State of the Union: Cynical Republicans and Stepford Democrats
Stranded at a San Francisco journalism conference, I watched the State of the Union address tonight in the hotel room of my Nation magazine colleague David Corn who is also participating in the confab.
I will get to David's take on the speech in a moment. But first let me say I was nauseated and appalled by the cheap trick of Republican congress members flashing their purple-ink stained fingers to the camera. I'm someone who praised the Iraqi elections (scroll down one posting) but this was really crave, stomach-turning exploitation. These congress-twerps who spend their days and night suckling on the special interests tit braved no more than the risk of camera-light sunburn for their efforts. To try and cash in on the heroics of ordinary Iraqis merits endless scorn. Shame on any Republican partisan who even attempts to justify that sickening gesture. Have the honesty to denounce it as the arrogant, self-serving hoax that it was.
Now"¦ to the President's speech. A bravo performance for what was an extraordinarily partisan State of the Union address, tightly-packed with goodies for the major corporate contributors of the GOP: the Wall Street, insurance and hospital lobbies.
Other than that, I will defer to David Corn on this one. He spent a lot more attention than I did listening to the speech and then wrote a lengthy and comprehensive analysis. Make sure you read the whole piece. Here's some key excerpts, starting with an appreciation of the President's political skills (if not his program):
[ Bush ] produced grand and effective political theater. In the middle of the address, he transformed the war in Iraq--which even after the historic election there arguably remains his largest liability--into a single, powerfully poignant moment. Exploiting the tradition of inviting symbolically significant guests to sit with the First Lady, Bush introduced the mother of a US Marine killed in Fallujah and an Iraqi human rights advocate whose father had been assassinated by Saddam Hussein and who had voted in Sunday's election. With the House chamber awash with emotion, the two women hugged. Bush was near tears. Members of Congress--perhaps including those legislators who had dyed their index fingers purple for the event--were crying. In a nutshell, here was Bush's story of sacrifice, liberty and freedom. Sentiment--sincere sentiment--was in full synch with spin. The not-too-hidden partisan message: Match that, you naysayers. This was a triumph of political communication. And it was a reminder that despite the apparent difficulties Bush faces in his top-priority effort to partially privatize Social Security, he should hardly be counted out. This man does what it takes.
Along with David and our friends, Garance Franke-Ruta and Harold Meyerson from the American Prospect magazine, I lingered on to watch the limp Democratic response. The Dems are really in danger of losing all vital signs. My view of the Democratic response was even darker than David's"”which was already pretty damn grim:
It was middling at best, perhaps awful. Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader, tried mightily hard to adopt the language of values. He took the folksy route, reminding viewers he had grown up in a small town in Nevada among hard-rock miners. He referred to a ten-year-old boy who recently told Reid that when he grows up he wants to be a senator. This, Reid noted, was evidence that no one has to tell the children of America to dream big dreams. Reid covered all the bases, critiquing Bush's economic policies and pointing out the flaws and dangers of partially privatizing Social Security. But he was not much of a match for a president riding the wave of self-proclaimed victory in Iraq.
Still, Reid fared better than House minority leader Nancy Pelosi. She proved that she can read a TelePrompTer without blinking or changing her facial expression. Reid went for the down-home approach. Pelosi was a Stepford Democrat. She expressed no emotion. She did not modulate her speech. She looked like she was reading words written by someone else, not sharing convictions that burn in her soul. Handling the national security portion of the Democratic response, she served up all the usual--and correct--criticisms of Bush. But she scored no points. In this arena, delivery counts as much as--no, make that more than--substance.
I think this State of the Union will be soon forgotten — as such speeches usually are. The only good news I found in the speech was Bush saying all workers under age 55 are "younger workers." That was music to the ears of this worker born 54 years and two months ago.
Meanwhile, here's the expanded L.A. Weekly column version of my take on the Iraqi elections. Take a moment to read it..
NOTE: Comments on this thread will be limited to a total of three per poster. Violators will be blocked from the blog without further warning. (Make my day!).
February 3rd, 2005 at 12:02 am
“He took the folksy route, reminding viewers he had grown up in a small town in Nevada among hard-rock miners.”
Hard rock miners? Did he really say that? Sexy. I’m sure it played well in the Castro District…
“She proved that she can read a TelePrompTer without blinking or changing her facial expression.”
You know what I love about Nancy Pelosi? She reminds you of that line in that Tom Waits song “Frank’s Wild Years” about Frank’s wife the spent piece of used jet trash. Now I like Pelosi, but she has that kind of permanent glaze of a woman who downs a half-dozen gin and tonics before noon (Jane Harman is even more tragic in this regard by the way), and quite possibly consumed enough coke in the 70s to kill all the livestock in a twelve square mile radius.
February 3rd, 2005 at 12:15 am
PS Did Reid mention his uncle the cowboy, his brother-in-law the construction worker, and his neighbor the cop too or is he saving those for the speech he gives after the Democrats fail to stop the destruction of social security?
February 3rd, 2005 at 3:08 am
George W. Bush is nothing if not bold.
Maybe it’s because I’m from MA but why can’t the Democrats find themselves another Tip O’Neill? First Tom Daschle and now Harry Reid?!? Wormtongues, both of them.
February 3rd, 2005 at 5:38 am
Bush is bold indeed, very unlike his old man. That, combined with his lousy speaking skills is part of what’s excited so much raw spleen whenever he appears.
The Dems are missing more than O’neill, though that would be a help. They’re missing the radical vision, which seems to have been co-opted by the Repubs. How times change in a generation!
February 3rd, 2005 at 5:48 am
The Republicans know that form trumps substance in our political discourse everytime. The Democrats have not yet come around to this conclusion, holding out for a remergence of rationality. What they don’t realize is that touting failure as victory and claiming perpetual victimization at the hands of the hedonistic, intellectual, and elitist opposition is the surest way to electoral success.
February 3rd, 2005 at 6:53 am
Harry Reid is imitating Tip O’Neil actually, who perfected the art of giving the Republicans big portions of the Democratic gains made in the post-War era.
However, instead of cynically attacking the Dems with no alternatives aside from attacking, here’s something positive to look at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0127-24.htm
February 3rd, 2005 at 7:35 am
Sorry Steve but is that what you define as success? The Rainbow Coalition? Mel King? The leader of the Mattapan secession movement?
Tip O’Neill was a loud, brash, expert political operative who knew how to get what he wanted and who stood on priciple - even if it was unpopular. And I think he’s the guy who first coined the phrase “all politics is local”. Over the past twenty years the Republicans have taken that admonition seriously.
Harry Reid speaks in hushed tones about some fantasy kid who hopes some day to be a Senator. His plan amounts to nothing more than being a wrench in the plans of the leading party.
Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? Charlie Rangel? Julian Bond? They are the future for the Democrats? Call again when you’re serious.
February 3rd, 2005 at 7:36 am
Sorry Steve but is that what you define as success? The Rainbow Coalition? Mel King? The leader of the Mattapan secession movement?
Tip O’Neill was a loud, brash, expert political operative who knew how to get what he wanted and who stood on priciple - even if it was unpopular. And I think he’s the guy who first coined the phrase “all politics is local”. Over the past twenty years the Republicans have taken that admonition seriously.
Harry Reid speaks in hushed tones about some fantasy kid who hopes some day to be a Senator. His plan amounts to nothing more than being a wrench in the plans of the leading party.
Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? Charlie Rangel? Julian Bond? They are the future for the Democrats? Call again when you’re serious.
February 3rd, 2005 at 7:38 am
“To try and cash in on the heroics of ordinary Iraqis merits endless scorn.”
Unlikely that Iraqis would see it as having their bravery exploited by such a gesture. More likely they saw this for what it was: a gesture of respect.
And it was open to any Democrat congress member to make the same gesture…
February 3rd, 2005 at 7:51 am
Steve, as Glover and Fletcher point out, it wasn’t the personality as much as the approach that Jackson took that worked and can work, at least much better than letting the Repubs chew away at the gains of the Dems as O’Neil did, which has us where we are today:
“Jackson tapped into a growing anger and
frustration arising on the US political scene among both historically and
newly disenfranchised populations. He spoke to issues of economic injustice
without abandoning the question of race, thus avoiding the classic error of
white populists who attempt to build unity by addressing economic issues
only. Jackson linked these issues. His appearances before white farmers and
workers brought forth a response that previously had been unimaginable.”
If you read the article to mean that one or another leader is the solution for the Dems, you misunderstood it.
February 3rd, 2005 at 7:51 am
“Where do I begin?
To tell the story of…”
Nah, I won’t go there! Marc writes, “Shame on any Republican partisan who even attempts to justify that sickening gesture. Have the honesty to denounce it as the arrogant, self-serving hoax that it was.”
Can’t let that stand, because it’s not a statement designed to foster debate or look at differing opinions. It’s a statement designed to make one look bad if one disagrees with Marc.
First, if one disagrees with Marc, that person behaves in a “Shameful” way; if it is not seen as a “self-serving hoax” then one is automatically dishonest.
