"substantial margin," indeed. A-hee-hee-hee.
10076. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:22:00 PM
500,000 is less than the number of fraudulent votes.
500,000 is less than Gore's margin in one liberal city.
10077. CalGal - 2/26/2001 4:23:08 PM
Ace,
If academic models consider a sitting president running for a re-election and a sitting veep running for first time election as equivalent, then I think that's a flaw in the model.
JJ,
500,000 votes is not chump change. He won by a substantially bigger margin than Kennedy and Carter, I believe. The popular vote was not particularly close.
Nonetheless, you have managed to ignore a bunch of other points while focusing on something that no one disputes.
10078. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:24:55 PM
"If academic models consider a sitting president running for a re-election and a sitting veep running for first time election as equivalent, then I think that's a flaw in the model. "
Well, I'm sure you know better than they do, POM.
You have the "facts" at your fingertips, after all.
10079. CalGal - 2/26/2001 4:25:48 PM
Ace,
I said that "I think" it's a flaw. Hence, an expression of opinion.
10080. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 4:31:20 PM
Kennedy won by approximately 114,000.
Carter won by approximately 1.7 million.
10081. CalGal - 2/26/2001 4:36:48 PM
Really? Then the piece I read a month ago must have been referring to something else vis a vis the win of Carter over Ford. What, I can't imagine, since I know it wasn't all that close electorally. I'll hunt it down to see. Thanks.
10082. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:39:27 PM
Former Dem Finance Chief
To Take Fifth in Pardon Probe
Monday, February 26, 2001
And on Monday, Capitol Hill sources confirmed that former Democratic Party Finance Chairwoman Beth Dozoretz intends to exercise her Fifth Amendment rights in connection with Burton's House Government Reform Committee probe into the controversial Clinton pardon of Marc Rich.
Well la-di-fucking-dah.
10083. CalGal - 2/26/2001 4:40:01 PM
As for "substantial margin", Ace, I was referring to its supposed "closeness". 500,000 votes certainly is a substantial margin for it being that "close".
I've said before now that it is most odd for Gore to be slammed for running a poor race, when he would have won handily had it not been for the morons in Floriday. That's the point of my post.
10084. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:43:26 PM
"As for "substantial margin", Ace, I was referring to its supposed "closeness". 500,000 votes certainly is a substantial margin for it being that "close"."
Ah. 500,000 is a "substantial margin" when you consider how INsubstantial the margin was.
So, a one point win in a 97-96 basketball game is a "pretty substantial" margin, considering how close the game was.
Or, perhaps, three feet tall is pretty fucking tall, compared to other extremely short persons.
In fact, it's substantially tall, considering how short the person in question is.
Politics of Meaninglessness.
Words without meaning. Meaning without intent. Intent without import.
How breathtakingly stupid.
10085. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:44:55 PM
"when he would have won handily had it not been for the morons in Floriday."
Won handily = won by 1-5,000 votes in Florida, where six million votes were cast, IF we assume all dimples and scratches in the vicinity of Gore's name were intended Gore votes.
"Handily."
"Substantial."
"Idiotic."
10086. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:46:55 PM
The West Wing is a pretty "substantial" show, considering how superficial and shallow it is.
But seriously -- given the show's superficiality and shallowness, it really is fairly substantial.
10087. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:49:19 PM
Bush is a pretty "bright" guy, considering how "stupid" he is.
Clinton is a pretty "ethical" guy, considering how "sleazy and venal" he is.
Ms. POM is a pretty "valuable" poster, considering how "useless" she is.
10088. CalGal - 2/26/2001 4:49:38 PM
Ace,
Fine. If you don't accept "substantial margin" in the spirit intended, I cheerfully retract.
He won the popular vote by a more substantial margin than Kennedy did--someone who has never been dinged for running a bad race.
The point, again, is that I see little merit in dissing Gore for a bad race. It wasn't that bad.
And if the academic models treated him as an incumbent, it seems to me at least likely that their error in definition is to blame, not his failure to meet their expectations.
10089. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 4:54:43 PM
Nixon is dinged for running a terrible race. His counterpart is Gore. Kennedy's counterpart is Bush.
10090. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:56:40 PM
"If you don't accept "substantial margin" in the spirit intended, I cheerfully retract."
What spirit? You meant it in the spiring that a 90-89 basketball game was won by a "substantial margin," considering how "close" it was?
48.5 as compared to 49.5 equals 90-89.
A one point margin is "substantial" compared to what, precisely? Other one-point margins? Half-point margins? What?
I'm dumbfounded here. Give me something to work with.
With what set of assumptions can your statement be read as anything but hopelessly asinine?
"He won the popular vote by a more substantial margin than Kennedy did--someone who has never been dinged for running a bad race."
Kennedy lost the popular vote. Five of Georgia's twelve electors we cast in favor of a Dixiecrat candidate. Giving the Democratic votes in Georgia proportianately (5 per 12) to the Dixiecrat candidate who actually won those votes -- a fair assumption, it seems; those five electoral votes didn't come out of nowhere -- then Kennedy lost the 1960 popular vote by a slender margin.
Nevermind the horrible fraud in Chicago and Texas.
"The point, again, is that I see little merit in dissing Gore for a bad race. It wasn't that bad."
Not bad at all. In a race in which economic and historical factors predicted a 60% share of the vote, he managed 49.5%. Wowzers. What a stalwart.
"And if the academic models treated him as an incumbent, it seems to me at least likely that their error in definition is to blame, not his failure to meet their expectations."
Yes, yes. Just because the models work for VP Nixon and VP Bush, why should they be expected to work for VP Gore? He was a "special" VP.
A very "special" VP.
10091. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 4:58:44 PM
Using Ms. POM's logic (and again, I use that term advisedly):
Gore ran a very good campaign, considering how disasterous it was, and Gore was a strong candidate, considering how unappealing he was.
10092. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 4:59:21 PM
Indeed, Gore and Nixon both had poor debate showings (Nixon only in the initial and most watched contest; Gore in all three) and Nixon unwisely insisted on visiting all 50 states (precious time lost in those Hawaii and Alaska visits, including a late-night appearance in Anchorage less than 48 hours before the election) much as Gore foolishly insisted on not heeding warnings on Tennessee and West Virginia.
10093. CalGal - 2/26/2001 5:00:45 PM
Francis,
Well, Gore should be so lucky if Nixon's outcome is in his future.
And while I agree that Nixon and Gore are analogous, the differences are pretty clear, too. Gore ran a better race than Nixon did, if results are to count.
10094. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:01:31 PM
"much as Gore foolishly insisted on not heeding warnings on Tennessee and West Virginia."
Eh, let's give him a break on that point.
Consider: Certain states are in the category of "If we don't win THEM, we're losing in a landslide, so why bother?"
Who could have known?
10095. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:02:09 PM
"Gore ran a better race than Nixon did, if results are to count.
Results?
Both lost.
10096. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:04:02 PM
"Gore should be so lucky if Nixon's outcome is in his future."
Sure. Resignation sounds spiffy.
"And while I agree that Nixon and Gore are analogous, the differences are pretty clear, too. Gore ran a better race than Nixon did, if results are to count."
Nixon ran a really horrid race. Gore ran a horrid race.
10097. Ronski - 2/26/2001 5:05:15 PM
Gore foolishly failed to recognize that two other centrist, Democrat technocrats, Carter (in the second term), and Dukakis, blew it by running a campaign that veered to the left.
10098. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:05:34 PM
Ace
Gore could have known, as his state parties and contacts were screaming at him "We are going to lose these states" at a time when many people were projecting the race to be a very narrow affair. Gore did not listen. He simply did not believe.
10099. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:07:54 PM
FU,
But you, astute political watcher you are, never predicted Bush wins in Tennessee & WV.
No one did. Not anyone I know of.
10100. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:09:40 PM
Ronski,
Everyone calls GWB the "Avenger" of his father's loss.
But I read a fascinating piece in the New Yorker. Gore was the true "Avenger." Gore ran pretty much on the same Southern-populist/liberal platform that his father would have run on.
Gore sought vindication for his father. We see the results of that.
10101. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:09:57 PM
Ace
It is true. I never predicted that Gore could possibly have done many dumb things he eventually did.
10102. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:10:31 PM
You still don't believe he's President, do you?
10103. CalGal - 2/26/2001 5:13:15 PM
Sure. Resignation sounds spiffy.
After winning two elections? I'm figuring Gore could figure out how to avoid it. If nothing else, he could burn the tapes.
Nixon ran a really horrid race. Gore ran a horrid race.
I disagree with both. I think they both ran flawed races, but not horrid races. I do agree that Gore ran too far to the left--on the other hand, given that the other thing that did him in was Nader, it's hard to know what would have happened had he not run left.
Ace,
Re results: yes, they both lost. I thought (again) that we were beginning from that point. Comparing two losing campaigns, one can still say that so and so's results were better. There are other results than just the presidency (although you'll get no argument from me that this dwarfs any others).
10104. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/26/2001 5:13:31 PM
10105. Ronski - 2/26/2001 5:14:09 PM
Ace,
I think that is true about Gore.
Anyone,
What is the appeal of Edwards to S. Carolinians and potentially to other Southerners? What kind of a campaign did he run to get his seat?
10106. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:15:41 PM
I'm not sure he appeals to S. Carolignians, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, because he's from North Carolina.
10107. CalGal - 2/26/2001 5:16:08 PM
I thought Edwards was from North Carolina?
10108. Ronski - 2/26/2001 5:16:28 PM
Thanks.
10109. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:16:58 PM
Don't you feel so very small and stupid now, Ronski.
10110. Ronski - 2/26/2001 5:17:36 PM
Still, how does any Democrat get elected in the South these days? I gather it is not as running as a leftist-populist.
10111. Ronski - 2/26/2001 5:17:58 PM
Ace,
No.
10112. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:18:30 PM
Ronski
He ran against a fossil, Lauch Faircloth, and he is attractive, smart and deft.
10113. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:18:48 PM
You should.
Your really should.
10114. Ronski - 2/26/2001 5:19:51 PM
Ace,
Nah. I knew the difference between Slovakia and Slovenia, before it was cool.
10115. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:20:03 PM
He's also wealthy, and he collects bucketfulls of money from his trial lawyer friends, whose pain he most definitely feels.
10116. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:22:05 PM
Edwards was outspent by Faircloth by (cue Dr. Evil) ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
10117. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:24:08 PM
Is that so?
Well, you've got to spend at least half a million to negate the disadvantage of being named "Lausch," and another half million to negate also being named "Faircloth."
It's almost a porn name.
10118. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:24:27 PM
Of the $8.3 million spent by Edwards in his Senate race, $6 million was his own dough and $580,000 came from lawyers.
10119. CalGal - 2/26/2001 5:24:58 PM
Ronski,
I would think that Dems are more able to run populist left in the south than they used to, since all the faux Dems are now Republicans. But I agree you're not going to get there by campaigning with Rengel or Boxer.
10120. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:25:19 PM
Faircloth, a wealthy hog farmer, spent $9.3 million. $1.7 million of it was his own dough.
10121. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:25:41 PM
Or even Rangel, for that matter.
10122. CalGal - 2/26/2001 5:26:13 PM
I always forget the spelling.
10123. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:26:18 PM
FU,
How do you know things like that off the top of your head?
10124. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:28:31 PM
"I would think that Dems are more able to run populist left in the south than they used to"
Ummmmm, the fact that the south is now fairly solidly Republican would tend to argue against running more "populist left" in a statewide contest.
In a minority-majority Congressional seat, sure. In a statewide contest, no.
10125. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:29:08 PM
Ace
I knew the general facts off the top of my head (I know a lot of useless trivia about Senate races) but I have a book next to my desk called The Almanac of American Politics that contains the numbers.
10126. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:30:29 PM
Washington, D.C. - Chairman Dan Burton (R-IN) today issued the following statement in response to former DNC Chair Beth Dozoretz's decision to assert her Fifth Amendment rights and not testify before the House Government Reform Committee in regard to the Marc Rich pardon investigation:
"The Committee has just been informed that Beth Dozoretz will exercise her Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination, and that she will refuse to testify on March 1, 2001. I am extremely disappointed. She now joins Denise Rich, who has already taken the Fifth. It is my hope that when she comes before the Committee on Thursday, she will change her mind and answer the Committee's questions. It is very troubling that Beth Dozoretz and Denise Rich, both close friends of former President Clinton who discussed the Rich pardon with him, would refuse to testify.
"Ever since former President Clinton issued a number of questionable pardons on January 20, 2001, he has said that the American people will understand that, when the facts come out, what he did was right. Unfortunately, the facts are not coming out. It is beginning to seem that the reason people aren't answering questions is because they are hiding something. This is unacceptable.
I'm sure it's all a coincidence, Congressman Burton.
10127. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:32:54 PM
What I like is that Burton is apparently going to call Mrs. Dozoretz anyway, and ask her questions anyway, and get her to invoke the Fifth Amendment a hundred times in response to very loaded questions.
10128. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:33:57 PM
Ohio, Jones:
Given the fact that two central figures are taking the Fifth, will you call once again for an "end to these silly investigations"?
10129. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:34:52 PM
Stuart Taylor on the Rich Pardon
10130. Francis Urquhart - 2/26/2001 5:35:37 PM
You know my position.
Let's move on, poopstain.
10131. CalGal - 2/26/2001 5:38:54 PM
Ace,
Ummmmm, the fact that the south is now fairly solidly Republican would tend to argue against running more "populist left" in a statewide contest.
All I meant was this: 20 years ago, "Southern Democrat" pretty much meant "Republican, except that's what Lincoln was." Southern Dems these days are pretty recognizably Dems.
10132. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:41:23 PM
Monday, Feb. 26, 2001 1:56 p.m. EST
Hillary Took Cash From Hugh Rodham's Pardon Client
A client of ex-first brother-in-law Hugh Rodham, who sought a presidential pardon for herself and her husband in January, donated $2,000 to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch revealed Monday.
What's more, Rodham's client made the donation on Nov. 27, 2000 - nearly a month after the election was over.
Nora Lum and her husband Gene pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations in 1997 after making illegal donations to Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy. The Lums were also suspected of funneling thousands of dollars to the late Clinton Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, using his son Michael as a conduit.
Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign accepted the Lums' money despite their previous guilty plea.
Though neither Lum received a pardon, the contribution raises questions about whether Hugh Rodham recommended that his clients donate to his sister's Senate campaign - as well as the donation's curious timing.
"Why would Nora Lum, a convicted felon, give money to Hillary almost a month after her landslide Senate victory?" asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Good question.
10133. CalGal - 2/26/2001 5:42:51 PM
Is that normal?
10134. AceofSpades - 2/26/2001 5:44:59 PM
Ho-fucking-boy.
Get this: Marc Rich's biographer says that Marc Rich and his associates used two code-words when speaking of bribes to government officials (in both the US and abroad).
One code-word was "chocalates." As in, "Let's give him some more chocolates."
Another code-word was, ummmm...
..."Prayer."
As in: "We've got to keep on PRAYING."
Which is funny. Because Bill Clinton's e-mail to Beth Dozoretz stated that he was working on "turning around the WH counsels" on the Rich pardon, but that they'd all need to "keep praying."
Um.
Uh.
Errrr...
But I'm quite sure this is just a coincidence. And I'm sure that Marc Rich's biographer, who wrote the biography in the mid-eighties, stuck this little factoid in to "get Clinton" fifteen years later.
10135. concerned - 2/26/2001 6:17:25 PM
10136. jonesatlaw - 2/26/2001 6:45:45 PM
Ace- It muts be fun creating your own reality. Find one, just one post where I suggested that the investigation into Clinton's pardon of Rich stop.
But go ahead and gloat anyway, since you so rarely have the chance to do it when you are correct.
10137. jonesatlaw - 2/26/2001 6:51:24 PM
Concerned- Was it worth having such partisan hackery by Kathleen Harris, the big lie campaign about recounts,and turning out the supreme court like project ho's when simply counting the votes would have got your party in office?
Too bad that the playing field is now set for bald partisanship and fraud in the next elections. Perhaps you shouldn't have lowered the bar.
10138. Indiana Jones - 2/26/2001 7:10:56 PM
But you, astute political watcher you are, never predicted Bush wins in Tennessee & WV.
No one did. Not anyone I know of.
Ace: I beg to differ.
<smirk>
I said long before it became fashionable that Gore would lose Tennessee. Franky should remember it because it was when he was doing one of his EV lists and saying there was no way Bush could win. He then went ecstatic at the prospect Gore might be denied the White House were that to happen.
As for West Virginia, I didn't "predict" that, but if you recall, in one of our discussions I told you that one reason I thought Bush would win was that Gore had to win all the "loose cannon" states, and that one of them was likely to not cooperate.
But Tennessee I was virtually certain about all along. Here and at TableTalk. Clinton-Gore barely carried it in '96, the governor and both senators are all Republicans with big wins in their last elections. It's a Republican state.
My personal surprises: That Tennessee was even as close as it was, New Mexico, and the contesting of Florida. I thought it would be a close race there, but no one could have predicted it would be settled in the courts, though all modesty aside, I did mention as a *wild scenario* the possibility of a recount somewhere in the country flip-flopping the election.
10139. wonkers2 - 2/26/2001 7:13:11 PM
I'm surprised Ace & Concerned haven't suggested that Ms.Rich and Ms. Dozoretz may have accommodated hizzoner in ways possibly more effective and plausible than financial bribes in which he has never shown the slightest interest.
10140. Fielding - 2/26/2001 7:42:42 PM
Ace:
"Everyone calls GWB the "Avenger" of his father's loss.
But I read a fascinating piece in the New Yorker. Gore was the true "Avenger." Gore ran pretty much on the same Southern-populist/liberal platform that his father would have run on.
Gore sought vindication for his father. We see the results of that."
This is true. I don't think that Gore is nearly as liberal as his dad, but no doubt Gore thinks he is.
10141. concerned - 2/26/2001 7:55:54 PM
Re. 10139 -
Guess you got there first, Wonkers:)
10142. wonkers2 - 2/26/2001 8:04:52 PM
Ha! But think about it! Denise beats Monica in several ways I can think of. Haven't seen a picture of Ms. Dozoretz. Menage a trois anyone?
10143. jexster - 2/26/2001 10:38:53 PM
> OLD FLORIDA VOTE TOTAL: BUSH +537
> Orlando Sentinel Review (17 counties):
> Gore +582
> Palm Beach Post Review (1 county): Gore
> +682
> Palm Beach County Election Board: Gore
> +174
> Miami Herald Review (1 county): Gore +49
> Tampa Tribune Review (1 county): Gore
> +120
> _____________________________________________
> ___________________
> NEW FLORIDA VOTE TOTAL: GORE +1,070
>
>
10144. jexster - 2/26/2001 10:44:06 PM
10145. jexster - 2/26/2001 10:46:33 PM
10146. joezan - 2/26/2001 11:36:13 PM
10147. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 1:55:39 AM
10148. OhioSTOPAS - 2/27/2001 7:02:13 AM
Message # 10134: Code words? Hee hee hee . . .
10149. OhioSTOPAS - 2/27/2001 7:06:01 AM
How many times did Denise Rich visit the White House?
It was over a hundred (NewsMax, AceofSpaces)
Then it was "up to a hundred", most or all in the "last one or two years" of the Clinton presidency (Congressman Dan Burton, Sunday morning)
Now it's down to less than 20 over eight years (today's papers).
Amazon.com's stock price is more stable than this number.
10150. RosettaStone - 2/27/2001 8:05:50 AM
Let's get the Secret Service records. That should answer the questions. Ohio.
That 20 number might just have been the number of solo late night visits of the praying songwriter
Big news last night on ABC was that Denise Rich and Democratic fund raiser Beth Dozeoretz did a threesome with Bill Clinton his last night in the White House to thank him for the pardon.
Both women have taken the Fifth on Clinton's penis size.
10151. RosettaStone - 2/27/2001 8:44:00 AM
Another example of classic Mafia tactics:
"Bill Clinton, while president, called the head of CBS to help his friends the Thomasons, who were embroiled in a billing dispute with the network, people in the entertainment industry said. Shortly thereafter, CBS sent a $1 million payment to the TV producers for an aborted comedy series."---front page, Wall Street Journal.
Let's see if Dan Rather covers this story...
10152. wonkers2 - 2/27/2001 9:21:26 AM
NYT--Secret Service records show that Denise rich and Beth Dozoretz visited the White House on the evening of jan 19, a few hours before Bill Clinton decided to issue a pardon to the fugitive commodities trader Marc rich, lawyers familiar with the case said today....
The records showed that Ms. Dozoretz entered the executive mansion at 5:29pm and that Ms. rich entered at 5:30 pm, the lawyers said. The records showed that the two women were cleared to enter the residential area of the White House but do not indicate when they left.
The records also showed that Ms. rich visited the White House 13 to 19 times during Mr. Clinton's presidency, while Ms. Dozoretz visited 76 times in the last two years.
Congressional investigators would like to question Ms. Dozoretz, a former top Democratic fund-raiser, about the visits. But she said today that she would refuse to testify, citing her constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Jack Quinn, insisted that the case for the pardon was made on the legal merits.
"I never asked Ms. Dozoretz to talk to the president about this in a fund-raising capacity...On the contrary, I emphasized to Ms. Dozoretz that this case could and must be made on the merits. She did not have to be convinced of that."
[From the photo accompanying the article, Ms.Dozoretz appears to be a quite attractive lady in her 40s, much more attractive than Ms.Lewinsky.]
10153. Ronski - 2/27/2001 9:38:42 AM
10154. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 9:57:45 AM
Log Cabin Repugs aren't gay; they're confused.
The Bush Pardons
Considering his original offense, it was ironic that Hammer won what he called the "vindication" of a presidential pardon only months after he poured well over $100,000 into Republican Party coffers, and another $100,000 into the accounts of the Bush-Quayle Inaugural committee. (In author Edward Jay Epstein's excellent biography of the oilman, there is a photograph of Hammer, his girlfriend and President Bush together at the White House in April 1990. Such visits were perks for members of Bush's "Team 100," as the GOP's most generous donors were known.)
10155. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 10:03:01 AM
An even more dubious case than Hammer's also reached Bush's desk during the first year of his presidency. In 1989, prominent Cuban-Americans in Florida began agitating for the release of Orlando Bosch, a notorious anti-Castro terrorist then serving a prison term for entering the United States illegally. American intelligence and law enforcement authorities firmly believed that Bosch was responsible for far worse actions, including the 1976 explosion that brought down a Cuban airliner, killing all 76 civilians aboard, though Venezuelan prosecutors had failed to convict him of that terrible crime. There was certainly no question that Bosch was an advocate of terror and had been involved in numerous bombings.
The Justice Department wanted to deport Bosch because, according to the FBI, he had "repeatedly expressed and demonstrated a willingness to cause indiscriminate injury and death." Freeing Bosch at a time when Washington was condemning terrorism abroad would obviously be hard to explain -- had someone asked.
10156. Ronski - 2/27/2001 10:05:30 AM
More anti-gay slander from the left, I see. I expect we'll be treated to some of Clinton's and Kerrey's favorite lesbian jokes posted any minute now.
10157. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 10:15:18 AM
Yes, Ronski. Dems baaaaad. Repugs good.
Jesse Helms and John Ashcroft have always been champions of gay rights.
10158. Francis Urquhart - 2/27/2001 10:25:26 AM
NannyJade knows best.
She divines who is a good gay and who is a baaaaad gay. She can tell you who the good blacks are, and who are baaaaaad blacks.
Thank goodness for Jade. Otherwise, what would all those confused gays and blacks do?
Good to see the consummate Democrat revaling her true feelinsg for these oppressed minority groups.
Chattel.
Git' along, little Ronski. Git' along.
10159. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 10:29:24 AM
No, I'm agreeing with you, Niner.
The Repug attitude toward gays has always been exemplary. They've always championed gay rights.
10160. Francis Urquhart - 2/27/2001 10:31:40 AM
No, no. I'm agreeing with you, Jade.
For God's sake, don't let them make up their own mind. They're like children. If they stray off the reservation, you whip them back into line.
10161. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 10:32:41 AM
In fact, the Repugs refuse the support of groups who might denigrate gays.
It is the teaching of their benevolent spiritual leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell that guide Repugs to their tolerant stances toward alternative lifestyles.
10162. Francis Urquhart - 2/27/2001 10:37:35 AM
Vote!
*Thwack*
Don't think, coolie.
*Thwack*
Vote!
*Thwack*
10163. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 10:42:21 AM
And the Repugs have been instrumental in furthering acceptance of alternative lifestyles into society. They never speak about "gay agendas" or "special rights."
10164. CalGal - 2/27/2001 10:44:04 AM
There's actually no more reason for blue collar voters to go Republican than there is gays--in fact, well-off gays are probably better off voting for Republicans. The Dems will take their taxes and vote in DOMA.
10165. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 10:49:08 AM
Sure. Wealthy gays should vote Repug.
After all, being rich more than makes up for not having a full set of civil rights.
10166. CalGal - 2/27/2001 10:52:07 AM
Wealthy gays have all the civil rights they can buy.
10167. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 10:53:55 AM
Sure, ValGal.
They shop for them in the Rights Section of IKEA.
10168. ranheim - 2/27/2001 1:29:35 PM
No matter on which side of the tax reduction bill you find yourself, you may be interested in this quote : "It is a general maxim that all governments find use for as much money as they can raise. Indeed, they have commonly demands for more ... I take this as a settled truth, that they will all spend as much as their revenue; that is, will live up to their income."
A recent fiscal conservative? No. I had never heard of the man. A James Smith of Mass. during the debate as to whether Mass. would ratify the Constitution - or not. Late 1780s!!
10169. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 2:38:40 PM
Bush Approval Numbers Slide To Lowest Point Since Dwight Eisenhower
10170. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:06:12 PM
A fresh new sighting of the "non-existant," no make that "conceptual phase," no make that "moving target experimental phase" rail gun:
US scientists take aim with fastest gun in West
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH(LONDON)
February 27, 2001, Tuesday
SECTION: Pg. 08
LENGTH: 286 words
HEADLINE: US scientists take aim with fastest gun in West
BYLINE: By Robert Uhlig Technology Correspondent
BODY:
A GUN that fires coin-size pellets 10 times faster than a bullet has been developed in America.The Z accelerator could fire a pellet from London to Edinburgh in 26 seconds, or from London to New York in four and a half minutes. It is outpaced only by a nuclear explosion.
It has been nicknamed the "fastest gun in the West". Marcus Knudson, who led the project to develop the Z accelerator at Sandia, an American nuclear laboratory, said that description was an understatement. "It's the fastest gun in the world."
The aluminium plates it fires move so fast that the air resistance turns them to liquid, heating them to 2,700C, and forcing Dr Knudson to look at other materials, such as titanium and copper.
It has been used only to examine the effect of high-velocity projectile impacts over a distance of a few feet, but the technology is being considered as an alternative to launching spacecraft.
A more mobile version could be a "hyper velocity" weapon, piercing thicker armour than any used in battle, Dr Knudson added.
The accelerator's vacuum chamber is the most powerful producer of electrical discharge on Earth.
It uses 20,000 amps to develop a magnetic field that accelerates pellets up to 45,000 mph in 200 billionths of a second, three times faster than the speed needed to escape Earth's gravitational pull.
10171. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 4:12:11 PM
Not a rail gun, Spaz.
Nice try, though.
The weapon you cite is quite interesting; it can destroy targets several inches away.
10172. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:21:54 PM
IS a rail gun, moron.
Please define "rail gun" for the group.
10173. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:26:53 PM
Jadetard reasoning:
From this --
"It has been used only to examine the effect of high-velocity projectile impacts over a distance of a few feet"
She deduces this --
"The weapon you cite is quite interesting; it can destroy targets several inches away."
Yes, Jadetard, I'm sure a projectile travelling at ten times the speed of a bullet just stops a few feet away. It "runs out of gas," I guess.
No, Jadetard. It is being used to study the effects of high-impact collisions; thus, the scientists hit things a few feet away, rather than several miles away. Because most laboratories aren't several miles long, you see.
10174. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 4:28:55 PM
The simple definbition of a rail gun is two rails (hence the "rail")connected to a power supply. One rail is connected to the (+) side of the power supply and the other to the (-) side. The projectile completes the circuit.
As current flows through the rails, a magnetic field is created which, in theory, causes the projectile to move in a certain direction.
10175. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 4:32:30 PM
Spaz:
What you are describing is an accelerator--which has been around for years.
Rail guns have also been around for years. Hobbyists make them. They just aren't in development as military weapons.
Sorry.
10176. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:32:52 PM
The simple definbition of a rail gun is two rails (hence the "rail")connected to a power supply. One rail is connected to the (+) side of the power supply and the other to the (-) side. The projectile completes the circuit.
This is a nice bluff. Yes, "power" and "magnetism" are involved, which is quite evident from the article itself. In order to appear knowlegeable, Jade takes a few guesses which have the verismilitude of specificity (my god, she even knows that one side is + and the other - !), but are quite wrong.
"As current flows through the rails, a magnetic field is created which, in theory, causes the projectile to move in a certain direction. "
Ah. "In theory."
At any rate, Jadetard, please explain why the gun in question is not a "rail gun."
10177. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:39:22 PM
Jadetard,
All "accelerators" use magnetic-field inducing "rails" along the sides of the acceleration tube to speed things on their way.
Rail gun = electromagnetic accelerator
"Rail gun" is just a name for such an accelerator used as a weapon.
10178. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:43:50 PM
Have I staked out an untenable position?
Perhaps. I confess I know precios little about rail guns or accelerators.
One thing I am sure of, however, is that Jadetard knows even less, and is an obnoxious, swinish bluffer.
I know I am right, because I'm sure that Jadetard is wrong. It is always wrong, and it is always bluffing and posturing.
10179. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 4:44:23 PM
Spaz:
The "in theory" part refers to the direction of the projectile which depends on a number of factors such as conductivity of the projectile, direction of the current, friction, air resistance, etc. Additionally, changes in voltage and magnetic flux will adversely affect the movement of the projectile.
Your cite involves an accelerator which is simply two very large electro-magnets which force a projectile though a tunnel, tube, or barrel.
10180. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/27/2001 4:44:48 PM
10181. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 4:46:15 PM
Correction to the above.
The accelerator may incorporate two or more large electro-magnets.
10182. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:47:12 PM
'Your cite involves an accelerator which is simply two very large electro-magnets which force a projectile though a tunnel, tube, or barrel."
Which is a rail gun.
Wizard of Idiocy:
How about that $100 million dollar tax cut Clinton bequeathed Marc Rich? I suppose you endorse that, yes?
Tax cuts for the rich, connected, corrupt friends of Bill ... all others can pound sand.
10183. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:50:11 PM
"to the direction of the projectile which depends on a number of factors such as conductivity of the projectile, direction of the current, friction, air resistance, etc. Additionally, changes in voltage and magnetic flux will adversely affect the movement of the projectile."
What a bluffer.
Wow. Nice laundry list. You really think that friction AND air resistance (NOTE TO the moron: Air resistance IS friction) might be a factor?
Wow. You really are knowledgeable on this subject. Friction and air resistance can affect a projectile. You knew that. There's no denying you knew that. I guess that proves you know what you're talking about.
Jadetard, do you imagine that the power of the magnetic field can also affect the speed of the projectile? How about the mass of the projectile? I'm guessing "Yes," but I will await your expert analysis.
10184. AceofSpades - 2/27/2001 4:52:02 PM
Jadetard,
In theory, gunpowder can propel a projectile down a tube in a certain direction, subject to the vaguaries of friction and air resistance.
In theory, you understand. In THEORY.
10185. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 4:55:57 PM
Spaz:
Your untenable position stems largely from being ignorant as sin.
Allow me to enlighten you. I know for a fact the US military looks at many potential weapons systems. Most of them never make it off the drawing board. NRL has looked at a rail gun but the technology is not mature enough to develop into a full-scale acquisition program.
The current problem with rail guns is largely one of power; we don't have large enough capacitors to store the massive amounts of power needed and we can't generate the power needed in a quick and efficient (fast, high power, low rise time pulses) manner. Impedance is a major problem as well.
10186. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/27/2001 4:56:39 PM
AceofSpayed-
No I don’t endorse anything Clinton did.
I just can’t abide sanctimonous hate and greedmongers!
10187. Indiana Jones - 2/27/2001 4:59:13 PM
It's amazing how similar Jade's comments are to the first hit on Google when "rail gun" is entered as a search term.
Jade: The simple definbition of a rail gun is two rails (hence the "rail")connected to a power supply. One rail is connected to the (+) side of the power supply and the other to the (-) side.
Google: A rail gun in it's simplest form is a pair of conducting rails separated by a distance L and with one rail connected to the positive and one the negative side of a power source supplying voltage V and current I.
Jade: The projectile completes the circuit.
Google: A conducting projectile bridges the gap L between the rails, completing the electrical circuit.
Jade: As current flows through the rails, a magnetic field is created which, in theory, causes the projectile to move in a certain direction."
Google: As current flows through the rails, a magnetic field B is generated with an orientation dictated by the right hand rule.
Note: Could it be that since Jade probably didn't understand how "the right hand rule" dictated orientation, it was replace with the vaguery "a certain direction" and "in theory"?
10188. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 4:59:40 PM
Air resistance is friction, Spaz. However, in a rail gun you have several sources of friction: air resistance and the movement of the projectile down the rails.
Your ignorance is showing, Spaz.
BTW, do you know how large these accelerators are?
10189. jonesatlaw - 2/27/2001 5:01:11 PM
Ace-Jade- Isn't the difference between an accelerator and a rail gun the existence of sequential pulses by a series of electromagnets versus, and single pulse?
10190. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 5:04:38 PM
Link to Sandia Z Accelerator
Try putting one of these on a ship or a tank.
10191. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 5:11:22 PM
jonesatlaw:
Not necessarily.
An accelerator or a rail gun could, in theory, both use multiple pulses. The rail gun would use a single electro-magnet since the rails form the magnetic field. An accelerator uses multiple electro-magnets surrounding a tube or tunnel.
Particle beam weapon (PBW) technology uses a single pulse energy release.
10192. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 5:12:33 PM
IJ:
It's an electrical thing.
You wouldn't understand.
10193. JadeGold1 - 2/27/2001 5:15:20 PM
BTW, IJ, I'm amused by your interjection of the "right hand rule."
You're aware the "right hand rule" is a convention, not a fact, right?
Just checking.
10194. robertjayb - 2/27/2001 5:24:08 PM
Kerrey continues tuning up for '04...
NEW YORK (AP) -Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, a onetime
presidential candidate and now head of New School University, said
Tuesday he wouldn't rule out another run for the White House.
``Saying never is not a good idea,'' he said at a meeting of the
New York Press Club. ``It's a possibility. I think, though, what
has to happen is, I've really got to want to be president, and that
hasn't happened yet.''
Kerrey, a Democrat, left the Senate to become president of the
New School, a job he officially began last week. He ran for
president against Bill Clinton in 1992 and has since been royally pissed off.
10195. Indiana Jones - 2/27/2001 5:34:15 PM
You're aware the "right hand rule" is a convention, not a fact, right?
Jade: Unlike you, I make no pretensions about this subject. But from a quick scan of the article you plagiarized, I seem to recall the right hand as merely being a mnemonic. Is that what you mean by "convention," but you don't wish to use the word "mnemonic" for fear of further demonstrating your plagiarism?
10196. jexster - 2/27/2001 5:45:04 PM
"I have said that the sanction regime is like Swiss cheese—that meant that they weren't very effective."—White House press conference, Washington, D.C., Feb. 22, 2001
10197. JJBiener - 2/27/2001 5:48:50 PM
Wiz - I just can’t abide sanctimonous hate and greedmongers!
Since you are a sanctimonious hate and greedmonger, you must be a frequent consumer of psych services.
10198. jexster - 2/27/2001 5:50:51 PM
11/27/00 Certified by Katherine Harris -537
12/8/00 Florida Supreme Court ruling +383 -154
12/18/00 Lake County manual recount +130 - 24
12/19/00 Broward manual recount +164 +140
12/29/00 Hernando manual recount +4 +144
12/30/00 Hillsborough manual recount +120 +264
1/3/01 Gadsden manual recount +40 +304
1/14/01 Miami-Dade manual recount #1
(minus prior recount included in 12/8)
-6
+11
-209 +100
1/20/01 Collier manual recount -226 -126
1/27/01 Palm Beach manual recount +682 +556
1/28/01 15 County manual recount (minus prior recounts in Lake and Gadsden) +366
-170 +752
2/10/01 Orange manual recount +203 +955
2/15/01 Seminole manual recount +13 +968
2/26/01 Miami-Dade manual recount #2 +49 +1017
Total Gore Gain from Recounts +1554
10199. jexster - 2/27/2001 5:51:29 PM
1/28/01 Analysis of overvotes in 8 counties by the Washington Post +28,510 +28,510
1/28/01 Analysis of overvotes in 15 counties by the Orlando Sun-Sentinel +944 +29,454
10200. jexster - 2/27/2001 5:52:06 PM
So what is that thing that is addressing the Congress this evening?
10201. Jenerator - 2/27/2001 5:54:48 PM
*Your* president.
If you don't like it, pack up Jade and yourself and move to Europe with Alec Baldwin. Please.
10202. JJBiener - 2/27/2001 5:58:24 PM
Jex - You are in desperate need of lessons on election law and simple arithmetic.
10207. RosettaStone - 2/27/2001 6:04:33 PM
Like Louie, Louie, the racist who killed Malcolm X, is Jexster still into his numbers thing?
So sad. Didn't he read the newspaper yesterday, even the liberal Miami Herald/USA TODAY say that Bush won.
Close race, 4sure. But Bush won fair and square.
Fair and square. Pretty much like W is now that he met his good wife, and his crazy days are behind him.
10208. JJBiener - 2/27/2001 6:06:31 PM
Jex - Bush received more votes in Florida. Recounting the most heavily Democratic counties in Florida in response to Gore's challenge would still have given Bush more votes. What part of this do you not understand?
10209. CalGal - 2/27/2001 6:22:35 PM
Jex--check Tech for the bad news on geocities images.
10210. RosettaStone - 2/27/2001 9:00:57 PM
Tacky Democrats. They're booing the Supreme Court right now in our House of Representatives.
10211. RosettaStone - 2/27/2001 9:08:41 PM
Isn't it great to see Dick Cheney sitting in the VP chair behind the president?
It's going to be a terrific speech.
10212. RosettaStone - 2/27/2001 9:10:18 PM
The applause is tremendous. The people love their new leader.
10213. RosettaStone - 2/27/2001 10:02:22 PM
The best speech in a generation. First half was "compassion." Second half was "conservative."
10214. JudithAtHome - 2/27/2001 10:04:33 PM
I'd give him a C+...but hardly the best of a generation.
10216. jexster - 2/27/2001 10:10:34 PM
INCOME GAINS AT TOP FAR OUTPACE GAINS FOR
REST OF POPULATION, LATEST IRS DATA SHOW
Top 1% of Tax Filers Gain $69,000 Apiece in 1998 Alone
New Internal Revenue Service data indicate that the after-tax income of the top one percent of tax filers jumped by $69,000 in 1998 alone and has grown 40 percent since 1989. The pace of this income growth was eight times faster than that of the bottom 90 percent of the population over the 1989-1998 period, according to an analysis of these data issued today by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington D.C. policy institute.
HTML Of Full Report
10217. jexster - 2/27/2001 10:12:40 PM
Just what they need a freakin tax cut.
10218. jexster - 2/27/2001 10:14:53 PM
Bad news indeed Cal......our Wiz is on Geocities!
I need my Wiz...I want to Wiz!
10219. jexster - 2/27/2001 10:16:27 PM
Rose...
You must be a flak for travel agents or somethin similar....
Carnival Cruise DC rep maybe?
10220. RosettaStone - 2/27/2001 10:21:17 PM
Democrats' response is very, very weak. They look tired.
But best quote was from the guy with no eyebrows saying: (paraphrase)
"We are like a lot of wild
spiders crying together,
but without tears.
10221. JudithAtHome - 2/27/2001 10:28:34 PM
LSD, anyone?
10222. Autodaffy - 2/27/2001 10:35:49 PM
W. get me my refund!
Judging from the begrudging respect that Dan Rather accorded the performance, the the dems can be said to be in "pleine deroute."
10223. Stumbo - 2/27/2001 11:10:20 PM
"... the after-tax income of the top one percent of tax filers [...] has grown 40 percent since 1989."
My gosh, Jex, you're right! The nerve of these people, hoping to get away with pocketing almost 4% more every year. There oughta be a law.
10224. Stumbo - 2/27/2001 11:16:19 PM
I loved the composite FL tallies, too, BTW.
Three men standing side by side are asked to estimate how far away some tree is. The first one says, "Oh, about 90 yards." The second, "I'd say, 100." The third, "More like 110."
Jex's brilliant conclusion would surely be that the distance is 300 yards.
10225. JJBiener - 2/27/2001 11:21:30 PM
Stumbo - I was wondering if anyone noticed Jex's double and triple counting. I just figured no one was reading his drivel.
10226. Autodaffy - 2/27/2001 11:28:04 PM
Jexter is the dumbest sob I have seen in a long time. He is entirely apt, as a dem supporter.
10227. Stumbo - 2/27/2001 11:33:42 PM
JJ:
Well, color me pathetic, but I still sometimes do. I'll try to work on alternate forms of fish-in-a-barrel-shooting, though.
10228. JJBiener - 2/27/2001 11:41:26 PM
Stumbo - I must confess that I will on occasion read his shorter posts just for the entertainment value. I figure he must work so hard to build up all that hate and anger, it would be ungentlemanly for me not laugh my ass off at him.
10229. joezan - 2/28/2001 12:02:33 AM
The sad thing is, he's not alone. Yesterday, I announced to my demo buddies at work the results of the Miami Herald re-count, and they all had to gather around a PC and go online to see if it was really true - they thought I was joking.
So, now their new "outrage" is this: GWB put the entire nation through hell (needlessly, as it turns out) for over a month, and further created a constitutional crisis by taking the case to the SC.
They will "never be able to respect him for that".
10230. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 1:16:19 AM
"You're aware the "right hand rule" is a convention, not a fact, right?"
Ummmmm... no. The "right hand rule" is a fact, not a "convention."
Do you even know what the right hand rule is, Jade?
10231. jonesatlaw - 2/28/2001 1:23:03 AM
Ace- I was waiting with baited breath for your example of a post where I advocated halting any investigation into Clinton and the pardons. Perhaps you missed it.
10232. jonesatlaw - 2/28/2001 1:52:07 AM
Or perhpas there isn't one. I'll check on your progress tommorrow.
10233. JudithAtHome - 2/28/2001 7:36:06 AM
Jones...
Is "baited" breath what a fisherman has as he is reeling in his catch?:-)
10234. joezan - 2/28/2001 7:54:04 AM
Judith:
It's much too early - go back to bed.
10235. RosettaStone - 2/28/2001 7:56:53 AM
Judith:
An observation.
You show your insecurity of what is funny by using your smily faces whenever you tell jokes.
Example, the above was witty but the smile ruins it.
10236. JudithAtHome - 2/28/2001 8:17:27 AM
Rosetta, you show your intelligence with every post you make; your name above your post ruins it. Very few people take the time to hound you about your misspellings, inanities, and plagarism...if you can't abide a smiley face, then skip over it. (And if you're going to criticize me, be original instead of resorting to cazartisms.)
And joezan, I'm gone for the day so this was a one shot deal...
10237. rubberducky - 2/28/2001 8:32:31 AM
Jex's 10203 - 10206 were deleted due to the pics not showing up.
Jex's 10215 was deleted due to it being a dup of 10216
10238. RosettaStone - 2/28/2001 8:46:03 AM
CONGRATS. Get into into it BIG TIME, rubber.
There are hundreds of Jexster's posts that are duplicates.
10239. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 9:28:18 AM
Ummmmm... no. The "right hand rule" is a fact, not a "convention."
Ummmm....no. The right hand rule, or Fleming's Rule, is a convention, Spaz.
Do you have any earthly idea what a convention is?
Hint: It's not a hall full of people with funny hats waving signs.
10240. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 10:45:29 AM
Judith - I'd give him a C+...
That is high praise coming from you.
10241. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 10:57:13 AM
Jade - Here is a site about the right hand rule. Which definition of "convention" do you believe applies to this?
10242. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 11:07:04 AM
Wiener:
Do you understand what a convention is?
10243. Frankster - 2/28/2001 11:14:45 AM
JJ,
I have a question for you in the Arts and Music thread.
10244. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 11:29:36 AM
In response to the engineering-challenged, such as Spaz, IJ, and Wiener, a convention is a consensus used by scientists and engineers to describe a principle or phenomena that necessarily isn't based on fact.
The right hand rule is based on such a convention.
Anyone capable of identifying it?
10245. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 11:34:08 AM
Fraank - Check A&M.
10246. Indiana Jones - 2/28/2001 11:39:12 AM
The right hand rule is based on such a convention.
Anyone capable of identifying it?
Jade: I'll give it a shot.
First, form a fist. Now raise the middle finger of said fist. Finally, look at yourself in the mirror.
That's the "conventional" response known as the Middle Finger Rule that most Motiers apply to your posts.
10247. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 11:42:39 AM
Jade - a convention is a consensus used by scientists and engineers to describe a principle or phenomena that necessarily isn't based on fact.
I understand what a convention is. I don't see how it applies to the right hand rule. The relationship between a charge, the magnetic field and the magnetic force is a fact. The right hand rule merely describes that fact. Are you claiming that there is a convention among scientists to use the right hand rule to describe this relationship? If so that is different that claiming the right hand rule is itself a convention.
10248. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 11:43:09 AM
IJ:
Demonstrating your ignorance again?
The question's not hard, it's High School Physics.
10249. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 11:48:13 AM
Wiener:
Think about the magnetic field. Is the "direction" of the magnetic field accurate?
10250. jexster - 2/28/2001 12:03:37 PM
Shrub's first stop on his budget sham tour is in Beaver PA, west of Pittsburgh. Citizens For Legitimate Government will be there to remind the public that Bush not only has no mandate to enact his agenda, he was not elected, and
has no legitimate right to rule in a democratic nation. Be there if you can!
Details
10251. jexster - 2/28/2001 12:04:34 PM
Shrub will be visiting North Little Rock's Lakewood Elementary School on Thursday to brainwash Americans into supporting his plan to shut down our public schools and force our kids into parochial schools. Democrats.com members will be there to remind him that he is only the "Commander in Thief." To participate, mailto:BaddogReturns@hotmail.com
10252. jexster - 2/28/2001 12:05:40 PM
According to the latest Washington Post-ABC poll, Bush's 55% job approval rating is the LOWEST of any new President in 50 YEARS. At the start of their terms, Clinton's approval was 63%, and Poppy's was 76%. Considering the absolutely fawning coverage BOTUS has received from the media, we're astonished his ratings are so low. Now the Post tells us that all of Bush's pet projects are in trouble - tax cuts for the wealthy, evangelical pork, the aristocracy restoration act (abolishing the estate tax),
10253. jexster - 2/28/2001 12:07:24 PM
Bush's SS Plan: Appoint A Commish...Waste Now...Bankruptcy Later
10254. jexster - 2/28/2001 12:09:00 PM
BOTUS Wingnut Legislative Program in Deep Doo [W.Post]
10255. Francis Urquhart - 2/28/2001 12:35:47 PM
Poopstain, I say.
10256. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 12:45:26 PM
Is anyone aware of any intermarriage between cousins or close relations in the Bush family tree?
Curious George's eyes are terribly close together.
10257. Francis Urquhart - 2/28/2001 1:11:10 PM
You mean Gore was beat by an inbred?
Damn.
10258. glendajean - 2/28/2001 1:12:17 PM
You mean Gore was beat by an inbred?
You shouldn't talk about the Supreme Court like that.
10259. Francis Urquhart - 2/28/2001 1:12:22 PM
"Hey, Al, how you doin'?"
"Ah, not so good."
"Why?"
"I got beat in three debates."
"Hey, well, you can't win them all."
"Yea, but I lost all three to an inbred."
"Er . . . wow .. . sorry dude."
10260. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 1:12:46 PM
Gore didn't lose, Niner.
You know that.
10261. Francis Urquhart - 2/28/2001 1:13:44 PM
glenda
I hear Thomas is the illegitimate child of Souter and Ginsburg, but I don't put much stock in rumors (unless they involve a Clinton-Rich-Dozortez threesome).
