Election 2000

Bush by a nose.

2. theDiva - 10/18/2000 4:27:47 PM

A principled vote is never wasted.

Father Steve 2000

3. bubbaette - 10/18/2000 4:30:33 PM

It will be close, but I think Gore will take it.

4. rubberducky - 10/18/2000 4:30:34 PM

Gore by the slightest of margins

5. Ronski - 10/18/2000 4:32:25 PM

As for why, it's because people like Bush's personality better, but more importantly, he is closer to the center of the electorate in his views, with Gore too much identified with the left in the Democrat Party. I am stunned that Gore did not campaign closer to the center, especially given the fact that when he first tried for the brass ring he was the most conservative Democrat to do so in quite some time. Why he thinks America today is much farther to the left than Tennessee was then, I don't know. But it isn't. A little farther, but not much.

6. rubberducky - 10/18/2000 4:36:09 PM

i think that Gore will edge out a win because the debates will fade a bit in memory the next few weeks (“bush dumb, gore lie” will live on, however) and Gore will out campaign Bush has he did before the debates

it'll be close, but Bush will not be able to convince enough people change is necessary

7. JudithAtHome - 10/18/2000 4:42:08 PM

Is this what the Debates thread morphed into?

8. ycmeehan - 10/18/2000 5:00:41 PM

Since you're the host, Judith, can you keep some disreputable Moties away from me? And can you persuade some others (I'll give you a list) to come and see me?.

9. angel-five - 10/18/2000 5:08:09 PM

Gore by a small margin. He has the electoral lead now and apparently he neither lost nor gained statistically significant ground in the debates.

10. JudithAtHome - 10/18/2000 5:17:40 PM

YC:

I'm not the host but I think you do quite well in fending off the hordes...stay strong!

11. concerned - 10/18/2000 5:19:26 PM

Gee. I wish we'd kept the debate posts for this thread.

12. concerned - 10/18/2000 5:19:46 PM

Bush to win.

13. JudithAtHome - 10/18/2000 5:25:08 PM

Gore to win but I wish it were Bradley.

14. jexster - 10/18/2000 5:30:14 PM

15. jexster - 10/18/2000 5:31:39 PM

Last night George Stephanopolous predicted that the DNC had an ad already in the can bringing home Gore's point that Bush's SS plan double counted $1 trillion.

Guess what CNN's now reporting.

Wish I could see some ads on TV but Gore's goin to take CA by 15 points

16. jexster - 10/18/2000 5:36:28 PM

Dr. William "Reyn" Archer, Bush's controversial Texas Health Commissioner, is in trouble again for making statements that, to be charitable, were highly racially insensitive.

According to today's Houston Chronicle, "In a tape recording former Associate Commissioner Dr. Demetria Montgomery made of a conversation with Archer earlier this year, he tells her she is too smart and encourages her to think more with her heart and less with her intellect if she wishes to succeed. (Translation - Become a Moron)

"'I want you to be clear about what I'm asking you,' Archer said near the conclusion of a 30-minute rambling, spiritually oriented conversation about her employment future. 'That is, facts lead to lynchings. Relationships lead to hope.'"

Dr. Montgomery, an African-American, is filing a descrimination suit [Houston Chronicle, 10/18/00]

17. jexster - 10/18/2000 5:41:29 PM

The Democratic National Committee unveiled an ad charging that Bush's plan to allow workers to privately invest part of their Social Security taxes is deceptive and dangerous. Joe Andrew, national chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said as he released the ad this morning that Bush's plan is sure to disappoint either young people or seniors, but cannot deliver what Bush has promised to both.

"His priority here is pandering rather than actually trying to grab what he has smugly called the third rail of American politics and find a real solution," Andrew said. "He's grabbed that rail – he just didn't realize we hadn't switched on the electricity yet, and that's what we're going to do with this television ad."

The ad says: "What would George W. Bush's plan do to Social Security? He's promising to take a trillion dollars out of Social Security for privatization. Sounds good. The problem is: Bush has promised the same money to pay seniors their current benefits." The ad concludes, in words that echo a question Gore asked during the debate, "He can't keep both promises. Which promise is he going to break. George W. Bush: his promises threaten Social Security."

The ad is to run in 10 swing states – Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Andrew, the DNC chairman, exuded enthusiasm about the vice president's performance in the debate, saying he and other Democrats had celebrated past 1 a.m. Central time. "Good morning," Andrew said as he began his briefing. "And it is a good morning."

18. jexster - 10/18/2000 5:42:59 PM

Bush GORED

19. jexster - 10/18/2000 5:52:12 PM

Todd Gitlin, professor of culture,journalism and sociology at New York University

For anyone with an open eye and ear, Al Gore revealed himself to be an intelligent, thorough and confident figure who one could imagine -- without much difficulty -- mastering the Oval Office. And George W. Bush revealed himself to be a shambling, evasive babbler. Now it's evident that there are a substantial number of Americans,
especially in the contested states, who want their president
stupid. If there are enough of those people, then Bush won this
debate by losing it, by demonstrating his hapless incompetence
and almost daffy incapacity. If the majority of the American
public is unstampeded by the argument that this empty-headed
jokester is a "uniter and not a divider," then they will see that Al
Gore is up to the task of governing, and W. should return to
running ball teams, especially with public subsidy.

20. jexster - 10/18/2000 6:00:14 PM

Wanna know who's gonna win?

Forget tracking polls. Don't consult a pundit (unless its Wm. Saletan). Ignore Jexster's long-awaited prediction (Coming 10/22)

Ask Hollywood. Ask a film critic. Watch The West Wing tonight and ask yourself which candidate is more like President Bartlett.

Roger Ebert, film critic

Gore creamed Bush.

Gore was informed, articulate, on topic and persuasive. Bush was vague, rambling, hesitant. Bush's Johnny Carson nice-guy act wore out. Gore finally found the balance between calm and conviction.

Gore won the debate. More to the point, Bush did not demonstrate competence. Gore seemed presidential. Bush did not.

21. Al D - 10/18/2000 6:08:22 PM

I watched Ebert. He is a very intelligent man. I know because he told me so. He makes his living watching Hollywood movies, which makes him an expert on politics. When he mentioned men he admired, he forgot to mention Stalin. Well, nobody's perfect. Except one Motie I won't bother to mention.

To be fair to fat Ebert, he did make one comment worth listening to, and that is if Bush wins he owes his win to Nader. I wonder if he also thinks Clinton owes his victory to Perot? I really doubt he has that much objectivity.

Bush will win by a slim margin.

22. concerned - 10/18/2000 6:10:08 PM

Al D -

I'm sorta expecting Nader to do a Carnahan. If I were him, I'd stay away from Corvairs and privately chartered aircraft.

23. Al D - 10/18/2000 6:13:54 PM

concerned
You and I agree on many issues, but I prefer your posts when they don't veer off into the absurd. When you make such a post, put a "g" after, that way you're covered.

24. ycmeehan - 10/18/2000 6:14:20 PM

I rather think Ebert said that if Gore is beaten, it will be Nader who will beat him, Al.

25. CalGal - 10/18/2000 6:15:19 PM

23 posts and the collective IQ of all the posters is lower than the total number of posts. How'd that happen?

26. ycmeehan - 10/18/2000 6:18:57 PM

Things will get better now that you're here, Cal.

27. CalGal - 10/18/2000 6:21:20 PM

YC--I did say up to 23, you note. You just squeaked by. (g)

28. alistairconnor - 10/18/2000 6:22:28 PM

Nader will get 5.01%. That counts as a win.

29. concerned - 10/18/2000 6:22:59 PM

Re. 25 -

Make that 25 posts, include yourself, except Al D and myself and you'd be correct.

30. Al D - 10/18/2000 6:25:29 PM

yc
I rather think Ebert said that if Gore is beaten, it will be Nader who will beat him, Al.
You are right, but how does that change the content of the post. You have made a distinction without a difference. No big deal, though.

31. Al D - 10/18/2000 6:27:52 PM

23 posts and the collective IQ of all the posters is lower than the total number of posts. How'd that happen?
Gratuitous insults belong in the Inferno, but the she devil does what she pleases and will never be called to account. Feel free, jones, to move this post.

32. ycmeehan - 10/18/2000 6:31:32 PM

You're right, Al. I read your post too fast and answered it thinking that you said that Bush will beat Gore. Sorry.

33. ycmeehan -10/18/2000 6:33:47 PM

Al, she's just kidding, for krissakes.
Oh! wait a minute, you're kidding, right?

34. Al D - 10/18/2000 6:36:23 PM

yc
Please don't say that outloud; she might hear you. I think you said one time that CalGal had a great sense of humor, but because of my age, her's was different than mine. for whatever reason, they do seem to be different.

35. concerned - 10/18/2000 6:50:24 PM

Recommended election night victory drink if both Alphalfa Bore and Hilliary Clowntoon lose:

Long Island Iced Tea.

36. ycmeehan - 10/18/2000 6:52:05 PM

Al, definitely she does. So subtle at times that some Moties go after her and give her hell.
Anyway, you and I better get out of here and let the big brains such as Ace come here and enliven the discourse.

37. Al D - 10/18/2000 7:07:44 PM

For a really great time, go to MSNBC and hear Imus tell us what he thinks of Gore.

38. alistairconnor - 10/18/2000 7:23:26 PM

Lewis Lapham, editor of ''Harpers'' magazine, interviewed this morning on the US presidential debate/elections campaign, said that Gore and Bush are ''agents and apostles of the American corporate imperium'', and he's voting for Nader.

He also said that 15,000 came to Nader's Madison Square Gardens rally in NYC - and not a word about it in the NY Times - ''the American media think they are the Vatican''.

39. Cellar Door - 10/18/2000 7:41:32 PM

Don't read this.

40. Electric Slide - 10/18/2000 7:46:35 PM

Oh, are you still here?

41. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:02:47 PM

Which Promise Is He Going To Break?

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Bush's Social Security plan would require "deep cuts in promised benefits, a multi-trillion dollar infusion of new revenue, or some combination of these."[Wall Street Journal, 10/10/00]

In last night's debate, Bush refused to respond to Vice President Gore's questions about his campaign promises to both younger workers and senior citizens.

"Bush has consistently dodged questions about his Social Security plan because he knows he can't deliver what he has promised to the American people," Andrew said today. "Bush's plan would jeopardize future Social Security benefits and threaten the security of America's seniors. It's time for Bush to stop the double talk and come clean on how he would pay for his fiscally dangerous Social Security plan."

42. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:04:20 PM

23 posts and the collective IQ of all the posters is lower than the total number of posts. How'd that happen?

Fuzzy Math

43. concerned - 10/18/2000 8:05:05 PM

Re. 41 -

Guess all those Nobel economists don't know squat, eh, jexster?

44. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:06:12 PM

Cellar Comes Thru

the conventional wisdom about George W. Bush is that the Texas governor—to put it bluntly—isn’t quite bright enough to utter intentional lies. "In Bush’s case, you know he’s just mis-stating as opposed to it playing into a story line about him being a serial exaggerator," explains ABC’s sagacious Cokie Roberts.

45. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:07:03 PM

I'm waiting with baited breath for the names of those Nobel economists, concerned.

46. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:08:24 PM

Small wonder that pathetic nincompoop kept whining for Jim Lehrer to save him.

Now he'd got Mommie out on the trail trying to convince us that her baby's not an idiot after all.

bwahahahahaha

47. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:12:54 PM

What is certain is that Mr. Bush's actual Social Security proposal would bankrupt the system. That's not a fuzzy number — it's a cold, hard fact.

A Retirement Fable

aka Dried Bush-Shit, aka Concerned's favorite breakfast cereal

48. concerned - 10/18/2000 8:14:46 PM

Re. 45 -

Here ya go:

Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate --1976, Hoover Institution
Robert E. Lucas Jr., Nobel Laureate -- 1995, University of Chicago
James M. Buchanan, Nobel Laureate -- 1986, George Mason University
Myron S. Scholes, Nobel Laureate -- 1997, Stanford University
Gary S. Becker, Nobel Laureate -- 1992, University of Chicago
Robert A. Mundell, Nobel Laureate -- 1999, Columbia University

Now, stop eating bait!

49. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:18:56 PM

Got me there concerned. You listed a bunch of economists.

50. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:26:26 PM

51. jexster - 10/18/2000 8:33:40 PM

Put New Mexico in the Gore column

N.M. Republican Party Under Fire

By BARRY MASSEY, Associated Press Writer

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) -The New Mexico Republican Party (news - web
sites) is under fire from a state elections official over a proposal it considered, but rejected, to offer a reward of up to $20,000 for tips about voting violations.

State Bureau of Elections Director Denise Lamb alerted the U.S. Justice Department (news -web sites) to the proposal, saying the plan would be a federal violation if it targeted minority voters.

The proposal was not intended to scare away voters, state GOP chairman John Dendahl said. He said the party rejected it about two weeks ago because of concerns it would be ``mischaracterized by the Democrats asan affront to Hispanics.''

The proposal would have offered rewards for tips leading to convictions for tampering with voting machines or ballot boxes or for ``false voting.'' Under state law, false voting includes voting in the name of another person or voting in a precinct except the one in which the person is registered.

Lamb called the proposed reward a ``bounty'' that could cause some people to refrain from voting because of fears they unintentionally could violate an election provision.

Hispanic voters are viewed as a key factor in the outcome of the presidential race in New Mexico. Hispanics account for about 37 percent of the state's voting-age population and traditionally have been a solidly Democratic-leaning voting group in New Mexico.

Dendahl said the GOP would operate a toll-free telephone line on Election Day for people who have voting questions or suspect elections irregularities, but no reward will be offered.

52. Electric Slide - 10/18/2000 11:19:19 PM

Rolling Stone has had to airbrush an Al Gore hard on from its November 9th cover. (See DrudgeReport for picture.)


The Clinton legacy.

53. joezan - 10/18/2000 11:52:33 PM

BLEEEECHHHHHH!

This is Rolling Stone, the Counter-Culture Bible that shaped my radical views until I stopped using drugs?

RS: There was something special about that (convention) speech.

AlGore: It was directly from my heart. I got some help on it, but I wrote it myself.

RS: You were so plain-spoken.

AG: That's the way I am when I write. If you read the eulogy that I gave for my father or the speech that I made at Ebenezer Church on Martin Luther King Day a few years ago or some of the other speeches
that I've really taken the time to write myself, you'll hear the same voice, and the same plain-spoken approach, because that's all I know how to do.

One other factor: The convention was preceded by my decision to ask Joe Lieberman to be my running mate. And there was a magic about that
combination that is hard to describe...

RS: It was most comparable, really, to the excitement generated by Clinton picking you. In terms of doing something imaginative, different and from the heart.

AG: Actually, it hit people in much the same way. . . . And, if we're successful, Joe will have a similarly expansive interpretation of the true significance of my picking him [laughs].

RS: What do you do to relax on the campaign trail?

AG: I do interviews with journalists who can ask in-depth questions. . . .

54. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 9:01:41 AM

IJ, the fact that a number of economists including nobel prize winners have endorsed bush's plan means little as it only proves that economists disagree (gee, isn't that a news flash!). I find it interesting too that the web site does not allow for someone to withdraw their name -- perhaps after they examined the plan more closely. Also, in case you haven't noticed, there are a number of nobel prize winning economist who haven't endorsed Bush's plan....the Nobel prize committee has always tried to be balanced in their assessments, typically giving the award to more conservative economists in some years and more liberal ones in others. As Rask said, economist have political views, just like everyone else.

The economist magazine recently had a bunch of economists rating Bush & gore's plan -- they gave Bush a solid C and Gore a b-. Not a ringing endorsement for either plan, but the edge went to Gore.

Be that as it may, it is difficult to argue with you when what you keep telling me I said is not what I said. You said I painted an alarmist view. I did no such thing. That I said taxes are required to run the economy or some such thing. I didn't (regardless of if it's true or not). I said that in this economic environment, it is doubtful that the Fed would support a huge injection of fiscal stimulus --rather they would raise rates to counteract the stimulation in an attempt to forestall an inflationary cycle. Already today they announced the social security cola will be going up 3.5% in January...the highest increase since 1991. In this environment, the Fed would definitely work to neutralize the fiscal stimulus. As Rask pointed out, they've already said they would.

55. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 9:01:50 AM

In addition to the problems with the plan to privatize social security which even now the Wall St. Journal is reporting, bush's team has neglected to mention that his tax cut won't be so ubiquitous for the middle class as he suggests because under his plan, more taxpayers will fall under the alternative minimum tax and won't be getting those cuts after all.

Interesting that Bush says to go to his web site and plug in your income and see how much of a tax break you'll get under his plan -- the web site stops at $100,000 income. Apparently he doesn't want you to see how much of a tax break he or others in his family will be getting, or the Donalds or the Gates' of the world.

56. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 9:51:29 AM

The economist magazine recently had a bunch of economists rating Bush & gore's plan -- they gave Bush a solid C and Gore a b-. Not a ringing endorsement for either plan, but the edge went to Gore.

I've read the article. The economists surveyed were academics, as I recall less than 60 of them replied to the survey, and to the degree Gore edged Bush it was based on the grade each academic gave the respective plans on fairness. Bush's plan won handily on promoting economic efficiency.

I find it interesting too that the web site does not allow for someone to withdraw their name -- perhaps after they examined the plan more closely.

Grasping and silly. The Web site doesn't have a way for anyone to add or withdraw their name because it's a non-interactive site. Would you make the same criticism of a printed statement? BTW, the list is growing rather than shrinking. Last month it was about 300, now it's more than 500.

Do economists disagree? Evidently so, because Slackjaw didn't like it when I remarked similarly (that they disagree), whereas you think they do.

Both you and Rask make the argument that this endorsement means little (or nothing). Are you seriously of the opinion that what six Nobel laureate economists and more than 500 other economists say about economics should be totally ignored? Is your field no more valid or understood than astrology?

(cont.)

57. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 9:54:11 AM

(cont.)

Already today they announced the social security cola will be going up 3.5% in January...the highest increase since 1991. In this environment, the Fed would definitely work to neutralize the fiscal stimulus.

I'm sure you don't mean to imply that SS COLA has any bearing on Fed policy at all. Regardless, what you and Rask are both arguing is that the Fed would counteract any over stimulus of the economy by the tax cut. Again I say, So?

In addition to the problems with the plan to privatize social security

Eventually, we are going to have to bite the bullet on SS. It makes more sense to do it now during economic good times and surplus than later. Under Gore's plan, eventually SS taxes will have to be raised (yet again) to save it. With a better return on SS through investment in the private sector, that should not be necessary.

Apparently he doesn't want you to see how much of a tax break he or others in his family will be getting, or the Donalds or the Gates' of the world.

They get a lot more money than you or I do already. Perhaps we should just use the government to take it from them.

Under Bush's plan, the rich will pay a slightly greater burden of all income taxes than they do now.

58. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 9:54:54 AM

Thoughtful: I will have to reply to your charge that I've mischaracterized your earlier statement later.

59. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:13:07 AM

Ha, ha, ha... so now Thoughtful is criticizing Bush's plan on the basis that the Alternate Minimum Tax will preclude some $100,000+pa taxpayers from getting the full benefit of his cut...

Ha, ha, ha. Monday he criticizes Bush's plan for giving too much to the rich, and for being "inflationary." The next day he criticizes Bush's plan for not giving enough to the rich, and for possibly not "giving away" quite enough money to be inflationary...

It seems Thoughtful is pretty inconsistent, except on one point: He will criticize Bush's plan from the right, and he will criticize it from the left. he will criticize it for giving too much to the rich, he will criticize it for not giving enough to the rich. He will criticize it for being too big and thus "inflationary," and then he will criticize it for being not big enough and thus not quite inflationary enough.

His premises and arguments and assumptions and perspective are absolutely inconsistent and self-contradictory, but his conclusion never wavers: Bush's plan is bad.

If not for Reason A, then for contradictory Reason B.

60. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:14:36 AM

This is plainly a case of:

Conclusions first, analysis second.

Any semi-plausible analysis at hand will be used to support the pre-ordained conclusion. Even wildly contradictory analyses.

61. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:17:14 AM

I wonder if Thoughtful has discounted his/Gore's estimate of the "cost" of Bush's tax cuts for the effects of the Alternate Minimum Tax.

It seems that if a lot of rich people won't be getting the full benefit of the rate reduction, then you must of course lower the expected cost of the tax reduction.

But no, he/she/whatever doesn't do that.

Because he/she/whatever finds it rhetorically convenient to peg the cost of the tax reduction at an artificially, dishonestly inflated level, but then to simultaneously criticize the plan as "not giving away as much as it promises."

62. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 10:22:04 AM

I believe Thoughtful is a woman, Ace.

63. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:23:21 AM

Judith,

Based on her rather cavalier attitude towards self-serving self-contradiction, and an utter lack of consistency, I should have guessed.

64. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:23:49 AM

Wimmens, you know, just don't put much value on logical consistency.

65. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:25:56 AM

Example:

1) Hillary Clinton is just as tough and capable as a man.

2) Rick Lazio "threatened" her by walking over to her with his soft-money pledge.

3) But Al Gore didn't similarly threaten Bush by walking even closer to Bush, for no good reason.

Your typical woman --especially your typical liberal woman -- sees no inherent contradiction in these three premises.

66. ycmeehan - 10/19/2000 10:27:35 AM

As I told you before, Ace, you're a phallocrate besides being a kakistocrate.

67. PelleNilsson - 10/19/2000 10:29:12 AM

Coming directly from Language, yc?

68. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:29:31 AM

This just goes to show you how silly we were to give them the right to vote.

69. ycmeehan - 10/19/2000 10:31:20 AM

Yes, Pelle, from Prof.

70. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:31:50 AM

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED OCT 18, 2000 21:29:51 ET XXXXX

ERECTION ELECTION: ROLLING STONE AIRBRUSHES GORE'S CROTCH ON COVER

Publishers row was stunned late Wednesday after it was revealed how ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE had air-brushed Vice President Al Gore’s crotch region in a jaw dropping cover spread in it’s Nov. 9th issue.

ROLLING STONE editor in chief Jann Wenner had no comment on a report from the online service INSIDE.COM which first detailed the Gore photo shoot.

Gore’s protruding portrait actually had to be brought down a bit , according magazine insiders.

The khaki-clad Gore appeared erect in the original photos which were later modified.

The photos accompany an extended interview with Gore by Wenner. Wenner has become a top supporter of the vice president, traveling on the campaign trail and hosting a star-studded fundraiser at Radio City Music Hall in New York.


They talked about Gore's Bonergate all morning on Imus.

I can't wait for Letterman, Leno, Conan, Killborn, & Maher to weigh in on Chubby-Gate.

71. robertjayb - 10/19/2000 10:32:15 AM

.
The voter.com poll ia unchanged today with Bush at 42% and Gore at 40%. In the Zogby poll Bush jumps 1 to 44% and Gore holds steady at 43%.

72. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:34:06 AM

NBC Teeter/Hart Poll: Bush 45 Gore 42
Portrait of America: Bush 45 Gore 40
ABC News/Wall Street Journal: Bush 48 Gore 42

73. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 10:34:46 AM

Thank you, judithah.

No, Ace, I'm not being contradictory, I'm criticizing the "fuzzy numbers" and exaggerations the Bushies have put forth including not being upfront about who will and won't benefit by the massive tax cut he's proposing.

74. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:34:56 AM

(above from memory; should be accurate -- especially the first two -- but recollection is hazy on ABC/WSJ)

75. glendajean - 10/19/2000 10:36:14 AM

Gallap has same numbers as ABC poll, so I assume it's the same. Nader has 4% in their poll.

76. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:37:39 AM

Thoughtful:

Give it up. No "Bushies" are promising big tax cuts to the rich. If anything, "Bushies" are downplaying the extent to which the rich will benefit, while "Gories" have based their entire campaign on "the wealthiest 1%."

It turns out that the rich *won't* benefit nearly as much as the "Gories" pretend -- and then they simultaneously turn around and criticize *BUSH* for not giving as much to the rich as Gore *CLAIMS* he will.

77. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:40:38 AM

Further:

"I'm not being contradictory"

Of course you are. Are you suggesting that we should lower the Alternate Minimum Tax? Of course you aren't.

"I'm criticizing the "fuzzy numbers" and exaggerations the Bushies have put forth including not being upfront about who will and won't benefit by the massive tax cut he's proposing."

Ummmm, Bush is stressing that his tax cuts will disproportionately (in terms of percentage) benefit the *POOR*, not the rich. It's *GORE* who's claiming the opposite.

It turns out that your new Talking Point supports Bush and calls Gore a liar.

Your conclusion? What else -- that Bush is Evil for making Gore a Liar.

78. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 10:47:20 AM

IJ, I'm sure you don't mean to imply that SS COLA has any bearing on Fed policy at all. Regardless, what you and Rask are both arguing is that the Fed would counteract any over stimulus of the economy by the tax cut. Again I say, So?

I post *evidence* of inflation acceleration by citing the SS cola number. But apparently you are unable to distinguish evidence from analysis.

The "so what" is that, as in Greenspan's speech today, he attributes the strong economy, strong productivity growth and the capital deepening to a low capital cost environment made possible by the growing federal surplus. If Bush wins and his far less fiscally conservative program comes to fruition, those surpluses will shrink and maybe put us back into deficits again -- and all the negative impacts thereof: slower economic growth, slower productivity, higher inflation, etc.

79. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 10:50:22 AM

Ace, why don't you check out the analysis by the Citizens for Tax Justice to see who gets the tax cuts and whose program is more fiscally conservative...at least they exist unlike that other committee you referred to, to which I can find and apparently you can't find a reference.

80. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 10:51:40 AM

er...that's I can't find

81. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:55:52 AM

Thoughtful:

Why don't you change your name to "Dumb as a Bag full of Hammers"?

Citizens for Tax Justice is of course a leftist thinktank. You're a moron.

The group I'm talking about, Committee for a Responsible Budget, can be found in a recent article on Salon. Hang on, I'll give you the article.

82. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:58:26 AM

A link to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Government can be found in this article:

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/18/bush_road/index.html

83. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 10:59:19 AM

"Bush disputed Gore's claim that he's "absolutely against big government." "There's a man who's prone to exaggeration," Bush said. The Bush campaign bandies about the recent study by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan independent organization, that Gore's proposals would "produce the largest spending increases since LBJ and the Great Society." For some reason, the Bush campaign neglects to mention that the same group said that Bush's proposals would produce the second largest spending increases since LBJ."

84. PelleNilsson - 10/19/2000 11:02:51 AM

What kind of vessel is this SS COLA?

85. PelleNilsson - 10/19/2000 11:04:52 AM

I see that Ace is aiming for one of his posts to be deleted so he can start whining about Cellar again. Bit of a childish game in mt view.

86. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 11:08:19 AM

Pelle,

No, someone who cites "Citizens for Tax Justice" and tries to slide it past someone as an unbiased source deserves to be called a "moron."

Or at least they belong to be called dishonest.

Thoughtful called *me* a moron, implicitly, by assuming that I wouldn't know just who Citizens for Tax Justice are (although their name sort of gives the game away, yes?).

87. Wombat - 10/19/2000 11:08:22 AM

Pelle:

Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA). Note that these never decrease.

88. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 11:09:34 AM

Thoughtful:

Please cite me NORML's analysis of Bush's tax plan, too. And maybe the Sierra Club's analysis, and maybe NAMBLA's.

89. Wombat - 10/19/2000 11:09:40 AM

Ace:

A quick glance at board members of the organization you cite gives a pretty clear idea of where they're coming from.

90. PelleNilsson - 10/19/2000 11:10:30 AM

And has the cost of living ever decreased (after the deflation between the wars)?

91. CalGal - 10/19/2000 11:17:50 AM

You know, I can't believe that Bush is lowering the AMT. Fuck him eternally with a barb wire dildo. Who does he think he is?

92. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 11:20:33 AM

Cal,

He isn't lowering the AMT. That's the point of Thoughtful's contradictory critique.

93. CalGal - 10/19/2000 11:23:00 AM

Phew. There are not many tax issues that bug me, but the AMT and SocSec get me every time.

94. jexster - 10/19/2000 11:24:14 AM

Big Fat Mama: I Thought Gore Was Gonna Hit Georgie!

95. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 11:32:11 AM

Oh please...if Al had tried to hit GW, I'm sure that little rooster could've defended himself. After all, didn't he once try to get his Daddy to fight?

96. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 11:35:35 AM

No fair fighting Dubya when he's sober.

97. jexster - 10/19/2000 11:38:15 AM

. No "Bushies" are promising big tax cuts to the rich. If
anything, "Bushies" are downplaying the extent to which the rich will benefit, while "Gories" have based their entire campaign on "the
wealthiest 1%."

Gore: Look the problem is that under Gov. Bush's plan, $1.6 trillion in tax cuts goes mostly to the wealthy. Under his own budget numbers, he proposes to spend more money in tax cuts to the top 1% than all the new money he budgets for education, health care and national defense combined....
Lehrer: What do you say specifically to what the Vice President said tonight? He's said it many, many times that your tax cut benefits the top wealthiest 1% of Americans. And you've heard what he just said...

Bush: Of course it does.

98. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 11:38:41 AM

In all honesty, "The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget" does look, at first glance, to be non-partisan and objective. It is co-chaired by Tim Penny, a deficit hawk, a Democrat, and one of my favorite politicians.

What I am still looking for, however, is anything that backs up Ace's claim from yesterday that Gore's larger spending increases are greater than Bush's larger tax cuts, something he claimed came from the same organization.

99. phydeau - 10/19/2000 11:39:46 AM

It does seem strange that nearly every word spoken by Mr. Gore is pulled from context and parsed beyond recognition to prove his unworthiness, while Mr. Bush rarely suffers even nominal scrutiny of a murky corner of his background: his military service and his business career.