In one of my rehabilitation counseling classes that I teach a number of students were wearing pink ribbons to express support of the anti-breast cancer meme. I asked how many had breast cancer, knew someone with breast cancer or had a family member with breast cancer. None did, so, were they being shameful for supporting an idea when they had not suffered because of breast cancer. Do the folk who sport yellow ribbons get labled self serving because they support “the troops?” Of course, I suspect that Marc and anyone else would answer “No, of course not.”
This is a measure of symbolism. And, in David Corn’s article (which was quite good by the way, and though I disagree with many of his inferences, I absolutely agree that Bush I’s not backing up the Shia in 91 was absolutely a shameful act.) he made the statement “But she scored no points. In this arena, delivery counts as much as–no, make that more than–substance.” Which is of course what Republicans and even some Democrats have complained about: that it is more important to have “style” than “substance.” That belief, I would argue, is more shameful.
Which of course, brings us back to Marc’s original charge. That showing visual support is a shameful, hoaxfilled dishonest act! But why, is showing visual support for those who braved death and dismemberment to vote shameful and self serving? There is absolutely no difference in showing support for one meme/idea/cause vs showing support for a different meme/idea/cause.
Perhaps the answer lies in whose ox is being gored. Showing the purple/blue finger in the SOTU shows support for the election process in Iraq, something Marc has already done here: http://marccooper.typepad.com/marccooper/2005/01/fear_and_pollin.html.
By posting this article (which I substantially agree with) show support for the Iraqi people voting, or is it a shamefull act when he had absolutely nothing to risk by noting the Iraqi courage and determination? I suspect that it was true support for the Iraqi people. So too was the “symbolism” of holding up a purple/blue finger.
There, that’s my first post, though I doubt if I have changed any minds. As Mr. Corn noted discussing Pelosi: “it was hard to imagine her swaying anyone who wasn’t already a Bush-basher.” It is hard to imagine me swaying anyone who is already a Bush-basher.
February 3rd, 2005 at 7:51 am
Marc, you’re really wrong on this one; as an NRO guy said of Kerry who “keeps pissing in the Punch Bowl of Freedom” (or somesuch)
Pro-Iraq Democracy WON — and anti-Iraqi death squads LOST. You really SHOULD be very happy about it. And unless you, and other Dems, can be HAPPY when goodness triumphs, you, like The Dems are really in danger of losing all vital signs.
The biggest dishonesty of the Dems and excessive Bush-hate is the inability to conceive of any good results from Bush’s actions.
Afghanistan - good. Ukraine - good. Iraq - good. Really.
Bush can STILL be a lying, smirking, corporate toady, who used his slightly-higher than Kerry’s IQ to go to Flight school instead of “safe” boats (*I* don’t think so, but there is some evidence for these views) — yet he DID get Iraq an excellent democratic election.
At a cost of less than 2500 American lives. (Did it cost too much? Can’t really ask that question in America, unless there is agreement it was good.)
It was good, good, good. And why a LOT of voters supported Bush. If you, Marc, can’t separate good results from the leader who gets them, you’re only going to follow/ lead the Dems into their next 2006 loss…
Your skewering of the Dems, which I loved of course, is another reason for me to be here. But you can’t honestly beat Bush about his support for the Saudis, or Mubarak in Egypt, while not accepting Iraqi elections as good. And if they ARE good, it’s fine for Reps to stain their fingers. It’s even good.
Of course, YOUR overly partisan criticism above will be forgotten far sooner than Bush’s speech; and I’m sure you’ll (not fully honestly) be complaining he’s not pushing other death squad dictators around enough.
(I hope you don’t consider me too blunt to visit your living room.)
February 3rd, 2005 at 8:15 am
While my attorneys go over the new posting rules to determine if an accidental double post counts as one entry or two, let me try to take a more constructive approach to beating up on the Democrats.
In fact, let’s start with a construction metaphor. If you own a home that needs repairs you have two choices (not counting doing nothing): repair it in place or tear it down. Sometimes the decision comes down to simple short term math in that repairing the home often is cheaper, at least in the short term, than a tear down and replace. But I think we could agree that there is a point whereby if money were no object you would tear it down and start fresh. I think the Democrats have reached that point.
In my line of work I am constantly competing with other potential suppliers for a specific customer’s business. I have learned over the years that a very effective method of improving my success rate is to understand two fundamental things: when I lose, what did my competition do correctly and what did I do incorrectly; and when I win, what did I do correctly and what did my competition do incorrectly. They aren’t always the same thing, so understanding the impact of those dynamics makes me a better competitor.
Aside from some notable exceptions (Bill Clinton as President), the Democrats have been perennial election day losers since 1980. That’s twenty-five years. They have been consistently out hustled and out maneuvered where it counts most: at the local level. On any given day the Democrats can put more people in the street to shout about this or that issue, but come election day the Republicans get it done where it counts most, at the ballot box.
So, should the Democrats tweak the system that they have been using for the last 25 years or is a tear down and replace needed? I would argue that a tear down and replace is needed. They should lose their current cadre of out-front spokesmen (Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Byrd, Rangel, Schumer) and allow younger more thoughtful people to take the stage – as was done with Jesse Jackson in the early 1980’s. They also need to re-establish preeminence in grassroots organization building and campaigning. Howard Dean strikes me as a very good choice in that regard.
To do this earnestly, thoughtfully, and well, they likely would be conceding to lose the 2008 election, but I believe that is a small price to pay for the long term goal of becoming relevant and powerful and an opposition to the Republicans that can be taken seriously. That goal is in their best interest and would be a positive development for our country.
Ok, that’s three and so I’ll be lurking from here on in.
February 3rd, 2005 at 8:35 am
ISSUE 1 - No Class Democrats:
What low class and bad manners for the Democrats to boo during the speech. That side of the aisle brought a new low to the normal courtesy and decorum of the occasion. You would have thought that Bush was addressing the opposition party in the House of Commons.
The Democrats cannot stand to be out of power, so they hate and blame Bush for that and look for any occasion to express that hate. And, don’t tell me the Republicans booed Clinton. They didn’t unless you believe everything you read on the DemocraticUndergound.
ISSUE 2 - Social Security:
The Democrats booed when Bush brought up Social Security reform. The Democrats know full well that FDR started that program as an unfunded program, which he said would change within ten years. Well, it didn’t, and it doesn’t take an actuary to figure that it will break the financial backs of our kids if they have to pay for all the baby boomers.
The Democrats just want to continue scaring the pants off of senior citizens with lies that Bush wants to take their retirement. We surely cannot expect that party to cooperate on this issue (like they do on anything.) Of course, Harry Reid said that the Democrats would not be obstructionists except on issues where the administration is wrong–which they think is all of the time.
In Gallup polls before and after the talk, Americans were asked if Bush made a convincing case on Social Security. Before the speech, 67% thought so. After the speech, 74% did. But, in true form of leftist thought, the Democrats probably think that government knows what is best and that those 74% are just stupid and can be ignored.
Based upon their stances now, two years from now when Howard Dean is shouting all the states that the Democrats are going to take back, his list will be very short.
ISSUE 3 - BLUE FINGERS:
I agree with GMRoper’s post above on this. It came to my mind, too, that this is like various ribbons that people wear. The Democrats would have done the same thing, probably worse, if they had achieved a victory of this sort. At least the Republicans had the class not to dye the middle finger and display that digit to the Democrats.
ISSUE 4 - SUBSTANCE
The style was nice–and unrehearsed, like when the Iraqi woman hugged the mother of the fallen soldier. Bush trying to hold his emotions was real. But, to deal with the substance, Bush outlined things that have to be done–and, all of that may not be popular and may require temporary sacrifices. The line that I liked was when Bush said, “The principle here is clear: taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely, or not at all.” That line is the bottom line, and that’s not too much to ask of both Republicans and Democrats.
–
End of Post #1
February 3rd, 2005 at 9:00 am
I guess I’m just cynical, but I don’t think the purple finger had anything to do with a show of support for the Iraqi voters, but rather was meant as a sort of V for victory showing for the President. That’s the symbolism I saw. And I don’t say that in a Republican bashing kind of way, because Woody’s absolutely right; the Democrats would have done it also.
February 3rd, 2005 at 9:23 am
If the Republicans wanted to show solidarity with Iraqis, let them don the Abu Ghraib torture hood. this is the symbol more closely associated with the US occupation.
Woody — “Well, it didn’t, and it doesn’t take an actuary to figure that it will break the financial backs of our kids if they have to pay for all the baby boomers.”
In fact the SS trust fund actuaries themselves dispute the numbers that you’re relying on.
Social Security is completely solvent until at least 2042 and after that will pay indefinitely at least 70% of benefits and this with no change whatsoever. Small incremental changes costing as little as 1/4 of the tax cuts given to the wealthiest in the last round of tax cuts will solve any shortfall.
Sorry. Facts aren’t dependent on poll results. Where are yours?
February 3rd, 2005 at 9:37 am
I was particularly offended by the members of Congress that painted their finger, put on brown makeup, dressed like Iraqis and used a fake Arab accent to tell stories of their bravery for voting.
Oh wait, that didn’t happen?
Then maybe they were trying to show solidarity, like wearing an orange tie during the Ukraine elections.