10262. Francis Urquhart - 2/28/2001 1:14:35 PM
Jade
Yep. Gore is a winner like Kerry Collins is goin' to Disneyworld.
10263. OhioSTOPAS - 2/28/2001 1:17:56 PM
Dumbness Is A Virtue:
The Walter Shapiro column in today's USA Today reviews last night's State of the Union Message and contrasts former President Bill Clinton (bad!) with President George W. Bush (good!):
"After eight years of . . . a high-wire act in which the president regarded every appearance before Congress as an opportunity to creatively ad-lib his way through a speech text, we now have the soothing opposite to Bill Clinton. George W. Bush demonstrated Tuesday night in a well-argued and adequately delivered speech to a joint session that he is the no-surprises president.
"Virtually everything went as scripted. . . . Rather than depending on charisma or eloquence, Bush was out to show that discipline and determination are what it takes to be a successful president."
The President was out to show "discipline and determination" by clinging to every word of his prepared text? Uh-huh. I'm sure the fear that the new President would refer to the "State of the Onion" had nothing to do with this strategy.
10264. OhioSTOPAS - 2/28/2001 1:19:25 PM
And having the intelligence to extemporize is surely something we don't want in a President.
10265. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 1:23:05 PM
Anyone notice how Jadetard just keeps bluffing?
Rather than simply answer the question and explain precisely how the right-hand rule -- a mnemonic created for describing the inalaterable, factual relationship between direction of current flow and the direction of force of the resultant magnetic field -- is not a "fact" but a mere "convention," Jadetard chooses not to.
She could explain what she meant -- IF she knew what the fuck she was talking about -- in two sentences.
But she doesn't, so she can't.
So she simply keeps bluffing. Rather than answer a question, she just keeps merrily hoping to scare people off with the posture that she knows more than anyone else.
Asked--
"How is this a convention, Jade?"
She responds not by answering, but by avoiding the question:
"Do you even know what a convention is?"
What an obnoxious prick. She should be banned.
10266. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 1:35:53 PM
Spaz:
I answered the question you could not. I've now provided a very large clue as to the convention associated with Fleming's Rule.
Can I make it simpler for you?
I'm rapidly revising my opinion of third-tier colleges.
10267. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 1:37:38 PM
Oh, a fucking clue. Ohhhhhhhhhhh.
Jadetard, why can't you just answer the fucking question?
10268. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 1:44:38 PM
Think of it as the Socratic Method, Spaz.
You'll learn more if you discover as opposed to being given the answer.
10269. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 1:48:49 PM
Ohhhhh, okay, Jadetard.
Is Google not providing you the answers?
10270. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 1:50:58 PM
Think, Spaz. Think magnetic fields.
You did graduate from that third-tier school, didn't you?
10271. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 1:55:31 PM
Perhaps it's a "moving target convention."
Think Spiro Agnew, Jadetard.
And then think on this:
Instant Reaction: Speech Viewers Give Bush High Marks
Half of audience is Republican
by David W. Moore
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted immediately after President George W. Bush's speech Tuesday evening, shows that most viewers reacted very positively to the speech, believe that the president is leading the country in the right direction, feel confident in his abilities to carry out his duties as president, generally support the proposals he outlined and specifically support his tax cuts.
Viewers also give strong endorsement to the proposals he presented for dealing with Social Security. On the other hand, only about a fifth of viewers indicate that the tax cuts should be a top priority for the Bush administration, and most expect that Bush's tax cut proposal would cause their taxes to go down a little rather than a lot.
10272. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 1:56:34 PM
The poll was conducted among 399 viewers who had been called February 25-26 and indicated that they would be watching the speech. The poll shows that partisans of the president were more likely to watch than those of a different party orientation, as about half of the sample -- 49% -- consisted of Republicans, 23% independents, and 28% Democrats. In 1999, when Gallup conducted a similar one-night poll of Americans who watched President Clinton's state of the union speech, the partisanship of viewers was also skewed toward the president, although not quite as strongly. Overall, 40% of the viewers that year were Democrats, 32% independent, and 25% Republican.
On Tuesday evening, more than nine viewers in ten -- 92% -- said they felt positive about Bush's speech, with 66% saying "very" positive. In 1999, the positive reaction to Clinton was somewhat lower, as 83% expressed positive feelings, with 56% saying "very" positive.
Even before his speech, most viewers on Tuesday evening gave high marks to Bush, but after the speech the ratings were even higher. More than eight in ten viewers -- 84% -- said he was leading the country in the right direction, up from 73% who said that in the two days before the speech, and 86% said they felt either very or somewhat confident in his abilities to carry out his duties as president -- up from 81% who said before the speech. In 1994 and 1995, Clinton received similar ratings on moving the country in the right direction after he finished his speech, although his pre-speech ratings were lower than Bush's.
10273. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 1:58:03 PM
The poll also shows that like the American public in general, few viewers indicate that the tax cuts should be a top priority for the Bush administration. Overall, 22% said it should be a top priority, and another 61% a high priority. [Note: Hee, hee. "Only" 22% think it should be a top priority, but 61% think it should be a high priority. I'll take it-- that's 83% saying it is either a top or high priority.]
10274. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 1:59:12 PM
Last January, a poll of the general public showed 26% of Americans saying federal tax cuts should be a top priority and 39% a high priority, but that ranked the issue 13th out of 14 issues mentioned in the poll. One reason for the relatively low priority of the issue may be that few viewers expect to benefit greatly from the program. Overall, 13% said they expected their taxes would go down a lot, while 69% said a little, and 15% said not at all.
Reactions to Bush's speech and proposals were clearly partisan, although even majorities of Democrats gave positive ratings to the president after his speech on most of the items. Democrats and independents were more likely to be swayed by what Bush said during the presentation than were Republicans, who already gave overwhelmingly support to the president and his proposals. efore the speech, for example, Democratic viewers opposed Bush's tax cuts by 59% to 28%, but after the speech they were evenly divided -- with 49% in favor and 48% opposed.
10275. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 2:03:43 PM
By comparison, before the speech, independents supported the tax cuts by 68% to 26%, and afterward the margin increased to 78% to 21%. Among Republicans, support for the tax cuts increased only slightly because there was little room for movement -- from a margin of 90% to 5% before the speech to 95% to 3% afterward. There was virtually no change, however, in the priority rating given to the tax cuts by each of the partisan groups.
Survey Methods
Adults 18+ were surveyed...
The sample consists of 49% of respondents who identify themselves as Republicans, 28% who identify themselves as Democrats, and 23% who identify themselves as Independents.
Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.
What was your overall reaction to Bush’s speech tonight – [ROTATED: very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, (or) very negative]?
President Bush
2001 Feb 27
V. Pos. 66
Smwht pos 26
Smwht neg 6
V. Neg 1
Mixed/Both *
No Opinion 1
Bill Clinton
1999 Jan 19
V pos 56
S pos 27
s neg 9
v neg 7
m/b 1
no *
1998 Jan 27
52
32
11
5
*
*
10276. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 2:04:16 PM
The Dems have proposed a tax cut as well, Spaz. The Dem tax cut plan has a greater chance of success.
Debt and Taxes
Mr. Bush likes to declare that a surplus means that the government is collecting too much in taxes. But it means no such thing if the surplus is mainly a matter of preparing for the fiscal consequences of an aging population. And it is. Nonetheless, Mr. Bush's advisers continue to search for reasons that doing the responsible thing is actually a bad idea.
10277. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 2:05:33 PM
And now thinking just about Bush’s speaking style and delivery, what was your reaction to his speech
tonight -- [ROTATED: very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, (or) very negative]?
President Bush
2001 Feb 27
v pos 66
s pos 27
s neg 6
v neg 1
m/b *
no *
Thinking about the policies of President Bush and his administration, in your view, is George W. Bush leading the country in the right direction or in the wrong direction?
Right direction
Wrong direction
No opinion
President Bush
2001 Feb 27 (Post)
84
12
4
2001 Feb 27 (Pre)
73
12
15
Bill Clinton
1995 Jan 24 (Post)
83
15
2
How confident are you in George W. Bush’s abilities to carry out his duties as president -- very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not confident at all?
Very confident
Somewhat confident
Not too confident
Not confident at all
No
opinion
President Bush
2001 Feb 27 (Post)
52
34
12
2
*
Bill Clinton
1999 Jan 19 (Post)
55
24
10
11
0
10278. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 2:10:14 PM
CBS poll of 987 adults
88% approval of speech
Good lord. Remember how you libs used to cream your jeans about Clinton's speeches being received well by the public?
Remember when we Republicans told you that that's not such a difficult trick? Remember how you then insisted, "No, Bill has as special genius for communicating with the American people"?
How stupid do you feel now?
10279. Wombat - 2/28/2001 2:12:13 PM
President* Bush's tax and spend proposals = "Voodoo Economics"
10280. Indiana Jones - 2/28/2001 2:13:09 PM
I knew before I clicked the link it would be Krugman.
The same economist Jade/Caz's quotes everytime.
Everytime.
10281. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 2:20:00 PM
Ho hum.
Curious George remains a moron.
Spaz is quite excited that Curious George was able to mouth slogans from a teleprompter without picking his nose. He said nothing of substance. This is a major victory for Spaz.
Give him an extra banana and some peanuts.
10282. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 2:21:52 PM
IJ:
What is this obsession you have?
Are you suggesting that only two people have access to the New York Times' Op-Ed section?
10283. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 2:24:56 PM
"Curious George was able to mouth slogans from a teleprompter without picking his nose. He said nothing of substance."
The same is true of Bill Clinton. But GWB got higher and more enthusiastic public approval for his speech.
This is the liberals' game. When Bill Clinton speaks in bullet points and broad platitudes and bromides, they call it "substance."
Now, I have no problem with *speaking* in bullet points and bromides. You cannot give the "details" of a 1,000 page budget document in a forty five minute speech. Clinton didn't; Gore didn't; Bush didn't.
Because it's impossible.
But Jadetard and her ilk will claim that Bush said nothing of "substance" in his speech, despite the fact that he spoke in the same level of detail as Bill Clinton or any other President.
10284. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 2:28:53 PM
Clinton gave the same laundry list SOTU for the last three years. The same broad, glib proposals, the same promises to "save" SS without giving the specifics, and *ALWAYS* without pricetags or costs.
Always.
But that, I guess, was "substantive."
10285. Indiana Jones - 2/28/2001 2:31:07 PM
Are you suggesting that only two people have access to the New York Times' Op-Ed section?
Nope. In your case it would take only one person's having access. But actually my comment was about the fact that you incessantly quote Krugman instead of anyone else.
Say...Robert Mundell, for example.
<smirk>
You remember Robert Mundell, don't you?
Anyway, I'm bored with you for today.
10286. Indiana Jones - 2/28/2001 2:32:25 PM
Test
10287. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 2:35:20 PM
IJ:
You're not into Spaz's medications, are you?
Robert Mundell?
10288. PelleNilsson - 2/28/2001 2:39:29 PM
JadeGold
This is not the first time you refer to Ace's "medications". I suggest you stop that. It's so utterly tasteless and meaningless.
10289. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 2:41:37 PM
I should note that they're only "moving target medications."
Think Spiro Agnew.
Think "magnetism."
10290. CalGal - 2/28/2001 2:41:41 PM
Indy,
But Krugman's a pretty credible source.
10291. jexster - 2/28/2001 2:42:26 PM
Same economist I quote everytime...everytime...
Pretty damned hard to argue with.
10292. jexster - 2/28/2001 2:44:50 PM
Jade..
Glad UR here.....
I am working on a project for class (stats & SF Political Issues) now in the proposal stage - "Asian American Voting Behavior in SF"
I am pig ignorant.
Probably it will evolve to a look at Chinese...maybe Chinese + Phillipino ("Asian-American" is such a meaningless construct)
If you've any thoughts, please share here or in detail....jmac@sfsu.edu...
Thanks
10293. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 2:46:45 PM
Pelle:
Reference to Spaz's medications offends you?
I give as I get. Perhaps you should examine your own rather myopic perspective.
10294. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 2:56:45 PM
Jex:
I can't address the Filipino community.
I can tell you the Chinese community tends toward the liberal on cultural issues at the same time as we maintain our traditional (non-Judeo-Christian) values. On fiscal issues, we're more conservative. We like the idea of tax cuts but the notion of debt appalls us.
I'll think more on your project. Is there something specific you need? Voting breakdowns?
10295. rubberducky - 2/28/2001 3:03:50 PM
Pelle:
I suggest you stop that.
or what?
10296. PelleNilsson - 2/28/2001 3:05:57 PM
ducky
I was just appealing to his/her common decency, if any.
10297. rubberducky - 2/28/2001 3:07:57 PM
oh - ok
carry on
heh
10298. jexster - 2/28/2001 3:13:24 PM
Thanks Jade...The prof, head of the SF State Pol Science Dept. has promised to share his EXTENSIVE dataset on SF elections - precinct by precinct with census data...(I haven't forgotten how to brown-nose)...one of the 4 assistants he has teaching the course is a grad student and head of the Chinese-American voting project here in SF...I also have a candidate who lost a recent SF Supe Race, carrying Chinatown but losing the white areas to a radical...
So I do have some resources...but damned ignorant...
one thing that strikes me is the large demographic differences within the community and also the generational thing...
The Chinese don't have the best turnout record but that, supposedly is changing along with increased governmental participation....
Do yall block vote?
10299. jexster - 2/28/2001 3:14:09 PM
Welll any thoughts you have, I appreciate....much work to do..much chow fun to eat!
10300. JadeGold1 - 2/28/2001 3:19:16 PM
Jex:
Have you contacted the OCA in San Francisco?
The Chinese Assistant you mentioned can give you a lead.
10301. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 3:53:46 PM
Jade - Is the "direction" of the magnetic field accurate?
Yes.
10302. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 3:58:10 PM
Jade - Curious George's eyes are terribly close together.
How terribly Democratic of you.
Gore didn't lose, Niner.
Really, only the people who actually watched the debates believe he lost. The fawning sycophants believe he won.
10303. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 4:02:11 PM
CalGal - But Krugman's a pretty credible source.
Only if you find partisan hacks credible.
Jex - Same economist I quote everytime...everytime...
Which proves my point.
10304. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 4:04:28 PM
Jex - I am pig ignorant.
You certainly are.
10305. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 4:05:52 PM
Pelle - I was just appealing to his/her common decency, if any.
You are tilting at windmills.
10306. Indiana Jones - 2/28/2001 4:15:48 PM
I can tell you the Chinese community tends toward the liberal on cultural issues at the same time as we maintain our traditional (non-Judeo-Christian) values.
Personally, I find this more offensive than JadePyrite's references to Ace's medication. Do epileptics take medication? If so, at least that sort of statement has the intrinsic value of being based in truth.
Offensive is probably too strong a word, but if we're going to appeal to someone's "common decency," I'd start by asking that they not post known falsehoods.
"Our" my aunt fanny brice.
10307. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 4:25:51 PM
Indy - I'd start by asking that they not post known falsehoods.
This would effectively render Jade (and Jex) mute.
10308. jexster - 2/28/2001 4:29:58 PM
Thanks Jade...I'll put that in my proposed researchy section
10309. jexster - 2/28/2001 4:30:46 PM
Looks like Biener is speechless in Seattle as it were...was wrong bean man...jade made you look the fool - again?
10310. jexster - 2/28/2001 4:32:18 PM
SPeaking of speechless in Seattle, when asked why BOTUS had nothing to say about The Quake, the travelin Road Show responded "we take things in stride"
Translation from BushSpeak
We haven't had time to give the idiot cue cards
10311. Fielding - 2/28/2001 4:39:33 PM
JJ:
"Only if you find partisan hacks credible."
Calling Krugman a partisan hack is not only evidence of one's own hackdom, it is evidence of one's own stupidity.
10312. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 4:42:32 PM
Jex - I am sure #10309 means something to you, but I don't have the inclination to try to decode it.
10313. jexster - 2/28/2001 4:44:00 PM
Chicago's Roman Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal Francis George, said that executing Timothy McVeigh would be tantamount to committing assisted
suicide. George spoke to a group that included relatives of murder victims who have become opponents of the Death Penalty. Hey
10314. jexster - 2/28/2001 4:44:37 PM
So Weenie, what do you know about Chinese-American voting behavior?
10315. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 4:47:02 PM
Fielding - Calling Krugman a partisan hack is not only evidence of one's own hackdom, it is evidence of one's own stupidity.
It is merely a statement of an obvious fact. It is really a shame since the man is reasonably intelligent and can present a reasonable sounding argument. It is too bad that he uses that ability to promote purely political positions.
10316. Raskolnikov - 2/28/2001 4:49:35 PM
"Purely Political" in that he disagrees with you? I can't think of any other meaning of the term that makes sense when applied to Krugman.
10317. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 4:52:25 PM
jex - what do you know about Chinese-American voting behavior?
It will be difficult to classify. I think you will find significant differences between the way recently naturalized immigrants vote compared to second or third generation. I think you will also find differences between Taiwan-born, Hong Kong-born and mainland-born immigrants.
10318. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 4:55:03 PM
Rask - "Purely Political" in that he disagrees with you?
He doesn't always disagree with me. He is purely political in that he uses economics to justify his political positions rather than allowing his political positions to be guided by economics.
10319. wonkers2 - 2/28/2001 5:01:40 PM
Krugman applies economics to real world problems in a quite straightforward apolitical way.
10320. jexster - 2/28/2001 5:03:13 PM
Peddling Prosperity : Economic Sense and Nonsense in an Age of Diminished Expectations
by Paul Krugman
Newsweek
In ten lively chapters, Krugman traces how loose economic thinking has repeatedly led to wrongheaded government policies. In the process, he offers the best primer around on recent US economic history.
10321. jexster - 2/28/2001 5:03:47 PM
Biener is a partisan wack hack
10322. jexster - 2/28/2001 5:04:17 PM
and pig ignorant..not just about Chinese voting either
10323. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 5:04:41 PM
Wonk - Krugman applies economics to real world problems in a quite straightforward apolitical way.
Only if you mean apolitical to mean in ways you agree with. Even when I agree with Krugman I can tell he is just trying to justify his politics.
10324. Fielding - 2/28/2001 5:05:35 PM
JJ:
"He doesn't always disagree with me. He is purely political in that he uses economics to justify his political positions rather than allowing his political positions to be guided by economics."
No, that's what you do.
Give one example of Krugman bending an economic argument to fit a political position. Just one.
10325. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 5:06:12 PM
Jex - and pig ignorant
That would give me something in common with you and that simply isn't possible.
10326. jexster - 2/28/2001 5:06:14 PM
haven't had the time to read Mister Krugman today..but let me guess....
He ripped BOTUS to shreds and Beiner can't figger out where to begin pickin up the pieces...am I wrong?
10327. jexster - 2/28/2001 5:07:39 PM
JJB - But thanks for Message # 10317 I put into Questions to Explore Section right now!
10328. Ronski - 2/28/2001 5:10:11 PM
The Latest from Laura: More Political Than Ever
10329. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 5:11:17 PM
Fielding - Try the Krugman book Jex mentioned upthread. It is loaded with examples.
10330. jexster - 2/28/2001 5:11:53 PM
This is killer...Bernie Shaw in his last interview with Nanny Warbucks...
I noticed that the Moron kept lookin at you during his news conference and you kept sending him prompts about what to say..what's that about?
hehehe
10331. Ronski - 2/28/2001 5:15:29 PM
10332. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 5:17:09 PM
Jex - am I wrong?
Always.
10333. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 5:19:11 PM
Fielding - If you want an example of Krugman using "economics" to justify a political position you need look no farther than today's column.
10334. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 5:29:16 PM
Krugman is a hack. Not for what he says, but for what he doesn't say.
When Bush proposes tax cuts, he cries "Debt reduction! Fiscal irresponsibility!"
Fair enough.
But when Clinton & the Democrats grew the rate of government spending 6% over the last three years (8% last year), Krugman did NOT cry "Debt reduction! Fiscal irresponsibility!"
He likes Debt Reduction, yes. But he seems to like new government spending just as much, for he does not claim that Debt Reduction should take primacy over new spending. When new spending is proposed, he is silent on the matter of debt reduction, apparently oblivious to the fact that money spent on new programs could ALSO be used to pay down the debt.
This is dishonest argumentation. Krugman does not favor debt reduction over all else; he merely favors debt reduction over ONE KIND of "spending" -- namely, tax cuts. He does NOT favor debt reduction over another kind of spending -- *actual* spending --which could also be used to retire debt.
Nevertheless, whenever a tax cut is proposed, he cries and whines like the Boy who Cried Wolf.
He should admit forthrightly that he prefers:
1) (tie) Debt Reduction
New Government Spending
2) Tax cuts
and that George Bush prefers
1) Tax reduction
2) Debt reduction
3) Government spending
and that simple "objective economics" cannot prove that Krugman's preference -- spending -- is any better than Bush's preference -- tax cuts.
10335. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 5:30:01 PM
Both have the same effect on debt reduction: namely, there's less money for it.
Whether the country spends an additional $1.6 trillion or passes a tax cut of $1.6 trillion, that's $1.6 trillion that's unavailable for debt retirement, and an "economist" shouldn't care which we do, at least when he's wearing his economist hat.
Krugman IS an economist, but his columns are political -- to be more specific, liberal and partisan -- and they are quoted for that purpose.
10336. AceofSpades - 2/28/2001 5:34:20 PM
A country could be "hard-hearted," and have almost no social spending, and low taxes; its budget would be balanced and thus fiscally "responsible."
A country could be "compassionate," and have lots of social spending, and high taxes; its budget too would be balanced and thus fiscally "responsible."
Either would result in balanced budgets... and an economist, speaking AS an economist, really ought not to have a preference for either.
But Krugman clearly does. And his preference is not based on economics. It is based on politics.
He wants to spend more on the poor. He wants a big-budget prescription plan for seniors, rather than Bush's moderate, more stingy plan.
Fair enough.
But since Krugman clearly endorses spending for one purpose (social programs), he cannot with a straight face claim that he's "neutral and objective" in denigrating plans for another form of "spending" (tax cuts).
10337. OhioSTOPAS - 2/28/2001 5:57:27 PM
"But when Clinton & the Democrats grew the rate of government spending 6% over the last three years (8% last year) . . ."
Yeah, that Democrat-controlled House of Representatives!
10338. jexster - 2/28/2001 5:57:55 PM
ou're a middle-aged couple, at the peak of your earning power. You are saving in preparation for your retirement, a little more than 10 years from now. You consider paying off your mortgage early. But the bank informs you that you would face prepayment penalties. Do you (a) stick with your plan to prepare for retirement, but buy stocks and bonds instead of paying off your mortgage, or (b) say, "Oh, in that case let's forget about the future and take an expensive vacation"?
George W. Bush would apparently answer (b). For that is the essence of his latest argument for his tax cut.
HUH?
10339. jexster - 2/28/2001 6:00:03 PM
Double HUH, Double DUH
Let's not forget that Texas is now in serious fiscal difficulty thanks to the tax cut Mr. Bush pushed through as governor — a cut that he helped sell with tricky accounting, including a supposed two-year Medicaid package that was actually only budgeted for 23 months....
10340. jexster - 2/28/2001 6:00:42 PM
Well they aren't forgettin in Tejas...nearly 1 billion and counting
10341. Raskolnikov - 2/28/2001 6:22:55 PM
Lesson #23,643 in why to never trust Ace's characterization of anyone else's arguments.
Krugman's frequent attacks have been on *irresponsible* tax cuts. That is, tax cuts of such magnitude that they send us back into deficits. He is also opposed to intellectually dishonest attempts to *sell* such tax cuts.
Ace thinks it is damning that Krugman didn't attack the 5% (not 8%) of growth in federal spending last year. I would suspect this is because inflation grew by over 3%, population grew by over 1%, and the economy grew by around 4%, leading the Federal government to shrink as a % of GDP from 18.6% in 1999 to 18.2% in 2000. No one but Ace would consider this irresponsible growth.
There is some truth to the accusation that Krugman picks his targets based on his political leanings, but Ace seems to assume that his political leanings are completely independent of his economic analysis. Ace also ignores Krugman's many attacks on the left (a huge share of Peddling Prosperity, the book JJ cites as evidence of hackery, was devoted to attacking the policies of many of Clinton's top policy advisors, such as Robert Reich, and Krugman has been a very harsh critic of the anti-WTO crowd). That is a far cry from hackdom.
10342. Raskolnikov - 2/28/2001 6:25:42 PM
And Krugman *is* usually upfront when he is making normative political/economic statements.
10343. Raskolnikov - 2/28/2001 6:28:40 PM
Real government spending rises by less than one percent per capita, while shrinking by 4 tenths of a percent of GDP, and Ace shrieks about the gummint running amok on a spending spree.
Go figure.
10344. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 6:35:19 PM
If Krugman isn't a hack, someone should inform him that Texas is still running a surplus and will continue to for the foreseeable future.
10345. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 6:38:29 PM
Rask - Ace also ignores Krugman's many attacks on the left
I don't whether Krugman is attacking the left or the right. In both cases he tries to use economics to justify his politics. At times he may be a bipartisan hack, but he is still a hack.
10346. Raskolnikov - 2/28/2001 6:38:58 PM
Krugman never said they weren't running surpluses. He said "serious fiscal difficulty". I have no idea what he is talking about, but it is quite easy to have serious fiscal difficulties while running a surplus.
10347. Raskolnikov - 2/28/2001 6:41:21 PM
"I don't whether Krugman is attacking the left or the right. In both cases he tries to use economics to justify his politics. At times he may be a bipartisan hack, but he is still a hack."
Please provide tell me how you distinguish between someone who uses his economics to justify his politics, and someone whose politics are largely dictated by their economics. And then please give me a *specific* example of Krugman's that meets that criterion.
10348. pseudoerasmus - 2/28/2001 6:46:00 PM
It's hilarious to see Biener calling Krugman a hack.
Krugman's popular books and popular newspaper articles are not scholarly works. He can be as political in those as he pleases, but as Rask says, he bases his arguments even in the popular articles on economic reasoning, which is more than can be said for Biener.
Biener! Hahahaha.
10349. pseudoerasmus - 2/28/2001 6:51:42 PM
"[Krugman] is purely political in that he uses economics to justify his political positions rather than allowing his political positions to be guided by economics."
Well, he may do that in the sort of books and articles you are able to read, but not in the scholarly ones. At any rate, I would love for Biener to walk us through an example from Peddling Prosperity.
Ace's posts from 10334 to 10336 are as silly as possible, for the reasons Rask outlines.
10350. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 6:54:38 PM
Rask - I have no idea what he is talking about, but it is quite easy to have serious fiscal difficulties while running a surplus.
You would have to explain this one to me. As long as they can pay their bills with money left over, I don't see much difficulty. If they were running real deficits instead of phantom deficits dreamed up by Democrats, that would qualify as serious difficulty.
Please provide tell me how you distinguish between someone who uses his economics to justify his politics, and someone whose politics are largely dictated by their economics.
Krugman take economic data out of context to support a political point not supported by the data in context. He misstates and misrepresents economic data (see above). He makes economic predictions without any factual basis. He exaggerates and distorts data to "prove" what the actual numbers dispute. Today's column demonstrates this.
10351. pseudoerasmus - 2/28/2001 7:05:56 PM
Krugman take economic data out of context to support a political point not supported by the data in context.
An example?
He misstates and misrepresents economic data (see above).
An example?
10352. jexster - 2/28/2001 7:34:25 PM
[Duh+Huh]*3
Some people — including, alas, Alan Greenspan — have made it seem as if any purchase of private-sector assets by the trust funds would instantly politicize the financial markets and undermine the foundations of the free-enterprise system. But that's ideology, not analysis; people who have looked seriously at the issue think that these concerns are vastly overblown.
..........
"The Greenspan Concern over Public Ownership of Private Assets: Can the
Social Security Trust Fund Safely Own Such Assets"
Peter Orszag and Robert Greenstein
In testimony before the Senate Budget Committee on January 25, Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan argued that allowing the government
to hold private assets would risk "sub-optimal performance by our capital markets, diminished economic efficiency, and lower overall standards of living than would be achieved otherwise."(1) Chairman Greenspan expressed concern that public ownership of private assets would introduce
dangerous political interference in our capital markets.
10353. jexster - 2/28/2001 7:38:11 PM
THE GREENSPAN CONCERN OVER PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF PRIVATE ASSETS:CAN THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND SAFELY OWN SUCH ASSETS?
The Center on Budget & Policy Priorities
10354. jexster - 2/28/2001 7:40:43 PM
What Bush is doin is plain. Ya don't need Krugman to splain it for ya....
Party now, pay later
Its the oldest DC trick.....a commission to study the SS & Medicare, "the crazy aunt in the basement"....
And he's doing it to make his budget numbers add up with that bull shit tax cut.
10355. jexster - 2/28/2001 7:43:03 PM
Hell its not even the first time BOTUS has pulled that scam....
Anyone know how Warbucks energy "task force" is doin?
Quick tell me before the next rollin blackout and/or the next 100 million his buddies in Texas make rippin off Californians!
Sheesh.
10356. jexster - 2/28/2001 8:08:40 PM
Hundreds - possibly thousands - of Florida votes for Al Gore and George W. Bush were never counted because marks in the "write-in" section of the ballot caused these ballots to be incorrectly treated as "overvotes."
These were not questionable ballots rejected at the legal discretion of county canvassing boards because they could not identify the "intent of the voter." These ballots had nothing to do with dimpled chads.
Rather, these were legally valid votes that were rejected because a machine spotted both a vote for a listed candidate and a mark in the "write-in" section. The machines wrongly interpreted such votes as invalid overvotes - and elections officials illegally failed to correct the machines' mistakes.
Such votes were illegally excluded from the certified totals of at least eight counties in Florida, notably Lake and Duval counties. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris certified more than 28,000 overvotes from counties that violated Florida law by ignoring such votes.
10357. jexster - 2/28/2001 8:08:59 PM
The Lake County effect.....
10358. RosettaStone - 2/28/2001 8:47:11 PM
For the record:
Washington Post, 02/28/01
"In case Jesse Jackson isn't in enough trouble, now he stands accused of being a deadbeat tipper.
"Hudson Institute senior fellow Evan Gahr has done a study of the out-of-wedlock father's tipping habits, and concludes that the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition founder is--with his own money, at least--a cheapskate.
"Jackson has "a reputation for not tipping" servers at the Georgetown jazz club Blues Alley, Gahr reports. A former Blues Alley hostess told Gahr of an allegedly representative 1989 incident in which Jackson reportedly stiffed his waitress of the appropriate $40 gratuity.
"That because Jackson "believes waitresses should not be dependent on tops and should earn a decent, livable wage," Gahr quotes the hostess who knows Jackson."
10359. Cellar Door - 2/28/2001 8:54:27 PM
Boy Scouts Admit to Drop in Membership.
10360. RosettaStone - 2/28/2001 8:58:05 PM
Not in Maryland. Big jump in the last year.
10361. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 10:10:53 PM
Jex - Try reading Florida's election laws sometime.
10362. Autodaffy - 2/28/2001 10:17:11 PM
The NY Times had an article about five days ago about how the dem interest groups were about to go public with the real reason for earlier claims of "riskiness" of tax cuts, i.e., that a tax cut hinders the increased spending they favor.
I wonder if the putting of the vote on the fast track isn't a way of nullifying the efforts of these groups, a matter of timing. Of course, no one can admit this, but it makes good sense not to stand around while the pigs squeal louder and louder around the slop trough.
10363. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 10:22:56 PM
Daffy - That really isn't much of a revelation. It is well known that Democrats use payoffs to various interest groups in order to get votes. Of course Republicans do something similar. Democrats use spending programs to buy votes with other people's money. Republicans use tax cuts to buy votes by allowing people to keep their own money. Personally I prefer the latter.
10364. Autodaffy - 2/28/2001 10:31:43 PM
Beiner,
That's true, but the effort has been to keep spending out of the discussion up until now. Hence, whe here from Daschle, no-brows, and every other dem hack that Regan created the deficits when he "disastrously" cut taxes. I am old enough to remember George Michaels and Tip O'Neil standing on the capitol steps to declare, with big grins, that Regan's spending cutting budgets were "dead on arrival" in congress. They kept spending up, he cut taxes, and now they want to pin the donkey tail on him.
It represents, I think, a measure of their desperation that they are considering telling the truth, instead of feeding us more blather about "paying for tax cuts." Orwell would have had fun with that phrase, since you only have to pay for spending.
10365. Stumbo - 2/28/2001 11:03:55 PM
On Krugman... Here's a coupla quotes from one of his columns (last year, on the subject of the estate tax), and my (slightly-edited) responses to the person who had emailed it to me. (I can't link to the whole column; anyone who wishes to see it in its entirety can download it from the NYT site for $2.50 --search for "reckonings; death and taxes".)
"[T]he distribution of wealth does not look like the 'bell curve' beloved of statisticians. Instead it is best described by a 'power law,' a sort of elongated ski slope. Power-law distributions, unlike bell curves, have a lot of their mass far out in the right tail -- which means, in this particular case, that a large share of the total wealth is held by a small number of families."
This is exactly backwards. If you graph the proportions of individuals having incomes in various ranges -- the way, say, the standard IQ/height/whatever bell curve represents the proportions of individuals having IQs/heights/whatever in various ranges --then having a few individuals with a lot of wealth and a lot of individuals with little wealth gives you a lot of mass on the left side of the graph, not the right.
"Or maybe Congress is really, truly worried about incentives --about the potential entrepreneur who thinks to himself: 'Why bother? Even if I make millions, I can only pass 61 percent of it to my kids. So I'll stick with my job as an insurance salesman.'"
If Krugman really thinks that the exact same percentage of insurance salesmen will quit their jobs to become entrepreneurs, whether they can pass on 61% or 100% of their estate -- then he would flunk Econ 101. If he doesn't, then the above passage is demagoguery, plain and simple.
10366. joezan - 2/28/2001 11:12:04 PM
Here is a pretty nifty Quicken tax calculator to figure your taxes, individually, under the Bush tax proposal. Just for the heck of it, try a few different brackets/situations. It's quick (immediate).
10367. Stumbo - 2/28/2001 11:14:29 PM
Rask, #10341:
Still flogging the percentage-of-GDP horse, I see.
Quick quiz:
If the GDP doubles next year, this will automatically -- no questions asked -- justify doubling government spending.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Justify your answer.
10368. JJBiener - 2/28/2001 11:18:48 PM
Stumbo - If you think that is bad, you should ask PE about disincentives of higher marginal tax rates. He doesn't believe raising marginal tax rates on upper incomes acts as a disincetive.
10369. Stumbo - 2/28/2001 11:20:10 PM
... And, as usual, I apologize for using certain words twice in the same post.
10370. Stumbo - 2/28/2001 11:29:14 PM
JJ:
I trust that PE can tell the left side of a graph from the right, though. So that alone should put him one up on Krugman.
10371. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 12:08:58 AM
Stumbo: "If the GDP doubles next year, this will automatically -- no questions asked -- justify doubling government spending.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Justify your answer."
No. The needs of government do not automatically move in lockstep with GDP. But it does depend on how GDP was doubled. If we doubled our working population, we would probably need to roughly double the size of government. If we doubled our productivity, we could easily meet existing levels of service, but we would almost certainly be much more willing to make lot of government expenditures that are currently deemed unworthy, such as serious efforts to reduce fossil fuels, universal access to health care, etc.
Now that I played your game, reverse the question:
If the GDP doubles next year, this will automatically -- no questions asked -- justify keeping government spending at the same level as it is this year.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Justify your answer.
10372. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 12:27:11 AM
I should further point out that while real per capita spending did go up slightly, it has been generally negative over the past 8 years, and it shouldn't be too surprising if the government wants to play a little catch-up during a year with a surplus. As I have mentioned before, entitlements are separate from the budget process, and increse with inflation and membership eligibility, so if you want to see what is driving budget changes, look at discretionary spending, where there was a real increase of about 4% - split evenly between domestic spending and defense spending.
10373. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 12:35:10 AM
Message # 10365
"Or maybe Congress is really, truly worried about incentives -- about the potential entrepreneur who thinks to himself: 'Why bother? Even if I make millions, I can only pass 61 percent of it to my kids. So I'll stick with my job as an insurance salesman.'"
If Krugman really thinks that the exact same percentage of insurance salesmen will quit their jobs to become entrepreneurs, whether they can pass on 61% or 100% of their estate --then he would flunk Econ 101. If he doesn't, then the above passage is demagoguery, plain and simple.
Rubbish. Krugman's point is rather that the difference in the number of insurance salesmen who would become entrepreneurs if the estate tax rises falls from 39% to 0% is neglible. Of course the question can only be decided empirically, but his remark is plausible.
Message # 10367
Still flogging the percentage-of-GDP horse, I see. Quick quiz:
If the GDP doubles next year, this will automatically -- no questions asked --justify doubling government spending. [ ] Yes [ ] No Justify your answer.
Raskolnikov's point was not about "justifying" government spending.
Ace is correct that Krugman is not as solicitous about the 5% (real) increase in federal spending last year as with Bush's tax cuts. But the comparison is a bit silly, isn't it. The 5% (of the budget, not of GDP) increase is a trifle compared with what Bush's tax cuts would amount to. Bush's tax cut would move the budget substantially toward deficit, while the 5% increase in spending did not (because the revenue that paid for it was natural increase due to high economic growth).
10374. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 12:36:52 AM
Message # 10368:
Stumbo - If you think that is bad, you should ask PE about disincentives of higher marginal tax rates. He doesn't believe raising marginal tax rates on upper incomes acts as a disincetive.
Biener, you are a filthy and hallucinating liar, or just stupid. I've never said any such thing. Any number of times I've said the positive incentive effects of tax cuts are non-linear and diminishing, i.e., a 1% tax cut has a much larger effect when the highest marginal rate is 90% than the same 1% tax cut when the highest marginal rate is 40%.
10375. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 12:38:40 AM
What guidepost shall I use for determining if my drycleaner is overcharging me?
1) The rate of inflation
2) The rate of growth of my personal income
According to Rask, we should use #2. If I get a raise, the drycleaner is justified in raising his prices proportiate to my raise, and then, on top of that, adding +4-5%.
Why?
Who the fuck knows.
10376. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 12:41:37 AM
errata for Message # 10374: a 1% tax cut has a disproportionately smaller effect when the highest marginal rate is 40% than a 1% tax cut when the highest marginal rate is 90%.
10377. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 12:45:07 AM
The 5% (of the budget, not of GDP) increase is a trifle compared with what Bush's tax cuts would amount to.
It is not 5%; it is 8%. It is an 8% increase in spending. It only becomes 5% if you take the budget as a proportion of GDP.
I wonder if Pseudo, and Rask, support automatic declines in spending in years of contracting GDP, or zero growth (4-5% below the rate of inflation) in years of zero/negligible growth.
If the GDP should not be taken into account in such years (as I think it should not; the rate of inflation is the only real guage of growth "in real terms"), then why does Rask (along with PE) insist that growth in GDP mandates an automatic growth in spending, such that growth in spending equal to the GDP growth shall not be counted as "real growth"?
10378. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 12:50:33 AM
10379. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 12:53:35 AM
Message # 10377
I wonder if Pseudo, and Rask, support automatic declines in spending in years of contracting GDP, or zero growth....
I suppose that depends on the size of the contraction. If it was 1929, I would not support it. If we are talking about a trifling contraction, it wouldn't really matter.
why does Rask (along with PE) insist that growth in GDP mandates an automatic growth in spending....
I don't, and I think Rask just said he doesn't, either.
10380. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 12:56:53 AM
The 5% (of the budget, not of GDP) increase is a trifle compared with what Bush's tax cuts would amount to. Bush's tax cut would move the budget substantially toward deficit, while the 5% increase in spending did not (because the revenue that paid for it was natural increase due to high economic growth).
Incorrect.
$650 billion budget * 1.08 growth * ten years =
$1.403 trillion
$650 billion budget * 1.04 growth * ten years
962 billion
That's a difference of around a half trillion dollars... in the LAST YEAR alone. If you add up the differnces year by year, you will exceed a trillion dollars, easily. Let's guess $1.2 trillion.
Now, is PE claiming that $1.2 trillion in increased spending is "trifling" but a $1.6 trillion dollar tax cut threatens deficits?
Har-di-har-har.
10381. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 12:58:55 AM
"I don't, and I think Rask just said he doesn't, either."
That's how Rask usually deflates numbers he doesn't like (like an 8% rate of growth) into numbers he's more comfortable defending (like his asserted 5% increase in growth).
10382. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 1:01:06 AM
Where do these 10 years suddenly come from? Ace's statement:
....Clinton & the Democrats grew the rate of government spending 6% over the last three years (8% last year).....
10383. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:04:31 AM
Ha! Ducky owes me 5 bucks.
"According to Rask, we should use #2. If I get a raise, the drycleaner is justified in raising his prices proportiate to my raise, and then, on top of that, adding +4-5%. "
What the fuck does this have to do with government spending?
"It is not 5%; it is 8%. It is an 8% increase in spending. It only becomes 5% if you take the budget as a proportion of GDP. "
Don't you even bother to look things up before claiming they are facts? The number is 5%, when *not* corrected for inflation.
Total Federal outlays in 1999: 1.703 trillion
Total Federal outlays in 2000: 1.789 trillion, a change of 5.05%. Inflation was around 3 and a half percent last year, so real Federal growth was about a percent and half, and most of that is explained by population growth.
When you take the budget as a proportion of GDP, government growth becomes negative.
"I wonder if Pseudo, and Rask, support automatic declines in spending in years of contracting GDP, or zero growth (4-5% below the rate of inflation) in years of zero/negligible growth. "
You are completely confusing the issues here. The question I was addressing is whether or not government spending is really growing when it barely keeps pace with inflation and population growth while the economy really grows. Your question asks a completely different question about whether government spending *should* be growing or shrinking, which depends, IMO, on what you want to spend the money on, or what you want to cut.
10384. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:06:26 AM
PE:
Ten years comes from the cost of growing the government at that rate over ten years vs. reducing taxes $1.6 trillion over ten years.
You claimed it was "trivial" to merely bloat the budget by x%. It is not trivial. This year's massive increase becomes next year's baseline. Keep that up and in ten years you've spent more than $1.2 trillion more than you would have spent if you'd kept spending at or around the rate of inflation.
10385. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:09:19 AM
Rask,
I wasn't talking to you; I was discussing your moronic point, and speaking of you in the third person.
The 8% figure has been cited again and again and no one has challenged it, except for you.
10386. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:10:57 AM
Ace is nonsensically extrapolating last year's numbers into a ten year trend. He ignores that Federal spending for the previous 8 years kept pace with inflation at a time when population was increasing.
10387. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:12:03 AM
Your numbers are based on "Total Federal Outlays," which includes SS payments, which is convenient for you, of course.
Let us try it again: The non-SS budget increased 8%. How about that?
10388. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:12:17 AM
well, there you just addressed me in the second person, which qualifies regardless. Ducky owes me 5 bucks. I knew you couldn't keep your mouth shut.
10389. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:13:14 AM
He ignores that Federal spending for the previous 8 years kept pace with inflation at a time when population was increasing.
Inflation has been 6% for the past three years?
Who knew?
10390. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:15:01 AM
Whatever, my insufferable little pansified prig.
10391. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:15:16 AM
"Your numbers are based on "Total Federal Outlays," which includes SS payments, which is convenient for you, of course."
Your initial claim was that government spending went up 8%, so of course I included SS payments, just as I included the money to pay the janitor in the White House. Both are government spending.
"Let us try it again: The non-SS budget increased 8%. How about that?"
That isn't true either. Why don't you actually do your own homework for a change and look the numbers up before posting them.
Ace's idea of research: post a wild-ass guess and wait for someone who actually knows how to look up data to post the real number.
10392. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:16:19 AM
"Inflation has been 6% for the past three years? "
Of course it hasn't. Your 6% figure is another one of your delusional claims.
10393. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:18:22 AM
My little Cunty-Wunty,
My numbers come from Bush, and they have not yet been challenged or refuted by anyone who can be relied upon to authoritatively refute them.
And no, I don't count my tight-ass little "policy analysis scientist" as "authoritative."
If you know the "facts," I suggest you send a fax to the DNC pronto... because the DNC is letting Bush's 6%-over-three-years, 8%-last-year-alone "lie" go trumpeted through the land without rebuttal.
10394. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:19:32 AM
"The 8% figure has been cited again and again and no one has challenged it, except for you."
My guess is that they were talking about discretionary spending, which increased by 7.3 percent last year. Adjusted for inflation, that is about 4%.
10395. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:21:07 AM
What the fuck does this have to do with government spending?
My Precious Pillowbiter, your claim is that if GDP rises ergo the budget should rise proportionately, irregardless of the rate of inflation, just as my hypothetical drycleaner raises his prices proportionately to my income.
I thought that was rather obvious.
10396. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:22:17 AM
Ace: Try a primary source. For the umpteenth time,
The CBO's historical budget data. Go to table F8.
I am not surprised that Bush gets his numbers wrong.
10397. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:25:48 AM
"My Precious Pillowbiter, your claim is that if GDP rises ergo the budget should rise proportionately, irregardless of the rate of inflation, just as my hypothetical drycleaner raises his prices proportionately to my income. "
Well that explains that. You (typically) are addressing a non-existent argument. Not that your analogy works anyway, as rationales for public spending are almost by definition different from those in private transactions.
10398. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:27:33 AM
"My guess is that they were talking about discretionary spending, which increased by 7.3 percent last year. Adjusted for inflation, that is about 4%."
Ah, my Sweet Little Pederast, so you knew the number being cited? Fine.
Calculate the discretionary budget (let's say, as I guessed before, around $650 billion) at a 4% rate of growth (ABOVE inflation!) as compared to the same budget with a 0% rate of growth (AT THE LEVEL of inflation).
962 billion vs. 650 billion IN THE LAST YEAR ALONE.
The last year represents more than $300 billion in new spending; the last four years together would represent around $1.0 trillion in spending; adding in the first six years, we're at an additional $1.6 (approximately) trillion in new spending.
What a stupid little bitch.
You keep playing games to deflate numbers; you deflate for inflation, you deflate by expressing a budget as a percentage of GDP.
Well, My Dumb Bitch, if Bush's projected budget grows at %4 per year, then that's around ZERO percent growth per year (adjusted for inflation, of course).
Your favorite little bullshit tactic is to deflate your own numbers while "forgetting" to extend the same consideration to, say, MY numbers.
10399. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:28:20 AM
Anyway, it is too late, and I have 3 weeks of sleep to catch up on.
Ducky, e-mail me at Raskolnikov123@yahoo.com
10400. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:30:33 AM
Ergo, Clinton's growth in discretionary spending, if continued for ten years (and why shouldn't it? It's gone on for three years already, and the Democrats, and Rask, will fight to keep it growing into the foreseeable future) amounts to ca. $1.6 trillion.
Bush's tax cuts are equal to $1.6 trillion over ten years.
Rask's, and Krugman's, conclusion? Bush's tax cuts are "irresponsible."
Silence about the $1.6 trillion in new spending.
10401. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:32:33 AM
Wookiefucker: you are still making the mistake of nonsensically extrapolating a one year discretionary budget increase out 10 years in the future, ignoring that the previous 7 years involved no growth or cuts.
10402. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 1:32:45 AM
Well, Ace, I called 'trivial' the amounts involved in your sentence: "..Clinton & the Democrats grew the rate of government spending 6% over the last three years (8% last year)....", in comparison with Bush's tax cut. Didn't you know were talking about the last ten years.
All the same, I don't see anything wrong with Raskolnikov's adjustment of these federal spending growth figures for inflation. But it would only be fair to point out that Bush's tax cuts worth $1,6 trillion (or whatever) are also nominal (i.e., not adjusted for inflation) figures, and there's a lot of inflation in 10 years.
10403. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 1:38:05 AM
Message # 10400
What on earth are you talking about?
Discretionary spending has risen by less than $80 billion since 1992!!!
Like I said, trifling.
10404. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 1:39:24 AM
$80 billion in nominal terms!
10405. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:47:12 AM
Liar,
Discretionary spending rose 6% average over the last three years.
I extrapolate over ten years for rather obvious reasons: You supported those spending increases THEN, and you support them into the FUTURE.
2000 was not a "one time spending hike." 1998, 1999, and 2000 averaged 6% growth in discretionary spending per year.
There was no extraodinary circumstance or big new program to explain the increases. These are "routine" increases, explainable by nothing in particular. As such, you cannot claim that they are aberrant.
They are not aberrant. As soon as we had surpluses, discretionary spending shot up. Please explain why you believe that trend should suddenly stop in 2001.