This just about sums up the performance of the "liberal" media. Any fair reporting would reveal Bush as the incompetent, unqualified lightweight that he is. And we gotta have a horse race... polling companies, big media companies, pundits, all depend for their livelihood on people being kept in suspense.

I'm predicting a repeat of 1998, since the "liberal" media hasn't seemed to change their approach or learned their lesson: predictions of Republican victory, actual Democratic victory.

100. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 11:39:51 AM

"Lehrer: What do you say specifically to what the Vice President said tonight? He's said it many, many times that your tax cut benefits the top wealthiest 1% of Americans.

Bush: Of course it does.

And it does "benefit the wealthiest 1% of Americans." What's your point?

101. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 11:41:00 AM

"predictions of Republican victory, actual Democratic victory."


Thus, the towering Presidencies of Mssrs Mondale & Dukkakis.

102. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 11:42:56 AM

Jexster:

Do you think Gore was trying to repeat the success of "The Kiss" by being photographed with a hard-on?

What, precisely, is the electoral math on this?

I'm sure you'd know. The question embraces your two chief interests-- politics, and cocks.

103. jexster - 10/19/2000 11:43:20 AM

The New York Times captures the Bush-whacking: "Gov. George W. Bush plunged into the final three-week stretch of the presidential race today, arguing that Vice President Al Gore would endanger the nation's prosperity and using his own pledge of tax cutting to rally his party's base. Crisscrossing the swing state of Wisconsin
on a glorious fall day, Mr. Bush, a Texas Republican, repeatedly criticized his Democratic opponent as a proponent of big government. 'He's of the government,' Mr. Bush thundered. 'He's for the government. He loves Washington, D.C.' "

(Note to local readers: Do not despair. This happens every four years. Whoever wins discovers that he likes Washington, D.C., especially the rent-free housing, and tries to stay another four years.) Kurtz, Post

104. jexster - 10/19/2000 11:46:10 AM

My point is that of course the Bushies aren't talking about the fact that their tax plan benefits the top 1%. They've been doing all they can to avoid admitting the truth - until Tuesday night when the much-maligned Jim Lehrer finally got Bush to admit the truth of what Gore's been saying for weeks - Bush gives more in tax relief to the top 1% than he does to education, health care and national defense combined.

Got it now?

105. concerned - 10/19/2000 11:47:26 AM

Jay Leno on Alphalfa Bore:

"Al Gore ... he once was pro-life, now he's pro-choice. He once was against gun control, now he's for it. He claimed he invented the Internet. Hey, Gore just needs to debate himself!"

"Al Gore visited a bookstore today. He was shocked to find a book about everything he has said in his campaign could be found in the fiction section."

"Our country has come a long way: first we had George Washington, who couldn't tell a lie. Then we had Bill Clinton, who couldn't tell the truth. And now we have Al Gore, who can't tell the difference..."


Good stuff.

106. jexster - 10/19/2000 11:49:23 AM

But let's not duck another important issue. The Fed has been inching interest rates up steadily to combat what Greenspan obviously believes are inflationary pressures in the economy.

With the economy performing at truly incredible and, indeed, unprecedented levels, a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut would be hyper-inflationary, would drive interest rates up like nobody's business, and would bring us right back to stag-flation.

107. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 11:50:54 AM

"With the economy performing at truly incredible and, indeed,
unprecedented levels, a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut would be
hyper-inflationary, would drive interest rates up like nobody's business, and would bring us right back to stag-flation."

Oh come on now.

108. jexster - 10/19/2000 11:52:35 AM

Let's put the debate in concrete terms.

In 1987, I bought a Volvo. It cost a bit over $17,000. Today, the comparable car costs about 10K more and yet the monthly payments are about the same.

Why?

Interest rates.

109. concerned - 10/19/2000 11:52:51 AM

What, me worry?
Future Senator from Connecticut

110. jexster - 10/19/2000 11:53:57 AM

Rask - You argue, I take it, that a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut would not be inflationary?

111. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 11:54:33 AM

"Jim Lehrer finally got Bush to admit the truth of what Gore's been saying for weeks - Bush gives more in tax relief to the top 1% than he does to education, health care and national defense combined."

Ummm, as usual, you read whatever pleases you into a statement or article.

Read your quote again. Bush "admitted" that his tax "benefits" the wealthiest 1%, as it benefits all taxpayers.

He did not "admit" the rest of the bullshit. Jim Lehrer said no such thing, and Bush admitted to no such thing.

In fact, the top 1% get $149 billion over ten years, whereas Bush spends $249 billion over ten years in new spending on those four programs.

And it's an idiotic statistic, anyway. Tax cuts affect MILLIONS of people. New spending affects a far smaller number. Of course any tax cut will exceed the spending on any DOZEN of programs.

If Bush proposed a tax cut of $10 to every American, that would be a $2.7 billion dollar tax cut -- and that figure would dwarf spending on, say, honey subsidies, security at overseas bases and embassies, and Americorps.

So what?

112. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 11:56:45 AM

Ace:

Have you actually seen the photos of Gores pants? Care to link to it for us or are we just supposed to take yours and Drudges word for it? Or the word of an editor trying to sell magazines?

113. jexster - 10/19/2000 11:58:58 AM

If Bush gets elected and a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut is enacted, a cut based on the rosiest of rosy scenarios, that money is gone. Even now, Brookings is questioning the CBO budget projections because Congress and The President have already busted 1997 Budget Act caps.
A trillion here, a trillion there and you have real deficits. Unless you buy into Laffer economic quakery, a cut of that size means big deficits. Big deficits mean high interest rates.


The fed has been increasing interest rates for a year now because Greenspan fears inflation. Long term interest rates have been inching back up after falling for years.

It ain't that hard to figger Rask

114. jexster - 10/19/2000 12:00:28 PM

Where in God's name do you get your goof-ball numbers from. Certainly not from Bush Ace.

Drudge perhaps or did you just dig them out of your underwear?

115. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 12:00:30 PM

"Rask - You argue, I take it, that a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut would not be inflationary?"

No, I just can't take seriously claims that it would be hyperinflationary, lead to massive interest rate hikes, and cause a return to stagflation.

116. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:00:38 PM

"Have you actually seen the photos of Gores pants?"

Sort of. It's posted at Rollingstone.com, but it's a small non-enlargeable picture, and it's already been airbrushed, anyway.

" Care to link to it for us or are we just supposed to take yours and Drudges word for it?"

Yes yes, Drudge has been wrong sooooo many times. And at any rate: Once again, the story comes not from Drudge but from Inside.com, from whom he got the story.

"Or the word of an editor trying to sell magazines?"

The editor at Rolling Stone? Jann Wenner, the buttboy who just licked Gore's ass in print and begs the reader to vote for Gore?

Or the editor at Inside.com, perhaps fishing for a nice fat million dollar libel suit?

In any event, it's the talk of the town here in NY -- Imus is talking it up. Hell, The View with Barbra Walters is talking Boner-Gate up!

117. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 12:03:17 PM

I agree that it is bad fiscal policy, though, simply for budget balancing reasons.

118. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:06:03 PM

"If Bush gets elected and a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut is enacted"

$1.3 trillion, dope.

"a cut based on the rosiest of rosy scenarios, that money is gone."

Wrong. It is not based on a Rosy Scenario -- it's based on very conservative projections. Surpluses will be bigger than predicted, *if* present trends hold or even decline somewhat.

"Even now, Brookings is questioning the CBO budget projections because Congress and The President have already busted 1997 Budget Act caps."

No shit. But President *BUSH* will not force Congress to bust those caps by threatening a budget shut-down in an election year. Republican President + Republican Congress = Smaller Budgets.

Whatta moron.

119. jexster - 10/19/2000 12:06:59 PM

Looks like Ace has learned a thing or two from Bill. Parse, parse parse....

Bush stepped smartly into his own pile of shit.

He has never disputed the truth of Gore's charge. If he did not admit it in a legal sense, he did so in all other senses.

120. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:07:20 PM

Ha, ha, ha.

Jexster claims that Bush's budget will run into deficits based on President *Clinton's* drunken-sailor budget increases.

Does jism kill brain cells?

121. jexster - 10/19/2000 12:07:43 PM

Its 1.6 trillion goof ball. Bush counts only 9 years instead of 10.

122. jexster - 10/19/2000 12:09:07 PM

I would think that Ace might find it a reasonable idea to know what his candidate has proposed before he sallies forth to make war.

123. jexster - 10/19/2000 12:10:21 PM

I claim that Bush's economic projections and his tax cuts are malarky.

I claim that the Ace of Spades does not know shit from shinola.

Big news that is!

124. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 12:13:16 PM

"Wrong. It is not based on a Rosy Scenario -- it's based on very
conservative projections. Surpluses will be bigger than predicted, *if* present trends hold or even decline somewhat. "

Phooey, they are not "very conservative". The projections hold if we experience no recessions, ignore the Medicare trust fund surplus, and hold domestic spending at levels completely unrealistic even for Republicans. You make it sound like Clinton forced Congress at gunpoint to exceed the 1997 spending caps. Regardless though, Bush is selling himself as a conciliator who can work with Democrats, not someone who will be hardnosed and force Democrats in Congress to conform to spending caps.

125. jexster - 10/19/2000 12:14:39 PM

Mr. Bush presumably wants to convey the sense that he's a compassionate guy who really cares about education, the environment and all that. But that doesn't excuse claiming to spend twice as much on these good things as the number given in his own budget.

He continued: "But there's still a quarter unspent, about $1.3 trillion [the size of Mr. Bush's tax cut]. I think we ought to send it back to the people who pay the bills." Alas, 4 times 1.3 is 5.2, not 4.6 — and anyway, the full budget cost of that tax cut, including interest, is $1.6 trillion, more than a third of the projected surplus

Ooops! He Did It Again

126. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 12:17:00 PM

Hell, *Bush* is proposing new domestic spending and no spending cuts. You think Congress is likely to be less profligate?

127. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:18:10 PM

"You make it sound like Clinton forced Congress at gunpoint to exceed the 1997 spending caps."

He did, dummy. Have you not read a newspaper in ten weeks?

Have you not read a single story about how Clinton is threatening a government shutdown & keeping Republicans in DC (when they'd really like to just go home to campaign), forcing them to spend more than they want?

There have been dozens of stories: Republicans on verge of surrender, etc.

And he did the same thing in 1998 and 1999.

Rask, I swear to Christ, I really don't know if you're stupid or hopelessly partisan.

128. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:19:31 PM

"Regardless though, Bush is selling himself as a conciliator who can work with Democrats, not someone who will be hardnosed and force Democrats in Congress to conform to spending caps."

Duhhhhhhh. He doesn't have to be a "conciliator" if the R's control the Presidency & both Houses of Congress.

129. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 12:21:20 PM

And Ace: the 4.6 trillion surplus assumes that the surplus will be used to spend down the debt, reducing interest payments and creating further surplusses. Hence, Bush's tax cut has an additional affect of reducing the size of future surpluses. That is one reason why you keep seeing different numbers bandies around for the size of Bush's tax cut. His "1.3 trillion" ignores interest costs. I also recall reading that he is only counting 9 years of tax cuts, which is why the size of his tax cuts often gets pushed to 1.9 trillion, but I can't recall where I read that.

130. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:22:14 PM

Jesus Christ, Rask, this really pisses me off.

Are you really claiming you don't remember the stories in 1998 and 1999 about how Clinton always "beats Republicans at budget time," how he always gets his way by threatening a shutdown and forcing them to eat the blame again, etc.

If you did not read these stories, you obviously do not follow politics very carefully. It's not like these were buried stories.

These were huge stories in the NYT, WP, etc. Clinton's success in bullying Congress is trumpeted by friend and foe alike.

Jesus God All-Mighty.

131. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:23:35 PM

"the 4.6 trillion surplus assumes that the surplus will be used to spend down the debt"

No it doesn't. It doesn't assume anything. CBO projections are based on current spending levels.

132. glendajean - 10/19/2000 12:23:38 PM

I had to laugh at powerful Clinton forcing Congressional Republicans to stay in DC.

In 1995, they declared the president irrelevant, and unlike previous Congresses, they were quite willing to shut down the government to get their way -- something they did twice that year.

133. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 12:25:06 PM

"He did, dummy. Have you not read a newspaper in ten weeks? Have you not read a single story about how Clinton is threatening a government shutdown & keeping Republicans in DC (when they'd really like to just go home to campaign), forcing them to spend more than they want?"

I know Clinton wants more, but are the Republican proposals in line with the spending caps?

"Duhhhhhhh. He doesn't have to be a "conciliator" if the R's control the Presidency & both Houses of Congress."

But this is no guarantee. The House looks like a toss-up and there is even a slim possibility of losing the Senate. Is it "conservative" to ignore the strong possibility of Democrats controlling at least one of the houses?

134. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:25:17 PM

"I had to laugh at powerful Clinton forcing Congressional Republicans to stay in DC."

Jesus. Someone else who doesn't read the newspapers.

He is forcing them to stay in DC, by refusing to sign a budget. They *must stay* until they have passed a budget.

Clinton is keeping Congress in session as long as possible to 1) get them to agree to higher spending and 2) give them as little chance as possible to campaign at home.

135. glendajean - 10/19/2000 12:25:35 PM

The shutdowns took place over winter 95-96

136. glendajean - 10/19/2000 12:27:03 PM

I laugh because they thought they could shut down the government and get away with it. They did shut it down, and it worked against them. Now they're scared shitless.

137. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:27:14 PM

"I know Clinton wants more, but are the Republican proposals in line with the spending caps?"

Probably not -- because they know Clinton won't accept such a lowball figure, and the guy with the biggest megaphone will kill them if they aren't "generous" with pork & wasteful spending.

They wouldn't have that to fear with a Republican president.

138. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 12:28:22 PM

Thoughtful:

I post *evidence* of inflation acceleration by citing the SS cola number. But apparently you are unable to distinguish evidence from analysis.

The COLA is retroactive for inflation that has already occurred throughout the past year. So citing it as inflation acceleration (as you now claim you were doing) is laughable or dishonest. The Fed has already raised interest rates throughout the year to react to earlier inflation figures.

Why not cite the most recent CPI figures instead? In August, the index actually declined. In September it went up 0.5, based almost solely on energy costs--not an over-heating economy.

As for Citizens for Tax Justice, this is where we went round about before, yet you still trot them out again. "Justice" is an economics term? When unable to argue what is economically more efficient, we fall back on nebulous moral concepts, which because of the personal morality involved, leave liberals with the intellectual grayness they need for their arguments to not be punctured like hot air balloons.

But we've done this before and you at long last conceded that Bush's plan was more progressive than the one currently in place. If "more just" = "more progressive," Bush's plan is more just.

You just don't like lower taxes and so far the best argument you have made is envy.

139. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 12:28:30 PM

(cont.)

