anyone on the subject?
(Women aren't allowed in combat even now, I believe; but, at the time, could a woman have even become a National Guard pilot?)
What's a newbie to do? In the other place where I post you can click my name and read a profile and find out that I am basically a conservative -- I don't follow texts, and I hold some positions that aren't associated with most righties -- like opposition to capital punishment.
Also, in this election I'm supporting Gore.
But I have no problem with the ConSymp label -- as long as you don't think I'm a TheoCon scandal monger interested in Clinton's dick or what he does with it.
Re-post that in Thread and Feature Suggestions. The profile thing has been recently discussed there, I think.
Thanks for all the cool lookin' letters and stuff, but I'm not an unruly mob, and my Calabrian forbears would have been highly offended at all the Francese diacriticals.
I'll go mention profiles in Thread Features -- it's a handy feature if people use it.
What works with the public is often at odds with what is right. I agree with your political analysis.
I'm glad you agree with the political analysis. I'm really only interested in the political wrinkles at this point. And I can't wait for the coming to power of the generation that was too young for the draft.
As I've already said in this thread, I'm saving my Vietnam arguments for the old age home.
And that'll be my last word on Vietnam and us back then.
I think we're probably more in agreement on this than it seems; as I said, I can buy the whole "nervous kid" excuse, and am aware that not only are people's political views not terribly well-formed at 19, but will generally change as they mature. It's the ones that found a way out, legal or not, supporting the war or being utterly noncommittal (at least publicly), then later in life pointing the finger at, say, Clinton's supposed malfeasance in avoiding service. Those guys -- it's a real character flaw. Seriously.
But I've drawn similar parallels on other issues, been roundly chastised for it, and not changed my stance. For instance, I do think that Clinton/Gore/Bush Jr's past drug use should inform their current policies, but clearly they do not. So they are very hypocritical on that issue, and pandering to the base fears of the lowest common denominator, rather than actually solving a problem. It's a perfect example of how abandoning what one knows is right, for the sake of political brownie points, can result in massive amounts of actual waste, both in money and human lives.
Well, I certainly agree with all of that. Don't fight if you don't have to, but if you have to, don't fuck around. But I don't know what else we could have done, short of nuking the whole damned country.
Maybe Oliver Stone, of all people, put it best: "These people [the Vietnamese] are bad losers." He could have been right on that account --after massacring civilians, napalming villages, etc., and they keep fighting back, maybe you're just not ever going to win over their hearts and minds. Guerrilla warfare is not just another tactic -- people in that situation are committed. And we had nothing to commit to, because it was a bullshit deal to begin with.
As for that scumbag McNamara, I don't know how the fucker sleeps at night. Probably on a cushy pile of money.
Clinton's supposed malfeasance in avoiding service. Those guys -- it's a real character flaw. Seriously.
Yeah, and the flaw is wanting to win political points "on the cheap." I made many of these arguments about Clinton in '92. And I banged scandal mongering righties over the head for wasting time on his check book and his trollopes instead of his policies. Clinton's handling of the draft was a little slick, but we all know by now that Bill earned that nick-name fair and square.
I do think that Clinton/Gore/Bush Jr's past drug use should inform their current policies, but clearly they do not. So they are very hypocritical on that issue, and pandering to the base fears of the lowest common denominator, rather than actually solving a problem.
Absolutely, given the cost in wrecked lives (just for openers) those positions are rank demagoguery. I messed around with drugs until I graduated to everyday drinker at 43 and finally made it to rehab. In many ways I lived a version of the life they scared people with -- and it didn't stop me and a lot of other people from going right ahead and throwing away years chasing highs. But for every addict like me there were a whole bunch of people who got struck sane at the appropriate moment and grew up. To put either sort in prison for longer mandatory sentences than murders and rapists is nuts. Worse, it doesn't work.
It's a perfect example of how abandoning what one knows is right, for the sake of political brownie points, can result in massive amounts of actual waste, both in money and human lives.
Anyone with any experience of the milieu who supports the War on Drugs as currently waged is either a hypocrite or a coward (never underestimate the power of cowardice in the office holding classes, if you do they'll break you heart over and over again.)
I agree, Eric, we're not in strong disagreement.
Very true. But as we were discussing the other day, they're just giving the voters what they want -- which, in turn, is a natural result of the "smart set" eschewing their right to vote, thinking it a meaningless sham, and abdicating the policy role to moralizing flat-earthers.
Much as I like to stick a fork in some of these asshole politicians, of both parties, at the end of the day, somebody put the numbskulls in there. Somebody keeps voting for Jesse Helms. Somebody keeps voting for Strom Thurmond. Somebody keeps voting for Dianne Feinstein, and Trent Lott, and Al Gore, and Tom Delay. It's Barnum's Axiom, over and over again.
Might as well tilt hard at that windmill, and vote for Ralph Nader. He has no chance to win, but at least he'd make the debates interesting.
Zogby tracking poll... 
"On the last Sunday morning before the debates, the Presidential race remains as close as it can be. Al Gore holds a lead of just 1 percentage point (42.5% to 41.5%) in a survey with a 2.1% margin of sampling error.
"Our analysis of the Electoral College also confirms just how tight the race has become. Bush leads in states with 210 Electoral Votes; Gore has 187 Electoral Votes; and, 141 Electoral Votes remain in the toss-up category."
Vote for Dave
It's time for us to "take stock" of the presidential election campaign, so that we, as voters, can make an informed decision about how much vodka we will need to get through it.
He has decided that neither is any good, so here is his platform:
TAXES: I favor a tax cut for the middle class, defined as "anybody who owns at least five remote controls." This cut would be offset by a 100 percent tax on all money won by contestants on "reality based" TV shows.
SOCIAL SECURITY: I say we scrap the current system and replace it with a system wherein you add your name to the bottom of a list, and then you send some money to the person at the top of the list, and then you . . . Oh, wait, that is our current system.
LOUD CELL PHONE CONVERSATIONS IN RESTAURANTS: I favor on-the-spot confiscation of the phone, as well as the hand holding it.
DRUGS FOR SENIORS: Go ahead, seniors! But don't be playing your stereo at all hours.
They should run tests to see how he's lived this long...
I admire Dave Barry for his ability to keep on being consistently funny without becoming repetitive or predictable. Can we get him in here?
Dave Barry site
Why not?
Speaking of Canada, will Clinton attend Trudeau's funeral?
Gore has the debate Tuesday and should't be the one to go anyway.
I'll be embarrassed if the Prez doesn't show.
Lockhart is just the next in a long line of people who will be heading out the door. The most important documents coming out of any White House at year 7.7 and counting, are resumés.
After he spends a year or so making a pile, it will be fascinating to see what Bill decides to do. It's hard to imagine a guy that a guy like Clinton will disappear willingly or soon.
from the National Post:
Pierre Trudeau would still be Canadians' first choice...
...to lead the country today, more than 15 years after he stepped down from power, according to a Global News-National Post opinion poll conducted on the eve of his death.
The Decima Research poll, which surveyed 1,030 people across the country from Sept. 24 to 28, found that 50.2% of respondents would vote Liberal if Mr. Trudeau were the party leader. Only 38% said they would vote Liberal if he were not leader. The Canadian Alliance had 16.1%, the Conservatives 7.4%, the Bloc Québécois 7% and the NDP 6.1%.
"When I saw those results I just chuckled," said David Crapper, chairman of Decima Research. "That's the real test of his popularity... 15 years later people still know what they think of him."
The flamboyant former prime minister was also the overwhelming choice of those polled when asked to choose who they thought had been the country's best prime minister. Mr. Trudeau was chosen by 35.7%, more than twice as many as his nearest rival, Lester B. Pearson, with 15.3%. Jean Chrétien, the current Prime Minister, was picked by 12% and John Diefenbaker 11.2%.
"Not many politicians have that kind of relevance to people's lives, especially 15 years after leaving office," said Mr. Crapper. "The guy made a difference to people and that's rare."
When I become an old man, I want to be called an old man, not a "senior". What a namby-pamby way of avoiding that dirty word, "old".
Old old old old old old old old old. Sheesh.
I wanna be old too. And I don't wanna be an "oldster" either.
Who isn't worried? I read more concern about Moon than I do about the Chinese.
My grandmother is 95. I call her "old". Any age less than that is "older".
Maybe we should poo-poo both Moon, and the Commies who make our cashmere sweaters with prison labor. Or maybe we should be concerned about both.
Or maybe we should stop worrying so much about religion, speech, press, petition and assembly rights, and worry more about a "trading partner" who uses it's trade surplus to finance a weapons industry and does arms business with bad guys.
Is that "righty" enough?
The press is free to the highest bidder who has a story that the public wants to hear about.
Money doesn't constitute speech, but money still buys a lot. I can't think of an alternative that I'd prefer.
As a draft dodger (successful), I'd like to offer my reasons for Clinton distaste. I dodged, lots of better connected friends went into the stateside play army, and some people went to Canada (and came home later). Most of them will own up to what they did so as to avoid participating in an immoral war in which the lives of tens of thousands were wasted for no good reason. Clinton did not own up to what he did. He lied about it so that he would suffer no consequences. There may be little difference between what the rest of us did and what he did, but he has yet to tell the truth about what he did or what might have motivated it.
Moon gives lots of money to R's and rubs elbows with the most powerful R's. Doesn't this make any of the rank and file Republicans uneasy? A simple yes or no would suffice.
Cellar didn't say the religious right, or I would have answered differently. I agree with your post in regards to the religious right. The good news is that by now, they're not much more than another special interest group in the Republican party.
I think most Americans pretend to more religious feelings than they have. I also think that most Americans kinda sorta vaguely believe in God, but for the most part they are cultural "Christians" the way the Irish are culturally Catholic. I also think that most Americans like to think of themselves as reasonably religious, but they also know that they really don't do much to justify that view. As a result (I think), they respond poorly to both religious excesses and religious attacks.
In Al Gore's home state of Tennessee, new polls show Bush at 46%; Gore 43%, according to The Tennessean. That's the Nashville newspaper run by Gore family friends that refused to do any stories on his slumlord problems in August.
But imagine the front-page headlines we would see if that were the numbers (opposite or even the same) in Texas.
In Texas, Bush has a 18 point lead over Gore.
What is a double wide?
Mobile homes are about twelve feet wide -- any wider and you couldn't truck 'em down the highway. A double-wide is two of them with the center wall yanked out.
Phydeau --
You didn't ask a "straight" question about Moon. You asked for a comparison of attitudes toward Moon vs Red China.
Lots of religious leaders say harsh things about the US, or the West. The Pope, the Mullahs, Moon, others -- usually, but not always having to do with "materialism", I think the Dalai Lama has some things to say about us vis a vis human rights, the US Council of Bishops (RC) has a lot to say about poverty, and the National Council of Churches never had a good thing to say about us either before or after the radios from the Kremlin went silent.
Would you have Democrats decline contributions in dollars or in kind from Catholics in Chicago, or Muslims in Flint, or Richard Gere, or Secular Humanist "Mainstreamers" who see God as a nice option, but not the only one?
The bleating of the Democrats about Moon for the last twenty years is little more than what they claim the Wen Ho Lee matter was -- yellow peril bogeymanism.
Not that I'm a Republican any more.
I want to know who gives them money--but not because I want to huff and puff over it. It just makes it harder for a politician to directly favor a particular investor.
But no one thinks that Bush is going to make us all Moonies.
I'm confused here. Are you referring to us, or the Chinese? It's not like we don't supply plenty of weapons and training to scumbags around the world. The Chinese aren't the only folk who'll do anything for a dollar.
Well, you'll get no argument from me there. Bill Clinton would disown his grandmother if there were any political capital to be gotten from it, or conversely, if it enabled him to weasel out of some culpability on something he said or did. He sold his soul for rock n' roll long ago, and seems damned proud of it.
But at least there's some sort of basic moral premise there; it's not a case of some guy who got a deferment because of a boil on his ass, but "believed" in the war, then later came out of the woodwork to point the finger at Clinton.
You're kidding, right? Your governor lives in a double wide, and is a Baptist preacher?
Man, that's tempting. But I'll just leave it be.
Incidentally, there are triple-wide mobile homes as well, though they are uncommon and rather expensive. Or maybe that's just a California thing.
But no one thinks that Bush is going to make us all Moonies.
Of course not, but there's still something unsavory about the Bush dynasty's associations and business dealings with a mass-marriage cult leader who regularly denounces America, and who uses his mass-media holdings to disseminate his nutjob views.
When conservative minister Jerry Falwell's Liberty University nearly folded, the Unification Church bailed it out with a $3.5 million loan.
Church officials say they are not trying to buy influence.
Instead, they say, the staunchly conservative slant of the Washington Times, a newspaper owned and supported by the Unification Church, earns them friends.
Those friends have not come cheap. Church officials recently announced that the paper has lost $1 billion since it opened.
Wow. A billion dollars. That's a lot of fuckin' glue for a "church" to drop on one of its propaganda organs. Curiouser and curiouser....
The Washington Times Foundation, a non-profit group associated with the Unification Church, held an awards ceremony in February at which Moon was presented with the Distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award for Freedom, Faith and Family.
Yeah, 'cause nothin' says "Freedom, Faith, and Family" like a mass wedding of cult members.
The things that we could think a tad unsavory are legion.
I almost bought a double-wide 12 years ago.
A brand new, top-o'-the-line beauty. 1600 sq. ft., central air, 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, including a huge one in the master suite with skylights, double sinks and vanities and a jacuzzi, wood fireplace - you name it. Nothing but the best in laminated particle board and plastic stained glass. All for $31,000.
I was still single, and was looking for a house out here in Michigan. A sale fell through, and I was due to start a job here in just a month. I saw the add (Move in in one Week with 10% Down!), and figured, heck - I'll check it out. I'd only have to live there till I could find a house - and if I liked it, I could stay. Of course, I had never even seen a trailer park in my life.
This trailer park was brand new - cut right into a forest of tall white pines. Beautiful setting - it even has streams and ravines running through its 2 sqare miles. And, as I learned from the agent at the office there, this was an "upper scale manufactured home park" - no single wides allowed, and only new homes.
Pretty neat.
So, I put my $100 retainer down and informed my sister of my good fortune.
She gagged, and called me an idiot 5 different ways.
Hey, what did I know, coming from NY?
oh god... the moonie thing again...
Last time I checked, Lyndon LaRouche was a Democrat.
Even crazies have political affiliations. It's absurd that liberals like Eric Communist try to tar R's with Moonies, while, for example, giving Gore a pass for the support he's garnered from the Pornography Industry and NAMBLA.
A supporter chooses his candidate. A candidate, however, does not get to choose his voters.
Incidentally, Eric Communist, the Washington Times is a perfectly respectable conservatively-tilted newspaper. I know a red-diaper baby like you thinks cutting taxes is "crazy," but the rest of us don't.
The things that we could think a tad unsavory are legion.
Um, yes indeedy. Wacky cults with lots of money and an overt anti-American agenda using ex-Presidents as political currency is definitely one of them.
But what do I know? Maybe Fatboy will become a Scientologist once he leaves the White House, and horn in on the Cruise-Kidman thang. Or Travolta-Preston.
Hey missy, ya ever see the real Air Force One? How'd ya like to "speak with L. Ron"? Make sure ya talk right into the "microphone".
And so on. I dunno if that evens out cult disinformation disguised as journalism, but I guess it's a start.
Why "Eric Communist" -- rather than, say, "Eric the Red"?
Last time I checked, LaRouche didn't have Poppy Bush and Jerry Ford speaking at his functions, nor did he have $1 billion to drop on his "newspaper", nor is a cult leader, nor has he any political capital whatsoever. This is an asinine comparison even for you, numbnuts.
It's absurd that liberals like Eric Communist try to tar R's with Moonies, while, for example, giving Gore a pass for the support he's garnered from the Pornography Industry and NAMBLA.
And where, pray tell, did the monolithic "Pornography Industry" and the political arm (or whatever appendage) of NAMBLA, endorse Gore, and he gladly accept and tout said endorsement? Is Gore helping launch the NAMBLA Newsletter outlet in Buenos Aires? Is he speaking at the next Porno Industry Convention?
I know a red-diaper baby like you thinks cutting taxes is "crazy," but the rest of us don't.
Fuck you. I don't like paying taxes any more than anyone else, dipshit. Nor have I said otherwise.
Why don't you start in again about how CalGal and I never criticized Lieberman for his stance on Hollywood violence, while picking on poor W? Do you just make this shit up off the top of your head, or what?
"Eric the Pink," on the other hand...
Why "Eric Communist" -- rather than, say, "Eric the Red"?
Why not indeed? Both are equally untrue. But that's Ace's forte -- make shit up to fit your spoon-fed preconceptions.
Ace decided long ago that, because I am untroubled that a few other nations still run their governments according to silly, unworkable Communist dogma, I must in turn be a communist.
It's the same stupid "logic" that says all "liberals" are this or that, whatever the demon of the day is. Very silly, and it just makes him look dumber than he actually is.
"Very silly, and it just makes him look dumber than he actually is."
Eh, go listen to a Barbra Streisand album.
People...
People who need people...
are the luckiest people in the world...
Oh, please.
(That usually means it's time for bed.)
I don't mind a slight misrepresentation here and there, but things like that are completely untrue, and you trot stupid shit like that out as if it means something. Then hide behind some dumbass Streisand joke when I point out your lie.
Actually, I liked your little joke. My crankiness was directed at Ace. Sorry if it seemed like I was jumping on your ass.
Yes, all is now right with the world, isn't it? The estimable Cartman wrath has been defused.
Seriously, though, it's not the name thing in the first place. I don't care about the "Eric Communist" deal, really. What grinds my 'nads is when it appears that Ace, in responding to me, is initiating a dialogue, I attempt to substantively respond, and get....just dumb, weird, non-responsive crap in return.
And sure as shit, Ace will continue to rail at how intellectually dishonest all "liberals" are, and finally pitch a fit in a week or so about how it's so hard to have a truly interesting argument in this forum. And all I can say is, boo-fucking-hoo. I tried.
None of this has anything to do with you, of course, but I thought I'd at least clue you in on why I went into asshole mode so quickly.
Good point ... as a newbie it might cause me to think you're a wacko if people make shit up about you. Then too, lurkers and passers by might also be mislead.
I'm fairly touchy about people who assert without backup that I said "a" -- if they wanna fight with me over "a" they should be able to show where I said it -- or provide rationale that demonstrates that "a" follows from my saying of "x, y and z."
I'm relieved to find out you aren't a Communist, Eric. American Communists are so boring.
In response to my remark about China selling weapons to bad guys, I should have said "selling weapons and technology to our adversaries." In that way you would have been spared the necessity of making a neener-neener argument that we also sell weapons.
People who get really fervent or peddle panic about Moon, fail to reckon with the fact that his essential interest in America, (other than making gullible converts, which is as American as Elmer Gantry,) rests in anti-Communism. That is the source of his support of the right, that is the focus of his contributions and financing of political causes, the holding of symposia, etc. He's South Korean, they have been within artillery range (never mind nukes) of Commies for fifty years.
The peddling of snake oil and hocus-pocus for spiritual aches and pains is as old as mankind, and protected by the Constitution. I still think the heavy breathing about Moon is little more than bogeymanism, with a big dose of populist xenophobia.
I don't wanna take sides, here, but (IMHO) the exchanges between you and Ace are pretty much the most entertaining ones in this forum. So, keep it up, guys, regardless of whatever personal idiosyncrasies on each other's part you may find irritating -- the paying public demands it.
(Mind you, everything's always right with the world once I finish my nightly pint. The beauty of chemistry.)
Satanistic Goth rocker Marilyn Manson endorses Bush! Will play fund-raising concert at Bob Jones University.
Gore by Four...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One day before the crucial first presidential debate, Democrat Al Gore has crept into a slight lead of four percentage points over Republican George W. Bush in the U.S. Nov. 7 election race, according to the latest Reuters/MSNBC daily tracking poll released on Monday.
The poll, conducted by John Zogby, surveyed 1,204 likely voters between Friday and Sunday. It found the vice president leading the Texas governor 45-41 percent.
The two had been tied at 44 percent in Saturday's poll. Since then, Gore has risen by a single point while Bush has lost 3 points, but the race remains within the statistical margin of error.
Green Party candidate Ralph Nader had 3 percent; Libertarian Party hopeful Harry Browne polled 1 percent as did the Reform Party's Pat Buchanan. Nine percent were undecided and the margin of error was plus or minus 3 percent.
Looks like that will be the determining factor.
I hate debates.
Robert:
Note that that survey was (for some bizarre reason) taken over Friday night, Saturday night, and Sunday night.
Friday & Saturday nights are notoriously bad nights to poll, with a very large non-response/non-connection rate, widely believed to favor Democrats.
Sunday nights are less objectionable, but then, two "bad" nights to one "good" night.
Look back at *all* polls conducted over Fridays or Saturdays. You will find they always show Gore making great gains. Oddly enough, these gains always disappear by Monday and Tuesday.
Because, of course, they never really existed.
Most polling firms don't poll on Friday & Saturday nights. POA polls on Saturday but not on Friday.
For example:
POA's Sunday poll (showing the results of three days of polling, through Saturday, not including Friday) showed Gore with a two-point advantage.
Today's POA poll shows *Bush* back up by .5.
Tomorrow, Bush will be back up by 1.5, and then on Wednesday Bush will have his "normal" lead -- once the Saturday spike is out of the rolling average.
I can't stress enough:
This. Happens. Every. Single. Weekend.
The most surreal one was the first Ford-Carter debate (in Philadelphia?), when the sound system went out and both men were frozen at each podium, afraid to move. This went on for 18 minutes. Competent, smart guys, capable enough to be president, frozen and staring ahead, speechless.
On the Jim Leher special about the debates, both men said they wished they had interacted during that time; Carter especially said he wished he'd spoken or joked with Ford. I think they were afraid to look stupid and instead ended up looking dumb. (Pun intended.)
will find they always show Gore making great gains. Oddly enough,
these gains always disappear by Monday and Tuesday. "
Ace is bluffing again. The biggest recent lead of Gore's in the Gallup poll occurred in a Monday-Wednesday poll. And the biggest recent lead of Bush's occurred on a poll taken from Friday to Sunday.
Gallup's method to avoid the demographic bias that Ace mentions is (aside from doing their damnedest to get a high response rate) by checking their data for exactly such a bias, and then weighting the results accordingly. (For instance, if your sample only has 20% of its members with 4 or more years of college, and you know that in actuality that number should be 30%, you weight their responses more).
Do they correct for everything? I don't know, but the fact that the recent extremes run exactly counter to Ace's statement implies that any measurement error is probably pretty small.
Now Zogby might not be this sophisticated, so Ace's point may be correct in this specific case (although I doubt he really knows).
I find presidential debates rather vacuous in terms of argumentative content, but the are very important as political theater. A candidates debate performance rarely tells me whether he has good policy ideas, but often can tell me a lot about how he might handle himself in the not-insignificant PR aspect of the job.
Worse, vice-presidential debates are not about the individuals. They are about the parties and the designated number twos taking shots at the number ones. To no avail, for example, Bensten tried to make the 1988 debate with Quayle about Quayle.
Kemo actually thought it was about him.
Precisely. They're a great place to bring up those platforms that everyone says are so meaningless.
Agreed. The truth, however, is that format reduces any chance of a meaningful discussion, and just as a visit to Oprah or a pre-convention speech kiss can really move the voters, so too a minor gaffe during a debate. Bush and Gore need not worry about issues so much as an ill-timed booger.
>>> Gallup's method to avoid the demographic bias that Ace mentions is (aside from doing their damnedest to get a high response rate) by checking their data for exactly such a bias, and then weighting the results accordingly. (For instance, if your sample only has 20% of its members with 4 or more years of college, and you know that in actuality that number should be 30%, you weight their responses more).
I stand by my statements. Go read Rasmussen's site for the dangers of weekend polling.
And, rask, a "correction" to the numbers is only as good as the assumptions it's based upon.
>>>Ace also doesn't seem to be aware that pollsters *call back* if you aren't home. They are much more aware than he is of the potential impact of selection bias occurring via non-response.
I *do* know this, dope. When I say "non-response" and "non-connection," I mean that the non-response rate soars on weekends, *even when the pollster keeps calling back.*
If someone is gone for the entire weekend, it really doesn't matter how many times you call back, does it?
I find Rask's putative (and rather sudden) "expertise" on polls somewhat puling and off-putting. I also find it amusingly childish that he assumes the rest of us don't have the rather basic information on polling that he believes only himself privy to.
Perhaps Rask should call up John Zogby and tell him all about polling.
Moving on, the link is to an interesting article about the (rather adroit, if I must say so myself) "if-you-can't-beat-'em-then-join-them tactics of the W. camp When Will Everybody See That This Putative Emperor Ain't Got No Clothes Of His Own
And Rick Lazio has promised to vote for the ENDA gay rights legislation should it ever come up for a vote on the Senate floor, were he elected, of course. He has also endorsed RU 486, but not the government paying for it. He is running as a typical moderate NY GOPer. Had he not stuck that piece of paper in Hillary's face in the first debate, I think he'd be tied with her now in the polls, instead of trailing by seven points or so.
He had better hope for torrential rains in NYC and sunshine throughout the rest of the state on Election Day.
of weekend polling."
You completely missed my point. I wasn't disputing that polls could be distorted by sampling error on weekends, I was disagreeing that it is necessarily the case, and I was disagreeing with your statement that *all* polls correct themselves in favor of Republicans on *every weekend*. Do you really still "stand by" this statement? Just look at Gallup's site for counterexamples.
"And, rask, a "correction" to the numbers is only as good as the
assumptions it's based upon. "
No shit. You are questioning Gallup's assumptions?
"I find Rask's putative (and rather sudden) "expertise" on polls
somewhat puling and off-putting."
Where the hell have you been? I have commented on polls and sampling methods for years.
"I also find it amusingly childish that he assumes the rest of us don't have the rather basic information on polling that he believes only himself privy to. "
No, I just assume that about you, given your past track record in misusing such information.
Tom Ridge recently said that Al Gore will deliver the best lines that Hollywood can write for him.
Why the media won't report the truth about opinion surveys.