I love how dishonest you are... you cite Total Federal Outlays, when it's perfectly obvious I'm talking about discretionary spending-- I mean, for Christ's sakes, when was the last law passed to increase non-discretionary spending?
Then you keep whining that Clinton's increases are only x when adjusted for inflation... apparently oblivious to the fact that if I adjusted Bush's proposed growth for inflation (down to zero percent, of course), I would prove the same thing: 8% growth vs. 4% over ten years equals, more or less, 4% growth vs. 0% growth over the same period.
And then you whine about *my* dishonesty.
10406. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:49:06 AM
Discretionary spending has risen by less than $80 billion since 1992!!!
At a 4.0% rate of growth, it is slated to rise by $26 billion next year. One would imagine that an 8% rate of growth would mean a greater amount of spending.
Perhaps you are correct about the $80 billion figure. If so, the $80 billion increase occurred almost entirely in the past three years --when we've had a surplus.
10407. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 1:52:17 AM
Ace, according to table F8 at the CBO site in
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=2727&sequence=12#Table#F-8
Discretionary spending went up by less than $80 billion in nominal terms between 1992 and 2000. That's less than 2% per year.
Why do you extrapolate only from 1998, 1999 and 2000?
10408. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:54:19 AM
PE,
I guess I did not make myself clear.
I am annoyed by those who rail against a $1.6 trillion tax cut on grounds of "fiscal responsibility," but do not raise a peep about increases in spending, which have the exact same result of decreasing the amount of money we can use to retire debt.
Clinton's discretionary budget rose 6% over the past three years; Democrats such as Rask are angry that Bush is refusing to continue this trend.
If we extend this trend for ten years (and why shouldn't we? Rask wants to continue it indefinitely), then we find that the amount of new spending (over and above rate-of-inflation growth) is almost precisely equal to Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut.
If you're not whining about 6% growth in spending for the next ten years, I don't see how you can then whine that Bush's tax cut is "irresponsible." Both cause approximately the same decrease in the surplus.
10409. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:56:45 AM
Why do you extrapolate only from 1998, 1999 and 2000?
Because the budget didn't really grow from 1992-1997. Not significantly. During those years we still had deficits, and thus pressure to keep spending down.
The budget increases have chiefly come in the last three years.
It's like I walk seven blocks, then sprint three, and then you figure my "average sprinting speed" from the distance travelled over all ten blocks, oblivious to the fact I only actually sprinted for three blocks.
10410. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:58:48 AM
And PE:
The deficit kept our budget down from 1992-1997.
That lodestone is now removed.
It is silly to postulate that spending behavior WITHOUT deficits will be the same as spending behavior WITH deficits, especially since we have hard evidence (namely, 1992-1997 vs. 1998-2000) which casts significant doubt on that theory.
10411. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 2:04:41 AM
Message # 10408
I am annoyed by those who rail against a $1.6 trillion tax cut on grounds of "fiscal responsibility," but do not raise a peep about increases in spending, which have the exact same result of decreasing the amount of money we can use to retire debt....If we extend this trend for ten years....then we find that the amount of new spending (over and above rate-of-inflation growth) is almost precisely equal to Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut.....If you're not whining about 6% growth in spending for the next ten years, I don't see how you can then whine that Bush's tax cut is "irresponsible." Both cause approximately the same decrease in the surplus.
Well, you are comparing a tax cut which would definitely be realised (following legislative enactment) with your own 10-year hypothetical extrapolation from the trend in discretionary spending growth over the last two or three years. The things compared do not seem commensurate enough to justify your outrage.
10412. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 2:07:27 AM
Message # 10410: It is silly to postulate that spending behavior WITHOUT deficits will be the same as spending behavior WITH deficits, especially since we have hard evidence (namely, 1992-1997 vs. 1998-2000) which casts significant doubt on that theory.
I don't disagree. But you are still comparing a tax cut which would be realised by legislation with your own hypothetical projection of discretionary spending. In other words, you are comparing something measurable with something speculated. Again, your outrage doesn't seem justified.
10413. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 2:09:34 AM
PE:
The Democrats have proposed this forumla: That the surplus should be used, in equal parts, one third new spending, one third debt retirment, one third tax cuts.
This is their mantra.
One third of $5.6 trillion is approximately $1.83 trillion in new spending.
So I don't quite "get it" how a $1.6 trillion tax cut is "irresponsible" due to the dire effects on our budget, and yet $1.86 trillion in new spending does not have this effect on the budget.
That's not speculative; that is their plan, repeated dozens of times. That is their stated intention.
And if you know Democrats, you know that when they say "We'll spend $1.83 trillion," they mean "We'll spend $3.5 trillion."
(Don't ask me about the Democrats' "plan" to offer $1.866 trillion in tax cuts, MORE than GWB's plan. They don't mean it; or rather, they tend to define spending as "tax cuts.")
10414. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 2:11:43 AM
Sorry, sorry, let me correct my error:
The Democrats plan is to take equal parts of the NON-SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS -- or $3 trillion over ten years -- and spend it equally on new spending, tax cuts, and debt retirement.
So, one trillion new spending, one trillion tax cuts, one trillion debt retirement.
So, PE, it is not "hypothetical" that the Democrats want to spend AT LEAST $1 trillion of the deficit: That is their *baseline*; that is the MINIMUM they want to spend.
10415. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 2:13:41 AM
...and I think you must admit: People who want to spend an additional cool trillion in new spending cannot, with a straight face, criticize someone who proposes a $1.6 trillion tax cut as "fiscally irresponsible."
Unless $1 trillion in costs isn't "irresponsible," but $1.6 trillion suddenly becomes *very* irresponsible.
10416. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 2:15:14 AM
Again, your outrage doesn't seem justified.
1) You are a bemused foreigner; you don't have to deal with this shit every day. I am bemused when I watch Tony Blair answer Parliament's questions; I find it interesting, but there is no "outrage." It's not personal; I'm not immersed in it.
2) I am an extraordinarily anry man.
10417. OhioSTOPAS - 3/1/2001 10:12:59 AM
AceofSpades in Message # 10400, still trying to blame Democrats for checks written by Republicans:
". .. Clinton's growth in discretionary spending . . . It's gone on for three years already . . ."
For each of the last five or six years, the total amount for discretionary items in the final (Congressional) budget has EXCEEDED the President's budget proposal for those items.
(Source: USA Today, section A, Monday or Tuesday)
What kind of hack would insist that the last few years' allegedly excessive spending on discretionary items is the Democrats' fault?
10418. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2001 10:18:30 AM
Who are the Republicans going to blame now that they control everything? I guess everything bad that happens in at least the next 4 years can be laid at Clintons feet...but of course, if this "downward spiral" in the economy reverses, it will be to the credit of Bush and his gang. If it continues down, Clinton alone will be the dog.
10419. JJBiener - 3/1/2001 11:21:07 AM
PE - Biener, you are a filthy and hallucinating liar, or just stupid.
Is that so? I didn't post this:
The 5% (of the budget, not of GDP) increase is a trifle compared with what Bush's tax cuts would amount to.
Tax cut: $1.6 trillion over 10 years
8% (Not 5% as you claim) spending increase: $1.52 trillion over 10 years
($1.9 trillion * 8% * 10 years)
Now when you claimed that the increase in spending was a trifle compared to the tax cut, were you lying or just being stupid.
10420. JJBiener - 3/1/2001 11:34:15 AM
Ohio - What kind of hack would insist that the last few years' allegedly excessive spending on discretionary items is the Democrats' fault?
The same kind of hack who would insist that Reagan was responsible for deficits in the 80's. Although, since Clinton shut down the government twice, they could make a much better case.
10421. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 11:38:15 AM
Biener: I claimed that an 8% increase in the budget was a trifle compared with the proposed tax cut. The disingenuousness seems rather to lie in the hypothetical extrapolation of the previous year's 8% to the next 10 years, and then comparing the result with the actual total tax cut to be realised.
Ace: I admit I've no idea what the Democratic proposals are, since I don't follow US domestic politics. So if your characterisation of the Democratic proposals are correct, I would have to agree.
10422. JJBiener - 3/1/2001 11:50:12 AM
PE - Perhaps you didn't notice, but there was no exptrapolation in those numbers. They represented a one time increase in spending and the net result of that one increase over 10 years.
Would you like to see what a simple 2% increase per year over 10 years would do? $1.8 trillion. Don't believe me? (numbers in billions)
1 1900 1900 0.02 38
2 1900 1938 0.02 38.76
3 1900 1976.76 0.02 39.53
4 1900 2016.29 0.02 40.32
5 1900 2056.62 0.02 41.13
6 1900 2097.75 0.02 41.95
7 1900 2139.70 0.02 42.79
8 1900 2182.50 0.02 43.65
9 1900 2226.15 0.02 44.52
10 1900 2270.67 0.02 45.41
Total 19000 20804.46
10423. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 12:13:18 PM
Perhaps you didn't notice, but there was no exptrapolation in those numbers....
Would you like to see what a simple 2% increase per year over 10 years would do?
I love this pair of sentences. In the first sentence you say there is no extrapolation, and then you extrapolate hypothetically in the next sentence.
Anyway, if the Democrats are proposing massive spending increases (I don't know if this is true, but Ace says so), then why do you need to play these extrapolation games?
10424. jexster - 3/1/2001 12:13:49 PM
digging deep into the budget numbers, there are some assertions that are open to question.
Bush, for instance, has said he has reserved $1 trillion for "contingencies" -- actually, according to the budget outline, $842 billion -- but the amount is smaller than it sounds. That's a 10-year number, and for technical reasons involving the national debt only about $650 billion could be used for spending. In 2005, for instance, the actual amount available for additional spending is closer to $25 billion, about 1 percent of that year's total budget.
Even then, most of that reserve comes from counting $400 billion in surpluses building in the Medicare hospitalization fund as part of general revenue. In 2005, that surplus is projected to be about $40 billion, meaning Bush's so-called reserve is really in negative territory that year if the Medicare funds are excluded.
Meanwhile, the outline lists $260 billion in domestic policy initiatives over the next 10 years, such as improving national defense, but only identifies $30 billion in 10-year cuts in discretionary spending. The president's budget for Medicare reform, $153 billion, is about half the cost of many proposals on Capitol Hill. There is no price tag listed for missile defense, another key presidential goal.
Then there are tax incentives that expire each year, only to be routinely extended by Congress, that Bush did not include; those would cost about $100 billion over 10 years.
There is also a growing problem involving a wrinkle in the tax code, called the alternative minimum tax, that is aimed at high-income Americans but increasingly snares middle-income taxpayers. The Bush tax plan exacerbates the problem, and it would cost at least $200 billion to fix
10425. jexster - 3/1/2001 12:17:17 PM
Bush is trying to make sure his tax cut is passed long before there's much bite from any spending cuts
10426. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 12:17:36 PM
is there a summary somewhere of the Bush and the Democratic proposals?
10427. jexster - 3/1/2001 12:24:20 PM
Mr. Bush has now redefined the national debt, so that it looks more manageable. And Mr. Bush's aides are arguing that it does not need to be paid off so fast — which, conveniently, leaves them a bit more room for their own favorite programs, like a national missile defense, new spending on education and creating private Social Security accounts.
All of this raises two questions: Which party is pursuing the more conservative course? And what does it say about the ideology of George W. Bush, whose "compassionate conservatism" seemed at times an effort to dress up the philosophy of Ronald Reagan in the moderate poll- tested oratory of Bill Clinton?
10428. jexster - 3/1/2001 12:26:26 PM
10429. jexster - 3/1/2001 12:32:17 PM
In fact, the battle now breaking out in Washington may turn the traditional definition of conservatism on its head. While Republicans have long been the party of tax cuts, Mr. Clinton tried to transform the Democrats into the party of "fiscal discipline," the one that would cut the debt first and then see what was left for tax cuts.
Mr. Bush's approach appears to be exactly the reverse — cutting taxes first and then using what is left for debt reduction — but the current political climate prevents him from saying so.
"There is a risk, when you add up all the initiatives in Bush's speech, that it will leave us at zero — that there will actually be no paydown of debt," said Allen Sinai, the chief economist at Primark Decision Economics.
"Bush can't say that because the overwhelming conventional wisdom is that paying down the debt is good," said Mr. Sinai, who himself believes that paying off the debt entirely is not the best way to make use of the surplus.
"So Bush sets debt paydown as a goal," Mr. Sinai added, but effectively leaves it for last.
10430. OhioSTOPAS - 3/1/2001 12:34:54 PM
JJ Message # 10420: If you're saying that the 1980's deficits consisted in significant part of the excess by which Congressional spending exceeded the spending proposed in President Reagan's budgets, you're wrong.
10431. jexster - 3/1/2001 12:37:52 PM
The Administration's Budget: Gaps Between Rhetoric and Reality
10432. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 12:40:59 PM
The Apple Falls Not Far From The Tree
10433. jexster - 3/1/2001 12:42:13 PM
The Administration's Budget Reserve: Do The Numbers Add Up?
10434. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 12:48:44 PM
I'd like to know if Curious George will reimburse the US taxpayers for the cost of using Secret Service agents to serve as limo drivers for his sorority-sister daughters and their drunken beaus.
10435. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 12:59:32 PM
Did Clinton ever reimburse the taxpayers for the time his intern spent providing him with sexual services?
You just keep wondering, Jade.
10436. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 1:04:35 PM
IJ:
I'll wager Clinton spent more time "on the job" than Curious George. It's well-established that Curious George works less than six hours each day in the WH.
Are you suggesting that the US Secret Service ought to be limo drivers at the beck and call of Curious George's litter for their drunken soirees?
10437. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:07:23 PM
Ace: "Clinton's discretionary budget rose 6% over the past three years; Democrats such as Rask are angry that Bush is refusing to continue this trend."
You are making shit up again. And why do you keep citing this imaginary "averaging 6% over three years" number?
Even looking at just discretionary spending, here is what the increases have been for the past 8 years...
year discr bgt Dec. CPI 1983 dollars nominal growth real growth
92 534.6 142.4 375.4213483
93 541 146.4 369.5355191 1.20% -1.57%
94 539.9 150.2 359.4540613 -0.20% -2.73%
95 545.7 154.1 354.1207008 1.07% -1.48%
96 534.5 159.2 335.741206 -2.05% -5.19%
97 548.9 161.9 339.0364422 2.69% 0.98%
98 554.7 164.5 337.2036474 1.06% -0.54%
99 575 168.9 340.4381291 3.66% 0.96%
2000 617 174.6 353.3791523 7.30% 3.80%
10438. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 1:07:31 PM
Why didn't Jenna's drunken beau call his own parents?
10439. OhioSTOPAS - 3/1/2001 1:08:42 PM
Message # 10432: Looks like Jenna wants a boy just like the boy that married dear old Mom.
10440. Jenerator - 3/1/2001 1:09:58 PM
Gosh Jade,
How long has Bush been president now? Yes, let's compare a couple of months with eight years. Are these sources that "well-establish" the facts the same ones who dispute any vandalism in the WH, too?
Gee, I wonder.
10441. Wombat - 3/1/2001 1:14:12 PM
Jenerator:
Everyone--including President* Bush seems agreed now that whatever vandalism took place at the White House was very minor and not worth further scrutiny. Perhaps you should review your "sources."
10442. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 1:22:35 PM
Gosh, Jenerator.
Do you condone using the Secret Service to further Jenna's participation in drinking rituals?
Not a week ago, Curious George guaranteed us his relations would behave.
10443. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 1:23:40 PM
Are you suggesting that the US Secret Service ought to be limo drivers at the beck and call of Curious George's litter for their drunken soirees?
I'm suggesting this is too stupid to argue. Nonetheless, the job of the secret service is to protect the president and his family. They clearly are on 24-hour-call regardless, so I don't see how you think extra money was spent because they were behind the wheel.
(Incidentally, I'm not conceding anything factual about your post because I haven't heard anything about this, but my opinion is the same regardless.)
Protecting the president's daughters lives certainly seems to include being a designated driver.
Big whoop.
I don't think OTOH that blowing the president's cock was on Monica Lewinsky's job description.
10444. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:25:08 PM
Shit. I owe Ace an apology. In retrospect, it is clear he was referring to the FY 2001 budget, when compared to the FY 2000 budget, as the source for his "8%" figure, and "6% over three years" figures. I missed this. The CBO numbers I cited were only for past years, and don't include the present budget. I will plead incompetence due to two weeks of midnight feedings catching up on me. I apologize for saying that he was making his numbers up.
But real rather than nominal figures are still the appropriate ones to use, and even with a 4-5% real growth in discretionary spending this year, the current real discretionary budget would be less than the discretionary budget in 1992.
10445. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 1:27:01 PM
I see, IJ.
Since the Secret Service is on 24-hour-call, maybe they could shine the shoes of WH staff while they're just standing around not catching bullets.
10446. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:29:56 PM
PE,
Extrapolation is justified for several reasons.
1) The Democrats' announced game-plan-- and their talking point -- is to spend $1 trillion more.
2) They wanted to spend more in 1998, in 1999, in 2000, and now they are complaining that not enough is being spent on "priorities" in 20001. In other words: They want to spend more in perpetuity.
3) Finally, extrapolation is required if for only this reason: You can't look at the effects of a TEN-YEAR tax cut, compare it to one or three year spending, and then say that the TEN YEAR tax cut outweighs the one/three year spending. But of course it does! Would you look at TEN YEARS of Germany's GDP, totalled up over those ten years, compare it to ONE YEAR of US GDP, and then conclude that Germany's GDP was higher than the US's? Of course not. The relevant comparison would be ten years to ten years, or one year to one year. NOT ten years to one year.
10447. OhioSTOPAS - 3/1/2001 1:31:22 PM
There's a good little article in Salon today about the conservative media herd's misreporting of a fact in the Rich pardon "scandal". (Although the well-informed will have already seen this point noted in The Mote.)
10448. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:32:20 PM
Ohio:"For each of the last five or six years, the total amount for discretionary items in the final (Congressional) budget has EXCEEDED the President's budget proposal for those items.
(Source: USA Today, section A, Monday or Tuesday) What kind of hack would insist that the last few years' allegedly excessive spending on discretionary items is the Democrats' fault?"
This is a very fair point as well. Ace is using the standard Republican trick of the "disappearing Congress", where Congress is responsible for all budgets when controlled by Democrats (such as in the 1980s), but is completely blameless when it is controlled by Republicans.
The big discretionary hikes in the budget last fall, as I recall, were in Defense and Transportation, two common sources of pork for the majority party in Congress.
When the President and Congress are of different parties, it should be obvious to all but partisan hacks that both parties share significant responsibility for the final budgets.
10449. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 1:33:24 PM
Ace, I already said that if the Democrats do have explicit plans to spend trillions, as you claim, then your fulminations would appear justified.
As for #3, of course the relevant comparison would be between 10 years of tax cuts to 10 years of spending. But the key difference you're not acknowledging (and I said this when I was not aware that the Democrats had explicit proposals for $1 trillion spending increases) is that the tax cut would be realised by legislation whereas discretionary spending increases are speculated.
10450. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 1:36:03 PM
Since the Secret Service is on 24-hour-call, maybe they could shine the shoes of WH staff while they're just standing around not catching bullets.
And not running interference with Monica while Bill dallies with Eleanor Mondale.
And White House secretaries should have as part of their duties retrieving presidential gifts to their mistresses.
And Vernon Jordan (what was his title again?) should include in his duties finding jobs for those mistresses.
Tell me, Jade, do you think it's unusual for a bodyguard to also drive a person's car? Do you think if an SS agent is assigned to protect a woman's safety, and she starts to get into a car with a drunk driver he'd be neglect in his duties if he didn't insist upon driving?
10451. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:36:05 PM
"Shit. I owe Ace an apology."
No fucking shit. And this is the man who cries "LIAR" at the drop of a hat.
I don't "make things up," Rask. Neither do I do my own research -- I get this stuff from Bush's people. Now, it is possible that Bush's people are spreading easily refutable lies throughout the country, exposing themselves to enormous embarassment when they get called on it on Tim Russert.
But I assume they don't, absent an authoritative refutation.
Since no one has refuted them yet (including the media -- including Demcorats), I assume, provisionally, they are correct.
And you can whine all you like that I should "trust you" on these matters, but you have been ludicrously wrong over and over again, and you tend to hide your assumptions (excluding the Post Office from the figure for total federal employment, for example, or expressing the budget as a percentage of GDP) in order to make your numbers palatable and/or to make them come out the way you want them to come out.
Thus, I will not be "trusting you" at any time in the foreseeable future, and you can have hissy-fits about this, and you can call me an "idiot" over and over, and a "liar" over and over, and so on, but you are not an "authoritative citation" and you never will be.
10452. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 1:37:29 PM
Incidentally, Jade, this is a Rosetta Stone-level topic.
Why don't you sashay over to TableTalk and start a thread on it?
Probably someone of your ilk already beat you to it, eh?
10453. OhioSTOPAS - 3/1/2001 1:39:14 PM
Rask: I agree. Spending levels in the 80's under Reagan and under Clinton in the 90's were essentially a bipartisan consensus. (And the amount by which the Republican Congress exceeded Clinton's proposals was minor.)
But you goofed about one thing: Congress was not controlled by the Democrats for most of the 1980's. (An understandable slip-up given how little sleep you must be getting these days!)
10454. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 1:41:42 PM
PE:
No, I "get" your point re: speculative v. legislatively enacted.
However, I repeat: If the Democrats have pressed vigorously for the equivalent of one tenth of Bush's ten year tax cut in one year's spending, which they have, time and time again, they can't really claim that the tax cut is "fiscally irresponsible."
10455. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 1:43:08 PM
Another little error(lie) by Ari Fleischer who stated that Lewis Libby (Cheney's Chief of Staff) was "in no way,shape, manner or form involved in the pardon" of Marc Rich.
Why Did Libby Meet With Jack Quinn?
A lawyer familiar with Mr. Libby's efforts said he had tried to persuade federal prosecutors in New York to drop the 1983 indictment against Mr. Rich. This lawyer and others familiar with Mr. Libby's involvement said that shortly after Mr. Quinn was hired by Mr. Rich, he met with Mr. Libby to be briefed on the merits of Mr. Rich's case.
10456. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:46:16 PM
Ace:
Your point 1)... The Democrats spending wishes are certainly fair game, but since they don't have a fucking chance of getting what they want, I hardly fault an op/ed columnist for ignoring them.
2) see my last post re: GOP culpability
3) Your logic here is correct, but you aren't applying it correctly. Yes, we should compare 10 years to 10 years, but where I am criticizing you is in your use of the past year, or just the past three years, to do that extrapolation. Why not the past 10?
10457. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 1:46:18 PM
Really, IJ, you should read the story I provided from the Star-Telegram before posting such foolishness.
It makes you appear silly.
10458. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 1:56:52 PM
"I don't "make things up," Rask."
Yes, you frequently do. A recent example is when I (incorrectly) said that the most recent budget increase was only 5%, you responded that it was the non-SS budget which went up 8%. Or am I wrong on this, and you just don't know the difference between the non-SS budget and the discretionary budget. And your fabrications about what others are saying are legendary.
"And you can whine all you like that I should "trust you" on these matters,"
I have never asked you to trust me. I back everything up, so if I make a mistake, it is easily catchable. If you had known what you were looking at in the CBO data, you could have caught my mistake and embarrassed the hell out of me. Stumbo or Dusty would have caught it, I am sure.
But, as I said, I made a gross mistake in this instance, and incorrectly accused you of making a number up. I take mistakes like this very seriously, and I do sincerely apologize.
10459. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 2:04:28 PM
"However, I repeat: If the Democrats have pressed vigorously for the equivalent of one tenth of Bush's ten year tax cut in one year's spending, which they have, time and time again, they can't really claim that the tax cut is "fiscally irresponsible.""
For the sake of argument, I will concede your point that Congressional Democrats are being fiscally irresonsible and are being hypocritical when they accuse Republicans. Now, given that they have limited power, and won't get their increases, do you think that their plans are equally worthy of scrutiny as Bush's plans?
10460. Ronski - 3/1/2001 2:06:55 PM
10461. wonkers2 - 3/1/2001 2:08:10 PM
The stock market is tanking again today. Apparently it doesn't like Bush's tax proposal and the fuzzy math underlying it.
10462. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 2:09:41 PM
For what its worth, I thought during the campaign that we couldn't afford both the tax cut *and* social security reform, and accused Bush of irresponsibility for trying to get both. I had hoped he would sacrifice his tax cut for Social Security reform, but he seems to instead be doing the opposite. If not for the faltering economy, I would probably be less opposed to a tax cut right now, but I suspect those rosey budget forecasts are going to come crashing to earth pretty soon.
I also have read that Bush is giving serious consideration to axing the Import/Export bank, a multibillion dollar piece of line item pork. If he were to do that, I would have absoutely no problem with him doing almost anything with the budgetary money freed up.
10463. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 2:10:32 PM
Of course the market doesn't like it. It has seen this act before in the early 1980s.
10464. Ronski - 3/1/2001 2:21:59 PM
My guess is that Bush is going for the tax cut because he perceives it as easier to get than SS reform, and because it is also a means of correcting the Bush pere record on the Read My Lips embarassment. It is part of the avenging of his father's defeat.
10465. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 2:24:42 PM
Ronski: When I heard Daschle's credit-card story, I thought two things. One, have all the Democrats decided to mimic Al Gore and talk to us like we're idiots? I expected any minute for him to throw in a Mr. Rogers' "Can you say surplus? I thought you could." And two, he doesn't know a lot of the people I know. That is, the fiscally irresponsible ones.
10466. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 2:26:56 PM
Not sure about avenging his father, but otherwise I agree. I think he wanted to come out of the gate with a big victory, and saw taxes as much more winnable than Social Security.
Jade: As much as I think Bush is being irresponsible, this isn't as bad as what we saw in the 80s. At least Bush is trying to cut taxes when there are surpluses, instead of when there are already deficits, while simultaneously hiking defense spending.
10467. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 2:28:10 PM
The credit-card analogy is a counter to the "it's the people's money" slogan.
Yes, it is the people's money. It is also the people's debt.
10468. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 2:29:42 PM
Or am I wrong on this, and you just don't know the difference between the non-SS budget and the discretionary budget.
I assumed, and I continue to assume, that they're more or less the same thing.
10469. JJBiener - 3/1/2001 2:32:32 PM
PE - In the first sentence you say there is no extrapolation, and then you extrapolate hypothetically in the next sentence.
Duh. I was demonstrating what would happen if I had done what you accused me of.
if the Democrats are proposing massive spending increases
You managed to miss the point completely. Even if the Democrats are proposing only minor spending increases (ie 2% per year), it is more that the total tax cut. Characterizing Bush's tax cut as massive is dishonest.
10470. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 2:34:01 PM
Rask:
We also had a much smaller debt in the early 1980s.
I believe most people would be surprised to know most of the surplus is a result of the Social Security surplus.
10471. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2001 2:34:41 PM
"I assumed, and I continue to assume, that they're more or less the
same thing."
They aren't, by a large margin. The non- Social Security budget includes discretionary spending, plus Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, Food stamps, Veteran's benefits, WIC, interest on the debt, and a few other things. Discretionary spending is roughly half of the non-SS budget. You really should poke through that CBO data.
10472. Wombat - 3/1/2001 2:54:29 PM
Why poke through CBO data when you can get the straight skinny from the Republican Party?
10473. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 3:03:16 PM
Yes, it is the people's money. It is also the people's debt.
And the people's interest payment, etc., etc.
So if the people want a tax cut, they don't need nanny government telling them no, right?
Moreover, you have to admit, Jade, when Dubya says, "It's the people's money," he doesn't sound like a father in a cardigan reading a fairy tale to his children before tucking them into bed, as did Daschle. One thing Dubya does not convey is an air of intellectual superiority.
10474. Fielding - 3/1/2001 3:05:04 PM
Jade:
"Of course the market doesn't like it. It has seen this act before in the early 1980s."
The early 1980s were the best time to invest in the stock market in 100 years. If you bought the dow in 1981, you'd be rich.
10475. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 3:07:40 PM
The market is reacting to inertia (momentum, if you prefer) more than anything. And the signal from Greenspan that no rate cut is coming immediately, if at all.
10476. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2001 3:09:57 PM
(Incidentally, I'm not conceding anything factual about your post because I haven't heard anything about this, but my opinion is the same regardless.)
This is from Indiana Jones to Jade...of course, he's already decided this is a SALON type story so let's just give it a little brush aside but it made the news in my town, where it happened.
Are you saying it's okay for Jennas boyfriend to get special handling while in jail for drunkeness just because he had the First Daughter at an underage drinking party over the weekend?
Funny how we never heard these sorts of stories about Chelsea...
10477. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 3:10:01 PM
Curious George cannot convey an air of intellectual superiority.
When Curious George uses slogans, he is doing the American people no favors by presenting the idea there are no consequences to his handlers' plan.
10478. Fielding - 3/1/2001 3:11:34 PM
Indy:
"So if the people want a tax cut, they don't need nanny government telling them no, right?",/i>
If the people spoke with one voice, your point would be dispositive. The argument, however, is not between "the people" and "the government", but rather, between "some of the people" and "some more of the people". Which is why there is a debate going on.
10479. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2001 3:17:44 PM
toys?
10480. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 3:22:46 PM
CBS Ignores Own Poll Showing Tax Cut Support
By Scott Hogenson
CNS Executive Editor
March 01, 2001
First Add: Includes data on survey methodology
(CNSNews.com) - A CBS News poll of people who watched President Bush's Tuesday night address to Congress found a wide majority of Americans support Bush's proposed $1.6 trillion tax cut, but the network didn't even mention the survey results in its own evening newscast.
According to the CBS News poll, 67 percent of those questioned approve of the Bush tax relief plan, while 31 percent oppose it. However, the results of the network's survey didn't receive any mention during the Wednesday broadcast of the CBS Evening News, according to the Media Research Center, a network news watchdog group.
Rather than mention the poll results, the network relied on a report featuring two women from Omaha, Nebraska, both of whom indicated they thought Bush's plan cut taxes too much, the MRC noted. The Media Research Center is the parent organization of CNSNews.com.
Bush Tuesday formally rolled out his plan for across the board tax cuts amounting to $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Democrats are proposing a smaller tax cut, which would amount to about $900 billion over the same time frame.
While the network declined to broadcast the results of its survey during the Wednesday evening news program, which was anchored by Dan Rather, it did publish the results on the CBS News Internet web site.
The poll was conducted by Knowledge Networks among a national random sample of 978 adults, and the network called the poll "scientifically representative," of the public's response to Bush's speech.
The margin of error was plus or minus three percent, based on the entire sample, and four percent among those who viewed or heard the speech.
10481. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 3:22:55 PM
Bias? Nahhhh. Dan Rather's just a straight-shooter who once in a while spikes a poll favorable to his political opponents.
10482. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 3:24:22 PM
Funny how we never heard these sorts of stories about Chelsea...
Chelsea is too ugly to have a boyfriend.
10483. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 3:24:59 PM
Conservative News Service takes CBS to task for being biased, Spaz?
Too funny.
10484. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 3:26:26 PM
Conservative News Service advertises its bias in its title, Jadetard.
Dan Rather claims he has no bias.
10485. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 3:26:27 PM
Are you saying it's okay for Jennas boyfriend to get special handling while in jail for drunkeness just because he had the First Daughter at an underage drinking party over the weekend?
Judith: I see you think that the Jade/Cazart debate technique is one you wish to emulate. Let me ask you a question.
What in my post indicates that I'm saying anything like what you are asking me above?
Let me ask you another question, this one in your and Jade's style. Are you saying by defending Mia Farrow's behavior to CalGal, that you believe it's okay for a woman (who we all know once gave birth to the child of Satan) to adopt innocent Korean babies to serve as Lolita-like sex slaves for a neurotic Hollywood comedian so he'll marry her and further her career?
10486. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 3:30:18 PM
Just checking, Spaz.
As long as we all agree Conservative News Service is biased.
10487. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 3:31:33 PM
Jadetard,
Yes, Conservative News Service is a conservative news service, much like the National Biscuit Company is a national company dealing in biscuits.
10488. Fielding - 3/1/2001 3:32:46 PM
Ace:
"Chelsea is too ugly to have a boyfriend."
Chelsea has had several boyfriends, and the New York Post printed stories about every one of them. They were all honors students. No drunk driving incidents were reported.
10489. Fielding - 3/1/2001 3:34:18 PM
Let me try this again.
Indy:
"So if the people want a tax cut, they don't need nanny government telling them no, right?"
If the people spoke with one voice, your point would be dispositive. The argument, however, is not between "the people" and "the government", but rather, between "some of the people" and "some more of the people". Which is why there is a debate going on.
10490. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 3:39:36 PM
Fielding: I concede, of course, that there's a debate on this issue.
But assuming you believe in private property, until such time as a tax is collected, it is not even the people's money, but a person's money. And the fact that "some of the people" wish to take money from "others of the people" and spend it--even if the former group of people outnumber the latter--doesn't necessarily mean the federal government ought to assist them in doing so.
10491. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 3:40:45 PM
(And in this case, the numbers may change, but most polls show the majority currently favoring the cut.)
10492. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2001 3:40:49 PM
IJ:
I thought you were saying you hadn't heard anything about the story but had already made up your mind about it being fluff...how is that "adopting the Jade/Cazart" style of arguing? I was asking you that question in all seriousness...do you think it was fair he got special treatment?
10493. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 3:41:47 PM
Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution is presently having an interesting online chat about Curious George's tax scam here.
10494. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 3:42:40 PM
Judith:
IJ is just being silly.
10495. JJBiener - 3/1/2001 3:42:52 PM
Judith - What special treatment did he get?
10496. Fielding - 3/1/2001 3:46:35 PM
Indy:
"(And in this case, the numbers may change, but most polls show the majority currently favoring the cut.)"
As I understand it, the majority favors some cuts, but not necessarily all of them. When asked about specific portions that only affect rich people, the majority is against.
10497. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 3:48:06 PM
Judith: I responded to the facts Jade had presented and said I didn't know whether those were true or not because I hadn't heard. My point was that a) I don't trust Jade as a source, so I didn't want to create the impression I believed him but that b) even if the facts he had so far presented were true, I didn't think they constituted anything of significance.
Now, if you translate that as, regardless of additional facts (for example, Jenna's boyfriend also insisted the SS agent engage in a threesome with Jenna in the back), I still wouldn't care, then you have misunderstood.
10498. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2001 3:50:58 PM
JJ:
Jade linked to the story earlier. He was allowed to call Jenna and the secret service from his cell with his cellphone (ha!) and he wasn't charged with anything despite being drunk, 18, and at a party where underage drinking was going on. If this had been a Community College boy, he'd have been charged.
This kid is from a wealthy Austin family and he's a student at TCU. And he says he's Jennas boyfriend. And the Secret Service came for him after he called them and drove him away.
10499. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 3:53:24 PM
Wiener:
Here is the story again.
10500. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2001 3:53:50 PM
Thanks for answering my question in such a way as to imply I am the one misunderstanding, IJ. I beg to disagree.
10501. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 3:56:44 PM
My questions are:
Why didn't the boy call his parents? Why make a big deal about being the boyfriend of Curious George's kid?
Is this a legitimate function/duty of the US Secret Service?
Didn't Curious George promise, about a week ago, his relations would behave?
10502. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 4:08:21 PM
Judith: When you ask a question as you did in post 10475, then one must assume either you are trying to put words in my mouth or have misunderstood my position.
In 10492, you state the latter was what happened:
I thought you were saying...
So I don't see why you "beg to disagree" with "my implication" that you were the one who misunderstood.
You want a simple answer to a simple question? Do I think the boyfriend of the daughter of the president of the US should get special treatment from law enforcement?
Well, that's sort of loaded, isn't it? What constitutes "special" treatment? My simple answer to a question worded like that is no.
Do I think this is a stupid topic? My short answer is yes.
Let me ask you a question about special treatment. Should the POTUS be able to pardon his brother?
Does it bother you worse that the SS provided a car ride to a family friend or that a POTUS pardons the clients of his wife's brother?
10503. JJBiener - 3/1/2001 4:10:02 PM
Judith - I read the article. I still don't see why anyone would bother with this. Do you think it is unusual for a kid picked up for being drunk to be released without charges? It happens everyday in every precinct in America.
10504. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 4:11:30 PM
Let me ask you another question, Judith. Should the U.S. Treasury fund pleasure trips abroad for the First Lady and her daughter and an entourage when those trips are without the President himself?
As a follow up, what about the questions I asked Jade. Vernon Jordan conducting job hunts for Monica? Betty Currie retrieving presidential gifts from Monica? Monica giving blowjobs to Bill while on the clock?
10505. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 4:13:05 PM
Why is it, Judith and Jade, that all of these "favors of office" disappeared from the radar screen for you two when Clinton was in, but popped up like a nuclear submarine driven by Tipper when Bush entered the White House?
10506. JadeGold1 - 3/1/2001 4:14:45 PM
Wiener:
The boy isn't related to Curious George's family. Why are we using US Secret Service resouces to bail some drunk out of jail?
Why is Jenna at drunken parties?
10507. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 4:17:00 PM
Why is Jenna at drunken parties?
Because she's more fun than Chelsea?
10508. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2001 4:17:51 PM
IJ:
Why don't you and JJ just go ahead and discuss whatever you deem to be sufficiently serious enough for this thread and I'll just shut the hell up, okay?
10509. Wombat - 3/1/2001 4:18:39 PM
Indy:
How come such things suddenly become trivial for you, now that Clinton is no longer President?
10510. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 4:20:07 PM
How come such things suddenly become trivial for you, now that Clinton is no longer President?
Such things always *were* trivial. Little Al Gore III got preferential treatment when he got caught doing 100 mph on a residential road, but no one made an issue of it.
What assholes.
10511. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 4:22:28 PM
Wombat: During the entire time of the Clinton administration, I never made one post anywhere about a boyfriend of Chelsea's.
I swear it.
10512. Fielding - 3/1/2001 4:23:51 PM
Because she's more fun than Chelsea?
The New York Post reports that Chelsea celebrated her birthday the other day by drinking kamekaze shots at a New York nightclub.
10513. JJBiener - 3/1/2001 4:24:31 PM
Jade - The boy isn't related to Curious George's family.
BFD.
Why are we using US Secret Service resouces to bail some drunk out of jail?
According to the article, the boy was released, not bailed out. Also he is not some drunk the SS agents picked at random. He is a friend of Jenna.
Why is Jenna at drunken parties?
Uh, did you go to college? Why does this bother you?
10514. Wombat - 3/1/2001 4:24:46 PM
I seem to recall some tut-tutting about that from some of your threadmates when it happened. Of course it's all trivial. However, barring another Clinton fiasco, it's the Bushes who will be under the microscope. And there will be some who will revel in their peccadillos, just as others revelled in the Clinton's.
10515. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 4:26:34 PM
So... we've had eight years of perjury, lies, IRS audits of enemies, ludicrous failures of memory, Buddhist nun illegal campaign donations, go-slow corruption and espionage "investigations," analigis, and the definition of the word "is."
Now Jenna's friend drinks too much and gets driven home by a helpful secret service agent, and Wombat whines:
"What, no stomach for scandals now?"
Ummmm, yeah, Wombat. It's a real "scandal." The friend of the daughter of the President drank too much beer. Appoint a special counsel.
10516. JJBiener - 3/1/2001 4:26:55 PM
Judith - Why don't you and JJ just go ahead and discuss whatever you deem to be sufficiently serious enough for this thread and I'll just shut the hell up, okay?
I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Why do you think this is serious enough to discuss in this thread?
10517. jexster - 3/1/2001 4:30:19 PM
In its first major legislative action this year, the House voted 407-2 to create a Medicare lockbox that would require the government to use excess Medicare payroll tax receipts to pay down the debt rather than using the money to pay for tax cuts or spending increases. According to the Office of Management and Budget's new estimates, complying with the commitment in this legislation would take a $526 billion chunk out of the reserve.
Remarkably, under legislation passed by the House, President Bush can't send his new budget blueprint to Congress because it bans the president from submitting a budget that uses the Medicare surplus for anything other than debt reduction.
If the Senate passes the lockbox—which it did with only one dissenting vote last year—then more than half of the reserve will be gone.
Bush Budget is Just So Much Texas Steer Shit
10518. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 4:30:30 PM
Gee, isn't some drunkeness on the part of the friend of the daughter of the President equivalent to the President taking bribes for pardons?
I guess maybe it is. In WombatWorld. And JudithWorld, where "blinking too much" is felony.
10519. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 4:32:07 PM
Wombat: That was a joke (about Chelsea's boyfriends).
I've been known to engage in trivial posts myself, but generally tongue in cheek and to draw the ire of Clinton worshippers. For example, whether Hillary is a stingy tipper (pun). Usually I save such behavior for TableTalk because it's so easy to get the goat of the Clinton defenders there.
Judith takes these subjects seriously. Even when it's an 18-year-old "friend" of the president's daughter who was drunk at the time. That's pretty lame. What 18-year-old drunk in jail for the first time isn't going to start yelling about how he knows the President if he happens to?
Jade doesn't really take it seriously. He's just a shit-stirrer like I am on TableTalk.
10520. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2001 4:32:26 PM
JJ:
Because it involves using tax dollars? Because it involves the Presidents daughter? Because if it had been Clintons daughter, you guys would've been howling at the moon about what poor role models her parents were?
But truthfully, it isn't as earth shattering as what you guys have been jawing about for days on end...the pardons, the money, the Clinton yada yada yada.....god forbid someone mention something about the Bush family.
10521. Wombat - 3/1/2001 4:34:03 PM
Acey:
I am not whining, you are. Deal with it. There was a great deal of gloating over trivialities (flying lamps, Chelsea's appearance and boyfriends, etc.) There will be more of it, except that it will be the Bushes who are subject to it. I am sure that scandals will follow. Hopefully, they won't be invented.
10522. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 4:34:48 PM
"Because if it had been Clintons daughter, you guys would've been howling at the moon about what poor role models her parents were? "
Once again:
Little Al "Retard" Gore III got caught doing 100mph on a residential road and got preferential treatment.
Go find the posts in which "we" made a big deal about it.
10523. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2001 4:35:34 PM
Judith takes these subjects seriously
Jesus H. Christ, I take these subjects about as seriously as I take my VOTE...which is not at all. Can you just sit on that pomposity for awhile and enjoy it?
10524. jexster - 3/1/2001 4:36:47 PM
His new spending initiatives, meanwhile, are wildly out of proportion to the grandiose rhetoric that has accompanied them. Bush's tax credits for the uninsured are woefully inadequate, costing one-third as much as some Bush advisers reportedly wanted. His prescription-drug benefit is so underfunded that it has been virtually laughed out of Congress. Even on education, supposedly his top priority, Bush's spending increases are meager. In his speech, Bush touted his plan to spend more on the Land and Water Conservation Fund. He neglected to mention that he plans an overall cut in the environmental-protection budget.
When conservatives criticized him two years ago for boosting the Texas budget, The Dallas Morning News reported that Bush responded, "[A]n `honest comparison' of spending growth should take inflation and the state's increasing population into account." Apparently not anymore.
10525. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 4:37:08 PM
Ahhh...
Pomposity. Feels so good. Like beads on a truckdriver's captain's chair.
10526. Wombat - 3/1/2001 4:37:30 PM
Acey:
Let me know when you can tell the difference between a peccadillo and a scandal. You've been confused about it in the past, and apparently still are.
10527. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 4:38:57 PM
Incidentally, anyone who knows anything about the Secret Service knows that agents are supposed to do this.
Even The West Wing's writers know this. When "President Dumbass Liberal Bartlett" interviewed his daughter's would-be Secret Service agent, he made an express point of telling her that he didn't want her reporting on drunkeness or slipping away with a boy, etc.
Any time a protectee feels they have to hide from their protector to engage in drinking, making out, etc., that means the protectee is putting his/her life in jeopardy. And the SS doesn't like that.
10528. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2001 4:40:03 PM
He neglected to mention that he plans an overall cut in the environmental-protection budget.
Boy, now THERE'S a huge surprise! Who'd a thunk it?
10529. Wombat - 3/1/2001 4:40:28 PM
Personally, I am content with a mild "tut-tut" about the episode (which is what it deserves).
I am eager to see what Jenna's going to get up to next, though. Should be exciting.
10530. jexster - 3/1/2001 4:40:56 PM
"Those of us who spent time in the agricultural sector and in the heartland, we understand how unfair the death penalty is."--Omaha, Neb., Feb. 28, 2001
10531. OhioSTOPAS - 3/1/2001 4:41:20 PM
Okay, Ace, you've said it twice, I'll ask.
In what way did Al Gore III get preferential treatment when he got his speeding ticket?
10532. jexster - 3/1/2001 4:41:20 PM
OOPS wrong cue card Imbecile!
10533. jexster - 3/1/2001 4:42:16 PM
The same way BOTUS did on his DUI?
For being AWOL?
For stealing the 2000 Election?
10534. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 4:45:52 PM
"In what way did Al Gore III get preferential treatment when he got his speeding ticket? "
It wasn't a "ticket," it was an arrest... an arrest I notice he didn't spend the night in jail for. Nor have I heard about him being charged for reckless driving and evading pursuit.
10535. JJBiener - 3/1/2001 4:46:40 PM
Judith - Because it involves using tax dollars?
What tax dollars?
Because it involves the Presidents daughter?
That might make it worth a raised eyebrow and a chuckle, but nothing more than that.
Because if it had been Clintons daughter, you guys would've been howling at the moon about what poor role models her parents were?
In Chelsea's freshman year, she attended a party where there was a fair amount of drinking. The guy she was with and several other of her friends were too drunk to drive home. The Secret Service agents with Chelsea drove them home. No one made a big deal about it.
10536. jexster - 3/1/2001 4:48:59 PM
How Does the Bush Tax Scam Affect YOU? Quicken
10537. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2001 4:50:45 PM
What tax dollars?
What do they pay the Secret Service with...vouchers?
10538. jexster - 3/1/2001 4:52:10 PM
It wasn't a "ticket," it was an arrest... an arrest I notice he didn't spend the night in jail for. Nor have I heard about him being charged for reckless driving and evading pursuit
What a load of crap.
10539. OhioSTOPAS - 3/1/2001 4:52:28 PM
First-offense speeders get jail time?
10540. JJBiener - 3/1/2001 4:53:30 PM
Judith - What do they pay the Secret Service with...vouchers?
Weren't the agents on duty anyway?
10541. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 4:53:35 PM
"What do they pay the Secret Service with...vouchers?"
What did they pay the Secret Service with when they spent "government time" clearing Monica Lewinsky through security in order to lick Bill Clinton's asshole?
Those minutes of "government time" were paid with by tax dollars.
If you say, "They were on security detail anyway," you're beat: Because Jenna's squad was on security detail anyway, too.
10542. JJBiener - 3/1/2001 4:54:19 PM
Test
10543. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2001 5:04:36 PM
Well, sorry to end this trivial pursuit but I'm outta here...much more serious stuff to attend to, like waiting for Survivor to come on...
10544. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 5:04:44 PM
Incidentally, the Bush family is beloved by the Secret Service.
The Clintons are despised.
This comes from real sources, not from Jade's pretend "moving target sources."
A friend of a friend relates a lovely tale in which Bush the Elder orders up a truckful of food for bored Secret Service agents who are, for one reason or another, forced to spend hour upon hour in a room of the White House, waiting.
Then Bush has to go to a State Dinner or something.
When he comes back, he pulls hundreds of mints and candies from his pockets -- which he stole from the dinner -- and gives them to the SS agents. "Just thought you might like candy," he says.
The Agents think it's a wonderful gesture, and are touched that during this state dinner the President was sitting there thinking, "I wonder if those Agents want some candies? And I wonder how I'll be able to swipe them."
One agent thinks, "It's sort of scary that the President was meeting with foreign heads of state, wondering how he could steal some candy for us."
The Clintons, meanwhile... well, the less said the better.
10545. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2001 5:06:43 PM
Gee, Ace...that story, freighted with seriousness though it was, brought a tear to my eye....
Yeah, right.
10546. jexster - 3/1/2001 5:07:59 PM
"Without reform, this country will one day awaken to a stark choice: Either a drastic rise in payroll taxes or a radical cut in retirement benefits. There is a better way. This spring I will form a presidential commission to reform Social Security."
nly a bold leader could pass off a commission as a "better way."
10547. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 5:09:31 PM
JAH:
You never answered my question: Where the SS Agents who cleared Monica through Security so that she could lick bill's ass on "government time" and being paid by "taxpayer dollars" or not?