Now, about whether I mischaracterized you as "alarmist," here's what you originally said:

For example, Bush's large tax cut can easily cause the Fed to raise interest rates to prevent an inflationary spiral, squelching economic growth raising unemployment and damaging investment and productivity. The idea that anyone would make those kinds of decisions on 'instinct' is the most frightening thing I've heard yet about this election.

Perhaps you meant Bush's tax cut would cause a tiny inflationary spiral, a tiny increase in unemployment and miniscule damage to investment and productivity. If so, please state as much and I will withdraw my characterization of the above as alarmist. Even so, I wonder that you would be so "frightened" by the method by which someone arrives at a decision of so little consequence.

140. concerned - 10/19/2000 12:28:54 PM

Re. 132 -

Contrary to the spin, Clowntoon shut down the government both times. He had the continuing resolutions right in front of him and refused to sign them. The result: shutdown.

End of story.

141. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:28:55 PM

"They did shut it down, and it worked against them. Now they're scared shitless."

This isn't quite right. Congress & the President *both* shut it down by failing to agree on a budget, and failing to agree to pass further CR's.

142. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 12:31:51 PM

"No it doesn't. It doesn't assume anything. CBO projections are based
on current spending levels."

As well as current taxation levels! You have this interesting habit of confidently making pronouncements about things you know jack shit about. Take a look at the CBO's projections and you can see for yourself that they project interest payments to drop over time as the debt is paid down. If you don't pay down the debt, you don't save money on interest payments, and the projected surpluses don't appear.

143. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 12:32:31 PM

CBO projections.

Screwed up the link.

144. glendajean - 10/19/2000 12:34:46 PM

Those newspapers back in 95 & 96 quoting Congressional Republicans saying that they were not afraid of shutting down the govenment must have been misquoting them.

145. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:35:47 PM

"Take a look at the CBO's projections and you can see for yourself that they project interest payments to drop over time as the debt is paid down."

Umm, Rask? Isn't this "debt" you talk about interest on T-bills? And aren't T-bills naturally retired at various years?

In other words --aren't T-bills which are due to be paid off paid off in the normal course of government operations, *without* additional debt retirement?

146. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:38:20 PM

And that debt is not replaced with new debt, because there's no need to issue new debt when you're running 1) a surplus or 2) a balanced budget.

147. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 12:47:32 PM

No response, Rask? Or are you busy?

In any event, I refuse to believe that CBO projections assume that the government will do this or will do that in the future.

CBO projections are verrrry *mechanical* estimates. They are not dynamic; they are based on static assumptions.

148. Dusty - 10/19/2000 12:55:35 PM

jexster

If Bush gets elected and a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut is enacted, a cut based on the rosiest of rosy scenarios, that money is gone.

Why is it gone? Is that the reduction in the first year? I thought that was a multi-year (ten?) figure.

Are you saying that if a tax cut is enacted, it cannot be reversed for at least ten years, no matter what happens?

149. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:03:09 PM

"Umm, Rask? Isn't this "debt" you talk about interest on T-bills? And
aren't T-bills naturally retired at various years?"

Yes, but without surpluses, the debt is simply reissued. The Treasury can choose to, and does, buy the debt back early on the open market, but this isn't part of the CBO assumptions.

"In other words -- aren't T-bills which are due to be paid off paid off in the normal course of government operations, *without* additional debt retirement?"

If you simply issue another 90 day T Bill to pay off one another, you haven't retired any debt.

"And that debt is not replaced with new debt, because there's no need to issue new debt when you're running 1) a surplus or 2) a balanced budget."

Look. If you have 5 trillion in debt, most of which expires in short time periods, and you are running surpluses of a 100 billion a year, *of course* you have to issue new debt. You simply aren't running the surpluses necessary to pay off each T Bill as it comes due.

In other words, reduced debt service is part of the anticipated surplus. If you cut taxes, or increase spending, you not only reduce the surplus by the amount of the program, but also by the larger interest payments which result. A much better tack would be to ask if Gore adjusts his tax and spend proposals in the same way. I honestly don't know if he does.

Ace, there is a pattern here. You state some half-baked, uninformed fact like it was a papal bull, and when corrected, you find yourself locked into an untenable position and begin to engage huge logical contortions. We would both save a hell of a lot of time if you either: 1) bothered to look up more things before talking about them, avoiding getting locked into blunders, 2) asked questions first, without committing yourself to a hopeless position, or 3) dropped the argument when corrected.

150. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:04:27 PM

Scholastic apparently conducts polls of grade-schoolers every election.

These Scholastic polls have predicted the winner of the last nine elections. Sure, the kids can't vote, but kids can detect charm and presence and such, the same stuff adults vote on, even if they don't usually admit it.

Plus, kids hear stuff from their usually married parents, who are among the most likely voters in the land.

At any rate, the results:

Bush carried every state, except RI, NY, and CT, and carried every grade. He won 54-40%.

I admit this is terribly, terribly silly.

But then-- it's predicted the last nine elections.

Who knows?

151. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:09:26 PM

"In any event, I refuse to believe that CBO projections assume that the government will do this or will do that in the future."

Read the fucking link and see for yourself.

"CBO projections are verrrry *mechanical* estimates. They are not
dynamic; they are based on static assumptions."

Yes. Static assumptions are that spending patterns stay the same, taxation patterns stay the same, and that the government follows standard policy of borrowing or paying down debt when running deficits or surpluses. You think the assume the government borrows money interest free or just lets surplus cash sit under a mattress at the Treasury?

If you look at the link, which is the *source* for the budget projections, you will see, in black and white, in Table 1-10, figures showing the CBO projecting lower interest payments as surpluses accrue. Followed by a statement of "If surpluses accrue as projected, much of the current debt will be paid down over the next several years".

152. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:11:18 PM

Rask,

No, I detect a pattern from *you*, buddy. It isn't necessary to run a "surplus" in order to retire debt -- it's simply necessary to run a *balanced budget*, for then no additional debt needs be reissued.

I think you're wrong. I think, quite frankly, you are guilty of precisely what you accuse me of -- you make shit up left and right, try to pass yourself off as an expert, or at least an informed amateur, in fields well beyond your debt, and generally sound like an idiot.

CBO projections, as I understand them, make no "assumptions" about what Congress will do with its money. If they made such assumptions, their projections could say *anything,* for they could assume the government would spend zero dollars, or that the economy would grow by 50%.

They are static projections. They do not "assume" that Al Gore will be president and will spend a certain level of money on additional debt retirement. If they *WERE* to make such assumptions, why on earth should they assume Al Gore would be president, rather than GW Bush, who does not plan to spend ANY additional dollars on debt reduction?

And *HOW MUCH* additional debt reduction would they assume? What Al Gore proposes? Half of what Al Gore proposes? More than Al Gore proposes?

No, they proceed from what we're spending today.

If you have an authoritative cite -- and no, I don't mean another one of your dumb-shit amateur-hour "I can draw a table" monographs -- please cite it, and I will concede the point.

If not, stop trying to brow-beat me into believing you know what the fuck you're talking about (I won't believe that, because you don't), and stick it up your fucking ass.

153. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 1:15:11 PM

Ace-I'm sure you'd know. The question embraces your two chief interests--politics, and cocks.

Please remember this when you next choose to whine about someone else's hardball posts. So far, I have been tolerant of such posts, thinking that they speak as much about the speaker as the target. However, if the thread degenerates, the above post would get sent to the inferno as well as any responding to you or anyone else in kind.

154. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:16:32 PM

Eat me, Jones.

155. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 1:16:55 PM

Does jism kill brain cells? see above post from host.

156. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 1:19:39 PM

Ace- I have a son who was once two years old and a handful. I have taught in inner city schools, and have taught eighth graders, I have more than enough patience to deal with any tantrums you might have in mind. Knock yourself out.

157. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:23:52 PM

"The path of interest costs depends on the size and composition of the federal debt. If surpluses accrue as projected, much of the current debt will be paid down over the next several years; however, a part of it--including some long-term bonds and savings bonds--will not be available for redemption during CBO's 10-year projection period. Therefore, in any given year, some debt will remain outstanding and incur interest costs, regardless of the size of the surplus. That minimum level of outstanding debt will decline each year, CBO estimates, eventually falling to $830 billion by 2010 (see Table 1-11). Once the minimum is reached, the baseline accounts for any excess cash from the surplus separately and does not consider the proceeds generated by investing that cash as part of net interest. Under CBO's current budget outlook, by 2007 each version of the baseline will be at the estimated minimum level of debt for the entire year and will therefore have identical net interest costs."

I read this as meaning:

Assuming no new debt accumulated over the next several years, and assuming that current debt is paid as scheduled (as of course it must be), the level of debt will reach Level X, without assuming any legislative initiatives to pay off long-term debt on an accelerated schedule.

158. concerned - 10/19/2000 1:25:44 PM

Actually, you could run a deficit each year and still reduce total debt relative to the total economy. For instance, if you have a 5 tril debt, a 3% inflation rate, and run 100 bil deficits each year, at the end of 20 years, you will have accumulated an additional 2 tril debt. However, inflation will have depreciated the total indebtedness to the equivalent of 3.5 tril current dollars. I'm not even including productivity or population increases in all of this.

This doesn't mean that I'm advocating running any particular deficit - just pointing out why the chicken little hand waving about current proposed tax cuts is bullshit.

159. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 1:27:50 PM

Ace, I thought it might be worthwhile having a discussion with you as long as you could control your childish impulse to call people names -- as if that was a valid substitute for thought. You were able to control yourself with me for awhile, for which I congratulate you. Obviously your immaturity won out.

I'm done.

160. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:30:36 PM

Thoughtful,

I'm not particularly interested in having a "discussion" for someone so shamelessly self-contradictory and inconsistent. It's like arguing with a child.

162. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:32:15 PM

And someone who criticizes a tax plan for "giving too much to the rich," and then, with nary a bit of intellectual remorse, then criticizes the same plan for failing to give *more* to the rich, is obviously fairly childish and not someone with whom an intelligent conversation can be had.

163. Dusty - 10/19/2000 1:36:34 PM

AceofSpades

re Message # 150

Please see Message # 1711 in thread 77 where I said bascially the same thing. Although I thank you for reminding me of the precise publication.

164. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:38:40 PM

"No, I detect a pattern from *you*, buddy. It isn't necessary to run a
"surplus" in order to retire debt -- it's simply necessary to run a
*balanced budget*, for then no additional debt needs be reissued."

This is mindbogglingly inane. If you don't run surpluses, debt cannot be retired. When the term on a 90 day T Bill ends, what happens? You, in effect, are saying that the government doesn't have to repay it. But they do. If they aren't running enough surpluses to pay it off, they simply issue more debt.

"I think you're wrong. I think, quite frankly, you are guilty of precisely what you accuse me of -- you make shit up left and right, try to pass yourself off as an expert, or at least an informed amateur, in fields well beyond your debt, and generally sound like an idiot."

I'll stake my reputation for accuracy up against yours anyday. Regarding expertise, I have a Masters in policy analysis, which is a hodge podge of econ, accounting, stats, public budgeting, and political science. I am also employed as a policy analyst, applying these same skills. I have never claimed to be an expert in anything, but I would argue that my mere employment exempts me from amateur status on policy issues. But none of the stuff I am talking about even requires any knowledge of econ or public budgeting, which is why I am getting pissed off. All it requires is common sense accounting, basic arithmetic, and the ability to read a web page that you have now been directed to for the third time.

166. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:38:50 PM

"CBO projections, as I understand them, make no "assumptions" about what Congress will do with its money. If they made such assumptions,
their projections could say *anything,* for they could assume the
government would spend zero dollars, or that the economy would grow
by 50%."

Congress doesn't vote on whether to pay down debt or borrow. They delegated that power to the Treasury Department, which has established policies on how they issue or pay off debt. So CBO doesn't *need* to make assumptions about what Congress will do. They just need to assume that the Treasury follows established policy.


"If you have an authoritative cite -- and no, I don't mean another one of your dumb-shit amateur-hour "I can draw a table" monographs --
please cite it, and I will concede the point."

For the 4th fucking time, read the linked CBO report that is the source for the surplus projections.

"If not, stop trying to brow-beat me into believing you know what the
fuck you're talking about (I won't believe that, because you don't), and stick it up your fucking ass."

The fact that I *have* linked this is why I am getting pissed off. I shouldn't have to be lecturing you about something you are quite capable of reading yourself.

167. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 1:41:06 PM

Ace:

I had to leave but found your response about Gores pants to be funny in one respect: saying Jann Wenner was kissing Gores ass all this time...excuse me, but Jann has been known to change his mind on things of importance in his life one or two times before....big time.

168. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:44:32 PM

"Assuming no new debt accumulated over the next several years, and
assuming that current debt is paid as scheduled (as of course it must be), the level of debt will reach Level X, without assuming any
legislative initiatives to pay off long-term debt on an accelerated
schedule."

Partially. It's primary point is that the Treasury might have to hold some cash for awhile when waiting for T Bills to come due. But if surpluses don't exceed T-Bills coming due, the Treasury has no choice but to issue new debt. You know, despite the fact that we are running surpluses, you can still buy 90 day T-Bills right now. I own some.

169. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:45:52 PM

And since you have now at least browsed the CBO report, do you see where they project government debt service to decrease as a result of te surpluses?

170. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:46:53 PM

Judith:

Well, the man concludes the interview by urging readers to vote for Gore. I mean, what the hell.

Rush Limbaugh, being conspiratorially-minded, believes that the story was deliberately manufactured by Gore & Wenner, hoping to impress women with his package. Joy Behar on The View claims that women will vote for Gore when they see the size of his (airbrush-altered) package, for example.



Rask:

My contention with you is that I believe the cost of retiring the debt is already factored into the CBO numbers, and that they are not assuming *additional* debt-retirement in their charts.

Do you get what I am saying?

Let me try again:

You believe the CBO numbers and projections are based upon devoting the surplus to debt retirement.

I believe their numbers and projections are based upon current rates of debt retirement. Non-enhanced.

171. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:47:23 PM

concerned: "Actually, you could run a deficit each year and still reduce total debt relative to the total economy."

Sure, but that isn't what we are talking about.

172. concerned - 10/19/2000 1:48:00 PM

Re. 171 -

I know, but I thought I should add the perspective.

173. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:51:03 PM

"My contention with you is that I believe the cost of retiring the debt is already factored into the CBO numbers, and that they are not assuming *additional* debt-retirement in their charts."

What do you mean by "debt retirement" being included in contrast to "additional debt retirement"? They can't retire debt without running surpluses. If someone redeems an IOU, and you have no way to pay it off, the only way to repay is by issuing another one.

I can't believe I even have to argue this point. A 5 year old could understand this.

174. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 1:51:33 PM

Posts 161 and 165 deleted as duplicates.

175. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 1:52:01 PM

Basically Ace, you are creating a false distinction. There is no debt retirement without using the surpluses to pay down debt. Period. Full stop.

176. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 1:54:14 PM

Well, the Republicans must be overjoyed that they have another penis to focus on....we may get crossover votes, who knows?

177. Cellar Door - 10/19/2000 1:56:16 PM

Why Dan Savage isn't voting for Ralph Nader.

178. concerned - 10/19/2000 1:56:56 PM

Re. 176 -

Well, if you Democrats would only stop nominating dorks for the presidency....

179. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:57:23 PM

"They can't retire debt without running surpluses. If someone redeems an IOU, and you have no way to pay it off, the only way to repay is by issuing another one."

And you're saying the CBO projections do not already assume we pay the debt as it becomes due?

I am taking "surplus" to mean the surplus above all obligations, including the cost of paying off, and retiring, debt as it becomes due, without the need to issue further debt to replace the old debt.

You are saying it means only the surplus above interest payments on debt.

180. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 1:58:19 PM

...so that, without devoting the "surplus" futher to retiring the debt, the debt continues indefinitely.

181. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:00:30 PM

In other words:

I believe (tentatively now) that the surplus is the surplus in excess of both interest payments *and* the cost of retiring each bill as it becomes due.

You are telling me the surplus only exceeds the cost of interest payments on debt, only the cost of *maintaining* the debt, only the cost of paying interest on old bills to be replaced by new debt as the old debt is retired.

182. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 2:02:00 PM

Concerned:

People make a big todo over someones penis and you think it's the owners fault? Such logic, my my....

183. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:04:57 PM

Judith:

Gore got a hard-on during a photo-shoot for Rolling Stone, and yet continued with the shoot, rather than "calming himself."

I think this is pretty fucking weird. Did he do this absent-mindedly? I can harldy believe this; every man knows when he's sproutin' and showin' wood.

Did he do this deliberately? If so, what the hell does that say?

You claim not to be a Gore supporter.

If this is so, can't you bring yourself to admitting that, if the story is true, it's fucking weird?

184. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:07:45 PM

I mean, Judith:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you would be tickled pink if that apocryphal photo of a naked GWB on a table showed up, right?

And yet...

A grown man, running for President, gets a hard-on during a photo-shoot... knowing he will be on the cover... and he continues the shoot in full wooden glory...

And you say-- Geeze, it's your problem if you make an issue of his dick.

Judith, you are not being fair-minded here. If the story is true, there is no getting around the fact that it's... disquieting, to say the least.

185. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 2:08:21 PM

Drudge has confirmed that Gore in fact had an erection?

I don't know how he did it, but that is one dedicated investigative reporter.

186. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 2:09:12 PM

Nader is not the populist he claims to be. He did not participate in the cyber debates conducted by the Red White and Blue coalition, though he was invited to. Instead, he sought ink trying to crash the televised debates. While I understand his desire to advocate his issues to the largest audience possible, and thus participate in the CPD forum, he passed on an opportunity to do the same thing in the comming forum of this century-the internet.

He states that he offers an alternative to the two parties which he claims are essentially the same. But he does not take the opportunity to demonstrate his command of the issues and talk in specifics about his plan for the country in a forum that lends itself to individual unfiltered critical reading.

I think that the forum he is most interested in is seeing himself on the monitor.

187. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 2:10:09 PM

"And you're saying the CBO projections do not already assume we pay
the debt as it becomes due?"

Well, we pay off T Bills as they come due. If we aren't running surpluses, allowing us to have cash on hand to pay them off, we have no choice but to simply re-issue the debt to another (or possibly the same - my 90 Day T Bills are automatically re-purchased) person.

"I am taking "surplus" to mean the surplus above all obligations, including the cost of paying off, and retiring, debt as it becomes due, without the need to issue further debt to replace the old debt."

That isn't how any accountant does it. If you do it your way, we are then running a huge deficit, as (I would aproximate) several trillion dollars in T Bills come due every year, and are simply re-issued.

"You are saying it means only the surplus above interest payments on debt."

"...so that, without devoting the "surplus" futher to retiring the debt, the debt continues indefinitely."

Exactly.

188. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:13:40 PM

"Drudge has confirmed that Gore in fact had an erection?

I don't know how he did it, but that is one dedicated investigative reporter."

Ohio,

For most fully-developed adult males, an erection is plainly visible through pants of just about any thickness.

I understand that your, errr, stunted growth in this area leads you to believe, wrongly, that "confirming" an erection takes some up-close inspection.

But for most of the male population, the confirmation can be made at a distance of ten or fifteen feet.

189. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:15:04 PM

Rask,

Well, I will take your word for it that you are right.

Sorry about that "stick it up your ass" business.

190. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 2:19:29 PM

"I believe (tentatively now) that the surplus is the surplus in excess of both interest payments *and* the cost of retiring each bill as it becomes due."

OK, I am finally seeing why we were disagreeing, and I apologize for being rude. I mistook honest accounting naivete for pigheadedness.

It doesn't work this way. The cost of paying off each T Bill is not considered an "expense". You won't see it listed as a government budget item. Only *interest* is considered an expense. You would have to ask an accountant to clearly explain *why* it is done this way, but assets and liabilities are always tracked separately from expenses and revenues.

"You are telling me the surplus only exceeds the cost of interest payments on debt, only the cost of *maintaining* the debt, only the cost of paying interest on old bills to be replaced by new debt as the old debt is retired."

Exactly.

191. marshame - 10/19/2000 2:23:40 PM

I haven't seen any discussion about Gore's unbelievable statement in debate #3 that any person making over $350k will get a tax cut greater than the combined total of everyone else in the room!! How could Gore get away with such a preposterous statement?

192. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:26:54 PM

Marshame:

Because he said, "assume you are in the middle of the middle class..."

When Gore talks like this, what he really means is "assume you are in the middle of the bottom 20% of earners in the country."

Those people will not, in fact, get much of a tax break under Bush, because they're barely paying federal taxes as it is.

Gore does this a lot. During his convention speech, he said that Bush's tax cuts would give "middle class" taxpayers 62 cents per week.

He really meant "per day," and 62 cents per day is what someone making $20,000 a year would get in a tax cut.

193. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:27:51 PM

(which is obviously not "the middle of the middle class." But then Gore likes to use language in new and strange ways, such as defining tax cuts as government spending and spending on the poor as tax cuts.)

194. phydeau - 10/19/2000 2:35:30 PM

Character assassination

http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.The.New.Science.of.C.html

The first paragraph

The past ten days will go down as a turning point in American history. This is what it's like when the far right is taking over your country: the people support Al Gore's policies, but the polls are shifting toward George W. Bush because the media is filled with false attacks on Al Gore's character. A story in today's (10/15/00) New York Times states openly what has been clear all along, that this campaign of character assassination has been planned and executed over a long period by the Republicans.

The last paragraph:

It is not surprising that Rupert Murdoch's media properties, such as Fox and the New York Post, publish smears against people who disagree with Murdoch's far-right views. But it can hardly be an accident that the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press have all assigned reporters to the Gore campaign who write, day in and day out, the same sorts of exaggerated smears. To be sure, the press is not unanimous in spreading Republican lies as truth; the contrast between the NYT/Post/AP axis and the calm reporting of the Los Angeles Times could hardly be greater. But the Post, Times, and AP, all well-connected and widely syndicated, set the tone for the press as a whole. The fix is clearly in, and these establishment media operations are clearly down with it. They see which way the wind is blowing, and they don't want to get left behind. A kind of coup is in effect, continuing the pattern of the Whitewater hoax and impeachment. If the far right succeeds in its campaign, then the incoming government will be staffed by people who are trained in the new science of character assassination. It's all they know. And having destroyed Al Gore, they will come after the rest of us.

195. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:37:08 PM

The Amazin' Airbrushed package:

196. concerned - 10/19/2000 2:37:13 PM

How much of a 'tax break' can you get if you are already paying no net Federal Income Taxes, due to transfer payments, EITC, etc.?

That's where a very sizable fraction of American households are, financially, and the Lefties keep coming up with the cheap shots about 'cutting' their taxes more than those who actually do contribute Federal Revenue at the end of the day.

What a load of Socialist malarkey.

197. phydeau - 10/19/2000 2:37:35 PM

From the above article

The New York Times discerns four landmarks in this campaign, and landmark number one is as follows:

... in December 1997 ... the [Republican National] committee announced
it had started a contest to come up with a slogan for Mr. Gore after he told reporters that the hero and heroine in the novel "Love Story" were modeled after him and his wife, Tipper. (Erich Segal, the author, soon said that his protagonist, Oliver Barrett IV, was only partly based on Mr. Gore, while Jenny Cavilleri had nothing to do with
Tipper Gore.)

In this case, the RNC's claim was false. Gore had not told anyone that Love Story was based on him and his wife. Rather, he had mentioned a newspaper article that had inaccurately said that, and was carefully to say that he only had the article's word to go on. Observe that Mitchell repeats the RNC's false account, and then (following the longstanding convention) makes it sound as though Segal was contradicting Gore, when in fact he was defending him. The false "Love Story" store continues to be repeated to the present day.

198. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 2:37:43 PM

IJ, The SS cola *is* based on the inflation figures released yesterday --it's not based on the calendar year, so it *is* a current measure of inflation. If you want September figures, fine. Ex food and energy, cpi inflation rose 0.3% the highest pace since March. There is nothing laughable or dishonest about citing inflation figures over a period of time as that's how inflation is measured.

The fact that the Fed has been raising interest rates to combat an overheating economy in no way means they won't raise them again, especially if faced with strong fiscal stimulus against a backdrop of an economy already running flat out. The Fed does not wait for inflation to accelerate and then react as it knows that it takes from 12-18 months for monetary policy actions taken today to have an impact on the real economy. They act preemptively to keep the economy on an even keel, anticipating as best as possible future aggregate demand.

I do not cite the Citizens for Tax Justice as having anything to do with their name or justice -- rather that I have reason to respect their analysis. Regardless that post wasn't meant for you.

199. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:38:05 PM

Now?

200. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 2:39:35 PM

concerned: The EITC was a bit of "socialism" that was the brainchild of the Reagan Administration, and is very similar to the Negative Income Tax plan of that noted Communist, Richard Nixon.

201. concerned - 10/19/2000 2:39:52 PM

Now I can see why. 'U2 Barenaked Ladies' right next to Pinocchio's woody?

202. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:40:24 PM

There is, undeniably, something not quite right with that package.

It's odd. You'd think they'd be able to airbrush indetectably.

203. concerned - 10/19/2000 2:42:10 PM

Re. 200 -

I have no criticism of the EITC (which a certain pathological liar & crook who shall momentarily remain nameless falsely claimed credit for).

I'm simply pointing out the dishonesty of Leftist politicians when talking about feeding their taxation and revenue addition.

204. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 2:43:19 PM

It is expected yet enduringly amusing that the mere specter of the clearly stupid Bush defeating the oh-so-capable Gore would bring about a blame the media/blame the people/blame the vast right-wing conspiracy moaning. I'm reminded of the Colts bitching "fix" when Namath made good on his promise.

On another note, is this statement true?

"isten, for 24 years, I have never been afraid to take on the big drug companies. They do some great things. They discovered great new cures, and that's great. We want--we want them to continue that.
But they are now spending more money on advertising and promotion--you see all these ads--than they are on research and development."

205. concerned - 10/19/2000 2:43:28 PM

Freudian slip?.....addiction.....

206. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 2:43:58 PM

"I have no criticism of the EITC (which a certain pathological liar & crook who shall momentarily remain nameless falsely claimed credit for). "

He claimed credit for *increasing* the EITC, and he did sponsor a successful bill to that effect.

207. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:44:05 PM

Rask:

It is wrong to call an expansion of the EITC a "tax cut," as Gore does.

It is wrong to call a government subsidation of retirement savings a "tax cut," as Gore does.

And it is wrong to say that you will give taxpayers a $10,000 tax *credit* for each child's college tuition, when in fact

1) The program already exists;
2) You are proposing a $10,000 tax DEDUCTION, not credit (works out to be, for the average family, worth around $800); and
3) that covers an entire FAMILY, and is not "per child."

But Gore calls it "per family" in his budget to keep the numbers down, and yet reassures every single citizen that asks him that it is "per child." It is not.

208. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 2:44:09 PM

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

He's got his lunch in there.

209. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 2:45:16 PM

Actually, it appeasr his penis emanates from his belly button, confirming my long held suspicion that he is from planet Orgon.

210. concerned - 10/19/2000 2:46:37 PM

Re. -

We know all about how Pinocchio Bore 'took on' Occidental Petroleum, the Bore family Sugar Daddy.


Can you say 'Elk Hills Naval Oil Reserve'?

211. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 2:46:39 PM

Or maybe it is yet another subtle rejection of Clintonism, who, according to Ms. Flowers, was not spectacularly endowed.

Or an embrace of Clintonism, for Ms. Jones swore that it was askew.

212. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:46:53 PM

Jack,

Good eyes. It obviously is not a penis, because penises don't extend from the coccyx up to the bellybutton.

Unless -- are we to assume -- that his unit is so large it must be folded over itself to fit inside his pants?

213. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 2:47:04 PM

Jack: I have heard that stat bandied around a lot. I don't know if it is true, but if false it wouldn't be a lie, rather an uncritical parroting of a common factoid.

214. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 2:47:28 PM

Message # 188: Thank you, Dr. Ace! However, I was merely referring to the possibility that an embarassing fold in the pants gave the appearance of an erection.

Regarding my alleged "stunted growth", I would like to state for the record that I dispute that assertion. (I will also point out that I drive a modest, inexpensive car, and have never owned a gun. Ladies, I think you know what THAT means.)

215. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 2:47:44 PM

I still disagree that the economic scenario I described was alarmist -- in fact it rather describes the experience of the 1980s: high deficits, inflation, the fed responding with high interest rates, resulting in low rates of investment and productivity growth -- but that obviously is nothing we are going to resolve. I still do find it alarming that anyone would think it's ok to put the nation in the hands of someone who makes decisions on *instinct* or only understanding the *good side* of every argument without understanding the costs. But that too is something we will not agree on.

In rereading that post, I should have said Bush's fiscal plan, because it is not just his tax cut but his total plan including spending increases and not accounting for soc sec transition costs that represent the full scope of fiscal irresponsibility.

216. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 2:49:48 PM

BTW, IJ, it's not envy....I'm in one of the highest tax brackets and would stand to benefit substantially from Bush's tax cut.

217. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 2:50:18 PM

Ace: I don't dispute anything in message 207, although I am sure I am bothered by it much less than you are. Orwellian doublespeak is common to both parties.

218. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:51:30 PM

"I was merely referring to the possibility that an embarassing fold in the pants gave the appearance of an erection."

Errrrrrr... no. You can get a "puff up" of your crotch-fabric when you sit down, resulting in the illusion of a tent-pole.

But standing? How can your pants "fold" to create the illusion of a tubular, north-by-northwest-extending mass?

And... are you claiming that this odd "fold" appeared in the dozens of shots that were taken of Gore for the cover shot?