Monday, September 25, 2000 12:01 a.m. EDT
The problem is that all polls aren't created equal. Some have an excellent track record, others are an embarrassment. Take Newsweek, which in 1996 managed to take a late October poll that showed Bob Dole losing by 23 points. Mr. Dole lost by only eight. Part of the poll's problem was that it sampled registered voters at a time when it was clear many of them weren't going to show up at the voting booths. It compounded that flaw by polling on a weekend night, when Democrats are more likely to be home than Republicans. (Newsweek said it did take a final survery showing the race to be closer, but never published it.)
This year Newsweek was back polling without having changed its methodology. It shouldn't surprise many that it soon had another aberrant poll. The magazine's Sept. 14-15 poll of a paltry 580 likely voters found Al Gore with a striking 14-point lead, while most polls showed a dead heat or a slight lead for Mr. Gore. This was so far out that Richard Morin, polling director for the Washington Post, dubbed it "Planet Newsweek." (This is friendly criticism, since the Washington Post Co. owns Newsweek.)
Chastened, the magazine went back into the field this week and sampled a significantly higher number of likely voters, over three nights instead of two. Result: Mr. Gore's lead fell from 14 points to two, within the margin of error. Other polls show the Bush-Gore race has tightened, but nowhere near that much. Clearly Newsweek's old methodology was the problem.
...Sure enough, last Thursday the New York Times published a front-page story on its poll showing that Mrs. Clinton had surged to a nine-point lead among likely voters.
The only problem is that on the same day the nonpartisan Marist Institute published its own poll taken within a day or two of the Times' survey. It showed a 44% to 44% race among likely voters. What gives?
Here's a clue. The Times poll classified 87% of the registered voters it surveyed as "likely voters," vs. only 66% for the Marist poll. Clearly, the Times poll has a problem. There has never been an election in New York in which anywhere near 87% of registered voters went to the polls. New York state's voter turnout in the 1996 presidential election was roughly 45%. The Times poll, like the Newsweek poll, was using a methodology from outer space. The Marist poll, though it too erred on the high side, was far closer to traditional turnout patterns.
etc.
From John Fund on opinion.com
spoken about the need to take weekend polls with a grain of salt."
This would be relevant if I disagreed with Zogby. My primary objection is to your deterministic take on what is a minor methodology issue.
Note to Rask:
The less mathematical massaging you have to do on the numbers, the better.
"My primary objection is to your deterministic take on what is a minor methodology issue."
Minor?
Is that why many polling companies simply refuse to poll on Friday night?
If it's oh-so-correctable, why do they take the night off?
Toys?
And Gallup's most recent poll shows a dead heat.
better."
All else equal, yes. But if the numbers need massaging to account for known sampling biases, it is better to massage than to leave alone, or force a five day delay in order to get 3 consecutive weeknights.
"Minor? Is that why many polling companies simply refuse to poll on Friday night? "
Yes, minor. In that it is easy to correct for, with different sampling or weighting techniques. Keep in mind that the oldest, most prestigious, and historically most accurate polling company in the world, Gallup *does* poll on weekends.
And I'm sure there aremany people in power who are quite happy about this.
Can't believe I'm saying this but...
Cellar is on the money.
Total Raised and Spent
Candidate Raised Federal
FundsSpent Cash on Hand George W. Bush
(Dick Cheney) $177,124,847 $67,560,000 $121,482,519 $55,642,328 Al Gore
(Joseph Lieberman) $126,646,594 $83,016,084 $60,883,864 $65,762,831 Pat Buchanan $14,342,384 $4,022,172 $14,355,819 -$11,401 Ralph Nader $3,224,539 $278,628 $3,086,910 $270,964 Harry Browne $1,281,703 $0 $1,287,717 $19,854
source: opensecrets.org (no, not cellar's book)
He's on PBS's news hour right now talking about the Supreme Court and he's wearing a lavender-colored tie.
While you are far too young to be one of the "red diapper babies" your support of Nader mystifies me. Are you really bothered that Gates has lots of money and do you really consider Mastercard and Visa the enemy of the American people? Or is it simply because he says the war on drugs is wrong? While I can relate to your distaste for Gore and Bush, I would think Browne would be a better choice.
....as a newbie it might cause me to think you're a wacko if people make shit up about you. Then too, lurkers and passers by might also be misled.
That used to bother me a bit, but I don't think about that at all now. As long as I step in to clarify things, people can read and figure out what's what for themselves. And I think they do -- no one else says the stupid things that Ace does on a regular basis.
I'm fairly touchy about people who assert without backup that I said "a" -- if they wanna fight with me over "a" they should be able to show where I said it -- or provide rationale that demonstrates that "a" follows from my saying of "x, y and z."
Well, yeah. That seems like a modest enough request. Most people adhere to that standard. Some are so strident in their rhetoric, though, they can scarcely be bothered to actually read what they're responding to. (Please, no names!)
I'm relieved to find out you aren't a Communist, Eric.
Me too. But I also don't have the vampire-to-garlic-and-crucifix reaction to the mere mention of it either. It is what it is -- an exercise in futility. Getting all Pavlovian about it isn't very interesting.
That wasn't a neener-neener thing, just recognizing a simple fact. China makes and sells nasty bits of weaponry to nations we don't like. We make and sell weapons to nations they don't like, and we sell a lot more than they do. We let a creep like Suharto butcher a million people and rob his country blind for thirty years, and supplied him with lots of weapons and military training, because geopolitically, Indonesia is considered a "buffer" to Chinese "aggression".
The point is, it's always put in this lame "good guys/bad guys" dichotomy, when the reality is much more grey than that. Every country wants to expand at will. Every country wants security. Every country is more than willing to resort to perfidious means to achieve these goals.
He may be South Korean, but his cult of personality has an eerie Kim Il Sung resonance. As for professional anti-communists, many of them are little better than their enemies. I mean, take your pick -- D'Aubuisson or Castro? Rios Montt or Arbenz? Jonas Savimbi or Patrice Lumumba?
Anti-communism tends to be a religion unto itself, in that it brooks no dissent and little discussion, and is frequently as brutal as its dire enemy. And there's always some weasel in the woodwork making a buck off the whole thing, selling weapons, fomenting strife, bankrolling thugs and murderers.
The peddling of snake oil and hocus-pocus for spiritual aches and pains is as old as mankind, and protected by the Constitution. I still think the heavy breathing about Moon is little more than bogeymanism, with a big dose of populist xenophobia.
I don't, and I don't like the idea that so many influential politicians seem to heel at his beck and call. Quack cult leaders should be penniless and non-influential, afaic, and Moon is anything but. He's got the money to buy plenty of influence and political juice, and it stinks.
Why else would he keep running the Washington Times, when the church itself estimates that the paper has lost a billion dollars since it started? Because he enjoys charity work? Again, it's a fuckin' cult, for Pete's sake -- you know, mass marriages, stalking deprogrammed ex-members, brainwashing, shit like that. It's a goddamned cult.
I don't wanna take sides, here, but (IMHO) the exchanges between you and Ace are pretty much the most entertaining ones in this forum. So, keep it up, guys, regardless of whatever personal idiosyncrasies on each other's part you may find irritating -- the paying public demands it.
Fine by me, and I dig the little skits too. I don't think we'll ever top the Fray Campaign last year -- that was lightning in a bottle.
But I am moodier and nastier and more curmudgeonly these days, and Ace seems content with his snipe-and-run style. So that kinda kills the whole dynamic.
Just for the record, though, Ace is a douchebag. Used twice by Nell Carter.
While you are far too young to be one of the "red diaper babies" your support of Nader mystifies me.
It shouldn't. He's the populist that Gore and Bush claim to be, but of course aren't. Certainly he has his flaws, but there's not the calculated nonsense that clatters out of Gore's mouth, or the meaningless fluffy platitudes that emanate from Bush's. He seems to genuinely mean what he says, is uninterested in the contortions and flip-flops that are SOP for major candidates, and isn't selling his soul to the highest bidder.
As for the Green Party platform itself, eh. Some good, some bad. Like any other party platform. There is bafflegab and nonsense to be found in all platforms and manifestoes. Even Nader isn't pushing the "maximum wage" bit. But there are some issues he's taking on that Gush/Bore won't touch, and I think he'd add a tremendous amount to the debate. The other guys are scared shitless of him. Why? Because he doesn't need a script. He knows what he's about, he's not worried about focus group demographics, and has no corporate benefactors to fellate.
Are you really bothered that Gates has lots of money and do you really consider Mastercard and Visa the enemy of the American people?
No, and no.
That's part of it, not all of it. It's about time someone had the guts to tell the truth about it. There is an incarceration industry at work in this country now, and it's going full-tilt. Name any country, even the evil ones, Al. Iraq, China, Russia, South Africa -- eeevil commie despotic nasty regimes. Guess what? We have a higher per capita prisoner rate than any of them. Because there's money in it.
Don't take my word for it. Buy stock in Wackenhut, or some other incarceration corporation. You'll make money, guaranteed. It's a growth industry, as they say. And once we can trian those mutts to make all our manufactured and processed goods, it'll be even more so. Till then, China's prison labor will have to do.
While I can relate to your distaste for Gore and Bush, I would think Browne would be a better choice.
He is a better choice than Gore or Bush, but then again, so am I. I happen to disagree with the libertarian philosophy that totally eschews gov't control of anything. I like private industry and competition, but they're not the be-all/end-all solution to every woe. (Sorry, Ronski.)
I'm an old cold-war hawk. The outcome of the Cold War was by no means assured when Winston Churchill went to Fulton Missouri in 1946 to deliver his Iron Curtain Speech or when George Kennan advanced the notion of "Containment" in his Long Telegram to his State Department superiors. The "Long Telegram" was the basis for an Kennan's article in Foreign Affairs, signed "X". I believe the war was real, necessary, and that we won. The end of the Cold War and the collapse of Communism didn't work out so well for Russia (they will first have to get over their 1000 year infatuation with strongmen,) but many of the states that were victims of Czar Josef Stalin are doing pretty well.
I don't disagree with you that many unsavory characters gathered or hid under the anti-Communist banner. If you are advancing the notion that the war was not worth waging on that account (or any other account,) we have a fundamental disagreement. No biggie, of course, it just means we will always have something meaty to argue about.
He is a better choice than Gore or Bush, but then again, so am I. I happen to disagree with the libertarian philosophy that totally eschews gov't control of anything.
Who advocates this? Maybe Friedman, (although I've only heard this second-hand). No other libertarian I've ever read says this.
Did Nader really say the war on drugs is wrong? If so, he moves up a couple notches in my book.
This sounds good (and has a nice frisson of horror) but what does it mean? How do they heel? By failing to suspend the Constitution in order to go after his enterprises? The horror is further reduced if you recall that it was either the Reagan or Bush-era Feds who put him in jail for tax violations.
Quack cult leaders should be penniless and non-influential, afaic, and Moon is anything but. He's got the money to buy plenty of influence and political juice, and it stinks.
Yes and I should be rich and goodlooking, but whether it's Moon, or Farrakhan or Robertson or Rasputin the Mad Monk, this guys tend to stack up money and influence. It stinks. We agree. But where do we go with that?
Why else would he keep running the Washington Times, when the church itself estimates that the paper has lost a billion dollars since it started? Because he enjoys charity work? Again, it's a fuckin' cult, for Pete's sake --you know, mass marriages, stalking deprogrammed ex-members, brainwashing, shit like that. It's a goddamned cult.
Again. It stinks. We agree. But where do we go with that?
I'm not willing to give up the Constitutional protections that shelter a guy like Moon. Are you? We may need them ourselves some day. The last eight years have not been a golden age for civil liberties you know.
Wasn't it Stumbo who gave us that delightful list of a range of positions?
Too many people think that if you don't want the government to outlaw something, you must be in favor of it.
You are right! What some people can not seem to grasp is that some of us relly mean it when we say we want smaller government. It is not just Federal Government that is too large. I see local government sticking its nose into matters better left alone. They violate the "takings" clause of the Constitution. I had a big argument once with Dantheman, who did have lots of knowledge about zoneing laws. However, I had property taken from me without compensation. Yes, I could have fought them, and lost my ass in the process.
The more dangerous reality is that they do what they do for various reasons, some driven by internal corporate politics, others by callous indifference to the risks, and some by garden variety human fallibility.
Making money on the swings and the merry-go-rounds...
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) -- The Norwegian subsidiary of a U.S. oil services company won a contract Monday to help recover the remains of the 118 seamen who died in the sinking of the Russian nuclear submarine Kursk.
The contract was awarded to the Tananger, Norway branch of the Dallas-based company Halliburton, run until recently by GOP vice-presidential nominee Dick Cheney. Representatives of the company's Tananger branch signed the contract Monday with the Rubin military design bureau, which designed the Kursk.
Please keep us informed of every contract that Halliburton wins, as this should be very significant political information.
I don't disagree with you that many unsavory characters gathered or hid under the anti-Communist banner. If you are advancing the notion that the war was not worth waging on that account (or any other account,) we have a fundamental disagreement.
No, that's not what I'm saying. The ends justified the means, ultimately. But I think that in some instances there were more palatable means available to us. And again, casting things in a purely "good vs. evil" light is disingenuous, I think. Not to try to quantify or compare brutality, but I doubt the Soviets were much more horrible to their Eastern European satellites than our proxies were in various Central American banana republics.
Anyway, the notion that everything was in the defense of "freedom" is, I believe, not entirely true. Sometimes it was to keep geopolitically important countries from getting any bright ideas about putting their own interests ahead of ours. Sometimes it was to ensure our access to oil. Sometimes it was to keep United Fruit's land from being nationalized.
We like to believe that we only do nasty things because we have to, but sometimes they were allowed to occur because they were more profitable. It's a niggling point, but I figure if you do shit for the love of money, just fuckin' say so. Don't bother with the horseshit about "freedom" and "human rights". Just say you wanted cheaper bananas and raspberries and oil and rubber and labor, and have done with it.
Dusty:
My understanding of the Libertarian platform is that they want to privatize most (not all, but most) gov't functions, because competition will improve efficiency and lower costs. But I think that the things gov't takes care of are generally not free-market functions.
Mind you, it's not a huge difference in philosophy, but I do believe I'd rather err on the side of regulation than just trust corporations to do right by us all.
Did Nader really say the war on drugs is wrong? If so, he moves up a couple notches in my book.
Yes, he did. Everybody acknowledges that it's a bust, except for Democrats and Republicans. Only a liar or a fool would insist otherwise.
How do they heel? By failing to suspend the Constitution in order to go after his enterprises?
No, by attending his functions, by speaking at conferences where Moon himself denounces this country and its people, by taking his money for speaking fees to launch his bumwipe newspapers. If they're going to say anything about a creep like Moon, they should be saying, "Fuck this guy. He regularly talks shit about America, and Americans."
The horror is further reduced if you recall that it was either the Reagan or Bush-era Feds who put him in jail for tax violations.
Oh, I'm not "horrified", Mike. How the world works is not a secret. Money talks, bullshit walks. I just wish the guy didn't have his influence, and that these pols didn't give him the time of day, and lend credence to a megalomaniac cult leader. Wish in one hand, spit in the other, or something like that.
....but whether it's Moon, or Farrakhan or Robertson or Rasputin the Mad Monk, this guys tend to stack up money and influence. It stinks. We agree. But where do we go with that?
I dunno. Probably nowhere. At least not by legitimizing the Moonie Times. Nobody dumps a billion dollars into something just for shits and giggles; nobody loses that much money on a media venture -- something that should make plenty of dough --without an agenda.
I'm not willing to give up the Constitutional protections that shelter a guy like Moon.
Me neither. I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. Just a friendly reminder -- the Washington Times is owned and operated by a brainwashing, megalomaniacal, mass-marrying, messianic, cult-running, money-grubbing, influence-buying motherfucker.
Both Nader and Browne said the War on Drugs was wrong, but it seems to me for different reasons. Nader says it isn't working, which I would agree is true, while Browne says that it is none of the government's business what people ingest....
They're both correct.
commitment to serving your local needs.
Possibly. Not teaching them to read harms then material
"... nobody loses that much money on a media venture -- something that should make plenty of dough -- without an agenda."
I remember reading about how USA Today has been consistently losing money for years (disclaimer: this was a few years ago, and I dunno the current situation); Slate, as we all know, has been, as well; and there are surely many more examples. So what? (And many people would argue that the NYT, etc., also have an "agenda" -- even though they, presumably, happen to be making money.)
Also, "mass-marrying" somehow fails to strike me as particularly nefarious. And, anyway -- why do you consider Moon's church more of a cult than, say, the Catholic one? And what kind of shit does he talk about America and Americans, exactly? (These are honest questions, as I don't regularly attend his rallies.)
"I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. Just a friendly reminder -- the Washington Times is owned and operated by a brainwashing, megalomaniacal, mass-marrying, messianic, cult-running, money-grubbing, influence-buying motherfucker."
And the New York Times is owned and run by a brainwashing, megalomaniacal, money-grubbing uber-liberal/Socialist/pink motherfucker.
So the fuck what, Cartman?
You sound like my dad. Always railing about this and that, always hinting darkly that "The government should do something about these guys."
Like what, Cartman? Confiscate their estates because you don't like them? Strip them of First Amendment rights? Strip them of property rights?
Eric Communist:
A thousand rants, a thousand vaguely-hinted-at-pogroms to rid our country of guys that he just doesn't like.
Eric Communist just has a hard time getting around the fact that some people don't agree with him, don't share his values, don't share his loose morals, and -- worst of all -- have more money than he does.
Pretty much Michael Mele put his finger on what's been bothering me about your rants.
This is a political forum. We discus politics here. Politics, and policies. Stuff that we should change. Stuff that we should outlaw.
When all you ever do is yap about your own personal enemies list... well, one must ask along with Michael Mele: "What would you have us do, Eric?" Because all that rage sure suggests you'd like something done, though you dare not say what...
So, either you are just whining, as people whine about the weather, in which case, you should probably be quiet, because no one wants to here complaints about the weather: It's boring.
On the other hand, if you have some sort of... er, program planned to rid the country of these Guys You Don't Like, perhaps you should just say so, rather than hint about the edges.
In response to: 44093
But I think that in some instances there were more palatable means available to us.
I'm certain that's true.
And again, casting things in a purely "good vs. evil" light is disingenuous, I think.
Yeah, those are politician and demogogue words. I wouldn't want to go too far in foreswearing the that formulation -- but undeniably, the issues were more complex. If we're discussing life and governance in the West (for all the shortcomings) vs life and governance in the East, then I "good vs evil" is not overly dramatic. When you start talking about Shuarto, or Lamumba, or Savimbi, or the Salvadoran guerillas, it boils down to "our creatures vs their creatures" more often than we "good" people in the West can feel comfortable about.
Not to try to quantify or compare brutality, but I doubt the Soviets were much more horrible to their Eastern European satellites than our proxies were in various Central American banana republics.
Okay. That's fair.
In response to: 44093
Anyway, the notion that everything was in the defense of "freedom" is, I believe, not entirely true.
Another pol word. And you have it right, not entirely true.
At the macro level, the Cold War was a war, with an uncertain outcome. It was also a very long war, in was waged with the tax dollars of the West and the blood of willing and unwilling mercenaries and proxies. Americans are not comfortable with the notion of "Empire" -- it conflicts with our national myths. I don't mind admitting that the Cold War was about the preservation of Empire, as well as the preservation of important Western values at home.
Unfortunately, the tactical and strategic considerations in the Cold War were pretty much identical to any other war. Resources, logistics, transport, sea-lanes, etc often dictated that we forge alliances (even if that meant removing governments first) with those who controlled specific geographical locales -- or else the other guys would. Suharto made the deal. Indonesia is not only (or even primarily) a "buffer" against China; far more important is the misery of trying to operate a Navy in the East without Indonesian cooperation.
But, it's not enough to say that wars are nasty -- they must be studied, lessons must be learned. The most important lesson to seek from any war, however, is not a question of "how did we wage it?" Although that is a very important question. The far more important question is "how might we have avoided it?" Maybe we should have listened to Churchill about the Dardenelles? or Patton about going all the way to Berlin? or Warsaw? Maybe when we had the men on the ground, and the Bomb in our hands, we should have put the Bear back in his cage in 1945. The next 45 years would have been different -- but maybe worse, who knows?
And please don't tell me you've never said we should confiscate the estates of rich people you don't like. I know you've never said that.
Then why do you insinuate that I did? Are you projecting? Don't have a response to what I actually wrote? Terminal douchebaggery?
So, either you are just whining, as people whine about the weather, in which case, you should probably be quiet, because no one wants to here complaints about the weather: It's boring.
Oh, and your constant whining and bitching about eeevil "liberals" (whatever your definition of them happens to be) is soooo fucking fascinating. Sorry I'm not entertaining you enough, Disco Boy. I'll try harder, I promise.
And for the record, I'll say once again that I did not suggest that anything "be done about" the "Reverend" Moon. I just think it's fucked that a nutjob like that has any U.S. pol even speaking to him, much less speaking for him, or having business dealings with him, or lending an air of legitimacy to his cult by associating with him. Okay? Clear enough for you, Mr. I-Can't-Read-More-Than-One-Paragraph-At-A-Time?
Don't get me wrong; I think Farrakhan's a whackjob panderer for pissed-off black militants, no matter what Chuck D says. But he's about as threatening as a fart in a windstorm. He has few resources, mostly volunteers. He has no money. He is generally reviled in the media. He does not have his own media outlets and business holdings on several continents, unlike another whackjob Man of God we've been discussing.
But you'll never hear anything about that guy, no sirree Bob. The liberal media would never allow it. Heeheehee.
It is inarguable that we did lots of horrible things in the prosecution of the Cold War. It is also inarguable that lots of people got rich. It beggars the mind to believe that their were not times when getting rich, and waging the war became confused, or (in some minds) synonymous. Given the fact that in many minds the Cold War was a permanent state of affairs, it was predictable that getting rich with the aid and might of the US government behind you came to predominate in some quarters.
I am pretty much in agreement with your Message # 44104, except I wonder if we've actually learned anything productive. If we have, doesn't seem to have been applied, post-Cold War, but then, I think Clinton has been a rather weak foreign policy president.
MM:
It should also be noted that in Asia, South America, and Africa, countries were often ruled simply by warlords and juntas.
This is not because of the Cold War. This is because those nations simply had not evolved into stable democracies. American dollars or Soviet tanks or not, these countries more than likely would have been ruled by brutal family dynasties one week, only to be replaced the next week by a military strongman by way of an assassin's bullet or coup.
What Eric doesn't seem to get is: You have to deal with the government in place in a country.
EC seems under the delusion that the US caused these countries' political immaturity. That, of course, is utter nonsense, pseudo-logic of the kind a schizophrenic utters.
Every country has a government-in-place, whether the US likes that country's human-rights record or not. We have only two basic choices: Are we against that govenment, or are we for it? EC's preferred solution -- "We should support only the Good Guys" -- is a rather unhelpful axiom, when 70% of the world's countries are ruled by certifiable Bad Guys-- and their opposition consists of Bad Guys, too.
EC:
One could say that David Duke is as threatening as a "fart in a thunderstorm" as well.
Somehow, however, I suspect your prickly liberal hackles would be very riled up indeed by a suggestion that the GOP "reach out" to Duke.
Well, that, and it was a golden opportunity to make some bucks under the mantle of purity and freedom. But somewhere along the line, some little brown fellers paid for them cheap (take your pick -- bananas, oil, whatever).
This is something that will become clearer as globalization accelerates, I think. [Oversimplification alert] The US consumes a lot of natural resources. Many of these resources come from other countries. As these countries get richer, they'll want more money, or maybe they'll just want to hang on to those resources for their own use, and this will disrupt our consumption patterns.
It'll be interesting to see whether those disruptions cause us to re-examine those patterns, and the places where these things come from, or what.
Indeed, EC was critical (If I remember right, though I'm sure I'll be accused of "making things up") of George W. Bush suggesting that the GOP would be stronger with Pat Buchanan in the party.
Buchanan, it should be noted, is only arguably an anti-semite, and even if he is an anti-semite, he's a fairly minor-league one.
What Ace doesn't get is: We dealt with the people who were most convenient to deal with, and many of those people were deliberately put in place by us, because we couldn't -- or wouldn't -- deal with whom the country's people had elected.
Your Dungeons & Dragons approach to world history is just hilarious, Ace. Just remember -- sometimes we put the orcs in charge, because they let us do what we want, as long as they got a little off the top.
Somehow, however, I suspect your prickly liberal hackles would be very riled up indeed by a suggestion that the GOP "reach out" to Duke.
Probably, but Pat Robertson is worse than Duke. More people listen to him.
I just thought the Farrakhan deal on H&C was rather timely, given all the "why should we care about Moon?" responses. Well, okay -- if we don't care about Moon, who owns businesses and media outlets on several continents, is by all accounts fairly wealthy, and is strident in his condemnation of American ways and other religions -- then what's the big deal about Farrakhan, then?
I wonder if we've actually learned anything productive.
I wouldn't want to go that far. But I'm a fairly chipper misanthrope if you want the truth.
Ace --
Not wanting to spoil yours or Eric's fun, I'll leave your comments about him on one side. But since you mention it...
"We should support only the Good Guys" -- is a rather unhelpful axiom, when 70% of the world's countries are ruled by certifiable Bad Guys-- and their opposition consists of Bad Guys, too.
Sounds like we live on the same planet.
You know, I honestly am not sure about that one. Oddly, Buchanan doesn't bother me a whole hell of a lot. He's just too goofy and over-the-top to be taken seriously by anyone but slack-jawed yokels. But he's entertaining, and if harnessed properly, he probably would be a good workhorse for the GOP. I dunno if they'd really want to saddle him up, though; he's in Terry Bradshaw scary-silly territory these days.
And go on ahead and get pissy about the "making things up" deal. You've done it several times to me recently, you've done it to CalGal recently, and you ought to expect a headslap for it once in a while. Generally I'm content to let your nonsense speak for itself, but sometimes you irritate me enough to where I bring it up. Don't like it? Don't do it.
Mutter mutter...
we couldn't -- or wouldn't --deal with whom the country's people had elected
After we've praised the thug Allende one more time, I don't think there are too many "elected" leaders to mourn in the World formerly known as "Third."