10548. jexster - 3/1/2001 5:10:40 PM
Ace of Waste...
Secret service man...secret service man...
10549. jexster - 3/1/2001 5:11:17 PM
fuckin joke
10550. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2001 5:13:05 PM
Yes indeedy, they certainly were.
Just like those who picked up Jennas drunken boyfriend.
So my argument has been eviscerated and you are the gutter; I the guttee.
10551. jexster - 3/1/2001 5:15:39 PM
WASHINGTON--In the budget he unveiled Wednesday, President Bush offers Americans almost everything they could possibly want in a federal spending plan--a big tax cut, major debt reduction, new spending programs and money to spare.
Can he deliver?
Just ask a Texas taxpayer!
Bush's Budget Reserve Cannot Be Counted On - Los Angeles Times
Let's talk about the Secret Service!
secret service man...secret service man!
Dickless wonder
10552. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 6:13:41 PM
In an interview with the Washington Times, Sen. Zell Miller, a Georgia Democrat, says his party is erring in opposing the Bush tax plan as a giveaway to the rich. "I hate this class-warfare talk. I think the Democrats are making a terrible mistake and don't serve the people very well by engaging in it," Miller says. "It's bad politics. Most of the poor that I know don't have this class envy. They have this desire to move up in the world and into higher income brackets."
Miller, the man who nominated Bill Clinton at the 1992 Democratic convention, also has harsh words for Clinton's handpicked head of the Democratic National Committee: "I think the Democratic Party could not have made a worse choice in choosing Terry McAuliffe as chairman of the DNC. He stands in the shade of Bill Clinton."
Go Zell Go!
10553. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 6:45:21 PM
Ehhh... this story cannot be dismissed, though the usual goofballs will pretend that the National Enquirer hasn't been breaking big stories left and right.
But I don't think this aids the cause terribly much. The focus must be kept on money, not sex. Sex is a *defense* for Bill Clinton.
I guess it's possible the NE story will be nothing but some vaguely suggestive quotes with a over-promising screamer headline stuck on it. We'll see tomorrow, I guess.
10554. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 7:07:02 PM
On further consideration...
The "legitimate media" -- you know, the media that doesn't bother questioning Jesse Jackson about his love child and the hush-money paid to his mistress, and that doesn't bother questioning Hugh & Tony Rodham about receiving money for pardons -- would have picked this story up if there was anything to it.
So, the NE story is a non-story. It's a few hints and innuendoes under a misleading screamer headline.
10555. Uzmakk - 3/1/2001 7:43:41 PM
Actually, Denise Rich had sex with both Bill and Hillary and acted as a go-between when tensions were at their height.
10556. Autodaffy - 3/1/2001 8:41:35 PM
Well, at least all that silicone is doing more that hold up those gowns she sports.
10557. wonkers2 - 3/1/2001 9:47:29 PM
CLINTON ADVISORS DISAGREED WITH PARDON OF MARC RICH AND CHENEY'S CHIEF OF STAFF CONFIRMS CLINTON'S RATIONALE FOR RICH'S THE PARDON
In testimony this evening before the House Committee chaired by Dan Burton, Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff for Vice President Cheney, testified that he agreed with the Clinton's rationale for pardoning Marc Rich. His statement was in response to skillful questioning by Dem. Congressman Henry Waxman from California. Earlier, Lindsay, Podesta and the lawyer advising Clinton on the pardons testified that they disagreed with Clinton's decision to pardon Marc Rich and tried to dissuade him from doing it.
Lewis Libby declined to say whether or not he supported the actual pardon, but when pressed by Waxman he testified that he did not believe that Rich and Green were guilty of the crimes for which they were indicted. Waxman read, one by one, the points in Clinton's op-ed on the pardon and asked Libby if he agreed, and in each case he did. I don't have the op-ed in front of me but Libby said that the southern district of NY attorney general's office was over-zealous and should not have applied the Rico Statute; there were NO TAX LAW VIOLATIONS; and other companies who engaged in the same transactions as did Rich's companies cases were brought and resolved civilly, not criminally (Arco). Burton was apoplectic over Lewis's testimony, and tried unsuccessfully to get him to recant.
10558. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 10:10:19 PM
Idiot:
Lewis Libby is/was a paid advocate paid to take that position.
Is your claim that Clinton is also a paid advocate paid to take a certain position?
10559. wonkers2 - 3/1/2001 10:15:55 PM
No, just that he actually agreed with Libby's and Jack Quinn's and Ginzburg's position, possibly because he developed an aversion to over-zealous prosecutors thanks to Dancing Baby Starr.
10560. Fielding - 3/1/2001 10:17:11 PM
Ace:
I don't doubt that the Enquirer story is true, but until some legitimate news outlet picks it up, nobody will take it seriously. The only thing the Enquirer story does is force the legitimate outlets to do their jobs.
10561. OhioSTOPAS - 3/1/2001 10:23:07 PM
How they must laugh over at the National Enquirer when they hear some sucker say, "I don't doubt that the Enquirer story is true."
10562. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 10:24:43 PM
"No, just that he actually agreed with Libby's and Jack Quinn's and Ginzburg's position..."
He was PAID to agree with that position, dipshit. So were Quinn and Ginzburg.
Or do you suppose it's just a coincidence that any lawyer you hire "believes" in your position?
Lawyers are *paid advocates,* shit-for-brains. They are *paid* to *advocate* whatever position you want them to take. That's their job.
"Believing in a case" doesn't bloody enter into it. A defense attorney will argue that his dead-to-rights crackhead murderer "is innocent, because he was on the Moon at the time the murder was committed" if that's what the client wants.
10563. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 10:27:35 PM
Fielding,
I think the story will be "true" only to the extent it is trivial. Such as: "But someone who knows someone who knows someone else speculates that Bill & Denise are hot and heavy."
If there was any juice to the story, Fielding, it would have been leaked already. Just like the Jackson Bastard and Baby Hughie stories were leaked.
(I imagine.)
10564. wonkers2 - 3/1/2001 10:30:52 PM
CLINTON actually agreed with Libby's and Quinn's and Professor Ginzburg's positions on Rich's case. I haven't seen any evidence indicating Clinton was paid to agree with anything. Liddy said several times that he personally believed that Rich was innocent and should never have been indicted. He said he believed in the case, when pressed hard by Waxman. Are you saying that Cheney's chief of staff lied to the Burton committee?
10565. Fielding - 3/1/2001 10:35:16 PM
What does Gordon Liddy have to do with it? :)
10566. wonkers2 - 3/1/2001 10:42:00 PM
LiBBy! Liddy was still in the slammer at the time.
10567. Fielding - 3/1/2001 10:44:30 PM
Heh. Liddy once threatened my life.
10568. RosettaStone - 3/1/2001 10:48:51 PM
Only once?
10569. wonkers2 - 3/1/2001 10:49:32 PM
He's not the kind of guy I'd mess around with. What cause him to threaten your life? Didn't you start up fast enough on a green light in D.C. That can get you shot in our nation's capital.
10570. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 10:51:43 PM
Are you saying that Cheney's chief of staff lied to the Burton committee?
The man has a Professional Code of Ethics that says he's never suppose to publicly deride a client or ex-client's case.
Dipshit,
OJ's lawyers all say he's innocent too... and a few of them are Republicans. Should we have pardoned him as well?
I mean, if a defendant's lawyer says he's innocent, that proves the case, right?
Find me someone not PAID by Marc Rich that says the case was weak, dipshit.
10571. Fielding - 3/1/2001 11:06:07 PM
Wonkers:
I interviewed him for a radio broadcast, and I asked him about his offer to kill Jack Anderson. He then went into a long monologue on the different ways that he could kill me before help could arrive. I told him that it sounded like he'd rehearsed that threat many times over. He smiled, sort of.
10572. joezan - 3/1/2001 11:09:25 PM
Clinton pardon fiasco was
AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN
Clinton had apparently been setting up this little pardon scheme since he arrived in Washington.
Margaret Colgate Love, who served as pardon
attorney at the Justice Department from 1990 to 1997, told
the committee that from the beginning of his presidency,
Clinton moved to take away the agency's traditional role of
being the first to review pardon requests.
"The final Clinton pardons were an accident waiting to
happen," she said.
Traditionally, presidents let the Justice Department take
the first look at clemency requests, but Clinton's White
House answered pardon inquiries, and made it known that
Justice officials would be among many people who would
advise Clinton on the requests, she said.
"The Clinton administration's shortsighted and
ill-advised decision to abandon the long-standing regular
system of Justice Department review led directly to the
reported free-for-all at the end of his term and the resultant
appearance of cronyism and influence-peddling," Love
asserted.
10573. jonesatlaw - 3/1/2001 11:24:59 PM
Little Al "Retard" Gore III got caught doing 100mph on a residential road and got preferential treatment.
Go find the posts in which "we" made a big deal about it.
Misleading question. There were posts about it, and they were in the elections thread. There was also comparisons between Gore III and the son of a GOP senator from Minnesota, since retired by the voters. I believe Ace, it was you who brought up the comparison.
10574. joezan - 3/2/2001 12:11:58 AM
Hey, GWB's niece is a model....
10575. joezan - 3/2/2001 12:13:44 AM
...no substitute for good breeding.
10576. jexster - 3/2/2001 1:51:00 AM
And UR excuse JoeZ?
The tax cut plan advocated by President George W. Bush would target most of its benefits to the wealthiest taxpayers if fully enacted in 2001, according to an analysis of the plan released today by Citizens for Tax Justice. (Previous CTJ analyses measured the impact of the Bush plan at 1999 levels.) The analysis shows that more than sixty percent of Bush's proposed tax cuts would go to the best-off 10 percent of Americans.
According to the analysis:
Taxpayers in the lowest 60 percent of the income scale would get only 12.7 percent of Bush's tax cuts. Their average annual tax reduction would be $256.
The bottom 20 percent of taxpayers would see an average tax cut of $47 a year.
In contrast, the best-off 10 percent of all taxpayers would get 60.3 percent of Bush's proposed tax cuts, and an average tax cut of $7,300 a year.
The wealthiest one percent of all taxpayers would get an average tax reduction of $54,480 a year--45 percent of the total tax cut.
Center For Tax Justice
10577. jexster - 3/2/2001 1:52:40 AM
Boy, and things were going so well …
President Bush and his top advisors must be telling themselves something like that right about now. Only weeks ago the president's improbable tax cut plan looked like it was going to drive all before it. First, the hoped-for signs of an economic downturn gave credence to Bush's stimulus arguments. Then a leading Senate Democrat, Zell Miller, hopped on the Bush bandwagon and sent shivers down every Democratic spine. Even Alan Greenspan, the Democrats' favorite Randian, decided that, well, maybe a mammoth tax cut wasn't such a bad idea after all. Soon enough the new president found himself in the happy, but unlikely, position of appearing to hold the line against those who wanted to make the tax cut still larger. As his father was wont to say, George W. had the Big Mo.
Only he didn't. In recent weeks Senate Republicans like Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chafee, and others have come forward to say that they too think the Bush plan is too large and gives too much of the largesse to the very wealthy. And polls show that where fiscal policy is concerned, the sun and moon are still firmly fixed in their late-nineties firmament: Americans seem far more taken with the Democrats' approach to managing the surplus than Bush's. (An ABC/Washington Post poll released today shows that 22 percent of Americans say a major tax cut is their chief priority, while 77 percent gave preference to Social Security, debt pay-down, or health and education.)
Yet the story behind this sudden reverse is that there really was no sudden reverse. Nothing had really changed at all....
Bush's Big Bluff
10578. jexster - 3/2/2001 1:56:33 AM
Way to go, Moron - now South Korea has joined with Russia in protesting the NMD plan.
Anyone See Where W. Placed Those Rogue States?
10579. RosettaStone - 3/2/2001 8:59:18 AM
Two big positive articles this week on former Senator Bob Kerrey in the mainline liberal press.
New Yorker/New York Times.
Good idea for establishment Democrats to start promoting other people, now that the Clintons, known as the Grifters, are damaged.
Interesting item: Kerrey, 56, just married a former Saturday Night Live comedy writer, 44.
10580. wonkers2 - 3/2/2001 9:19:07 AM
Eminenema, All I'm saying is that Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, testified yesterday that there are powerful legal arguments, that he agreed with personally, that Marc rich WAS INNOCENT OF THE CRIMES FOR WHICH HE WAS INDICTED and that he never should have been indicted criminally by Rudy Giuliani. He also testified convincingly to the effect that he was stonewalled for 10 years or so by the U.S. attorney in the southern district of NY. Obvioulsy, Clinton was well aware of what the U.S. attorney's position was before he issued the pardon. Libby also emphasized several times that the President has the absolute and unfettered right to issue pardons with or without the concurrence of the Justice Department or without consulting them.
10581. JadeGold1 - 3/2/2001 9:29:05 AM
I would add that Libby met with Quinn after Quinn began working on obtaining a pardon for Rich.
It's inconceivable Libby didn't know about or support the pardon effort.
This is in direct contradiction to Ari Fleischer's comments that Libby was "in no way" involved in the pardon effort.
10582. JudithAtHome - 3/2/2001 9:49:48 AM
...no substitute for good breeding.
Joezan, are you inferring that becoming a fashion model is a sign of good breeding? I would say it's just the opposite...and it's obvious she was only used by the designer as a gimmick to get more publicity for his "sexy evening gowns".
10583. jexster - 3/2/2001 10:07:32 AM
The person largely responsible for key legal arguments cited in Marc Rich's successful pardon application is not Jack Quinn, President Bill Clinton's former White House counsel. It's I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a longtime Rich lawyer who is now chief of staff for Vice President Cheney....He's the best lawyer of all the many lawyers who have worked with me or for me," Garment said. "On this case, he didn't give in to anything. He was constantly skeptical and helped me reach the conclusion that we had a meritorious case" to present to New York prosecutors in attempts to negotiate a settlement.
"Scooter really believed" that Rich was innocent of the charges, said a source familiar with his work. Libby was convinced Rich was a victim of an overzealous prosecution that inappropriately used a federal racketeering statute known by its initials, RICO, to squeeze him and his companies, sources said.
10584. jexster - 3/2/2001 10:10:24 AM
The person largely responsible for key legal arguments cited in Marc Rich's successful pardon application is not Jack Quinn, President Bill Clinton's former White House counsel. It's I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a longtime Rich lawyer who is now chief of staff for Vice President Cheney....He's the best lawyer of all the many lawyers who have worked with me or for me," Garment said. "On this case, he didn't give in to anything. He was constantly skeptical and helped me reach the conclusion that we had a meritorious case" to present to New York prosecutors in attempts to negotiate a settlement.
"Scooter really believed" that Rich was innocent of the charges, said a source familiar with his work. Libby was convinced Rich was a victim of an overzealous prosecution that inappropriately used a federal racketeering statute known by its initials, RICO, to squeeze him and his companies, sources said.
Warbuck's Top Aide Loves Mark Rich
10585. jexster - 3/2/2001 10:11:10 AM
Judith...the Bush girlie is training to be a high class whore...just like her uncle
10586. jexster - 3/2/2001 10:12:10 AM
JoeZ just hard up for a little Bush
10587. jexster - 3/2/2001 10:12:34 AM
toyz
10588. jexster - 3/2/2001 10:12:52 AM
damn!
10589. jexster - 3/2/2001 10:13:05 AM
there we are
10590. RosettaStone - 3/2/2001 10:24:19 AM
Hey, Jexster! Bush won. Gore lost.
As daMoron said: "Not only do I knock 'em out, I pick the state."
10591. JadeGold1 - 3/2/2001 10:26:29 AM
Gore didn't lose, Rosie.
10592. RosettaStone - 3/2/2001 10:38:58 AM
If you say so, JG.
Great article on back page from front section of today's WSJ with this headline: "Former Gore Aide Discovers Loss of Influence Can Mean Lost Job."
Roy Neel was driving home from a late dinner last Decmeber when the news came over the radio that the U.S. Supreme Court had barred further recounts of Florida's disputed ballots. Mr. Neel, who had spent months running Vice President Al Gore's putative transition operation, knw what the ruling meant: "It's over," he recalls telling his wife.
Now the head of the U.S. Telephone Association has resigned from the USTA under pressure from the trade group's board of directors.
Or, as Phil Ochs once sang: "I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody outside a small circle of freinds."
10593. JadeGold1 - 3/2/2001 10:39:02 AM
Jenna's known as a big-time party girl. Curious George's desire to keep his litter out the media is not so much to protect his little girls as it is to protect him.
My sources say that Jenna made quite the spectacle at MMCCXXIII in DC over the inauguration weekend. For non-DC denizens, MMCCXXIII is the club of choice for Euro-trash and Euro-trash wannabes. The club offers its patrons the opportunity to drop several grand on a middling bottle of Dom and a tablespoon of Osetra.
10594. RosettaStone - 3/2/2001 10:39:49 AM
knew
10595. JJBiener - 3/2/2001 11:04:37 AM
My sources say . . .
This line never fails to elicit a laugh.
10596. Ronski - 3/2/2001 11:36:07 AM
There are Euro-trash wannabees?
The world is a sad place.
10597. Indiana Jones - 3/2/2001 11:48:45 AM
An article related to yesterday's tax discussion, rather than Jade's continued fascination with the Bush females. (Laura Bush's ass, Jenna Bush's watering holes, etc.)
10598. JJBiener - 3/2/2001 11:52:36 AM
Ronski - The world is a sad place.
Actually, Jade's world is a sad place. I am not sure she lives in the same world we do. Apparently in Jade's world Gore won the election and is now President. Of course that would make it a very sad place indeed.
10599. RosettaStone - 3/2/2001 11:56:33 AM
Why was Roy Neel, one of Gore's most trusted aides, fired from his $600,000 a year job as head of the U.S. Telephone Association?
"It was pretty clear that the usefulness of a prominent Gore guy would be vastly diminished in the Bush administration," says one USTA board of director. "These issues are too important to the health of our industry to gamble with."
10600. JudithAtHome - 3/2/2001 12:00:42 PM
IJ:
rather than Jade's continued fascination with the Bush females. (Laura Bush's ass, Jenna Bush's watering holes, etc.)
Jozan is the one who brought up the refined Miss Laura Bush and her budding career as a fashion model.
10601. RosettaStone - 3/2/2001 12:02:31 PM
Tax cuts are the way to go, says Alan Greenspan to Congress today.
I want my money back!!
Ireland in August for two weeks, here we come!!!
10602. Indiana Jones - 3/2/2001 12:28:42 PM
Judith: joezan mentioned Lauren Bush, not Laura Bush.
[Insert suitably pompous statement here.]
10603. Indiana Jones - 3/2/2001 12:31:01 PM
From Ace's favorite homosexual columnist:
10604. jexster - 3/2/2001 12:54:44 PM
On The Absymal Ignorance of Bush Boyz WRT Foreign Economic Affairs
10605. JudithAtHome - 3/2/2001 12:55:54 PM
Judith: joezan mentioned Lauren Bush, not Laura Bush.
Picky, picky, picky...
However, the bit about LaureN was just as frivilous as anything about Lauras ass...
10606. JudithAtHome - 3/2/2001 12:57:41 PM
And for that matter, LaurA is losing weight...saw her 2 days ago in a local interview with a gushing female reporter and the lady has definitely lost a few pounds. With GW not hogging the gym at the Ranch, she may be getting a routine down.
10607. Wombat - 3/2/2001 1:03:24 PM
Indy:
It's the people's debt, too. Much of it taken on board from the last time the people got "their" money back. Last time I heard, social security and medicare also belong to the people.
Your op-ed columnist--Republican hack will have to do better than that
10608. jexster - 3/2/2001 1:07:40 PM
Is Alan Greenspan A) stupid B) a liar C) senile?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) said on Friday the central bank was not too slow in cutting interest rates by waiting until the start of this year.
10609. jexster - 3/2/2001 1:08:58 PM
Was that the Brit faggot Andrew Sullivan?
10610. Ronski - 3/2/2001 1:09:32 PM
Andrew Sullivan may be many things, but Republican and hack are not among them. He is a self-described gay, Catholic conservative who initially was a strong backer of Clinton.
10611. JadeGold1 - 3/2/2001 1:13:04 PM
Andrew Sullivan need only join the Taliban to complete the list of groups that vilify him.
10612. Ronski - 3/2/2001 1:16:50 PM
A turban would cover up the hair loss.
10613. Ronski - 3/2/2001 1:19:15 PM
(But then, as a very white man, he would end up looking like Dan Rather in that unfortunate escapade some years ago, when Dan sat safely at the border while ABC's Hillary Browne had her butt shot at deep within Afghani lines.)
10614. JadeGold1 - 3/2/2001 1:25:53 PM
Ronski:
Seriously, is Andrew Sullivan engaged in some sort of gay scavenger hunt? Join all those groups which would refuse to have you as a member?
10615. Indiana Jones - 3/2/2001 1:26:41 PM
Judith: I hope you can distinguish between something being mentioned for trivia's sake and as an offhand comment (hey, did you see where Lauren Bush is a model?) versus conspiratorial mind-reading nonsense like:
"Curious George's desire to keep his litter out the media is not so much to protect his little girls as it is to protect him."
Moreover, if joezan went on for multiple days about the president's niece being a model, how relevant that was to his presidency, etc. and in this thread, yeah, I'd find that boring and trivial and inane, too.
Finally, my comment was not to set myself up as thread monitor--I think that is rubberducky's call--as to what is discussion-worthy and that I shall respond to every comment by every poster in like fashion, but to show I personally thought Jade's subject matter uninteresting so I was going to talk about taxes.
10616. Ronski - 3/2/2001 1:31:53 PM
Jade,
Infiltration. You know, the old fifth column technique.
10617. JadeGold1 - 3/2/2001 1:37:07 PM
IJ:
Of course you find the subject uninteresting. It would only be interesting and worthy of Congressional hearings if Chelsea Clinton were involved.
We should only be interested in Bill Clinton's pardons, they are unseemly and criminal. Poppy Bush's pardon of Orlando Bosch (at the behest of Jeb Bush to curry votes in Florida), a man who planted a bomb aboard an airliner and killed 73, is noble and unworthy of discussion. Since no money changed hands, Poppy's pardons of the Iran-Contra figures, who may have implicated Poppy, were purely humanitarian.
Tsk, tsk.
10618. JadeGold1 - 3/2/2001 1:37:55 PM
I see, Ronski.
Virgin ground, so to speak.
10619. Indiana Jones - 3/2/2001 1:38:00 PM
Wombat: Yes, it's the people's debt (as well as any interest to be paid on it will be paid by them). This is what Fielding and I covered yesterday.
But why is it that the Democrats are suddenly concerned about a national debt that never bothered them in decades past? Why were they never willing to agree to an across-the-board spending freeze in years past to keep that debt from growing larger?
The fact is, we'll be paying down the debt under Bush's plan, as well as providing a tax cut that should grow the economy.
Personally, I favor paying down the debt as well, but I believe a few things. One, government surpluses lead to wasteful spending; two, government surpluses are deflationary so that an enormous government surplus enduring for several spending cycles will likely damage the economy; three, a debt that accumulated over centuries ought not be the burden of just a few years to pay off. The people paying in the surplus have every right to say that yeah, they'd like some of the excess their work has generated returned to them.
10620. Indiana Jones - 3/2/2001 1:56:36 PM
Question to those who think paying down the debt should be the number one priority: Would you support a constitutional amendment prohibiting deficit spending? What loopholes would you want to have in such an amendment?
10621. Wombat - 3/2/2001 2:26:39 PM
Indy:
I cannot believe that you still buy the "trickle-down" effect of massive tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy. Nor do I have an ideological objection to a tax cut. If the tax cut reflected surplus funds available at present, after social security, medicare, debt reduction, and a reasonable degree of other program growth, let it rip. I do not accept the idea of a massive tax cut based on projections that have the same degree of uncertainty as a long-term weather forecast.
10622. Indiana Jones - 3/2/2001 2:35:51 PM
Wombat: If you mean by "trickle down," the notion that giving money to the rich means more money for the poor, I don't subscribe to that. (It could be, but I've seen no convincing evidence.) If you mean that tax cuts stimulate the overall economy, yes, I do believe that.
As far as projections, I think it ought to be general practice that you collect revenues in anticipation of estimated expenditures--not that you over-tax the citizenry just in case you may need the money.
What is your opinion of a balanced budget amendment? How fast do you think debt reduction ought to occur? On what basis do you arrive at that timetable?
10623. Wombat - 3/2/2001 2:47:37 PM
I am against a balanced budget amendment.
Like our esteemed Fed Chairman, I would continue to place priority on debt reduction, with a tax cut if actual revenue allows. Note that Greenspan has kept his remarks on potential tax cuts very vague. I would be amazed if he signed on to one the size of what President* Bush wants.
10624. jexster - 3/2/2001 2:51:58 PM
Andrew Sullivan is neither hack nor Republican..
Just a tired Brit queen
10625. JJBiener - 3/2/2001 3:32:06 PM
Wombat - I would be amazed if he signed on to one the size of what President* Bush wants.
Why do you think that Bush's tax cut is so large? It represents only a tiny percentage of the budget. It represents less than a third of the projected surplus. As I demonstrated the other day, it costs less than increasing spending by a mere 2% per year.
BTW, you can take the asterisk off. Gore's challenge would not have changed the outcome of Florida.
10626. Ronski - 3/2/2001 3:36:11 PM
Apropos of not all that much, here is East Grinstead, ancestral home of Andrew Sullivan, once the home of my late partner's family, and formerly the butt of a running gag by the Pythons.
Note the "longest continuous run of 14th c. timber framed buildings" in England, which would today be a still longer run had a Nazi doodlebug not taken out the south end of the High Street during the war.
10627. AceofSpades - 3/2/2001 6:33:44 PM
Media Zero In on Jenna Bush; Blind to Clinton-Gore Kids' Wild Times
It wasn't first daughter Jenna Bush who was arrested after getting drunk at a Fort Worth, Texas, beer party over the weekend.
But that hasn't stopped the press from pretending that it's some sort of presidential scandal because a friend of hers apparently did - with coverage that stands in marked contrast to the way reporters covered up for the Clinton and Gore children over the last eight years.
...
Then there's Albert Gore III, son of former vice president Al Gore, who was booted from tony St. Albans prep school for smoking pot during a 1996 school dance. Though the pot bust meant young Albert had broken the law, that story never made headlines either. Here's why:
"School administrators treated it like any other infraction of discipline, with a public announcement - minus the name of the transgressor - in the dining hall," reported Bill Turque in his recent biography of the vice president, "Inventing Al Gore."
"Anonymity didn't keep word from spreading back to dinner tables throughout Washington, and eventually to the press. [Vice President] Gore called leading news organizations around Washington and asked them not to run the story, and all complied."
Stories about Gore daughter Karenna's wild partying never made the mainstream press either though, according to a recent Star magazine profile, "her former classmates say she loved pot and booze bashes."
...
In a 1996 incident that did attract some coverage, Karenna's younger sister Sarah - then 16 - was nabbed by police for holding an open can of beer while sitting in a friend's car. After invoking her powerful dad's name, she was merely given a citation and sent on her way.
10628. JudithAtHome - 3/2/2001 6:38:41 PM
I thought this story was too "petty" for the mighty Politics thread, Ace.
10629. AceofSpades - 3/2/2001 7:04:33 PM
Media bias is not a petty topic, JAH.
I think that the media was right, and acting out of simple humanity and courtesy, to not blare the transgressions of Presidential and Vice-Presidential children all over the world.
I just wonder what ever could have happened to change this policy...
...gee, could it be that a Republican is now President?
Nah. The media always denies that their oddly divergent decisions are animated by other concerns. Why was Anita Hill trumpeted and Juanita Broadderick suppressed and embargoed? Oh, because Broadderick's charges concerned an incident 20 years old, whereas Hill's charges concerned incidents a mere fifteen years old. That's the difference. Not favoritism for liberals.
Uh-huh.
10630. jexster - 3/2/2001 7:43:51 PM
George W. Bush has an argument that he thinks clinches the case for his $2.1 billion tax cut, or as he calls it, his $1.6 billion tax cut. The argument is the budget surplus is "the people's money." ...he tends to describe the deficit and other public obligations in the third-person singular or plural. Washington--or merely "they"--will spend all our hard-earned money if "we" don't stop them.
But who is this they Bush keeps talking about? It's none other than you, the people, of course... to whatever extent you think of the surplus as your money, you should also think of the government's obligations and undertakings as yours as well. If the surplus belongs to you, so does the national debt. It's that big line of revolving credit you and a couple of hundred million other people began drawing down in the 1980s. Similarly, the most pressing demands for increases in government spending, such as increases in military salaries, or the demand for prescription drugs for the elderly, or money to pay for educational testing in every year of grade schools, are the big purchases you're planning on making in the next few years. The long-term obligations of Social Security and Medicare are your long-term liabilities....Unfortunately, you've already spent most of it.
10631. jexster - 3/2/2001 7:47:07 PM
It Must Be Hell To Be A Paranoid
Why was Anita Hill trumpeted and Juanita Broadderick suppressed and embargoed? Oh, because Broadderick's charges concerned an incident 20 years old, whereas Hill's charges concerned incidents a mere fifteen years old. That's the difference. Not favoritism for liberals.
Uh-huh.
Anita Hill, a law professor and still a law professor in OKLAHOMA(!), got press because Clarence Thomas denied her allegations and the Judiciary Committee in its investigations refused to proceed further to examine her charges.
She got coverage because Barbara Boxer and a few of her girlfriends staged a very timely and media-attractive 11th hour march on the Senate.....
Try medication Ace.
10632. concerned - 3/2/2001 8:40:31 PM
Those double entendres that Hill claims Thomas uttered certainly captivated tens of millions of Lefty droolers across the country for years.
Now that said droolers have annihilated the tattered remnants of their credibility by trying to diminish and ignore Clowntoonian rape, it seems hard hard to imagine anything more pathetically hypocritical.
10633. JadeGold1 - 3/2/2001 9:53:48 PM
Another Friday evening, another wine and gin for tommydemoron.
10634. Autodaffy - 3/2/2001 10:06:59 PM
Jade,
Why not dig up some of your old "I have never had sex with that woman" sycophancy for Clinton? Our Friday night would be ever so much enjoyable if it included some of that warmed over insider knowledge of yours on how Clinton never let Monica bob for hot dogs in his lap. Tell us again that Clinton did not do what Paula Jones said he did. Perhaps on the grounds that she is a tramp and he never lies.
10635. Autodaffy - 3/2/2001 10:08:34 PM
As Shakespeare might have said, a political whore is a whore is a whore.
10636. JadeGold1 - 3/2/2001 10:23:54 PM
You ought not speak of Jenna Bush that way, AD.
She's a young girl with a drinking problem not unlike her dad.
10637. JadeGold1 - 3/2/2001 10:29:13 PM
AD:
It was just a week ago today Curious George promised that his relations would behave.
"They better," he warned. "And they will."
Literally hours later, the U.S. Secret Service, once a proud organization, is bailing drunken adolescents out of jail and holding back sweet Jenna's hair as she purges.
10638. Autodaffy - 3/2/2001 10:37:18 PM
Oh, Jade, only you could try to justify Clinton's pardons for money by attacking the daughter of the president. My compliments. You soil yourself at every opportunity.
10639. concerned - 3/2/2001 10:41:02 PM
Sphincter is the personification of soil itself, and she loves to spray it around.
10640. JadeGold1 - 3/2/2001 10:41:56 PM
Money is tawdry, AD.
Pardoning a terrorist who brings down an airliner, killing 73, in order to permit Jeb Bush to pander for votes in Florida; that's priceless.
10641. JadeGold1 - 3/2/2001 10:42:59 PM
And you love to wallow in it, tommydemoron.
Drink it in.
10642. concerned - 3/2/2001 10:47:08 PM
I have to laugh at the Lefty morons, such as Sphincter, who sacrificed their credibility for the obviously mentally ill WH Rapist. Actually, Sphincter should be convicted and iced max for torturing, murdering, then hacking apart and emptying her bowels all over any fugitive remaining gobbets of her own credibility.
10643. concerned - 3/2/2001 11:06:21 PM
Bore to give it another of his Vanderbilt Divinity School tries in 2004? {snicker}
10644. concerned - 3/2/2001 11:12:51 PM
Want some real laughs and groans? Check out Clowntoon's first 100 days in office:
January '93
1/20/93
Bill Clinton inaugurated president-celebration costs approximately $25 million. The Federal Protective Service later discovers at least $154,000 worth of radios, computers, televisions, VCRs, walkie-talkies and pagers were stolen by Clinton inauguration employees and volunteers.
1/21/93
Clinton breaks his first promise: to introduce his legislative program by the day after his inauguration.
1/22/93
Clinton abolishes the Competitiveness Council even though its regulatory reform promised to save taxpayers $20 billion annually and create 200,000 jobs.
Nannygate: Attorney General-nominee Zoe Baird withdraws after admitting she hired illegal aliens and neglected to pay their social security taxes.
1/25/93
Hillary Clinton is named to run Clinton's health care reform task force.
February '93
2/5/93
Nannygate II: Kimba Wood withdraws her name for nomination as attorney general after it's disclosed she employed an undocumented worker.
2/9/93
Clinton halts drug testing for White House staff.
Although he had promised to wage war on drugs, Clinton eliminates 83 percent of the staff at the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
2/17/93
Clinton announces an economic scheme, widely recognized as a government-growth package with $359 billion in increased taxes and fees-breaking his campaign promise to lower taxes for the middle class.
10645. concerned - 3/2/2001 11:13:04 PM
2/24/93
"In its first major Supreme Court case, the Clinton administration is preparing to defend a Haitian refugee policy [of returning the refugees to Haiti] that the president had called illegal during the campaign." (USA Today)
2/28/93
Federal agents raid the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. Four agents and five Davidians die in the gun battle; a 51-day standoff begins. (See 4/19/93.)
March '93
3/15/93
Clinton's pork-barrel economic stimulus package is introduced in the Senate. (See 4/21/93.)
April '93
4/2/93
Clinton holds a summit to end the logging crisis caused by the protection of the spotted owl-a crisis that has yet to end.
4/8/93
Clinton proposes a new 12.5 percent gross royalty tax on mining.
4/19/93
FBI agents launch tear gas into the Waco compound; 75 Branch Davidians (including 25 children) die in the ensuing fire. (See 5/2/95.)
4/21/93
Clinton's pork-barrel stimulus package defeated by Republicans in the Senate.
4/29/93
FIRST 100-day mark: Clinton has failed to initiate even one of the programs he promised.
10646. Autodaffy - 3/2/2001 11:14:02 PM
Jadegold: "Pardoning a terrorist who brings down an airliner,
killing 73, in order to permit Jeb Bush to pander for
votes in Florida; that's priceless."
-----
Jade, no need to go into X-Files mode and tell us about the alien landings in the New Mexico desert. Just repost a few of your posts on Jones and Monica. You keep holding back on these, although everyone would much enjoy them. Please!
10647. joezan - 3/3/2001 12:46:22 AM
concerned:
You left out Clinton's biggest "First 100 Days" fib:
He would have all cabinet and staff positions filled. It actually took over FIVE HUNDRED days for him and Hillary to complete the task.
And, as for Jade's sources - I don't think anyone except jex believes a word of it. My sources tell me the sphincter twins have matching tinfoil hats, and that explains it.
10648. AceofSpades - 3/3/2001 12:48:26 AM
JZ,
It should be noticed that even an organized, disciplined regime like Bush's will not have its full Administration on-board until November or so.
10649. joezan - 3/3/2001 12:50:14 AM
Yeah, but did he claim any different?
500 days, Ace. Almost a year and a half.
10650. AceofSpades - 3/3/2001 12:54:30 AM
I'm just putting the magnitude of the task in perspective.
The hubris is pure Clinton, of course.
Hubris. Emotion, especially rage & hatred. Dishonesty. Venality. Lack of control, over waistband, zipper, & wallet. Unseriousness. Pettiness. Childishness. Churlishness. Sociopathy. Megalomania. Etc.
10651. AceofSpades - 3/3/2001 12:59:00 AM
(I won't have my hard-earned Clinton-hating quals challenged by the likes of Joezan.)
10652. joezan - 3/3/2001 1:03:29 AM
Yep - Gotcha.
You forgot "Vulgar, obscene, self-centeredness".
Hey - remember the big deal that was made of the "new breed of WH staffer" that rolled in with the Clinton shitwagon? They all looked about 22, wore jeans to work, had pierced noses, eyebrows, etc.
Has there ever been a more incompetent lot of e-mail-losing, file-misplacing losers gracing the Presidential residence?
10653. AceofSpades - 3/3/2001 1:05:47 AM
You forgot "drug-taking."
10654. joezan - 3/3/2001 1:11:32 AM
Well, they were practically invited to indulge, after Good Ol' Bill lifted the drug testing requirement.
And gave out security clearances like Motley Crue gave out backstage passes to busty 16 year olds.
I mean, it's only the White House, ferpetesake.
10655. OhioSTOPAS - 3/3/2001 7:27:05 AM
This just in:
Denise Rich's political contributions increased during 2000.
An election year.
Hmm . . . pretty suspicious.
10656. OhioSTOPAS - 3/3/2001 7:54:49 AM
I was amused (okay, I'm easily amused) by a choice of phrase by conservative columnist Cal Thomas's in his most recent column (published in Columbus Dispatch yesterday).
In a column defending President Bush's proposed tax cuts, Thomas blamed the deficits of the 1980's on excessive Congressional spending rather than the large tax cuts advocated by President Reagan.
Now we've all heard defenders of Reaganomics blame the 80's deficits on the "Democrat-controlled Congress". (An example: "The Democrat-controlled Congress refused Reagan's pleas to control deficit spending." Brent Bozell, www2.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell, June 22, 2000.) This is nonsense for a number of reasons, most obviously the blatant falsehood that the Congress was "Democrat-controlled" during the first six years of Reagan's term (when, of course, the Republicans controlled the Senate).
(continued)
10657. OhioSTOPAS - 3/3/2001 8:09:00 AM
So how to blame Democrats for the deficits of the 80's in light of this inconvenient fact? Here's how Cal does it:
". . . the Democrat-majority Congress failed to reduce spending . . . which is what produced the deficit and drove up the debt."
"Democrat-majority"??? It's supposed to be significant that the aggregate number of Democratic Senators+Representatives was greater than the aggregate number of Republican Senators+Representatives?
Of course not. Cal is just trying to blow the old "Democrat-controlled Congress" lie past his readers while using slightly different words that are literally true. More intellectual honesty from the right.
10658. OhioSTOPAS - 3/3/2001 8:15:27 AM
(In the second line of 10656, "Thomas's" should be "Thomas".)
10659. OhioSTOPAS - 3/3/2001 8:20:08 AM
(And, in fairness to CalGal, who is honest, I should have referred to Cal Thomas only by "Thomas", not "Cal".)
10660. jexster - 3/3/2001 11:35:06 AM
President Bush's[sic] plan to funnel government money to religious charities is generating unlikely criticism from some conservative Christian leaders who had promoted the idea for years but are now voicing reservations about putting it into effect.
10661. jexster - 3/3/2001 11:36:05 AM
10662. RosettaStone - 3/3/2001 2:14:31 PM
New York Democrat Ed Koch to Bloomberg News Radio this morning: "I hope they prosecute Clinton."
(but he didn't say which one)
10663. RosettaStone - 3/3/2001 3:03:04 PM
What a family!!!
Washington Post: "The Guest Who Wouldn't Leave"
We already know that Hugh Rodham, the big little brother of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, had been living on and off on the third floor of the White House, preferring his sister's place to the house he shares with his sometime wife, Maria Arias, in Coral Gables, Florida.
This week's TIME magazine reveals that, when moving day arrived on Jan. 20, Rodham had nearly as many boxes as Chelsea.
And U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT says Rodham, who was earning a little pin money in the presidential pardon business, had so much stuff to pack that he apparently felt the need to ask a White House usher if he could, well, stay on a few extra days.
Columnist Gloria Borger writes: "The day before inauguration, Hugh Rodham--happily mooching off taxpayers rent-free and well-fed upstairs at the White House---was having a tough time getting all his boxes packed. So the first brother-in-law went to an usher with a request: I'm not sure I can get out of here by tomorrow. Do you think I can stay a few more days?
Maybe he thought the Bushes wouldn't notice. The White House thought otherwise, and Rodham left town."
10664. joezan - 3/3/2001 3:11:13 PM
What class.
Here we were all this time thinking it was the other that side was tawdry white trash.
Anyhow, it'd be kinda hard to hide all that lard for a even a few hours.
Laura'd probably notice all the missing food, too.
10665. JadeGold1 - 3/3/2001 5:01:55 PM
Included in the number of men, women, and children killed by a bomb planted aboard a Cuban airliner was the entire Cuban Olympic Fencing Team. The bomb was planted by Poppy Bush pardonee, Orlando Bosch.
Bosch had earlier fired a bazooka at a Polish freighter in Miami harbor. He has also participated in several dozen bombings in the US and abroad.
Yet Poppy pardoned him. Why?
The answer is Jeb Bush.
10666. JadeGold1 - 3/3/2001 5:23:50 PM
Anti-Castro terrorist Orlando Bosch was paroled in 1990 after Jeb lobbied the Bush administration for his release from prison in Miami. Bosch had been jailed in 1988 for jumping bail on a 1968
conviction for shooting a bazooka at a Polish freighter in the Miami harbor. He is better known as the mastermind of the explosion of a Cuban commercial airliner over Barbados on October 5, 1976, in which 73 passengers were killed. A U.S. District Court judge revealed in 1988 that secret U.S. documents concluded Bosch was a leader of the Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations (CORU), which was responsible for more than 50 anti-Castro bombings in Cuba and elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere.
There is no difference between this piece of filth and Timothy McVeigh.
Except, of course, McVeigh couldn't deliver votes to Jeb Bush.
10667. CalGal - 3/3/2001 5:29:02 PM
And, in fairness to CalGal, who is honest, I should have referred to Cal Thomas only by "Thomas", not "Cal".
I was quite confused when I came in to find you ranting about me.
10668. JadeGold1 - 3/3/2001 5:31:42 PM
10669. AceofSpades - 3/3/2001 7:02:58 PM
I guess Jade didn't bother reading the article. She just read the title, and never got to the point of the article, which was tongue-in-cheek:
Neil's current financial troubles have nothing to do with his businesses. They have to do with his house in Houston (assessed value: $857,000), on which he owes delinquent property taxes for 1998. As you can see if you click here, Neil owes Harris County, Texas, $4,449.97. Before you get too excited, though, $4,442.81 of that is simply a property tax bill for 2000 that doesn't come due until the end of this month. The other $7.16 is Neil's delinquent tax for 1998.
Some people would say that $7.16 in unpaid taxes isn't worth an investigative reporter's time. To this, Chatterbox would reply: With a notorious deadbeat like Neil, you can't be too careful! According to a separate "tax statement" document available on the Harris County tax assessor's Web site, that $7.16 will rise to $7.43 on June 30!
Chatterbox put in a call to the Harris County tax assessor to find out what Neil's particular offense was. It turns out that back in 1998, Neil (or, possibly, his bank) paid his property tax bill of $3,804.80 late, incurring a penalty of $4.58, which he didn't pay. With penalties and interest, that $4.58 has now ballooned to $7.16.
Jadetard: As stupid as ever.
10670. concerned - 3/3/2001 8:56:09 PM
$7.16 must be more than Sphincter's weekly allowance, which would go some way toward explaining her ignorant venom.
10671. Autodaffy - 3/3/2001 9:26:56 PM
Regarding deficit spending in the Reagan years: whether or not they controlled congress, the democratic leadership stood the steps of the capitol to declare, with smirks on their faces, that Reagan's budget with cuts was "dead on arrival."
Some people have memories of the events and some people buy the big lie.
10672. Raskolnikov - 3/3/2001 9:48:20 PM
You forget that:
1) the budgets Congress passed were always less than what Reagan proposed, primarily because Congress wouldn't give Reagan all his defense requests.
2) Domestic discretionary spending *was* cut during the Reagan era. It is true that the Democrats didn't roll over and cut domestic spending sufficiently to make up for Reagan's tax cuts and defense spending increases, but that would have been impossible, as the 1980s deficits vastly exceeded the size of the entire domestic discretionary budget.
As such, blaming the Democrats for not cutting the budget enough is extremely disingenuous.
10673. CalGal - 3/3/2001 9:51:26 PM
Ace,
I saw that (about the 7 dollars) and nobly refrained from mentioning it--all so that you or yours could have the pleasure of pointing it out. I thought that was very nice of me.
10674. concerned - 3/3/2001 9:53:03 PM
2) What do you define as the 'domestic discretionary' budget? You cannot be including the $300 billion or so annual transfer payments that the Federal government was making then because they were 'vastly' greater than the deficits, which averaged less than $150 billion.
10675. concerned - 3/3/2001 9:54:05 PM
Oh, CalGal - you're so very noble.
-smirk-
10676. CalGal - 3/3/2001 9:56:09 PM
I know. It's a chore, lowering my standards to hang with you riffraff.
10677. Autodaffy - 3/3/2001 10:00:59 PM
Jade,
My question would be whether Jeb said "my constituents would like this anti-Castoist pardoned" or he said "Poppy, I'm sending a big titted bimbo up with a tube of KY and pockets lined with silver."
Which do you think it was, Jade.
By the way, thanks for posting a link revealing the shocking news that Neil Bush owes seven dollars in back taxes.
Jade, do you know the movie that created within it a pseudo movie with the title "O Brother Where Art Thou," the title now picked up by the Coen brothers and the unimaginative hack writer you linked? Do you know what that movie's attitude toward your sort of leftism was? Work those crude search engines, Jade.
10678. Raskolnikov - 3/3/2001 10:01:28 PM
concerned: "2) What do you define as the 'domestic discretionary' budget? You cannot be including the $300 billion or so annual transfer payments that the Federal government was making then because they were 'vastly' greater than the deficits, which averaged less than $150 billion."
The discretionary budget is defined by budget laws. It includes all expenditures that Congress approves in the authorizes in the annual budget process. Basically, it is the entire budget, *minus* entitlements and interest on the debt.
The domestic discretionary budget is the entire discretionary budget, excluding international aid (a pittance) and defense spending.
Now, if you want to argue that Congress refused to authorize Reagan's proposed cuts in entitlements, you would first have to show that Reagan ever proposed to cut them. Next, you would have explain why Congress should have cut entitlements to balance the budget, considering that the vast majority of entitlement dollars are self-funded through payroll taxes.
10679. Raskolnikov - 3/3/2001 10:03:02 PM
The movie in question is "Sullivan's Travels", one of my favorite films. Politics were slightly leftish.
10680. Raskolnikov - 3/3/2001 10:09:40 PM
Basically, in order to balance the 80s through budget cuts other than in defense spending, or in self-funded entitlements, Congress would have had to axe the entire domestic discretionary budget, *plus* all means-tested government programs (the non-self funded entitlements).
Not even Republicans would have gone for that, and this academic, since Republicans never proposed it.
But the impossibility of balancing the budget through domestic spending cuts demonstrates as sheer nonsense any claim that failure to cut domestic spending caused the deficits.
10681. Raskolnikov - 3/3/2001 10:10:45 PM
Maybe Ducky should just put this link on the bar, since I have to refer to it so often:
But all of my claims can be verified at the CBO site here.
10682. concerned - 3/3/2001 10:12:38 PM
Be as it may, it is still entirely true that failure to cut 'domestic' spending contributed greatly to the deficits, particularly since much of the spending in question consisted of what you refer to as 'entitlements' and I call 'transfer payments'.
10683. concerned - 3/3/2001 10:18:25 PM
Democrats who have to work for a living find Bush budget quite satisfactory.
10684. Raskolnikov - 3/3/2001 10:27:24 PM
Connie: you ignore that Social security payments are funded through a payroll tax, as is Medicare. These two programs made up well over half of all entitlement payments.
Non-means tested entitlements (transfers such as AFDC, Food Stamps, etc.), only added up to about 60 billion per year in the 80s. These programs would have had to have been gutted to even make a noticeable dent in the deficits.
And do keep in mind that Reagan didn't campaign on gutting all transfer programs and eliminating domestic discretionary programs to pay for his tax cuts and defense programs. He claimed he could do it all with smoke and mirrors.
Given that, where does the blame lie, with the people who refused to make drastic cuts in their pet programs to pay for the snake oil sales pitches of the President, or with the snake oil salesman himself?