February 3rd, 2005 at 9:41 am
“Pro-Iraq Democracy WON” thanks to Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani not George Bush. It has been apparent, by the total incompetence demonstrated in the rebuilding of Iraq, that democracy was never in the plans, if plans existed at all. The only intention that was expressed was to install a convicted embezzler as the next puppet. The Iraqi people changed that plan.
The purple finger was childish stunt. It was done for cheap political gain and not at all comparable to raising awareness for various diseases.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6861528/#050131
“You do not own their courage.
The people who stood in line Sunday did not stand in line to make Americans feel good about themselves.
You do not own their courage.
They did not stand in line to justify lies about Saddam and al-Qaeda, so you don’t own their courage, Stephen Hayes. They did not stand in line to justify lies about weapons of mass destruction, or to justify the artful dodginess of Ahmad Chalabi, so you don’t own their courage, Judith Miller. …
You do not own their courage. “
February 3rd, 2005 at 9:45 am
Lots of hyprocrisy here. Time for a gut check. If the shoe was on the other foot, if it had been a Democratic admin and Democrat congressmembers exploiting the courage of the Iraqis for partisan political purposes you folkd would have gobe apopleptic. Solidarity? Perhaps Rep. Jindall and company would like to conduct a Capitol Hill recruiting campaign to enlist the sons of his collaegues into the U.S. Marines. Sitting on ur fat ass in Congress, collecting contributions from every blow-dired lobbyist in town, hardly confers on one the moral authority to equate him or herself with people who risked their lives to vote. When’s the last time any of these gasbags risked anything? Shameful.
February 3rd, 2005 at 9:57 am
If the shoe was on the other foot, if it had been a Democratic admin and Democrat congressmembers exploiting the courage of the Iraqis for partisan political purposes you folkd would have gobe apopleptic.
Actually, I would have felt the same way. Expressing solidarity is not shameful, any more than wearing an orange tie is or wearing a ribbon. True, Jindal and others haven’t gone, but I joined the Army, I was at risk for being sent to Vietnam and I would have gone (and probably had my ass blown off)
Sorry my dear friend. You are just plain ole wrong on this singular issue. On the other hand, I applaud much of your posting.
That’s two. (hehe, reminds me of the joke about the Mo. Farmer getting his donkey’s attention)
February 3rd, 2005 at 10:09 am
GM.. u ever hear the phrase of “warrping oneself in the flag?” That’s what we saw last nite.. dipping oneself in the ink of another… there’s the great story of how on the morning of MLK’s assasination, jesse Jackson made sure he got some of King’s blood on his sweater before he went live on the Today show. That was shameful. At least, however, Jackson was actually there with King and it could have been him that was shot. Watching those windbag congressmen last nite was revolting. Sorry. What mahe it worse was the evening was dedicated to a legislative agenda that was nothing less than a corporate wish list for the ricjest stratum of americans. the scare tactics used on social security were disgusting and frankly false. the “tort reform” was a naked attempt to raise profits for insurance companies. the health proposals were ones that benefitted the HMO lobbies and not needy human beings. Linking that economic program to a supposed show of solidarity with the iraqis is just a bit TOO insulting.
February 3rd, 2005 at 10:16 am
There really is no need to “beat up” the Democrats, they’re doing just fine by themselves and it is good to see some of them acknowledging that.
Because the Democrats didn’t make any gesture of supporting the Iraqi elections, they look petty. And I wonder how Iraqis who voted feel about the gesture, and about those who choose to denigrate that gesture???
Maybe a blue finger wasn’t the most appropriate gesture. I found it a bit adolescent. But I respect the sentiment, and do not question the motives behind it. It really does take an enourmous amount of cynicism to attack the gesture.
As far as the guests President Bush had, I have to wonder what the complaints were when Clinton had guests.
Was Clinton being a political opportunist when he had the wives of two slain Capital Hill Police in 1999, or the times when he would point to a guest to show an example to sell some piece of legislation?
The Iraqi elections (which a UN representative said were “fair and transparent”) are a victory of sorts. Just like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a victory for blacks, in fact all people, although it was and is not the end of their (our) struggle.
No, it’s not the victory of defeating Japan or Germany. And no where do I see President Bush implying that. There’s tough work ahead, but we are making progress.
It just amazes me the lengths people go through to spin a public persons words to fit their point of view. President Clintons speeches were for-ever parsed, by one side or the other, until the “correct” meaning was shown. The same thing is done to President Bush on a near daily basis.
It seems everyones become an absolutist as far as interpreting President Bushs speeches.
I wonder if David Corn considered, or would have considered President Kennedy cynically unrealistic.
“We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
I guess it’s ok to say that as long as you wink and cross your fingers, and don’t really mean that we will support any friend and oppose any foe.
“Nevertheless, such words probably will provide encouragement to democracy activists in those countries and in others.”
Corn sounds almost disappointed when he says this, but I wouldn’t to subcribe motives behind his words when I have no evidence of them.
Interesting that Corn says “The United States has added 2.3 million new jobs in the past year, he said, without disclosing that the economy needs to create about 2 million jobs a year to keep up with population growth.” I don’t remember any such caveats or disclosures during previous Presidents addresses.
Of course, there is another alternative, we need to eliminate 2 million illegal workers in the US per year. Aren’t there something like 10-19 million illegals working in the US? Talk about a jobs bonanza, although the job you get may not be the job you want. Shouldn’t be a problem for committed leftists though, should it.
Trying to talk seriously about the problems inherent in the current SS system is “shtick”.
I’m sure Clinton, who delievered much the same analysis of the problem, was more genuine for Corn.
Isn’t it time to get over personal dislike, and start talking seriously about the problems we face. Stop demonizing the people, and present the facts, plain and simple, and how various reforms are expected to change what is wrong.
February 3rd, 2005 at 10:34 am
OF Course Clinton was being cynical when he brought people to showcase into the gallery. Why certainly! It is pure theatrics when any president does that, pure TV showmanship. Where are the honest conservatves who are willing to denounce manipulation on their side of the fence? Or are your blinders that narrow?
February 3rd, 2005 at 10:36 am
Can’t agree about the purple fingers being “shameless.” Of *course* they’re meant to signify, among other things, “We were right and you were wrong.” That’s politics. If you expect Republicans to get all bipartisan right about now, you’re foolish.
Anyone who opposed/es the war, but claims he doesn’t feel uncomfortable at the election having been a success for Bush as well as the Iraqis, is probably not examining himself as scrupulously as he might. I count myself here. Anyway, examples from intellectuals on the Left shouldn’t be hard to find, as witness this too-pitiful-to-be-disgraceful account from Terry Eagleton: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/02/no_not_east_gri.html (thanks to Marc’s acquaintance Norman Geras).
February 3rd, 2005 at 10:41 am
The next time some Bush partisan starts waxing rhapsodic and gets all dewy-eyed about Bush’s “democracy promotion” I have one word for them: Haiti.
Who here is aware of the detorioration of Haiti since Aristide either resigned or was pushed out?
Apparently the Bush administration isn’t.
February 3rd, 2005 at 10:54 am
“Because the Democrats didn’t make any gesture of supporting the Iraqi elections, they look petty.”
Where did you dig this morsel up?
It was Sistani who insisted that there be a general election. He had to go to the streets for this. Memory lapse, Keith, or convenient rewriting of history?
My dislike for this president is not so much personal. I strongly dislike his domestic and foreign agendas. However, I do have personal thoughts about the man: he seems to be an arrogant person, who thinks of himself in messianic terms.
Criticism is not only warranted but vital, especially in this case.
February 3rd, 2005 at 11:03 am
Where are the honest conservatves who are willing to denounce manipulation on their side of the fence?
I suspect you don’t see too many of them denouncing it because it usually either works, or at least doesn’t backfire on them.
February 3rd, 2005 at 11:17 am
Marc, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. I guess it’ll be OK for me to wear a purple ribbon? Because I’m damn sure I’m proud to show solidarity with the Iraqi’s. I have had Iraqi students in my classes in the past, I hope they all voted.
Randi Paul, “The next time some Bush partisan starts waxing rhapsodic and gets all dewy-eyed about Bush’s “democracy promotion” I have one word for them: Haiti.”
You are absolutely correct. We have had shameful response from the Bush Administration on Haiti. No if’s, and’s, or butt’s about it.
February 3rd, 2005 at 11:23 am
“But first let me say I was nauseated and appalled by the cheap trick of Republican congress members flashing their purple-ink stained fingers to the camera. I’m someone who praised the Iraqi elections (scroll down one posting) but this was really crave, stomach-turning exploitation.”
You know, purple ink is cheap, and it might have been nice if BOTH sides of the aisle had decided to adopt stained fingers. Whether you supported going to war or not, no matter what you believe the motives of the Administration to be, it seems to me showing support and appreciation for the voters of Iraq should be a no-brainer.
February 3rd, 2005 at 11:23 am
Hello Marc,
You sure do attract more than your fair share of idiots. I’ve seen that “Liberty Dad” joker around before.
Ribbons are cheap political stunts. Just like the fingers.