Well, I didn't mention him specifically, but now that you mention it, I don't recall hearing anything about him herding undesirables into soccer stadiums for re-education. Or about the CIA trying to cover his tracks of murdering American kids.
....I don't think there are too many "elected" leaders to mourn in the World formerly known as "Third."
No. Nor to praise. Clue: a "helping hand" usually doesn't wield a truncheon or a machine gun. Again, though, that's the little brown fellers' problem.
Between the West Coast contingent, and the European (and points east) contingent in this place, an NYC insomniac could stay up round the clock.
Just for the record : Name some.
As far as I know, only Poland has a GDP which is higher than its 1989 level.
By that measure you got me fair and square. I'm shooting from the hip, although I am under the impression that The Czech Republic is muddling along, ditto Hungary. I suppose Slovakia and Bulgaria are still quite poor. Roumania's paroxysm didn't really change anything other than the names.
Can I at least say something predictable about "cooked commie books?" No, I suppose not.
He wasn't there long enough to consolidate his power. Henry the K didn't fuck around. Or agonize. In those years, Communist governments had a way of becoming Soviet bases. There is no way we were going to permit a Communist country with fairly sophisicated industry and agriculture, and a very long Pacific coast to remain in place. In those years, Communist governments had a way of becoming Soviet bases. That's one of the geographical features I was talking about earlier.
G'night for real this time.
Though I suppose by your standards, Lionel Jospin is a communist, because he's got communists in his government.
Another teeny-weenie detail:
Allende's ruling coalition included the Communist Party, and they were pushing him much farther than he probably wanted to go. Since he depended on their support to stay in power, he had to accede to their demands.
The suburban city council received this e-mail:
"Hey guys, question. When can you start putting up political signs? There is a yard at ++++++. Looks like the owner had been to a union meeting and picked up a handful of socialist signs. If it is not in compliance with our sign ordinance and a police car just happens to be in the neighborhood, would you have them enforc our law or consider removing it from the books?"
They have an ordinance saying political signs may not be displayed more than 45 days before an election so the lady was violating the city ordinance; that's not my problem with the ex-mayors e-mail. The signs were for Gore/Liberman and 2 local Democratic candidates. Had he simply referred to the signs as "political", I'd have no problem.
It would seem in Texas, it's not only the liberals who play dirty.
wondering if this fixes J@H's "< i / >"
Based on the editorials in my local paper, I think that many conservatives think that the franchise should only be provided to conservatives.
that’s because the HTML tag(s) that's causing the problem isn't on the page in which you are previewing
I remember a certain pseudoerasmus providing loads of teeny-weenie details. Here is his take from memory:
* Allende was elected in a three-way election with only some 43% of the vote (slightly less than Hitler garnered in 1933, as PE helpfully pointed out).
* On the basis of that less than solid popular mandate, he - pushed by the communists - instigated massively radical changes in Chilean economy and society, among them nationalisations on a grand scale.
* The economy responded by collapsing
* Strikes and protests ensued (it's disputed whether the CIA was the initiator or just being helpful)
* There were claims of Cuban troops - I don't know about their validity.
* Pinochet was not happy about the Yankees. He kept them at arm's length and likely didn't really need their support in order to carry through his coup.
* Allende wasn't murdered but committed suicide. (I've seen other sources contradict this)
* The Pinochet intervention was unnecessarily brutal, but it saved the country from a worse destiny.
* Pinochet voluntarily stepped down after losing a referendum in 1989.
My last was in response to alistair and Wombat.
In the past he has done things like ride an old-fashioned high-wheeled bicycle in local parades. This year he had by-pass surgery and he sent out a leaflet (that I was forced to help pay for) that thanked "everyone" for their kindness and well wishes for his speedy recovery. This ploy of course let "everyone" know he had an operation -- just in case they weren't aware of it. It also may suggest that he's worried about W's lack of a coat-tail.
His name is Robert Farr, and every election cycle I have to suppress this overwhelming urge to spray paint his election signs with the letter "T" after his name followed by: "for all of you OLD FARRTS!" 
Zogby Tracking Poll...
Given what the Wall Street Journal's editorial page has said over the last few years, I am sure that they have gotten it exactly backwards.
You may be right. I can think of several instances of stupidity on their part over the years.
But simple, Gore's plan is not.
The complexity issue is one I am more sympathetic towards. Gore's habit of managing policy through micromanagement of the tax code has always been irksome. It is just considerably less irksome than the gross fiscal irresponsibility that has held the Republican party in its grip since 1980.
One thing I do consider interesting about the WSJ's chart, is the large increase in tax progressivity (through refundable credits) at the bottom of the income scale. Of course the WSJ doesn't bother mentioning it, but I consider it by far the most interesting information in the chart, as well as a reminder of why I generally like Gore's policies.
I dig Zorro more. It's the black cape.
I did go as Zorro at Halloween a couple of years ago, and I seriously considered naming my son "Tyrone".
like you, Rask, it's the outfit. heh.
The problem is that they have it exactly backwards. They forget that RH fought the Sherriff of Nottingham who "stole" money from the peasants through taxation. RH took money from the Sherriff and those who benefitted from the taxes and returned the money to the peasants who had earned it. In other words, RH was an anti-government, tax objector. He wasn't exactly the person many on the left think he was.
As it happened Richard was far more extortionate than John, borrowing and taxing to fund his military ventures. He was possibly one of England's worst kings.
"When Richard I returned Robin was rewarded with an Earldom."
An earldom?
Isn't this the second-greatest noble estate, after a duchy?
I've never seen a story in which Robin was given an Earldom.
Of course the whole is fictional, anyway.
Wombat,
Oh. "Earl of Huntingdon" does sound familiar, I guess. Is this the Costner Robin you're channelling?
Of course, to set the record straight, in most film versions Robin *begins* the story as Earl of Huntingdon.
Howard Pyle began him as a peasant or yeoman, but Hollywood likes noblemen.
No, I don't think I've seen the whole film. I am remembering a version of it published by Penguin Books many years ago, written--or adapted--by Roger Lancelyn Green.
You could be right about him being stripped of his earldom by John and taking to the woods as an outlaw.
He doesn't seem to get it-- such a ludicrous outcome would never be tolerated. Ergo, Gore must restructure his phase-outs to be more gradual to avoid this ridiculous result.
of course, a more gradual phase-out will result, by necessity, in the whole program costing much more money.
Which is why, I suspect, Gore's proposal includes the extreme phase-outs in the first place-- to hide the true likely cost of his program.
Wombat:
Yeah, in the Errol Flynn and Kevin Costner versions, he's stripped of his noble status.
Apparently the Costner version was based on an opera (they couldn't, or didn't, get the rights to remake the Errol Flynn version, so they used the public-domain opera as source material).
Like I said, in the version I grew up with, by Howard Pyle (which is a pretty old version, but I don't know how old), he's a commoner, as he is in the original legends. The noble-turned-outlaw stuff came later, perhaps in the late nineteenth century and then again in the 1930's Adventures of Robin Hood.
you?"
You are reading waaaaay too much into this. We are talking about a loose identification with a medieval myth, not using it as a template for modern social policy.
additional dollar earned is simply ludicrously unfair, even if it wouldn't
"distort" economic behavior"
You complete miss that the programs which *cause* the marginal spikes are designed to help the poor in the first place. Put in that context, I don't see an abrupt point of eligibility cut-off as being particularly unfair. So the question is instead whether it is unwise.
"(i.e., even if people are too stupid to refuse the extra dollar of income)."
They are evidently brighter than you, who would refuse to earn more than 30k rather than earn 35k, only facing a high marginal tax rate for $1000 worth of income. The only people whose favor this policy would rationally distort is those at, or just above the spike points. Not many people, and it is unlikely that they would bother to do the planning to alter their behavior. Not because they are stupid, but because of lack of precision in being able to control income, and lack of time to do the precise calculations.
"He doesn't seem to get it-- such a ludicrous outcome would never be
tolerated. Ergo, Gore must restructure his phase-outs to be more
gradual to avoid this ridiculous result."
Fine. It is a minor problem, but it is easily fixable.
"of course, a more gradual phase-out will result, by necessity, in the whole program costing much more money."
Not necessarily. It depends on where the phase out begins. It could easily be made cost neutral vs the current plan, by beginning the phase out below the current threshold, and ending it somewhere above.
More likely it is due to lack of "t"s being crossed in a campaign policy proposal.
Get some perspective here Ace. Compare the minor issues here with the the major consequences of Bush not bothering to fill in the details of his Social Security privatization plans, or his inaccuracies with his tax plans, and it is pretty clear you are pettifogging.
was just latest example."
Well, I am certainly a pragmatist, but "ends justifies the means" brings up images of Machiavellian amoralism, which isn't an accurate description of my views.
"It could easily be made cost neutral vs the current plan, by beginning the phase out below the current threshold, and ending it somewhere above."
Fine. Then his program is less "generous" (which is to say, less generous in doling out other people's money to the beneficiaries of Gore's maternalism).
Let Gore decide. Will he have a less generous program, or will he explode the cost of his program?
No, that was Tyrone Power. Mongramming everything with a "Z" is such a camp.
Idiotic. Clinton didn't "fill in the details" of *his* Social Security reform plan either, and for good reason. (Of course, Bill then forgot all about Social Security reform. Something you liberals conveniently forget. In fact, when I pointed this out a year ago, someone here said, "Well, there's still time. I trust Clinton will get to enacting potentially unpopular reform as his term expires." So far, nothing.)
"or his inaccuracies with his tax plans..."
Which innacuracies? The "innacuracies" that Gore partisans claim?
I just saw a non-partisan group analyze both economic plans, and they found that Bush's numbers were almost exactly correct (very slightly off in his favor, by around 1 or 2%).
On the other hand, an analysis of Gore's plan showed that he understated the costs of his spending plans by one-third or more.
Rask--
Since you're so concerned about the economy...
We know, of course, that the only reason we have a surplus, and thus money to "play with," is because of the current rate of high taxation, combined with loose spending controls, combined, crucially, with a booming economy.
of course, if the economy sours (which it always does; and anyone who believes we can continue at a rate of 4-5% growth in perpetuity is very much an optimist), then revenues will of course decline (less money, less taxes) and outlays will spike (more people needing government assistance, including but not limited to unemployment insurance outlays).
So my question:
Do you find it wise to increase spending to unsustainable levels, as Gore would do? The country could not manage to balance a budget for eighteen years under a government which spent far less than Gore would commit us to spending.
Related question:
If the economic boom ends -- or returns to a lower, more historical rate -- we of course run the risk of returning to deficit spending. Once again, less money means less tax revenues. Which would wipe out the surplus, and probably then some.
Now, it is true Bush plans to "spend" one fourth of the surplus in tax cuts. ("Spend." Hee hee. "Spend." A cute semantical game -- when you cut taxes -- and eschew spending -- you're actually "spending." Ha, ha, ha.)
But taxes can be raised to cover a shortfall. It's never popular, and sometimes it's politically suicidal (see George Bush, non-President Walter Mondale) but it does happen occasionally (see Bill Clinton.)
On the other hand, ENTITLEMENTS CAN NEVER BE CUT.
Bush's tax cut, in other words, can be "taken back" through higher tax rates, if necessary. But Gore's new entitlements can never be cut, even if dreadfully necessary.
generous in doling out other people's money to the beneficiaries of
Gore's maternalism). "
Please explain how one slightly different version of a program doling out the *same amount of money* as another version is "less generous". It will require slightly higher effective marginal tax rates for some income groups, while lowering them for others that have slighly more income, if that is what you mean.
"Idiotic. Clinton didn't "fill in the details" of *his* Social Security
reform plan either, and for good reason."
Please point out how Clinton's plan was remotely as potentially expensive as Bush's. Bush is pushing a drastic overhaul of the largest Federal program, and he won't say how he will pay for it. You don't find this troubling?
"The "innacuracies" that Gore partisans claim?"
You must not read Krugman. Or do you consider him a Gore partisan?
"I just saw a non-partisan group analyze both economic plans, and they found that Bush's numbers were almost exactly correct (very slightly off in his favor, by around 1 or 2%)."
Cite please.
Now, it's true we cut Welfare spending. But that was a very popular measure, and a long time coming.
But we could never cut an entitlement for the elderly, who of course vote at very high rates.
It's funny that Rask is so gosh-darn enthusiastic about a risky scheme which takes more money from the young (many of whom are struggling, and who have children and therefore high costs) to give even more benefits to the aged (who are generally better-off than most segments of the population).
Gore's plan for prescription drug coverage is universal-- Bill Gates will get free drugs, paid for by his poorer grandchildren.
This is, in a word, fucking asinine.
Gore would do? The country could not manage to balance a budget
for eighteen years under a government which spent far less than Gore
would commit us to spending."
It is a matter of comparative lack of wisdom. I think Gore's plan is less unwise than Bush's.
"But taxes can be raised to cover a shortfall. It's never popular, and sometimes it's politically suicidal (see George Bush, non-President Walter Mondale) but it does happen occasionally (see Bill Clinton.)
On the other hand, ENTITLEMENTS CAN NEVER BE CUT."
Two points:
1) It doesn't seem to cross your mind that it is just as easy to increase taxes to cover a shortfall driven by increased spending as it is to cover one driven by reduced taxation.
2) Entitlements can be cut, and have been cut. Were you sleeping during the welfare reform act a half dozen years ago? Or the hike in the retirement age for Social Security stemming from the 1982 law changes? Now, I do agree that they are difficult to cut, but I always get a kick out of correcting you.
"Bush's tax cut, in other words, can be "taken back" through higher tax rates, if necessary. But Gore's new entitlements can never be cut,
even if dreadfully necessary."
Well, because of the difficulties in ending or reforming entitlements, I believe that you have to be careful when creating them, but all that realization does is to shift the debate to whether or not Gore's proposed entitlements are good ones.
And, of course, we then have to compare them to Bush's proposed entitlement changes. Oops. I forgot. Bush won't tell us how he plans to pay for his changes. Not much to compare.
and what Gore entitlements are you referring to?
struggling, and who have children and therefore high costs) to give
even more benefits to the aged (who are generally better-off than
most segments of the population)."
Who says I am enthusiastic about his Medicare plans? I don't recall ever saying a word about it before. Basically, I think it is pandering to the elderly. I would much prefer a health care solution which tackled the health care needs of he young *and* old, but unfortunately Bill Bradley didn't get the nomination. But my *hunch* is that Gore's plan is better than none at all. As is Bush's. I honestly haven't compared their two proposals any closer than this on merits.
We know, of course, that the only reason we have a surplus, and thus money to "play with," is because of the current rate of high taxation, combined with loose spending controls, combined, crucially, with a booming economy.
Mostly true. A factor that should not be ignored, because the voters seem to instinctively understand the implications, is gridlock. The inability of the parties to agree to do anything that might redound to the benefit or bragging rights of the other party has kept the pols in check, the surplus growing, and the debt declining.
"It doesn't seem to cross your mind that it is just as easy to increase taxes to cover a shortfall driven by increased spending as it is to cover one driven by reduced taxation."
It didn't cross my mind because it seemed rather stupid.
So, you're saying that if the economy sours and we run into deficits caused, in part, by Gore's break-the-bank entitlements, he will raise taxes even higher than their current all-time-high peacetime levels to cover the shortfall?
Really?
Do you imagine he'll actually say this?
If not, why not?
Why won't Gore "fill in the blanks" regarding how he'd reconcile his higher spending with diminished revenues?
Could someone explain to me the article? I do not understand this marginal stuff.
Hmmmm... raising taxes during an economic slowdown/recession?
What a grrrrrrreat idea!
Surely that's not a "risky scheme"!!!
Hey Rask,
What do conventional economists say about raising taxes during an economic downturn?
higher spending with diminished revenues?"
For the same reason Bush won't. But as I said before, the difference between the two is the magnitude of their fiscal irresponsibility. Gore is simply being less irresponsible than Bush. I don't recall the exact price tag on Gore's Medicare expansion, but it isn't remotely as large as Bush's tax cut. And the difference is even greater when combined with Bush's proposed Medicare expansion.
For example, if the first income bracket is ten percent, but the next income bracket is 15%, you pay 15% tax on each dollar of additional income earned once you break the next bracket. That's your "marginal rate" -- the rate you pay at the highest margin of income.
Now, Gore (in order to inflate the size of his "tax cuts") counts the government-paid subsidies to retirement savings of his "Social Security Plus" plan as "Tax cuts." (Actually, of course, it's not a tax cut; it's additional spending for the poor. But whatever--he classifies it as a "tax cut.")
Gore would give you certain subsidies to retirement savings if you make less than $30,000 -- I think he'll pay three government dollars for each dollar you yourself put into a retirement account. At higher levels of income, he'll give you less of a subsidy-- something like two-to-one up to $40,000, then three-to-two up to $50,000.
Etc.
Now, the cost of earning of an additional dollar is a function not only of the tax rate, but also a function of what government subsidies you *lose* as you make more money.
In the current situation, someone making less than $30,000 pays, say, 20 cents on each additional dollar. But once you make more than $30,000, you pay $1.64 in taxes & benefits lost for each additional dollar-- in other words, by making an additional dollar you actually come out poorer, because you must pay a total of $1.64 in taxes and lost benefits due to the fact you made $1.00.
This is a slender spike in marginal rates, which means that you quickly "pass" the point at which you're actually losing money for each additional dollar you make.
Nevertheless, for all those dollars under the spike, you do actually lose money. You're poorer due to earning more money.
Being taxed at a 105% rate means you pay $1.05 for each marginal $1.00 you earn. So once again, you lose money. You'd have been richer WITHOUT making those additional dollars.
The tax code is filled with situations like this. Generally, the way to avoid such absurd costs of earning marginal dollars is to phase out benefits gradually.
But Gore doesn't phase out his retirement subsidies gradually. He just stops them/lowers them abruptly, which is what causes these spikes in the marginal cost of earning an extra dollar.
Incidentally, it is not necessary to this analysis that Al Gore counts his subsidies as "tax cuts." The proper analysis would include benefits lost whether he counted subsidies as tax cuts or not.
I only bring the point up to forestall the inevetible cry of: "But you can't include subsidies lost in an analysis of the cost of earning a marginal dollar!"
Since Mr. Gore includes this as a "tax cut," by his own definition it should be included in a tax analysis.
His biggest weakness is a lack of substance to his campaign. He cannot articulate specific proposals that have a realistic chance of acceptance by congress, or that will accomplish the ends he wishes to achieve. The best evidence I have seen of the hollowness of his campaign is his response to a candidate questionaire sent to him by the Ancient Order of Hibernians. The AOH is a Irish-Catholic fraternity, which is pro-life and generally conservative.
The Political Education Committee posed five questions to both Bush and Gore.
1. Would you support for MacBride Fair Employment Principles for all IMF recipients in Ireland?
2. Will you publicly support the full implementation of the Belfast Agreement?
3. Would you end deportation/exclusion of six nationalists who were convicted in Northern Ireland, released /or escaped and came to the US?
4. Will you support a Truth Commission to document the human and civil rights abuses in Northern Ireland?
5. Would you seek to end partial birth abortion and expand programs that provide alternatives to abortion?
do if we only consider ourselves as a reference, though."
Not even then. Currently the Federal government's share of the economy is the smallest it has been in decades.
"Could someone explain to me the article? I do not understand this
marginal stuff."
Basically, what you see is a chart showing how your taxes change as your income changes, based on $1000 increments. For instance, based on that chart, if you earn $1000 more at $25,000, that $1000 is effectively taxed at 10% or so, whereas $1000 at $90k is taxed at about 35%. Because of the cut-off points in some of Gore's tax policies, the impact (according to the WSJ editorial page, so take it with some grains of salt) of having your income increase from 29k to 30k is that your taxes go up $1640, a 164% marginal tax rate at that income level. But when your income goes from 30k to 31k, your tax rate on *that* thousand dollars only goes up about 20%.
Marginal tax rates are quite important in public finance, more important than average tax rates, as marginal tax rates are what cause distortions in your behavior. It doesn't matter if your average tax rate will be %20 if you get a $10,000 raise, if the marginal tax rate on that $10k is something like 90% -there won't be much point to earning it.
(sidenote to Ace: If you complain about counting tax cuts as spending, "Mr Consistency" should then also take the WSJ to task for counting spending as a tax)
And Cal,
Let me know if that wasn't that clear. It's a tricky thing to explain, and looking back, I'm not sure that I did a very good job of it.
Hee, hee, hee.
Read my posts, Bub.
As I said:
1) The cost of earning a marginal dollar should and always does include the benefits *lost* due to earning it -- that's why the EITC includes a gradual phase out.
2) Al Gore explicit counts his retirement subsidies as a "tax cut." Al Gore's "$500 billion tax cut" is heavily inflated by counting entitlements/subsidies as "tax cuts," when in actuality they're simply further spending.
So even if you disagree with the premise of 1 (though I don't know on what basis you would), Mr. Gore is hoisted on his own smoke-and-mirrors petard. He counts the subsidy as a tax cut. It is therefore proper to take him at his word and include the subsidy in a tax analysis.
His only statement with respect to the other questions was to state that the spirit and letter of the Good Friday agreement should be restored, and that he would replace George Mitchel with a presidential envoy.
Gore addresses the questions.
Here is a chance to Bush to hit several home runs, with an audience pre-disposed to his view. Instead he sends a pat response on pro-life. He is not ready for prime time.
Rask,
Your criticism is off-base, whatever you intended to criticize.
Tax cuts are not, by any fair use of the English language, "spending."
However, it is of course proper and perfectly convention to include lost subsidies in an analysis of the cost (not necessarily simply the tax cost, but the true and complete cost) of earning a marginal dollar.
Thanks. I think the only part I didn't quite grok is the way you calculate marginal tax rate. So it is the increase in income and the increase in taxes?
So if my taxes are 2000 at $30,000 and $4000 at 31,000, then the marginal tax rate is 200%?
Cal,
Yes, because by earning that extra ("marginal") $1000 you incurred an additional ("marginal") $2000 tax liability.
It costs you two dollars to earn one dollar. You're poorer for being richer.
Note that this never happens wrt pure taxation, because the marginal tax rate never exceeds 100% (though it was once around 90%).
But when you factor in subsides (Earned Income Tax Credit, Welfare benefits, Medicaid benefits, Gore's extreme-phase-out retirement subsidy), an improperly structured subsidy system *can* result in your losing money due to making money.
Cal,
"Marginal tax rate" really doesn't have to be calculated. It's right there in the tax code -- you pay 15% at the lowest level. Each marginal dollar in the next higher bracket costs you 28% in taxes. Then 31%, then 36.9% (or something like that).
But the marginal *cost* of earning an additional dollar takes into consideration stuff that *does* need to be calculated, like government-provided benefits/subsidies you lose when you make that extra dollar.
For example, if you lose the entirety of a $5000 government subsidy when you make $30,000 grand, then you must refuse to earn more than $29,999 -- because when you make $29,999, you really "earn" $34,999 (your income plus the $5000 subsidy). Once you earn $30,000, you will only earn what you actually earn -- i.e., $30,000, and no subsidy.
(Of course, once you start making $35,000, you begin coming out ahead again. But that doesn't change that fact that you were penalized, and made poorer, due to your income rising from $29,999 to $30-34,999).
"Yes, I understand that, too. So what do you call the 164%?"
The 164% cost-of-a-marginal-dollar-rate occurs when you pass the $30,000 bracket and are therefore no longer eligible for Gore's most-generous retirement subsidy (three dollars of subsidy for each dollar you invest out of your own funds).
The loss of this spectularly generous ("risky") subsidy is what causes the spike at $30,000. Someone making $29,999 will be much better off than someone makng $31,500, and therefore has a good incentive to refuse raises from his boss.
Tax codes and subsidy systems, if properly structured, should avoid such bizarre and counter-intuitive results.
I don't know if the WSJ also factors in the cost of losing Gore's other "targeted tax cuts" (i.e., new spending which is being called a "tax cut" to confuse the electorate) or if its analysis only takes into account the retirement subsidy.
election thread. Wanna host? It's not too much work. Wombat,
Jones, BobbyJ, Michael Mele, y'uns too."
No thanks. My availability is too erratic.
Gore's tax plan:
Lowest bracket 15%, next lowest bracket 28%
Bush's tax plan
lowest bracket 10%, next lowest bracket 15%
Hmmmm... a tax plan "for the rich," ay?
Of course, the "rich" do benefit under any tax-cut plan -- because the rich pay 50% of the nation's taxes. *Of course* they get a bigger tax cut, in absolute dollars, than anyone else. They are paying the most in absolute dollars.
Nevertheless, Bush's "risky tax scheme" would reduce the top rate of taxation from 36.9% to 33%.
That's not exactly "slashing" taxes on the rich.
Compare this very small drop in rate of taxation to the bigger drops for lower incomes. Oh yeah-- and Bush expands the deduction for children and eliminates the marriage penalty, too.
It is quite easy to construct a tax plan where the rich don't benefit as much as the poor. A payroll tax cut, for instance. While your points on the current tax burden placed on the rich are correct, it hardly follows that any tax cut disproportionately helps the rich.
You also ignore that taxes are but one part of the equation. As we have been discussing, Gore's subsibies do a lot more to help the poor than Bush's lowering of marginal income tax rates.
Interesting...
Fort Lauderdale, Florida Mayor Jim Naugle, a lifelong Democrat, said Tuesday he is going to endorse Republican George W Bush for President.
Fort Lauderdale is in a heavily Democratic area of Florida that the Clinton-Gore ticket carried in both the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections.
One reason for endorsing Bush is that Naugle said he doesn't like Gore's proposed policies for taxation. "
I see Vice President Gore making so many promises for so many new entitlements that I fear that working people in this country in the future are going to be saddled with tax rates that are just unbelievable. Sixty or 70 percent to pay for all this stuff. Every time you turn around, it's a new program or a new entitlement," Naugle said.
Naugle also expressed skepticism over proposals to increase federal spending based on projected budget surpluses, saying that Gore is "making these promises when economic times are good and we have these tax surpluses. But we know there are economic cycles that come and go, and if the economy turns down, we're not going to have the money to pay for these huge and costly entitlements, and, once enacted, entitlements never go away."
"As we have been discussing, Gore's subsibies do a lot more to help the poor than Bush's lowering of marginal income tax rates."