Nope.

219. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 2:53:13 PM

Dude, it is not puff up. It is

a) a huge, folded cock
b) an alien protuberance
c) a bologna sandwich
d) a paperback of Earth in the Balance
e) a awkwardly placed colostomy bag

220. phydeau - 10/19/2000 2:53:53 PM

From the Colombia Journalism Review:

Gore Media Coverage: Playing Hardball

http://www.cjr.org/year/00/3/hall.asp

Some quotes:

Comparing the sourcing on stories, the Pew researchers found something that also was evident in my own research: "Journalists' assertions about Bush's character were more than twice as likely than Gore's to be unsupported by any evidence. In other words, they were pure opinion, rather than journalistic analysis."

And...

The substance of what Gore has been saying in speeches around the country often has been wrapped in reporters' cynical language that effectively casts doubt about his motives before he even opens his mouth.The Washington Post's Ceci Connolly, for example, need not have characterized Gore's statement to a group of healthcare workers --"It is in fact intolerable in the midst of unprecedented prosperity that we have so many Americans who do not have health insurance" -- as "moaning." And, rather than mocking Gore for wearing a Palm Pilot and characterizing him as a Bill Bradley imitator, she could have led with the substance of what Gore said that day. That's the way numerous publications have treated George W. Bush's proposals on education, crime, and other topics. They play it straight, paraphrasing and quoting his remarks. They don't raise flags about his motives right off the bat.

That "liberal" media... they sure are busy, aren't they???

221. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 2:54:50 PM

Tipper must have been the photographer. We know she is a shutterbug.

222. concerned - 10/19/2000 2:55:05 PM

Re. 206 -

Raskolnikov -

Wrong. Bore clearly referred to the original EITC when he said:

: I was the author of that proposal [the Earned Income Tax Credit]. I wrote that, so I say [to Bill Bradley], Welcome aboard. That is something for which I have been the principal proponent for a long time.

He didn't author it. As a matter of fact he nver authored *anything* related to the EITC at any time. Plus, he didn't enter Congress until two years after it was enacted.

223. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 2:55:23 PM

"Journalists' assertions about Bush's character were more than twice as likely than Gore's to be unsupported by any evidence. In other words, they were pure opinion, rather than journalistic analysis."

So, with Bush, they were just musing and with Gore, they had evidence?

224. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 2:56:00 PM

"But standing? How can your pants "fold" to create the illusion of a
tubular, north-by-northwest-extending mass?"

Well, you might be right there. Not having a full-length mirror in my office, I can't do any tests right now.

(And the phrase "tubular, north-by-northwest-extending mass" deserves to be in a romance novel!)

225. phydeau - 10/19/2000 2:56:57 PM

Jack, don't worry, I didn't expect you to understand that.

226. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 2:57:50 PM

phydeau

On the other hand, I have no expectations of you. I'm just reading the sentence.

227. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 2:58:31 PM

"spending increases and not accounting for soc sec transition costs that represent the full scope of fiscal irresponsibility."

Silliness.

If the entirety of both the SS surplus AND general revenues were devoted to a SS "lockbox," Social Security would *still* go bankrupt.

Saving Social Security requires structural reform, and there is simply no way around that fact. It is ridiculous to say that Bush's taking money from the SS Trust Fund for SS accounts will "bankrupt" Social Security, because SS will go bankrupt even if he doesn't, and SS will go bankrupt even if Al Gore has his precious "lockbox," and even if ALL surplus is devoted to Social Security.

Gore just hasn't the guts to implement the necessary reforms. If he had such guts, he and clinton would have proposed reforms, as they promised in 1992, but never got around to, strangely.

Bush's plan will probably work like this: Young people can, if they want, opt into the plan to devote a fraction of their SS tax into a private account, but only if they accept certain reductions in the generosity of the main SS benefit, including higher retirement ages.

228. concerned - 10/19/2000 2:58:55 PM

Here's a Bore lie about McCain-Feingold similar to his EITC claim, just to show how he operates:

Unlike Senator Bradley, I was a co-sponsor of it.


Of course, as everybody knows, Bore and Russell Feingold never served together in the Senate.

229. phydeau - 10/19/2000 3:00:20 PM

So, focusing on Gore's penis rather than his policies; you Republicans see this as a winning strategy?

230. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:00:50 PM

Phydeau:

That's a really good article. There's also a really kickin' site called The Daily Howler. Have you heard of it?

It's the *tits*, baby!

231. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 3:01:39 PM

Gore's not even President yet, and we're already discussing his cock.

Nostalgia for 1998 is a powerful force.

232. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 3:01:53 PM

The SS cola *is* based on the inflation figures released yesterday -- it's not based on the calendar year, so it *is* a current measure of inflation.

Thoughtful: I did not say "calendar year," I said "throughout the past year." You are wrong if you think it is based merely on the figures released yesterday.

The Social Security Act specifies a formula for determining the COLA. In general, the COLA is equal to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) from the third quarter of one year to the third quarter of the next.

You are semantically wrong that it is a measure of inflation: it is a reaction to a measurement of inflation.

This is so silly I can't believe you are arguing it (that Alan Greenspan looks at annual SS COLA adjustments, rather than the most recent CPIs, in deciding whether inflation needs reining in).

233. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:02:48 PM

"He didn't author it. As a matter of fact he nver authored *anything* related to the EITC at any time. Plus, he didn't enter Congress until two years after it was enacted."

Your quote does not "clearly" refer to the original enacting of the EITC. It refers to "that proposal". Regarding whether he authored an expansion, I have read differently in other newspapers.

234. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:03:16 PM

Wow. You Gore supporters must be glum. I still your boy is going to win, but win or lose, he's packing a Fudgsicle in his trunks and you want to talk about the EITC and the biased media.

Live a little.

235. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 3:03:26 PM

Note: The second italicized portion of my post is not from Thoughtful but from the SSA.

236. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:03:44 PM

"So, focusing on Gore's penis rather than his policies; you Republicans see this as a winning strategy?"

It's working so far, isn't it?

Shit, we got the last asshole impeached, held in contempt, & ready to be disbarred.

Who knows how far we can go with the Cock-Strategy?

Sky's the limit! Sheeeeeezy-it, boyzzz!

237. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:04:26 PM

By the way . . .

Saturday Nite Live will truly be Must See TV this week.

238. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:04:45 PM

Hey--

Is that the "lockbox" in Gore's pants?

239. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 3:05:25 PM

Who was it that coined the nickname for Gore of "Big Crotch"?

240. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:05:53 PM

Earth in My Pants.

241. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:06:14 PM

WOMAN: Is that a flashlight in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

GORE: Actually, it's my turgid cock.

WOMAN: Oh. I was sort of just joking.

GORE: I will fight for you.

WOMAN: Please go somewhere not near here.

242. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:06:46 PM

"If the entirety of both the SS surplus AND general revenues were devoted to a SS "lockbox," Social Security would *still* go bankrupt. "

You are right. To be precise Thoughtful should have said "Bush's proposal will bankrupt Social Security much sooner than Gore's proposal to leave it alone."

While I wish Gore wasn't publicly playing ostrich on this issue, I have hopes that his supplemental retirement fund plan will be successful enough to serve as a starting point for real social security reform several years from now. I suspect that there will be a massive backlash against Bush's plan when he finally presents a real plan, and it isn't cost-free.

243. Dusty - 10/19/2000 3:07:11 PM

Raskolnikov

He claimed credit for *increasing* the EITC

I don't think so. I think you bought into the spin. But I'll check.

244. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:08:37 PM

Al Diggler.

245. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:09:27 PM

Actually Jack, based on that photo, if Gore's shlong becomes a public issue, I fear Bush is DOA. If LBJ can intimidate the Vietnamese with his, Gore is sure as shit to scare any Texan out of the race.

246. Dusty - 10/19/2000 3:10:36 PM

Raskolnikov

Jack: I have heard that stat bandied around a lot. I don't know if it is true, but if false it wouldn't be a lie, rather an uncritical parroting of a common factoid.

Doesn't Gore have a staff to check such things?

Has he issued an apology?

247. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:11:10 PM

Rask

Again, it depends if in fact, it is a folded cock, or a bag of pistachios.

248. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 3:11:18 PM

Gore is the victim of bad airbrush work. Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is a tent pole in khaki's-

249. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:11:44 PM

"I don't think so. I think you bought into the spin. But I'll check."

Possible. But if so it was from a reporter who swallowed it and regurgitated it.

250. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 3:12:37 PM

"Doesn't Gore have a staff . . . ?"

Just got here, huh?

251. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:13:29 PM

I love that picture.

But jones, who the hell airbrushes a boner in?

There is something there, be it penis, a breathing pod, or pistachios.

Because if this is the work of evil airbrush men, I might actually listen more to phydeau's media conspiracy. It makes him even more odd than he presently appears.

252. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:13:36 PM

Jack,

You're killing me. "Fudgicle in his pants." "Bag of pistachios."

253. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:14:16 PM

"Doesn't Gore have a staff to check such things?"

I wish.

"Has he issued an apology?"

I don't even know that he has to. Considering that his apology during the 2nd debate was reamed by the press, and Bush hasn't apologized for his errors (and keeps repeating them), I can't see Gore rushing to apologize.

254. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:14:44 PM

Al Gore

Politically to the Left. Dresses to the Right.

255. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:15:13 PM

Ohio

Help us on this claim:

"Listen, for 24 years, I have never been afraid to take on the big drug companies. They do some great things. They discovered great new cures, and that's great. We want--we want them to continue that.
But they are now spending more money on advertising and promotion--you see all these ads--than they are on research and development."

Is this true?

256. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:15:20 PM

"Bush hasn't apologized for his errors (and keeps repeating them)"

Which errors are these?

257. concerned - 10/19/2000 3:16:02 PM

From a Linda Chavez column: 'Gore partly to blame for uninsured children':

In fact, Gore himself reportedly played a major role in a decision that deprived some 150,000 Texas children of the chance for health coverage. In 1995, Gov. bush sought permission from the Clinton-Gore administration to allow private contractors to administer some aspects of Texas' Health and Human Services programs and generate savings that would be used directly to provide health insurance for uninsured children. According to Kenneth Weinstein, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, the Bush plan would have saved more than $10 million a month, enough to pay for health coverage for 150,000 children. Writing in the Weekly Standard recently Weinstewin reports that Al Gore, bowing to pressure from the AFL-CIO, helped kill the Texas plan in 1997. the unions were worried that Bush's plan would cost public sector jobs, not just in texas, but elsewhere if it succeeded and other states followed suit. They threatened to withhold support for Gore's impending presidential run. Gore sided with the unions instead of the kids, and persuaded Bill Clinton to nix the Bush plan.

258. Dusty - 10/19/2000 3:16:11 PM

Raskolnikov
Actually Jack, based on that photo, if Gore's shlong becomes a public issue, I fear Bush is DOA.

I agree. And I can't believe Ace was naive enough to get sucked into the plan.

It's their October Surprise.

259. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:16:43 PM

Stop this.

Al Gore apparently had a raging bone during a photo shoot for Jann Wenner and we're futzing about policy.

All in the week The Ladies Man opened.

260. concerned - 10/19/2000 3:17:44 PM

Any errors in my last post are mine. I typed it in from a newspaper editorial.

261. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:17:50 PM

Cocktober Surprise?

262. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:18:20 PM

Al Gore's smuggling french bread or something, man.

263. Al D - 10/19/2000 3:18:21 PM

Jack
I have caught you in an error. It is Tipper's lunch.

264. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:18:23 PM

"Which errors are these?"

His budget errors. The "1/4 goes to this" shtick. Krugman has well documented these.

265. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 3:18:33 PM

I think we have a title for our political romance novel.

266. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:19:27 PM

"It is Tipper's lunch."

That is *not* an image I needed in my head so soon after lunchtime.

267. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:20:49 PM

Brokaw: "Doubts have been raised about both your veracity and your ability to connect with the voter, Mr. Vice President. How do you respond?

Gore: "Have you seen my hog?"

Brokaw: "Excuse me?"

Gore: "I said, 'Have you seen my cock' because your voice is the flute of the snake charmer and my cobra is getting ready to strike."

(get ups)

Brokaw: "Mr. Vice President, what . . . what are you . . . Oh my God!"

(Gore smacks Brokaw about the head and neck with his schlong)

Gore: "How you like my veracity now, bitch? Am I connecting now, you lisping freak."

(turns to the camera as Frank T.J. Mackey)

Gore: "RESPECT THE COCK!"

268. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:20:52 PM

Gore 2000: You ain't seen nothing yet!

Gore 2000: Bigger *is* Better!

Gore 2000: Ready for Bush!

Gore 2000: A Hard on for America!

269. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:21:06 PM

"His budget errors. The "1/4 goes to this" shtick. Krugman has well documented these."

You said "errorS." This is a single "error," and quite debatable.

270. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:22:29 PM

"You said "errorS." This is a single "error," and quite debatable."

He has several budget errors, and they are errors based on his own numbers.

271. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:23:34 PM

NERVOUS TEEN: Boxers or briefs?

AL GORE: I'm sorry?

TEEN: You know... boxers or briefs?

GORE: Ha. A ha ha ha. Neither, actually. I wear a lead-lined codpiece to protect my vitals against dangerous ultraviolet rays due to ozone depletion.

AUDIENCE: (nervous tittering)

272. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:25:28 PM

Maybe the bulge in Al Gore's pants conceals a tiny Secret Service Agent.

273. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 3:26:00 PM

I'll respond to Message # 255 since it was addressed to me. (Jones, please don't ban me for going off-topic!)

Beats me.

Now, back to the candidate with the wooden . . .








. . . personality.

274. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:27:28 PM

Al Gore

It's Morning in my Pants.

275. OhioSTOPAS - 10/19/2000 3:28:03 PM

(Jack: Surely you've read the RNC press release on Gore's debate statement about pharmaceutical advertising. Why don't you share it with us?)

276. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 3:29:00 PM

Al Gore:

You aint seen nothin' yet!

277. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:31:24 PM

Al Gore

Vote for him or he will frighten your children with his tumescent genitals.

278. PelleNilsson - 10/19/2000 3:32:09 PM

It's a long time since I actually laughed out loud in front of the screen. Jack's #265 made me do it.

279. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:33:14 PM

Al Gore

I will fight the contraints of my trousers.

280. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:38:03 PM

LEHRER: Governor, time is up, sir.

GORE: Jim?

LEHRER: Yes, sir.

GORE: We have a direct disagreement on this.

LEHRER: Just a minute, Mr. Vice President. I wanted to--you know, the way the rules go here, now, two minutes, two minutes, and then I'll decide whether we go on.

GORE: You looking to get a beating from my cock?.

LEHRER: So what I want to make sure is we understand here is, before we go on to another question in the health area, would you agree that you two agree on a national patients' bill of rights?