As for Reid and Pelosi… Reid is an adminstrative Senator, neither an Orator nor a Solon. Pelosi is a more modern DeLay type, she can raise the big bucks (both have rich disticts, Sugarland and the burbs of San Fran) from the base (pro-choice). She is a better talker than Reid, but she doesn’t often let herself go. Too bad Reid and Pelosi didn’t think to stage a three-day-later event, after a full analysis of Nixon, I mean, Bush’s lies had been done.
Green Dem is a troll, too, right? Coke-snorting charges and village people references?
Tip used his power to make sure the Boston Naval Yards weren’t shut down. Is that what “all politics is local” means to you, everyone with their grubby little paws grabbing a peice of the pie for their locality? It certainly wasn’t in the interest of the United States of America. Tip was near the tail end of a four decade long Democrat majority in the House. I tend to think that corruption sets in any times a party has that much rule. Perhaps what the Democrats need is someone more like Rayburn? I just wish Ted had a couple less decades on him.
February 3rd, 2005 at 11:23 am
I found the whole purple finger thing gross but not especially gross. I saw Republicans parading around in like football fans in blue face paint who happen to own the team (and enjoy box seats). That’s the problem with being the overlord - you can’t really be one of the common people and pretending you are is unseemly.
I’m really much more disturbed the craven political manuevering designed to kill Social Security. We should have a “Do You Read the Republican SS Memo?” quiz:
1. If you favor personal accounts can you be against privatization?
2. Is Social Security in crisis?
3. Are black people’s Social Security benefits being taken off by white women?
1.Yes 2. No 3. Yes
You get the idea.
February 3rd, 2005 at 11:55 am
I wonder what color your fingers get after your wring your hands over such moronic Republican stunts, thus giving them importance. But that’s what the ex-radical and now self-styled “progressive” element (oops, force) has evolved into, ain’t it.
February 3rd, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Sorry Marc - for reasons expressed by GM and others I just didn’t really find the finger painting offensive. On some level I find all instances of this sort of thing (including pink ribbons and Orange ties) somewhat empty and overly dramatic but it doesn’t get my goat.
But I agree, as Billd points out above, that Bush really doesn’t deserve credit for the elections, that belongs much more to Sistani and the Iraqis themselves. In fact, I’d argue that had the Democrats gotten actively involved a year ago in promoting the elections FOR the Iraqi people (maybe even sending Carter over there if only as nothing more than a showpiece.) they could be the ones getting the political payoff of painting their fingers. At least it beats doing nothing.
February 3rd, 2005 at 1:30 pm
How can a group of such intelligent people spend so much time discussing a bunch of morons that painted their fingers blue? Solidarity or stunt - are we ever going to really know? Will we care tomorrow? (Just for the record - I support Bush, I think the war was the right thing to do, I got choked up reading the article about the Iraqi interpretor that changed his mind and wanted to vote at the last minute - and I still cringed when I saw those fingers).
HOWEVER - Americans are handing over thousands of dollars of their hard earned money every month to the government for this ill planned program and no one in my generation is ever going to see it again. And if you die tomorrow your family will never see it again. At the rate we’re going none of us are going to see it until we’re 87 and frankly I’m not going to be much fun by then. How can you believe that the government will do a better job of providing for you and your family in your “golden” years than you would do yourself. Wake up and smell the coffee. This is a major issue that middle American cares about and it is not going to go away if the Democrats just ignore it hard enough. It’s time to stop saying there’s no elephant in the room. It’s here and if we don’t do something it’s going to take a dump. Then we’ll all be sorry.
February 3rd, 2005 at 1:32 pm
GM.. u ever hear the phrase of “warrping oneself in the flag?” That’s what we saw last nite–MC
Well,MJT recommended this site as one where the ‘last honest progressive’could be found.Sorry to see that that was not exactly the ringing endorsement I thought it was.Your ‘cramped’and ’small’approach to the SOTU is very poorly considered,both in a theoretical and a practical sense.How you expect this to appeal to any but the ‘true-believers’is a mystery to me.
February 3rd, 2005 at 1:54 pm
ahabers: If they were morons at a Christian Supremacists meeting, we wouldn’t care. This particular set of tards, however, has bucketloads of power.
February 3rd, 2005 at 2:01 pm
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000788083
Interesting piece on Iraqi election turnout, fuzzy math and the press. Only for those who are interested in discourse that goes beyond the superficial and/or BushCo cosmetics. From the notorious leftwing magazine, Editor and Publisher. And if you can’t handle or resent this kind of reporting, don’t embarrass yourself by admitting it or attacking me for bringing it to your attention.
Also, I understand from skimming news about some speech last night that Laura Bush has been put in charge of reducing gang violence. This is wonderful news, although I think Oprah would have been a stronger choice. I’m sure Martha Stewart will also be wanting to sign on for this mission, once she’s out of the joint.
February 3rd, 2005 at 2:02 pm
sorry for the double post.
Oh, shit…that’s three!
February 3rd, 2005 at 2:20 pm
Marc,
Well, those of us in the desi (Indian-American) community have been ‘watching’ Bobby Jindal for years. There are always lots of stories about him in the Indian press - they are fascinated with watching an immigrant ’son’ navigate the political system. My parents were very excited when he was running for governor and India Abroad had a lot of articles about him. Whether one likes his politics or not, he attracts a lot of interest in ‘our’ community. He tends to get a lot of press without having to resort to ‘cynical ploys.’
So, I don’t know if his ‘blue ink’ thing was cynical, self-serving, heartfelt and inspiring, or just plain clunky and cheesy. I don’t know because to know that I would have to ‘cut’ a window into his soul and I haven’t learned how to do that just yet
Now for tort reform: as a physician I have to tell you I believe it is extremely important for directed and intelligent tort reform to take place (and no, the ‘MD’ is not for my degree but the initials to my name!). If you are a neurosurgeon or an obstetrician the costs for medical malpractice insurance are so prohibitively high, that many physicians are opting out of high-risk procedures and rural areas are suffering. Excessive litigation adds to an already expensive medical bill. Many extra procedures are performed because a physician doesn’t want to get sued later for not doing something - even if the indication for doing said procedure is nil at the time. And, I’ve yet to see convincing evidence that lawsuits are improving health care or making us safer (and if anyone knows of such a reference or paper, I would love to read it.) Look, I’m not one of those physicians who thinks that all our problems are because of the lawyers - we could police ourselves better, throw out the bad doctors sooner, and become better and more efficient managers, but we need tort reform.
February 3rd, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Josh, I can’t believe that you are trying to tell me that the blue fingers are important because they belong to a bunch of elected officials. You’re making my point for me by continuing to beat this dead horse (I’m going for a record of cliches). My point was, and is, that important issues are passing the Democrats by while they talk about this stunt instead of having a real discussion about saving SS. Those fingers effect us in no way except when they are casting votes.
It is interesting that you chose to use a “Christian Supremacists” group for your example. Why not a white supremacist group? Or PETA? Or a group of Avon ladies for that matter? I happen to find Christian Supremacists very frightening and if it were them waving blue fingers, then I might care.
February 3rd, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Oh, and since I still get one more post - yes to Social Security reform. I have multiple sclerosis and am still (knock) wood healthy. I am at the height of my earning powers - I’d like to grow my nest egg with my own money, thank you very much. Because of my situation, I’m not insensitive to arguments about benefits. Still, I know I could take some of the money and make it grow. I’d like the opportunity to use the money I earn in the way I choose.
February 3rd, 2005 at 2:26 pm
On a final note…
Republicans are douchebags. Democrats are losers. Some of them are charismatic losers like say Clinton or Edwards. Others are not-so-charismatic losers, like say Reid and Pelosi. But really what’s new here? It has been this way literally my WHOLE LIFE. I’ve read books, seen movies and documentaries, and have heard about times in the past when this may not have been the case, but can we really be sure that it was truly different at some point? And worse, is it ever going to change? Judging from the likes of younger Democrats already in office (Harold Ford for instance) loserdom appears to be passed on from generation to generation.
February 3rd, 2005 at 2:53 pm
To those who wish they could “grow” their “nest egg” with their own money, it should be pointed out that there’s nothing stopping you from doing so now. Take a little bit of your salary each week and go to town on Wall Street. (I wish you all the best. No, really, I do.) But Social Security is exactly what its name says it is: Providing security for those in society who cannot help themselves: the elderly, the injured, etc. It’s a program with an underlying ideology, which is, we care (and are willing to provide) for the injured people in our society.
As for Bush and the GOP’s spectacle of solidarity, a little Oscar Wilde may be in order: “The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence.”
As for Harry Reid: Is it just me or does he strike anyone else as a denatured Muppet?
February 3rd, 2005 at 3:10 pm
ISSUE 1 - Social Security
Mavis Beacon wrote, “Is Social Security in crisis? No. ”
–Oh…I see. There’s no crisis with Social Security now, but there was when Al Gore said that he was going to get a “lock box” for it four years ago. If it’s okay now, then Bush must have done something to save it between then and now.
(For documentation purposes, look at this part of the transcript from the first presidential debate of 2000.)