And I could "help blacks" by giving each African-American a nice new VW Beetle.
Rask seems to like the idea of paying people to be poor.
It's a nice gig, I guess, but I'd prefer they just worked and paid taxes like the other 90% of Americans.
Rask judges every policy, it seems, by the amount of wealth it transfers from one person (who earned it) to another person (who didn't).
By this metric, I humbly concede that Gore will of course always come out well ahead of "stingy" Bush.
Vote Gore
He'll take money from some people and give it to other people. Hooray!
44203
44205 - 44209
44213
44215 - 44217
were moved to the new debate tread - please place new predictions there
Jones: please post that you will take hosting duties in Suggestions
rd:
I really wish you wouldn't move stuff like that. Copy it, sure, but don't delete it from here.
This is the problem with the "Debates" thread-- this already is a debates thread. What the hell do we need another one for? Just so we can get confused as to what belongs here and what belongs there?
Just so we can interrupt conversations?
Just so we can divide conversations between threads, when we already scarcely have enough posters to make ONE full-blooded exchanged?
Silly, silly, silly.
Hey, you posted some numbers implying that Bush's proposals would help the poor more than than Gore's. You might disagree that it is a valid issue, but since you posted the numbers, it is an open target for rebuttal.
And I of course would also prefer that the poor worked and paid taxes to receiving government assistance. But I would prefer that they receive government assistance to having millions of kids grow up in poverty, and millions more growing up in worse poverty.
Damned few poverty programs are targeted at people with no dependent children.
Silly me. I thought we discussed such things in Politics.
If Debates & Elections are to be discussed in a different thread... I'm not quite sure what the hell we'll discuss here.
Maybe abortion.
Ooops! Nope, that has its own thread, too.
Maybe Current Events.
Ooops! Ditto.
would that i could
i have "Move" and "Delete" on the maintenance screens
i apologize to those who didn't want the posts moved or didn't know they would be. i'll just manually copy from now on.
btw, i think a separate debate thread might be good, might not. we'll see - something different.
I just don't understand the plan to have a "Debates" thread, which will then morph into an "Elections" thread.
Silly me. I thought we discussed such things in Politics.
if you didn't notice, you were just involved in a conversation not involving the debate
transfers from one person (who earned it) to another person (who
didn't). "
YAW (You are wrong - I find myself needing to say this to you so often that it needs its own acronym to save time). One public policy goal I believe in, among many, is to alleviate poverty. Income redistribution programs are one way to do this. So is fostering economic growth. Other goals are public safety, environmental protection, enforcing the rule of law, managing public goods in the public interest, protecting civil liberties, etc.
Rd,
It's not your fault. The "Debate" thread is just a dumb idea.
But I think, perhaps, you should leave posts where they lie -- if someone wants to post here, let them post here. If they prefer Debates, let them post there.
Scan down to all the items labeled "Irrelevant" in calculating the benefits of the Gore tax plan.
In comparison, here's an analysis of the Bush plan.
This site provides tax calculators for each.
which i will do
you're right, i shouldn't have deleted them
live and learn
On the other hand, Bush's plan will reduce my tax burden significantly. So here is my choice. Vote for Gore and pay higher taxes, or vote for Bush and pay lower taxes. Gee, tough choice.
Rask: On Charlie Rose, Susan Estridge and Ed Rollins were saying this election is about "which candidate will do the most for me." I would say that's because so much of the electorate are baby boomers (who have never been much on self-sacrifice), but then I see how Gore's numbers among seniors sky-rocketed after his last few panders.
If one group votes because of a tax cut and another votes because they want free drugs, I see both as less than altruistic.
For that matter, let's end the war on drugs and put the money toward subsidizing prescription medicines.
My new campaign slogan: "Cheap drugs for everyone!"
Democratic inconsistency alert...
Democrats are now criticizing Bush's tax plan, claiming that it won't provide tax relief to some people it claims to.
It seems that Bush has not proposed a significant change in the Alternate Minimum Tax, a tax paid by rich people who are (by taking advantage of certain sections of the tax code) able to arrange their affairs so they pay very little in tax.
About 12.2 million taxpayers, Democrats charge, will have no significant decrease in tax liability, because while they'll have less of a tax bill under Bush's plan, they'll still have to pay the AMT, and thus they won't really get that big of a tax decrease.
Uhhhhh, one problem:
The AMT applies exclusively to people making a lot of money.
So Democrats are now charging that Bush's plan won't benefit some taxpayers. But they don't say who those taxpayers might be.
Well, the truth is: It's some of the rich who won't have quite a big a tax savings as they might expect.
But then, Al Gore attacks Bush for giving big tax breaks to "the rich."
Meanwhile, Charlie Rangell is attacking him for not giving a big enough tax break to the rich.
How do they square this circle?
Very simply. As I said, they're very cagey about saying who will have reduced tax relief due to the AMT. They imply that it'll be Average Americans who won't get as big a tax break as promised.
And then with the same breath they criticize Bush for giving tax breaks to the rich.
Unbelievable. No Republican could ever hope to get away with breathtaking dishonesty like this.
That's what I keep telling JJ.
Although there are other good reasons, as well.
Earlier, Ace brought up how economists regard tax hikes during a recession. What he didn't mention is that similar logic requires skepticism about a tax cut when your economy is running at full steam.
And Republicans get away with breathtaking dishonesty all the time. remember voodoo economics?
Sigh...
Not really. There are a lot of people who think the boom is about to end.
Historically, we're overdue for a slowdown or recession.
Now it could be that information technology has repealed the business cycle. Some people claim that. I'm skeptical, myself.
High fuel prices have triggered an economic slowdown in the past.
And, like I said: We're overdue.
Sidenote: Personally, I'm not sure I want an R to win this election, because I'm pretty sure there's a recession coming in the next two years.
A Republican friend of mine told me he wanted Dukakis to win the 1988 election, because he was convinced a recession would come during the next Presidential term, and whatever party held the White House would be blamed for it.
He was a smart guy.
"remember voodoo economics?"
Yes, I do. "Voodoo economics" worked, despite the misunderstandings of the out-to-lunch left.
Reagan said he'd cut taxes, and yet revenue from taxes would increase.
He was right: He did cut taxes, and revenue from taxes *DID* increase, despite the lower tax rates.
It is true that spending exceeded revenues. But that's not part of "voodoo economics." Voodoo economics had to do with the Laffer curve, and the theory that lower tax rates would stimulate the economy to such an extent that the government would collect higher revenues despite lower rates.
Besides-- Reagan *wanted* to cut spending. Your buddies whined and whined about the spending cuts and Reagan backed off. So the government spent more.
And ergo you blame Reagan for the deficits.
It is the same situation with Gore's perscription plan for seniors. He claims Medicare will pay for perscriptions, but when applied to real people, it fails the test. My mother is on Medicare. By the time the premiums are figured in with the fact that the top benefit is only 50%, she doesn't even break even. Then if she doesn't sign up when the law goes into effect, she will not be able to get coverage when she does need it.
Under Bush's plan, my mother can select a plan that meets her needs now, and when her situation changes she can change plans to something more appropriate.
My family's situation is typical of many families. The fact is that Gore's plans aren't going to do what he claims, and Bush's will.
Leading economic indicators:
Factory orders slowing down...
Home purchases slowing down...
Home building slowing down...
There is a real possibility of coming downturn. I wouldn't say it's definitely coming, but it's always a worry.
Actually, the AMT doesn't only apply to the "rich". It kicks in pretty low--I forget exactly where, but unless it has changed recently, it's in the 100K range. It hasn't been raised since it was put in place back in the 70s, I think? Or maybe once.
So I think the problem is that Bush's cut won't make things any better for that group--who are certainly not the ultra rich, the mega rich, or even the really rich.
But Rask is right--I don't see anyone bitching about it here.
You forgot to mention that they didn't pass a budget for years and kept the government going through CRs with the implicit threat of shutting down the government if Reagan didn't sign.
misunderstandings of the out-to-lunch left."
Oh don't try this bullshit on me. I have dealt with it too many times.
"Reagan said he'd cut taxes, and yet revenue from taxes would
increase. He was right: He did cut taxes, and revenue from taxes *DID* increase, despite the lower tax rates."
Overall revenue increased in real terms *only* when you include the tax hike on social security. Cato and other conservative think tanks conveniently omit this fact. Surely this isn't quite what Reagan had in mind. Hell, despite the growing economy in the 80s, income tax revenue didn't catch up to 1981 levels again until 1986, the year taxes were raised again.
"It is true that spending exceeded revenues. But that's not part of
"voodoo economics." Voodoo economics had to do with the Laffer
curve, and the theory that lower tax rates would stimulate the
economy to such an extent that the government would collect higher
revenues despite lower rates."
Yeah, and where the supply siders were out to lunch was in believing US tax rates were sufficiently high. They weren't, as seen by the real drop in income tax revenues. I wrote a long, diligently cited piece on this in response to JJ's and Boomer's belief in the same myth, last year. I will dig it up if you really want to see it.
"Besides-- Reagan *wanted* to cut spending. Your buddies whined
and whined about the spending cuts and Reagan backed off. So the
government spent more. "
No, actually Reagan succeeded in cutting domestic discretionary spending. Where the spending increases occurred were in defense spending and (to a considerably lesser extent) entitlements (particularly health care, which suffered from high inflation throughout the 80s), which Reagan never really tried to touch.
Which is the "Rich," according to Al Gore. I just read an Al Gore piece where he noted that x% of Bush's tax cuts would go to the rich --"The rich" defined as those making $89,000 a year or more.
This is life, Cal: If Gore defines $89,000 a year as "rich," then he cannot claim that the AMT affects "The poor."
"I don't see anyone bitching about [the AMT] here."
I don't see anyone CLAIMING you were bitching about it. I said "Democrats," and I named Charlie Rangell.
Unless you are actually Charlie Rangell, then I did not claim you were "bitching about it."
What I am claiming is that Gore's people are arguing with dishonest inconsisency: with one side of their mouths they attack "tax breaks for the rich," with the other side they attack Bush for not giving enough of a tax break to "certain taxpayers" (i.e., the dreaded Rich).
kept the government going through CRs with the implicit threat of
shutting down the government if Reagan didn't sign."
Yet domestic discretionary spending decreased, defense spending increased, and Reagan fulfilled his electoral policies.
Except he was dead wrong about the stimulus effect, and the deficit skyrocketed.
Rask,
If you have proof I am wrong, cite it. I prefer not to be in error, and if I am indeed wrong (though I don't believe I am) I would like to know about it.
I have a feeling you will cite that lunatic who killed himself as "evidence."
...whereas my "cite" comes from a piece in the National Review, written by an economist who did not, to my knowlege, blow his brains out.
And Cal,
Please stop with the "100K isn't rich" bullshit.
To most Americans, that is rich. I'm very happy that to *you* -- someone making more -- it isn't "rich," but you are in the top two quintiles of income. So please stop claiming you're not.
Objectively, you're in the top 40% of wage-earners. That's "rich." You're not average (middle quintile), and you're not poor (bottom two quintiles). That leaves only... "rich." Compared to the national average.
You may not be "rich" compared to the people you compare yourself to -- who have similar educational backgrounds, skills, etc. --but you sure the hell are "rich" to a janitor or truck driver or factory worker or cop.
And Al Gore certainly defines you as "rich," anyway.
"Except he was dead wrong about the stimulus effect, and the deficit skyrocketed."
Reagan was "wrong" about the stimulus effect.
Clinton's much-more-modest "stimulus package," OTOH, spurred the economy out of a recession it wasn't even in, and hadn't been in for two years.
Right?
Oh.
My bad.
By "Stimulus effect," I guess you were talking about increased tax revenues, not stimulating the economy out of a recession.
100K isn't rich. It is more than most people make, but that's a different thing entirely. It has nothing to do with where anyone is on a quintile.
I am indeed wrong (though I don't believe I am) I would like to know
about it."
Will do. The piece is on my home computer, so I'll have to get it tonight or tomorrow. Basically it is just budget and revenue tables from the 80s (from the CBO web site) adjusted for inflation (from the BLS web site), with some discussion.
"I have a feeling you will cite that lunatic who killed himself as
"evidence."
Vince Foster? Why the hell would I cite him?
"...whereas my "cite" comes from a piece in the National Review,
written by an economist who did not, to my knowlege, blow his
brains out."
As I said, most Reagan puff pieces deal with selective use of the facts. They employ one of three tactics to make Reagan's policies look good:
1) aggregate tax data rather than breaking it out by type, hiding the drop in income tax revenues by combining them with payroll tax hikes. Cato does this in their major Reagan puff piece.
2) failure to adjust for inflation. This is far and away the most common tactic. If your economist did this, he should have his phD revoked.
3) Selective use of data. For instance, I have seen some articles site real defense spending in 1980 and 1989, using the slight difference to argue that Reagan didn't really increase defense spending, but ignoring the 8 years in between where defense spending rose, stayed high, and then dropped.
economy out of a recession it wasn't even in, and hadn't been in for
two years. "
Clinton's extremely modest stimulus package was a waste of political capital.
venture capital available in the 90's to fuel the growth in the
technology sector which is responsible for our current level of
prosperity. This should be obvious to anyone who doesn't believe that
prosperity grows on government-owned trees."
JJ just never stops trying to give Reagan credit, no matter how many times he gets shot down. Not sure if this is admirable or pathetic.
Please explain how tax cuts give rise to lots of venture capital when the government, as a result of those tax cuts, resorts to deficit spending, soaking up a lot more private capital than was being saved as a result of the tax cuts.
Following JJ's logic, we don't even need to tax. We will just borrow everything. I would hate to see his credit card bills if this is how he manages his personal finances. (I somehow doubt it is).
That said, in this particular case, I would like to see some of our debt paid down and would favor a smaller tax cut to ensure that. I disagree with both Gore and Bush that any of the surplus (above FICA) should go to shore up Social Security, but politically that seems unfeasible. And I'm certainly not in favor of expanding other entitlements (such as prescription drugs).
BTW, in general I think people are entitled to be "completely selfish bastards." Virtue by compulsion is no virtue. Moreover, I don't think a dollar spent by the public sector is inherently likely to do better works or do them more efficiently than a dollar spent by the private sector.
The day you can actually follow and understand even rudimentary logic, drinks are on me.
Please explain how tax cuts give rise to lots of venture capital when the government, as a result of those tax cuts, resorts to deficit spending, soaking up a lot more private capital than was being saved as a result of the tax cuts.
Invalid premise. Deficit spending (by the Democratic Congress) did not soak up more capital than was created.
domestic spending and ignoring that all of domestic spending almost
doubled."
Here JJ makes the mistake of not using inflation-adjusted data over an 8 year period, as well as aggregating the data to hide impacts that he doesn't like. I also suspect he is including interest on the debt in this number, which is hardly an appropriate thing to do.
As I said, yes, entitlements went up (but much less than defense spending did). Social Security went up directly with population growth of retirees, and Medicare and Medicaid went up at a time when health care costs nationwide were skyrocketing. This is it folks, the only "domestic spending" categories which saw any really notable rise. Please tell me exactly what Reagan did to try to cut entitlements, and how those nasty evil Democrats in the House (I forgot tactic #4, call it the "Democratic Congress" even though the GOP controlled the Senate from 81-87) blocked him from doing this.
Depends. There are certain activities that the private sector does a shitty job of providing, for well understood economic reasons, such as national defense, police protection, environmental protection, roads, antipoverty efforts, and public health efforts.
Rask,
Since you, and your ilk, "Care" so much about the poor, please explain why you do not pay significantly *more* taxes than you're required to?
Why don't all you good liberals get your Congressmen to enact a "Slush fund for the Poor," and all good liberals can pay an extra $500 or $1000 or even $10,000 of taxes into it.
Republicans would pass it. Voluntary payment of extra taxes is fine with us (though there is the problem of the moral hazard; but we'll go along with it, just to shut you up).
It seems liberals "care" about the poor, but not enough for they themselves to pay for the poor.
They always lay the responsibility for "caring" at the feet of others.
BTW, Domestic spending almost doubled in real dollars.
I do acknowlege that *some* rich people do want their tax burdens increased.
But they do not grok the fact that they can, through voluntary contributions, give away as much as their income as they like to "worthy causes."
It seems those who "care" are only willing to "give" if they can forcibly take money from those who don't "care" as much as they do.
After all, they wouldn't want to give so much that they "lose ground," money-wise, to those who don't "care" as much.
So, they "care" -- just not to the extent that they'll have less goodies than their Republican neighbors. Must keep up with the Jonses. And if the Jonses won't pony up, then *fuck* the poor.
At least until we can force the Jonses to kick in their fare share.
not soak up more capital than was created."
And here we have an example of the "Democratic Congress" tactic.
To head off JJ's inevitable next retort, yes appropriations bills start in the House, but appropriations bills don't cover entitlements, where spending is determined by law. In the discretionary budget, which *do* require appropriations bills, defense spending went up, and domestic spending went down (the two categories cover all of the discretionary budget).
And the capital soaking of deficit spending is quite well understood. Just think it through: *all* of a deficit has to be borrowed, that is, it soaks up private capital. Whereas only *some* of a tax cut will be invested as capital. Unless all of the tax cut, plus an amount equal to spending increases, is saved, thereby perfectly offsetting the deficit, private capital available will go down. But under no circumstances is it likely to actually *increase*, as JJ seems to think.
Keep digging.
explain why you do not pay significantly *more* taxes than you're
required to? "
We do, it is called donating to charity.
by the Democratic Leadership in the House of Representatives, it is
dishonest to blame Reagan to the budgets the Democrats write. "
JJ: just look at the results. Defense spending up, domestic discretionary down. Are you truly arguing that this result occurred because the Democratic House strong-armed Reagan and the GOP Senate?
"We do, it is called donating to charity."
How much, Rask?
And why are you so gung-ho for higher taxes, when you (and your friends, who really, really "care") can easily achieve the precise same ends through voluntary giving?
Why the emphasis on getting money from those who don't want to give?
It seems you waste so, so much energy, time, and money trying to force others to "care" as much as you do.
Why not devote that energy, time, and money to picking up the slack for we who don't "care" as much as you do?
I think I have a hunch why.
A few thousand a year.
"And why are you so gung-ho for higher taxes, when you (and your
friends, who really, really "care") can easily achieve the precise same ends through voluntary giving? "
Because we can't. Lack of poverty is a public good, which non-givers can free ride on, enjoying the benefits of lower crime, better public health, and corresponding benefits from education, without paying the cost. As such, it will be underfunded without compulsory taxation.
"Why the emphasis on getting money from those who don't want to
give?"
Who are you referring to? We live in a democracy where elected representatives set the tax rates. Are you referring to those who wish their elected officials to do otherwise? Or just the rich? If the former, thems the breaks of democracy. If the latter, because they can better afford it.
The Congress cannot touch entitlement spending? Who writes the laws? Who had written the welfare laws in effect during Reagan's Administration? I guess you never heard of welfare reform. You know, it is that thing which Democrats claimed would throw millions of poor people out on street and now that it has been successful they claim credit for.
Apparently you have also forgotten the parade of Democrats who spoke on the floor of the House and Senate all claiming that, despite Republican claims, deficits could be run indefinitely and that the calls for a balanced budget harm the poor. Democrats supported deficit spending as a way of maintaining their influence over the recipients of government largesse.
Do you just not remember?
Oh...
"Lack of poverty is a public good, which non-givers can free ride on, enjoying the benefits of lower crime, better public health, and corresponding benefits from education, without paying the cost."
TRANSLATION: Just as I said-- we can't let those who "don't care" gain the benefits of a poverty-free nation unless they too pony up.
So... It's vitally important to "help the poor." But not so important, it seems, that we should help the poor if means those who "don't care" "free-riding" on the utopia we've created.
Translation: We really don't "care" all that fucking much.
Well, I'll take you at your word, then. If you don't care, why the fuck should I?
"As such, it will be underfunded without compulsory taxation."
Underfunded according to you. You think the poor should be given more money-- and yet, by your own mouth, you will REFUSE to give them more money if other people are allowed to "free-ride" on your largesse.
So is it really underfunded at all? It seems that a fairly petty consideration -- like the possibility that others, who don't kick in, might benefit from your good deeds -- is enough to make you decide it just isn't worth it to give to the poor.
Rask, if this is really "important," you can pony up what the poor "need" and just suffer with my "free-riding" on your generosity.
Lead by example, Rask.
Get a group of liberals together and you guys *show* us how "important" this is, and how much you "care."
Give, give, give.
Give voluntarily. Give without mandating that others give.
But then, you'll never do this.
I could swear I saw this idea posted on the Mote once before. Didn't someone suggest that there be three levels of taxation:
1. rates as they are now for those who do not want a tax cut,
2. lower rates for those who do want a tax cut,
3. higher rates for the likes of those on the Mote who constantly carp that we need to do more for the less fortunate.
Al,
I think I suggested this, long ago, to Arkymalarky.
It comes down to *resentment*. Rask and Arky claim it's oh-so-important to "help the poor," but then simple resentment of those who won't do the same is enough to make them NOT help the poor.
Ergo, they are admitting it's not really that important to them.
They don't really want to pay more to the poor. What they want to do is *argue* we *ought to* give more to the poor.
If they want to do more than argue-- they can. No one's stopping them.
But arguing-- hey, arguing is cheap. You can argue till you're blue in the face and it doesn't cost you a dime.
Plus, you have "Bad Guys" like me who won't let you impose higher tax rates -- phew! Good thing Rask has a bad guy like me to "stop him from giving to the poor," or else all this "caring" stuff could get pretty damn expensive!
And so it goes. Rask gets out of it what he wants -- the feeling of moral superiority -- with very little real cost, except the time it takes to tell everyone how much he "cares."
Ace's Suggestions:
If you want to help the poor, go fucking help the poor. No one's stopping you.
If you want to give money to the poor, fucking give money to the poor. Again, no one stands in your way.
On the other hand...
If you want to *argue* that we should give more to the poor -- while not actually helping the poor, and while not actually giving more money to the poor than the government requires you to -- then carry on.
Arguing.
Accomplishing nothing.
And stroking your moral cock about how much "you care."
It's cheap and it's fun.
Lack of poverty is a public good, which non-givers can free ride on, enjoying the benefits of lower crime, better public health, and corresponding benefits from education, without paying the cost. As such, it will be underfunded without compulsory taxation.
Only a master of doublespeak could claim that those who refuse to give up what they own are "freeriding" and those receive what they haven't earned are not. And you did it without even getting dizzy. Quite a feat. Really.
Look what it did for Mondale.
Of course. That's the real reason for all this-- that people like Rask always say "we" must do more, but what they really mean is "Other people, not me, the evil rich" must do more.
It's caring on the cheap -- forcing someone else to pay for your immense caring.
But then, if I suggested that, every liberal here would tell me how very, very wealthy they are.
So then I cut to the chase-- well if that's so, why don't you just fucking help the poor with all your wealth?
Be like a Batman of poverty. Stop talking, and start acting.
"I'd switch both tax brackets and incomes with either one of you in a heartbeat."
Don't assume I have more money than you do.
"Who's bitching that "others" should pay more?"
You are. You say, "We must do more," but you really mean "Other people besides me should do more."
If you really wanted to "do more," you could. No one's stopping you.
My point is simply that it's pretty easy to claim that someone else should "do more." It's tougher to make the decision to "do more" out of your own piggybank.
And what liberals seem to forget is that, just a liberals themselves don't like "doing more" out of their own piggy-banks, perhaps others are similarly reluctant.
Like I said: It's a pretty cheap version of "caring" when you only care enough to take from others, rather than yourself.
"The only bitching and moaning I hear is from the poor-pitiful-me's who think they're paying too much."
I'm not saying *I* pay too much. I'm trying to keep this impersonal.
"I can't speak for Rask, but for myself, I never complain about taxes, though I have more cause than any of the ones whining about them in here."
Really? Do elaborate. Does the notion of cutting the marginal tax rates from 15%/28%/31% to 10%/15%/25% sound good to you?
If so, please tell.
"Excuse me if I can't muster enough feeling for your pain to emit a "boo-hoo.""
Arky, there are no "boo-hoos" coming from me. Just a simple questioning of why it is that those who want us to "do more" conveniently lay the duty of "doing more" at other people's feet, rather than their own, and refuse to themselves "do more," preferring simply to *talk* about "doing more."
No I'm not and no I didn't. I'm simply saying quit whining about what's already being done. FWIW, I live paycheck to about a week to ten days before paycheck. I could do more, I guess, but they'd come and arrest me for doing less where I'm already obligated. Yet I manage a comfortable life, I pay my taxes, I never complain about what's required of me. I sometimes complain about teacher salaries, but it's not because I personally have as much of a problem with low pay (or I'd do something else--I love the job and the time off) as that it causes problems in filling teaching positions with competent people.
Arky,
You conveniently disburden yourself ("I guess I could do more, but they'd come and arrest me for doing less where I'm already obligated") of the self-same obligations you seek to force upon others.
I'm pretty sure, Arky, that most people *feel* like they're lucky to have what little they have, even if they objectively have a decent amount.
You see a "rich" person making $150,000 and say, "Hey, he could afford to pay more taxes."
Well, you know, so could you. So could most people. *If* they were willing to give up some of their creature comforts. Like the Internet.
A rich person could "afford" it more than an average person, sure. But maybe he'd rather spend that extra money on his children.
As I'm sure *you* would.
As far as the overtaxed jazz- if you want to personalize this- try Warren Buffet. He's paid more in taxes than we've probably dreamed of making, and he doesn't think Americans, including himself are overtaxed.
"Arky is already supporting the poor of her state by educating them, and by accepting a salary that is far less than what she's worth."
Oh, please. The teacher's constant lament-- I could get so much more money with my Education Degree in the private sector. Why, I'm practically a living saint for taking this cushy, perks-loaded job.
Not that there's anything wrong with being a teacher. But spare me the fucking sanctimony. "Gee, I'm a doctor. I heal the sick, and I could make more money elsewhere, so I have no responsibility to pay more in taxes."
"Gee, I'm a plumber. I keep civilization free of disease-breeding filth and I keep vital water flowing into children's bodies. I could make more being a doctor, so I guess I too have no responsibility to 'do more for the poor.'"