GORE: What I understand is that you're asking to ride the snake? Do I have that right, Jimmy? When I refer to the Dingell-Norwood bill, I'm talking about my huge schlummer. It is the bipartisan bill that is now pending in the Congress, and much like my cock, it attracts bothe Republican bitches and Democratic bitches. The HMOs and the insurance companies support the other bill that's pending, the one that Republican majority has put forward.

281. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:44:00 PM

This is really so bizarre.

Less than three weeks into the election, and a cover shot of Gore with a silo emerges.

The women my have dug the tongue-kiss with Tipper. But, apart from Jenna Jameson, will they flock to the cock? Will the pole get them to the polls? Are they looking to get their ballot-box stuffed?

282. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:46:32 PM

GORE: But do you support my bloated blood-sausage?

BUSH: I, I, I don't have a position on that...

GORE: I think you're afraid to take a stand on my tumescent hairy beefsicle.

BUSH: Jim, can we...

LEHRER: Let's move on.

GORE: I think that speaks for itself. He's frightened by my pulsating trouser-carp.

BUSH: No, it's just that we have rules, but apparently rules don't mean anything.

GORE: Rules, schmules. I'm puffing like the Graf Zeppelin. Where's Tipper when I need her? Or Paul Begala?

283. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:47:33 PM

It really is bizarre.

And I really am afraid that this will actually sway some dopey women to vote for Gore.

284. Al D - 10/19/2000 3:47:51 PM

I'm more concerned about Celler's reaction.

285. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:48:49 PM

Khakis, a lisp, erections on the cover of a national magazine...


Is Al Gore trying to *tell* us something?

286. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:50:06 PM

Gore already has the gay vote. But it will probably raise his poll numbers with sports car drivers, atheletes, wall street brokers, Howard Stern, and porn stars.

287. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:50:19 PM

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Man.

This is good fun.

288. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:51:25 PM

Rask

I heard he has given up on the male vote and will be concentrating on the women vote.

During the photo shoot, he should have been concentrating on naked nuns or some such thing.

289. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:51:40 PM

Al Gore

Vote for me or I will beat you to death with my bloated dorkmeat.

290. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:52:43 PM

That is just what he *wanted* Republicans to think.

291. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 3:53:13 PM

Al Gore: Now you know why Tipper is always smiling!

292. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 3:54:06 PM

No wonder Tipper looks glassy-eyed and exhausted.

Gore's been giving her his Information Superhighway.

293. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:55:12 PM

She took a ride on Air Force Nine, if you know what I'm saying.

294. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:56:31 PM

Al Gore

During my time in Congress, I took the initiative in creating the inappropriate public erection.

295. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 3:58:33 PM

No controlling trouser authority.

296. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:00:14 PM

GORE: I care a lot about this. It's not just movies, television, video games, music, the Internet. Parents now feel like you have to compete with the mass culture in order to raise your kids with the values that you want them to have.

Tipper and I have four children. And God bless them, everyone of them decided on their own to come here this evening. I don't want to embarrass our oldest daughter, she and her husband made us grandparents almost a year and a half ago. And yet, if she'll forgive me, when she was little, she brought a record home that had some awful lyrics in it. And Tipper hit the ceiling. Well, she was riding my gargantuan pork master, but that's neither here nor there. And that launched a campaign to try to get the record companies to put ratings that--warning labels for parents. And I'm so proud of what she accomplished in getting them on there.

297. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 4:02:42 PM

Clinton says gays feel his pain

Expressing his lingering frustration with the investigation of his affair with a White House intern that nearly brought down his presidency, Clinton likens the vigilance of his opponents with those who have persecuted gays, blacks and other minorities.

“The people who’ve been targeted, who’ve been publicly humiliated and abused, I think identified with what was going on,” he said.

The headline for this on ABC's table of contents is "Clinton says gays feel his pain."

I don't know about gays, but I've about felt all of this guy's pain I can handle.

If I were gay, I think I'd rather feel Al's "pain."

298. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:03:57 PM

I just hope Clinton has felt pain at the urging of the cobra.

299. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:04:43 PM

Indy:

I dunno. Looks like another one of Al Gore's "embellishments," if you know what I'm saying.

300. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 4:04:44 PM

Ace (295): I'd been working on a riff for that one, but you got it right.

301. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:05:59 PM

Gore: "Well, when I got to Love Canal, it wasn't at that time called 'Love Canal.' But I let my Boris do his Natasha, and the rest is history."

302. marshame - 10/19/2000 4:07:18 PM

Gawd you guys are hilarious today!! 100 posts and no end in sight!

But! Re Message # 199: with all that effort to airbrush his "thing", you'd think they would have done something about his face! I mean, what's with the squinty eyes and the weird smile?

303. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:08:14 PM

marsha

Blood flow issues.

304. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:09:27 PM

"I mean, what's with the squinty eyes and the weird smile?"

Dizziness due to blood-flow to outsized porkmonster.

305. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:09:47 PM

Hm.

306. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:10:38 PM

Ace

Yours was funnier.

307. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:10:50 PM

Hey, is that Robert Reich in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

308. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:11:38 PM

To Arafat and Barak:

"Go ahead. You can touch it."

309. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:12:00 PM

Al Gore

Our real first black President.

310. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:13:12 PM

"Man, I've been vice-president four years while he's been getting tail left and right. My dick gets hard when the wind blows."

311. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 4:14:03 PM

So why does Gore exaggerate his accomplishments?

I mean in the debate he could have just flopped it out and said to Bush, "You want a real dick-measuring contest? Let's go, paco!"

312. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 4:15:01 PM

Reckon Al has put his pot smoking behind him.

313. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:15:47 PM

I knew John Holmes. I worked with John Holmes. And believe me, Senator, you are no John Holmes.

314. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 4:16:41 PM

Hee-hee.

Time to retire the nickname "Little" Al.

315. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:17:25 PM

"I had thought of Al Gore as a model for Oliver Barrett, but I didn't really envision Oliver with a cock the size and dimension of a fungo bat."

Eric Segal

316. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:17:40 PM

Al Gore

Here's the beef, bitch.

317. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:18:50 PM

Jack,

Can you imagine what Foont is doing with this at Table Talk?

318. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:20:10 PM

315 very good. I don't even know what a "fungo" bat is.

Though I've been trying work "bat" into one of these. Thought about "pork-bat," but the cadence didn't seem right.

319. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:20:51 PM

Ace

That reminds me, a gift for you:

Ferguson Foont - 11:51 am PST - Apr 26, 2000 - #2093 of 2099
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

. . . Things will shift markedly toward Gore prior to election day, though, and Bush's wins on November 2 will be scarce as hens' teeth.

The REAL tossup states when we get to the end of the campaign will be Texas, North Carolina, Alabama, Colorado, and if all goes well for Gore Virginia. Yes, Texas. By the time this election nears its climax, every time a Texan coughs he's going to blame George W. Bush for it.

By November 2 there will, in my opinion, be no states firmly in the Bush column with the possible exceptions of Arizona and Oklahoma -- NOT Texas. Texas, Virginia, Idaho, Montana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Nebraska, plus MAYBE Wyoming, may be shown as LEANING Bush, but trends will be all Goreward even during the period between the final tracking poll and the only poll that counts.

320. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 4:21:05 PM

I thought Foont died after choking on the foam coming from his mouth.

321. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:22:24 PM

Jack,

The election is, of course, on November 7. Not November 2, as Foont foontificates.

322. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 4:23:15 PM

I still remember Foont swearing that the DNC had some footage of Bush snorting cocaine, or standing in a police line-up, that we were going to see before the election.

323. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:23:18 PM

I wonder how many electoral votes Al Gore's cock has.

324. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:23:59 PM

Ace

I'm not sure what a fungo bat is either, but I've heard the phrase, and as you've noticed, it is a gem.

325. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 4:24:39 PM

As late as a week ago, Foont was still predicting 66%+ popular vote for Gore.

326. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 4:25:25 PM

IJ: ask Foont about the Bush cocaine video. I am curious what he has to say about it now.

327. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:25:44 PM

Well, Foont knows Gore, so it is probable that he has been knocked in the head by the vice-president's fungo bat.

328. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 4:26:04 PM

Well, poor Foont may be partially right- I am an election official in Nebraska- Gore might win an electoral vote in my district.

329. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:26:37 PM

Jones

'Splain please.

330. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 4:26:58 PM

Al Gore, honors grad of the erectoral college.

331. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 4:28:29 PM

Rask: Foont doesn't even know the party of his alleged home city's mayor. He claims to live in Orlando and swore up and down that the mayor there was Democrat. When evidence was produced she was a Republican, he said she'd recently switched to Democrat and received much ire because of it (including Jeb Bush punishing her somehow or the other).

It turns out she's managing some part of the Florida effort for Bush.

332. Wombat - 10/19/2000 4:28:29 PM

Foont is an idiot. A fungo bat is a thin baseball bat used for hitting flies. It's whippier and lighter than a regular bat. I'm sure that JV or Ace can work it into their routine.

333. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:29:07 PM

Ferguson Foont - 11:51 am PST - Apr 26, 2000 - #2093 of 2099
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

. . . Things will shift markedly toward Gore prior to election day, though, as George Bush is forced to choke on on yardful of pulsating Tennessee trousersnake.

The only REAL tossup will be whether Johnny Wad Gore will bang Laura Bush or Lynn Chenney first, nearly splitting them open with an injection of "the Pride of Carthage."

As we get to the end of the campaign, our conquering hero will beat Bill Bennet to death with his throbbing Porkasaurus Rex, and then he'll kill Newt Gingrich through gay anal sodomy. Yes, Gingrich.

By the Al "Cockzilla" Gore nears his climax, every time a Texan passes a stool he's going to blame George W. Bush for the searing ass-spasms.

334. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 4:29:09 PM

Jack- well, I'm sure that Concerned will be sure that Gore has more votes than voters in my district, as I line up illegal aliens, actual aliens, dead people, and Deadheads to vote early and often.

[Note to all, this is entirely in jest.]

335. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 4:30:16 PM

Ace is on a roll.

336. Al D - 10/19/2000 4:30:30 PM

This country has gone to hell when men no longer know what a fungo bat is. Me thinks these boys have been playing with the wrong bat.

337. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 4:31:41 PM

Gore wasn't thinking about anything in particular when the photo was snapped-he's from Tennesee, and little Al just volunteered.

338. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 4:32:54 PM

Lawyerin' Cuz: One of my first acts as co-host will be to change the name of this thread to "Erection 2000."

(Sorry if that's a repeat joke...so many have been flying I don't remember.)

339. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:34:16 PM

Barak: "We will not cede Jerusalem. We will not bend on the Golan Heights. We will not be swayed on the Gaza . . . oh my God."

Gore: "You like that? How's that for a Gaza Strip? You got anything that high in the Gola? Eh? Hood."

340. glendajean - 10/19/2000 4:35:51 PM

BOB DOLE SITTING ON A SOFA.

CU ON BOB DOLE

DOLE: Three years ago, I entered your living rooms and talked to you about ED -- erectile dysfunction. I couldn't get it up. I'm not embarrassed. Took a pill. VI-AG-RUH. Thought it put a spring in my step, if you know what I mean.

The drug companies paid me to do it. I thought it would make things better. It did ... for a while.

Democrats started all those wars, you know, but I am man enough to admit that Al Gore doesn't need the chemicals, the pills, the pep talks, the vacuum pumps. He's the real thing. And I am man enough to admit it. Bob Dole needed it. Hell, I've tried just about everything. You want your wife off your back?

ANNCR: Vote Gore He doesn't need pills.

341. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:35:52 PM

Can you vote for a candidate who can't keep inflation under control?

342. Dusty - 10/19/2000 4:36:37 PM

Next time Gore quotes from the Bible, it will be:



My rod and my staff, they comfort me.

343. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:37:35 PM

Al Gore

I will throb for you.

344. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:38:38 PM

Good stuff. But I'm petered out.

Adios.

345. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 4:39:21 PM

I think the jokes here are getting a bit wooden myself.

346. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:40:04 PM

Well, it's getting harder and harder.

347. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 4:40:50 PM

I need a stiff drink.

348. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 4:42:37 PM

Speaking of electoral vote count, Fox has revised theirs. Until now, they've shown Gore leading.

Map

349. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:43:43 PM

Lest anyone forget.

350. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:47:00 PM

And let's talk about the other disquieting aspect of that cover:

There is something deeply disturbing about a fifty-four year old man dressing up like he's in a CK-1 ad.

351. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:47:31 PM

Christ-- I expect him to be wearing hennae tattoos and a "friendship bracelet."

352. CalGal - 10/19/2000 4:48:00 PM

Really? I like his clothes.

353. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 4:48:11 PM

ABC shows a Gore slide, too.

354. PelleNilsson - 10/19/2000 4:48:16 PM

The Mote at its best: Fucking Funny.

355. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:51:05 PM

"Really? I like his clothes."

I like them too, on, say, a fourteen year old co-ed.

Where's his hacky-sack?

Much like Clinton, he is an immature Baby-Boomer striving with embarassing desperation to project the image of his 1969-era teenaged self.

He's a bloody jackass.

356. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:52:19 PM

Dig the black t-shirt.

That's a sure sign of hipness.

357. CalGal - 10/19/2000 4:52:43 PM

Give it a rest. That's how most 50 year olds dress these days.

358. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 4:52:52 PM

Ace-you are wondering where his sack is?- Its hidden by the tent effect.

359. glendajean - 10/19/2000 4:53:28 PM

Hopefully, like Clinton, he win the election.

360. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:53:34 PM

He's so . . . n' sync.

361. glendajean - 10/19/2000 4:53:42 PM

will win the election

362. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:55:29 PM

"Give it a rest. That's how most 50 year olds dress these days."

I know. If I could only get my grandfather out of his baggy shorts and Blue Oyster Cult concert t-shirt.

363. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:56:30 PM

The come-hither billowed-open jean-shirt...

He looks like he should be minding the counter at The Gap.

364. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:56:51 PM

"Don't fear the reaper . . . la, la, la, la, la"

365. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:57:14 PM

Well, that is the new economy.

366. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:57:50 PM

"I promise you I will pay down the national debt... save social security... fight the big Drug Companies... and provide you with affordable, high-quality parachute pants."

367. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 4:59:11 PM

"My name is . . .

my name is . . .

my name is . . .

al."

368. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 4:59:29 PM

Can't wait till he shows up to his first State Dinner in a Members Only jacket.

(A black Members Only jacket with two thin red stripes down the sleeves, of course.)

369. CalGal - 10/19/2000 4:59:38 PM

Your grandfather is fifty? Jeez, I didn't realize your family was one of those sorts.

Yes, it is indeed how people dress these days. It's perfectly fine.

As for grandfathers, Reagan was wearing something very near that sort of look at 80.

370. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 5:00:45 PM

well, Reagan was addled. Not a good comparison.

371. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:01:06 PM

"President Gore, President Gore . . . any comment on the capture of Bin Laden?"

"It's the coolest thang, yo. All good, baby. All good."