10685. concerned - 3/3/2001 10:33:16 PM
Reagan put our tax dollars to a far, far better use than the Lefty specialty of destroying the (African American) family unit. Because of him, Americans are no longer menaced by nuclear blackmail and destruction by an erstwhile corrupt 'superpower' which spat on human rights.
10686. Raskolnikov - 3/3/2001 10:33:40 PM
I can just imagine if the situation had been reversed. I am *sure* Republicans would have said: "Damn you Democrats. You campaigned on a fraudulent scheme that you could raise government social spending in a way that so stimulated the economy, that the spending would pay for itself without the need for tax hikes. Now that this has been shown to be false, you refuse to cut the programs in question, and want to raise taxes to balance the budget. You leave us no choice. For the good of the country we will agree to have taxes raised in perpetuity."
10687. Raskolnikov - 3/3/2001 10:34:38 PM
Connie: in raising a completely different false argument, can I take that to mean you are surrendering on the issue we have been discussing?
10688. Raskolnikov - 3/3/2001 10:37:24 PM
This a common apologist tactic: "The deficit's weren't Reagan's fault, they are the fault of the Democrats, and deficits are bad. But if it can be shown that the deficits *were* Reagan's fault, then the 80s deficits were good because they singlehandedly caused the collapse of the Soviet Union.
10689. Autodaffy - 3/3/2001 10:37:59 PM
"He claimed he could do
it all with smoke and mirrors."
Rascal,
You need to be a little more honest if you want people to talk rationally with you. This statement lowers the level of discourse here. He never made any such claim.
Similarly, Democrats don't run on having taxes increased constantly so that they can buy more and more votes with their spending, but I don't go around and portray them as actually telling the public that they plan to use smoke and mirrors to keep taxes down.
You ought to cut the cheap rhetoric.
10690. concerned - 3/3/2001 10:41:16 PM
Re. 10687 -
No. I would never surrender to your original false argument.
10691. Autodaffy - 3/3/2001 10:44:06 PM
The whole argument seems a little nutty, since spending and taxing are a product not just of the president but of congress and the president. Bush's proposed tax cuts may be limited by dems in the current congress. If the resultant tax cut fails to stimulate economic growth, is it then a fault of "Bush's" tax cut? If he agrees to let dems go on a spending spree, is he responsible for a disappearance of the surplus? Laying the blame solely on the president seems as mindless to me as attributing economic good times to a president.
10692. concerned - 3/3/2001 10:46:07 PM
Raskol is angry because the Reagan era deficits short-circuited the Lefty dream of turning the US into a bloated welfare state.
10693. Autodaffy - 3/3/2001 10:48:54 PM
"This a common apologist tactic: "The deficit's
weren't Reagan's fault, they are the fault of the
Democrats, and deficits are bad. But if it can be
shown that the deficits *were* Reagan's fault, then
the 80s deficits were good because they
singlehandedly caused the collapse of the Soviet
Union."
Well, I have never heard it put quite this way, so I don't agree that it is "common."
What has been argued is that Regan's defense policy, particularly his announced intention to deploy Star Wars, caused the commies to overspend and self-destruct. I've never heard that he wanted deficits as a weapon. Can you support this assertion of yours? If it is a common argument, proof should be at your fingertips, like that CBO link.
10694. concerned - 3/3/2001 10:52:54 PM
There is a very small grain of truth in Raskol's distortions and polemics here, but the idea that the greedy socialists are ever not culpable in budgetary matters is laughable. The Reagan administration did admit to wanting to make it tough for Lefties to profligately fritter money away with no higher goal than to destroy the bases of our social structure.
10695. joezan - 3/3/2001 11:16:52 PM
Sorry to butt in guys, but I thought a little levity was in order.
Wednesday night at the 3rd grade class my wife and I teach at church, we were celebrating "differences". One of the exercises we did was have the kids write down their name, and one thing that made them different. We then collected their papers, and as we read each one off (sans name, of course), the others had to try to guess who it was, and then we would discuss each kid's difference.
In our lily-white class, I felt sure one kid - an adopted girl of Korean descent - would write the obvious, and thought that it would probably incite some pretty good discussion. Instead, when I got to her paper I almost peed myself. She had written:
"My mom and dad voted for Al Gore".
Then, when I read it to the class, at least 7 or 8 kids yelled out the correct name immediately. Then, one kid exclaimed
I can't believe they actually put a Gore sign out in the front yard!
"I know!", said the girl - "...it's soooo embarassing!"
10696. joezan - 3/3/2001 11:19:22 PM
Toy check.
10697. concerned - 3/3/2001 11:21:51 PM
LOL! Looks like she is already too smart to be 'on the plantation'.
10698. Stumbo - 3/3/2001 11:29:47 PM
Rask, #10371:
"The needs of government do not automatically move in lockstep with GDP. But it does depend on how GDP was doubled. If we doubled our working population, we would probably need to roughly double the size of government."
Fair enough. Yet you repeatedly use the growth of GDP as an entirely separate factor from population growth.
"Now that I played your game, reverse the question:
If the GDP doubles next year, this will automatically -- no questions asked -- justify keeping government spending at the same level as it is this year.
[ ] Yes [ ] No"
My answer is, roughly, yes. One can propose and debate increasing it, but the default assumption should be that it stay the same. (The justification is the usual one: the money belongs to the people who earned it, so the government needs a damn good reason to confiscate more of it than before, etc.)
My main point is that higher (per-capita) spending is higher spending. It may certainly be defended on the grounds that we can more easily afford it if the GDP is higher as well -- but it shouldn't be treated, even for rhetorical purposes, as the same level of spending.
10699. joezan - 3/3/2001 11:32:11 PM
It was a scandal, concerned - it really was. In fact, back in October I had to talk to one kid several times for constantly referring to the girl as "Loser", while making the famous thumb and index finger "L" sign.
Poor girl - her house is on the same street as the elementary school, so the whole school knew.
10700. concerned - 3/3/2001 11:34:29 PM
Let me play the Raskol here. If I were he, I would probably say that handouts should double if the GDP does, for the very simple reasons that the average 'entitlement' beneficiary could afford twice the number of cars, vcrs and drugs and to avoid increasing the dreaded 'income inequality'.
That should do'er.
10701. JJBiener - 3/4/2001 12:58:59 AM
Rask - 1) the budgets Congress passed were always less than what Reagan proposed, primarily because Congress wouldn't give Reagan all his defense requests.
This is sheer nonsense. Congress spent more than all 8 of Reagan's budgets and 3 out of 4 Bush budgets. If you have evidence to the contrary, please produce it.
BTW, how many budgets did Congress actually pass during Reagan's 8 years. It seems to me that most of that time the government ran on CRs instead of budgets.
One more thing. Spending bills originate in the House which was controlled by Democrats throughout the 80's.
10702. OhioSTOPAS - 3/4/2001 7:57:47 AM
JJ: Here is the argument that if Congress had simply passed President Reagan's budgets as proposed, spending during his terms would actually have been higher. It's from a partisan source (a liberal website discussing a majority report from a Democratic-majority committee), so apply grains of salt.
10703. OhioSTOPAS - 3/4/2001 8:05:03 AM
But even if we accept the Reagan-defenders' calculation that final Congressional budgets exceeded Reagan's proposed budgets by an aggregate $200 billion or so over his two terms, that still falls far short of explaining the nearly $2 trillion of deficits run up during that time period. Defenders of supply-side economic theory will have to find another explanation to explain why the 1981 tax cuts didn't balance the budget.
Certainly, if President Reagan had any ideas what cuts in spending should be made to balance the budget, he didn't share them with us in his budgets.
10704. OhioSTOPAS - 3/4/2001 8:09:27 AM
And the attempt to nevertheless blame Democrats for excessive 1980's spending by saying "Spending bills originate in the House which was controlled by Democrats in the 1980's", is lame even for a Republican. Even so, how did Tip O'Neill smuggle his allegedly excessive spending bills past Bob Dole's Senate and President Reagan's veto pen? Put them in a plain brown wrapper labelled "Tax cuts for billionairs"?
10705. RosettaStone - 3/4/2001 10:00:16 AM
"Clinton lowered the culture of our country and gave control of Congress/White House to the Republicans," says Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) on Fox News this morning.
He also called the foes of the "Rev." Jesse Jackson "white niggers."
10706. joezan - 3/4/2001 10:12:17 AM
Dangerous word for ol' Bobby Byrd, ain't it?
10707. RosettaStone - 3/4/2001 10:16:08 AM
Later in the program, his office offered a written apology for the "white nigger" comment.
What exactly is that anyway?
10708. wonkers2 - 3/4/2001 10:19:21 AM
Byrd is senile, an embarrassment to his state and party.
10709. wonkers2 - 3/4/2001 10:28:48 AM
Joezan, That wouldn't happen in Oakland county which went for Gore in November. There were a fair number of Gore signs in our neighborhood.
10710. JudithAtHome - 3/4/2001 10:40:03 AM
I guess the Republicans have no one in their party approaching the embarrassment level of Byrd? All their guys who wore sheets are perfect little choirboys.
Byrd is 83 years old and has served 7 terms in office; probably 6 1/2 of those terms were too many.
10711. wonkers2 - 3/4/2001 11:37:24 AM
Of, course the GOP has at least ten senators and congressmen much younger than Byrd who are much worse. As my grandfather used to say, who should have been "knocked in the head at birth."
10712. JadeGold1 - 3/4/2001 12:58:24 PM
RNC Admits To Lying About Sharpton
10713. jexster - 3/4/2001 1:10:00 PM
President Bush's maiden address to the nation was classic Dubya: He talks moderate and governs right. And this is never more true than on economic issues. The man cannot possibly want us to sign off on an enormous tax cut designed to benefit the rich without telling us what will be cut. In budgets, as in bridges, the devil is in the details -- and the details of the amorphous plan that Bush presented Tuesday are grim indeed....
Ivins
10714. jonesatlaw - 3/4/2001 1:11:49 PM
The Reagan isn't responsible for the deficit crap is really sad. IF the man would have at least proposed ONE balanced budget out of the 8 he sent to congress, there might be some intellectual honesty in placing blame on the Dems in the House. Since he didn't, and the Dems generally passed lower overall spending than proposed as a total budget.
If you want to blame the democrats for somehting, blame them for passing his tax cut instead of decrying it as the biggest lie foisted on the American people since Plessy v. Ferguson.
10715. jexster - 3/4/2001 1:11:54 PM
Wonk....
Didn't you get your grandad's quote wrong? Should it be...
who WEREknocked in the head at birth."
10716. jexster - 3/4/2001 1:13:02 PM
"the biggest lie foisted on the American people since Plessy v. Ferguson."
of course was Bush v. Gore
10717. jexster - 3/4/2001 1:20:22 PM
"Not since the Gilded Age have the very wealthy enjoyed such good times. Indeed, it was in reaction to the fortunes being built up by those robber barons that Teddy Roosevelt established the modern estate tax. With things once again going so swimmingly for the very rich, Bush has decided to relieve them of the need to pay the tax. And that, if you ask me, is what's un-American.
Seattle Post Intelligencer
10718. jexster - 3/4/2001 1:22:07 PM
Bill Clinton gave us honest budgets and the first surpluses in decades. Shrub's first budget, like those of Reagan and Bush the Smarter, is full of baloney and lies. Here are some of the worst: (1) Bush's $1 trillion "reserve" is not even enough for the promises made throughout the budget, let alone to deal with unexpected events like a recession. (Sorry W, but even your Supreme Court Gang of 5 can't overrule the laws of economics.) (2) His budget is illegal because it spends surplus Medicare funds. (3) Not one penny is set aside for Social Security individual accounts, so either payroll taxes will increase or benefits will be cut to pay for them, directly contrary to his promises.
Slate's Dismal Science
10719. jexster - 3/4/2001 1:24:13 PM
With the Senate set to consider an overhaul of the campaign finance law this month, Senator Mitch McConnell began a new drive to defeat the measure and was joined today by an array of interest groups stretching across the political spectrum, including some new supporters from business groups
The New York Times
10720. JudithAtHome - 3/4/2001 1:26:32 PM
Bush the Smarter
Hee hee....very cute.
10721. jexster - 3/4/2001 1:30:59 PM
Meanwhile back at the Armadillo Ranch, Enron continues to bilk California taxpayers while Bush does nothing to stop it...
And why should he?
Ken Lay, Chairman of Enron, is the puppet master pullin the Moron's strings..
THe Evil Empire
Bribery by any other name...
There's a long history of Enron pulling the levers of its political relationships to get what it wants," said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group. "What Ken Lay thinks energy policy should be isn't very different from what George Bush and Dick Cheney think it should be."
10722. jexster - 3/4/2001 1:36:53 PM
Let us go out to the desert and wilderness of the contemporary world.
Not to see a reed shaken by the wind of disbelief. Not to rail against the
soft garments, hard money and palaces of the affluent aristocrats.
There is time for this. But there is more.
Anthony Padovano
10723. jexster - 3/4/2001 1:41:45 PM
Back to soft garments and hard money...
The Confession of an Oligopolist...
For his part, Lay insists that Enron has never deliberately manipulated electricity prices.
"I don't know of any of that," he said. "It's so easy to conjure up conspiracy theories."
As a sign of Enron's commitment to solving California's energy troubles, Lay said he supported Davis when the state began negotiating long-term power contracts on behalf of utilities.
So how many contracts has Enron signed?
Suddenly, the hurt, puppyish expression vanished from Lay's face, and a harder, more steely look glinted from his eyes.
"None," he said. "We won't be signing until we're certain about recovering our costs."
Consider this a shot across California's bow
10724. concerned - 3/4/2001 3:51:45 PM
From CNN's: '
Byrd: Clinton legacy is lower standards, GOP Congress'
Byrd acknowledged that he never attended any of Clinton's State of the Union addresses before Congress, but he did attend President Bush's recent budget speech before lawmakers.
Asked about Clinton's legacy to Democrats, Byrd said, "You can see it right here on Capitol Hill and down at the other end of the avenue."
"We have a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican White House. That's part of his legacy," he said.
Byrd added that Clinton presided over a lowering of cultural standards.
"I've been in Washington now 49 years. And in these past few years, I've seen a more rapid deterioration in the country's culture than ever before," he said.
Umm, Byrd: Clowntoon is not a 'white nigger', as you put it. He is white trash. Get it straight.
10725. jexster - 3/4/2001 4:04:55 PM
President Bush has projected the image of a leader eager to reach out to his opponents and determined to make politics in Washington more civil. But his strategy for enacting his tax cut in the House reveals a president more interested in winning an early ideological victory than in making friends with Democrats Karl Rove, the chief architect and propagandist for the stolen election, has crossed the line into insanity. He not only believes his man won the election -he thinks there was a "realignment" making Republicans the dominant party in the United States. 10727. jexster - 3/4/2001 9:04:24 PM By HELEN THOMAS 10728. Raskolnikov - 3/4/2001 10:29:44 PM Auto da-fe:"You need to be a little more honest if you want people to talk rationally with you. This statement lowers the level of discourse here. He never made any such claim. " 10729. Raskolnikov - 3/4/2001 10:31:36 PM And let me note for the record that this is a specific Reagan legacy, and was a dramatic shift from the GOP's history as the party of fiscal responsibility. Remember that it was Bush who coined the term "voodoo economics". Or was he lowering the level of political discourse when he did so? 10730. Raskolnikov - 3/4/2001 10:37:39 PM Auto:"The whole argument seems a little nutty, since spending and taxing are a product not just of the president but of congress and the president. " 10731. Raskolnikov - 3/4/2001 10:45:03 PM "Well, I have never heard it put quite this way, so I don't agree that it is "common." " 10732. Raskolnikov - 3/4/2001 10:48:21 PM connie:"There is a very small grain of truth in Raskol's distortions and polemics here, but the idea that the greedy socialists are ever not culpable in budgetary matters is laughable." 10733. RosettaStone - 3/4/2001 10:55:29 PM Well, it finally happened.... 10734. Raskolnikov - 3/4/2001 11:04:57 PM Stumbo:"Fair enough. Yet you repeatedly use the growth of GDP as an entirely separate factor from population growth." 10735. robertjayb - 3/4/2001 11:18:16 PM R.I.P., Harold Stassen... 10736. Autodaffy - 3/4/2001 11:24:46 PM Jade: 10737. Raskolnikov - 3/4/2001 11:26:15 PM JJ:"This is sheer nonsense. Congress spent more than all 8 of Reagan's budgets and 3 out of 4 Bush budgets. If you have evidence to the contrary, please produce it." 10738. Raskolnikov - 3/4/2001 11:29:30 PM Stassen died? 10739. Autodaffy - 3/4/2001 11:40:54 PM Andy Rooney said he thought Bush's speech to congress was "nearly great." I think he is a dem. 10740. Autodaffy - 3/4/2001 11:43:39 PM Rascal: 10741. Autodaffy - 3/4/2001 11:52:23 PM Rascal: 10742. joezan - 3/5/2001 12:13:24 AM (From Jade's WP link)... 10743. JadeGold1 - 3/5/2001 8:29:45 AM JZ: 10744. JadeGold1 - 3/5/2001 8:52:22 AM Well, well, well. 10745. Raskolnikov - 3/5/2001 10:32:31 AM Auto:"I reassert that this argument is uncommon and ask you to prove that others other than concerned have raised it to you." 10746. Raskolnikov - 3/5/2001 10:34:44 AM "Ah, a breath of fresh air, but also a promise of further subjectivity in service of his own positions." 10747. jexster - 3/5/2001 11:07:24 AM When Democrats on Dan Burton's Government Reform Committee got their chance to call witnesses, they highlighted a bunch of ugly Republican pardon scandals that have received none of the attention given to Clinton's pardons. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) cited - 10748. jexster - 3/5/2001 11:07:56 AM 10749. jexster - 3/5/2001 11:09:01 AM Regent Cheney's chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby, defended Marc Rich under tough questioning by House Democrats. Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) asked, "Did you represent a crook who stole money from the United States government, was a fugitive and should never have been given or granted a pardon by the facts that you know?" Libby replied, "No, sir. There are no facts that I know of that support the criminality of the client based on the tax returns." Libby then said prosecutors from the Southern District of New York "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they prosecuted Rich. "(Rich) had not violated the tax laws," said Libby. Libby was Rich's chief legal strategist from 1985 until last November, and collected $2 million from Rich for his work. And on January 22, after becoming a White House official, he called Rich to congratulate him on his pardon! 10750. jexster - 3/5/2001 11:12:28 AM Pretty obvious whats' goin down here isn't it? 10751. jexster - 3/5/2001 11:16:11 AM Seems the Bush machine is catchin on to my conclusion in the previous message. Newsweek reports the following: "This is a dead end," says an aide close to Rep. Dan Burton, the Indiana Republican leading the pardons investigation. Others don't believe that the probe will ever prove criminal wrongdoing involving Clinton. The White House, irritated that the scandal is eclipsing the new president, is also beginning to get impatient. NEWSWEEK has learned that administration officials are quietly pressuring the GOP investigators to end the probe as quickly as possible. "Everybody's not real happy with us over there," says one Republican staffer. "I've been getting calls from the White House saying, 'Hey, what are you guys doing?'" Top White House officials like "Scooter" Lewis are discovering that House Democrats have the goods on them, and are ready to tell the American people 10752. jexster - 3/5/2001 11:31:37 AM When Bush stole Florida's 25 electors, the pundits promised Congress would enact sweeping election reform to prevent future election catastrophes. Four months later, Republicans deny there were any problems in Florida, and refuse to discuss solutions. Why 10753. jexster - 3/5/2001 11:34:36 AM In the House of Representatives, meanwhile, a special committee to examine election reform has been stalled because Republicans and Democrats cannot even agree on the committee's makeup. Even seemingly simple questions, like what time to close the polls, are infused with partisan concerns. Businessmen and farmers, who tend to vote Republican, tend to vote in the morning; poor people and workers, who tend to vote Democratic, tend to vote at night. So Republicans want polls to close earlier and Democrats later. 10754. jexster - 3/5/2001 11:43:52 AM 10755. jexster - 3/5/2001 11:48:15 AM But it's no accident that blacks, despite their gripes about the Democratic Party, have given Democrats 80% to 90% of their vote since the Goldwater rebuff in 1964. Republicans have blown every chance to prove that they are not mortal enemies of civil rights. 10756. JJBiener - 3/5/2001 12:16:20 PM It is sad and disturbing to see such blatant lies and distortion appearing in the LA Times. It is also not surprising. 10757. JadeGold1 - 3/5/2001 12:22:47 PM What lies and distortion, Wiener? 10758. jexster - 3/5/2001 12:23:36 PM Yes Beiner..which ones... 10759. jexster - 3/5/2001 12:24:00 PM perhaps a letter to the Editor is in order? 10760. robertjayb - 3/5/2001 1:51:08 PM Jake Tapper on overseas absentee ballot manipulation in Florida...(Salon) 10761. PelleNilsson - 3/5/2001 4:06:18 PM Swedish radio reports that Cheney has been hospitalized. 10762. CalGal - 3/5/2001 4:10:25 PM Yep, it's on CNN too: 10763. PelleNilsson - 3/5/2001 4:13:15 PM What's the procedure if the VP becomes incapacitated? Does the president appoint a replacement? 10764. JadeGold1 - 3/5/2001 4:13:24 PM This would be funny if not for the fact the media completely dropped the ball regarding Cheney's health during the election. 10765. CalGal - 3/5/2001 4:16:14 PM Pelle, 10766. Raskolnikov - 3/5/2001 4:19:20 PM From the 2th amendment: 10767. Raskolnikov - 3/5/2001 4:19:43 PM *25th* Amendment that is. 10768. CalGal - 3/5/2001 4:20:34 PM Oh, it's both? I thought it was just the House. Thanks. 10769. JadeGold1 - 3/5/2001 4:20:35 PM ValGal: 10770. Fielding - 3/5/2001 4:21:26 PM Dick Cheney's heart is having problems again. This worries me. Who's going to run the Government if Cheney goes down? 10771. CalGal - 3/5/2001 4:22:42 PM No, the media reported wht the campaign said about Cheney's health. 10772. JJBiener - 3/5/2001 4:25:28 PM Cal - No, the media quite often raised Cheney's health as an issue. 10773. JadeGold1 - 3/5/2001 4:26:29 PM CNN is no prize; one of their talking heads just said that Cheney's stress test after his recent heart attack was "normal." 10774. JadeGold1 - 3/5/2001 4:29:20 PM Wiener: 10775. PelleNilsson - 3/5/2001 4:29:31 PM Has it been confirmed that he had a heart attack? 10776. CalGal - 3/5/2001 4:30:16 PM It is irrelevant whether they're "a prize" or not (although I'm sure you've referenced them as a source of record now and again). 10777. CalGal - 3/5/2001 4:32:04 PM Pelle, 10778. CalGal - 3/5/2001 4:33:18 PM According to MSNBC, Matalin said: 10779. JadeGold1 - 3/5/2001 4:34:15 PM "Normal" for him? 10780. CalGal - 3/5/2001 4:37:08 PM My point was--and has now been confirmed--that the CNN person was probably using "normal" for Cheney as the benchmark. And that is in fact what Matalin's statement supports. 10781. AceofSpades - 3/5/2001 5:25:10 PM 10782. bbb - 3/5/2001 5:47:49 PM France on Alert for Foot-and-Mouth 10783. RosettaStone - 3/5/2001 6:30:07 PM Only 70 farms? 10784. Stumbo - 3/5/2001 10:05:45 PM Rask, #10734: 10785. joezan - 3/5/2001 10:56:07 PM jade: 10786. Raskolnikov - 3/5/2001 11:06:34 PM "However, even with that, it seems like the automatic-increase factor should be (under this scenario) much closer to 1 than to 2." 10787. Raskolnikov - 3/5/2001 11:11:06 PM "Double-counting and just making up "facts" like "RR's budgets were all bigger than Congress'." " 10788. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 12:25:24 AM 10789. rubberducky - 3/6/2001 4:34:14 AM fuck. 10790. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 8:41:47 AM Obtuse isn't becoming, ValGal. 10791. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 8:42:45 AM Jadetard, 10792. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 9:02:06 AM Spaz: 10793. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:06:01 AM Jadetard, 10794. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 9:13:51 AM The man had a heart attack while on the campaign trail. 10795. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 9:14:37 AM Spaz: 10796. RosettaStone - 3/6/2001 9:16:11 AM We're all "dying," Jade 10797. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:18:16 AM 10798. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:19:58 AM "OTOH, the man who is running this administration is dying." 10799. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:22:16 AM 10800. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 9:25:22 AM Jade: (Despite your "gift" for always being right, you make a lot of careless errors. Date of Pearl Harbor, date when Cheney had his 'heart attack,' etc.) 10801. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:25:55 AM 10802. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 9:26:44 AM You're correct, Spaz. 10803. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:27:44 AM 10804. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:29:22 AM 10805. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:30:33 AM 10806. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 9:32:36 AM Spaz: 10807. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 9:33:05 AM They failed to inform the public during the campaign as to the exact nature of Cheney's health 10808. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 9:33:40 AM Ace: He was off by a year. 10809. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:34:23 AM 10810. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:34:50 AM 10811. Wombat - 3/6/2001 9:37:00 AM The comparative lack of fuss over Cheney's ticker is indicative of the perceived unimportance of the Vice President's position. When Bradley was running in the primaries, his cardiac "episodes" got attention, and may well have scared off some who were undecided about supporting him. 10812. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 9:39:10 AM Of course, Cheney's latest "precautionary measure" may have been to deflect attention from Jenna's drinking problem. 10813. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:39:35 AM 10814. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 9:41:14 AM Cheney's latest "precautionary measure" may have been to deflect attention from Jenna's drinking problem. 10815. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 9:43:56 AM Wombat brings up a good point. 10816. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:45:54 AM 10817. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 9:47:03 AM 10818. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:47:31 AM 10819. RosettaStone - 3/6/2001 9:48:55 AM Gore vs. Clinton 10820. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 9:50:24 AM Cheney's health may well preclude him from continuing in his duties, which would be a shame, because he is an asset to this administration. More likely, he'll be fine and dandy. 10821. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:52:09 AM 10822. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:55:10 AM 10823. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:55:56 AM 10824. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 9:57:09 AM 10825. Wombat - 3/6/2001 9:58:44 AM Not to rain on your invective, but US forces under the command of Eisenhower took Casablanca in the opening days of "Torch." To be truly accurate, you would have to say that Anderson (an obscure Brit general who commanded the Allied forces in French North Africa) and Montgomery combined to take Tunis. I'm "amazed" that you did not know that, and will never take anything you say seriously again. I will also refer to your apalling ignorance at every possible opportunity. :) 10826. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 9:59:50 AM More likely, he'll be fine and dandy. 10827. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 9:59:55 AM Ace 10828. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:00:48 AM 10829. CalGal - 3/6/2001 10:01:28 AM The comparative lack of fuss over Cheney's ticker is indicative of the perceived unimportance of the Vice President's position. 10830. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:02:10 AM 10831. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 10:02:40 AM Jade 10832. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 10:04:17 AM While 2004 is a long way away, if I had to place a bet now, I'd agree with Ace about Bush's prospects. Nevertheless, Bush I looked pretty good up until about a year before the election. 10833. CalGal - 3/6/2001 10:04:30 AM Colin Powell would wreak havoc in the Democratic base 10834. RosettaStone - 3/6/2001 10:04:58 AM (AP) Former President Bill Clinton, criticized for his pardons of fugitive financier Marc Rich and others, will not accept an invitation by a Senate committee to talk about his Inauguration Day clemency orders. 10835. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 10:05:28 AM Powell. The Great White Hope of the Repugs. 10836. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 10:06:26 AM Cal 10837. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:07:02 AM 10838. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 10:07:03 AM Niner: 10839. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 10:08:41 AM It would make a difference to black voters to have Powell on the ticket. But he'd be too old by 2012. 10840. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 10:09:04 AM 2008 10841. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 10:10:57 AM Jade 10842. CalGal - 3/6/2001 10:11:06 AM Francis, 10843. Wombat - 3/6/2001 10:12:03 AM Montgomery never got near Casablanca. The Japanese would have had to have been mad at someone else. 10844. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 10:13:15 AM Jade 10845. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 10:13:25 AM Cardiologist: White House Spinning Cheney's Condition 10846. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 10:14:55 AM Niner: 10847. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:16:25 AM 10848. CalGal - 3/6/2001 10:17:44 AM Francis, 10849. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 10:17:59 AM Ace 10850. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 10:20:12 AM By way of clarification, the cite I posted is very understated regarding Cheney's health history. 10851. CalGal - 3/6/2001 10:20:45 AM Francis, 10852. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:21:04 AM 10853. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 10:22:04 AM By way of clarification, I hope you did a better job with this cite than the one with Neal Bush. 10854. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 10:22:23 AM Cal 10855. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:24:11 AM 10856. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:25:27 AM 10857. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 10:29:22 AM Spaz: 10858. CalGal - 3/6/2001 10:30:11 AM As to your description of the soft nominal Democrats, they exist, but they are not represented in The Mote. 10859. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:32:17 AM 10860. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:33:20 AM 10861. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:33:54 AM 10862. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:34:40 AM 10863. wonkers2 - 3/6/2001 10:35:21 AM Cheney suffers congenitally from a very small and hard heart. 10864. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 10:36:41 AM Cal 10865. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 10:36:54 AM Niner: 10866. CalGal - 3/6/2001 10:37:22 AM Charlie Chan. 10867. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 10:37:33 AM wonkers 10868. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:37:54 AM 10869. CalGal - 3/6/2001 10:38:33 AM Francis, 10870. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 10:39:03 AM We know that Cheney has had at least four heart attacks. He has coronary artery disease and unstable angina. We know he has had a quadruple bypass 13 years ago and we know that he has a stent propping open an artery. That's what we know, there is likely more. We also know such a history is unusual in a man who is only 60 years
Let concerned cackle about "Clowntoon"
We Ain't Gonna Swallow No Mo BushShit
10726. jexster - 3/4/2001 8:42:21 PM
Q:What's the difference between Bush and the New York Giants?
A:The Giants don't think they won the Superbowl.
Stuart Rothenberg sets Rove straight.
But I suspect more is needed ...
Send the Looney Toons Texas Shit Kicker and Scumbucket to Nurse Ratchit!
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court justices might have to hire a slick public relations firm to refurbish their image after the disastrous decision to hand the presidency to George W. Bush.
The court, always on a higher plane than any other institution in the U.S. government, has fallen from its pedestal, and the justices must be wondering what they can do to change that. It must come as a surprise to the court that it no longer is revered or viewed as above politics.
For most Americans and scores of law professors, the court was always above reproach, even when commentators disagreed with its decisions. But now the court has fallen into disrepute because of its intervention in last year's presidential election.
The 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore will stand in history not only as the first time that the court has elected a president but also for the dramatic flip-flop of the conservative justices who overcame their alleged devotion to states' rights and overruled the Florida Supreme Court.
More recently, the reputed conservatives returned .
It looks like the conservatives are dedicated to states rights only when they like the outcome.
Justice Sandra O'Connor, who had a bout with breast cancer, has wanted to retire for some time. But friends say she has been expressing concern over her legacy in the aftermath of the Florida election decision. She should be concerned.
I don't see calling supply side theories "smoke and mirrors" as lowering the level of discourse here.
"Similarly, Democrats don't run on having taxes increased constantly so that they can buy more and more votes with their spending, but I don't go around and portray them as actually telling the public that they plan to use smoke and mirrors to keep taxes down. "
The difference is the Reagan explicitly claimed he could deliver his tax cut and defense programs while bringing the budget into balance. Democratic profligacy pales in comparison.
Yes, but responsibility varies depending on the circumstances. I have frequently given bipartisan credit for the recent surpluses, with the Dems blocking tax cuts and the GOP blocking spending hikes. But in the early 80s, the Democrats got very little of what they wanted, as enough House Democrats crossed party lines to pass Reagan's programs.
Given the current make up of Congress, I think the credit or failure for whatever passes this session will land mostly with the GOP.
"Bush's proposed tax cuts may be limited by dems in the current congress. If the resultant tax cut fails to stimulate economic growth, is it then a fault of "Bush's" tax cut?"
Bush, to his credit, hasn't bought into supply side rhetoric. The most he is claiming is that his tax cuts will provide a cyclical boost.
"If he agrees to let dems go on a spending spree, is he responsible for a disappearance of the surplus? "
In this case, he will share responsibility with the Democrats. But I see little chance of this happening.
It is if you have had this argument as often as I have. Concerned just used it, for instance. I have run across it a lot here, at Table Talk, and in casual conversation.
"What has been argued is that Regan's defense policy, particularly his announced intention to deploy Star Wars, caused the commies to overspend and self-destruct. I've never heard that he wanted deficits as a weapon."
That is because Reagan never made this argument. It is made by his apologists.
"Can you support this assertion of yours? If it is a common argument, proof should be at your fingertips, like that CBO link."
Look at Concerned's comments, as an example.
Of course it is laughable. No is making this argument. Instead, we are arguing about the specific instance of the 1980s deficits. In that instance, Democrats were largely blameless. But of course they sometimes share reponsibility, and sometimes own all responsibility, for budgetary matters. As I said to Auto: it depends on who has the power at any given time.
Last night that white nigger Clinton called himself "the first Black president."
In retrospect, I did do some double counting when I used per capita growth in the government budget, while contrasting with GDP growth, which also included labor force growth, which is strongly correlated with population growth. I stand corrected.
"My main point is that higher (per-capita) spending is higher spending. It may certainly be defended on the grounds that we can more easily afford it if the GDP is higher as well -- but it shouldn't be treated, even for rhetorical purposes, as the same level of spending."
We agree that it isn't the same level, but there is more to it than this. Many government spending needs correlate strongly with economic activity. For instance, if productivity massively increased, so would income, which would increase the contributions to, and the defined benefits from, Social Security.
More income would also mean more people eligible to itemize their deductions, which would place a greater burden on the IRS.
More economic activity means expanded output, which places more demands on the EPA, and transportation infrastructure.
That is, simply because there is more activity, it would require more government spending just to provide the same level of service. Would it be in direct proportion to economic growth? No, but it wouldn't be zero either.
Former Gov. Harold Stassen, the boy wonder of Minnesota politics in the 1930s and '40s, a founder of the United Nations and in later years a perennial candidate for president, died early Sunday at a Bloomington retirement community. He was 93.
Tawanna Brawley.
Jade:
Sharpton conducted demonstrations outside the later fire-bombed business in Harlem decrying the fact that whites were running businesses in Harlem. What was it, five people, killed by one of his listeners? You really have no shame.
It's good Sharpton sues. If he wins, perhaps he can then pay off the Brawley judgement against him.
Sharpton is scum of the Jessie Jackson type but without the Jackson sense of style, like taking your pregnant concubine into the White House to counsel the president on how to get public forgiveness for debauching girls.
Actually, we are both wrong, but you are closer to being right (it was 7 out of 8 Reagan budgets). I was misremembering the claim. It wasn't that Reagan's proposed *budgets*, were generally greater, but that his proposed *deficits* were, because of his proposed tax cuts. However, when it comes to expenditures, the differences between Reagan's proposed budget and what Congress actually passed are piddling.
Year Reag Cong
1982 695 695
1983 758 770
1984 849 850
1985 926 932
1986 974 968
1987 994 995
1988 1024 1041
1989 1094 1100
Source: Budget of the US Gvt, and Congressional Quarterly, cited in "The Federal Budget", by Allen Schick, 1995.
In other words, if Congress has simply passed Reagan's budgets exactly as requested, the deficits wouldn't have noticed.
"BTW, how many budgets did Congress actually pass during Reagan's 8 years. It seems to me that most of that time the government ran on CRs instead of budgets."
CR's are functionally the same as a budget, as far as this debate is concerned.
"One more thing. Spending bills originate in the House which was controlled by Democrats throughout the 80's."
So? I could get into an argument over whether this actually gives them any power, but this is irrelevant. Just look at the 80s budgets. Any House power over pursestrings only applies to the discretionary budget. In that, defense spending was drastically raised, and domestic discretionary spending was cut (all in real terms). Are you arguing that House Dems used their budgetary power to hike defense spending and slash domestic programs?
That is quite sad. He had a noble and distinguished career, and I had a lot of respect for him. I actually met him a few years ago, when he bought some stuff from me back in my retail days. I think he was pleased to be recognized by someone so young. I asked him if he was running for President again. He replied "walking, nowadays".
"Yes, but responsibility varies depending on the
circumstances."
-----
Ah, a breath of fresh air, but also a promise of further subjectivity in service of his own positions.
You respond to my request for documentation about it being a common argument that RR ran up deficits as a means of defeating the commies by telling me that concerned has used the argument here, "for instance."
I reassert that this argument is uncommon and ask you to prove that others other than concerned have raised it to you. This looks like a red herring to me. The argument of most RR supporters is the one I gave above.
You needn't glom on to concerned as representative of the world in order to flatter yourself that you have found a RR weakness. Prove me wrong.
"The RNC has confirmed it did not intend to state that Reverend Sharpton's involvement in the Crown Heights events led to the death of Yankel Rosenbaum," the joint statement said, referring to the young Talmudic scholar who died in the 1991
disturbance. "Nor did the letter mean to imply that Reverend Sharpton had any direct communication with the person who burned down Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem in a fire that killed several people."
Jade knows, I know, the RNC knows, Rev. Fatass knows - all of NYC knows - that Rev. Fatass is responsible as hell for these two events. The fact that he is not criminally liable does nothing to mitigate that fact to anyone with a shred of decency and a middling sense of justice.
If there was any justice, Rev. Fatass would be doing life for either or both of these acts.
No...as a matter of fact, if there was any justice they would never have happened, because Rev. Fatass would've already been in prison for the Tawana Brawley fiasco.
Gosh, why did the RNC admit it lied if everyone knows otherwise?
No matter how you attempt to spin it, the RNC admitted they lied.
It now appears that Denny (Tom DeLay's personal sockpuppet) Hastert's kid was just arrested on a DUI in DC.
One wonders if he's dating Jenna as well.
I told you that I have run across this argument many times in various Internet forums, including here and at Table Talk. Searchability in such forums is not readily available, and thus I can't come up with other instances easily, without considerable work. The point simply isn't important enough for me to actually do that work. If you want to then disbelieve my claim that this is a common argument, I can live with that.
"This looks like a red herring to me. The argument of most RR supporters is the one I gave above."
Your argument above is frequently taken farther, where the deficits incurred are justified by their contribution to the collapse of the Soviet Union. If you doubt this, I am fairly I sure I *can* easily come up with examples. I seem to recall reading a Cato report that claims this.
While I disagree with it, this argument is still intellectually honest. Where my hackles get raised is when this argument is used as a fall-back after failed attempts to blame the Democrats for the deficits. Concerned did this, and was trying to have his cake (Democrats are responsible for the budgets) and eat it (but Reagan is responsible for the success of those budgets in bringing down the USSR) too. This is hypocrisy.
Oh come on. You made an initial claim, that I have provided reams of data to refute. You initially provided no evidence, and have subsequently provided no evidence, to back up your claims. Have you retracted your claims, or even modified or clarified them in any way? No.
But somehow *I* am the one who is being subjective. Pull the other one.
Waxman urged Burton to subpoena records from the Reagan and Bush Libraries, but Burton refused.
The GOP, to their credit, has pulled of a tactical coup to go along nicely with their strategic one.
They've ginned up a bunch of shit to keep Clinton quiet while BOTUS is trying to self-legitmize
The New York Times
In a letter to NAACP President Kweisi Mfume, House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) accused the organization of "racial McCarthyism." In particular, he cited an ad run by the National Voter Fund, an organization affiliated with the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, that attacked George W. Bush during the campaign for indifference to the Texas dragging murder of James Byrd Jr. by three white supremacists. Armey also accused the NAACP of inciting racially divisive protests over Florida voting irregularities. Armey asked Mfume for a meeting.
If Armey is serious about easing racial polarization, he could start by looking at his own party's shameful record on race
GOP Fails To Own Up To Its Shameful Record on Racial Politics - The Los Angeles Times
The LA Times article was pretty understated.
Vice President Dick Cheney has been hospitalized at George Washington University Medical Center in Washington, D.C., today after feeling discomfort in his chest over the past two days. Doctors are planning to perform a "repeat catheterization."
I think if the veep has to step down the president can appoint someone--who then has to be approved by the House, I believe.
Jade,
Actually, the media did report on it--the public just wasn't interested.
Poor guy has been working his ass off lately.
"Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. "
No, the media reported wht the campaign said about Cheney's health.
If the media had followed up on the real nature of Cheney's health instead of talking about such nonsense as "normal EKGs" after 4 heart attacks and the like. Nobody has a "normal EKG" after one heart attack let alone four. Cheney also refused to release his medical records.
No, the media quite often raised Cheney's health as an issue. I remember one show--CNN, or Nightline, maybe--displaying pictures of Cheney from just ten years ago and today, with the difference being rather obvious. It was certainly discussed on the talking head shows--with the emphasis often being that there didn't seem to be any interest in his very real health issues.
Certainly they lied immediately after the election about him not having a heart attack, and that was reported.
But if there isn't much interest, this stuff dies down.
Any facts which don't fit Jade's pet conspiracy theories must be disposed of.
Nobody who has had one heart attack will have a "normal" stress test result. Let alone four.
It's no conspiracy theory. Cheney has a long history of heart problems. He had a heart attack during the campaign, his fourth.
Don't you think Cheney's health history is germane considering the nature of his job?
The fact is that it was often discussed.
And I imagine that the results were "normal" for him, but it will be interesting to see what results.
Chest pains, thus far.
Although I would like to think the media will be hyperskeptical after the bullshit they were fed in November.
An EKG obtained at the White House this afternoon was unchanged from one obtained last Thursday.
Which isn't the same as "normal".
Do you post that with a straight face?
Was the issue discussed? Yes. Often? OK. But was it discussed accurately? No.
And you are wrong. It was discussed quite accurately. Cheney not only had heart attacks, he had them from a very young age, which is a clear indication of a tweaky heart. This was regularly discussed. But no one cared.
One thing I find annoying about the media, though, is that they never poll on anything until they see that the public is interested.
Raskalnikov's making things up again, I see.
Double-counting and just making up "facts" like "RR's budgets were all bigger than Congress'."
PARIS (AP) -- In another blow to Europe's farm industry, France banned
exports of animals at risk for foot-and-mouth disease today as the continent went
on high alert to try to stop the virus from spreading from Britain. After a series
of false alarms, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark and France said today
they had no confirmed cases of the disease, which has ravaged 70 farms in
Britain and Northern Ireland since the first cases were discovered Feb. 19.
The impression I had was in the hundreds, or even thousands.
"More economic activity means expanded output, which places more demands on the EPA, and transportation infrastructure." etc.
Those aren't great examples; transportation costs should be charged more directly to users of government-provided transportation services, not to taxpayers at large. (And don't even get me started on the EPA.)
But I concede the point, in principle.
However, even with that, it seems like the automatic-increase factor should be (under this scenario) much closer to 1 than to 2.
The RNC did not admit they lied - what story were you reading?
Probably. Most of our difference seems to come from different approaches to public budgeting. I tend to think that public preferences are fairly uniform. That is, if they get an additional dollar of income, they will, on average, want to spend it in a fairly similar proportion to how they spent their last dollar of income. So, if they currently deem it worthwhile to devote 4% of national income to defense spending, they will want to keep that roughly the same if national income increases by a few percent. Now, who knows if this would hold true if income doubles, but it is a pretty reasonable assumption for small income increases.
I see cost justification (whether a government expenditure is worth the money) as a constraint, but not something for which the burden of proof heavily rests with government.
Ace, this is one of the biggest difference between you and me. When I make a mistake, I quickly admit it and the debate moves on.
No, Rask, what you do is rant shrilly, insisting (without citation) that you are "right" and that everyone else is a "liar," until you finally get around to checking your always-suspect math and finding out you were wrong all along.
I don't mind people being wrong. Even as frequently as you're wrong.
I'd just rather they didn't scream "LIAR!" and "YOU'RE MAKING THAT UP!" while being completely, irredeemably wrong.
does this mean i owe Rask $5?
"Normal" for Cheney is extremely misleading. My grandfather's EKG has been "normal" for him over the past several years. He's also been deceased for the past several years.
The problem you seem to be avoiding is the media seems to be taking press releases from Cheney's office instead of doing the research on the state of Cheney's health. Thus, we read that this problem is "normal" and merely "a precaution."
It isn't.
When is Clinton going to release his medical records? Anytime soon?
Facts are stubborn things.
We know Cheney has had at least 4 heart attacks. He has coronary heart disease. He's had numerous "episodes" involving chest pain. He's not getting younger.
During the campaign, Cheney refused to release his medical records despite a proven history of health problems. The man had a heart attack while on the campaign trail.
Now, while Curious George plays on the Nintendo, Cheney is running this administration. This is a job which would be taxing on a healthy and energetic person.
I asked a question. Since you apparently didn't understand it, let me rephrase it in simpler language:
When will Clinton release the papers upon which doctors have written notes about him?
Will this be soon?
What's he hiding?
And why didn't you demand a media investigation in 1992?
A young man who hides his medical records... well, that can't be *good.*
Did he?
Sensitive to this issue, aren't you?
Gee, Bill Clinton didn't have a history of medical problems, did he? Borderline high cholesterol seemed to be his major malady.
OTOH, the man who is running this administration is dying. Yet, Curious George and his handlers act as if Cheney is an Olympic hopeful.
Gee, Bill Clinton didn't have a history of medical problems, did he?
We don't know, because he never released his medical records, Jadetard.
That's sort of the point of releasing medical records -- so you know a person's medical history.
We do know, from Monica, that Bill seemed to be "stoned" a lot of the time due to some sort of medication we don't know about.
Yes. And we know this.
Dick Cheney has a bad heart and will most likely have several more cardiac episodes before his term is through. He may well die in office, or be forced by failing health to resign.
We know all this. Everyone knows ths.
You want a piece of paper that says it?
Then print out this post. And sign it, "Dr. AceofSpades, Consulting Physician."
People with bad hearts generally continue working. And, if you knew anything at all, you'd know that if you survive your first heart attack, you'll most likely survive the heart attacks which are likely to follow.
Heart disease is a chronic condition. It does not "go away." We knew Dick Cheney had heart disease; we therefore knew he would continue having heart disease, until the day he died.
This is some sort of newsflash to Jadetard.
What do you suggest? Other than carping, what is it you think Cheney and or Bush should be doing about Cheney's heart condition?
Jadetard:
By the way, here are a few other newsflashes for you:
-- Strom Thrurmond, Jesse Helms, and Robert Byrd will continue aging, and will probably die in just a few years.
-- Their mental acuity will continue declining. Witness Byrd's "white niggers" comment this Sunday.
-- Hugh Rodham will never get rid of his enormous gut, barring surgery, and neither will Hillary! ever shed her fat calves.
-- Chelsea Clinton will not recover from her condition of chronic congenital fugliness.
-- Joe Moakley will probably die in a few years. Perhaps even this year.
-- John McCain will continue having skin cancers.
Etc.
Cheney will likely die in office. The fact this most recent "episode" came so soon after his heart attack and subsequent procedure is not a good sign.
You have to have an appetite for power to be willing to die for it.
The larger issue is the media, however. They failed to inform the public during the campaign as to the exact nature of Cheney's health problems. Any cardiologist would tell you Cheney's health history was ill-suited for the job. Instead, the media dutifully regurgitated the campaign's spin.
Jadetard didn't know the date of the Pearl Harbor attack?
Hee hee hee. Just about the most famous date in history. They mention it every year.
Did Jadetard get the month right, at least?
How about the year?
"A day that will live in ignoramity"
I realize this issue is painful for you.
Citing Joe Moakley isn't really helpful to you. Moakley's retiring ecause his health is sliding downhill.
Strom Thurmond? The man's been a mannequin for years.
Jesse Helms is very ill and in pain. Karma exists.
None of these positions involve running this administration while Curious George seeks a personal best at "Chop Lifter."
problems. Any cardiologist would tell you Cheney's health history was ill-suited for the job. Instead, the media dutifully regurgitated the campaign's spin.
Do you know more about Cheney's health than what the media tells you? Are your cousins working in his doctor's office and betraying confidential medical information? How is it you can characterize what the media tells you as spin when you don't know anything but what the media tells you about a man's medical condition?
How is it that "any cardiologist" will tell you these things, but I've seen expert cardiologists saying there is no reason why Cheney can't perform his duties?