"What about me? I'm a lawyer. I keep civil society functioning smoothly. I too am grossly underpaid for my services..."
"And me! I write technical manuals for VCR's. I provide a vital service for America -- I give them the gift of entertainment -- and I could certainly make more money in another job, were I not so dedicated to writing VCR technical manuals..."
Yadda.
Fucking.
Yadda.
I'm so sick of this bleat.
Yeah, teachers are dedicated. Yeah, teachers are underpaid. Yeah, teachers perform an important service. Yeah, teachers work hard.
Who the fuck isn't dedicated at their jobs? Are you claiming that teachers are more dedicated than doctors or policemen?
Who isn't underpaid? A show of hands of all those people who believe themselves overpaid, and who feel that their talents are adequately rewarded.
Who doesn't perform a vital service? EMT drivers? Plumbers? House-builders? Network managers? Car safety engineers?
And who doesn't work hard?
If you are claiming that teachers are superior, it implies that others are inferior.
Please name these inferior occupations.
Jesus Christ.
Funny, all the teachers I knew from college went into education because--
1) They sort of liked it.
2) It's a fairly easy job. Don't tell me it's not. Fucking lawyers work 70-80 works for long periods of time. Don't compare it to a 9-5 civil service job in terms of "difficulty" and then demand a professional's pay.
3) It wasn't very taxing academically. I can think of few people I knew with high GPA's who went into teaching. None, as a matter of fact.
This is not to demean teachers. I wouldn't say shit like this, if there wasn't so much bubble-headed propaganda about how "selfless" teachers are.
The people I have seen who are volunteers often are retired, and usually not terribly well off, though certainly not poor. I would bet that most volunteer hours and charitable dollars come from working class, or middle class and folk involved in either a church or fraternal organization.
PS,
There may be some teachers who went into the job as a "calling."
Whatever. There are some lawyers who went into their jobs as a "calling."
I'm sick to death of being told, against all available evidence, that teachers are really the rock stars of the academic world and could command enormous salaries if not for their selfless devotion...
...to the children.
Arky, this is not to say you're not a great teacher, nor a dedicated one.
After all -- it's so stressful. There's so much competition. The hours are highly irregular. There are huge deadlines that simply must be met.
Incidentally, I never taught in public school, but I taught teenagers for a private company througout college and law school.
No, it wasn't public school. I must say, however, that it was easy.
After all-- I had all the answers in the book, yes?
And I'm sick of YOUR fucking bleat. What's your problem? Did some Liberal steal piece of cooze from you back in high school and and you won't rest until you've killed every one of them?
You think you're of more value to America than Arky?
Then sell your tired whiney ass to Rupert Murdoch and SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Jones:
But I didn't say that.
What I did say is that from what I saw of teaching is that, yes, it ain't that hard.
If you want to bring up inner-city schools, fine. And I will remind you that 90% of teachers *don't* teach in inner-city schools.
After all-- I had all the answers in the book, yes?
Too bad the bar exam wasn't like that, huh?
If you're implying I didn't pass the bar, you're wrong. I passed it. Didn't even take Bar-Bri (though I did have some of the books).
That's an asinine non-sequitor, by the way.
You are way off base. While you can point to the fact that teachers only teach around 180 days a year, and the school day is short, you have no idea how hard teaching is, and how undervalued it is. Let me assure you, I can list more occupations I have had (jobs, that is) I never had one that approached the difficulty of being a good teacher.
But you correct about the constant bleat of Liberals wanting to redistribute other people's money.
Incidentally, Jones, do you believe there are any other people out there that we should pay more money?
Or is it only teachers?
And if so, do tell--
Why is it that only teachers -- of all the jobs in the US -- are undercompensated by market forces?
"While you can point to the fact that teachers only teach around 180 days a year, and the school day is short, you have no idea how hard teaching is, and how undervalued it is."
This is absurd.
Other jobs are just as hard as teaching and those jobs are in session year-round, and for ten or more hours a day.
Give me a shot a "tough job for six hours a day, one eighty days a year." Especially if you have good pay, terrific job security, early and generous pension (you ought to see how my uncle lives on his pension. Phew! It'd make you vomit!), and the promise of even *higher* pay if you just vote for the right politicians.
Al--
By the way: Which jobs did you have which were much easier than teaching?
Did any of these easy jobs pay better?
I'm not enough of an economist to tell you others. I am sure that there are underpaid folks who run their own businesses if you look at it from an hourly basis. They do it with the hope of greater reward for them or their families in the future.
Should the government step in and subsidize them?
Are they disburdened, as are teachers, from the responsibility to "do more" for the poor by sheer dint of their occupation?
The only nurse I know makes a decent living, has a beautiful subisidized apartment (subsidized by the hospital), and works three days a week.
Yeah, three twelve hour shifts. But still, only three days a week.
Not. Too. Shabby.
"social work"
Color me surpised to see this liberal nugget turn up.
"daycare providers"
Skills--none.
"and nurses aides."
Tough job. But then, so is being a janitor. Trouble is, neither has really marketable skills.
Cellar,
What if I have?
What is the point of your comment? Are you insulting me if I *have* been a janitor, or insultime me if I have *not*?
What, in a nutshell, is the goddamn point of any goddamn thing you write here?
Rask - Congratulations. You have been the award the George Orwell
Award for your truly masterful command of doublespeak.
I suggest that you go back and re-read Orwell's 1984, JJ. Your automatic invocation of "Orwellian" whenever anyone disagrees with your ridiculous belief that vague notions like "ownership" or "freedom" have concrete meaning is quite fascinating, since it is, itself, completely Orwellian.
Doublespeak is a complex phenomena - it demonstrates the foreignness of some comprehensive ideologies to other reasonable members of political society. Your insistence that your understanding of certain concepts - like "ownership" above, or like "freedom" in previous discussions - is the only "true" perspective is exactly the concept that Orwell is criticizing. What you say sounds as inverse as "war is peace" to me, just like what Rask apparently says does to you (it sounds completely reasonable to me, though, and I actually don't even see what part of it you disagree with). It is your insistence that his perspective is a deviation from some "real" or "true" baseline that enables totalitarian ideology, and that is, accordingly, Orwellian.
Do you care about helping poor people? 
Well yes. This is the exact same argument used to support defense spending, police protection, the court system, education spending, clean air, clean water and a host of other government programs. If you had ever stopped to think of the role of government, you might have realized this.
"So... It's vitally important to "help the poor." But not so important, it seems, that we should help the poor if means those who "don't care" "free-riding" on the utopia we've created."
Who the hell said this? My argument was just that antipoverty programs would be suboptimally funded (based on social demand). Of course people should still voluntarily help the poor if they feel they should. You are indeed the king of straw men.
I am sick of you whiny rich conservatives bitching about crime, and asking the rest of us to pay for it with higher taxes. If you think there should be lower crime, fine. Go fight crime. Put on your spandex suit, grab a few batarangs, and go kick some criminal ass. No one is stopping you. Or hire your own private police force. Hell, no one is stopping you from putting bars on your windows, buying a security system, training a dozen dobermans to go for the throat, and protecting your home. Just because you are too fucking cheap to protect your house, don't come whining to the rest of us. If your personal safety isn't worth it to you to pay for, why the fuck should it be worth it to me?
You make me sick.
Please explain why free riding on the benefits of anti-poverty programs is any different than free riding on the benefits of national defense. If I were to say: "why the hell should I pay to proect our borders from the Chinese when I like Hong Kong action films, and love a good stir fry - if you want more national defense, pay for it yourself and quit asking us to pony up the bill". How is that any different from the argument you and Ace are using?
Or apply the same argument to public education.
Or the court system.
Or roads.
You will quickly be left with no role for government at all. If this is what you truly want, please say so.
The underlying principle is that there are private property rights count more than any other right or privilege, that states exist to enforce those rights, and nothing else matters.
The incoherence of that view is breathtaking. Leave aside the arbitrariness of selecting property rights as the be all and end all. Note that the very notion of private property depends on the existence of government. There is no private property without government. There is no real estate until a government takes it by force and distributes it among its citizens.
The policeman showed unusual restraint if Glavin did what was claimed.
"Hey, what are you doing?"
"Just scratching my balls, officer."
"Well, don't do it in public."
"Here, officer, let me scratch yours too."
The SE Legal Foundation also joined in the case which overturned Atlanta's giving domestic partnership rights to gay employees. (The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the City did not have the authority to make such a decision under the state constitution.)
'scuse me. I have to go to the bathroom.
Do we see a pattern here?
Thanks to a gay rights movement Andrew Sullivan has nothing but contempt for, there was job protection for the particular post held by his good pal Pete (Sullivan, Williams and their respective SO's du jour used to have a summer share in the Pines) But for other gays actually IN the Military? No such luck.
Well the whole thing was just so embarrasing that Pete had to get himself another job. That was easily done, however, as Cheney took him to NBC. (
Must I go through this again? NBC is owned by General Electric, which IS The Pentagon.)
Ownership is a vague notion? I think you and I interpret Orwell very differently. Your post is the very essence of doublespeak just as many of your posts in the past have been. "Ownership is not ownership. Freedom is not freedom." Pure doublepeak. I think the problem is that your world view is so twisted, you can't even see the contortions anymore and everything else looks twisted.
If it were anyone else, I would think your post was a joke. After my past encounters with you, I think you may actually believe what you say. My suggestion is that you start with "A is A" and work yourself up from there. Your current basis seems to be that "A really isn't A but is instead B because we want it to be B." Words mean things. Reality exists.
Wittgenstein wouldn't agree.
Other in-the-closet but pushing anti-gay policies: Terry Dolan, the head of a conservative PAC that sounded like NICPACK or NITPACK, in the late 70s, early 80s. He raised $$ and ran ads against the 5 targeted Democratic Senators who were defeated in the 1980 election. Dolan died of AIDS in the mid-80s. Dolan was one of those fellows who pushed anti-gay attacks as a tool to tar and feather Democrats. Then there was the guys who worked with Ollie North in selling old Ellen Garwood of Austin, Texas that she should fund a helicopter for the Contras. They were outed during the Iran-Contra scandal.
As promised, here is my analysis of the 80s deficits. It has been a bit delayed because of a hard drive crash. I don't find this an academic question. The legacy of the Reagan era still lives with us, in the form of the huge debt payments and the GOP's quasi-religious faith in tax cuts. We have recently been able to dig ourselves out of the deficits, due to more prudent financial management and an economy that has continued to exceed all forecasts. We don't want to go back.
My approach to the deficit issue is to first demonstrate exactly what changes occurred in the budget that caused the deficit. This is a surprisingly contentious issue, since a lot of people either cite the wrong numbers, or fail to adjust the numbers accordingly to account for inflation, the size of the economy, or both. All budget and economic numbers that I use (except for the CPI numbers that I used to account for inflation which were grabbed off of the BLS' web site at www.bls.gov) were grabbed from this web site, thoughtfully linked earlier by Thoughtful: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0&from=7
The next part of my argument is to put these numbers in the context of the budgeting process and history, to explain why the numbers changed. The final part of my argument assigns responsibility for the creation of the deficit.
The deficit was not a new thing. There has been a deficit almost every year since the end of World War II. What was different about the 80s, is that the deficits were not only quite large, but they also occurred in peacetime, during a time of economic growth, and the large deficits were sustained over many years. How large were they? Reagan was elected in 1980, but didn't take office until 1981, and had little to do with the budget in that year, which was passed by Carter and the previous Congress. So, Reagan's 8 budgets were those from 1982-1989, inclusive (1980 and 1981 are mentioned for comparison):
Year Deficit Deficit as % of GDP
1980 89.8 2.7%
1981 86.9 2.6%
1982 132.6 4.0%
1983 208.8 6.1%
1984 178.1 4.8%
1985 197.0 5.2%
1986 201.6 5.1%
1987 132.0 3.3%
1988 131.0 3.1%
1989 123.4 2.9%
It is fair to note that 1982 was a recession year, and it is quite common, and often advisable, to run deficits in times of economic hardships (although it's a Keynesian argument).
So, where did this deficit come from? Since the deficit is the difference between revenue and expenditures, any change that contributes to an increase in expenditures or a decrease in revenue helped contribute to the problem. First, we will look at revenue.
Table 2: Major sources of Revenue, In Billions (1983 dollars)
Year revenue income corp Soc Ins Taxes
1980 627.4 296.1 78.4 191.7
1981 659.0 314.6 67.2 201.3
1982 640.4 308.8 51.0 209.3
1983 603.4 290.2 37.1 209.8
1984 641.0 286.8 54.8 230.0
1985 682.2 311.3 57.0 246.3
1986 701.6 318.4 57.6 259.1
1987 751.8 346.0 73.9 266.7
1988 768.4 339.0 79.9 282.3
1989 799.2 359.7 83.3 289.5
Table 3: Revenue, as % of GDP
Year revenue income corp Soc Ins Taxes
1980 19.01% 8.97% 2.38% 5.81%
1981 19.65% 9.38% 2.00% 6.00%
1982 19.23% 9.27% 1.53% 6.29%
1983 17.56% 8.44% 1.08% 6.11%
1984 17.44% 7.80% 1.49% 6.26%
1985 17.86% 8.15% 1.49% 6.45%
1986 17.61% 7.99% 1.44% 6.50%
1987 18.53% 8.53% 1.82% 6.57%
1988 18.34% 8.09% 1.91% 6.74%
1989 18.50% 8.33% 1.93% 6.70%
Now, we turn to Expenditures. For the moment, let's ignore Entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, Unemployment, Farm supports, Food Stamps, etc.) and other mandatory spending (like Interest rate payments), and look solely at Discretionary spending. The difference between Discretionary spending and Entitlements is that Entitlement funding is guaranteed by law. Congress cannot appropriate less than the required amount. If they don't like the amount being spent, they have change the underlying law, and alter eligibility requirements, benefit levels, etc.
On the other hand, Congress re-examines Discretionary spending every year. The budget and appropriations debates are all over Discretionary spending, which is broken down into two main categories: Defense, and Domestic Discretionary (we'll ignore the tiny amounts spent on International aid, which declined steadily since the 80s, as a % of GDP. Defense spending is self-explanatory, but Domestic Discretionary is a catch all for pretty much everything else done by Government that doesn't entail writing out checks to individual beneficiaries. It covers Environmental Protection, The National Park Service, Transportation, health research, Law Enforcement, the border patrol, the IRS, the FDA, Education, etc. Here are the numbers:
Year Defense Domestic
1980 163.8 156.6
1981 173.8 149.6
1982 192.7 131.6
1983 210.8 130.5
1984 219.4 129.9
1985 235.1 134.8
1986 250.0 134.1
1987 249.1 128.5
1988 246.0 133.6
1989 245.2 135.5
Table 5: Discretionary Expenditures, as a % of GDP.
Year Defense Domestic
1980 4.97% 4.74%
1981 5.18% 4.46%
1982 5.79% 3.95%
1983 6.13% 3.80%
1984 5.97% 3.53%
1985 6.16% 3.53%
1986 6.27% 3.37%
1987 6.14% 3.17%
1988 5.87% 3.19%
1989 5.68% 3.14%
As can clearly be seen from these tables, Defense spending jumped significantly in the early eighties, in real terms as well as a percentage of GDP, while Domestic Discretionary spending dropped in real terms, and shrank even more significantly as a percentage of GDP.
Now we come to entitlements. Since there are many of these, I'll only list the major ones (which are also the only ones to experience any significant dollar increases), and include a total for all entitlements.
Year soc. sec medcaid medcare means total entitlements
1980 142.0 17.0 41.3 38.7 354.4
1981 151.8 18.5 45.4 40.8 374.0
1982 159.6 18.0 51.0 38.8 384.5
1983 169.7 19.1 55.7 40.5 413.7
1984 169.4 19.3 58.7 39.7 390.8
1985 172.9 21.1 64.7 40.2 416.4
1986 179.7 22.8 67.7 41.0 421.5
1987 180.5 24.1 70.3 40.1 417.3
1988 183.4 25.8 72.4 42.3 426.9
1989 185.5 27.9 76.0 43.7 443.5
Table 7: Entitlement Spending, as a % of GDP
Year soc. sec medcaid medcare means total entitlements
1980 4.30% 0.51% 1.25% 1.17% 10.74%
1981 4.53% 0.55% 1.35% 1.22% 11.15%
1982 4.79% 0.54% 1.53% 1.16% 11.54%
1983 4.94% 0.56% 1.62% 1.18% 12.04%
1984 4.61% 0.53% 1.60% 1.08% 10.63%
1985 4.53% 0.55% 1.69% 1.05% 10.90%
1986 4.51% 0.57% 1.70% 1.03% 10.58%
1987 4.45% 0.59% 1.73% 0.99% 10.28%
1988 4.38% 0.62% 1.73% 1.01% 10.19%
1989 4.29% 0.65% 1.76% 1.01% 10.27%
It is worth noting the magnitude of these expenditure changes. When you sum up all real defense increases since 1981, and compare them to the sum of all four entitlement category increases over the same time period, you will see that total defense spending increases added up to 458 billion (1983) dollars, whereas the total of these entitlement category increases was 369 billion (1983) dollars. These were offset by $138 billion (1983) dollars in cuts in domestic discretionary programs. Hence, defense spending increases outnumbered domestic spending and Entitlement increases combined by a factor of two to one.
Looking at all of these tables, we get a pretty good idea what exactly created the deficits. 1) Tax revenues fell, 2) Defense spending increased, and 3) Entitlements (particularly health care) increased. These are the three major contributing factors to the deficit. (Interest on the national debt increased substantially during this time as well, but since it is just a by product of other fiscal decisions, there is no need to discuss it in detail.)
Each of the above three major contributing factors has their own causes. Lets look at each of these in turn:
1) Declining Tax Revenue. It is no coincidence that we see major changes in tax revenue occur in 1981-1982, and 1986-87. Both time periods correspond to the two major tax law changes of the 80s. In the summer of 1981, taxes were cut significantly, in accordance with one of Reagan's campaign promises. The act passed out of the Democratically controlled House by many southern Democrats crossing party lines to vote in favor of the cut. In 1986, there was a major bipartisan overhaul to the tax code, which simplified the rate structure and closed many loopholes. The revenue tables show the impacts of these tax changes.
2) Defense Spending. This was another Reagan campaign promise. The amounts appropriated were actually less than what Reagan asked for in his budgets.
3) Entitlement Increases. As noted previously, these were primarily in the area of health care, which for decades has been experiencing inflation rates much higher than those for most other products and services, and as the population ages, more people become eligible (Not just for Medicare and Social Security - Medicaid also pays for certain health care requirements of income qualified elderly people). As was also noted previously, Entitlement appropriations are not determined directly through the appropriations process. The Government is required to spend the money needed to meet the benefit and criteria set in the authorizing legislation. Of course, the authorizing legislation can be changed, and has been changed. But the majority of changes since the 70s have been attempts to curtail the growth of these programs, most notably the Social Security Reform Act of 1983.
Much of the debate about responsibility for the deficits stems from interpretations of political power. Did the Democratically controlled House have excessive influence over the budget process, and force spending increases down the throats of Reagan and the GOP-controlled Senate? What is the President's role in the budget process? Does he have any power, or is he forced to sign whatever appropriations bills are placed on his desk? While some interesting discussions can be had about these, I think the numbers above answer these questions better than any argument about Checks and Balances can.
First, lets ignore entitlements again for a moment, since they are not directly part of the budget battles. During the Reagan era, taxes were cut significantly, defense expenditures increased, and domestic discretionary spending dropped. This was the result of the budget battles between a Republican President, a Republican Senate, and a Democratic House. I don't see how it can be argued in any way, shape, or form that this was an outcome desired the Democrats. To argue that they had disproportionate influence during the budget debates flies in the face of the numbers. The GOP's fingerprints are all over the budgets. They largely got what they wanted out of the budget process, although probably to a lesser extent than they would have received in the absence of a Democratic House.
The reason for this should be rather obvious. Reagan was elected on a landslide victory that brought a GOP Senate with him. I imagine a lot of House Dems weren't feeling that secure in their jobs if they had stood significantly in the way of his campaign promises.
But to what extent are Democrats responsible for the rise in Entitlements? Are they to blame for the Health Care inflation that has plagued the industry? Are they to blame for the shifting demographics that added more elderly to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid rolls? If so, how?
If they do have complicity, it is in failing to do more to rein in Entitlement costs. But it isn't as if they blocked any major GOP initiatives on the matter during the 80s. While the GOP were never big supporters of Social Security and Medicare, they also have done very little to try to scale the programs back, because of their popularity.
In short, the biggest contributions to the deficits were tax cuts, defense increases, and Entitlement increases. Of these, the Democratic House only has partial complicity for the latter.
Any questions?
Given the bonuses of the deficit spending and the tax reductions (i.e., the benefits received from the increased defense spending both domestically and internationally, the reversal of the '82 recession, the new pinch on discretionary spending) plus the fact that by 2012, we will have wiped out the debt, why apportion approximate blame for something that history has reduced to insignificance?
That was terrific. My one mild complaint is that the tables were hard to read; but I realize html tables are a hassle. I think we should create a conversation of that explanation.
Funny. The Democratic House is absolved from responsibility of reining in Entitlement costs, because they did not frustrate any GOP-led attempts at reforms; and they're also aboslved from the responsibility of passing each and every one of Reagan's budgets. Why? Who knows.
As to why bring it up, if you had followed the previous discussion with Ace and JJ, it should be clear that belief in the merits of supply side is not yet dead.
I am amazed that you can even ask the question. There are so many invalid assumptions underlying this that it is hard to know where to begin.
First, almost all of the benefits of "anti-poverty" programs accrue to the poor, not to the ones who pay the bills. The difference these programs make to things like crime and public health are minimal. Poverty is not the cause, it is merely a sympton of deeper problems which you try to paper over.
Second, there is no agreement that income redistribution is an effective and/or desirable answer to poverty. It is certainly not a long term solution since it only breeds dependence and contempt.
Third, you comparisons to courts, roads and defense are laughable. These are things that benefit all in approximately equal amounts. Income redistribution favors one group at the expense of another.
There are more, but I realize with you I am beating an extremely deceased horse.
Incidentally, I can barely read these tables.
Scratch that-- I *can't* read these tables.
No offense, Rask, but when I asked for a "citation," I didn't really mean I wanted to see your own vanity-analysis. It's not that I don't think you capable. Well, it *is* sort of that.
What I was asking for was an analysis by someone more... um, accredited. And someone who in turn includes citations for the numbers he discusses.
I have no idea where you got your numbers. You say you adjust for inflation. Did you do it properly? Did you adjust for CPI-inflation or M2/growth in the money supply inflation?
It's nice that you did all this, Rask, but I really need something a bit more authoritative than a partisan amateur's essay.
I didn't absolve them. Re-read the last two paragraphs. I said that they share complicity for not reining in entitlements.
As to their culpability in passing Reagan's budgets, those budgets were passed with very little Democratic support. If you want to blame the southern democrats who crossed party lines, and hold them accountable with the Republicans, go ahead.
Carl "Spitz' Channel! Who can forget him? The entire "mainstream" media, of course. Both he and his lover died of AIDS.
GE=Pentagon is not a "formula" -- it's a fact. They are the biggest supplier of weapons and technology. They practically own the fucking Pentagon. WAKE UP !!!!!
I think we should create a conversation of that explanation.
agreed. it'll give me a chance to play with the new feature. i'll let the conversation play out some first.
Surely it has occurred to you that
1) CPI inflation is not the same as M1/M2 growth in the money supply inflation; and
2) that CPI is not the correct inflation to correct your numbers with.
It's also somewhat baffling that Rask admits that deficit spending is precisely the correct response to a serious recession, and then yet "blames" Reagan (and the Democratic Congress) for doing it.
Odd.
inflation;"
No shit. It also isn't the same thing as a pumpkin pie.
"2) that CPI is not the correct inflation to correct your numbers with."
I would love to hear your reasons why.
The hurried conclusion is the assumption of culpability.
precisely the correct response to a serious recession, and then yet
"blames" Reagan (and the Democratic Congress) for doing it. "
You are bordering on illiteracy here. I wouldn't have faulted anyone if there had just been a deficit during the 1981-82 recession. That would have been a minor thing. But the deficits continued long passed the recession, which is a major thing.
Rask:
"Culpability for the debt becomes quite obvious"
Quite obvious to you, perhaps. But then you knew the answer before you conducted your analysis.
Basically, what you have posted is
1) A bunch of numbers of dubious validity and relevance and
2) A conclusion
What is missing, it seems, is a connection, an argument, an actual analysis connecting the raw data to the conclusion.
You really don't have any such argument. Once again, it's quite easy for you to conclude "Reagan is to blame/The Democrats are not to blame" because, of course, you knew that was the "right answer" before you knew what the numbers were.
The deficits returned to their pre-recession level just a few years after the recession had passed.
Are you suggesting that it is wise to end deficit spending the very moment a recession seems to be over?
Is this wise?
Would you tighten the money supply the very moment you get a blip of positive economic news, and risk spinning the economy into recession again?
Have you any authority for this rather dubious prescription?
Your analysis suggests that cutting discretionary spending increased the deficit? I missed that.
The argument is quite simple (which may explain your difficulty): An outcome of lower taxes, higher defense spending, and lower domestic discretionary spending were Republican goals, not Democratic ones. These goals were all achieved, except that the budget didn't balance like they hoped. Do I really need to prove to you that it is Republicans who wanted lower taxes, more defense spending, and less domestic spending?
Note to Rask:
You claim that we may also blame those Evil Conservative Southern Democrats, right along with Reagan.
Seems to me Bill Bradley was a big supporter of Reagan's Tax Cuts.
And it seems to me Bradley is not a conservative, and New Jersey is not part of the South.
You are calling the CBO and the BLS of dubious validity?
I am saying your "adjustments" to the numbers are certainly of dubious validity.
You have admitted the proper inflation adjustment is based upon the M1/M2 growth in the money supply but that, not having that information available, you substitued an entirely different number -- CPI inflation.
You may scream 'till you're blue in the face that that's "close enough." However, so many of your numbers show such slight variations across the range of years that an incorrect inflation adjustment renders your numbers essentially meaningless.