Gore: “Rather than squander the surplus on a risky tax cut for the wealthy, I would put it in what I call a…’lock-box.’ Jim. May I just say that in my plan, the ‘lock-box’ would be used only for Social Security and Medicare. It would have two different locks. Now, one of the keys to the ‘lockbox’ would be kept by the President; the other key would be sealed in a small, metal container….”
Want more? Listen to the audio of the debate:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/multimedia/bushgoredebate.mp3
Marc Davidson wrote: “In fact the SS trust fund actuaries themselves dispute the numbers that you’re relying on. Social Security is completely solvent until at least 2042….”
–Marc, you’re not stupid, so I appreciate the analysis and information and trust that you have confidence in that source. I’m not taking the time to find links and sources. However, I maintain with all confidence that if Social Security were a private company plan, the trustees would have been thrown out or gone to jail. If funding stopped right now and we had to pay everyone their “vested” portion, then there would be a lot of IOU’s being passed out.
Social Security isn’t invested in private companies. It has a fist full of government notes. That’s like the movie “Dumb & Dumber” where Jim Cary tells the bad guy that all his money is in the suitcase, because all those receipts and IOUs are just as good as money. Well, IOUs just don’t spend well.
In my line of business, I can make numbers do anything and prove anything that I want. That’s sort-of-like Marc Cooper with words, but he’s better. (He has to be to make left-wing politics look good.) Do you think that there’s a chance that we’re being snookered with all this Social Security solvency talk?
Maybe Bush, who has a degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, looked at the numbers a little closer and messed in his pants when he saw what they were and not what he was told. Of course, he could NOT fix Social Security and just send toilet paper and Depends to every household to head off that problem when people really begin to understand what is happening.
-
ISSUE 2 - Blue Fingers
Marc Cooper wrote: “…if it had been a Democratic admin and Democrat congressmembers exploiting the courage of the Iraqis for partisan political purposes you folks would have gone apopleptic.”
–First, this is very hypothetical. The Democrats were perfectly happy to let Saddam Hussein continue to bully his people and the region–so, there never would have been a chance for courage from the citizens with the Democrats in the White House.
All the accusations about the motives behind the blue fingers and reactions if positions were switched reminds me of a problem I had with a nut. He did something very wrong to me. When I inquired as to why he did that, I was told that he figured that he had to do “x” to me before I did “y” to him. I said that I would never have done “y” to him because that’s not my nature. He said that he would have done “y” if he were in my position, so he figured that I would. (Okay, that’s pretty bad. I told you I was better with numbers.) Anyway, Democrats always figure that Republicans are as shallow and conniving as themselves, which leads them to conclude that Republicans would do the same things for the same selfish reasons–so, the Democrats attack them for what they “think” they do. (I’m sure that GMRoper can explain this psychology better.)
Okay, in my case, I think that the people with the blue fingers were sincere, even if they are poiticians. I know that I and my friends would be. (However, I think that the AIDS ribbons worn by Democrat politicians was more about politics than sick people–and, that belief is not based on how I would act.)
That explanation was so good, I’m going to get some carbon paper to make a copy of it.
—-
ISSUE 3 - Sports
I thought it was great watching Peter Jennings after the debate when the first two political analysts starting comparing Bush’s talk to the Super Bowl and sports. I don’t remember the first one, but the second one was George Will–who has written baseball books. If you understand sports, then you understand politics and know about crowding the plate without getting hit by a high and inside fastball.
—-
End of Post #2
Since this post was so bad, I think that I’ll forego my third allotment before Marc bans me.
February 3rd, 2005 at 3:13 pm
Brian,
Your point is well taken (and thanks for the good wishes!) And of course I already invest for my future (and Wall Street is not the only way to do that).
But please explain to me how we are going to keep the system solvent as it is? The flip side to private accounts is means testing - someone who ‘grows’ her nest egg to a good sum shouldn’t expect much back from the government - that money should go to someone who needs it more than I do. Is that a resonable ideology?
(This is post number three, so I’ll just have to bite my tongue after this).
February 3rd, 2005 at 3:34 pm
Luckily for me MD, I don’t have to tell you how we’ll keep Social Security solvent. Dean Baker, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has done it for me. This is from a piece he wrote for In These Times:
“The Social Security trustees’ report (available on the Social Security Administration’s Web site) shows that the program can pay every penny of benefits through the year 2042, with no changes whatsoever.
Even after 2042, the trustees’ projections show that while the program won’t have enough to pay currently scheduled benefits—which are approximately 40 percent higher than current benefits—it will still have enough money to pay benefits higher than those that current retirees receive, even when indexed for inflation. The changes necessary to allow full scheduled benefits to be paid throughout Social Security’s 75-year planning period are smaller than the changes to Social Security—increased Social Security taxes and benefit cuts—that were made in each of the decades from the ’50s through the ’80s.
Last June, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) made an independent assessment of Social Security’s finances and concluded that the program could pay all benefits even longer—until 2052—with no changes whatsoever. According to the CBO, the changes needed to keep the program fully funded through its 75-year planning period are less than half as large as the Social Security tax increases put in place in the ’80s.
Just to be clear, neither of these projections is based on a rosy scenario about the future. In fact, the Social Security trustees assume that over the next 75 years the economy will experience the slowest pace of productivity growth in its history—there’s no “new economy†in this story.”
Now granted, I didn’t write this, but I did fact check it and everything was on the up and up. I’d urge you to check out these facts for yourself; and after doing so, you might view the current blather about a “crisis” with a higher-arched brow.
February 3rd, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Hey Woody, you’re making me use an entire post on this and I’m not happy about it, but here goes: my quiz wasn’t about truth. It was about changes in Republican tactics. If you look a little harder you’ll find leading Republican’s have stopped using the term “crisis.†Even though for months they’ve been saying SS is in crisis, focus groups have told them otherwise and now SS has “severe problems.†If you don’t believe me just check out last night’s State of the Union. As to the other quiz items – for years Republicans used the term “privatization.†Now they use the term “personal accounts†and have pressured the press not to use the term privatization. Some Republican representatives have gone so far as to claim they are against privatization because they support personal accounts. It’s not potato, it’s the focus-group preferred potaahto and anyone who disagrees is a liberal shill! The third item references a really despicable argument that you’ll have to look up yourself.
I’m done for now, but somebody needs to give MD a good response or I’ll pee myself. (Threat and promise)
February 3rd, 2005 at 3:49 pm
…I can’t bite my tongue. My previous posts were short so I’m taking my chances that I can slip through.
Woody — The government is running a huge budget deficit and revenues like those from Social Security have been used for general spending. So what? So has the revenue from notes that the government has sold to investors both foreign and domestic. Will we default on these promisory notes as well? I doubt it. This would be catastrophic. In any case why wouldn’t the government default on the private (oops personal) accounts, for the same reason, in the future? The real problem is the budget deficit.
The Social security trust fund has a very large surplus and this surplus will be increasing until around 2018. At this point expenditures will exceed revenue. By the middle of the century the system will depend only on current revenues for expenditures (this is what they call “bankrupt”). It will be able to pay out 70-80% of benefits. This 30% shortfall, 40 years from now is what needs to be fixed today.
Does anyone have facts to dispute this?
Sorry for the extra post, Marc. I’m doing my own deficit spending.
February 3rd, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Aaaaw, c’mon, Marc. If the Dems had been responsible for the election in Iraq, they would have stained their fingers purple as well. You’re being a little too serious, there.
As one who’s beating 54 back with a stick, myself, I look favorably on anything that makes me feel younger. Card me and I’m yours.
Plus, I’m afraid the Democrats _have_ lost all vital signs. That’s okay. There’s no place to go but up.
February 3rd, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Second-Term Test
by Pat Buchanan
Undeniably, it was a good year for Time’s Man of the Year. For the second election in a row, George W. Bush increased his party’s strength in Congress as he secured the second term his father failed to win.
Not since FDR has a new president done so well by his party. But here the comparisons end. Where FDR carried every state but Maine and Vermont in his re-election campaign in 1936, and Ike carried every state but Missouri and a few Dixiecrat bastions in 1956, and Nixon and Reagan carried 49 states, George W. Bush won only 31. His margin was 3 percent.
More:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_01_31/buchanan.html
February 3rd, 2005 at 5:29 pm
Marc –
In your LA Weekly piece you said … “Religious fundamentalists, revengeful Baathists and a certain foreign-terrorist element populate the insurgency. We can also be sure that there are other, less politically defined “nationalist†strains among the insurgents who are just plain angry and humiliated by Iraq’s dire economic conditions if not by the very presence of an American occupation force.”
“Nationalist” strains? Do you have ANY evidence to support this, or is this merely the political hangover from the Sixties (America=bad; America’s enemies=good)? This to me seems once again viewing the events through a purely partisan lens; if Pinochet or the Argentinian generals were wrong, then so are the killers in Iraq. The same sentence can be re-written “We can also be sure that there are other, less politically defined White Supremacist strains among the KKK who are just plain angry and humiliated by the South’s post-Civil War dire economic conditions if not by the very presence of a Union occupation force.” That doesn’t sound very good does it? Murdering and torturing innocents like Margaret Hassan (who never hurt anybody and did a lot of good) matters. Not whatever incoherent raging about bringing back Saddam or the new Jihad.