Moreover, what exactly will happen if Cheney drops dead tomorrow? Bush will select a new vice president and Congress will approve him. What exactly would happen if Bush asked Cheney to step aside?
This is a most pathetic argument on your part, Jade, but then that's your specialty.
Does the "convention" of the right-hand rule bear on all of this?
1942, huh?
"Precautionary measure."
I love that.
Let's all go to the hospital and have an emergency heart catheterization just as a "precautionary measure."
So... Jadetard thought that Japanese sneak-attacked us *after* Patton was already battling Rommel in North Africa?
Rather than addressing any of the questions put to you, thanks for saving the need for further discussion by conceding that you are a laughingstock.
Bradley's arrhythmia is far less serious than Cheney's problems, but it was widely reported in the press. A few cardiologists even suggested that it was a problem which might medically disqualify Bradley from being President.
Uhhhhhh... Cheney's heart condition was "widely reported" as well. Every bullet-point bio included "has had four heart attacks since age 37" by the third bullet-point.
Fuckin' moron.
Jadetard:
Did the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor because they were angry that Patton & Montgomery had taken Casablanca?
The tension between Al Gore, Bill Clinton and their followers "has only escalated" in recent days, the NYTimes reports.
"Mr. Clinton, for one, was described by friends as still furious at Mr. Gore's pollster, Stanley B. Greenberg (who was Mr. Clinton's first pollster in the WH) for recently suggesting publicly that Mr. Clinton was detrimental to Mr. Gore's prospects," reporter Richard L. Berke writes.
"'He heaps withering scorn on Stan,' one friend said of a recent conversation with Mr. Clinton. 'It's like a blowtorch. I was surprised at how hard-edged he was. He feels that Gore didn't prosecute his legacy.'
"Mr. Clinton also unleashed his venom at William M. Daley, his former commerce secretary.
After Mr. Daley told the NYTimes recently that Mr. Clinton's conduct was 'terrible, devastating' and 'rather appalling,' the former president wrote a several-page letter to Mr. Daley expressing his deep disappointment, people who know both men said."
As for Mr. Gore, he held a "thank you" dinner for more than two dozen of his biggest presidential campaign contributors at the Manhattan home of financier Steven Rattner on Tuesday night. Mr. Clinton was not invited.
--Inside Politics, Washington Times
But speaking from a purely strategic vantage point, were Cheney to sit it out at some point, at that moment, Bush could then say to Colin Powell "Your country needs you."
And then you can take 2004 to the bank.
Has Jadetard explained how the right-hand rule is merely a "convention" yet, by the way? Or does it merely continue "hinting" at the answer (an obvious dodge which allows Jadetard to appear to be knowlegeable, while not offering any details which could prove embarassingly wrong)?
Is gravity merely a "convention" as well?
Curious minds want to know.
FU:
Colin Powell is a bad choice. A one-termer if there ever was one.
There would be great disatisfaction among the base. Powell is a liberal/moderate, pure and simple. He doesn't believe in a single Republican position. Not one.
Except, maybe, "The Military," whatever that vague locution might mean.
Powell would be *accepted* by the base, of course. We'd have no choice.
Besides: Colin Powell doesn't want the job. I don't know how much clearer he can make that point.
And 2004 is already "in the bank," barring catastrophe.
Sure. I like him to anchor the 4x100 relay team in Athens.
Let's get real. Four months ago, Cheney had a heart attack. He had a stent put in at that time. Yesterday, that stent was found to be over 90% closed. Cheney is undoubtably on medications and a health regimen, yet he is getting chest pains indicative of unstable angina.
Not very encouraging.
Colin Powell would wreak havoc in the Democratic base, he would be the presumptive nominee in 2012, and because he wears a uniform and would be the number 2, his liberal positions would be swallowed by the right. Best, the moderate suburban vote would clamor to vote for the ticket.
He could be a realigning person.
And yes, he does not want it. But with an incapacitated vice president, duty would call.
Incorrect. Patton led the flanking forces in the attack. He was not the leader, but he led an important segment.
True--even though it was well known before the election that Bush had every intention of turning the mechanics of running the country over to his COO, while he, the CEO, ran about gladhanding the country.
Lord, Francis, you have such a hardon for a minority veep. During the campaign, though, it was a chick.
I don't think Bush will choose anyone ambitious for the Presidency, and he will very much need someone who can run the country like Cheney did. That limits his options, and Powell isn't on that list (neither is any woman I can think of).
From some on-line dictionary:
"Patton played a leading role in the Allied invasion of
North Africa in November 1942, commanding the
ground elements of the western task forces that
entered Casablanca and soon occupied French
Morocco."
Let's make a bet. I'm sure I can find yet another cheezy bauble to deliver to Chinatown.
I don't see how you can say that. I would say the one thing that Bush's minority laden Cabinet has indicated is that the "base" is unmoved by what they view as lip service.
It will hurt them with independents and swing voters, but that is always who is fought for these days.
The meeting "is not an offer he's considering at this time. It's not anything we're inclined to do," Clinton's spokeswoman Julia Payne said. "There is no window. You can shut it."
I'm surprised (not really) that Niner is not in better touch with DC politics.
Powell does not want to be Veep under any circumstances. Curious George already asked him over a year ago.
Why on earth would he want it? Serving as Curious George's nanny is a thankless job. One which, I might add, Powell is not up to.
I do. I think the move makes sense.
FU,
Blacks aren't impressed by black Republicans. They despise them. Look at Justice Thomas.
Further, everyone knew that Colin Powell would be Bush's Secretary of State. Did this impact the election?
Do you imagine that swing voters -- white voters -- are so race-conscious that they're going to go ga-ga over a Colin Powell Vice-Presidency?
What's the bet?
I don't want a cheesy bauble. I want an objet d'art.
Powell's disinterest was noted - by me. Thanks for the repetition. But accepting the job under the crisis of a death or incapacitation is a different bird.
Cal
There is a difference between having blacks in the cabinet or in prominent positions, and having one on a national ticket, poised to be the standard-bearer in four years. The difference is immeasurable, but I think the resulting distress would handicap the Democrats and change the dynamic among minority voters.
But the lure would be strongest to guilt-ridden, upper-middle class, nominally Democratic softies.
But you didn't respond to my main point--Bush chose Cheney for a specific reason. He was capable of running the country so that Bush could be the front man. Powell can't do that.
If he has to give up on Cheney, he needs someone of similar experience.
I suppose the other possibility is that the veep will become a Quayle position, with no power at all. My guess is then that the power will move to the chief of staff position.
But it's silly to think that replacing Cheney is just a matter of picking another veep for re-election purposes.
If Cheney doesn't make it to 2004, I'll contribute $100 to People for the American Way. If he makes it, you contribute $100 to The Heritage Foundation. Whatever worthless trinket they send to us, we can deliver as a pelt.
I want a trophy and tribute.
Jadetard's Primer on American history:
1773: The Declaration of Independence is signed, in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
1794: The Revolutionary Army beats the Redcoats at the Second Battle of Manassas.
1797: The Whiskey Rebellion breaks out. The northerly state of Whiskey attempts to secede from the United States; Whiskey's Armies are defeated, and the state is renamed "Maine."
1806: President Thomas William Jefferson Blythe executes the "Louisiana Purchase," buying a large chunk of land from the European power Louisiana.
1814: The beginning of the War of 1812.
Sometime in the 1800's -- America suffers through the Civil War, also called the "Hundred Year's War," because it lasted almost a hundred years.
Early-Mid 1900's: The US goes through "The Era of Good Feelings," gets rather shagged out and enters "The Depression," then enters a more upbeat mood in the "Return to Normalcy."
November 1942: The US enters WWII, fighting the Nazis in North Africa.
December 1942: Japan, an ally of the Nazis, "sneak attacks" us at Pearl Harbor. The US is completely shocked by the attack, despite the fact we'd been fighting the Axis for nearly a year. "We should have seen that one coming," says a chagrined Admiral Nimitz.
But the lure would be strongest to guilt-ridden, upper-middle class, nominally Democratic softies.
No, this group isn't "nominally" Democrat--and for heavens sake, how did you get from the Dem "base" to "nominally Dem"? The upper middle class "base" are the Jades, the Wombats, the Ohios, the jonesatlaw (no slight to anyone intended). They are, as you might have noticed, not likely to be moved by a minority cabinet. The "nominal" Dems in that group are not guilt-ridden, and they aren't the dem "base"; they are already swing voters--and they are already in play.
Blacks are impressed and your Thomas example is inapt. Thomas' problems came after he was pilloried, for years.
When he was nominated, however, this was the story in USA Today on July 6, 1991:
"Most blacks support the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, even though nearly an equal number say he does not represent the views of most blacks, according to a poll published Friday. The USA TODAY poll showed
54 percent of respondents approved of Thomas' nomination, 17 percent disapproved and 29 percent said they did not know. On the other hand, 52 percent of those interviewed said Thomas - a black conservative - did not reflect the views of
most blacks."
Did the blacks polled say that the nomination made them more likely to vote for President Bush's re-election?
If it didn't, does it matter whether they "approved"?
And you didn't answer my point about Cheney's actual job, which is quite different from using the veep as a re-election tool.
"By way of clarification, the cite I posted is very understated regarding Cheney's health history."
Jadetard knows the *real* scoop, of course.
"Bush chose Cheney for a specific reason. He was capable of running the country so that Bush could be the front man. Powell can't do that."
If you can provide me any support other than your own surmise for these two assertions (Cheney was chosen by Bush because he was capable of running the country AND "Bush could be the front man" and Powell cannot run the country with Bush as the front man), I'd be interested in reading same. As to your description of the soft nominal Democrats, they exist, but they are not represented in The Mote.
Jade
What do you offer?
"Montgomery never got near Casablanca."
You are conflating several posts in an effort to show an "error" on my part.
My first post, which you objected to, said only that "in 1942, Montgomery and Patton were already battling Nazis in Northern Africa."
After you objected, I noted that Patton was part of the force which took Casablanca. I made no mention of Montgomery in this post.
You told me that I was wrong, and that Patton wasn't part of the force that took Casablanca.
I posted a cite that he was.
Now you say that *Monty* wasn't invovled in the taking of Casablanca. Well, as a purely technical point, of course he was involved to some extent. But more importantly, the point is irrelevant, since I never mentioned Monty and Casablanca in the same post.
Wombat,
Ooops. My error. I *did* mention Monty & Patton taking Casablanca.
Several of my family are MDs; two are cardiologists. They marvel at the misinformation the public is being given.
We know that Cheney has had at least four heart attacks. He has coronary artery disease and unstable angina. We know he has had a quadruple bypass 13 years ago and we know that he has a stent propping open an artery. That's what we know, there is likely more.
We also know such a history is unusual in a man who is only 60 years old.
We know Cheney has not taken especially good care of himself: he only quit smoking after heart attack number three and he put on 40 pounds after his bypass surgery.
Of course they exist. They are me. But they are not the Dem "base". They are already in play. Your premise is incorrect.
If you can provide me any support other than your own surmise for these two assertions
I suggest you use your own nifty Lexis/Nexis search engine. You will find any number of columns and transcripts on the significance of Cheney's pick. It is very much in keeping with Bush's Texas model as well, where the lieutenant governor runs the state and the governor is the front man. Cheney's active role in running things has been regularly discussed and is acknowledged--no doubt there will a number of articles on it in the upcoming months.
As to whether or not Powell can do the job--I tend to doubt it. But more importantly, will Bush feel comfortable with him in the job? Loyalty and trust are very important to Bush, and I don't think he's going to give it to someone who hasn't been "with the family" for years.
So you might be right about Powell being offered to take over if Cheney has to resign, but Powell will then just be a figurehead, and I suspect Powell will know it. He's been turning down a certain veepship for a long time now, I see nor eason why he'd take a figurehead position in exchange for real power at State.
If you are seriously denying the executive model that Bush is clearly using, then I suggest you read up on it. It is not intended as a denigration of Bush, but it's very clearly a different model from Clinton's use of Gore, and that was far more extensive than any prior veep.
Jadetard,
You're just a regular Mr. Moto, what with your chink-family detective agency on all the hot cases.
Mr. Moto... no, not Mr. Moto. Who was the other one? The one with all the "Number One Sons"?
The more *famous* one. I can't believe I can't think of it.
I know he was parodied in "Murder By Death" by Peter Sellars, playing "Sidney Wong"...
I look forward to provision of authority for what I find to be novel assertions that
1. Cheney was chosen by Bush because he was capable of running the country AND "Bush could be the front man"
2. Powell cannot run the country with Bush as the front man.
I'm not interested in either what has been regularly "discussed" or "acknowledged." However, I love facts.
I'm not disputing any proffered model. Again, if these facts are so self-evident, I'd like to read up on it.
I have a number of Han Dynasty coins; I'll see which one I'd offer as a wager.
You may investigate what might cause you a measure of pain to lose.
It will become larger if he swings precariously on a sleigh above Whoville.
Oh, God. Charlie Chan. Total. Fucking. Mindblank.
Cheney was chosen by Bush because he was capable of running the country AND "Bush could be the front man"
Why quotes around "Bush could be the frontman"? I mean in the sense of CEO, or the Texas government model.
old.
What a moron. What sort of "history" do you think virtually every man who has quadruple bypass surgery has?
Coronary disease? Unstable angina? A stent? You list all those conditions like they're separate issues rather than all part of the same condition.
Dan Reeves
Dan Reeves, who has the Atlanta Falcons on
the brink of the best record in franchise history, had quadruple
bypass surgery Monday and probably will miss the rest of the
regular season.
The 54-year-old coach is expected to be discharged Friday
and recover in time for the playoffs.
Reeves, who had less serious heart problems in 1990 and
'91, checked into Piedmont Hospital a day after feeling ill
10871. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:39:41 AM
"Ah, Number One Cousin. I have an interesting new mystery for you to investigate."
"Yes, venerable Cousin Jadetard?"
"I want you to dig up the credit history for Juanita Broadderick's nursing homes."
"As you wish it, my exalted Older Cousin."
10872. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 10:40:03 AM
Jade
Okay. I think I have a decent trade, in the form of a baseball or football card.
Name some of your favorite players from the late 70s, early 80s.
10873. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 10:40:38 AM
Cal
The quoted language are your words.
10874. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 10:40:55 AM
Powell is not up to the job. He doesn't want it. It will only damage his unearned reputation.
The factor not being discussed is Curious George. He's licked the power salt lick and this leadership stuff is really easy. All he has to do is pose for pictures and read what Karen and Karl write for him.
He doesn't want to be overshadowed by a Powell.
10875. CalGal - 3/6/2001 10:40:56 AM
Oh, and Francis?
This isn't "facts". This is management policies, all done on gut. So no, you won't find a cite of Bush saying, "I chose Cheney so that he could be the detail guy while I could go out gladhanding."
But to deny that this is why he chose Cheney rather than a politically strategic person is kind of silly.
10876. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 10:41:29 AM
Cal
Specifically
"Bush chose Cheney for a specific reason. He was capable of running the country so that Bush could be the front man. Powell can't do that."
10877. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 10:42:01 AM
Reeves' age: 54
Cheney episode called common in heart cases
But #1 son know this condition uncommon in young man of Cheney's age.
10878. CalGal - 3/6/2001 10:42:21 AM
Francis,
I know--my point is, why quote them? It's a perfectly reasonable term.
10879. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 10:42:47 AM
Cal
Cool. Provide similar analysis from another source. I'm sure when you do, I'll feel silly.
10880. CalGal - 3/6/2001 10:43:46 AM
Francis,
Fair enough, although I don't have Lexis. And I just read my last post again--what I meant was, why did you put "quotes around" my phrase? It's not objectionable, is it?
10881. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:43:51 AM
"Exalted Cousin Jadetard! I have proof that a man who has had one heart attack will almost certainly have further heart attacks!"
"Ah, so. Now I see. A man who refuses to release his medical records is like won-ton soup with no noodles."
"What do you mean, my venerable Cousin?"
"Think Spiro Agnew, Number One Cousin."
10882. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 10:44:02 AM
Cal
I used the quotes because I want to be accurate as to your assertions.
10883. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 10:44:21 AM
David Letterman, 52, quadruple bypass
10884. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 10:45:30 AM
Indians Manuel (54) to have quadruple bypass
10885. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:46:13 AM
IJ:
Jadetard say:
"That's what we know, there is likely more."
I'll bet he's taking cholesterol medication, too!
Jadetard much like monkey whose tail has been chopped off. Always howling, but cannot swing from the trees.
Ah, so.
10886. Cellar Door - 3/6/2001 10:46:32 AM
10887. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:48:21 AM
Homosexual who posts links with no details much like menu at a brothel: No one read, because no one brave enough to eat the soup.
10888. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 10:51:06 AM
IJ:
Dan Reeves isn't the de facto head of the administration.
I'd also add that bypass grafts don't last forever; they have an effective life of about a dozen years give or take the patient's lifestyle.
Reeves was also a professional athlete. Cheney's primary exercise seemed to be walking to the newstand for a pack of smokes.
10889. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:54:22 AM
Bypass grafts much like bartender with small bladder: When need them most, they run out on you.
10890. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 10:54:47 AM
Waiting for IJ to post Nolan Ryan's bypass.
I'd add that none of the people cited by IJ have had a health history similar to Cheney's. Cheney has had four heart attacks we know of.
This means the heart is damaged; it doesn't get better.
10891. Cellar Door - 3/6/2001 10:57:06 AM
The Chinese are plotting to destroy you, Ace. Read all about it.
10892. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:57:10 AM
Damaged heart like sailor in a whorehouse: get harder as it goes on.
10893. Cellar Door - 3/6/2001 10:57:44 AM
It's the attack of the fortune cookies!
10894. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 10:57:51 AM
Cellar,
Ah, so.
10895. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 11:03:29 AM
Jadetard's Number One Cousins -- all of whom are cardiologists, specializing in "Dick Cheney" -- have informed it of the following jaw-dropping facts:
-- Heart disease is progressive;
-- it cannot be cured, only managed;
-- it is potentially life-threatening; and
--hearts do not "get better" with age. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Wow. That's some detective work.
You're just a Scooby-Doo short of a Mystery Machine.
10896. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 11:05:27 AM
Zoinks!
10897. Cellar Door - 3/6/2001 11:06:51 AM
Of course, being a Republican, Cheney is immune from the ills that befall ordinary mortals.
10898. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 11:07:05 AM
This is a crisis for Curious George's handlers.
When Cheney drops dead, Karen Hughes isn't going to be able to spin that Cheney is taking a "precautionary" nap.
10899. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 11:15:31 AM
Jadetard's Number One Cousins, solving another Groovy Mystery. (Jadetard is the dykey looking plain-jane in orange.)
10900. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 11:16:15 AM
Ooops, I meant this: 
10901. CalGal - 3/6/2001 11:19:05 AM
Ace--check the front page and follow the "Geocities links don't work anymore" headline.
10902. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 11:19:13 AM
"According to this accounting-book, Gang, Juanita Broadderick's nursing home is in overwhelming debt."
"You mean--"
"That's right. It wasn't Bill Clinton who raped her. It was Old Man McGavers, wearing a Clinton Ghoul Mask."
10903. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 11:25:37 AM
Ah, so. Linking from Geocities much like digging with teaspoon: Much work to create empty hole.
10904. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 11:35:24 AM
Very nice links, Spaz.
Now back to real issues.
From an unimpeachable source, I've heard that GWU doctors have calculated Cheney's ejection fraction at less than thirty percent.
Ejection fractions below forty percent present a high risk of sudden death or congestive heart failure.
10905. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/6/2001 11:37:13 AM
10906. rubberducky - 3/6/2001 11:37:53 AM
let's please have less racist comments
10907. CalGal - 3/6/2001 11:39:08 AM
Francis,
Howard Fineman on Cheney Pick:
George W. Bush didn’t emphasize the phrase, but it jumped out at me in neon letters. When he introduced Dick Cheney as his running mate, Bush promised that Cheney would be his “valuable partner” if there’s a new Bush administration.
THAT’S BIG NEWS. For if he means it, Bush is proposing a new model for the presidency, the commander-in-chief as CEO, with the veep as COO. It would be a tag team: the charming Mr. Outside and the substantive Mr. Inside. Cheney is the heaviest of heavyweights: White House chief of staff, rising Republican star in the House, true architect of Desert Storm and head of Halliburton, a global company with 65,000 employees.
You don’t hire Dick Cheney to attend funerals. You hire him to run your government for you, while you go out and sell your policies to the stockholders (voters).
That's the heavyweight reference that I was looking for; I believe this analysis originated with Fineman--it's the piece I remember reading last summer. But I'll toss in a few others that I found merely by searching on "Dick Cheney" Bush CEO COO (you may want to do the same on Lexis).
Fox News report from December:
"One of the reasons that Governor Bush chose Secretary Cheney to serve on the ticket was because of his unparalleled experience and his ability to carry very ably a wide and diverse portfolio," Fleischer said.
But Bush himself has made it clear he is looking to delegate key responsibilities, referring to himself Wednesday as the "chief executive officer soon-to-be." If Bush is to be the CEO, then Cheney is poised to serve as chief operating officer -- a role he's already fulfilling, in the view of some.
10908. CalGal - 3/6/2001 11:39:29 AM
This is a sour grapes Salon article, but I include it because of the GOP quote:
Republicans seem mostly resigned to the fact that though they nominated one man as president, the No. 2 choice will do the work. One GOP source described the new presidential structure to CNN as "Bush as chairman of the board, Dick as CEO and Andy [Card] as COO." It's not in the Constitution, but hey, whatever works.
10909. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 11:39:45 AM
Asking me to lay off Jade like singing to brass monkey: Ears deaf to the song.
10910. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 11:40:18 AM
RD:
I'm used to it and I consider the source.
10911. CalGal - 3/6/2001 11:43:20 AM
I don't have access or time right now to pore through all the transcripts from Inside Washington or wade through MSNBC (and curses to them for removing the Newsweek archives) but this was extensively discussed on the talking head shows in July and again in December, when it became clear how extensive his authority was going to be.
Also, if you read all the articles on Cheney's health problems, they mention his authority and resopnsibilities extensively. Slate makes much the same point that I did, but comes to an answer:
Chatterbox couldn't resist quizzing various Washington observers about who would run the Bush administration should Cheney suddenly be rendered unavailable. (This is a distinct question from who would be vice president since a new vice president wouldn't necessarily assume Cheney's degree of importance. Probably Bush would make Tom Ridge his new veep, and Ridge isn't shadow president material.) The Washington observers refused to be quoted by name (wouldn't you?), but Chatterbox has aggregated their wisdom and added a bit of his own.
It goes without saying that George W. Bush isn't up to the job. Chief of staff Andy Card lacks sufficient stature. Colin Powell has the stature, but probably not the necessary interest in domestic affairs. Karl Rove and Karen Hughes have Bush's trust, but insufficient experience at the national level. Trent Lott and Dennis Hastert probably don't have Bush's trust, and they certainly don't have the brains. White House budget director Mitch Daniels has the brains, but probably lacks sufficient influence with Dubya. Jim Baker has done it before (he was Ronald Reagan's chief of staff), but Dubya doesn't like him, and even if he did, it would be way too embarrassing. The more you ponder it, the more all roads point to one man: Donald Rumsfeld.
10912. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 11:43:38 AM
Oh, Jesus. Listen to Jade. "She considers the source."
The source is the epileptic you call "Spaz" and whom you inveigh to "take his medications," fuckface.
You little hypocritical cunt.
10913. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 11:44:14 AM
Jadetard,
When you die -- which I hope will be soon -- I will throw a party.
10914. CalGal - 3/6/2001 11:47:26 AM
So when you talk about who'll replace Cheney, you're talking about two different issues: who will do his work, and who will be vice president.
If Bush makes a pick with an eye to re-election, rather than functionality, then he's not going to trust the guy with anything approaching that level of responsibility--it will be Dan Quayle redux, not the Republican Al Gore.
That makes it very unlikely that Powell will be interested in being Bush's veep. He's running State, and that's a real job.
The other, more important, issue, is that if Cheney did have to leave, it would create a real vacuum. Bush simply doesn't have the desire or interest to run the country's nuts and bolts, and he will need someone to do it. Cheney is ideally suited for it, but I'm not sure that anyone else is.
10915. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 11:49:41 AM
I forgive you, Spaz.
Jesus would want me to.
10916. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 11:50:51 AM
Ratbag,
I didn't apologize.
10917. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 11:53:12 AM
"Woman" who pregnant for fourteen months much like man who sell magic beans: Liar, and not woman at all.
10918. JudithAtHome - 3/6/2001 11:53:39 AM
Jeez, Ace...from someone who chides people for posting frivilous things in this thread, you've done more than your share today.
10919. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 11:55:41 AM
Judith:
Spaz knows not what he does. We must try and forgive him.
Jesus would want it that way.
10920. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 11:55:49 AM
Ace like Bill Clinton: Guilty as charged.
10921. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 11:57:09 AM
Jade's "baby" like short man who marries busty woman: Happy to be smothered.
10922. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 12:01:47 PM
Re "ejection fraction": Cheney's published ejection fraction (though I'm sure Jade's sources know better) is 40 percent.
Jade's own preferred cardiologist (Zipes), the one he quoted up thread, says, "The resting ejection fraction 'is only a single measure of cardiac function,' which is 'meaningful but insufficient" information. 'I have patients with only 20% who are vigorous'"
10923. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 12:06:06 PM
RD,
Since Jadetard and I are obviously dragging this thread down to the gutter, I suggest you ban us *both.*
I insist.
10924. CalGal - 3/6/2001 12:08:18 PM
Jade's "baby" like short man who marries busty woman: Happy to be smothered.
I doubt you meant anything by it, but this one really upsets me. Just so's you know. Much of the rest is quite funny.
10925. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 12:09:39 PM
Hey, I just think the kid will be lucky if he isn't Munchhausenized by age 2.
10926. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 12:10:18 PM
IJ:
No doubt. There are also 80-year-olds who run marathons.
However, it is uncommon.
Once ejection fractions go below forty percent, the risk of congestive heart failure and/or sudden death increases dramatically.
10927. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 12:16:12 PM
Cal
Thanks for the citation. Howard Fineman writes good conventional wisdom. You said, however, that "Bush chose Cheney for a specific reason. He was capable of running the country so that Bush could be the front man. Powell can't do that." I think this is probably false. One analysis has stated that "Bush had reportedly focused on finding a running mate who had the qualifications to become president but was also a 'team player,' namely someone who would give advice but would ultimately defer to the president's decisions.
Cheney's experience as a top presidential adviser was said to make him an ideal candidate. Loyalty and a sense of personal comfort with the prospective vice president were other factors that Bush weighed heavily, according to his
campaign staff. These considerations also favored Cheney, who was a family friend; he was also said to be the elder Bush's personal favorite choice for his son's running mate." This jibes with Ari Fleischer's comment. The analysis also strikes me as more plausible than "Let's get Dick Cheney so he can run the country and I can be the front man." I suspect Cheney has emerged as the alleged government-runner behind the supposed affable, glad-handing, but shallow Bush because the theory falls seemlessly into the other conventional wisdoms fostered by the intelligentsia (Bush is lazy, a gladhander, an intellectual lightweight, "Poppy's son"). Thus, it serves for purposes of continuity that Bush, now successful, be relegated to the role of "front man", with the Wizard Cheney pulling the levers and twisting the knobs. I also think the likening of a CEO to a "front man" is peculiar.
10928. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 12:16:46 PM
I think what is true is that Cheney, like Gore before him, is doing a lot more than Quayle, Bush, Mondale and others. Given his vast and varied experience, this is a great thing, but citing that fact alone is hardly as dramatic as Fineman's analysis. Now does it serve to fill a column. And as Fineman pens the conventional wisdom, the pack runs with it.
10929. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 12:18:33 PM
What is needed is a full vetting of Cheney's medical records. That includes his entire medical history and the medications he's taking.
This most recent spin job from Curious George's handlers is damaging to the public on two fronts.
First, the public has the right to fully understand if Cheney has health concerns which may impact his job.
Second, the spin is detrimental to the broader issue of public health. Heart attacks are not minor events, cardio-catheterization is not a "precautionary measure."
10930. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 12:19:49 PM
Jade: You continue to belabor the obvious. Once someone has had a heart attack, the likelihood of a second heart attack increases. If someone is likely to have a heart attack, the chance of sudden death also increases.
As with your statements upthread to indicate Cheney's case is somehow special, you are stating facts (sometimes, sometimes distortions and lies) that don't really say anything new because they are restatements of the same thing over and over in different words.
The doctors examining him know more about his individual case as well as the statistics. I think they are much more qualified than you to judge his condition and his likely response to treatment. Of course they could be wrong.
But you still haven't answered what you think is the alternative. What is the significance, other than to feed your ghoulish nature? Should Cheney be replaced? What is accomplished by replacing him?
We're not in a Boris Yeltsin situation here, in which the government might topple if Cheney keels over.
10931. JudithAtHome - 3/6/2001 12:21:39 PM
Well, should anything serious happen to Cheney, we'll soon find out what his job actually entailed. If things continue to run smoothly, good for the country and GW...if not, we'll know whether Finemans wisdom was conventional or astute.
10932. CalGal - 3/6/2001 12:23:06 PM
Francis,
I think you and I have different notions of "front man". That's what I was asking you earlier, since you seemed to find it objectionable. I think a CEO as a front man, particularly when linked with a strong COO. This is not a bad thing.
I think this is probably false.
I disagree. The difference, however, is that you think this is a bad thing, whereas it's a perfectly legitimate management style in my book.
Bush had reportedly focused on finding a running mate who had the qualifications to become president but was also a 'team player,' namely someone who would give advice but would ultimately defer to the president's decisions.
This is largely besides the point. Bush's "team" strategy is "one person, not me, does all the heavy lifting and I make the executive direction calls". So sure, Cheney is a team player. But it's not a team of 20 people who are all equals--it's a team that he pretty much runs, makes the decisions for, and reports back to the boss periodically for any new "decisions".
So I wouldn't disagree with that statement--I just don't think it contradicts anything I've said.
Try to realize that I am not slamming Bush at all; I am analyzing his management style. It is relevant because, should Cheney leave, there is no one who is suitable as both vice president material and being the COO. The job would have to split.
There is no slam in the assertion that Bush simply isn't up to the nitty gritty of running the country. It doesn't mean he shouldn't be president--he could, in fact, be a very good one. But it's important to realize that if the nitty gritty guy leaves, someone's got to do the job.
10933. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 12:23:54 PM
Case in point, Boris Yeltsin. Older, from a society with shorter life expectancy, worse personal health, more stress, less willingness to follow treatment.
Yet he made it through his term. Why? Because it's largely a matter of the individual. And despite the ever-present cousins, Jade cannot really know what Cheney's doctors know.
10934. CalGal - 3/6/2001 12:24:01 PM
And as Fineman pens the conventional wisdom, the pack runs with it.
Do keep in mind that you denied this as conventional wisdom just a few hours ago.
10935. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 12:25:48 PM
The same thing happened with Reagan, FU.
When Reagan won two elections, liberals cried, "The country is stupid and mesmerized, that's why he won."
Then they said he was stupid, of course.
Then, when he had two successful terms, they said: "Well, he still was stupid (we're never wrong, or at least not willing to admit), but he managed some success because he had 'smart people' pulling his strings."
Same old song and dance.
10936. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 12:28:03 PM
"The difference, however, is that you think this is a bad thing, whereas it's a perfectly legitimate management style in my book."
It is neither bad nor good. It is conventional wisdom simplicity that I don't find very persuasive.
"Bush's 'team' strategy is 'one person, not me, does all the heavy lifting and I make the executive direction calls'."
Nothing you've cited supports this "one person other than me does all the heavy lifting" theory. "Let's choose Cheney because I want one man - not me - to do the nitty-gritty heavy lifting because I can't do it" strikes me as cable-ready jabber of a Finemanesque quality.
I'd be interested in any additional source material.
10937. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 12:28:26 PM
"And despite the ever-present cousins, Jade cannot really know what Cheney's doctors know."
Jadetard doesn't merely have a troop of Number One Cousins, specialists in all matter of things Legal, Medical, Political, and Scientific; it also has a brigade of "sources," some of whom are "unimpeachable," like the ones who reported on the financial ruin of Juanita Broadderick. (Where did they go? Are they still on Team Jade?)
10938. JudithAtHome - 3/6/2001 12:28:48 PM
But Ace, one of GWs proudest claims is that he has "smart people" around him...why shouldn't some of the credit for Reagans accomplishments go to the smart people around him? You're not suggesting he did it all on his own, are you?
10939. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 12:31:18 PM
Jade must be the real black sheep of the family.
All that success among the rest of the family, but here he is stuck day after day arguing with a spaz, a third-rate college hoopster, and a gun-loving stalker.
10940. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 12:31:36 PM
Cheney's case is special. A history of heart problems like his is uncommon for a man his age.
Additionally, Cheney runs the administration. It is a position which would be taxing on a healthy person. I happen to believe the American people are not being given the full facts on Cheney's health. Cheney refuses to release his medical records and he does not permit his doctors to comment beyond generalities regarding his condition.
Cheney can keel over in office for all I care. It's not as if he's my Vice-President.
The issue that concerns me is the spin being put out by the White House. If they are willing to lie about such a patently obvious situation, they'll lie about anything.
10941. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 12:31:52 PM
JAH,
No, not all "on his own." But it's the same old bullshit with you people. "He's stupid." Well, why is he successful? "Someone's pulling his strings."
You people are congenitally incapable of admitting error or misjudgement.
10942. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 12:32:51 PM
Cal
I told you I saw littel support for "Bush chose Cheney for a specific reason. He was capable of running the country so that Bush could be the front man. Powell can't do that."
I still have not.
I was aware of the conventional wisdom, COO/CEO thing that was spread around the cable gang like a February virus.
10943. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 12:33:01 PM
"A history of heart problems like his is uncommon for a man his age."
Yes, it's very uncommon for a sedentary, overweight, smoking 60-year-old man.
10944. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 12:34:19 PM
Men aged 40-50 *rarely* have heart attacks. It's very uncommon.
Heart attacks generally don't begin until you turn 75.
10945. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 12:35:27 PM
It's also very uncommon for a man who's had heart attacks to continue having heart problems.
Verrrrry uncommon.
10946. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 12:37:00 PM
A history of heart problems like his is uncommon for a man his age.
Nimrod: That's what the Letterman, Reeves, etc. links were to demonstrate. You want more?
What percentage of quadruple bypasses do you think are performed in men under the age of 60?
Incidentally, the survivability rate looking 10 years out is best for men who have them performed in Cheney's age group.
Cheney can keel over in office for all I care. It's not as if he's my Vice-President.
Good. Like Cazart and the Mote, you sure talk a lot about something you could care less about.
The issue that concerns me is the spin being put out by the White House. If they are willing to lie about such a patently obvious situation, they'll lie about anything.
They had to do something to get the Jenna story off the front page, Jade.
10947. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 12:38:03 PM
"Cheney can keel over in office for all I care. It's not as if he's my Vice-President."
He he he he. Nothing like sputtering, aimless spite.
10948. CalGal - 3/6/2001 12:38:33 PM
Francis,
Are you joking? I have done nothing but support that. Cheney was chosen for his experience, his ability to perform every job in the White House--he wasn't chosen because Wyoming was a critical state or he had a huge constituency that would rush to support him.
There aren't too many specific reasons why someone picks a vice president. It is rare that a nominee picks someone who can actually run the country, rather than for his campaign value, but Bush, with his particular management style, would be the one to make that kind of choice.
I was aware of the conventional wisdom, COO/CEO thing that was spread around the cable gang like a February virus.
And yet you pled complete ignorance of it just three hours ago.
10949. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 12:38:48 PM
IJ's really taking it to the house.
10950. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 12:38:54 PM
Here, again, is what we know about Cheney's health history. It is the tip of the iceberg.
Cheney has had at least four heart attacks. He has coronary heart disease and unstable angina. He has had a quadruple bypass. He has a stent in one artery that occluded within four months. He is only 60 years old.
This is the public information.
Ask any MD if this is a common, run-of-the-mill health history for the average 60-year-old.
10951. OhioSTOPAS - 3/6/2001 12:40:57 PM
Given Mr. Cheney's poor health, the people were wise to choose Joe Lieberman.
10952. CalGal - 3/6/2001 12:42:30 PM
Ohio,
hahahahaha.
10953. JudithAtHome - 3/6/2001 12:42:38 PM
Cheney had his first heart attack when he was 37 and his second at 43...that is uncommon in men.
Ace: You people are congenitally incapable of admitting error or misjudgement.
We so often see flaws in others we possess ourselves.
10954. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 12:43:26 PM
Here, again, is...
...Jade entering robot mode.
10955. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 12:45:07 PM
Cal
I've read what you've provided. You really haven't. But I suspect you just read your source material differently (and much more favorably and expansively to your own pronouncements) than I. Moreover, What I pled ignorance of, and remain ignorant of, is this: "Bush chose Cheney for a specific reason. He was capable of running the country so that Bush could be the front man. Powell can't do that."
You've provided nothing that shows:
1) Bush chose Cheney so Bush could be "the front man."
2) Powell can't run the country.
Insetad, you've read the COO/CEO conventional wisdom to mean "Bush chose Cheney for a specific reason. He was capable of running the country so that Bush could be the front man. Powell can't do that."
And given the divergence in reading styles, I can't imagine there is much more to say on this point.
10956. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 12:45:36 PM
"Ask any MD if this is a common, run-of-the-mill health history for the average 60-year-old."
It is common, run of the mill history for the average 60 year old who's had a heart attack.
You are preposterous. You keep citing "bypass," "stent," "heart attack," "angina" as if these are a host of disparate symptoms dangerously congregating in a single man.
Dipshit. "Unstable angina" is well-nigh synomous with "heart attack." Heart attacks are most often caused by narrowing of the arteries; stents are used to widen narrowed arteries. Bypasses are common to anyone who has hardening, narrowing arteries.
These are all symptoms/treatments of coronary disease, dipshit. Yes, it is COMMON to have all these symtoms/treatments, for they are all common symptoms/treatments of the same disease.
Dipshit Jadetard should begin asking, "Is it common for a 70 year old man like Joe Moakley to be lethargic? To have oddly high white blood cell counts? To undergo chemotherapy? To, on top of that, undergo radiation therapy? And to top it all off, he has LUEKEMIA!!! This is just the tip of the iceberg, folks. My 'sources' assure me."
Hoooookay.
10957. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 12:47:00 PM
Regarding Cheney's bypass. He had the bypass in 1988. Bypass grafts are generally good for a dozen years. The longevity of such grafts depend on lifestyle changes such as losing weight, stopping smoking, eating right, exercise, stress mitigation.
We know that Cheney gained 40 pounds after his bypass.
10958. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 12:48:57 PM
David Letterman had a quintuple bypass, angina, and at least one stent put in an artery, too.
Because he has coronary disease.
10959. Jenerator - 3/6/2001 12:49:35 PM
Is ridiculing a man's health problems the way Jade shows empathy,or is she just that much of a bitch?
10960. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 12:51:08 PM
"Bypass grafts are generally good for a dozen years."
Stents are often put in during bypass surgery.
They are often put in *before* bypass surgery.
They are often put in *after* bypass surgery.
Because both procedures are useful in amelioriating and chronic condition: coronary disease.
10961. JudithAtHome - 3/6/2001 12:51:39 PM
How many men do you know who've had a heart attack at 37, Ace?
Jade:
My auntie has had a bypass last over 20 years but she is scrupulous about diet, exercise, no smoking, etc. Her doctors are amazed.
10962. JudithAtHome - 3/6/2001 12:53:49 PM
Jen:
Don't tell me reading the Mote is all you have to do on a honeymoon?
10963. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 12:54:50 PM
Spaz:
Unstable angina is not "well-igh synonomous" with heart attack.
Angina is the pain when the heart muscle doesn't get enough oxygen. It can be caused by a blockage or partial blockage in the coronary arteries.
Stable angina is pain which is caused by exertion and is alleviated by rest and/or medication. Unstable angina is that pain which occurs at rest and is not necessarily controlled by medication.
10964. jonesatlaw - 3/6/2001 12:56:57 PM
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that Chenney had four episodes of chest pain before going to the hospital? I would imagine that the second would be enough to convince someone reasonably cautious that something needs to be checked out. Pain during exercise, maybe he thinks its muscular and not cardiac, okay. But he gets dressed and has chest pain? What's up with that?
10965. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 12:59:35 PM
"Angina is the pain when the heart muscle doesn't get enough oxygen. It can be caused by a blockage or partial blockage in the coronary arteries."
Yes, it is well-Nigh synonymous with "coronary disease," and "coronary disease" is synonymous with "heart attack."
You've prove it, Jadetard: Cheney has all the classic symptoms of coronary disease. It's extraordinarly uncommon to find all of these symptoms in one man.
Except, say, Dave Letterman. Or Dan Reeves. Or Bill Parcells. Or Nolan Ryan.
10966. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 12:59:47 PM
Judith:
Good for her.
I didn't mean that bypass grafts fall apart at a dozen years. Many grafts last decades if the patient is diligent about following a healthy regimen with regards to eating right, controlling weight, exercise and taking their medications.
Especially important to graft health is cholesterol which must be kept at far lower levels than recommended for healthy individuals.
10967. CalGal - 3/6/2001 1:04:38 PM
Powell can't run the country.
It's really not that complicated, Frankie, and yet you've managed to distort everything obscenely.
Back up. Here is my position.
a) Cheney is functionally running the country. This is not to deny Bush's leadership--it is possible to lead without being involved in the nuts and bolts.
b) Bush chose him with that in mind--that his skill in all various aspects of government far outweighed his negligible value as a campaign asset.
c) Were Cheney to step down, Bush has to either select a vice president who can do the same thing and that he is willing to trust with that responsibility, or (more likely) split the job up. Turn the veep back into a titular role and give the power that Cheney had to someone else.
So when you said, "Oooooh, oooh! Powell!" I was responding to it from that perspective. Your pick of Powell completely ignores the fact that Cheney is far more than just a Republican Gore. I don't think Powell is ready to run the country, but I distinctly remember saying that was my opinion--that more importantly, Bush is not likely to let him have the position because he doesn't appear to trust him and there's the loyalty factor. This means that if Bush offered him the job, it would be titular in nature--and I suspect Powell would turn it down.
10968. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 1:04:57 PM
What's up with Democrats and the "N" word these days? First, the Lieutenant Governor of California and now Senator Byrd?
10969. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 1:06:14 PM
Cal
Having obscenely distorted things, I'm glad you've cleared it up.
10970. CalGal - 3/6/2001 1:06:17 PM
Now, you asked for "proof". I don't think anyone reasonable would deny A--it is regularly reported that he has an incredible amount of authority. C is my opinion and I've said so--that was what I was rebutting. That left B, and the only thing that I thought I was asked to "prove"--and you specifically asked for analysis. I did so, both with one reasonably well-respected pundit and several cites from within the GOP and his staff.
I think that it is eminently obvious that Bush chose Cheney because he knows the management style he is comfortable with, and that Cheney is the sort of person who would allow Bush to play to his strengths. You asked for analysis to support that, I offered it. You specifically said you wouldn't require "facts", but analysis. You are now backing down from that. Yet it is quite obvious that Bush didn't choose Cheney for anything other than his ability to run the government, so what's to object to?
The notion that you would ask for "proof" that Powell couldn't run the country is absurd; so you'll have to forgive me for not thinking you were requesting it.
10971. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 1:06:30 PM
It's the new hip thing in the Democratic Party.
Instead of voting "Nay," you now vote "Niggah please."
In other news...
Hillary! was asked about reports that she had filed for divorce.
She declined comment.
Which is very interesting, no?
10972. JudithAtHome - 3/6/2001 1:07:52 PM
No.
10973. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 1:08:43 PM
It would be more interesting if she hopped on the Democratic wave of using the "N" word so she could add them to her record of an anti-Semitic slur.
10974. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 1:09:08 PM
Why won't Cheney release his medical records and history? Why won't he tell us what medications he's on?
10975. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 1:09:46 PM
"I will now call for a vote."
"Niggah please."
"Senator Rodham-Clinton votes Niggah please."
"Niggah please."
"Senator Schumer votes Niggah please."
"Aiii-ight."
"Senator Baucus votes Aiii-ight."
"Aiii-ight. And I have Senator Specter's proxy. He votes Aiii-ight."
"By a vote of 3-2, the Aiiii-ights have it. The resolution carries."
10976. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 1:11:30 PM
Jade
"Why won't Cheney release his medical records and history? Why won't he tell us what medications he's on?"
I remember your adamance on this point with President Clinton and I applaud your consistency.
10977. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 1:12:15 PM
JAH:
Okely-dokely. I'm sure they'll be together forever... I guess that's why they're pretty much living completely separate lives.
Now we know why they came to New York: To take advantage of our easy-peasy no-fault divorces. You just have to maintain separate residences for a year, and it's automatic.
10978. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 1:12:21 PM
10979. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 1:13:55 PM
I think TT says it best:
"Hillary Clinton-- One Classy Lady."
(Though it should be noted they mean that seriously.)
10980. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 1:15:51 PM
It shows in her breeding.
The Rodhams just ooze class.
10981. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 1:17:59 PM
Niner:
I need not tell you the difference.
One of my cardiologist cousins sympathizes with Cheney's doctors. They are forbidden to release any of Cheney's information due to patient confidentiality. But he knows that Cheney's problems are quite serious which is why the public is not getting access to Cheney's medical records.
10982. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 1:18:48 PM
Yes, they are America's Royalty. JFK and Jackie O are they.
10983. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 1:19:42 PM
Yes, the difference was that Clinton has herpes.
10984. JudithAtHome - 3/6/2001 1:21:47 PM
I'm sure Hillary and Bills sex lives, marriage, and seperate residences are just heaps more important than anything going on in DC right now so have at it...discuss and make jokes galore.
How 'bout that Laura Bush? She must be using Jenny Craig or something...lost some weight and her cheeks now have such interesting planes...she's looking really good!
10985. CalGal - 3/6/2001 1:21:49 PM
Jones,
I suspect that he was hoping it would go away. Given the strong and entirely realistic tendency to go into denial about these things, I think Cheney does a damn good job of fessing up pretty quickly and going in. What he really needs is a medical advisor checking in with him four or five times a day.
10986. Jenerator - 3/6/2001 1:24:06 PM
[Judith, the honeymoon starts this Friday.]
10987. JudithAtHome - 3/6/2001 1:24:43 PM
Cheney said since the previous one he has been eating right and exercising...I guess he was scared by the last one and that could be a good thing, if it makes him do the right stuff now.
10988. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 1:25:45 PM
NY Times on Cheney
Mr. Cheney repeatedly rejected requests by The New York Times to discuss his health during the campaign, and though his doctors said they were willing to do so, they said they did not receive his permission.
The doctors have said that Mr. Cheney takes a long list of medications, but they have not named them.
10989. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 1:27:23 PM
Cheney won't change his habits dramatically; and he will continue having cardiac episodes until Bush suggests he leaves office, or his wife suggests he leaves office, or both.
I imagine he will try to soldier on through this year. I hope no tragedy befalls him.
Certainly, he will not be VP candidate in 2004.
10990. ranheim - 3/6/2001 1:29:37 PM
I think that I have pointed this out in the Health thread on other occasions. Heart attacks (myocardial infarctions) are occurring earlier and earlier in men; with women catching up quickly. Most "experts" blame this on our sedentary life styles and a "Twinkie diet". I was in the USAF for most of the 1960s. Autopsies were done on many of our KIAs. Pathologists - back in the 60s now - were horrified at the state of the coronary arteries of these young killed in Viet Nam. I will assure you that this has not improved in the past 35 years or so.
Thoughtful - when I first srarted medicine in the 1960s we were beginning to see M.I.s in the 30s. In the past two years in my village of 2000, I have diagnosed 3 M.I.s in men in their 20s!
Unstable angina is a serious medical problem. I refer anyone that I suspect has unsatable angina to a Cardiologist. I have no doubts of my capabilities of handling stable angina in my office.
Chenney's treatment/s have been absolutely routine for the eras in which he has had them. My brother (a Cardiologist) and I spoke about this last night for about 30 minutes. My brother suggests, that were Chenney his patient, he would advise of month of very slow going. Then a second month of -maybe - half days; to see how things go. He follows politics much closer than do I. He doubts that Chenney will go along with that sort of advice.
Don't worry about the bag full of medications that Chenney takes. That, too, is routine. Several for his heart; at least one to keep his blood pressure down; at least to keep his cholesterol down. Six different medications : I would consider that routine. I would wonder if the number crept over a dozen.