Are you on crack? Deficits didn't return to their pre-Reagan level (as a percentage of GDP) until the mid-nineties.
Jack: "Your analysis suggests that cutting discretionary spending increased the deficit? I missed that."
Because I didn't say it. We are talking about culpability for the debt. A common GOP argument is that domestic spending went up, which helped cause the deficit. If domestic discretionary spending, the baby of Democrats, went down, it should be obvious that they don't have a whole lot of culpability as far as domestic discretionary is concerned.
For example, the recession of 1980-1981 included, I believe, "Stagflation" -- where the economy stagnates (and the money supply does not grow) and yet there is CPI inflation.
It could be that for several years after the end of this recession, the money supply did not grow, and yet CPI inflation did.
And thus, your substitution of CPI inflation for M1/M2 inflation is very ill-advised, and very dubious.
M1/M2 growth in the money supply
I admitted no such thing. What I said is that I didn't have annualized inflation data on the BLS' web site, only monthly data. Why in God's name do you think I am referring to M1/M2 growth?
I'll create the HTML tables for you--can you email me the file to save me copying them from the posts? If you don't have a file, I'll just copy.
In 1980, the deficit was 2.7% of GDP.
In 1989, the deficit was 3.0% of GDP.
Are you making a big deal out of such a minor change? Are you claiming that Carter's 2.7% deficit was the magical "right number" above which no later President is allowed to go?
Close enough. The "Big deficits" of 5-6% only lasted for three or four years during a recession/shortly after a recession.
Rask---
M1/M2 growth in the money supply *is* the proper inflation adjustment, if any, for your purposes.
It is simply immaterial what the price of milk, eggs, or gasoline is to this discussion. The government does not buy milk or eggs, and taxes are not paid in gasoline.
One can grow the money supply without having *any* inflation.
I did not mean to so define it. I meant to suggest that during stagflation (among other circumstances), one could have rampant CPI inflation *without* any "real" M1/M2 inflation.
Since your "adjustment" to the numbers relies on M1/M2 inflation being precisely equal to CPI inflation at all times, and under all circumstances, I quite understand your unwillingness to recognize the difference.
"Economic growth does not = money supply growth."
No, but CPI inflation often, but not always, follows M1/M2 inflation.
"One can grow the money supply without having *any* inflation."
Well, this depends. One can grow the money supply in perfect sync with the growth of the value of products in circulation, and there will not be M1/M2 inflation.
There could, however, still be CPI inflation. Depends.
adjustment, if any, for your purposes.
Bullshit. Money supply growth does not equal inflation. You do not know what you are talking about. Inflation is defined as a rise in prices, not a rise in the money supply. True, the latter is often the cause of the former, but they don't go hand in hand, and it isn't deterministic.
"It is simply immaterial what the price of milk, eggs, or gasoline is to this discussion. The government does not buy milk or eggs, and taxes are not paid in gasoline."
I repeat, you do not what you are talking about. The CPI is the standard measure of inflation. What the government buys isn't relevant.
CPI inflation is a rather bad barometer, Rask. As you may (or may not) know, CPI inflation can overstate actual inflation, because it does not take into consideration substitution.
For example, if CPI inflation is based 1% on the price of beef, and the price of beef spikes due to, I don't know, a bad beef harvest (kidding), then the CPI will still show inflation caused by the bad beef harvest.
And yet actual consumers are not paying any more money for food -- because they substitute chicken, pork, or turkey for beef.
Long story short:
I asked for a cite. You provided me with an amateur home-brew semi-analysis, filled with logical leaps and dubious "adjustments."
By "cite," I meant a more reputable cite. No offense.
Oh, one more point:
You claim that you cannot lump in payroll taxes with income taxes.
But Dan Rostentowski and Pat Moynihan both say that "everyone knew" they'd be using increased SS payroll taxes to fund current spending. It wasn't being put into a "trust fund" of any kind.
However the increase in payroll taxes was advertised, it simply was not ever "separated" into a trust fund. It was *always* used interchangeably with general revenues.
Your insistence, then, that we must separate these taxes out of general revenue taxes for purposes of comparison is also quite dubious.
You also have a strange view on what makes for a valid argument. An inconsistent one, I might add, as I have frequently seen you dismiss arguments from authority. It seems that you won't accept a fact from a primary source, unless it is filtered through a partisan hack that you happen to agree with.
Fucking puh-leeze. As opposed to accepting a "fact" -- dubious adjustments and dubious assumptions and all -- from a partisan hack I don't agree with?
Please, Rask.
You are not an economist. In short -- and I hate to say this -- you simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
You *may* still be correct, even if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. But your "analysis" is unpersuasive in the extreme.
You continue to wave your dubious conclusions like a flag. When I question if Bill Bradley is a Southern Conservative Democrat, you ignore the question.
When I ask if it's wise to tighten the money supply and end deficit spending the very year a horrible recession appears to end, you avoid comment.
Please, Rask. Just.... please.
You silly man. We were talking about determining the impact of an income tax cut. You claimed that it raised revenue. I disputed this, and said that people who claim this usually lumped payroll taxes into this. Regardless of what you think about the usage of SS trust fund, *it makes absolutely no sense to include recently hiked payroll taxes when measuring the revenue effect of an income tax cut*.
Come on, Ace. You are smarter than this.
The net change was a reduction in tax rates, but the net effect was a hike in tax revenues.
Are you claiming otherwise?
It is akin to lowering the child-care deduction while also lowering the income tax rates. The net effect -- the actual federal tax rate is lowered, though it is raised in one place (lowered child-care deduction) but lowered more in another (lower marginal tax rate).
Net effect: Revenues increased.
Plus, keep in mind, that by raising payroll taxes, Reagan did less actual "Evil Tax Cutting" than you'd like to claim.
What you are attempting to do is look at ONE set of tax cuts, while ignoring other tax increases, to come up with an artificially-overstated picture of actual tax cutting.
You can create the conversation now, and then add additional posts later. There's no good reason to wait for it to end.
In fact, there is a strong argument for creating the conversation now. Someone coming here now will see that they are in the middle of a good conversation, but not know where it starts. Creating the conversation makes it easier for them to catch up, and then contribute.
Waiting till it is over just means that those people either won't bother to contribute, will make some comment not realizing it has been covered before, or have to make the effort to find the beginning and the relevant posts.
I'm on a roll here, but it is when a conversation is active that creating the conversation provides the most values.
To JJ, Ace, and Rask
Excellent discussion. If you could cut out the personal attacks and stick to policy arguments, it would be even better.
simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about."
Oh please. You refuse to verify the numbers for yourself because you are pretty damned sure that you won't like the results. It doesn't take a professional economist to know how to make an inflation adjustment. Even you could do. It is like not believing me when I say that 10 divided by 5 = 2 because I am not a professional mathematician.
"You *may* still be correct, even if you don't know what the fuck
you're talking about. But your "analysis" is unpersuasive in the
extreme."
Because you haven't bothered to read it.
"You continue to wave your dubious conclusions like a flag. When I
question if Bill Bradley is a Southern Conservative Democrat, you
ignore the question."
Bradley was a northern Moderate Democrat. He made a mistake.
"When I ask if it's wise to tighten the money supply and end deficit
spending the very year a horrible recession appears to end, you avoid
comment."
Because it was irrelevant, as the deficits continued long past the end of the recession. If what you want to know is if I would be complaining if the deficits had only lasted two years, the answer is no, but they went well beyond that.
"If what you want to know is if I would be complaining if the deficits had only lasted two years..."
No, the larger "Reagan deficits" lasted until around 1988-1989, after which they returned to essentially their pre-Evil Reagan level.
Rask,
Why don't you post the *actual* numbers, minus your "adjustments" and partisan jiggering?
hike in tax revenues. Are you claiming otherwise?"
Look, the question under discussion was voodoo economics, whether a tax cut could actually cause an increase in tax revenue. To answer that question, you don't include taxes that were increased. We already *know* whether tax hikes cause revenue increases.
"Look, the question under discussion was voodoo economics, whether a tax cut could actually cause an increase in tax revenue. To answer that question, you don't include taxes that were increased. We already *know* whether tax hikes cause revenue increases."
Reagan cut taxes overall, and this *did* result in an overall increase in tax revenues.
It may be that taxes attributable to one sort of tax increased while another declined (though it's hard to say, given your jiggering with the actual date), but we do know that:
1) Overall, tax rates declined -- even including higher payroll taxes.
2) Overall, tax reveues declined --including (and possibly excluding) the revenue from payroll taxes.
It may be that taxes attributable to one sort of tax increased while another declined (though it's hard to say, given your jiggering with the actual date), but we do know that:
1) Overall, real tax rates declined -- even including higher payroll taxes.
2) Overall, tax reveues increased --including (and possibly excluding) the revenue from payroll taxes.
The CPI is a fine measure of inflation -- perhaps not the best for this analysis. I would suggest using the GDP deflator as it is the broadest inflation indicator, but I suspect the effort would not be worth it as the numbers would be largely unchanged.
actual "Evil Tax Cutting" than you'd like to claim."
True, but not much less. Even when you include Social Security taxes, revenues were down after the 1981 tax cits. They just reach pre-Reagan levels by 1985 instead of 1986.
"Why don't you post the *actual* numbers, minus your "adjustments"
and partisan jiggering?"
You can read the CBO link yourself and look them up. As to why I didn't use them, the CBO didn't adjust for inflation, a necessary calculation in order to accurately compare values across different time periods.
You really didn't know this? This might explain your confusion.
Defenders of Reaganomics often include the years 1987-89 in calculations that purport to show that Reagan's proposed reductions in tax rates increased revenue, but these years came after the replacement of the failed supply-side experiment with the Tax Reform plan of low rates and very deductions and tax shelters.
tax revenues."
No, it did not. You haven't even bothered to look at the numbers, and are talking out of your ass.
second post correct, except "date" = data
And that's it for me, Rask. I have no doubts that you are persuaded by your own analysis and your own "adjustments" to inconvenient numbers.
I have no doubt that you have convinced yourself of that which you already knew -- that Reagan caused all the deficits.
But once again, I asked for a proper citation. I haven't gotten it.
If you wish to post actual numbers, and then provide us with the metric you used for adjusting them, fine. But I'm not going to debate this any further.
Then why doesn't the CBO provide such crucial data?
metric you used for adjusting them, fine. But I'm not going to debate this any further."
Jesus, I already gave you all this. Look at the CBO tables, and use the July to July CPI data on the BLS home page. You want me to post them because you are too lazy to look them up?
You would have to ask them.
Rask:
I saw no link. I just went back and looked, and still I see no link.
Here you go.
Yr In tx..................................... total revenue
1980 244.1 64.6 157.8 24.3 6.4 7.2 12.7 517.1
1981 285.9 61.1 182.7 40.8 6.8 8.1 13.8 599.3
1982 297.7 49.2 201.5 36.3 8.0 8.9 16.2 617.8
1983 288.9 37.0 209.0 35.3 6.1 8.7 15.6 600.6
1984 298.4 56.9 239.4 37.4 6.0 11.4 17.1 666.5
1985 334.5 61.3 265.2 36.0 6.4 12.1 18.6 734.1
1986 349.0 63.1 283.9 32.9 7.0 13.3 20.0 769.2
1987 392.6 83.9 303.3 32.5 7.5 15.1 19.5 854.4
1988 401.2 94.5 334.3 35.2 7.6 16.2 20.3 909.3
1989 445.7 103.3 359.4 34.4 8.7 16.3 23.3 991.2
Individual Income Taxes (millions)
Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
1981 $285,917 $367,692
1982 297,744 356,366
1983 288,938 332,033
1984 298,415 328,470
1985 334,531 354,677
1986 348,959 359,307
1987 392,557 392,557
1988 401,181 387,128
1989 445,690 411,533
Rask:
According to that table, income tax revenues *alone* grew from 244 bln to 349 bln from 1980-1986.
Are you saying that between these years the effective rate of inflation was nearly 33%?
Rather, total inflation.
Ohio:
According to your table, 1985 income tax revenues were almost equal to 1981 tax revenues, despite the lower tax rates. Granted, it seems according to your data (and your cite's adjustments) that tax rates fell in 1982, 1983, and 1984.
But in 1982, we were still in a recession.
Yes.
CPI 7/80 = 82.60
CPI 7/86 = 109.5
An increase of 32.6%.
A-ha. Ohio has cited the dude that blew his brains out -- yet again.
Rask,
Then it seems that by cutting taxes, Reagan had precisely the same revenues in real dollars as we had under higher tax rates.
I don't see how this quite proves what you want it to prove.
"Everything else being equal, tax revenues should increase proportionate to the increase in GDP."
No, actually they shouldn't. Reagan predicted that cutting taxes could result in a revenue-neutral result *with* an expanded economy.
Of course this means that tax revenues will fall as a percentage of GDP.
That's kinda the whole point.
You see this as a vindication of supply side? No one has ever disputed that a growing economy can raise tax revenues.
"No, as a result of the tax rate cuts, tax revenues did not grow in proportion to the growing GDP."
They weren't supposed to. Again, this is the entire point of the Laffer curve.
"They were less than they would have been had tax rates not been cut, an unsurprising result."
You assume that the economy would have grown at the same brisk clip under a higher-tax regime. It is your right to assume this, but it remains an assumption shared only by you.
Four years? Regan's cuts weren't even in place in 1981, and we were still in a recession in 1982.
In fact, Reagan's cuts weren't even phased in entirely for three years. So it's ludicrous to blame declining revenues solely on Reagan's cuts.
Plus, you know, I'm still not quite sold on using the CPI -- which overstates inflation -- to deflate the amount of revenues received.
still in a recession in 1982. "
1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985 are all lower income tax revenue years than 1981. Yes, 1982 was a recession year, but 83 and 84 were much larger boom years.
Four years.
Um, Rask, you just said that the years 82-83 had a very high rate of economic growth.
Do you imagine that sudden spikes in economic growth "just happen"?
...1985 [was a] lower income tax revenue year[] than 1981...
Barely. And with slashed income tax rates.
If slashing income tax rates results in such a pittance of a decline in actual government tax revenue, I'll take it.
PS:
Despite the fact that Bush, and then Clinton, raised taxes a bit, the fact is we're still closer to the Reagan rate of taxation than the pre-Reagan rate of taxation.
Are you liberals suggesting that we go back to the pre-Reagan rate of taxation?
I refuse, on principle, to accept at face value any data from a Kangas site. It may well, be footnoted and accurate, but I don't trust him. If it is from a reputable source, go to the source and use that as a cite.
And if you have trouble understanding why I would refuse to believe numbers that are footnoted, consider the weirdness of citing a page whose address is www.aliveness.com. If you don't know why this is weird, Steve Kangas is someone I've battled with in another forum (I even had pseudoersmus defending me against his name-calling); he blew his brains out in a bathroom in Mellon Scaife's office. Top that for weirdness.
Dusty:
Do you have an opinion on using the CPI to "adjust" GDP/tax revenues/etc.?
Or are you saying we should remain at approximately current levels of taxation?
If so, what you are saying is: Reagan was pretty much bang-on right. He might have set the rate of taxation a tad too low -- and I do mean "a tad"; 1985 tax revenues were only trivially smaller than pre-tax-cut revenues, even when overly-deflated according to the CPI -- but his plan was *essentially* correct.
But the "Constant 1987 dollars" numbers are not.
happen"?"
After deep recessions, sure. A lot of unused capacity quickly becomes used again.
"If slashing income tax rates results in such a pittance of a decline in actual government tax revenue, I'll take it."
the effect of the decline is somewhat masked by not knowing exactly what would have happened in the absence of the cut. As I said, the economy almost certainly would have grown anyway, and revenues with them.
"Are you liberals suggesting that we go back to the pre-Reagan rate of
taxation? "
Depends what we are going to do with the money. Starting from a balanced budget, it makes no sense to look at a decision to raise or cut taxes without paying attention to what programs you are going to expand or cut along with them. I do think the government should be running some surpluses in order to pay down the debt, in preparation for the upcoming demographic crunch, but I would only recommend raising taxes toward this end if and when the current projected surpluses fail to materialize.
"They often follow bad recessions, since there's nowhere to go but up..."
True, but then a recovery from a recession can be fairly sluggish for several quarters -- see Bush's brief recession (which wasn't even technically a recession, was it?).
It's not as if you're guaranteed huge growth due to a recession, as you absurdly imply.
I've heard a tax cut is the anecdote to a sickly economy.
My first opinion is that rask knows his stuff, so I'm not about to disagree with him without doing some homework.
Second, I've perused this discussion, but haven't really followed it all. I hope to do so soon, but work intrudes, and I have a meeting this evening.
Third, I believe the Boskin report (if I have the name right) that concluded that CPI overstates inflation, but I'll have to look closer before concluding that the error is material to the question.
"I do think the government should be running some surpluses in order to pay down the debt..."
Not the question. I asked about higher rates of taxation. You "respond" with some blather about surpluses.
Taxes were almost as high under Bush, but we were still running recessions. It's only the booming economy which has caused surpluses -- not the higher Clinton taxes (at least not to anything but a trivial degree).
I take all this run-around to mean that you are essentially content with Reagan's cut of the income tax rates, and that you would like them to remain at this approximate level (with minor tweaks from time to time) in perpetuity.
Once again:
Reagan's levels of taxation are approximately in place today, and we are racking up huge surpluses.
Would you like to raise marginal rates up to 70% again? Please don't avoid the question. Just answer it.
Because, you know, when you criticize Reagan's "slashing" of tax rates, what you're implicitly doing is endorsing the pre-cut marginal rates of 50-70%.
And once again:
It seems that you *can* have the same revenues, or even greater revenues, at lower levels of taxation.
They "just happen" during Republican administrations. They are the result of masterful handling of the economy in Democratic administrations.
JJ, please. Let me do the sarcasm. It's what I'm here for.
He might have set the rate of taxation a tad too low -- and I do mean
"a tad"; 1985 tax revenues were only trivially smaller than pre-tax-cut
revenues, even when overly-deflated according to the CPI -- but his
plan was *essentially* correct.
Again, it makes no sense to look at taxation levels in a vacuum, as they go hand in hand with the funding of government programs. There is no a priori optimal level of taxation. But based on programs in place today, should we return to the pre-1981 tax code? No, we don't need the extra revenue right now (but we could have used it back in the 80s, when spending as a % of GDP was at a record high).
And Reagan, by cutting taxes, still brought in virtually the same amount of revenue. Even when you "adjust" for consumer-price inflation (because, you know, the government pays more for eggs at certain times).
Reagan's tax rates -- still more or less in place now -- have brought in the greatest tax revenues in history.
Once again, answer the question:
Do you honestly believe that if we ratchet up marginal rates on "the rich" we will get *more* money?
Or less?
Also note that Reagan cut taxes on the poor and middle-class, too.
Are you arguing we raise the lower and middle marginal rates to their pre-Reagan levels?
I mean, let's face it: We all know the surpluses will not continue indefinitely. So if it's important to get a lot of surplus built up, we must strike while the iron is hot.
Let's raise taxes to bring in lots of surplus money.
Or will that end the current economic boom?
"There is no a priori optimal level of taxation."
And there is no a priori optimal level of surplus v. deficit. It takes a fool to believe that surpluses are to be favored under all circumstances and at all times.
Please excuse the interruption, but Thoughtful™ posed a statistical question in the slow thread. I think you might be able to comment of the top of your head; I'd need to search through my stat books to find the answer. (I'll try to later, but I can't at the moment.)
rich" we will get *more* money?"
Sure, it has worked for the last three tax hikes, in 86, 90, and 93.
"Are you arguing we raise the lower and middle marginal rates to their
pre-Reagan levels?"
Can't remember what they were.
"I mean, let's face it: We all know the surpluses will not continue
indefinitely. So if it's important to get a lot of surplus built up, we must strike while the iron is hot."
My God, we agree on something! I think we both have to stop this discussion on that note.
Sure, it has worked for the last three tax hikes, in 86, 90, and 93.
What were these tax hikes, Rask?
Did these tax hikes come even close to restoring the pre-Reagan rates?
IFIRC, the 90 tax rate raised the top marginal rate to 33%, from around 30 or 31%. The Clinton tax hike raised the top marginal rate to 36.9%.
Now, is that closer to the Reagan rate of around 30%, or closer to the pre-Reagan rate of 70%?
Which is it, rask?
PS: Note that the current rates -- slightly raised from Reagan's rates -- result in surpluses during a booming economy. And these surpluses take into consideration the oh-so-horrible interest payments on the debt accumulated from LBJ through the first four or five years of the Clinton administration.
It seems that the Reagan rates work.
Sorry-- Clinton raised the rates to 39.6% (got the last two digits reversed).
That's higher than 36.9, but that does not approach 70%.
If Reagan's cuts were so bad, I am perplexed by why Ohio, Rask, et al. do not endorse raising the top rates back to 70%, and raising the rates on the poor and middle-class as well.
Rather, they merely state his rates were "bad," while offering no opinion on the then-existing regime.
"PS: Note that the current rates -- slightly raised from Reagan's rates -- result in surpluses during a booming economy. And these surpluses take into consideration the oh-so-horrible interest payments on the debt accumulated from LBJ through the first four or five years of the Clinton administration. "
Because spending has been seriously controlled, as a percent of GDP. You don't win a prize for discovering that cuts in spending give surpluses.
Nonsense. This presumes that we must run a surplus or balanced budget at all times, even during recessions or wars (hot or cold).
Reagan's budgets would have balanced (more or less) with shrunken domestic spending. But the Democrats didn't go along. That is their right, but it is absurd to blame Reagan for the Democrats acceding to only two thirds of his plan.
If the Democrats had the cojones, and if they really cared about balancing the budget, they either could have 1) gone along with Reagan for the whole package or 2) tanked the whole package.
But they didn't.
Get over it.
I will say this:
I think Bush was rather dumb to propose dropping the top marginal rate down to 33%. 35% or 36% would have been more than adequate.
budget at all times, even during recessions or wars (hot or cold)."
No, it just presumes that doesn't make sense to run large deficits during peacetime economic booms. I don't think that stage of the cold war justified the defense build up, but that is an argument for another time.
"Reagan's budgets would have balanced (more or less) with shrunken
domestic spending. But the Democrats didn't go along. That is their
right, but it is absurd to blame Reagan for the Democrats acceding to only two thirds of his plan.
Bullshit. The deficits in *every single one* of Reagan's budget years exceeded the money in the entire domestic discretionary budget. That is, if we had completely eliminated every budget item except defense and entitlements, there *still* would have been a substantial deficit.
You keep claiming, for some reason, that "entitlements" should not be examined as part of this mix.
I know, I know, you claim it takes an act of Congress, blah blah blah. So does passing a budget.
The "biggest" might have been, but not all of them were.
Those bastards.
Ace's piss-poor record on elections:
1980: Too young to vote. Born and raised a diehard Democrat, prayed that Kennedy would pull it out at the Democratic convention. Then I prayed for Carter to win.
1984: Still too young to vote. Rooted for Gary Hart. We all know what happened there. Could not muster up a rooting interest for Mondale.
1988: Supported Gore in primaries (because he called himself a "moderate," and I was beginning to seriously question the pap called Liberal Dogma); Voted for Dukakis (reluctantly)
1992: Supported Tsongas in primaries. Voted for Clinton (reluctantly).
1996: Did not vote, but hoped that Dole would win. (I just didn't hope he'd win enough that I really cared, or bothered to vote.)
2000: Supported anybody-but-Hillary-and-Al. Looks like I will again be an unhappy camper.
Oh, yeah:
2000: Despite my misgivings about McCain's very vague policy prescriptions (though uniformed dolts somehow believed he was the candidate of "substance"; in fact, he ran almost wholly on his resume, and had very few specific proposals, far less than Bush), semi-leftist critique of Republicans, disasterous ideas for campaign finance reform, and overall weirdness (yes, he is a weird guy; I *do* believe he is on the edges of having a diagnosable personality defect/mental illness)...
...I secretly, and not so secretly, hoped McCain would whip Bush's ass, because he really smelled like a winner.
Lost again.
Bush Gore Nader Buchanan 
+-4% margin of error
Oct 1-3, 2000**
Sample Size = 660 likely voters
Back in the 60's and 70's tax rates high very high. However, no one paid those high rates. They were there to make middle and lower income folks believe government was sticking it to the rich. Remember, Congress was in the hands of Democrats, and as Wexxford used to say, they needed to keep the monkeys marching.
Look uo something that was called "sum of the years digets" which allowed an investor to write off 80% of a property in 5 years. He then could do a tax free exchange and start all over again. Reagan paid no taxes one year by buying cattle, at least on paper. You see, while the Democrats needed votes, they also needed money from those who had it.
Webbie:
You just shot in here for the full boat, didnchoo?
Webbie:
Full boat - 3-of-a-kind and a pair. 4's and 7's, in this case.
(Anytime I see someone's name in a thread they never post in, I assume some ulterior motive - like grabbing the milennial, etc.)
Still, I think you'd make an excellent Republican, Webbie.
...with certain conditions, of course.
You'd have to lose the French hubby, for starters.
...G'nite, Webbie.
Let us say, argumento, (don't you love that) that SS did not exist and you were offered a savings plan by your employer. He would deduct 15% from your wages and give you a choice of two options:
1. The money would be his to do as he pleased and when you reached the age of 65 he would for the rest of your life give you 50% of what would at that time be cost of living.
2. The money would be yours and in an account that paid 3.5%
First, I wonder what one would choose, and I wonder which plan would be to your advantage.
Where is the outrage?
"Oct. 4 — The comeback kid has done it again: Bill Clinton slightly outpoints George W. Bush in a hypothetical test of public preferences for president, after trailing Bush last winter.
"Of course the 22nd Amendment prevents Clinton from seeking a third term. But the result does mark quite a change from January: Then Bush led in the hypothetical matchup by 51-42 percent. Now it’s a slight Clinton edge, 45-40 percent."
I've only barely skimmed the last 100 or so posts; so, if you've posted a retraction and I missed it, my apologies.
But looking at tax revenue as a percentage of GDP -- in a what-caused-the-deficit context -- is breathtakingly inane. (Tax revenue per capita might be a different matter; but taking GDP size as a proxy for population size is ridiculous, too, since (1) both figures are equally-easily available, and (2) increasing the per-capita GDP was a stated goal of the policy under evaluation.)