The fundamental problem for the Democrats is that they refuse to make moral choices, and equivocate. They are trapped by the Sixties, and getting steamrollered by Bush who DOES take moral stances. The choice in Iraq is between those who went with the ballot box, no matter how uncertain their commitment to liberty, justice, and human rights, and those who chose the bomb, or cutting heads off. THAT’s the choice. There is no other.
I’m not shocked that the Republicans chose to wave ink-stained fingers. I’m not shocked that the Dems chose the insurgents. Before the Elections Kennedy rolled before the cameras and blamed the violence on the brave men and women in uniform, instead of the depraved monsters who murder innocent and helpless women and children. Kerry went on to denigrate the bravery and effort of the individual Iraqis who, in a culture that had been awash with violence for more than thirty years (Saddam ruled twice as long as Hitler) bravely chose the ballot box instead of bullets.
Fundamentally, the Democratic Party does not believe in the premise of America, choosing instead cynical, partisan “stability” of America’s sworn enemies, and coddling of monsters. This used to be the Republican Party’s position, witness Pinochet and every other awful dictator around. I’m ashamed of my Party for adopting this.
As for Bush’s domestic policies, no one in the Party is willing to stand up to his shameful raiding of SS, the mutilation of the Environment, or corporate pork-barrels. This is because the Party has devolved into a life-style oriented elitist group more concerned about marginal social issues than things people care about. Democrats win when the fight for the ordinary guy and promise to make life better, by leveraging the things that only governments can do with more opportunities for everyone.
Bush can be fought by simple, easy-to-understand principles … 1. Put the Budget in Balance, no more deficts and kill pork barrel spending for real Defense and Social Welfare needs; 2. “Pay any price, bear any burden” to protect America, that includes making the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share. 3. Stop raiding SS and pay back the money “borrowed” by past and the current Administrations. 4. Increase conservation and spending on basic R&D for new energy/alternative energy sources to break the OPEC stranglehold … a new “Manhattan Project” 5. “Up the ante” on Bush in National Security; have a commitment to increasing the Military by 200%; including 20 carrier groups, replacements for the B-52 heavy bomber, and new stealth bombers; and specifically endorse the policy of deterrence including UNILATERAL military force against threats after giving the regimes fair notice to stop their actions.
In other words, act like FDR, instead of Jimmy Carter.
February 3rd, 2005 at 5:56 pm
FROM THE LA TIMES TODAY:
Bush added new details to his proposal for individual accounts, under which workers could direct some of the taxes now paid for Social Security to mutual funds investing in stocks and bonds.
In a significant shift in his rationale for the accounts, Bush dropped his claim that they would help solve Social Security’s fiscal problems — a link he sometimes made during last year’s presidential campaign. Instead, he said the individual accounts were desirable because they would be “a better deal,” providing workers what he said would be a higher rate of return and “greater security in retirement.”
A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system’s long-term financial problems.
That candid analysis, although widely shared by economists, distressed some Republicans.
“Oh, my God,” one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the shift in rhetoric. “The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board.”
END CLIP.
NOTE: So the essence of Bush’s proposal does nothing to help the solvency issue that arises in 40 years. Except to cost the system a large percentage of the revenues that will keep it fully solvent until then. I think the estimate is in the trillions of dollars. What is this bullshit all about ? Other than a reward to the usual suspects in the world of finance and a reckless addition to the budget busting that makes people worry whether the treasury will be able to make good on it’s T-bill commitments. Disgusting. Anybody who’s falling for this needs a reality check.
Also, there’s an issue which rarely, if ever, gets mentioned when the “private accounts solution” is discussed. Since the overwhelming percentage of money traded in stocks isn’t actually new capital investment but purchase of existing stock (I think its about 85% in trades, as opposed to 15% to new issues), is the artificial stimulation of trillions of dollars chasing already existing equity a good thing or does it just bid up a bubble, such as we saw in the nineties, creating a false sense of wealth through inflating stock prices ? And if there is stock inflation, what happens when there are demographic bubbles that will cause lots of folks to want to trade their stocks back into cash for retirement income ? I’m not an economist, but the fact that people yap about this stuff without even asking those kinds of questions scares me.
Personally, I think that “fixing Social Security through personal accounts” is a domestic version of the “Saddam + al Qaeda and WMDs” hype. We know these folks distort what is actually known for their political goals. Very creepy. Who needs “Bush hatred”, when rational skepticism leads one to essentially the same conclusion about this crowd. They do seem to be marginally changing their tune because the Dems are standing fast on this one. But it’s like the “Saddam/911 connection” - they put just enough distorted information out there to blow smoke for folks who aren’t very sophisticated, and then backpedal just enough when pressed to satisfy the (tepid) questions from the media. Pure manipulation…
February 3rd, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Brian, people like myself, who do not believe they are ever going to see a penny of the money they contributed to SS, are already saving for retirement. We put over 10% of our household income away every month (and we’re a 1 income household) and that doesn’t include the kids college funds. But you’re wrong when you say nothing is stopping us - the government takes a large percentage of that income away before we ever see it and it is earning less than 1% in the SS account. I just got my 4th quarter statements and I have to say that Wall Street somehow managed to beat 1% growth.
I read the piece you pulled from the SS admin website - I WANT to be wrong. But there it was, twice, “The changes necessary to allow full scheduled benefits to be paid throughout Social Security’s 75-year planning period are smaller than the changes to Social Security —increased Social Security taxes and benefit cuts…..” We are already paying an obscene amount of money into this program and to increase that AND cut the benefits is a terrible solution, especially when it doesn’t have to be that way. I like the term privitization and I like the term private account. The government doesn’t have the greatest track record spending money wisely and I’d like to take a crack at it myself. I can’t do any worse and if I lose it all I have no one to blame but me. I don’t need my government to take care of me and I willing to take responsibility for my own future.
February 3rd, 2005 at 6:03 pm
“act like FDR, instead of Jimmy Carter.”
Rockford, I think you have FDR confused with Curtis LeMay…
February 3rd, 2005 at 6:08 pm
ahabers - People like myself who believe in space aliens know exactly how folks like you, who don’t believe they’ll ever see a penny from Social Security, feel when confronted with those factual counterarguments. Keep the faith, bro…
February 3rd, 2005 at 6:10 pm
Marc - could I get a humor dispensation for those last two posts ?
I promise I’ll keep my damn mouth shut until you start a new thread.
February 3rd, 2005 at 6:29 pm
reg - the fact that you believe in space aliens explains so much….. and apparently on the subject of “factual arguments” we could continue to sling stuff at each other all night (but that would make Marc mad).
This is four for me so I’m gone. And I’m not a bro.
February 3rd, 2005 at 7:45 pm
“we could continue to sling stuff at each other all night”
No “we” couldn’t…I’ve got no interest in haggling over other people’s superstitions.
February 3rd, 2005 at 9:04 pm
Well, ahabers, if Social Security were only about ‘you’, then maybe your arguments would be more convincing. However, since its purpose has slightly broader goals in mind–namely, supporting the less able (including, of course, the elderly)–those of us proud to live in a developed nation happily bear this cost. A guaranteed safety net, supported by John and Jane Q. Taxpayer: again, roles many of us proudly assume. Entering the domain of privatization entails a necessary departure from any semblance of guaranteed security. Sorry, but I don’t see that as progress.
February 3rd, 2005 at 9:11 pm
As I was driving to lunch today, suffering blog withdrawal, I realized that there is one consistent theme on this blog and in Marc’s postings: cynicism. Specifically the cynical belief that Bush and perhaps all on the right have nefarious motives for everything they do, and that they are constantly lying. This cynical viewpoint (projection, GM?) was terribly visible last year and probably cost Kerry a lot of votes, as it disgusted people. One gets the feeling that the left imagine that the output of George Bush’s bathroom is used by some fertilizer lobbyist. It’s just plain absurd.
That cynicism is uncalled for. Perhaps they are blinded by ideology, or Marc, you saw too much evil in your world travels, but not everyone on the right is an evil demon, put in place to benefit rich capitalists at the expense of poor workers. The left hasn’t the slightest clue to Bush’s motivations, one reason why, electorally, he has been one of the most successful presidents in a ages, with coat tails even in mid-terms. Furthermore, Bush’s success last year was in the face of the most vicious and persistent campaign by the mainstream media and the Democrats I have ever seen. The MSM had an anybody-but-Bush mentality that bled through all of their reporting. It’s one reason Fox is so successful. They separate their editorial “pages” from their news “pages” - something that has disappeared in the MSM - TV or dead tree - to be replaced by “advocacy journalism” (propaganda) masquerading as news, and the use of “the contraption” to reify that news as “balanced.”
Having been a leader of a true grass roots veterans movement, I listened to the Democrats call us tools of Carl Rove a\(as 527 members, if that were true, we would have been prosecuted). I listened to all sorts of simply stupid calumny dumped on the Swift Boats Veterans, people who would have been honored as war heros if they supported Kerry.