10991. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 1:29:39 PM
Soldier on?
Come now, Spaz. Cheney avoided military service. Said he had higher "priorities."
10992. CalGal - 3/6/2001 1:30:06 PM
Ace,
I agree with 10989. I think his departure could seriously affect the Bush presidency.
10993. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 1:32:03 PM
So did Lieberman, who took the exact same number & type of deferments as Cheney (student, then married with children).
Gore had higher priorities too, for that matter. Oh, sure, he spent five months in Sleepaway Camp Vietnam, in the Bien Hoa "College Campus," with his ever-present security detail.
But actually put himself in harm's way? No, the Senator's Son had "other priorities."
10994. PsychProf - 3/6/2001 1:32:34 PM
Ranheim... Message # 10990...thanks for your experience and knowledge.
10995. Jenerator - 3/6/2001 1:33:44 PM
ranheim,
Have you noticed any age trends related to dilated congestive cardio myopathy?
10996. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 1:34:34 PM
Ranheim,
I see your brother and I raise you four of Jadetard's cousins.
10997. Jenerator - 3/6/2001 1:36:46 PM
millennial?
10998. Jenerator - 3/6/2001 1:37:06 PM
Come on!
10999. Jenerator - 3/6/2001 1:37:19 PM
1st
11000. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 1:37:32 PM
Cheney actively dodged the draft.
Much in the same way he's dodging providing information on his health concerns.
11001. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 1:37:34 PM
me
11002. Jenerator - 3/6/2001 1:37:41 PM
?
11003. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2001 1:38:13 PM
Indiana
Nitpicking:
Yet he [Yeltsin] made it through his term.
No he didn't. He stepped down five months early.
11004. ranheim - 3/6/2001 1:40:13 PM
#10995 Jen
I think that is mainly a function of the amount of training that has to occur to play sports at the major college or pro level today.
Take Mickey Mantle as an example. He admitted that he did nothing but eat and drink in the off-season. When did he play MLB? 50s and 60s.
A man with his huge talents would likely get away with that off-season conduct today. But, players with lessor talents have to go to GREAT lenghts to get their bodies in condition.
USAF pilots used the phrase "pushing the envelope" when trying out a new - to them - airplane. The superbly conditioned athlete of today is pushing the envelope.
11005. JudithAtHome - 3/6/2001 1:40:56 PM
Oh, sure, he spent five months in Sleepaway Camp Vietnam, in the Bien Hoa "College Campus," with his ever-present security detail.
Said with all the aplomb of a fearless man who never had to and never will face anything more dangerous than 5 o'clock traffic.
11006. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 1:41:13 PM
"Cheney actively dodged the draft."
By going to college and then getting married?
Yes, just as Lieberman dodged the draft. Precisely how Lieberman dodged the draft.
And then of course there's Gore... who signed up for a special, rich-need-only-apply two year tour, then spent THIRTEEN MONTHS of that tour "training" in Biloxi while American boys were being killed in Vietnam, then spent five months in a cushy, rear-area "College Campus" with a security detail protecting him, then requested an early discharge, four months before his already-short two-year tour was supposed to end...
...and of course the Senator's Son got that early dischage.
With four months' left in his tour, he claimed he was a short-timer and got discharged.
Yeah. Right. Meanwhile, most soldiers weren't considered short-timers until they were just a few weeks shy of the end of their tour.
Dodged the draft? You be the judge.
11007. Jenerator - 3/6/2001 1:44:54 PM
Ranheim??
An ex has dilated congestive cardio mypoathy. He's now 35, has had an angioplasty and is on a waiting list for a transplant. From some of the preliminary research I did, I noticed that it struck a high number of younger people. He was 28 when diagnosed.
11008. jonesatlaw - 3/6/2001 1:45:35 PM
I hope that Chenney gets a swift boot in the ass from Bush for ignoring the previous pains. As much as I think that the public has some interest in knowing the health of the VP, I wish they wouldn't have a damn press conference every time the guy has a problem. I am afraid that it deters him from getting checked out. I am also afraid that he might check out on us, and am nervous at the prospect of Bush the Lesser being Home Alone at the White House.
11009. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 1:47:15 PM
Cheney flunked out of Yale, then worked for the phone company in Wyoming.
As the draft approached, Cheney got into the U. of wyoming to get student deferments.
11010. JudithAtHome - 3/6/2001 1:47:59 PM
I am also afraid that he might check out on us, and am nervous at the prospect of Bush the Lesser being Home Alone at the White House.
How do you think Petit Bush feels?
11011. jonesatlaw - 3/6/2001 1:50:00 PM
I don't think Bush the Lesser is sharp enough to truly appreciate the risk. He is probably excited about the prospect of Jeb being VP, and having a frat reunion at the WH.
11012. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 1:52:46 PM
Jeb?
How about Condoleeza Rice?
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
11013. jonesatlaw - 3/6/2001 1:54:48 PM
I think Rice is only slightly more likely than say, Clarence Thomas, or Alan Keyes.
11014. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 1:56:19 PM
A dark horse for 2004 VP if Cheney steps aside: Christopher Cox.
11015. jonesatlaw - 3/6/2001 1:56:23 PM
Think Dick Armey
11016. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 1:57:00 PM
So... how about the leftist fag-baiting of SC Democrat Big Harpoolitan calling Lindsey Graham -- an "older bachelor," and, perhaps, a bit effeminate, if you take a gentle manner to be effeminate -- a "little too light in the loafers" to replace Jesse Helms?
He claims he didn't know what "light in the loafers" meant.
So, we have Democrats speaking of "Niggers" -- of both the white and black varieties -- and Harpoolitan calling an opponent "light in the loafers."
Where's the outrage?
11017. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 1:57:54 PM
Exactly.
Curious George isn't bright enough to realize that running the country isn't about photo ops and reading cue cards from Karl and Karen.
When Cheney goes, Curious George will look for loyalty above all else. A hallmark of the Bushies is to surround yourself with flunkies who will fall on a sword for them.
Like Bob MacFarlane and Cap Weinberger.
11018. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 1:58:56 PM
"A dark horse for 2004 VP if Cheney steps aside: Christopher Cox."
Boooooooring.
Who does Bush like? He likes who he likes. Who does he trust? He trusts who he trusts.
Who's a big-name candidate with a huge WOW factor that Bush both likes and trusts?
Who, apart from Cheney, Rove, and Hughes, has Bush spent the most time with?
Condi, Condi, Condi.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
11019. JudithAtHome - 3/6/2001 1:59:07 PM
Nice try, Ace.
I'm outraged. How's that?
11020. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:00:36 PM
He was bright enough to beat that apple polishing, butt-sniffing, leg-humping Sybil the Democratic Party nominated.
And that's bright enough for me.
11021. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 2:00:55 PM
Condoleeza Rice would be a great choice. It would hasten the demise of Asterisk's administration.
11022. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:01:30 PM
I notice no one brought it up.
You STILL bring up Dick Armey's five-year-old "Barney Fag" crack, and yet somehow you just plum didn't find the time to remark on a slur that occurred a week ago.
I wonder why that is...?
11023. OhioSTOPAS - 3/6/2001 2:02:45 PM
We're just stunned, since most old Democrats with "nigger" in their vocabulary switched to the Republican party long ago.
11024. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:03:12 PM
(Niner: My inconsistency regarding the efficacy of nominating a black VP is, of course, due to the fact that YOU put forward Powell while *I* put forward Rice.)
11025. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:03:16 PM
Rice would be wonderful. A smart, boring egghead incapable of making a bluster who will confound the race and gender merchants of the Democratic Party. Think Glenn Close in Air Force One.
11026. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 2:03:18 PM
Ace: Condi is definitely exciting. Didn't Cellar post she's a lesbian? I mean a black lesbian on a Republican ticket. Now that's pretty exciting.
But Chris Cox could be groomed for 2008. Then you load up with an exciting VP (Hispanic, black, woman, something like that).
Cox is from California, has a Cheney-type charisma (boring but comes across as knowledgeable and thoughtful). Well-rounded resume and not an old coot.
That's my dark horse.
Bush-Cox has a certain ring to it.
11027. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 2:04:02 PM
Anybody else notice how quiet Condo's been in light of the Hanssen spy case?
Indicates Condo doesn't know as much about US-Russia relations as touted.
11028. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:04:42 PM
IJ:
If you're going to nominate "the future of the party," nominate John Kasich, not Chris Cox.
11029. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:05:01 PM
Ace
(I got it)
And the silence over the Democrats "N" word fiesta is deafening.
11030. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:06:12 PM
Anyone notice how quiet Gore's been about the Hanssen affair?
Indicates he's not too well-versed in US-Russian relations.
Anyone notice how quiet Clinton's been about the Hanseen affair?
How about Hillary! ?
11031. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 2:06:44 PM
He's too light in the loafers, Ace.
And I wonder at his penchant for Patsy Cline records.
11032. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:07:14 PM
John Kasich is too "Aw shucks, Gee whiz" for me.
I got one for you. A Texas to Texas transfer in 2008.
President Kay Bailey Hutchison.
11033. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:07:23 PM
Niner,
I must say, though, that Rice seems genuinely enthused to be a Republican, whereas Powell seems duty-bound to be one, though he's none too happy about it.
11034. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:08:27 PM
Anyone notice how quiet Jade's been about the Hanssen affair?
Indicates he's not too well-versed in US-Russian relations.
Perhaps she needs to read The Nation more carefully.
11035. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:08:30 PM
FU:
I got one: The Republicans nominate Barney Frank as VP. Now that's got some WOW!
11036. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 2:08:33 PM
Deep down, John Kasich is a white you-know-what.
11037. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:09:30 PM
I wonder what Condi's hiding...
11038. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:11:01 PM
John Kasich is solid. He *looks* boyish, and that is a problem. Especially wrt GWB, who was regarded as a lightweight himself.
But now GWB doesn't have to worry about getting elected. Stroke of the pen, Kasich is nominated. Kinda cool.
11039. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:11:26 PM
Ace
I'd be happy with either one. They both have foreign policy know-how and they both have the potential to make Democratic strategists go so crazy that, in desperation, they'll give Donna Brazile her third involvement in losing a national race.
11040. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 2:12:45 PM
Spaz:
Condo's just trying to pass.
11041. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2001 2:13:04 PM
Kasich is entirely out of office, right?
If you just want to drive the Democrats crazy, nominate Ashcroft.
11042. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:13:11 PM
Condi's current position, as an advisor, is more harmonious with the job of Veep. She'd still be an advisor... she'd just have to speak more on domestic policy.
It's tough for a Secretary of State to take on the job. And Colin Powell wants the SecState job and does not want the Veep.
11043. CalGal - 3/6/2001 2:14:37 PM
So who's going to do Cheney's job, if any of these nominations come to pass?
11044. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:14:43 PM
"Kasich is entirely out of office, right?"
Yes, which is a further plus, of course.
"Condo's just trying to pass."
As what, Jadetard?
11045. Fielding - 3/6/2001 2:15:35 PM
FU:
"It would be more interesting if she hopped on the Democratic wave of using the "N" word so she could add them to her record of an anti-Semitic slur."
This is pretty lame.
11046. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:16:18 PM
"So who's going to do Cheney's job, if any of these nominations come to pass?"
Good lord. Do you imagine he is irreplaceable? No, he is not irreplaceable. He is a solid man. But he is replaceable.
For god's sakes, Jim Baker could easily take the advisor/liason job.
11047. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 2:16:37 PM
11048. Stumbo - 3/6/2001 2:17:02 PM
Kasich is a poor man's P.J. O'Rourke.
11049. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:17:30 PM
Kasich looks like Dennis the Menace.
11050. JJBiener - 3/6/2001 2:17:32 PM
Ace - I must say, though, that Rice seems genuinely enthused to be a Republican, whereas Powell seems duty-bound to be one, though he's none too happy about it.
Powell is very much a Republican. There are a couple of issues where there is some disagreement, but on the vase majority of issues he firmly in the Republican camp. Condi is a Republican because she knows the Democrats are the party of racists and always has been.
11051. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:17:44 PM
Robert Scheer now, Jadetard? Yeah, right.
11052. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:18:17 PM
Fielding
Eh. We all can't bat .400.
11053. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:18:32 PM
JJ:
I respectfully disagree.
11054. CalGal - 3/6/2001 2:18:41 PM
Do you imagine he is irreplaceable? No, he is not irreplaceable. He is a solid man. But he is replaceable.
I didn't say he wasn't. I asked who would take his job.
Baker would be too humiliating for Bush, although I agree that he'd go to him if he were desperate.
11055. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:20:15 PM
Jadetard,
Isn't it terribly sad how the constellation of Clinton-defenders has so shrank?
Who's left? Begala, Conason, Scheer, Lyons -- and, of course, all of Salon and a few Ol' Reliables at Slate.
Such a pity.
11056. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:21:32 PM
"Kasich looks like Dennis the Menace."
The mantle of power is a great antidote to an appearance of callowness.
11057. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 2:22:05 PM
It's not that Cheney's irreplaceable.
The question is finding someone who will do the real work and catch spears while Curious George works on his "Crash Bandicoot" scores. Cheney was a rare DC creature who had no aspirations on the top job.
It's not that Cheney was good at his job or particularly adroit. His contribution was he was willing to subjugate himself to the chimp. I don't see many out there who are willing to take this on.
11058. JJBiener - 3/6/2001 2:22:42 PM
Ace - I respectfully disagree.
That's nice. You're still wrong. Listen to the man speak sometime. I heard him a couple of years ago. The man is definitely a Republican. No question about it.
11059. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:23:49 PM
You could pick any of a dozen folks for VP, but in the event of a death, you need a Washington insider instead of some Governor. You also need stature and/or foreign policy experience, so that zaps most House members.
The following would be great choices:
Colin Powell
Condi Rice
Fred Thompson
Kay Bailey Hutchison
The follwoing would be
11060. CalGal - 3/6/2001 2:23:52 PM
The question is finding someone who will do the real work and catch spears while Curious George works on his "Crash Bandicoot" scores. Cheney was a rare DC creature who had no aspirations on the top job.
That's true, but I'm figuring that the job will be split the next time round. The veep will be titular, the real work will be done by someone else. I suspect Card will be taking on a lot.
I will be very surprised if the next Veep is as active as even Gore was--I think the Republicans will revert to form.
11061. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:23:59 PM
JJ:
You don't have to get snippy about it.
11062. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 2:24:22 PM
Wiener's here?
I thought, given the recent Supreme Court ruling, he'd be cleaning a section of Missouri roadway.
11063. CalGal - 3/6/2001 2:24:39 PM
Francis,
You are short, which makes it easier to duck the point. None of your replacements will "do Cheney's job". They'll just be veep. BFD. I'm interested in who'll be getting all of Cheney's power.
11064. Fielding - 3/6/2001 2:24:59 PM
I'm calling on Byrd to resign. In fact, I think that anybody caught uttering a slur on tape should resign.
People stopping just short of a slur (things like Pansy, truckdriver, etc.) don't have to resign, but their constituents should vote against them on principle.
I'm also calling on the Democrats to call for Byrd to resign.
11065. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:25:19 PM
Ace
No. He has a cowlick and he gets all quavery when he speaks. He's Quayle. With smarts and a little more poise. He also has no job.
11066. CalGal - 3/6/2001 2:26:14 PM
Oops. Hit enter too soon.
And I can't help but think that any sensible, competent person would turn down the job knowing they aren't going to get the power--unless they have real aspirations for the Presidency. Bush hasn't seemed interested in bringing in someone like that, though, since he values loyalty above all. So if he's forced to bring in someone purely for appearances sake, I don't see him bringing in anyone who can present a serious challenge.
11067. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:26:57 PM
"He also has no job."
And the problem is...?
You're nominating Senators out of a 50-50 Senate, Douchebagsayswhat.
11068. CalGal - 3/6/2001 2:26:58 PM
Yes, I think Kasich will fit the bill. He's Quayle redux. So who gets Dick's real job?
11069. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:27:18 PM
Cal
I wasn't responding to your point, salient as it may be.
Fielding
Eh. People say stupid stuff. Especially old people with Parkinson's. You are overreacting.
11070. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 2:28:31 PM
Perhaps, ValGal.
If they do revert to form, it's a disaster for Curious George. Andy Card might take it on but I doubt he's ready for primetime. He's a bureaucrat not a politician.
11071. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:28:37 PM
Ace
Texas and Tennessee sport GOP governors, whiz kid. Go get me a Krispy Kreme, sit down, and learn something.
11072. CalGal - 3/6/2001 2:29:05 PM
Francis,
I knew you weren't, but then I haven't seen sign that you grokked yet. It seemed simple enough.
In any event, my response is that your list is too competent and too ambitious, given Bush's needs. He won't go for most of the ones on the list. The amiable, unthreatening nonentity seems most likely, which is why I agree with Kasich as a pick.
11073. Fielding - 3/6/2001 2:29:22 PM
Cheney's got a lot of power, especially for a VEEP, but those suggestions that he is running the Government are a bit overstated. You guys make it sound like George Bush is the Wizard of Oz, and Dick Cheney is the man behind the curtain.
11074. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:30:03 PM
That's what they tell me on Hardball.
11075. CalGal - 3/6/2001 2:30:36 PM
Jade,
Andy wouldn't take it on as veep, but as chief of staff.
If Cheney does leave, I wonder if Bush will realize he has two jobs to fill? If he does, then the administration should go on with no problem. If he doesn't realize it, or if that unofficial transition doesn't go smoothly, it could hurt.
11076. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:31:18 PM
"So if he's forced to bring in someone purely for appearances sake, I don't see him bringing in anyone who can present a serious challenge."
Bush's entire fucking cabinet "presents a serious challenge" in terms of experience and gravitas. Bush nominated nothing but heavyweights. Compare his cabinet to the Shalala and Reno infested cabinet it replaced.
Bush didn't pick Cheney because he sought no higher office. He picked Cheney because he trusted him to serve him, rather than himself. The fact that Cheney didn't want to run for President added to Bush's confidence that Cheney would be a loyal soldier; but that wasn't a prerequisite. That's just the way it worked out.
Bush had many possible presidential candidates on his veep short-list. Governors, and young ones-- nowhere to get promoted to except the presidency, and you can't retire at age 50. He didn't choose them, but NOT because they would consider running for President one day.
11077. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 2:32:24 PM
Fielding:
It's worse than that. The Wizard of Oz was an image fully controlled by the man behind the curtain.
Curious George is a loose cannon on a pitching deck.
11078. CalGal - 3/6/2001 2:32:29 PM
Cheney's got a lot of power, especially for a VEEP, but those suggestions that he is running the Government are a bit overstated.
There's nothing wrong with it if he were--it casts no aspersions on Bush. It is, as I said, a perfectly good management model. Nothing wrong with it, and it doesn't mean that Bush isn't in charge.
11079. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:34:56 PM
"Texas and Tennessee sport GOP governors, whiz kid."
Jadetard mode on:
I knew that, of course. But there are reasons it would be terribly unwise to nominate these Senators.
I am unsurprised you cannot think of these reasons.
I will coquettishly drop a hint: Think Seniority.
Jadetard mode off
I must say, though, that I'm not terribly impressed by Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Camille Paglia has it right --the first woman veep or President will have to come from the military or the related military-diplomatic establishment, to overcome the natural prejudice that women just don't "get" world affairs and defense.
Further, she's from Texas, which, while not quite unconstitutional, is nearly unconstitutional, and will present incredible problems in 2004.
Whiz kid.
11080. CalGal - 3/6/2001 2:37:34 PM
Ace,
Actually, Bush wanted Cheney from the start. He was the first one asked (at least according to several reports) and it was only after Cheney said no that he resigned himself to looking at other people. The people he considered seriously were those who he felt he could trust. I believe Danforth was one of the last people considered.
However, I never said that he wouldn't choose someone solely because they weren't interested in higher office. I do believe, however, that their interest would mean that he would almost automatically flunk them on the loyalty test, whether consciously or not.
Bush's entire fucking cabinet "presents a serious challenge" in terms of experience and gravitas.
That's not the veep slot. Quite different.
In any event, I don't think there is anyone who can do Cheney's job, be a suitable veep choice, and have no career ambitions--which is why I think Bush will split the function. Barring that, the "suitable veep choice" may be redefined from our current definition, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
11081. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:38:04 PM
And Fred Thompson... well, he seems to be a good candidate. But it's a bit like the dog who didn't bark.
If he's presidential timber, why hasn't he thrown a hat in the ring yet? Perhaps his bachelor lifestyle is a bit more fun than we know.
11082. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:40:54 PM
Ace
No. It would not cause problems. For several reasons.
First, while running for a second term, as opposed to running for the first time, regional balance is largely unnecessary.
Second, seniority, sen-smority. The GOP can put up animals for Senate in Texas and Tennessee for the foreseeable future, and those animals would win.
Third, think Spiro Agnew. Dipshit.
Your point about the foreign policy/woman thing is well-stated, but times have changed. As I said, think Glenn Close, Air Force One.
Hutchison has been around since 1993, she's not up again until 2006, and she's a solid conservative with very, very senatorially large hair.
11083. CalGal - 3/6/2001 2:42:42 PM
First, while running for a second term, as opposed to running for the first time, regional balance is largely unnecessary.
Can both the veep and the president be from the same state? I thought that wasn't allowed.
11084. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:43:10 PM
Actually, Bush wanted Cheney from the start. He was the first one asked (at least according to several reports) and it was only after Cheney said no that he resigned himself to looking at other people.
First time I've heard this. Cheney was always in the hunt, I suppose, but Bush was big on Keating for a while.
Keating wasn't selected for entirely different reasons. Keating basically took a lot of money from a big donor. No impropriety is alleged, but Bush sure as shit didn't need that headache.
Does Keating want to be President? Yes he does. Did that stop Bush from seriously considering him? No, it really didn't.
11085. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:44:19 PM
Cal
So, she moves. To Chappaqua.
11086. Jenerator - 3/6/2001 2:45:28 PM
Francis,
Any room for Georgette Mosbacher?
11087. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:45:34 PM
Dipshit Niner,
If Hutchinson runs for Veep in 2004, that would mean that both the President and Veep are from the same state, and the Electors in the Electoral College are prohibited from voting for two Texans.
And no, GWB really couldn't claim to be a "resident" of Washington DC. Not in the real world.
The seniority stuff was a joke. I was acting like Jadetard, covering up a error with sly hints that I was really right.
11088. Fielding - 3/6/2001 2:46:23 PM
If the President and VEEP are from the same state, the electoral votes don't count for the VEEP.
11089. CalGal - 3/6/2001 2:46:33 PM
Ace,
Again, I am not asserting that "lack of ambition" is a requirement--what I am saying is that ambition would cause Bush to question loyalty.
Had Bush not chosen Cheney, his pick almost certainly wouldn't have gotten the power that Cheney has. Bush would probably have then slotted Cheney in as chief of staff and run the country taht way.
Keating wasn't selected because Bush wanted Cheney. All the veep people ponied up their information and went through the vetting process long after Cheney had gone back to Bush and said "yeah, I'll take the job." At least I just read that recently, so hang tight and let me find the cite.
11090. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:48:17 PM
"Keating wasn't selected because Bush wanted Cheney."
Not the way I hear it. Keating wasn't selected because he would open the Bush campaign to the same charges they wanted to use against Gore.
11091. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:49:05 PM
Senior Bush advisors told the media: "It's Keating." They were not spoofing us.
(I don't think. Bush's love of surprises nonwithstanding.)
11092. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:49:49 PM
Keating wasn't offered the post of AG for the same reason.
11093. CalGal - 3/6/2001 2:51:02 PM
Francis,
I have a feeling that would make her ineligible for being Senator of Texas.
Ace,
Bush's Veep Selection
I forgot about Powell--Bush wanted Powell most of all, even more than Cheney. That was the one "political" pick he was interested in. But he offered it to Cheney after that.
11094. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:52:03 PM
Robert Novak is the one who reported that Keating was the first choice of Bush.
11095. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:55:26 PM
Cal,
I've read that article before. But you know, when they sign Tom Hanks for a movie, and Hanks bails out, and then they sign Bill Pullman, they always say:
"We wanted Bill all along."
I believe, even if you don't, that Bush *had* chosen Keating (a great candidate, by the way), but that Keating was then elimated when they discovered some suspcious-looking donations.
Leaving them in a hole.
11096. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:56:37 PM
Cheney was Bush's first pick... after Powell, Keating, and Ridge.
Powell, Keating, and Ridge were each eliminated for one reason or another.
11097. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 2:57:43 PM
Ace
Pop quiz, hot shot.
It took Lyndon Johnson ____ to select a vice president after Kennedy was killed.
Do you think think Hutchison could find a house in Chappaqua in that amount of time?
What do you do?
What do you do?
11098. CalGal - 3/6/2001 2:58:38 PM
Ace,
Well, I believe the fact that Cheney was offered, said no, and then later told Bush that he'd reconsidered has been reported more than once.
In any event, what I was trying to get across was this: had he gone with Keating or someone like that, he would not have handed over the keys. Cheney or Card or one of that ilk would have been given chief of staff and that would have been how things were run.
Also, the fact that he was willing to go with fairly powerful personalities at the time, if needed, doesn't mean he'll do that the second time round--his veep pick won't be as closely scrutinized if Cheney leaves mid-term.
11099. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 2:59:15 PM
Keating has a big problem with people putting money into his pockets for no apparent reason other than to curry favor.
Sounds like Curious George.
11100. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 2:59:29 PM
I should also note the reports that the Bush people were rather angry at Keating. Due, presumably, to the position he left them in.
You don't get angry at someone just because you choose not to offer them a job. They froze Keating out -- they didn't even offer him the AG slot, which everyone assumed he would get -- because they were upset about the donation question, and upset about how they found out about it (through their own research rather than a disclosure by Keating).
Now, this is what was reported. Why would Bush aides tell the press this if Keating was never really considered?
11101. CalGal - 3/6/2001 3:00:54 PM
Why would Bush aides tell the press this if Keating was never really considered?
I thought all of this came out when he didn't get the AG slot. I don't remember it coming out at the time of the veep nom.
11102. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 3:01:17 PM
"It took Lyndon Johnson ____ to select a vice president after Kennedy was killed."
"Until 1964"? Is that what you're looking for?
There was no constitutional power to appoint a Vice President until the passage of the 25th Amendment, after 1964.
Yeah, I read "Explainer" today, too, hotshot.
11103. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 3:01:55 PM
Yes, that is when it came out. How is the timing of the leak relevant to the facts alleged?
11104. CalGal - 3/6/2001 3:02:02 PM
Ace,
That Time article has to be way the hell off base if your recount is correct. Keating is barely mentioned.
11105. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 3:03:14 PM
"Do you think think Hutchison could find a house in Chappaqua in that amount of time?"
I think a divorced couple will be selling a large home already tricked-out for Secret Service protection by then, yes.
But you are being silly.
11106. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 3:03:50 PM
BTW, Keating is none too happy with Curious George's handlers releasing the information on his questionable donations.
11107. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 3:04:13 PM
Ace
I can't believe you're not getting this. Oh well. Must be that second tier education.
So I guess your answer is that you can wait at least long enough under our present system to find an apartment in another state?
Eh, sport.
(what is Explainer?)
11108. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 3:05:17 PM
"That Time article has to be way the hell off base if your recount is correct."
Cal,
When Cubby Broccoli lost Pierce Brosnan to Remington Steele, and had to sign up also-ran Timothy Dalton to play James Bond, but said, "We wanted Timothy all along... he was always our perfect vision of Bond," did you believe him?
11109. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 3:07:29 PM
BTW, Keating is none too happy with Curious George's handlers releasing the information on his questionable donations.
REALLY?!!?!!? Shit, I had no fucking IDEA!!! Did your Number One Cousins unearth this juicy tidbit? Or did you just read it on Drudge like everyone fucking else (nevermind the fact that it's common fucking sense)?
To All:
Did I ever tell you the story about FU's glory days as a shortstop at Sidwell Friends Academy?
Quite an interesting tale.
11110. CalGal - 3/6/2001 3:08:00 PM
Ace,
No, but the reports at least mention the fact that they tried to get Pierce Brosnan, and you have quotes from Pierce saying, "I'm pissed because those motherfuckers at ABC held me to another year of a tanking TV show."
In other words, if Keating had been courted hard, where is the coverage? It may be out there, I just haven't seen it. Danforth is mentioned conspicuously, as is Ridge. No mention of Keating.
11111. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 3:08:37 PM
"So I guess your answer is that you can wait at least long enough under our present system to find an apartment in another state?"
It's not that simple, Shortstop.
Think "change of address" forms.
11112. Francis Urquhart - 3/6/2001 3:09:38 PM
Spaz
Such a shame. How does it feel to have a President with the IQ of a marmoset?
Here's a clue on your Hutchison point.
Think vicuna coat.
11113. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 3:10:50 PM
"In other words, if Keating had been courted hard, where is the coverage?"
Five days before Cheney was selected, several people were reporting, flatly, "It's Keating."
Drudge ran a big headline.
The story (FU says) originated with Robert Novak. I guess that's right. But I saw lots of people reporting it, and they cited high-level Bush advisors.
Now, is it possible they were either a) in the dark or b) using Keating as bluff to keep the actual pick a surprise? I suppose either is possible, but none seems terribly likely.
11114. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 3:12:36 PM
Shortstuff,
I know all about vicuna coats.
But a Gonzaga graduate can hardly be expected to understand the nuances of the situation.
Think Prettyboy Floyd.
11115. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 3:14:26 PM
Cal,
Let's just agree to disagree, I guess.
It comes down to this: Given the choice between an official, fed-to-the-press "We wanted Cheney all along" story or dirty details dribbled out by aides, I put more stock in the unofficial account of events.
11116. CalGal - 3/6/2001 3:17:21 PM
Ace,
Actually, I don't have a lot of energy about it one way or the other--I'm just suspicious of your assertion. If Keating had been courted hard, I think Time would have mentioned it, or at least mentioned the reports of it. I remember the reports at the time as well, but the one I remember being seriously considered was Ridge.
However--back to my original point--the veep job would have been very different had he been forced to make a campaign-friendly selection.
11117. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 3:18:22 PM
Jadetard,
Do you have any other scoops? I was just blown away by your Keating revelation. Imagine! A politician upset by a leak about suspicious-looking donations!
Do you have hard confirmation on this? An unimpeachable source?
11118. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 3:18:46 PM
Keating was never in the running for Veep.
11119. AceofSpades - 3/6/2001 3:20:21 PM
"If Keating had been courted hard, I think Time would have mentioned it, or at least mentioned the reports of it."
Think "distancing," ValGal.
Think "burying the story under an avalanche of lies."
Think, "Kenny 'R2-D2' Baker."
11120. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 3:21:02 PM
Looks like Curious George is starting to develop another one of his anxiety boils.
11121. CalGal - 3/6/2001 3:25:10 PM
Ace,
Naw. There is a difference between the campaign trying to avoid it and it not being reported at all.
But as I said, that's not my focus.
I still think that Cheney's disappearance could cause a huge vacuum, and I wonder if Bush administration is planning for it.
11122. JJBiener - 3/6/2001 3:28:55 PM
Jade - Looks like Curious George is starting to develop another one of his anxiety boils.
I was wondering where you came from.
11123. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 3:31:15 PM
Wiener:
Busy day on the roadway?
11124. JJBiener - 3/6/2001 3:39:59 PM
Jade - Busy day on the roadway?
I have told you a dozen times that I don't pick up trash. I won't date you no matter how much you beg.
11125. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 3:41:19 PM
You're far too rotund, Wiener. I prefer taller men.
11126. JJBiener - 3/6/2001 3:43:27 PM
Jade - Begging is quite unseemly. Please stop. You are embarassing yourself.
11127. JadeGold1 - 3/6/2001 3:46:41 PM
Besides, I am too young for you.
We know your tastes run more toward the Centrum Silver set.
11128. JJBiener - 3/6/2001 4:07:26 PM
Jade - You are far too immature, I will grant you that. Age has nothing to do with it. I prefer the company of people who act like adults, not spoiled children. Your incessant whining would be intolerable.
11129. OhioSTOPAS - 3/6/2001 4:56:58 PM
Remember that business about the Bush debate preparation videotape that was mysteriously mailed to a Gore campaign adviser?
An arrest has been made.
11130. RosettaStone - 3/6/2001 5:32:12 PM
A classsic Democratic mole spy story.
Unfortunately for the Demos, Bush won all three debates.
11131. ranheim - 3/6/2001 6:03:31 PM
#11007 Jen
I apologize for my goof. I was skimming and I thought "Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy". This is what killed the basketball player, Hank Gathers, roughly 10 years ago.
I don't believe I have ever had a patient - or done any reading about - dilated congestive cardiomyopathy.
If you have plugged this diagnosis into "google", you know more about it than I do.
My Cardiology source, my brother, is planning a trip to the Iberian Penn. He is somewhere in Minneapolis learning about what he should take and all such information tonight. I may be able to catch him before his trip.
11132. RosettaStone - 3/6/2001 6:22:12 PM
Is Jen really posting in mote's political thread attacking the magnetic JadeGold1 while Jenerator is on her honeymoon (@juDY accusation)?
Is romance dead? Tell us it isn't true?
I remember my wife quoting Noel Coward on our wedding day: "Learn the lines and don't bump into the furniture."
11133. jexster - 3/6/2001 7:29:08 PM
Ann and I will carry out this equivocal message to the world: Markets must be open."--Swearing-in ceremony for Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, Washington, D.C., March 2, 2001
11134. joezan - 3/6/2001 9:03:25 PM
Read 'em 'n weep, you crybabies - census numbers will stand
In making the decision, Evans turned aside pleas by Democrats and civil rights groups to use a second, statistically adjusted population tally that they said would make up for an estimated 3.3 million uncounted Americans.
...all Democrats no doubt, these "uncounted".
11135. concerned - 3/6/2001 10:12:58 PM
Re. 11134 -
joezan -
Democrats are not, by and large, too strong on logic and fairness.
11136. joezan - 3/6/2001 10:27:41 PM
concerned:
Yeah...but now we're gonna have to put up with jex's and jade's inevitable:
It's not *MY* population!....
11137. joezan - 3/6/2001 10:32:30 PM
..and can't you just see Jesse Jackson going around with a pen and pad, asking everyone he meets, Did they count you?
Then, he'll come up with some story about the police stealing census forms from Haitian folks' mailboxes.
Then, the NYT will begin the "real" count, and we can read jex's earth-shattering updates right here for the next 25 years.
11138. concerned - 3/7/2001 1:37:02 AM
I wouldn't be too surprised, considering their comprehensive duplicity, Democrats will be telling us next that a 'good' vote is one that stays bought.
11139. concerned - 3/7/2001 1:42:58 AM
Didn't Jexster announce recently that the Orlando Squawker's wild ass sample recount uncovered over 10,000 dimpled ballots by undocumented aliens almost exclusively cast for Pinocchio Bore, and that Bore therefore won the double secret triple dip non-US citizen vote in Florida or some such twaddle?
11140. RosettaStone - 3/7/2001 5:53:49 AM
10,000?
I thought it was 100,000.
Maybe I got it wrong. Let's have another recount.
11141. RosettaStone - 3/7/2001 8:47:05 AM
The papers this morning are reporting that the Democratic Party payed for 75% of the "Rev" Jesse Jackson's travel expenses last year.
In 2000, the bill came to $614,000.
11142. JadeGold1 - 3/7/2001 8:48:41 AM
Great Photo of Jenna
This is going to be fun.
11143. JadeGold1 - 3/7/2001 8:53:56 AM
Report: Cheney Faces One in Four Chance Of Needing Major Heart Surgery Before May
11144. Francis Urquhart - 3/7/2001 9:06:57 AM
11145. glendajean - 3/7/2001 9:10:05 AM
But it is to say that many of Clinton's actions as president can be fully understood only if one understands him to be a deeply disturbed person--not fully in control of himself or his actions.
Almost a verbatim description by liberals of the Johnson and Nixon presidencies.
11146. JadeGold1 - 3/7/2001 9:11:29 AM
Big buzz in DC this AM: When will Cheney resign?
It's beginning to sink in that Cheney's health is not good and isn't going to get better. Repugs worried Curious George's "message" lost amid media speculation over Cheney's health.
Calls for Cheney to release medical records/history increasing.
Curious George's handlers have begun making short lists of Repug Governors and Senators holding safe seats.
11147. Indiana Jones - 3/7/2001 9:14:45 AM
Jade: As stupid a source as your usual. The man is not a cardiologist himself, but like you, has unnamed "sources." The sentence you reference is classic. What it actually says:
"The cardiologists with whom I have talked say people with Cheney’s medical history have about a one in four chance of needing major heart surgery by May."
Read that sentence carefully. Then smirk at its amateurishness. Even you can do better than such freshman comp sentence structure and non sequitur.
Now look at some of the other statements the author makes while discussing Cheney's "condition":
"Just as our current method for elections has been
shown to be inadequate and dated, so are our requirements for assessing the health of those who aspire to the highest public offices in the land....The dominant power of the 21st century should not be electing its leaders using 19th century technology in the voting booth or the doctor’s office."
Cheney's being treated with 19th century technology? What do voting booths have to do with Cheney's heart, and why is a "bioethicist's" opinion of the former relevant?
Hackery.
11148. glendajean - 3/7/2001 9:18:58 AM
Actually, Cheny could become the Jewish mother of the Bush Administration. Everytime they start to do something that he disagrees with, he can say, "Ok.... Uh, excuse me. ... Sorry .... a little pain .... nothing to worry about .... Lynn, get the pastor on the phone ...
11149. Francis Urquhart - 3/7/2001 9:23:26 AM
glenda
As a non-liberal, I concur in the diagnosis of Nixon.
11150. Francis Urquhart - 3/7/2001 9:24:37 AM
Jade
I want the coin. I'm willing to offer a baseball or football card from the 70s. Name some players. Let's talk turkey.
11151. Indiana Jones - 3/7/2001 9:34:23 AM
The Castration of Wayne DuMond
11152. Indiana Jones - 3/7/2001 9:34:47 AM
(cont.)
As Clinton was vying for the presidency, he sat on the parole board's DuMond clemency recommendation. Insisting that he wanted to wait until the appeals process was complete (the opposite tack he took in the Rich case), Clinton met with Stevie Stevens and powerful state representative Pat Flanagin (whose sister used to shoot craps with Conlee in the sheriff's office) and convinced the board to reconsider its recommendation.
11153. Fielding - 3/7/2001 10:05:17 AM
Indy:
A gruesome tale, but what's your point?
11154. Francis Urquhart - 3/7/2001 10:18:26 AM
From Salon:
"Sabato said the raw political calculation would favor Powell. "Suppose Bush could finally crack the toughest nut of his presidency --the African-American vote, which is deeply suspicious of him -- by doing something the Democrats have never done. All he needs is 20 percent of the African-American vote and the Democrats can't win. He could lose it 80-20 [in the black vote] and make it impossible for the Democrats to win. Powell gives him the opening that he would never have otherwise."
I'm uncomfortable having Sabato on my side in this discussion. Accordingly, I hereby adopt Ace's suggestion - Condi Rice - as the strongest and most bold potential replacement for Cheney.
11155. Indiana Jones - 3/7/2001 10:31:51 AM
Fielding: A side helping of prurience to go with the tales of Jenna's partying down.
A story involving castration generally can't make a point.
11156. Jenerator - 3/7/2001 10:44:54 AM
[Rosetta, I'm not on my honeymoon yet. I assure you that I will not be posting at this time on Friday.]
11157. Fielding - 3/7/2001 10:49:15 AM
Jen:
Are you married yet? If so, how was the wedding? (You can respond in the Cafe if that is more appropriate).
11158. bbb - 3/7/2001 4:42:21 PM
Is DH100 here?
11159. bbb - 3/7/2001 4:45:43 PM
11160. bbb - 3/7/2001 4:48:33 PM
Colin Powell acted and sounded like a REAL SoS today in the Congress Hearing.
No more Mad Not-so-Bright!
11161. bbb - 3/7/2001 4:52:22 PM
11162. JadeGold1 - 3/7/2001 4:59:46 PM
It's not looking good for Cheney.
Apparently, GWU doctors did advise Cheney to stop working. He declined.
There are Repug strategy sessions underway to determine if Curious George's handlers allow Cheney to continue or ask him to step aside.
11163. Indiana Jones - 3/7/2001 5:04:25 PM
DH100 has an account here, bbb, but he never posts. JadeGold offers better amusement, however.