As Ace has already mentioned, the whole point of the Laffer-curve thing was the claim that lowering the tax rate by some proportion would (under the then circumstances) increase the GDP by a higher-or-equal proportion -- so that the same, or higher, amount of tax revenue would be collected, combined with a higher GDP.
Your approach is as silly as if my landlord objected to me getting a raise, because that would make the rent I pay him a lower percentage of my salary. And if, after thinking long enough about this issue to write a several-post treatise, you still couldn't grasp this... Well, nothing personal, but that seems to indicate that you don't even understand the fundamentals of the subject you're attempting to discuss.
Could you please link in 2 editorials from todays edition of the Fort Worth Star Telegram? One is by Molly Ivins and is called George W. and the Texas Supremes. The other is entitled Recalling Cheneys Mark on Fort Worth and is by Art Bender, who is the chairman of the Democratic Party for our county.
And while we're calling Al Gore an embellisher and posting all his "enhancements", let's take a look at Mollys first paragraph...anyone else taken GW to task for getting his remarks about appointing judges wrong? "That's what a Governor gets to do..." Not in this state, bro. Just an oversight on his part, not a blatant embellishment. Just a misunderstanding of what the laws of the state say....but he has good people around him to make up for those little gaffes.
Yes, he "appointed" four but his remarks in the debate made it sound as though the Texas Governor is responsible for ALL Supreme Court judges and he's not. Of course, before he takes the oath of office for the Presidency, he may take a quick course in Remedial Government but only if it's the Cliffs Notes version.
Molly Ivins (also linked in BS already)
could not find anything by Art Bender
However, due to a series of early retirements, Bush has been called upon to name four justices, so one can see how he might be confused about it.
There is no "confusion" in Bush's statement:
I've named four Supreme Court judges in the state of Texas.
And there is nothing factually inaccurate in what she quotes Bush as saying. He could have been more specific and said, "When a judge needs to be appointed, the governor gets to appoint one," but that's--pardon the pun--supreme quibbling.
And that was without the questioner saying "assuming Reagan didn't have Alzheimer's."
The latest case is actually based on a criminal charge so I assume it is going to the Court of Criminal Appeals. I've been out of state for several years, so I haven't kept up with the particulars of the latest round.
Sigh.
I suggest that at the next debate both candidates be asked if they use one or two ply toilet paper and that research then be done to see if either (or both) are LIARS!!!
what-caused-the-deficit context -- is breathtakingly inane."
You must have missed that far and away the primary point in my argument related to actual revenue, not percentage of GDP.
I do think percentage-of-GDP is useful for context, as it is driven by a lot of things that also drive government spending (you can't honestly expect the real dollar level of federal spending to have remain unchanged since the Washington administration now, can you), but I didn't use it the information to disprove any Laffer effect. For that I just used actual budget data, adjusted for inflation.
Last night I skimmed a couple of relevant chapters in Paul Krugman's "Peddling Prosperity." FWIW, his analysis of the effect of Reagan's tax cuts agrees virtually 100 percent with that posted by Rask yesterday -- in terms of numbers, methodology, and conclusions.
i'll also link it in the BS bar
That's kind of weird, having a previous conversation appended to the thread. Arguments get argued and reargued over time, with new information, but having the entire back and forth as a separate link seems somewhat stifling (if you want to discuss this further, tell me where). I can't see people reapproaching an issue, or even engaging in earnest with a new participant, if the previous exchange sits there. Instead, we'll just get a link followed by "see here."
Of course, this is your administration. Consider this a friendly op-ed from a former executive.
not linking it here? not running the conversation?
and, yeah, i'll stop appending it soon
(discussing it here is fine, imo)
Given that you aren't really objecting to Ducky's use of conversations but rather the entire rationale for conversations, I suggest you read up in Promotions.
No linking, no appending, no nothing. Let it scatter to the four winds of the thread. I think creating an accessible catalogue of discussion is a net negative, though certainly nothing cataclysmic.
it's a good conversation, imo, and one that people will want to read and maybe revisit.
we'll see
Jack's objection is a philosophical one; I wouldn't fuss about it too much.
I'd fuss like hell and do everything in your power to make sure I am happy.
Rask
Exactly.
The BullShit bar.
The conversations will have their own page eventually; we're stilll mid implementation. For now, you just link them to the butterscotch bar. Soon there will be a page displaying them.
See Promotions to register complaints or comments. It's been discussed there for a while.
(glad i refreshed before i posted)
Jack:
you know i'd tend to your fussing post-haste
There's a good lad.
Adios.
Also note table 3 which shows the standardized budget revenues as a percent of potential GDP...especially during the Reagan years through '86 and the passage of tax reform. Notice too the change after passage of the '93 tax increase.
John Paulk just wanted a little man-sex, and all he gets Compassionate Probation
tisk tisk
next they'll be telling us that you can't convert. of all the non-sense.
(assuming you know the definition)
The latest Gallup presidential poll results are now on www.gallup.com
Results for Oct 2-4, 2000 **
Bush: 40%
Gore: 51%
Buchanan: 1%
Nader: 2%
Don't Know: 6%
Do I read? Yes. But I'm afraid you don't.
I said, Actually, no one has made any such assumption [about Powell being afraid to run]. It has been said, accurately, that his wife resists the notion of him running for President because of that fear.
You demanded to know if I read, and then quoted JanJon's post:
I think it is more accurate to say that he won't run because his wife is absolutely convinced and terrified that there are a number of "them" out there who would absolutely do anything and everything needed to insure that a black man is not elected President.
Um. Yeah. That's pretty much what I said was said.
Do you see that statement as an apriori assumption that Powell won't run because he's terrified?
I didn't say that you were just talking about that. I cited it as an example. I personally doubt the concerns will ever be "widely held". You, however, said that people will be urged to tear apart what went on behind the scenes. I was pointing out that this has already started. Even now, blind hoo-ya about Desert Storm is not particularly common.
In terms of advancement for blacks and intolerance for overt racism? Sure. You were implying that the military is a hotbed of racism; had Powell been afraid of bein assassinated, he would have refused advancement in the military. I think to make this comment about the military is flat out foolish, given the military's reputation for working harder than most organizations for bein race neutral. I don't claim for a moment that they've solved all the racial problems in the world, or even all of their own.
Where and when was this said? By who? Who's talking about other careers? Who's saying that the military is better or worse than them in terms of racial hatred? I'll wait.
You were, but only indirectly. You said that Powell willingly assumed what you assert was a significant risk in accepting advancement in the military. This implies that he could have had much less risk in other careers.
Sure. You were implying that the military is a hotbed of racism; had
Powell been afraid of bein assassinated, he would have refused
advancement in the military.
military is flat out foolish, given the military's reputation for working
harder than most organizations for bein race neutral.
If it doesn't advance your argument, why did you include it, and refer to it several times as if it did? Imagine someone sends me a 50-page purported proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. If I notice that, on page 1, the author simplifies 1/(x+y) by replacing it with 1/x + 1/y, I'll be somewhat less eager to read the remaining 49 pages.
Anyway: the numbers from your Table 2 do not "disprove any Laffer effect." Of course one would expect a short-term revenue drop: the tax rates are lowered today, but the income those lower rates are applied to might not start significantly rising for another year or so -- the U.S. economy can't turn on a dime. But, if you average the revenue over the 10 years you listed, you get 687.4, more than in either 1980 or 1981; so, overall, the higher numbers starting in 1985 more than compensated for the slightly-lower ones that came before. (In fact, even the '82-'86 average of 653.7 is higher than the '80-'81 average of 643.2.) Put that in your silver cigarette-case and smoke it.
Again, it looks like you don't understand the very basics. Of course a tax-rate cut can cause a revenue increase, just like a tax-rate hike can cause a revenue decrease. If f(x) represents revenue as a function of the rate, clearly f(0) = f(1) = 0; by Rolle's theorem (or just by common sense), there must be a maximum somewhere in between. When you're to the right of that, cutting the tax rate will increase revenue, and hiking the rate will decrease revenue; when you're to the left, it's the other way around. (The case of more than one maximum is left as an exercise.) Exactly where that maximum lies at any given moment, of course, is an empirical question; Laffer's theory was simply that, at the time, the tax rate was to the right of it.
Year Revenue Spending
1980 643.8 693.7
Thanks!
Day Event Frequency
10/5 Learning Every
Hasta luego, maricóns.
They don't kill the Lawn Jockeys, dear.
(Oh, and I meant to type "another year or two," not "another year or so." My point is clear either way, though.)
As I said, context. It *does* advance my argument. It is just that my argument doesn't depend on it.
"Anyway: the numbers from your Table 2 do not "disprove any Laffer
effect." Of course one would expect a short-term revenue drop: the
tax rates are lowered today, but the income those lower rates are
applied to might not start significantly rising for another year or so -- the U.S. economy can't turn on a dime. But, if you average the
revenue over the 10 years you listed, you get 687.4, more than in
either 1980 or 1981; so, overall, the higher numbers starting in 1985 more than compensated for the slightly-lower ones that came before. (In fact, even the '82-'86 average of 653.7 is higher than the '80-'81 average of 643.2.) Put that in your silver cigarette-case and smoke it."
Several points:
1) there was a significant tax increase in 1986, remember, so when you average late eighties data with early eighties data, it is impossible to sort out the respective impacts of each tax law change.
2) It took much more than "another year or so". It took 4 years.
3) Since we know that a flat, lower percentage of a growing economy will eventually exceed a flat higher percentage of that economy at a previous point in time, how can you claim that the eventual increase in tax revenue was due to tax cuts rather than just economic growth? There simply is no evidence for the former, but quite a bit for the latter.
4) Yes, there is certainly a level of taxation which *would* result in more revenue after a tax cut. I have never disputed this. The discussion, however, has been about the American tax system, not some hypothetical country with confiscatory income tax rates.
5) thanks for the tips about tables.
My lord, the poor man. Their compassion is going to kill him.
The lowest in thirty years.
Year Revenue Outlays
1980 18.6 19.2
1981 19.4 19.9
1982 19.0 20.4
1983 17.5 20.7
1984 17.0 20.8
1985 17.2 21.5
1986 16.9 21.7
1987 17.3 20.7
1988 17.4 20.0
1989 17.5 19.7
1990 17.4 19.5
1991 17.5 20.1
1992 17.5 20.5
1993 17.4 20.0
1994 17.8 19.8
1995 18.0 19.9
1996 18.3 19.5
1997 18.4 19.3
1998 18.8 19.2
1999 18.7 18.8
DANVILLE, Ky. (Reuters) - Democrat Al Gore retained a five-point lead over Republican George W. Bush in the Reuters/MSNBC daily tracking poll released on Friday, suggesting little impact from Tuesday's presidential debate.
The survey of 1,209 likely voters was conducted by pollster John Zogby between Tuesday and Thursday. Vice President Gore held 46 percent to Texas Gov. Bush's 41 percent. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader polled 6 percent; Reform Party hopeful Pat Buchanan had 1 percent and the rest were still undecided, less than five weeks before the Nov. 7 election.
Natonal is new-born voters.
It does not advance your argument one frigging iota, and is useless in any relevant context. Again: taking numbers as a percentage of GDP -- in effect, penalizing for a higher GDP and/or rewarding for a lower one -- when evaluating a policy which aimed to raise the GDP is as wrongheaded as it gets.
1) Ah; now it's "impossible to sort out." Then why did you include those numbers in your table -- or, for that matter, why did you spam us with your piece at all?
2) The revenue started falling in '82, and started going up again in '84. 84 - 82 = 2.
3) Your argument is circular, here. The whole issue is about what makes "a growing economy," and to what extent do tax cuts stimulate it. You are assuming something that's pretty much equivalent to what you're trying to prove.
4) Loaded terms like "confiscatory" are irrelevant; what is relevant is whether one is to the right or left of the maximum, as I explained earlier.
5) You're also welcome.
(temp. link)
No wonder Liz divorced him!
-- in effect, penalizing for a higher GDP and/or rewarding for a lower one -- when evaluating a policy which aimed to raise the GDP is as wrongheaded as it gets."
But this ignores that many revenues and expenditures are partly driven by GDP in the first place. For instance, the GDP numbers put lie to your claim that the revenue enhancing effects kicked in later. If Reaganomics had held true, revenues would have gone up while revenues as % of GDP went down. Instead, what we see is that revenues and revenues as a % of GDP go down at the same time, and then revenues slowly rise roughly in line with GDP.
"1) Ah; now it's "impossible to sort out." Then why did you include
those numbers in your table -- or, for that matter, why did you spam us with your piece at all?"
Why did I include post 1986 data? To show the impact of the 1986 tax laws on revenue, of course. As to why I put the piece in the thread, Ace asked for it, as part of an argument we were having about whether voodoo economics worked.
" 2) The revenue started falling in '82, and started going up again in '84. 84 - 82 = 2."
No, it fell in 1984 as well. It fell three consecutive years. It did go up in 1985, but still wasn't as high as pre-tax change levels.
makes "a growing economy," and to what extent do tax cuts stimulate
it. You are assuming something that's pretty much equivalent to what
you're trying to prove.
Only circular in the sense that it is a mathematical tautology that a tax cut in a growing economy will eventually catch up with total revenues under the previous tax regime. I point this out only because you are fallaciously ignoring this tautology to "prove" that a tax cut *causes* revenue increases.
"4) Loaded terms like "confiscatory" are irrelevant; what is relevant is whether one is to the right or left of the maximum, as I explained
earlier."
And what I think the above demonstrates quite clearly is that we were to the left of the inflection point on the Laffer curve.
Bush 45%, Gore 41%
Well, at least it is progress for you to have fallen back to "the data just can't tell us anything" from your earlier positions.
But if you think the only way data can tell us anything is when compared to a control group, you must not be familiar with a science called "meteorology". You might want to read up on it. It has been demonstrated to be quite useful.
FWIW.
Are you suggesting that meteorology is a precise science? It at least has the benefit of large amounts of data from which to draw inferences. They don't attempt to draw conclusions from a single weather front. "Gee, it has rained for the last two Tuesdays. That must mean it is going to rain every Tuesday."
The problem is that you and I can both look at the same data and draw very different conclusions, but neither one can prove our positions because they both depend on assumptions of what would have happened under different circumstances.
draw very different conclusions, but neither one can prove our
positions because they both depend on assumptions of what would
have happened under different circumstances."
You haven't even come close to drawing a remotely tenable conclusion from the data. What you *say* happened, didn't happen. That is, revenues *didn't* go up, they went down. Domestic Discretionary spending *didn't* go up, it went down. Etc.
Now, if you want to argue that the nineteen eighties don't present perfect circumstances upon which to test supply side economics, and that the impacts of supply side are masked by other, uncontrolled-for factors, I am interested in hearing what you think those factors are (maybe Reagan's presidency encouraged a proliferation of tax fraud which reduced revenues below what they otherwise would have been?), but am willing to concede the principle that this is possible, however unlikely.
But it should be minimally clear that: 1)evidence *supporting* supply side is completely lacking. 2) Evidence that is there points in the other direction, and 3) The burden of proof is on the supply-siders.
"POA's results have been very different from other pollsters with better reputations."
POA's numbers jibe with Battleground's.
PS, Rask--check gallup's numbers for the numbers of self-identifying Democrats they're polling.
I read an analysis (on FR, but hey, as good as your voodoo economics analysis) where they solved for the number of D's, R's, and I's, and found that Gallup *was* using approximately equal D's & R's a month ago, but their latest polls use/weight something like 12 d's for every 10 R's.
If anything, one would expect the proportion of R's to climb as we get closer to election day, not drop.
The numbers show that after the two year lag from Carter's administration and the passage of the tax cuts, there is constant and steady growth as predicted by the supply-siders. You claim the growth would have occured anyway, but that certainly wasn't the conventional wisdom at the time.
It may be crapshoot, but Al Gore is the smarmy, obsequious pit boss, and the house always has the advantage.
But an 11% lead is running away with it, and I simply do not buy that. Zogby shows only a 5 point lead (inside the margin of error), and two other respected polls show Bush ahead.
Each of these pollster's has its own methodology for sampling and weighting. For obvious reasons, rask prefers those pollsters that show Gore ahead by a huge lead, while I'm more skeptical of those polls.
Whose methodology is right? We shall see.
It should be noted that George W. Bush won in Texas twice in some part due to low minority turn-out -- it seems he's just not scary enough to get minorities to turn out in force against him.
It is beyond dispute that Gallup's methodology does not take such a factor into consideration.
Will the pattern hold? We shall see. But there was a NYT or WP story a couple a weeks ago about Democrats being very worried by their own internal polls -- blacks were just not terrifically motivated to vote against Bush.
If anything, one would expect the proportion of R's to climb as we get closer to election day, not drop.
why would one expect such a thing?
In last year's State Of The World, we noted the loss of momentum in world economic growth since 1979, a trend that the 1984 data appear to confirm. The present recovery, led by the resurgent U.S. economy, has only marginally boosted the average economic growth for the past five years. With a slowdown in prospect for 1985, it appears more and more likely that world economic growth during this decade may not average much more than 2% annually, essentially the same as the rate of population growth....
These effects are compounded by the emergence of a highly developed international economy that provides a way of transmitting scarcities from one country to another, a sort of domino theory of ecological stress and collapse....
Once a certain critical point is reached, the ice and cloud build-ups just feed on themselves and a new ice age has begun. According to John Hamaker, this point-of-no-return could be reached during this decade and a full-scale ice age could be upon us by the year 2000.
Unfortunate - but true.
Has Battleground fixed their sampling methodology yet? Last I heard they were weighting to approximate an equal number of Democrats and Republicans - an inherent flaw.
"I read an analysis (on FR, but hey, as good as your voodoo
economics analysis) where they solved for the number of D's, R's,
and I's, and found that Gallup *was* using approximately equal D's &
R's a month ago, but their latest polls use/weight something like 12 d's for every 10 R's."
Gallup doesn't weight on political party, according to their web site. Party identification changes cannot be independently verified.
"Incidentally, Rasmussen's polls most closely mirrored actual primary
voting, beating Gallup and Zogby."
Many polling flaws only show up on particular circumstances. A flaw in weighting party identification, for instance, wouldn't have an impact on a party primary. I'll take a 60 year track record over a 1 year track record any day.
I'll go back to saying that Gallup has been through this shit for decades, and have polling down to a science better than anyone. It would be unprecedented for them to be off by 15 points. In the last 10 Presidential elections, they haven't missed the cumulative difference between the two major candidates by more than 7 points. Based on their track record, my strong hunch is that the error is probably with the other polls.
Just out of curiousity, are you interested in a bet on which poll will be closest to the real number on election day?
RD:
Because R's are more likely voters.
I suppose what I said wasn't quite right. What I meant was that R's will show up in greater proportions than their actual numbers on Election Day.
It just seems odd to me that Gallup was weighting D's and R's roughly equal a month ago, but is now weighting D's more heavily. On Election Day, R's will turn out in greater proportion than D's.
That is incorrect, Rask, and if you were the poll-maven you claim to be, you'd know it.
Battleground used a likely-voter screening test -- which they said really shouldn't have been used until closer to the election -- for exactly one fucking poll, Rask.
a *particular* likely-voter screening test. They said they used the wrong model for one poll, a model which should have waited until closer to Election Day.
based on the Carter's policies,"
What are you talking about? Revenues consistently climbed during the Carter administration.
"the fact that the tax rate cuts were phased in, and the fact that there is about a two year lag time before tax policy can affect the economy."
which explains why the loss in revenue is spread over 4 years, instead of all occurring in one or two.
"The numbers show that after the two year lag from Carter's
administration and the passage of the tax cuts, there is constant and steady growth as predicted by the supply-siders."
But not growth in revenue, as the supply siders claimed. Predicting future growth within two years is pretty easy. We haven't had two years of negative growth since the Depression.
"You claim the growth would have occured anyway, but that certainly wasn't the conventional wisdom at the time."
You are shocked that the conventional wisdom was wrong? Hell, average annual GDP growth in the 70s was greater than that in the 80s (barely). As such, I feel pretty confident saying that growth would have continued in the eighties no matter what Reagan had done, and no matter what the "conventional wisdom" may have thought at the time.
Then it just turns out that their latest poll sampled too many self-identifying Democrats --an inherent flaw.
equal a month ago, but is now weighting D's more heavily. On
Election Day, R's will turn out in greater proportion than D's."
Again, according to Gallup's web site, they don't weight based on party affiliation.
"That is incorrect, Rask, and if you were the poll-maven you claim to
be, you'd know it. "
Someone had a link to a newspaper article (WP, I believe) saying otherwise. I may certainly be wrong. I never claimed to be an expert on Rasmussen's, Battlegrounds, or Zogby's methods. As I have said, I don't bother with them because they have not sufficiently proven their competence over time.
self-identifying Democrats -- an inherent flaw."
How do you know? How can you be sure that more voters aren't self-identifying as Democrats as they decide who they are supporting?
And that wouldn't be an inherent flaw anyway, unless the methodology was designed to skew in such a way. If such a thing happened by chance it would just be sampling error, something every poll is prone to.
"Someone had a link to a newspaper article (WP, I believe) saying otherwise."
Then your memory is clouded by partisan fog, because that article stated precisely what Battleground had done wrong (used a too-discriminating likely voter model, too far out from the election) for exactly one poll.
"How can you be sure that more voters aren't self-identifying as Democrats as they decide who they are supporting?"
These polls ask about your voter *registration,* not how you're feeling that day, politics-wise.
If you are going to trump that with a "Maybe they're too stupid to appreciate the difference...", well, fine. Maybe they are. Maybe they also are too stupid to keep "Bush" and "Gore" straight in their heads.
"If such a thing happened by chance it would just be sampling error, something every poll is prone to."
Which would be a flaw in this particular poll.
Rask:
Find Battleground's site and look it up yourself. They themselves explained the problem with that one poll.
New Battleground Numbers:
Bush 43 Gore 41
(Unless Battleground is, as Rask says, still using a flawed liekly-voter methodology which they themselves detected, announced, and corrected.)
Recent Battleground numbers:
feeling that day, politics-wise. "
This varies. I personally wouldn't deem it vital as many states don't require you to register as one or the other.
Gallup asks about party identification, not registration.
Jan,
Hillary was running soft-money ads as of last weekend.
At any rate, as things now are looking, I hope that Lazio continues to syphon off a lot of $$ that would otherwise go to other campaigns, like Santorum's.
"
There's nothing wrong with setting the parties at parity -- indeed, Republicans sometimes turn out in greater numbers than Democrats.
It is silly to simply pretend that Democrats will turn out at the polls in equal proportions to Republicans, because they don't.
I am right-- I told you the reason that particular poll was wrong: Because it was based on a likely-voter model better used closer to the election.
Setting the two groups at parity is not "a flaw," as you continue to whine. No one knows who will turn out in greater numbers in *this* election -- but we do know that Republicans turned out in greater numbers in 1992 (by three points), and that Dem's turned out in greater numbers in 1996 (by three points).
You want to base polls on the numbers of Democrats *in the country*, rather than the number of Democrats who actually show up *at the polling booths.*
There is absolutely no reason to prefer the former (which is relevant) over the latter (which is what decides elections), other than the fact you like seeing Gore's numbers padded.
(which is IRrelevant), I meant.
I (and Battleground) *assume* that Dems and R's will vote in equal numbers -- because the average of 1992 and 1996 points to this.
*You* assume that D's will show up at the polling booths in greater numbers, simply because there are more Dems in the country.
Not so. Democrats are very flaky voters. They do not exhibit the same voter-discipline that R's do.
"There's nothing wrong with setting the parties at parity -- indeed,
Republicans sometimes turn out in greater numbers than Democrats. "
And sometimes they don't. It makes little sense to *assume* they are in equal proportion, particularly when doing so will cause you to completely miss the impact of a swing in party identification. If 80% of the sample suddenly starts identifying themselves as Republicans, Battleground's methodology would still show Gore as even, all else being equal.
"It is silly to simply pretend that Democrats will turn out at the polls in equal proportions to Republicans, because they don't."
But this is exactly what Battleground is doing - assuming equal turnout.
"And sometimes they don't. It makes little sense to *assume* they are in equal proportion"
They assume this because this is what past experience has shown.
"But this is exactly what Battleground is doing - assuming equal turnout."
What they are doing is correcting for the fact that their are more Democrats in the country, *but not at the polling booths*, which is the only relevant consideration.
Because it was based on a likely-voter model better used closer to
the election. "
No, I never disputed that. You disputed me when I claimed that Battleground weighted GOP and Democrats to be equal. You. Were. Wrong.
"Setting the two groups at parity is not "a flaw," as you continue to
whine. No one knows who will turn out in greater numbers in *this*
election -- but we do know that Republicans turned out in greater
numbers in 1992 (by three points), and that Dem's turned out in
greater numbers in 1996 (by three points). "
So based on the fact that the *average* was zero over two years, you think it makes sense to assume that it will zero difference this year? Why weight for something which is obviously a highly correlated variable? It makes much more sense to not weight on that variable, as Gallup does.
"You want to base polls on the numbers of Democrats *in the
country*, rather than the number of Democrats who actually show up
*at the polling booths.* "
You don't do either. You instead try to determine likely voters, based on tried and true methods.
Meanwhile, your asinine Gallup poll continues to overstate Democratic support, every election year, because it continues to assume, despite the evidence, that D's turn out in equal proportions to R's.
They don't.
Gallup is in this sense a "best-case" poll for the Democrats. Could Gore win by eleven if all D's and all left-leaning voters turned out? Sure could.
Will they all turn out? Prior experience says no -- and prior experience shows that R's will turn out in roughly equal absolute numbers.
In other words:
Battleground looks at years when R's turned out in greater numbers, and years when D's turned out in greater numbers, averages them, and *estimates* that D's and R's will turn out in equal numbers.
Gallup, on the other hand, simply assumes D's will turn out in greater numbers, apparently oblivious to the possibility -- and the historical record -- that R's sometimes turn out in equal or greater numbers.
Heh. This reminds me a joke. Three statisticians go deer hunting. They finally see a deer. The first shoots, and misses three feet to the left. The second shoots, and misses three feet to the right. The third yells "we got it! we got it!"