I watched Abu Ghraib, a minor and atypical incident - a breakdown of military discipline in a poorly led unit (And MarcD, that’s ALL it was), turn into a powerful symbol for demonization of any pro-war position, only because of the salacious pictures that came with it. Those pictures were shamelessly published, giving ammunition to those who would kill Americans. The Abu Ghriab incident, shameful as it was, was used to smear all of our troops by foreigners, just as Kerry’s 1971 speech was used, as recently as last year by the Vietnamese, for the same purpose. If you want to read true propaganda, from the People’s Paradise of Vietnam in this case, check this out: http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/2004-06/10/Stories/16.htm
People who love their country over their politics were scarce in the Democratic party last year, as evidenced by their shameful use of the misfortunes of war as political ammunition. Compare that to Republican Dewey’s 1944 behavior, where he had information significantly harmful to Roosevelt’s regarding Pearl Harbor. At Gen. Marshall’s request, Dewey let love for his country trump his political ambition, and did not use information that would have harmed the war effort. Where the heck are the Deweys of the left today? AWOL!
While the left demonizes Bush, many plain old human beings recognize goodness when they see it, and incompetence and competence when they see it.
Marc, I’m surprised that you think that the old chicken-hawk meme means that people are not qualified to support the courageous. Again, that cynicism is starting to disgust me. Wrapping oneself in the flag? How many Iraqis would have been able to hold up blue fingers without George Bush?
Where are the honest conservatives? What do you want me to denounce? A celebration? Political theater? No, Marc, I am denouncing the persistent carping and cynicism of the left, including yours. It is unnecessary, incorrect, insulting, and fruitless. Frankly, it pisses me off for its nihilism, cynicism and just plain whining. But I’ll still buy you dinner if we ever meet
Randy Paul implies that Bush has to be perfect everywhere. I don’t. Haiti is a side show in the GWOT. Don’t like it? Go there and help out. But who here is honest enough to admit that Aristide was a bloody thug, and Haiti deteriorates no matter who is in charge? How many here believe that only way we can morally fix a trouble spot is if we fix every trouble spot in the world? Hands, please (I suspect none of them will have blue fingers).
Who here is going to denounce the Democrats for acting like back benchers in the House of Commons instead of recognizing the dignity necessary for the SOTU address, regardless of who is giving that speech? Who here is going to ever understand that tradition is part of the glue that holds society together. Alternatively, who here is willing to admit that they want our society to fail so they can institute the policies that worked so well in the USSR, Cambodia, Romania, and Cuba? Who is going to admit that social justice is a code word for the leftists running the world to enforce their definition of fairness, using the coercive power of government, because they just are smarter and know more than anyone else? Because that’s sure what it sounds like!
MarcD - the real problem is not the deficit, it is the percentage of GDP spent by the government. Both parties increase that when possible, as it’s unfortunately inherent in our current political configuration - pork barrel, log rolling, etc. And who is the king of pork barrell? Bush? Nope… it’s Democrat KKK Byrd. I do find it amazing that leftists, who would spend much more money, attack Bush on deficits. It’s like a house of mirrors, distorted and bizarre.
NeoDude - clue: Pat Buchanan doesn’t represent anyone any more. He gave in to narcissism years ago and is not a serious conservative any more.
February 3rd, 2005 at 9:34 pm
John Moore (Useful Fools) said,
“doesn’t represent anyone any more. He gave in to narcissism years ago and is not a serious conservative any more.”
How ironic, that’s what I think of you! I;ve seen your confused ravings for some time now.
You sound more like a right-wing nihilist than a conservative.
February 3rd, 2005 at 9:42 pm
a right-winger who’s morality is relative to the Party’s Alpha-Male.
You have as much courage as a white boy in a lynch mob.
February 3rd, 2005 at 10:18 pm
“Alternatively, who here is willing to admit that they want our society to fail so they can institute the policies that worked so well in the USSR, Cambodia, Romania, and Cuba?”
I’m already at the top of any shitlist Marc might be inclined to garner from this thread and I feel like a total fool for even reading what you write after I swore to myself I wouldn’t, but I just can’t help but note, for that ridiculous sentence alone you have proven yourself completely clueless, not to mention quite wierd. I can’t even get angry at this shit anymore. I couldn’t do half the job of discrediting you as a screeching loon that you do yourself the more you write this kind of crap.
February 3rd, 2005 at 11:01 pm
Reg –
FDR saw clearly Hitler’s menace, as well as Tojo’s and Mussolini’s, and tried as much as he might within his own isolationist, anti-interventionist/pro-Pacifist Party with a backdrop of the Bund and Republican Isolationism, to give aid to Churchill to buy time. Lend-Lease and Four Freedoms anyone?
FDR wasn’t perfect by any means. He did nothing to stop lynching, signed the order putting Japanese Americans into Concentration Camps (humane ones compared to Hitler’s but that’s what places like Manzanar were). However he got the one BIG thing right without which anti-lynching and no Manzanar would have been meaningless in an America divided by the Reich and the Emperor. He fought Nazi-ism, fascism, and militarism. Is it any wonder Bush echoes him?
The Left refuses to acknowledge reality; bad stuff happening in far off places (like Europe in 1940; or Afghanistan in 1999) directly affects our nation’s security. The Left has this fantasy that the US can’t do anything, we are weak and powerless against the almighty guerilla forces, wherever and whoever they might be. That we are bad for the world, and we should just withdraw into a huddled, frightened mass in Fortress America, paying the bad men to go away.
The problem with the solution to national security that the Democrats offer is that it just won’t work, and even a child can see that. The UN (a worthless group of corrupt beaurocrats raking off stolen money) won’t call Darfur genocide because it would require doing something; and China, France (Total-Elf-Fina), and Russia all have sweetheart deals with the Sudanese government. Meanwhile, the killing continues and the UN opposes even the useless symbolism of sanctions (shown to be a farce against Saddam). “Blood for oil” anyone? Haiti is another fine example of the total failure of the standard Democratic response (I’ll certainly caveat that the Bush response has been craven “ignoring it”). Haiti will only stop being a running sore when a military occupation takes over and runs the country, remakes the culture to stop the corruption. The Haitians themselves in this country are hard-working and honest, but the nation itself has been sick for it’s entire history (filled from the start with corruption and violence). Who ELSE besides the US military can run Haiti?
Reg, you made the crack about Curtis Lemay. Do you even KNOW who the man was and what he did? That he led the Army Air force bombing strategies against Nazi Germany? That he *PERSONALLY* led bombing mission over Germany, including Black Thursday over Regensburg, when HALF the 1,000 planes were lost. He later was sent to the Pacific Theatre where he took over an ineffective bombing campaign against Japan and dramatically cut losses and increased the bombs on target. He organized the Berlin Airlift. He was put in charge of the Strategic Air Command when it was a disorganized mess and made it into an effective war-fighting command.
Yes he was characterized as “Bombs Away LeMay,” but his plan for dropping the ENTIRE stockpile in 1949 of 133 A Bombs on 70 cities in 30 days was based on actual experience. He said “if you are going to use military force, then you ought to use overwhelming military force. Use too much and deliberately use too much.. you’ll save lives, not only your own, but the enemy’s too.” LBJ used “calibrated” military force, and look where that got us in Vietnam. LeMay’s basic principle of overwhelming force lives on today in the Powell doctrine, so it’s not like he was talking out of his ass. He did not cover himself in glory running as Wallace’s running mate; but neither did Kerry when he threw away his medals, or called his fellow soldiers war criminals “in a manner reminiscent of Ghengis Khan,” or ran to meet (unauthorized) the North Vietnamese in Paris, or probably got a dishonorable discharge that Carter changed back (hence the unsigned form 180). Given that Kerry’s four months of danger WERE dangerous, I’m inclined to give Kerry a pass on his failures post-military. Given that LeMay could have easily not flown any missions let alone Regensberg, I’ll give him a pass too. Flak doesn’t respect rank.
[The Germans also ran a long campaign against "Bomber Harris" of the British Bomber command for "war crimes" in night-time bombing. I find LeMay's bad reputation more of the same here]
Yes nuclear weapons changed everything, LeMay was wrong on that, but the principle of fighting a war with overwhelming force, using every tool at your disposal, completely destroying the enemy, and then going on with your life knowing that the threat has ended completely sounds like the right strategy to me. It’s the Western way of war and worked pretty good for 2,500 years.
February 3rd, 2005 at 11:34 pm
I am not about to give Kerry a pass on his post-war activities. He was a traitor - he conspired with the enemy, meeting with them at least twice (once covertly). He was involved in an operation where POWs would get better treatment if their families denounced the war - a disgusting operation that was only made possible by direct cooperation with the enemy - specific acts of treason. He has been called a traitor by a POW and former Senator (Denton) who served with him. Benedict Arnold fought more for his country than Kerry. Does he get a pass too?
There are efforts afoot to remove Kerry from his office since his behavior in 1971 and 1972 violates the 14th Amendment, section 3, disqualifying him from holding any office of trust in the United States. I think they will fail, but they’re on the right track.
As a leader of Vietnam Vets for the Truth, a sister organization of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, I spent much of last year fighting John Kerry and the anybody-but-Bush press corps, and although we won, it was a sickening experience as we saw the near total corruption of our press corps and the willingness of the Democratic Party to smear millions of soldiers (just as Kerry did), and as we found more and more terrible things that John Kerry did.