11164. bbb - 3/7/2001 5:06:34 PM
Bill Clinton is finally down and out with his exit acts. 11165. bbb - 3/7/2001 5:07:26 PM Indy, 11166. RosettaStone - 3/7/2001 5:10:38 PM Jen: Best of luck to the husband on your honeymoon. 11167. bbb - 3/7/2001 5:10:51 PM Indy, 11168. bbb - 3/7/2001 5:12:15 PM RS, 11169. RosettaStone - 3/7/2001 5:17:20 PM BbB: I no trash. I create threads. But they're working 24/7 now, and I just don't have the jam to keep it up. 11170. JadeGold1 - 3/7/2001 5:20:21 PM Given Cheney's poor ejection fractions, even a minor heart attack (if there's such a thing) will likely kill him. 11171. JudithAtHome - 3/7/2001 5:25:06 PM whether or not they did an adequate job of examining Cheney's health during the campaign. 11172. bbb - 3/7/2001 5:27:37 PM RS, 11173. JadeGold1 - 3/7/2001 5:27:58 PM You and I know that, Judith. 11174. bbb - 3/7/2001 5:32:23 PM Powell Looks To Save on Embassies 11175. bbb - 3/7/2001 5:45:38 PM RS, 11176. JadeGold1 - 3/7/2001 5:54:30 PM Dick Cheney: PuppetMaster 11177. RosettaStone - 3/7/2001 5:57:47 PM Right, BBB. 11178. JudithAtHome - 3/7/2001 6:06:13 PM Most people who are smart enough to go to a hospital when they have chest pains and have a history of heart disease ought to know it is unwise to go right back to work. 11179. RosettaStone - 3/7/2001 6:09:05 PM I know what's got JadeGold all excited today. 11180. bbb - 3/7/2001 6:11:02 PM RS, 11181. JudithAtHome - 3/7/2001 6:13:12 PM and hopes Bush will choice him for his second term. 11182. JadeGold1 - 3/7/2001 6:15:00 PM Curious George's handlers are in a near-state of paralysis. Cheney's health problems have created a sense of panic among the Repugs. 11183. JadeGold1 - 3/7/2001 6:16:32 PM Choice him? 11184. RosettaStone - 3/7/2001 6:17:01 PM Hey, JuDY. Thanks (sarcasm) for giving us bad information about Jenerator and her honeymoon. 11185. RosettaStone - 3/7/2001 6:17:40 PM looks 11186. JudithAtHome - 3/7/2001 6:21:25 PM It's not my fault you can't read....I hope your kids get their spelling and comprehending abilities from their mom. 11187. bbb - 3/7/2001 6:22:34 PM Another fine day in the Bush Administration! 11188. RosettaStone - 3/7/2001 6:35:31 PM Judy: Do I really have to go back and look for the post where you asked Jenerator why she was posting on her honeymoon? 11189. bbb - 3/7/2001 6:54:10 PM Cheney Resumes Work 11190. JudithAtHome - 3/7/2001 7:18:00 PM Rosetta: 11191. ranheim - 3/7/2001 7:29:48 PM #11153 Fielding 11192. JudithAtHome - 3/7/2001 7:37:27 PM I always knew there were people who wouldn't be satisfied til Clinton opened his veins in a hot tub of water....but it is still surprising to read it. 11193. ranheim - 3/7/2001 8:13:14 PM Not necessary, Judith. 11195. RosettaStone - 3/7/2001 8:51:19 PM duck: delete my last post. I apologize to @home. I was mad because I had gone back to find Judith's original post about the honeymoon and then I saw that she was joking. 11196. JadeGold1 - 3/7/2001 9:42:54 PM Poppy Bush Gave Last Minute Pardon To Donor 11197. MsIvoryTower - 3/7/2001 9:50:51 PM RD 11198. JadeGold1 - 3/7/2001 9:57:08 PM The Real White House Heart Problem 11199. joezan - 3/7/2001 10:17:19 PM Man, that James Traficant is brilliant, for a democrat. 11200. RosettaStone - 3/7/2001 10:25:24 PM ELIZ NOLAN & MARY BETH JOB OPPORTUNITIES 11201. joezan - 3/7/2001 11:34:31 PM 11202. jexster - 3/8/2001 2:56:59 AM Undoing the Clinton's "legacy" 11203. jexster - 3/8/2001 3:01:49 AM Let's leave JoeZ to his reveries (delusions? delerium tremens???) 11204. jexster - 3/8/2001 4:36:00 AM And now a word from the Puppet And Thief, Howdy Doody himself! 11205. joezan - 3/8/2001 6:57:58 AM 11206. joezan - 3/8/2001 7:03:46 AM Jex: 11207. RosettaStone - 3/8/2001 8:09:05 AM (WSJ) THE HOUSE IS SET TO PASS the heart of Bush's tax-cut plan today, with misgivings. 11208. rubberducky - 3/8/2001 9:05:26 AM Rose's unnecessary 11194 was moved to the Inferno where such belongs 11209. Cellar Door - 3/8/2001 11:29:42 AM Quentin Compson - 08:25 am PST - Mar 8, 2001 - #7974 of 7974 11210. jexster - 3/8/2001 12:42:14 PM 11211. jexster - 3/8/2001 12:48:19 PM Newsflash Rose... 11212. jexster - 3/8/2001 12:53:18 PM Burning question for the Moron's Minions is Will Jerry Falwell be ambassador to Saudi Arabia? 11213. jexster - 3/8/2001 12:54:43 PM Karl Rove's plans to secure legitimacy by the hard right turn....pfttt.. 11214. ycmeehan - 3/8/2001 12:57:38 PM jexster, 11215. janjon - 3/8/2001 1:01:26 PM The GOP, DC branch, clearly has been spending far too much time of late in a self-congratulatory, ain't we great circle jerk. 11216. JadeGold1 - 3/8/2001 1:02:02 PM I like both Cheney and Thurmond in my Dead Pool. 11217. janjon - 3/8/2001 1:05:47 PM Thurmond IS a sleeper. Most of the time these days. 11218. ycmeehan - 3/8/2001 1:11:03 PM They'll wake him up shortly before he lets out his last breath, Janjon, so that he can vote. 11219. Ronski - 3/8/2001 1:12:39 PM I pray for Dick Cheney's health on an hourly basis. 11220. Ronski - 3/8/2001 1:15:30 PM 11221. janjon - 3/8/2001 1:21:13 PM ronski. I gather I missed some excitement (or at least anticipated) excitement around here. The City is fine. (When not working from home, I always took the train in, back in my commuting days. I didn't realize that you indeed do commute in. What a bummer that must be right about now.) 11222. jonesatlaw - 3/8/2001 1:32:36 PM Ronski- I certainly can't keep up with many of the posters here on economic theory, let alone those who swim in the deep waters of the Slow Thread, but the article you linked has some howlers that even I can see. 11223. jonesatlaw - 3/8/2001 1:39:44 PM Bush was right to invoke the examples of JFK and Reagan. Both those tax-rate cuts were followed by record economic expansions, namely, in the production of goods and services. Didn't Clinton actually raise taxes early in his administration, along with some targeted stimulus package? I thought this was the record economic expansion, not Reagan's nor JFK's. Clearly, there's more at work here than tax rates. 11224. jonesatlaw - 3/8/2001 1:48:28 PM Finally, how about a flat estate tax? Haven't heard any suggestion of reform. Just elimination. 11225. Fielding - 3/8/2001 2:05:09 PM The headline on CNN.com: 11226. Raskolnikov - 3/8/2001 2:07:29 PM "Didn't Clinton actually raise taxes early in his administration, along with some targeted stimulus package?" 11227. Raskolnikov - 3/8/2001 2:07:44 PM How will those IOUs be paid? We have a few options: 11228. Fielding - 3/8/2001 2:12:20 PM Rask: 11229. CalGal - 3/8/2001 2:17:04 PM Why should there be a cut in the payroll tax? The people who pay the most get the most from it. 11230. CalGal - 3/8/2001 2:18:42 PM Mind you, I'm all for changes in the payroll tax. But cutting it just to reduce the impact on the working poor and middle class doesn't make sense, given that they get far more from it than they put in. 11231. Raskolnikov - 3/8/2001 2:21:35 PM "Mind you, I'm all for changes in the payroll tax. But cutting it just to 11232. jexster - 3/8/2001 2:22:50 PM YC... 11233. ycmeehan - 3/8/2001 2:25:37 PM Yes, jexster, 11234. jexster - 3/8/2001 2:26:16 PM Forget the tax cut.... 11235. CalGal - 3/8/2001 2:42:20 PM The programs are running large surpluses, so recipients get out *less* than what is put in. 11236. jexster - 3/8/2001 2:44:11 PM The President's team knows how fierce the political battle will be. Bush has a lower approval rating than any other new President in 50 years. And after 18 months of selling his tax-cut plan, he has yet to inspire a national sing-along. So White House political guru Karl Rove is surveying his battle maps and strategic-planning calendars to orchestrate a multi-week sales tour mixing the hucksterism and pageantry of a presidential campaign with a strong undercurrent of blackmail. The focus is on the Senate, with its 50-50 split between parties (the House, Bush aides say, is a slam dunk). Six of the targeted Democrats are up for re-election in 2002. Says a gleeful Bush official: 'These Senators are going to hear about it at home.' 11237. jexster - 3/8/2001 2:45:57 PM Duhbya or Mister Moron Goes to Washington 11238. JJBiener - 3/8/2001 2:47:40 PM Jex - My voices tell me . . . 11239. janjon - 3/8/2001 2:51:48 PM spoken with the air of authority and experience. 11240. jexster - 3/8/2001 2:54:25 PM When God and his holy angels speak, I for one listen! 11241. JJBiener - 3/8/2001 2:55:55 PM janjon - The only experience I have with it is second hand. That is close enough for my tastes. 11242. Francis Urquhart - 3/8/2001 2:56:00 PM Poopstain. 11243. jexster - 3/8/2001 2:56:20 PM Hold a sec...a transmission.... 11244. jexster - 3/8/2001 2:56:31 PM "On Monday, Cheney spokeswoman Mary Matalin assured us that the vice president had checked himself in to the hospital for 'a non-emergency precautionary procedure' after experiencing 'two brief, mild episodes of chest discomfort' over the weekend. By Tuesday that had doubled to four episodes of chest pain. Wasn't this the administration that was going to 'restore honor and dignity to the White House' and put an end to linguistic hairsplitting? I guess it's just a question of subject matter: New Democrats lie about sex; aging Republicans lie about their cholesterol count." 11245. jexster - 3/8/2001 2:57:21 PM Some one get some toilet paper...Frances done shit her panties again 11246. Francis Urquhart - 3/8/2001 3:00:11 PM Dumbya + tax Cut= The Grand Old Poopstain at it again. Mr. Moron done messed up again. When God and his holy angels speak, I for one listen! 11247. jexster - 3/8/2001 3:01:07 PM Out! Out Foul Poopstain!!! 11248. jexster - 3/8/2001 3:03:29 PM Frances dear...you're out of your league...this is the Big Show...now off to the Dominican Republic with ya...Come back when UR ready 11249. Fielding - 3/8/2001 3:05:38 PM CalGal: 11250. Francis Urquhart - 3/8/2001 3:05:44 PM UR a Poopstain, George Dumbya, and Da' Moron's Tax Cut is running into a buzzsaw, so take that POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPY STAIN back to Austin because you didn't win Florida and you ain't my president. 11251. Fielding - 3/8/2001 3:06:16 PM toys 11252. JJBiener - 3/8/2001 3:07:10 PM Jex - But what does it mean? 11253. JJBiener - 3/8/2001 3:07:49 PM 11254. bbb - 3/8/2001 3:11:26 PM Is Jesse Jackson in trouble again? 11255. jexster - 3/8/2001 3:12:11 PM Now For the Answer to Today's Moronic Question..Tax Cut + Trigger = ??? 11256. bbb - 3/8/2001 3:12:28 PM Is Roger Clinton in trouble again? 11257. jexster - 3/8/2001 3:13:51 PM Thanks JJB...whew...I was worried...chats with God can be hazardous to your health...glad someone so tight with the Religious Wrong could clue me in on KJESUS....Only can get in Fly Over Country I thought 11258. bbb - 3/8/2001 3:15:00 PM Both Hillary and Bills'a approval rates are in the mid-30's. 11259. jexster - 3/8/2001 3:15:23 PM Ain't this just fine and dandy...like puppets on a string...ya talk about current events, policies, the Moron in Residence..what happens... 11260. JJBiener - 3/8/2001 3:17:52 PM Jex - KJESUS is the voice of the Bay Area religious whacko community. Like the guy who smells funny standing behind you in line at the BART station. 11261. jexster - 3/8/2001 3:17:56 PM Frances...if we can throw-in you back to the Dominican..I think we might have a deal..NO TRIGGER THO>.. 11262. jexster - 3/8/2001 3:19:24 PM Now JJB don't you go bad mouthin the Religious Right on us...You and Mister God Squad..have you no honor..30% of your vote fer GOD's sake... 11263. bbb - 3/8/2001 3:20:48 PM Bush Seeks Tax Cut Victory in House 11264. Francis Urquhart - 3/8/2001 3:22:06 PM Ain't this just fine and dandy...like puppets on a string...ya talk about current events, policies, the Moron in Residence..what happens... 11265. bbb - 3/8/2001 3:23:07 PM Bush Wary of Any Deal With N. Korea 11266. jexster - 3/8/2001 3:23:32 PM For serious students of political high crimes and misdemeanors 11267. JJBiener - 3/8/2001 3:24:37 PM Jex - You keep forgetting that I am not Christian. 11268. jexster - 3/8/2001 3:24:42 PM Bout time to start post law review articles...full text from Lexis...stayed tuned to KJAYSUS 11269. jexster - 3/8/2001 3:25:18 PM No I don't forget that JJB...I light candles to the BVM for ya.... 11270. CalGal - 3/8/2001 3:28:19 PM Simple. It is the tax cut that would help the poor and middle class the most. 11271. JadeGold1 - 3/8/2001 3:31:49 PM Cheney vows to serve out term? 11272. bbb - 3/8/2001 3:37:37 PM Poll: Clintons Popularity Sags 11273. Fielding - 3/8/2001 3:38:38 PM "You'll have to show me where other funds can be used to make Social Security payments." 11274. CalGal - 3/8/2001 3:42:45 PM Fielding, 11275. bbb - 3/8/2001 3:46:55 PM House To Question Barak About Pardon 11276. JadeGold1 - 3/8/2001 3:47:30 PM Goodness. 11277. bbb - 3/8/2001 3:49:06 PM The Jerusalem Post, citing a source inside Barak's office, has reported that Barak mentioned Rich in only one call and that the matter came up only at the end. 11278. Fielding - 3/8/2001 4:00:18 PM I'll try again: Social Security is expected to pay for itself. 11279. JJBiener - 3/8/2001 4:00:31 PM Jex - For serious students of political high crimes and misdemeanors 11280. CalGal - 3/8/2001 4:01:42 PM Fielding, 11281. mgleason - 3/8/2001 4:09:27 PM From The Economist: 11282. CalGal - 3/8/2001 4:22:53 PM Maria, 11283. RosettaStone - 3/8/2001 4:23:18 PM The Bush twins sounds like they're having a lot of fun. 11284. JudithAtHome - 3/8/2001 4:28:03 PM Well, the nuts don't fall far from the tree... 11285. mgleason - 3/8/2001 4:32:34 PM CG, 11286. CalGal - 3/8/2001 4:59:17 PM Two Moties/Fraygrants have made comments over the years that I wasn't sure of at the time, but now agree with. The Ms said that the moment we move to vouchers we may as well do away with public schools. And Cigarlaw suggested that instead of giving vouchers to children, we give them to taxpayers, and the taxpayers can do with them what they like. 11287. bbb - 3/8/2001 5:43:05 PM Cheney Leaves Little Air Time for Critics 11288. bbb - 3/8/2001 5:44:26 PM The result: a spate of "Cheney Back to Work" stories in which he looked to be firmly in command of the situation. Not a bad day's effort. 11289. bbb - 3/8/2001 5:45:48 PM "He was in the office by about 7:30 a.m. and, over the course of a workday that lasted more than 10 hours, joined President Bush in discussions with a visiting foreign leader, zipped to Capitol Hill to huddle with House Republicans and made a point of facing the press. 11290. bbb - 3/8/2001 5:47:04 PM On the same afternoon that a reporter or two questioned the White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, about what sort of contingency plans for the selection of a new vice president were or were not in place, Mr. Cheney was already talking about four more years. 11291. RosettaStone - 3/8/2001 5:48:33 PM The Big W picked a good one in that Richard Cheney! 11292. bbb - 3/8/2001 5:48:35 PM Dick Cheney will probably outlive Jade Gold I and II. 11293. bbb - 3/8/2001 5:49:53 PM RS, 11294. bbb - 3/8/2001 5:51:34 PM 'What are you suggesting that I do about it?' Cheney asked reporters with a chuckle after meeting with Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. 11295. RosettaStone - 3/8/2001 5:51:52 PM Hey, what's up with Spudsboy? I read his angry posts over in TT and he really has gone downhill since he left Fray/Mote. Hangs out with Pete Hissey, of all people. 11296. bbb - 3/8/2001 5:53:28 PM RS, 11297. bbb - 3/8/2001 5:56:08 PM RS, 11298. RosettaStone - 3/8/2001 5:58:06 PM Well, bbb, they zapped me today which will make it difficult to get back in. 11299. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:01:57 PM Rs, 11300. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:05:48 PM Arafat, Sharon Willing To Talk 11301. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:07:51 PM RS, 11302. RosettaStone - 3/8/2001 6:09:52 PM BTW, bbb. Thanks for your contributions to mote. 11303. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:10:45 PM 11304. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:13:49 PM RS, 11305. RosettaStone - 3/8/2001 6:16:11 PM It's the classic circle jerk, bbb. 11306. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:19:06 PM Bob Knight To Sue Indiana University 11307. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:20:01 PM RS, 11308. JudithAtHome - 3/8/2001 6:21:10 PM What does Bobby Knight have to do with Politics? 11309. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:22:16 PM RS, 11310. RosettaStone - 3/8/2001 6:22:29 PM Salon has enough money to get it through the end of May, bbb. Something like $5 million. 11311. RosettaStone - 3/8/2001 6:23:46 PM Don't mind JudY, bbb. She's just horny. 11312. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:24:04 PM Bob Knight is SUING the University. 11313. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:26:22 PM Horny Judy? 11314. JudithAtHome - 3/8/2001 6:30:09 PM Bob Knight is SUING the University. 11315. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:30:17 PM Census Figures Indicate Melting Pot 11316. JudithAtHome - 3/8/2001 6:31:23 PM Rosetta, take you dirty little mind to the Inferno. You're influencing the children over here. 11317. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:34:57 PM Judy Judy Judy, 11318. JudithAtHome - 3/8/2001 6:37:20 PM Listen, you little twit...you may think you're funny but emulating assholes isn't a smart thing to do. Knock it off. Now. 11319. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:41:26 PM U.S. Embassy in Israel To Be Moved 11320. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:43:19 PM RS, 11321. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:46:54 PM 11322. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:50:38 PM 11323. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:54:29 PM It's the "NEW" economy,stupid! 11324. bbb - 3/8/2001 6:59:35 PM 11318, 11325. bbb - 3/8/2001 7:05:58 PM From a liberal columnist 11326. AceofSpades - 3/8/2001 7:06:04 PM 11328. jonesatlaw - 3/8/2001 9:31:18 PM Ace- isn't the problem holding the GOP in the Senate? Clearly, it is a big win for the PCP to get 10 democrats and hold the party lockstep in the house, but that's been predicted hasn't it? 11329. AceofSpades - 3/8/2001 9:37:13 PM 11330. CalGal - 3/8/2001 9:41:05 PM I thought that there were some 10 Republican senators against it, or asking for a trigger. 11331. CalGal - 3/8/2001 9:43:17 PM No, it was 6. 11332. jonesatlaw - 3/8/2001 9:43:41 PM Ace- I have to agree with you that the pressure is on the Bush state democrats. That would explain the PCP recents jaunts to Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota. None of the states got a bit of attention in the presidential race, and SD and NE have demo senators facing a lot of Bush popularity at home. Ben Nelson, D-NE is a prime candidate for a weak sister defection to the tax gag. 11333. AceofSpades - 3/8/2001 9:45:13 PM I don't think there are 10 Republicans asking for a trigger. I think there are 10 moderate Democrats and Republicans asking for a trigger. 11334. jonesatlaw - 3/8/2001 9:49:05 PM Ace- do you think it will be a clean win with the Senate bill tracking the House language, or do you think that there will be ass covering followed by the dirty work comming in conference? 11335. AceofSpades - 3/8/2001 9:51:26 PM 11336. AceofSpades - 3/8/2001 9:57:10 PM 11337. jonesatlaw - 3/8/2001 10:00:57 PM Ace- okey dokey, I leave the "inside baseball" stuff to FU. I hope that Bush is held off by a trigger or some other means of saving our collective bacon if Rosy Scenario can't come out to play, but I fear you are right. 11338. AceofSpades - 3/8/2001 10:06:18 PM 11339. Autodaffy - 3/8/2001 10:11:35 PM Gee, if the forecasts turn out wrong is there an alternative to raising taxes or short-circuiting a scheduled tax cut? In the dem world there isn't but to the rest of us there is an obvious alternative. Can anyone guess? 11340. AceofSpades - 3/8/2001 10:13:21 PM Autodaffy-- 11341. Autodaffy - 3/8/2001 10:15:20 PM It might be a fair deal to put a trigger on the tax cut, but only in response to a guarantee from the dems that they won't exceed a spending cap. Repubs know the dem anti-cut effort is driven by the desire to maintain the ability to spend more and more money. They seem to have an ability to manufacture one crisis after the other that has a tax price tag. 11342. AceofSpades - 3/8/2001 10:18:43 PM 11343. jonesatlaw - 3/8/2001 10:43:52 PM Please, only democrats want to spend government money? Hasn't the PCP been on a spending spree of his own lately- more money for military pay, more for education from the feds, more money for prescription drugs for the elderly poor, more money for national missile defense? He hasn't proposed cutting any spending that I have heard of. He has proposed not increasing spending in the overall budget more than 4%. 11344. jonesatlaw - 3/8/2001 10:46:33 PM More money for religious social programs! I almost forgot. 11345. Autodaffy - 3/8/2001 10:51:27 PM Jones, 11346. CalGal - 3/8/2001 10:55:11 PM Apparently they tweaked the presentation: 11347. jonesatlaw - 3/8/2001 10:58:43 PM AD- let us speak plainly. So long as people have the "where's mine?" attitude towards the government, and measure the success of their senator or representative by the size of the bag of booty s/he hauls home from Washington, there will be pressure for increased government spending. The pressure is bipartisan and the response is bipartisan- "More pork for everyone!" is the cry of the day. When election time rolls around, the roles are reversed. Poltician comes to constituents- namely special interests of all political stripe- says "where's mine?" and the checkbooks had better open, or their plates are going to be broken before the next luau. 11348. jonesatlaw - 3/8/2001 11:05:54 PM Nice conservative politicians from the midwest are rethinking their commitment to "freedom to farm" and the horrors of farmers dependent on government hand outs and drowning in red tape. They are pushing for abandonment of freedom to farm and renewal of government dole as a guarantee of farm income. 11349. bbb - 3/8/2001 11:45:03 PM Clinton's new movie per Washington Post: 11350. jexster - 3/9/2001 12:20:39 AM March 6th, 2001 -- Bush Miffing Conservative Dems Here we have yet another sign that President Bush's tactic of reaching out with his fists may not be having the intended results. 11351. jexster - 3/9/2001 12:22:16 AM Poor BOTUS even Falwell's butt fuckin him... 11352. RosettaStone - 3/9/2001 7:47:13 AM More good news for daMoron. 11353. joezan - 3/9/2001 7:56:48 AM An NBC poll shows Americans support Bush's tax cut - as is - 56% to 34%. 11354. wonkers2 - 3/9/2001 8:04:00 AM THE TURNCOAT TEN 11355. RosettaStone - 3/9/2001 8:29:21 AM All American heroes who want taxpayers to have some of their money back..
It's about time!
thanks!
Be gentle...
Cheney will probably outlive Jade.
Did you trash Salon TT good?
Hopefully, he doesn't expire on camera or the networks will run weeks of stories on whether or not they did an adequate job of examining Cheney's health during the campaign.
That's easy...they didn't.
You do know how to piss off the liberals.
:-)
The way the networks work is based on visuals. No visuals, no story.
So, if Cheney croaks on camera, that gives the networks the license to examine the issue in depth.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Colin Powell said today that the State Department can save millions of dollars on embassy construction abroad by relaxing safety requirements without compromising security. Some new embassies have carried a $100 million price tag, causing an outcry among some in Congress. Powell, in testimony prepared for the House International Relations Committee, said that in some cases, there will be no need to abide by the requirement that embassies be placed at least 100 feet from the nearest street.
The liberals are a bunch of funny
political animals.
They tried to demonize and diminish Dick Cheney before the election.
Now they want to portrait Dick Cheney as a God.
NEITHER one was right.
Among those attending was CNN's Bernard Shaw, who was seated beside Bush and across from Cheney. As questions were put to the president, the veteran newsman observed that Cheney seemed to be providing cues to Bush.
"I noticed that the president kept looking at you," Shaw told Cheney in an on-air interview the next day. "And you were indicating your attitude, your feelings, about questions being asked," using body language, facial expressions and "your eyes."
Apparently caught off-guard, Cheney stammered that "we're - we're both Westerners. I know he's from Texas. I'm from Wyoming. There can be some connection there."
The real buzz in Washington, DC, is that Cheney went back to work. Pronto.
That drives the bureaucrats crazy. Most of them would have taken two-weeks sick vacation, whether they were ill or not.
Cheney better watch it or he will be known as the guy who didn't listen to his doctors. Personally, I'd rather he take some time off and rest rather than end up back in the hospital and maybe worse off. I'd rather have him healthy than unable to work at all.
Bush said today that we're not going to support North Korea anymore, since they're selling arms around the world to our enemies.
And Dick Cheney said he wants to stay on and hopes Bush will choice him for his second term.
LOL!
Yes, we all hope he'll be choiced.
On one hand, they know if Cheney expires on the job, they will have some explaining to do. Their spin about Cheney being "strong" and his health problems being "precautionary" will look very foolish if Cheney turns blue during a photo op and collapses to the floor, flopping like a gaffed fish.
OTOH, how can they get Cheney to step aside? Who will want to replace him? Repugs know Curious George isn't up to the job and the number two man will be doing the heavy lifting.
Cheney ought to be wishing he sees Summer.
Egg look good on your face, chunky.
Shame on you for making me do so because I'm about to lose this computer to one of my kids.
And, as Russell Baker once said: The only thing I was fit for was to be a writer, and this notion rested solely on my suspicion that I would never be fit for real work, and that writing didn't require any.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney resumed a hectic schedule today, meeting with President Bush and a foreign leader, and later with House Republicans just one day after being released from the hospital. ''I'm having the time of my life,'' he declared. Monday night, Cheney was in George Washington University Medical Center undergoing an angioplasty -- his second hospital procedure for his heart disease in four months. He was released yesterday. ''He looks good, he feels good, and that's good news,'' President Bush said during a White House meeting.
Jen knew I was joking when I made that post; of course, someone as humor-impaired as you wouldn't get the jest....
Isn't there an old expression "You can be know by the company you keep?"
The prosecutor of Dumond was represented as a close political ally of Clinton.
For nearly 8 years, I have refered to Clinton as a moral leper. The story of Wayne Dumond just adds another nail; too bad it isn't to a coffin.
If one believes in a Heaven and a Hell, Clinton will surely feel the heat one day!
Shouldn't have posted.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- While former President Bill Clinton has come under fire over last-minute pardons linked to wealthy donors who contributed to the Democratic Party and to his presidential library, CNN has learned about a pardon granted by former President Bush to Edwin Cox Jr., whose family contributed nearly $200,000 to the Bush family's campaigns and to Republican campaign committees from 1980 to 2000, according to documents obtained by CNN.
My preference is that you don't delete posts simply because the person posting let his true character shine through and now wants to hide the evidence.
Really, shouldn't deleting posts be reserved for obscene or threatening comments, or for mistakes made by either the poster or the thread monitor? I'm of the view that if you post something ugly but not necessarily either threatening or obscene, then the post should be made to stand as a record of your indiscretion and ignorance.
You know, being hoist with one's own petard.
On another topic...
Anyone catch the Cheney news conference? Can you say heart attack without saying heart attack?
Never saw so much dancing around the issue as what was said today.
...no more Carpel Tunnel syndrome???
...boy JoeZ you are really far gone...
Whats the matter, you having Clinton withdrawls?
back at the Armadillo Ranch (East)
Bush Tax Scam in Deep Steer Shit
A group of Senate moderates threw a significant complication in the path of President Bush's tax cut proposal yesterday, even as the House was poised today to narrowly approve a key part of the plan -- an across-the-board cut in personal income taxes.
Five Senate Republicans, along with six Democrats, said they would push to link any future tax cuts to achieving certain levels of debt reduction. It was an implicit acknowledgment that they are uncomfortable with the size of Bush's tax cut package, which the White House says will cost $1.6 trillion over the next decade. The so-called trigger, adamantly opposed by the administration, would suspend tax cuts if debt reduction targets were not met.
Newflash Moron: You ain't in Austin any more.
Of all states that understands local control of schools, Iowa is such a state."--Council Bluffs, Iowa, Feb. 28, 2001 
But Billleeee...you pardoned your friends! WaaahhhHH!!!
THE INVESTIGATION involves Phillip David Young, a North Little Rock restaurant owner who was convicted of illegally transporting game fish across state lines, the Times said in a story posted on its Web site Wednesday...
Roger Clinton did seek pardons for a number of his friends and acquaintances in the final days of the Clinton administration....
He also said then he was unhappy that his brother failed to grant pardons to any of the people he had recommended.
“It sort of caused a rift,” said Roger Clinton, who was pardoned by his older brother for a drug conviction in the 1980s. “My feelings were hurt.”
Geez - what'd he expect? Bill had much bigger fish to fry.
CTS is the biggest boondoggle since "chronic fatigue syndrome".
I don't doubt that there are many legitimate claims. But every single person I've ever known who's made such a claim was an unhappy, whining, non-productive sponge to begin with.
Even some Republicans would prefer to wait and see if spending can be held in check, but they aren't likely to oppose the $958 billion in income-tax rate reductions before them. Other parts of the president's $1.6 trillion package come later.
"I barely recognized myself when the story broke and realized that the five years of Clinton hell had — had dramatically changed my looks." Linda Tripp, explaining her need for extensive cosmetic surgery.
Well, Thomas, we all know that the poor need the cruel lash of hunger and deprivation to keep them from getting dependent on handouts.
And we likewise know that the wealthy must get their handouts, lest they decide to stop working and thus bring the economy to a standstill.
But you and I need to stop saying these hateful things--it's class warfare, and we know that such a thing might reflect badly on our hearts.
US Senate....
11 Moderate Senators have funny crazy idea that hey maybe we oughta have a budget first...Maybe we oughta even know if we can afford such a ridiculous tax cut.
They demand a trigger!
Da noive!
Well now, you're K St type....lets test UR skill..
Today's multiple choice question:
How much is a 2 Trillion dollar tax cut with a trigger going to wind up being?
a)1.6 Trillion
b)900 Billion - House Dems
c)700 Billion or so - Senate Dems
d)Less than 700 Billion
e)Impossible to tell could be 50 bucks
Let us know Rose.
Falwell warned, also on Beliefnet.com, that the program poses the threat of government financing of "bigoted" religious groups. "The Muslim faith teaches hate. . . . There's clear evidence that the Islam religion, wherever it has majority control -- and I can name a dozen countries -- doesn't even allow people of other faiths to express themselves or evangelize or to exist in their presence."
Puff o smoke!
Its great time to Just Say No To Bush!
Seems to me that the Repubs are afraid that Thurmond is going to die.
Just a couple of examples. It won't take long for people generally to realize with disgust just what the Senate has done with respect to summarily overturning the workplace regulations that were the result of at least 10 years of study and analysis. And, the House's actions in passing the tax cut measures are more than just pathetic. Scary, that they think so little of the ability of most people not only to actually care about such things but to be able to smell the coffee.
Helms as a sleeper.
Goodness. If "Clinton Hell" caused Tripp to look like that, imagine what JZ and tommydemoron must look like.
(btw, janjon, be happy you are not commuting these days, with slabs of ice closing the bridges left and right. The drive in has been a nightmare.)
As for Cheney - for all sorts of reasons, W's other handlers really must come up with a way soon to divert a lot of what Cheney does to others. He gives all sorts of evidence of needing to be one of those heart patients who must take it easy for a sustained period. Better for W, let alone Cheney, that he do only limited service instead of being the subject of the first funeral service for which he otherwise would have been one of the leading attendees had it been a comparable official in some other country.
Now you know why the super-rich spend millions of dollars on tax attorneys and estate planners to find ways around paying the tax.
I seriously doubt this. The implication is that someone is paying about $1000/hr for at least 1000 hours of work on their estate. I will grant you that many of the wealthy are spending millions in operating their plans, especially when one considers the charitable gifts, the life insurance policies costs etc. But that is not the impression given.
Lastly, I want to ask you about the risk involved in tax cuts which are immediate being weighed against income which is projected but unrealized. Does President Per Curium's plan still work if there is a period of recession or slow growth, or will deficits return?
The GOP is fond of everybody gets the same percentage cuts in taxes, how about an across the board reduction in the estate tax?
The Demos are floundering on the issue. They need to come up with some appealing rhetoric to counter the "death tax" spin the GOP has used so successfully. Something along the "Needy Billionaires Relief Act."
"The House is set to vote today on a Republican tax bill that will reconfigure the tax rate structure and result in nearly immediate gains for many American families, some House members estimated in the hours leading to the vote."
So much for that "liberal media bias".
Yes, he raised taxes in 1993, but his stimulus plan was (wisely) shot down.
I thought this was the record economic expansion, not Reagan's nor JFK's. Clearly, there's more at
work here than tax rates."
The 80s expansion was nothing special. It just looked like it when compared to the stagflation of the seventies. The 60s economic boom was substantial, but you are right in that there was more at work here than tax cuts.
There is nothing wrong with the idea that the tax cuts can stimulate long term economic growth, by increasing incentives for work and saving. But whether tax cuts are good thing or not depends on whether the economic growth gained is better than other things you can do with the money.
In the case of the 80s, the tax cut was offset by massive public borrowing, which creates even worse economic distortions than most taxes, as it distorts national saving while simultaneously requiring higher taxes in the future (if not for the 80s and 90s deficits, we could afford Bush's tax cut, his social security privatization plan, while simultaneously eliminating the national debt in a few years).
In the case of Bush's proposed tax cut, the biggest problem is the coming fiscal crunch that will be caused by Baby boomer retirements. We hiked up Social security and Medicare taxes in 1982 in order to put money aside for that fiscal crunch, but that money was spent (and then some) during the 80s and 90s. Therefore, the SS and medicare trust funds have a bunch of IOUs that they will need to cash starting in about 10 years.
1) Cut Social security and Medicare spending. This is political suicide, and additionally strikes me as fraudulent given the high payroll taxes the poor have been paying for the past 20 years - precisely so that benefits won't *need* to be cut.
2) Cut other federal spending programs. I don't think there is enough vulnerable fat here to make a real dent, but if the GOP thinks otherwise, their best bet is to propose those cuts *now*, while they control the presidency and both Houses of Congresses. Their failure to propose significant cuts *now* should point to the likelihood of making those cuts 10 years from now, even if they are still in power.
3) Raise taxes. The most probable solution if Democrats are in power.
4) Run Deficits. The most fiscally irresponsible option, as it defers greater tax hikes into the future while depressing national savings and productivity.
5) Hope that, despite the current projections, the economy has a sustained productivity surge sufficient to make the whole problem irrelevant.
6) Use the current surplus to pay down the national debt, which will free up most of the 200 odd billion each year that are spent on interest payments, while simultaneously putting downward pressure on interest rates and helping long term economic growth. Those surpluses can then be used to finance SS and Medicare 10 years from now without running deficits or raising taxes.
In essence, in pushing for tax cuts now, Bush is probably creating the need for *more* taxes, or greater borrowing, 10 years from now.
To my mind, the best course of action is to keep Federal spending on a leash, maintain the current tax rates, pay down the national debt, and cut taxes if and when the long term fiscal situation looks rosey enough to make a future tax hike unlikely.
I think a few small tax cuts are appropriate, given that Bush won the election. My candidate would be a cut in the payroll tax.
Even if you cut SocSec payments, the people who get the most from it will be the least affected.
Hell, I'd rather see them drop the rate paid by those who regularly pay the max--and then give them no benefits at all if their networth is above X at retirement time. If they need money, they get a reduced benefit.
reduce the impact on the working poor and middle class doesn't
make sense, given that they get far more from it than they put in. "
No they don't. The programs are running large surpluses, so recipients get out *less* than what is put in.
But Bush ain't gonna cut payroll taxes. If he wants a bone, I'll throw him a hike in the estate tax exemption, and the elimination of the marriage penalty.
The prayers of the "faithful" are rising to the Lord ...."May Strom Live To Be 200!"
But I have my own divine sources!
My voices tell me that but for the NRA and a nutty Young Republican in San Diego causing a major backlog at the Pearly Gate, Strom would have been able to make his April 8th appointment with St. Pete.
He is on a waiting list, low number.....
Stay tuned to this station for More BREAKING NEWS From the Heavenly Places...
I'll stay tuned. Thanks
Tax Cut + trigger = ?????
Um, big switch there. Recipients get out less than what is put in. But the lower income and middle class get out more than they put in, which is what I said.
Karl Rove - A Study in the Hysteria of Hubris - Time
I'm also honored to be here with the speaker of the House--just happens to be from the state of Illinois. I'd like to describe the speaker as a trustworthy man. He's the kind of fellow who says when he gives you his word he means it. Sometimes that doesn't happen all the time in the political process."--Chicago, March 6, 2001
They have medication that will help the voices go away.
(sorry - couldn't resist.)
The End is near...the End is near...prepare to meet your Lord in the air...that is all
But what does it mean?
Arriana Huffington
We Want Our Government Back!
"In order to discredit a media survey they fear will discover enough missed Gore votes to undermine Bush's tenuous claim to presidential legitimacy, GOP activists are reopening the anti-recount playbook that helped put their man in office in the first place. Their goal: to transform a deliberate, comprehensive ballot review conducted by unbiased outside researchers into a chaotic, corrupt, and unfair process, a circus of fallen chads and incompetent methodology conducted by partisan hacks
seeking to overturn the election. And the Republicans are doing a pretty good job. After all, they've done it once before."
Here They Go Again
And, if all else fails, the GOP has its own recount to fall back on, one certain to muddy the waters even further. Their insistence that all this recounting undermines the presidency notwithstanding, Republican operatives in Florida are keeping their own tally of the ballot recounts and, as one press release puts it, applying "a clear legal standard established by the United States Supreme Court... i.e. a clearly punched out chad for punchcards or a clearly filled out oval for optiscan machines." The result? Bush's lead has grown from 537 votes to 843. Who would have guessed?
Why should there be a cut in the payroll tax? The people who pay the most get the most from it.
Even if you cut SocSec payments, the people who get the most from it will be the least affected.
Simple. It is the tax cut that would help the poor and middle class the most.
You seem to think that Social Security can only be funded through payroll taxes.
It means you are picking up the radio station KJESUS on your bridgework.
The Congressional Budget Office projects large surpluses over the next ten years — $2.7 trillion excluding Social Security and Medicare. CBO says, however, that "the longer term outlook is unusually hard to discern at present.... CBO's projections, like those of other forecasters, are based on just a few years' increased growth of productivity... projections of those recent changes as far as five or 10 years into the future are bound to be highly uncertain." Data CBO has provided suggest that even if Congress enacts no tax cuts and no spending increases over the next decade, there is a 35 percent chance the ten-year surpluses outside of Social Security and Medicare will be only half as big as projected and a 20 percent chance there will be no surpluses.(1)
As Much As the Rove/DeLay Mandate - Ain't Werf Shit - Center For Budget Priorities
No Justice, No Peace
No Trigger, No Cut
I suspect they will stabilize in the 28% neighborhood.
BBB as if on cue wants to rant about fuckin Roger Clinton!
This is too easy
Still, I think Bush-bashin is great good fun but then I'm the kinda guy that chuckles at Down's Syndrome people..
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Trying to build momentum for President Bush's $1.6 trillion tax relief package, Republicans sought a quick House victory today on a bill that would cut income taxes for every American who pays them. While most Democrats are opposed, majority Republicans predict the 10-year, $958 billion income tax cut will pass and move to the Senate, where its fate is less assured and little action is expected until May. Bush, who has spent much of his young presidency campaigning for tax cuts, said the projected $5.6 trillion budget surplus over the next decade is more than ample to meet government obligations.
Da' Moron is funnier than a Down's Syndrome child with a Poopstain!!!!!!!
Thank god he's not my president.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Colin Powell said today he may seek to broaden prospective negotiations with North Korea beyond missiles and include American concerns about the ''huge army'' Pyongyang has deployed along the Demilitarized Zone. Powell testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a day after he said the Bush administration intends to review its policy toward North Korea before resuming negotiations that the Clinton administration began last year.
Eleven Scholarly Papers on Grand Theft Bush - American Political Science Assn
So? It is actually a forced "tax" for a specific purpose--their retirement. The money is not to be used for anything else. They get far more than they pay in. Why should they get more, still?
You seem to think that Social Security can only be funded through payroll taxes.
You'll have to show me where other funds can be used to make Social Security payments.
Won't happen.
Can you imagine Cheney doing a Fred Sanford while Curious George is fielding questions from the press?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The popularity of former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, has dropped sharply in the past two months amid questions about their exit from the White House and pardons he granted, a poll finds.
The number of Americans who viewed Mrs. Clinton, D-N.Y., in a favorable light dropped from half to a third since January in the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday. The number who viewed her in a negative light increased from a third to half.
She plunged into a flurry of legislative activity this week as the congressional zeal for hearings about the pardons faded. She pushed for reductions in school class size and workplace protections for women, and spoke on the Senate floor on ergonomics and workplace safety.
Six in 10 said in the poll that they do not believe her comments that she was not involved in the pardons granted by the former president, although some have alleged that she received financial contributions, support and endorsements because of them. A third believed her.
The former president has seen a similar drop in his public ratings after the furor over his pardons and other controversies over his departure from office.
Just over half, 55 percent, said his actions over the past two months have made them feel less favorable about him. Four of 10 said it made no difference.
The public shift on the former president over the past two months was strikingly similar to the reaction given his wife. Those who viewed him positively dropped from half to a third and those who saw him negatively went from a third to half.
Its in the Constitution.
I'll try again: Social Security is expected to pay for itself.
If we decide instead to turn it into a welfare system, fine. You won't find a lot of support for it.
WASHINGTON (AP) --Congressional investigators looking into former President Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich may seek answers from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, one of the high-ranking Israelis supporting clemency for the fugitive financier.
Clinton's aides told lawmakers that Barak's support of Rich's petition was key to its success and said Barak talked to the president about it as many as four times. But a source close to Barak told The Associated Press that he raised the issue of pardoning Rich in only a marginal way.
The committee plans to send a list of questions to Barak this week to find out what the two leaders discussed and how strongly Barak lobbied for the pardon, congressional sources said.
The Jerusalem Post, citing a source inside Barak's office, has reported that Barak mentioned Rich in only one call and that the matter came up only at the end.
First, Jenna Bush uses the US Secret Service for drunken beau pickup and delivery. Now, her twin sister was ejected from a club in NY City's bowery.
Do you also believe in the Easter Bunny?
Did you actually read any of the papers from that link? I quick perusal indicates that they don't support your claim.
When you're prepared to discuss it seriously, let me know.
Blacks v teachers: Two of the Democrats’ bedrock constituencies are heading for a fight over school choice
THE presidential primary debates between Bill Bradley and Al Gore are little more than a historical footnote. But the debate last year in Harlem’s Apollo Theatre, one of the holy places of black America, did include one exchange that will re-echo in Democratic politics in the coming years.
Tamela Edwards, a young black journalist, asked Vice-President Gore why he so adamantly opposed school vouchers, which allow parents to choose where to spend their education money, while sending his own children to private schools. “Is there not a public or charter school in DC good enough for your child?” she asked, to applause. “And, if not, why should the parents here have to keep their kids in public schools because they don’t have the financial resources that you do?”
It is hardly surprising that this question resonated with the predominantly black audience. Last year, a national opinion poll conducted by the Joint Centre for Political and Economic Studies found that 57% of blacks support vouchers: especially people under 35 (75%) and people with children in the household (74%). Blacks and whites agreed that education is the most important problem facing the country. But blacks were more likely than whites to think that the public schools are getting worse—and more likely than whites to support vouchers.
That's the second article I've read on a potential rift between two staunch Dem groups--the other was the TNR article about blacks and Jews.
I think blacks are wrong about vouchers, though, in terms of how it will help them.
I'm no fan of the public schools, but the voucher movement is in such disarray, that it's tough to see how a national effort can coalesce.
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 8, 2001
Dick Cheney did something smart yesterday.
One of the basic rules of politics in the media age is that a news vacuum can be dangerous. Cheney undoubtedly understood that he was facing another day of speculative and sometimes ghoulish stories about just when his ticker might give out, whether he was up to the job and who would replace him.
So he filled the vacuum himself.
The vice president, who would have been forgiven for taking a few days off, decided to meet the press, knowing that every usable sound bite he uttered would leave less air time and fewer column inches for critics, analysts and pontificators. The normally taciturn veep also seemed to grasp that he couldn't look grim or stressed, so he played the role of standup comic.
"Less than 48 hours after doctors inserted a catheter to help his troubled heart," the New York Times said, "Vice President Dick Cheney was back at work today, keeping a schedule that seemed anything but reduced.
"The face he showed them was relaxed and jocular, and the message he brought was that he was undaunted and undiminished by what happened on Monday, when some pain in his chest led to a second angioplasty in four months.
"'I've got a job to do,' Mr. Cheney, 60, told reporters in his first public remarks since his most recent hospitalization. 'The president asked me to do it. I'll do it as long as he's comfortable having me do it and I feel like I can make a contribution.'
"
"He said he had every intention to work for Mr. Bush through 2004, 'and whether or not he wants me to serve with him in his second term, that's a decision he'll make at the appropriate time.'"
The Washington Post gives the veep the lead he probably wanted: "Vice President Cheney said yesterday he plans to serve out his term despite his heart problems, and expressed nonchalance about the 40 percent chance he will need a repeat of the artery-opening procedure he underwent Monday.
"
Having fun with the TT liberals?
"Cheney was back on the job at 7:30 a.m. yesterday, just 21 hours after his release from George Washington University Hospital, where he was admitted after four bouts of chest pain in three days. Cheney underwent cardiac catheterization to reopen an artery that had narrowed since catheterization after his fourth heart attack last November...
"Cheney, who is generally a serious sort in public, was full of quips yesterday as he told the media pack he is having the time of his life, loves working for President Bush and has no plans to change his workload. 'The stress level is a lot tougher when you're doing something you don't like, like being a reporter or journalist,' he said...
"As for changes in his lifestyle, Cheney said his wife, Lynne V. Cheney, 'is in control of the food supply, and she's not a great cook.' A chorus of laughter and cries of 'Ooooo!' interrupted him...
Salon TT is a ghost town without some "visitors".
HeHeHe!
Don't know about Spudsboy. Having too much fun pulling dh100's legs.
Keep him employed too.
I don't know why I do it other than to pissed three or four of them off. It's becoming a bad habit, one that I should stop for awhile.
Well. They are totally demoralized with the downfalls of Algore,David Boies,Bill and Hillary Clintons,Denise Rich etal.....
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat -- enemies for decades -- both raised the possibility of peace talks today, Sharon's first full day in office. But the two have never shaken hands in previous face-to-face negotiations, and their frosty relationship seemed to offer scant hope of revived peacemaking. As he settled into his new office, Sharon received a letter of congratulations from Arafat. The letter also called for restarting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that broke off shortly before Sharon's landslide election victory Feb. 6.
Maybe they know that GWB would not be as eager as WJC.
Who conned whom in the Marc Rich pardon?
-Bill Clinton
-Marc Rich
-Jack Quinn
-Denise Rich
-Hillary Clinton
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican-controlled House voted Thursday for an across-the-board tax cut near $1 trillion over the next decade, handing President Bush a major victory only 48 days into his term.
The vote was 230-198 .
Hey! Salon TT can go under anytime. SALN was doing badly when ebay,etoy,Yahoo! etal were HOT.
Now even Yahoo! is in trouble. Just imagine the financial crisis for SALN>
My theory is that if the Justice Department can prove that foreign money from Rich was used for the Clinton Library/Foundation that the $165 million dollar ego project will never be built and Clinton's papers will end up at the
University of Arkansas.
And Clinton loses a free penthouse apartment overlooking the river where he can seduce the babes.
Bush has already said his presidential papers will go a Texas state university, and Clinton pardon scandal will be the end of the big Presidential Libraries with all the potential corruption of trying to raise money.
Another example of the Clinton legacy.
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- Bob Knight has told Indiana University he intends to sue the school for slander and libel from his September firing, alleging his former employer cost him more than $7 million. According to a letter obtained today by The Associated Press, Knight alleges the university also violated the Indiana Open Door law, inflicted emotional distress, and interfered with potential contracts, including job opportunities. Knight was fired Sept. 10 by IU President Myles Brand after 29 years as coach for violating its ''zero-tolerance'' policy.
Has Clinton revived the Harlem economy yet?
Any attention paid to Clinton's speech today in the Atlantic City?
Another QPQ as part of Cliton's $250 millions puls foreign travel costs,IMO.
I would hate to see it die because TT is unique, especially the ability to create your own thread headlines.
I remember my early days there when I loved it, thinking it was much better than fray.
A very LEGAL and POLITICAL move.
Are you FOR or AGAINST the lawsuit?
Salon TT now even have ad banners for adults only.
A very LEGAL and POLITICAL move.
Are you FOR or AGAINST the lawsuit?
Are you daft? A political move? Get real. As far as I know, Bobby Knight is not a political man; he is neither elected nor appointed to any governmental position and he's not running for any, either.
We have a Current Events thread or a Sports thread for that sort of "story".
Political...yeah, right!
We have
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A colorful but complex demographic portrait of America emerged today from the first official release of Census 2000 data, as hundreds of thousands of people took advantage of the opportunity to identify themselves as members of more than one race. The data, made available first to New Jersey, Mississippi, Virginia, and Wisconsin, also confirmed forecasts of explosive growth in the Asian and Hispanic population, especially in the biggest and fastest-growing counties.
A famous ex-basketball coach sues a major University IS a political event. It may even reach the SCOTUS. It relates to employment acts,civil rights,and tort reforms etc etc.
Are you THAT horny to fail realizing it?!
by PAULINE JELINEK
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush is sticking by his campaign promise to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Secretary of State Colin Powell says, but the time hasn't been right.
Frankly,I'm surprised that the Washington Post has been sooooo vicious/mean towards Bill Clinton in the last few weeks.
Pleasantly surprised,though.
Huh?
What were you talking about?
I thought that the firing of Woody Hayes from the OSU was a good analogy for the firing(impeachment) of WJC.
Don't you?
.....Clinton is finally paying a price for being Clinton. Up to now, it has been others who have paid. But he was so greedy for so long, that when he committed this self-destructive act, it left the public suspecting some quid pro quo. It was his sloppy, defiant conduct that forced people to think the worst.
Well, GWB's tax cut plan passed the House. He held every single Republican and picked up 10 Democrats.
It's a good thing he's such a moron, or you guys'd be in trouble.
Jones,
How moderate Republicans and Democrats vote in the House is a good (though not perfect) barometer of how they'll vote in the Senate.
It's easy for Congressmen from reliably liberal districts to vote against Bush's tax cuts... but what of Senators from Bush states, who are not elected from a narrow liberal constituency but from a statewide, center-right constituency?
Zell Miller will not be the only Democrat defecting. There will be one more. There may be two more (but I think that's optimistic).
A big, clean victory is now more likely than it was yesterday.
Plan to Tie Tax Cut to Surplus Gains
But the make-or-break contest for the president is shaping up in the Senate, where no majority exists on any tax plan.
Today, about a dozen senators, equally divided between the parties, lined up behind a proposal that would phase in large tax cuts over 10 years but include a safety valve that would delay the cuts in any year in which the Treasury Department was not predicting a budget surplus.
These senators may hold the balance of power in the Senate, which is divided 50-50 between the parties.
But it is, for some of them, merely a negotiating position.
The ten swing votes will not all vote against the plan. The question is whether it will be 3-7 break, a 4-6 break, 5-5, 6-4, or 7-3.
There are 47 Republicans committed to voting for the bill. Add Zell Miller and you have 48.
It is hard to believe that Bush won't pick up at least one of the wayward Republicans. Add that to a likely Democratic gain and the tax cut passes in a tie broken by Cheney.
jones--
I dunno. You've gone way beyond my ken.
When I say a "clean" win, I don't mean perfection. But I mean an inarguable, unspinnable win.
If Bush bumps the top bracket up to 34 or 34.5%, and gives no other big concessions, that's a big, clean win.
A "trigger"? A "trigger" which stops a tax cut during an economic downturn, just when it is needed the most?
And "Rosey Scenario"? These are conservative estimates. No Rosey Scenario need unfold; we need only avoid an unlikely, terrible lengthy period of stagnant growth.
It's possible that could happen, but it's not probable. Everyone knows there will likely be surpluses into the future, many of them larger than the current estimates.
Is there a danger in such forecasting? Sure. What's the alternative --ignoring such forecasts and simply overtaxing citizens for ten years on the outside chance there'll be a lengthy period of stagnation?
I notice there's no calls for "triggers" on spending of any sort.
That's true too. All you have to do to trigger the trigger is bust the budget.
I will give him credit, he isn't proposing spending any more on special prosecutors or letting Chenney slack off on the government payroll for something as minor as cardiac surgery.
In his speech he cited the 4% increases he plans--and the 8% congress had spent in the last two years.
"He hasn't proposed
cutting any spending that I have heard of."
He proposed cutting spending in about half the cabinet organizations. The liberal press made much of this the day after his plan went to congress.
Treasury's Tax Cut Data Can Cut 2 Ways
But a close look at the data suggests the administration may have inadvertently given more ammunition to the Democratic argument.
The report says that taxpayers making less than $30,000 would receive a 136 percent reduction in income taxes, in part because of a health insurance provision that President Bush has not previously counted as part of his tax cut. The Treasury numbers "confirm that President Bush's tax cut plan provides the most help to low- and modest-income Americans," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.
Looked at from a different perspective, however, the Treasury report actually indicates that the top 20 percent of taxpayers would receive about 60 percent of the tax cut dollars and the bottom 40 percent would end up with about 9 percent.
Apparently they combined the bottom two quintiles and then presented the top three as separate--but that's not according to standard Treasury practices.
The real danger is that we will go back to defict spending, and will paint ourselves into a debt corner, dragging down the economy with high taxes, and government spending that doesn't cycle money in our economy as much as ship it to overseas investors in the form of debt payments.
Crouching Tiger,Hidden Pardon.
HaHaHA!
This article from The Washington Post says Democrats from Bush-leaning states don't seem particularly intimidated by his pushy visits. And a number seem like they're getting pissed. Word is also that John Breaux, the Senator from Louisiana, is miffed at Bush. He apparently feels that the Bushies played him for a fool, trotting him out as a symbol of bipartisanship and then pursuing a partisan, uncompromising agenda.
Don't Worry America ...Is There a Moron in the House????
Yo Moron...there's no help on the way for you.
(top item, WSJ front page) BUSH WINS upbeat reviews from the public so far, including many blacks.
Americans by 62% to 23% have a positive view of Bush, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows. That is up from 50% to 30% in January before his inaugural. Among blacks, a third have a positive view of Bush, up from just 13% in January. The share with negative views drops to 44% from 58%.
WHADDA MORON!
Robert E. Cramer of Alabama
Gary A. Condit of California
Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. of Georgia
Ken Lucas of Kentucky
Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota
"Fat Jimmy" Traficante of Ohio
Mike McIntyre of North Carolina
Bob Clement of Tennessee
Bart Gordon of Tennessee
Ralph Hall of Texas