Assuming parity based on a sample size of two elections with a six point swing in party ID turnout, is just silly.
Assuming that D's will turn out in greater numbers than R's is what causes Gallup to overstate Democratic support by 4-5% in every single Presidential election.
It's not like *sometimes* they overstate Democratic support, and *sometimes* overstate Republican support. Nope. In every single election, Gallup's polls "predict" that the D's will garner a greater portion of the vote than they actually do.
The whole reason Zogby et al. gained notoriety (and bonzo business) is because they bothered correcting for *reality* and better approximated the results of the 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998 elections.
"Heh. This reminds me a joke. Three statisticians go deer hunting. They finally see a deer. The first shoots, and misses three feet to the left. The second shoots, and misses three feet to the right. The third yells "we got it! we got it!" "
This reminds me of a joke:
Heh. This reminds me a joke. Three statisticians go deer hunting. They finally see a deer. The first shoots, and misses three feet to the left. The second shoots, and AGAIN misses three feet to the left. The third yells "No need to correct your aim; you are shooting in the right direction. If only the blasted deer would stand where he's *supposed* to stand!"
Democratic support, every election year, because it continues to
assume, despite the evidence, that D's turn out in equal proportions to R's. "
Wow. Amazing how they are rarely off by much in any given election.
Here is Gallup's historical accuracy record.
In the past 10 elections, Gallup has erred toward the Democratic party just 6 times. In the last election, they missed Clinton by 1.9 points. In the previous election, it was by 5.7 points, but almost all of that was from Perotistas, not Republicans.
You say you'll trust "60 years of experience." *I* say I don't particularly trust 60 years of consistently, stubbornly overstating Democratic support and refusing to ever consider: "Perhaps we should figure out how to correct for our over-present overstatement of Democratic strength...?"
causes Gallup to overstate Democratic support by 4-5% in every
single Presidential election. "
Don't you even bother to look up numbers before posting them? Check out my last link. This level of overstatement happened once. *once*. Not every single election.
Okay, not "60 years of erring on the wrong side."
They've merely erred on the wrong side throughout the last decade.
Blowing the 1996 election by a net three points, and the 1992 election by a ghastly net six points.
Yes, and Zogby says that even his refined techniques will usually (although not always; remember 1998) result in a Democratic skew, and that if a Democrat is ahead by a trivial number of points (2 or 3 or 4), that Democrat will usually lose.
"In the previous election, it was by 5.7 points"
Nope, it was more than six points. They overstated Clinton's support by 5.7 points while understating Dole's by some margin (forget the exact margin).
But we are talking about an 11 point lead in Gallup's most recent poll. Not a 2 point lead. And a 15 point difference in the spread from that in the POA poll. I have a lot of difficulty chalking that up to the bias Zogby is talking about.
Gore 46 46 46
W. 41 40 41
Rask,
This is a sterile discussion. Thank you for correcting me about Gallup "always" overstating Democratic support -- apparently they don't, and I was wrong on that point.
But there's no use discussing this further. You prefer polls that don't factor into consideration the fact that Democrats are more willing to respond to pollsters in the first place, and that core Democratic groups (miniorities, students, and low-income voters) simply do not show up at the polls at the rates they *claim* they will. (I.e., a student who claims he'll "definitely" vote really has about a 30% chance of showing up.)
As Zogby says:
"None of us who are public pollsters -- i.e. polling for major media – wittingly produce polls that are skewed toward Democrats or Republicans. While I do have some disagreements with some of my colleagues about the oversampling of Democrats (simply because they are more likely to respond to polls than Republicans) this is a sampling issue and not the result of any built in bias or prejudice.
"My firm only polls "likely voters" on matters of politics and public policy because they are the ones who actually count on these matters. Because of that, our polls tend to show less support for the President and Democrats in general because actual voters tend to include fewer minorities and lower income groups than all adults."
Rask,
BTW, I didn't "change tactics" as you charged earlier.
You spoke of a "flaw" in Battleground's methodology. I told you what that self-detected flaw was -- the use of likely-voter model too far out from the election.
You say you were discussing the "flaw" of setting the parties at parity.
Fine -- they did *both*. But only one is an acknowledged "flaw." You might not like the parity issue, but that is a decision of methodology they *chose* and are sticking with.
No. I am just not convinced the bias really exists, as it is small, inconsistent, and partially explainable by other factors. Also, Gallup doesn't just count people if they claim they will vote. You might want to poke around their site. They establish a likelihood to vote index based on whether the person has voted in the past, is registered to vote, knows where to vote, etc. They aren't amateurs.
From the Zogby quote:
"My firm only polls "likely voters" on matters of politics and public
policy because they are the ones who actually count on these matters."
So does Gallup. Methods differ. I have never been clear how Zogby accounts for the perceived undersampling of Republicans.
"Fine -- they did *both*. But only one is an acknowledged "flaw."
You might not like the parity issue, but that is a decision of
methodology they *chose* and are sticking with."
It isn't just that I don't like it. As I believe I have adequately explained, it is biased. Do you truly believe that a poll showing twice as many self-identified Democrats as Republicans should have the two groups weighted equally?
Don't be absurd, Rask. That's such a stupid point I'll let you figure out what's wrong with it.
On second thought, I'll give it a go.
They do not "weight groups equally" as a general rule. If there were twice as many Democrats as R's, they would not "weight both groups equally." What they would do is knock around 4% off the Democrats' numbers and 4% to the R's numbers, resulting in a ratio of 1.8:1 rather than 2:1.
As it turns out, there are approximately 11 Democratic respondants for every 10 R respondants, but they know that Dem's don't show up at the polls commensurate with their actual numbers. So they take 5% from one and add 5% to the other (approximately) to come up with a 1:1 ratio.
You're being absolutely moronic.
This does not speak well for your self-proclaimed mathematical & statistical experties.
I don't know how this Gallup poll differs from the other, except the other is a three-day average.
Past experience shows that both parties are *almost* at parity, with Dem's having a slight advantage. But that advantage *on the phone* often disappears, or actually turns into a deficit, *at the polls.*
So the *phone* ratio is around 1.05:1. They knock off that .05 to get 1:1.
Given your hysterically stupid hypothetical about 2 Dems for every 1 R, they would knock off the *same* 0.05-- they wouldn't knock off an entire 1.0. (Duh-frickin'-uh.) Which would result in a ration of around 1.9:1. Not 1:1.
Fucking stupid.
Ace: what you describe is what they should do, not what the Post says they do do.
Rask,
You are being fucking idiotic. They have set the parties at parity not because they just like setting the parties at parity, but because past history *at the voting booth* suggests that actual turnout *IS* approximately at parity, though it can of course swing either way in a particular election.
I mean, Jesus, why not just set Bush voters & Gore voters at parity and come up with a 50-50 tie each and every week?
"Hey-- did you get the latest Battleground numbers? They've got Bush and Gore tied at 50 for the sixtieth week in a row!!! How about that?!!"
This is so stupid I will not discuss it further.
"Ace: what you describe is what they should do, not what the Post says they do do."
Yes, I am sure they picked the 1:1 ratio out of thin air, not basing it on the actual fact that actual election returns show an approximately 1:1 ratio.
You're just pissed off that they don't, like Gallup, oversample Democrats, as you would obviously prefer.
Based on a two election sample, with a three point advantage to either party in each year, implying substantial variance. I repeat: it is a bad idea.
Democrats, as you would obviously prefer."
You have a track record of always assigning your own tendentious motives to others.
Rask: Would they set the parties at a 1:1 ratio if the parties were REALLY at a 2:1 ratio?
Ace: No. They base the 1:1 ratio on the fact/historical voting record that the parties ARE at a 1:1 ratio, with small fluctuations from year to year.
Rask: But that means they'd set the ratio at 1:1 even if it really was at 2:1, right?
Ace: No, if the ratio was REALLY at 2:1, they'd adjust for Democratic oversample, but their adjusted ratio would be at something like 1.9:1, not 1:1.
Rask: But don't you think these people are FUCKING RETARDS who would set the ratio at 1:1 even if it were really 2:1?
Ace: I've answered that question twice now. Here's the answer again, in case you missed it: No.
Rask: Well, gee, I really think they would set the ratio at 1:1 even if the evidence showed the ratio is 2:1. That's what I think. That's what I interpret the Washington Post as saying.
Ace: The WP does not say that, and you are being absurd.
Rask: You know what's absurd? Setting the ratio at 1:1 if the ratio were really at 2:1. Now THAT'S absurd. Wouldn't you agree?
Ace: Oh, god...
I *love* the Gallup poll.
Don't you?
By the way:
Since the latest poll includes part of the cohort that produced the 11 point Gore lead...
One would have to imagine that the post debate numbers swung WILDLY for Bush -- perhaps (if my quick estimate is not too far off) a +20 point advantage for Bush over the last couple of days?
Ace: If you weren't a partisan hack, you would know that isn't true.
Rask: here is the proof Ace.
Ace: well, it is a good idea to do it that.
Rask: No, since the proportion varies with the independent variable.
Ace: History says they are right.
Rask: No, the history they cite has shown substantial variance over the two samples they use. What idiot draws conclusions based on a sample size of two? Oh, sorry Ace.
Ace: Well Gallup is biased against Republicans
Rask: Not really, here is the evidence.
Ace: Gallup always overstates Democratic support by 4-5 points.
Rask: No. Here is the proof.
Ace: Well Gallup takes the voters word for it that they will vote.
Rask: No. Have you ever bothered to look at Gallup's site?
Ace: Well, weighting Dems and Reps equally is a good idea.
Rask: No, we have already been over that.
Ace: well, they don't really weight Dems and Reps equally.
Rask: the Post says they do.
Ace: You must be an idiot to think they wouldn't change those weights if the proportion changed.
Rask: I never said they wouldn't. I just used an extreme example to point out the flaw in the math.
Ace: Since I have lost every point of fact in this argument, I must now resort to hyperbolic mockery based on things you haven't said.
Rask: Of course, you wouldn't be Ace otherwise.
WILDLY for Bush -- perhaps (if my quick estimate is not too far off) a +20 point advantage for Bush over the last couple of days?"
That was my very tentative conclusion, in the opposite direction, based on the upswing in Gore support in yesterday's poll. You may be right, but what this tells me is that voter preferences are still quite volatile.
I conceded two of your points-- that yes, Battleground weights both equally, as you said (though that was not the "flaw" which caused the article in the first place; the "flaw" was as I described) and that I was wrong that Gallup "always" overstated Democratic strength.
I notice, however, you are sticking to your guns that Battleground would set the parties at parity, *even if* history & evidence showed them at a 2:1 ratio.
Because, you know, the people at Battleground are fucking retards, and they will just set the parties at parity no matter what the actual numbers.
PS: How you like Gallup now, bitch?
Personally, I'm convinced: You're right. Gallup *is* the best polling company, and I just can't *wait* to see what the numbers show once the +11 Gore cohort drops out of the rolling sample.
Can you?
"You may be right, but what this tells me is that voter preferences are still quite volatile."
Hee, hee, hee.
Gore swings to +11-- the voters favor Gore.
Bush has a one-day +~20 swing -- this shows the voters are "volatile."
note: "Bitch" meant in jest.
A twenty point swing is stable?
Rask is now beginning to think, "Hey, you know -- Zogby really *is* the more accurate polling company over the past eight years. And Zogby shows Gore up by 5. Zogby's great! Yayyy for Zogby's methodology!"
No.
But my oh my -- it is reason for great concern, considering the only major event of this week was THE DEBATE.
THE DEBATE, which was supposed to seal Bush's doom.
And yet -- +20 for Bush.
If only Bush could face such catastrophes and intellectual dissections on a daily basis...
would set the parties at parity, *even if* history & evidence showed
them at a 2:1 ratio."
No, I never said this. Again, this was an extreme example to point out a flaw in the method. if it makes no sense at 2:1 ration, why does it make sense at any other ratio? If you want to weight, do it by the level of perceived bias, not by fixing a ratio is which is known to vary.
"PS: How you like Gallup now, bitch? "
Does this mean you will finally agree to take me up on my offer of a bet? You still haven't responded to my offer. What is that I smell?
Pussy!
"Gore swings to +11-- the voters favor Gore."
At that time, yes. I never said they weren't volatile. Gore's numbers rose as fast as they fell. My hunch is that there was one day that disproportionately sampled Gore supporters, and that day has now fallen out of the tracking results.
"Bush has a one-day +~20 swing -- this shows the voters are "volatile."
Gore's quick upswing showed this too.
Of course not. I stand by my previous opinion about Gallup's accuracy.
"If you want to weight, do it by the level of perceived bias, not by fixing a ratio is which is known to vary."
What a fucking dullard.
They're not "setting the ratio" at 1:1 because they just think the ratio *SHOULD BE* 1:1.
They have set the ratio at 1:1 because THE EVIDENCE shows it is 1:1.
If the evidence showed the ratio were really 2:1, then they'd set the ratio at 2:1, not 1:1, as you whine over and over again.
This is your problem:
You keep thinking they're just artificially setting it at 1:1, and would do so despite the evidence. Not so. They are setting the ratio at the level that history suggests it is. It just so happens that that ratio IS, in fact, 1:1.
If the historical ratio were 1.5:1, they'd set it to 1.5:1. If the historical ratio were 1.1417...: 1, they'd set the ratio at the square root of two to one.
And yes, if the historical ratio were 2:1, they'd set the ratio at 1:1.
This is so obscenely stupid I cannot believe I have to explain it to someone who claims to be a living, breathing human being.
What bet? I have no idea what you're talking about. If you mentioned a bet amidst all your "But they're setting the ratio at 1:1 out of shits and giggles" bullshit, then I missed it.
Hee, hee.
Actually, they don't set the ratio at 1:1. What they do is analyze historical voting patterns, and find that, despite Democratic oversampling on the phones, 35% of all *ACTUAL* voters are Repblicans, 35% of all ACTUAL VOTERS are Dems, and 30% are independents.
Thus, the ratio is actually 35:35:30. They didn't pick these ratios out of thin air. They examined actual exit poll data.
so despite the evidence. Not so. They are setting the ratio at the level
that history suggests it is. It just so happens that that ratio IS, in fact,
1:1. "
You completely miss my point that history does *not* say it is. They are using *two* fucking data points with significant variance in a variable strongly correlated with the dependent variable, and using it to create a fixed ratio. I am saying this is boneheaded. If they really want to control for perceived Dem bias, they need to find a way to accurately gauge what that bias is, and then control for that. Their two historical data points is a shitty proxy.
thin air. They examined actual exit poll data."
Their mistake is assuming that this is a constant, instead of something which varies from day to day.
Regarding the bet, I offered to bet you on which poll will be closest to the true result on election day: Gallup or your choice of Battleground or POA.
And POA periodically updates the states as well.
Rask:
Yes, I know you'd rather they just used respondant's own testimony ("Yes, I will certainly vote"; "Yes, of course I voted in each of the last three elections": "Yes, I know where my polling place is"; etc.)
Trouble is, actual history is a better guage than people's self-descriptions.
People know they're *supposed* to say they'll vote. But most won't.
People know they *should have* voted in the past. But the trouble is, most didn't, even if they don't like admitting it.
Battleground has determined that they believe past voter turn-out models are better indicators of voter turn-out than respondant assertions.
You don't like that. Fine.
Might Battleground's history-used-as-a-future-forecast be wrong?
Of course.
Might Gallup's let's-trust-voters-to-tell-us-if-they're-going-to-vote--despite-the-well-known-fact-that-people-lie-model be wrong?
Yes, that could be wrong, too, and it was *REALLY* wrong in 1992.
Which model will be more accurate this time?
I suspect Battleground. Call me a psychohistorian.
You disagree.
Whatever.
There's really nothing more to say about it.
self-descriptions. "
Gallup has a tried and true methodology of using statements to estimate likelihood to vote. But my other point is that Battleground's use of "actual history" is based on two data points, and shows considerable variance. I have nothing against the principle of weighting against any pro-dem bias (if it exists), but that is a shitty way to do it.
Look. The reason for weighting is to control for selection bias. If you *know* that 33% of the voting population is black, and you only get 12% in your sample, it makes sense to weight them. But if you don't know the true population proportion, and particularly if that parameter is highly variable and strongly correlated with the dependent variable (in this case, who you will vote for), you are taking a huge risk in adding it as a weight. You risk adding bias that wouldn't otherwise be there. Such risk can be warranted if you can make a good guess as to the value of the true population proportion. My point is that if you select that weight not on any current estimate of the true population, but on turnouts from two elections 4 and 8 years ago which showed a 6 point swing, you are just asking for trouble. Odds are very strong that your weight is wrong.
I suspect Battleground. Call me a psychohistorian. "
Okay, shall we discuss the terms of the wager?
"Odds are very strong that your weight is wrong."
No doubt, but that's not the relevant question.
The relevant question is: What's the best way to approximate actual election results, even knowing that all possibilities are fraught with the possibility of error?
Newsflash: The parties will NOT vote in perfect parity in November, and Battleground knows that. However, they have decided that the most likely situation is that they will vote in parity -- and while that is the most likely situation, it is not very likely at all.
It is, however, better than other methods of confronting the problem.
PS, Rask: In case you hadn't heard, Battleground polls are conducted by long-time professional pollsters --Republican Ed Goeas and Democrat Celinda Lake. If you think you have a better grasp of probability & statistics than they do, go write them a letter.
Or rather the NYT's crimes.
CNN/Time poll Bush 47 Gore 45
Something must be said here.
Doubters like Jack believe that "The Rule" is that an incumbent party wins in a time of prosperity, peace, and tranquility. As a general rule, you understand. There are exceptions.
But this "Rule" does not suddenly creep up on November 7, ex nihilo. When "The Rule" is in operation, the incumbent party *should* be winning in the weeks prior to the election.
It's not as if the incumbent party can be behind in all the polls and then, suddenly, simply by dint of its incumbent status, win on Nov. 7. If "The Rule" is in effect, there ought to be some prior notification of such.
George Bush Senior, incumbent in time of peace, prosperity, and tranquility, won in 1988. But then, the polls four weeks from the election showed him running away with the election. In other words, the Rule didn't just work in November; it was on full display in October.
Now, it's creeping towards mid-October; four scant weeks from the election. And yet The Rule is nowhere to be seen.
Finally, keep in mind there's another "Rule." And that Rule goes something like this:
Undecideds will break 4-1 in favor of the Incumbent Party. That's because those who still haven't decided to vote for the Incumbent Party -- the Party they know-- in the weeks before the election have, pretty much, decided to vote against the Incumbent Party.
An Incumbent who has less than 49% of the vote as Election Day grows near is going to lose.
As Election Day grows ever-nearer, and "The Rule in Favor of Incumbents" still does not evidence itself, "The Rule Against Incumbents" becomes increasingly important.
Toys.
"Undecideds will break 4-1 in favor of the Incumbent Party."
I meant, of course:
"Undecideds will break 4-1 in favor of the Challenger."
janjon - Message # 44656
Does anyone have an analysis of what is going on currently in the swing states - Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Missouri?
The latest Rasmussen results from Michigan show Governor Bush leading Al Gore 42% to 37% in a survey conducted October 5th.
"... the GDP numbers put lie to your claim that the revenue enhancing effects kicked in later. If Reaganomics had held true, revenues would have gone up while revenues as % of GDP went down. Instead, what we see is that revenues and revenues as a % of GDP go down at the same time, and then revenues slowly rise roughly in line with GDP."
You've got it exactly wrong; what happened was perfectly consistent with the theory. Once again: cutting the tax rate doesn't affect the economy instantly. So of course, for the first year or two, one would expect the GDP to stay more or less constant; so that both the actual revenue and revenue as % of GDP would act roughly proportionately to the tax rate (i.e., go down). Then, once the GDP started growing, one would expect the revenue to also grow, proportionately to it (as long as the tax rate is kept constant). This is 6th-grade stuff, you know.
"No, [revenue] fell in 1984 as well."
Huh? According to your table: 603.4 in '83, 641.0 in '84.
For starters, you are the one who claims to have proved something; I'm merely exposing your methodology (and, not coincidentally, your understanding of the subject matter) as hopelessly inadequate.
But in any case: you're apparently assuming that the economy would have grown just as much, or almost as much, without the tax cuts as it did with them -- and that is pretty much equivalent to what you're trying to prove in the first place.
"And what I think the above demonstrates quite clearly is that we were to the left of the inflection point on the Laffer curve."
No, it does not.
(And it's not an inflection point, BTW; it's an extremum. Come on, man -- if you're gonna throw big words around, at least make sure you know what they mean.)
Pandering is really buying legitimacy. The conservatives, by and large, don't see that there is any need for our political-economic system to buy legitimacy. They believe that the unequal distribution of wealth and power is the way that things should be and that those without should shut up and work harder rather than use political means to make demands for redistribution. Liberals tend to be less sanguine about the legitimacy of our system; they see that the inequalities can move the disposessed, the discriminated, the hopeless to take actions that rock if not sink the boat in which the Republicrats have such comfortable berths.
So the Dem's "pander" to these groups, give them crumbs of redistribution to buy some legitimacy for the system. The conservatives then wail and gnash their teeth over this cynical pandering. But if they thought about the alternatives they might be more likely to see it as cheaply bought social stability.....in fact this could explain why Bush/Cheney are starting to sound so much like the old Rockefeller Republicans rather than the Reagan Republicans.
You've mulched my rule into unrecognizability. I think Gore will win not only because economic indicators are exceedingly good (unemployment is now down to 3.9%), and he is able to accurately utilize the Reagan "are you better off now?" question, but because there is also a surplus, which philosophically aids Democrats (people believe the Democrats will spend every last chunk of it on the ultimate prescription drugs while those same folks figure Republicans are just bullshitting them). Additionally, there is no foreign crisis and there is no wedge issue for the Republicans to glom onto. At present, the Republicans can only obliquely refer to the excesses of the Clinton-Gore administration, for fear of disturbing the frail equilibrium of every Nancy and Barbara with a mini-van, a 30 minute kegel routine, and a zoning problem. So, when the swing voters break, I don't see them breaking to the GOP.
Unless, however, there is something at play here that would bust my analysis: that Gore is so offensive, on a subconscious level, that people just won't vote for him (he should be up by 10, easy), and that thereafter, a Shakespearian revenge is visited upon the Clintons for their 8 years of degradation and falsity, whereby Gore gets beat by a guy who probably decided to run for president on a $20 bet, and Mrs. Clinton loses due to the silent tidal wave of New Yorkers who realize that if Daniel Patrick Moynihan were not retiring in 2000, at this very moment, she would be saying, "I have always loved the Nets. Ever since I was a little girl" (of course, were Lazio to use this line, he would be branded as too mean by the disapproving Barbaras and Nancys of Long Island).
I often pray for the latter scenario, but I just don't see it.
That is by far the best line I've heard in awhile, ha ha.
It gave me a real Long Island thrill when, during the debate, his L.I. accent surfaced in full force with, "Ah-puh-toon-idee." Just a nice guy from West Islip makin' good for the cuh-moon-id-ee.
Read more carefully.
I called her an opportunist, not a liar.
You remind me of the Gore staff, who upon hearing Gore say that his uncle had been gassed in WWI, were among the first to call the National Archives.
Not that they doubted him.
Find the buzz word in the last sentence.
Well, actually, you didn't call her either. You gave an example of her behavior that could be interpreted any number of ways. Given that she was a Yankee fan, the presumption is that she wouldn't just switch loyalties to win votes. Unless she was a liar. So it was a reasonable interpretation of your remark.
And Nancy and Barbara's husbands equate minivans with castration; such feeble couples need all the compensation they can purchase. I suppose you couldn't give them the obvious SUV because you'd have to realize even a touch of kinship with them? Or their husbands, of course.
Thanks.
I suppose some people think this is more inappropriate use of power, but I find it quite sweet.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Al Gore's lead over Republican George W. Bush narrowed to four percentage points in the Reuters/MSNBC daily tracking poll released on Saturday.
The survey of 1,206 likely voters was conducted by pollster John Zogby between Wednesday and Friday. Vice President Gore held 45 percent to Texas Gov. Bush's 41 percent. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader polled 5 percent; Reform Party hopeful Pat Buchanan had 1 percent and the rest were still undecided, 31 days before the Nov. 7 election.
We have Polls for all tastes...
The latest presidential poll results are now on www.gallup.com
Results for Oct 4-6, 2000 **
Bush: 48%
Gore: 41%
Buchanan: 1%
Nader: 4%
Don't Know: 6%
** among Likely Voters
Does this guy have his finger on the pulse of the nation or what?
No. Jack did't say he was quoting Hillary. He was hypothesizing what she might say in a different circumstance. For all we know, she was a Nets fan. And if there is no stretch that could justify that statement, she'd find another opportunistic example:
Ah, the Garden State. I've always been a fan of garden. Ever since I was a little girl.
The polls have Mr. Gore and Gov. George W. Bush of Texas in a statistical dead heat here, just as they have been in national race. And with Mr. Bush's brother Jeb as the governor and leader of a strong political machine here, no one is counting the Republicans out. But the Gore campaign is making increasing investments here with the candidate's time and the campaign's money, two of the strongest indications that Mr. Gore perceives an opening in Florida that could catapult him to the White House.
The conventional wisdom is that Mr. Gore can win the election without Florida but that Mr. Bush cannot. Of the populous states, Mr. Gore appears to have California and New York in his pocket, and probably Pennsylvania and Illinois. Mr. Bush can count on Texas, but beyond that, Ohio is the next-biggest state where he is slightly ahead, and that lead appears tenuous. Without Florida, Mr. Bush has a hard time gathering enough electoral votes to put him over the top. With Florida, Mr. Gore could win in an electoral landslide.
NYT
Gore received 51 percent of the votes; Bush had 40 percent. This is Gore's biggest lead since the poll began on Sept. 6. His previous high was a 10-point lead on Sept. 20, USA Today said.
The vice president made gains in female, rural, Southern, lower income and non-college educated voters in the last week.
The poll was based on interviews carried out on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Two-thirds of the participants were surveyed before Tuesday's televised presidential debate, the paper said. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Generally speaking, politicians quote facts in support of some proposed policy, in opposition to an opponents proposal or for opportunistic reasons. Maybe there are other categories, but none come to mind.