John Kerry tarnished my reputation as a Vietnam Veteran, but worse was he tarnished the reputation of this country with his many vicious lies. If he was drowning, I’d throw him an anvil.
BTW, Kerry was still in the military when he was an anti-war activist - he had the same exact status as I did: member of the Active Naval Reserve, in inactive status. Our service times were the same within days, but I got an honorable discharge without having to wait 6 more years for the Carter Amnesty. And I didn’t have to suddenly change my dates of service on my web site as Kerry did the day he published a few parts of his service record.
He doesn’t deserve a pass from anyone. We all risked out lives. I lost comrades, not in combat, but the only difference is they’re dead but their names aren’t on the wall. I was almost killed a number of times, and exposed to Agent Orange.
John Kerry is the worst person to run for US president since the early times of the Republic, and I include the racists and others in the list of those better than Kerry.
February 3rd, 2005 at 11:46 pm
Guyws–Back to your corners. Dont even dream of one more ping-pong match of comments.
February 3rd, 2005 at 11:53 pm
Not even considering it. Note: no responses to Stevereg from me tonite, or to our new troll. I suppose my last post could trigger a flame war, not my intent. I agree with almost everything Jim wrote in the last one.
As a matter of curiosity, did the left support Kerry (as opposed to having an “anybody but Bush”) position. Just a question, not intent to fight. I’ll read it in the morning.
In fact, time to go to bed anyway.
February 4th, 2005 at 12:41 am
John, I can only speak for myself, but I’ll be honest with myself. I first saw Kerry as the likely opponent to Bush more than three years before the election precisely for the reason you give…I saw him as the candidate who stood a good chance of defeating Bush. Your perception of the man seem to be largely based on the Vietnam era. That’s fair enough…if I had lived in your shoes, would my current perception of the man be different? I’d have to say they would. Were some of his statements outrageous and unfair and an insult to the institution he belonged to? Yes. It’s clear he could have done a much better job as an antiwar activist by choosing the right targets, and avoiding the kind of actions that that make you feel the way you do about him.
But I didn’t live in your shoes, and perhaps don’t put the same amount of weight to your arguments as maybe I should have. Not to belittle your strong feelings at all, but it would be kind of like me basing my current perception of Bush based on his history of substance abuse and business failure. That wouldn’t be quite fair to the man.
Did I ever feel particulary inspired by Kerry as I learned more about him and as the campaign unfolded. Nope, can’t say I did. Would I have preferred him as president based on, say, his performance in debates over Bush. I’d still say yes, but with the qaulification that I could never have had the strong feelings about the man that you have for Bush. Do I hate Bush. No. A lot of that has to do with reasons Marc addresses in his next posting.
I guess it’s fair to say that we all view the world through blinders of our own choosing…reading the writings of our host and all the commenters helps hugely in attempting to overcome that.
February 4th, 2005 at 12:48 am
Sorry, meant to say:
Do I hate Bush? No. But it’s hard for me to trust the man… a lot of that has to do with reasons Marc addresses in his next posting.
jhitch4@direcway.com
February 4th, 2005 at 1:00 am
1. Good post. Marc. Hated the blue fingers. (Not at all the same as pink ribbons, guys. One in eight American women will get breast cancer. GM…Can’t imagine how you got an entire counseling class full of people who had no friends or relatives who’d ever been afflicted. An amazing statistical anomaly, no?)
2. Yes, Pelosi looked as Stepford as Stepford could be. Harry Reid was at least animated, but what in heaven’s name was the man saying?
“In my small home town in Nevada, I met a ten year old girl who wanted to be me….which was proof positive that American kids know all about American values….Which, in turn, made it clear that Democrats, if ever allowed to lead anyone anywhere again, will lead from the middle, people, not from the edges!â€
Oh, just shoot me now.
3. No point in adding anything on the SS fuzzy math. It’s already been outlined well by Brian, Reg, Marc D. and Rich…
4. I DO, HOWEVER, HAVE ONE CONTRARIAN POINT TO MAKE: In the past 24 hours, there’s been much howling with laughter on the part of pundits, columnists, and blogmeisters about the moment in Bush’s SOTU where he names his wife to head up a gang intervention effort.
Heaven knows I cannot STAND this administration, but, here’s the thing: the gang ‘graph in the speech was exactly right in tone….and smart…and to the point. Hell, I wish that a Democratic president (or senator, or California governor of either party) had said something on the subject that was as anywhere near as sane or appropriate But they haven’t—EVER!! With Clinton it was all law and order, lock ‘em up and throw away all keys.
FYI: Below you’ll find the meat of the SOTU ‘graph in question:
“….Now we need to focus on giving young people, especially young men in our cities, better options than apathy, or gangs, or jail. Tonight I propose a three-year initiative to help organizations keep young people out of gangs, and show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence. Taking on gang life will be one part of a broader outreach to at-risk youth, which involves parents and pastors, coaches and community leaders, in programs ranging from literacy to sports. And I am proud that the leader of this nationwide effort will be our First Lady, Laura Bush….â€
Not life changing, maybe, but decent. And rather than seeing it as laughable that Bush has appointed to his wife to head up the $150 million initiative, I think this indicates that the dude might even be vaguely serious this thing—meaning he may really make sure that the damned bucks get allocated now that he’s put Laura on deck. 150 mil isn’t a lot, and it’s a minor point next to Iraq and destroying social security, but—hey—you take what you can get. And, in terms of gang intervention, it’s more than anybody else is offering. Moreover, the language is only a thousand times smarter than the stupid Feinstein Hatch bill that also plans on giving a shred of money for gang prevention and/or intervention—but, incredibly plans to every single penny of it over to law enforcement. (A bit like trying to cure cancer by handing money to the undertakers.)
Similarly, last SOTU, amid the dross, Bush talked intelligently about prison reentry–and really did manage to get a little money allocated for real life reentry programs.
I don’t know how to explain it. Two accidental moments of sanity?
Whatever. Credit where credit is due. I hope he follows through.
February 4th, 2005 at 1:04 am
Ooops. Sorry. The above post was me. Am on a new computer while my hard drive is being wiped and reformated on account of this morning’s spyware attack—an experience that is causing me to seriously rethink my life-long opposition to capital punishment.
February 4th, 2005 at 1:21 am
Make that…”but, incredibly plans to fork every single penny of it over to law enforcement…”
Left out the verb. (Consider that one post with two sidebars?)
February 4th, 2005 at 4:38 am
Since this is now officially a “has-been” thread, I’m going to take a chance.
rosedog - mea culpa re: Laura and ending gang violence. The actual graph in his speech is better than it sounded from reading a news clip. BUT this prez isn’t good on follow-thru (even with flawed hobby-horses like No Child Left Untested) AND when these guys appoint First Ladies as being in charge of something - pardon my un-PC - but it always feels more than a bit like the kind of symbolic attention to a neglected arena destined for official uplift that wealthy women have traditionally absorbed themselves with in their spare time. Maybe this is different, but I’ll be surprised if it even surpasses some of the “midnight basketball” kind of stuff that Mr. Law and Order Bill actually did push through. At best, I think inevitably, it’s going to be a stealth method for funneling money directly to religious youth programs run by the inner-city black evangelicals Bush is trying to woo with a combo of anti-gay/anti-abortion talk and a smattering of grants to fundamentalist churches. If some of this stuff helps some kids, fine. But I’m a cynic with this guy. I also don’t know what credibility Laura has in overseeing this if it’s serious, other than possibly reading programs. She certainly doesn’t strike me as an Eleanor Roosevelt type who’ll push issues behind the scenes - but I hope I’m wrong. (Another addition to my “I hope I’m wrong list” with Bush. It’s pretty long. There was a period after September 11th when I was behind this guy and his foreign policy team 100%. Needless to say, a downhill slide began around the time of the crackpot “Axis of Evil” speech. Now I only judge what’s actually on the table and how it’s turning out. The PR show rarely changes.) I don’t even listen to the speeches anymore. It’s amazing how few people actually do. Makes me feel more “normal” and less like a Bush-hating compulsive or, conversly, those Bush cultists lined up for their dose of Kool-Aid.
Also, I think that the Dem responses should be by a designated hitter, not necessarily the legislative apparatchiks. Nancy Pelosi is a damned fine Congresswoman and quite personable, but she’s not TV friendly and a lousy speaker. And I can’t for the life of me figure out what crackpot calculation makes the Senator from Las Vegas representative of “normal folk” in flyover country in the minds of anybody. Nobody “flies over” Las Vegas. (Nothing personal against Harry Reid - seems like a fine man, although Mormonism is also more than a bit weird.) I’m not an expert on this like Marc or Bill Bennett, but compared to Las Vegas “even the Bay Area” is positively cornball wholesome. Jeez Las Vegas couldn’t continue to exist without fleeced tourists, regulated sin and those pesky, “soon-to-disappear” Social Security checks.
February 4th, 2005 at 4:53 am
“an experience that is causing me to seriously rethink my life-long opposition to capital punishment.”
No need to compromise fundamental principles. All you have to rethink is Microsoft - a mini-Mac would do the trick.