372. Al D - 10/19/2000 5:01:07 PM

Rolling Stone is part of the VRWC, as is most media. Notice the subtle use of O.J.just beneath Gore's name. They are not fooling me.

373. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:01:41 PM

That's it!

The protuberance is the bloody glove.

374. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:01:49 PM

"Yes, it is indeed how people dress these days. It's perfectly fine."

Oh, okay. As long as you say so.



"During my time in Congress, I took the initiative in creating acid-washed two-toned jeans."

375. Al D - 10/19/2000 5:02:32 PM

Ace
Don't argue with CG, she is from Calif. and knows all about how men dress.

376. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 5:02:49 PM

I loved acid washed two tone jeans. Hated parachute pants, though.

377. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:03:32 PM

Lieberman: "You are soooo money."

Gore: "It's the thing, g. Give it up for the boy."

378. CalGal - 10/19/2000 5:03:48 PM

Rask,

He may have been addled, but he always considered an excellent dresser. Or he had one.

Ace,

I apparently know more than you do if you think his clothing is somehow inappropriate--especially given the magazine.

379. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:03:59 PM

"Thank you for nominating me for President of the United States... Oh, yeah, Oh yeah... wanna give much love to my main man Puff Daddy Begala, wanna give a shout out to Jimmy No-Bonze Carville... you know what I mean? Oh yeah, Tippy-Tip is in the hizzy-ouse, y'all.."

380. Al D - 10/19/2000 5:04:41 PM

The protuberance is the bloody glove.

Absolutely disgusting! But funny.

381. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:04:50 PM

(from the crowd)

Carville: "Diggity, diggity dawg, bitch. You proper. You proper."

382. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:05:08 PM

"Put your hands in the air, y'all, wave 'em like you just don' care, y'all... "

383. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:06:13 PM

And I'd like to introduce my daughter . . .

Lil' Nena . . .

give it up, ya'll.

384. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:06:38 PM

"I apparently know more than you do if you think his clothing is somehow inappropriate"

Yes, yes, I already said so. I know a lot of Heads of State who wear Birkenstocks.

385. Al D - 10/19/2000 5:06:47 PM

I think we should have a Thread on the proper dress for men of all ages, which, of course, CG would host. Oh, excuse me, wrong Thread.

386. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:07:19 PM

Average US teen: "Ryan Phillipe is dreamy, but have you seen Al Gore? He's da' bomb!"

387. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:08:42 PM

Al Gore's the "Bad Boy of American Politics."

He drinks one sip for himself, and takes one more for his homies.

388. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 5:09:00 PM

GORE- I wanna FIGHT
for your RIGHT
to Paaaaaaaartay!

389. CalGal - 10/19/2000 5:09:51 PM

Hey, this is what we were talking about in the Movies thread. The gangsta rap talk is just another version of minstrel, with wannabe white boys doing their version of blackface.

Ace,

Whatever.

390. Raskolnikov - 10/19/2000 5:11:07 PM

But let us ask ourselves a truly important question. Would Karina Gore be the hottest first daughter in white house history? I think she already beat Eleanor Mondale as hottest veep daughter.

391. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:11:38 PM

By showing his throbbing crotch-snorkel on the cover of a national magazine, he hopes to become the "Bad Boy" of the Aging Baby Boomer Democratic Boy Band, much like Donnie Walberg.

I see a goatee in the near future.

392. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:11:54 PM

Rask

Nice segue.

Oh man. I think for sure her Playboy spread would be so much better than Patti Davis'.

393. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:12:30 PM

Ace

Ten bucks.

The Ed Bradley earring at the second State of the Union.

By the third, mosh pit.

394. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:15:09 PM

Cal,

I'm sure you see a lot of fifty-four year old men aping slacker-bohemeian youth fashion in San Fransisco.

They tend to be dedicated bachelors, however.

Jesus. Even Metallica cut their hair and grew up when they hit a certain age.

But not Al "Peter Pancake" Gore.

395. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:15:13 PM

Gore: Behind the Music

"Look, I was drinkin', but I was fly. And Liebs is one of my boys, so he took shotgun. I don't know . . . I was charging too fast. Hit the curve on Pico. Next thing I know, I'm in a coma and some bitch in the nurse whites is talkin' President Hastert or some such mess."

396. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:15:46 PM

Jack,

Tongue piercing. "It's better for oral."

397. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 5:16:00 PM

Al Gore, aka Notoriously BIG
and Kosher Dog Lieberman will
raise the roof at the Whiiiiite House

oh yaeah...

398. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:16:57 PM

Ace

Ha ha ha ha ha.

"My ferrow Americers . . . I herby acceptht your nomination to givth oral lovth to my wife."

399. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:17:02 PM

Check out the pocket of Gore's jean-shirt. I can just make out the top of a pair of Van Morrison tickets.

(Front row, where you can sit down. Let the kids stand and dance in the back.)

400. CalGal - 10/19/2000 5:17:16 PM

Ace,

I don't hang out in the City much. And I'm talking about most places I know. It just doesn't strike me as particularly objectionable clothing at all, and hardly worthy of comment.

401. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:18:26 PM

You think that's what he'll do with the oval office web-cam?

Give his wife some hot oral on live tv?

402. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:18:41 PM

"Waaaaaaaaaveeeeee . . . length. Never let me down, no no. Never let me down, no no . . . Didn't I tell you Liebs? Huh! Didn't I tell you? Give it up."

403. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 5:19:03 PM

I always thought Billy on Ally McBeal was a Gore clone. Right before they killed him off, he went through what Ace describes in #391.

He also bleached his hair.

Topping Jimmy and Rosalind's stroll to the inauguration, Gore rides up Pennsylvania Avenue on his hog with Tipper hanging on with her hands in his back pockets.

No helmet, of course.

"Hail to the Chief" is replaced with "Born to Run."

He misunderstands the oath of office and instead of saying "I do," he answers, "What have ya got?"

404. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:19:53 PM

Gore: Prime Minister Barak, might I offer you some seriously bonzo first-class doobage?

Barak: What?

Gore: Then we'll watch The Wall. It totally makes sense, if you're baked.

405. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:20:02 PM

He sleeps in the nude, so watching the web cam at night will be like watching Jacob Marley dragging the many chains he forged in life.

Unless he throws on the Buttonflys.

406. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:20:46 PM

Al Gore's Secretary of HUD? Huggy Bear from Starsky and Hutch.

407. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:21:18 PM

"Liebs, Liebs. Dude. Barak is soooo wasted. He just ate a barbaecue pork sandwich and he has nooooooo clue."

408. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:23:16 PM

Gore: Liebs, Liebs. Listen to this . . . Eh - Hood. Eh. Hood. (chortle) Hey. Dude. Hey Dude Barak.

Barak: You shut up with that.

409. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 5:23:56 PM

"He sleeps in the nude."

I don't blame him one bit.

Gotta unleash that thing sometime.

410. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:24:05 PM

"Let's shave my eyebrow off, man... No, wait, that's no right, dude. What did I want to say? Oh, right-- let's shave his eyebrow off! ... Shit! I just kicked over the bong! Christ, the Map Room is gonna stink like nasty-ass bong resin for a week!"

411. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:25:51 PM

Liebs: "We can blame it on Gephardt."

Gore: "Hey. What did I say?"

Liebs: "Sorry, dude. I mean 'Gebs'."

412. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:26:01 PM

"Prime Minister Blair, this is the Thomas Jefferson Study... yeah... all the furniture is made out of hemp or something, I think. Yeah, I think that's right. That table might look like oak but it's really hemp. Jefferson farmed that shizzy-it, y'all, dat's right... He smoke-da dat shit."

413. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:26:43 PM

"Humping and hemping with the Hemmings."

414. Jack Vincennes - 10/19/2000 5:28:14 PM

On that note . . .

later,





Booooooooooooooooooooooooyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyzzzzzzzzzz.

Peace out da' house.

415. Jonesatlaw - 10/19/2000 5:29:09 PM

As funny as this all is, I think the more accurate portrayal of the music in the room is Tom Petty, the bong water replaced with Blue Nun, and the Big Chill rewinding on the VCR amongst cartons of the nearest take out Thai restaurant.

416. Indiana Jones - 10/19/2000 5:30:20 PM

413 is another gutbuster.

417. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:34:26 PM

I just think it's sad that a man his age is so eager to talk about his favorite rock albums.

This has been his schtick since the 1988 campaign. He always wants to talk groovy sounds with reporters. Beatles or Rolling Stones? He has a definite answer, and he can defend that answer pationately. (The Beatles, natch.)

Jesus Christ. Whatta simp.

418. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:35:02 PM

I had a passionate answer on the Beatles/Rolling Stone question... when I was 19.

419. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 5:38:16 PM

Did someone post the article from Rolling Stone or the picture? Which post #? I go away for 2 hours and y'all do 240 posts!

420. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 5:39:14 PM

Fifty to seventy posts back... also available on drudge.

421. Thoughtful - 10/19/2000 5:41:31 PM

IJ, (if you can find this post amongst all the dreck in here) I can't believe that you post the ss cola is based on the cpi and then argue that it's not a measure of inflation. Of course it is -- otherwise they wouldn't use it...duh.

And I never said this was the only measure of inflation or the only one that Greenspan uses -- there you go again saying I said things I didn't say. I used that number as an example, as it was released yesterday and in the news, that shows the % change in inflation as measured by the cpi-w is the highest it's been in years. This is a perfectly legitimate use of the number. This is perfectly legitimate evidence that the economy is experiencing higher price increases than it has in the past few years.

It is also perfectly legitimate to not look at a single month's data as it can be distorted by special factors that mask the underlying trend. For example, August's CPI fell 0.1% largely because energy prices dropped 2.9% in a month. Do you think this is indicative of the longer term trend in energy prices? If so, how do you reconcile that with September's 3.8% energy price increase. Are we suddenly on a new longer term trend? Of course not. And you bet your bippy Greenspan looks not only at the most recent data but longer term trends as well to determine where the economy is headed.

422. jexster - 10/19/2000 6:27:04 PM

Ralph Nader, Albert Gore, and George W. Bush went to a fitness spa for some fun (if you will believe Ralph Nader ever has fun) and relaxation (if you believe Al Gore ever relaxes).

After a stimulating healthy lunch, all three decided to visit the men's room and found a strange-looking gent sitting at the entrance who said, "Welcome to the gentlemen's room. Be sure to check out our newest feature: a mirror that, if you look into it and say something truthful, will award you a wish. Be warned, if you say something false, you will be sucked into the mirror to live in a void of nothingness for eternity!"

All three men, being presidential candidates, toy with danger and
quickly enter, set upon finding the mirror. Ralph Nader said, "I think I'm the most truthful of us three," and in an instant he was surrounded by a pile of money, which I suppose he invested in tech stocks.

Albert Gore stepped up and said, "I think I'm the most ambitious of us
three," and he suddenly found the keys to a brand new Lexus in his
hands, which he liked because it looked better than the VP's car.

Excited over the possibility of having his wish come true, George W.
Bush looked into the mirror and said, "I think --," and was promptly
sucked into the mirror.

423. robertjayb - 10/19/2000 6:39:15 PM

Tonight's Gallup has Bush at 49% and Gore at 39%.

I fear Al needs more than a tall tallywhacker.

424. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 7:13:23 PM

Jexster,

Great joke. Really funny. Really worth 500 words of set up.

Stop me if you've heard this one before:

Bush 49 Gore 39

Hee, hee, hee. That one kills me every time.

425. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 7:20:16 PM

Jexster:

Here are a few more jokes for you:

ABC News/WSJ Bush 48 Gore 42
NBC News - Teeter/Hart Bush 45 Gore 42
Rasmussen/POA Bush 45 Gore 40
MSNBC/Reuters/Zogby Bush 44 Gore 43

I know those gags are a little repetitive, but I still think they're "good ones."

Do you have any "good ones" you'd like to share?

426. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 7:23:44 PM

Here are a few related gags:

ABC News shows the electoral map tilting in Bush's favor; Bush pulls ahead

Fox News/Opinion Dynamic --which had been the *last* poll showing Gore ahead -- now apparently shows Bush ahead, with the electoral map tippping in Bush's favor, and Bush (again) pulling ahead, as Gore loses a few states to the toss up category, and loses a few safe states to the lean category


Are you busting a gut yet?

427. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 7:28:56 PM

This one's more of an "amusing anecdote" than an actual joke:

"Democrat Albert Gore and Republican George W. Bush are in a statistical dead heat in the contest for New Jersey's fifteen electoral votes, according to an internal poll conducted for the Gore/Lieberman campaign and obtained by PoliticsNJ.com. The Democratic poll shows Gore leading Bush by a 45%-41% margin."

428. jexster - 10/19/2000 7:35:58 PM

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."

--LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

429. Jenerator - 10/19/2000 7:36:39 PM

Ace,

Not to be gross or anything, but the photo of Al in Message # 190 isn't that amazing. I looked at the photo and didn't think to myself "Wow! He's huge." Or even big enough to be acknowledged really. It's an awkward photo, and one that doesn't make me think he's well-endowed. This is just a female observation, that probably shouldn't have been made...

430. jexster - 10/19/2000 7:39:33 PM

Voters need more of this

Gore/Bush Accept Free Air Time Offer from Fox

431. Jenerator - 10/19/2000 7:40:42 PM

Oops, that should be the photo in Message # 199.

432. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 7:41:23 PM

Jen,

Well, what he has there isn't even real. It's airbrushed. There are conflicting stories about it -- either he had a visible erection during the photo shoot which had to be hidden, or (giggle) he was just "too big" -- big enough to frighten children -- and thus had to be bowlderized for the sake of public decency.

There's a third possibility, which is just speculation -- he had nothing go on there, so Jann Wenner "helped him out" with some airbrushing.

433. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 7:42:19 PM

Jexster:

Don't you think any of my jokes are funny?

Did you hear the one about CNN now showing 308 electoral votes for Bush?

434. Jenerator - 10/19/2000 7:43:35 PM

Airbrushed or not, that photo doesn't impress me. They needed to airbrush his pointy face, not his crotch. He doesn't look hung and knowing now that he will stop at nothing for publicity, I loathe him even more.

435. theDiva - 10/19/2000 7:46:43 PM

Shit, if it's that big he oughta just tuck the thang and be done with it.

436. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 7:50:17 PM

Jexster:

Please give me feedback on my numerous gags, japes, jests, & jokes.

I need a response from my audience if I am to craft my comedy further.

437. Jenerator - 10/19/2000 7:51:28 PM

Let's just say that the photo is real, he isn't that big. He looks like a guy standing too close to the camera with his entire privates squeezed to the right side of his pants seam. Ick.

438. theDiva - 10/19/2000 7:52:49 PM

A gentleman never lets his stuff show. Tacky, tacky, tacky.

439. theDiva - 10/19/2000 7:53:15 PM

Ace, if it's any help, I laughed until I cried.

440. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 7:53:24 PM

Oh, I'm sorry, there's one more little joke:

The word in Washington is that Gore staffers are already beginning to whisper about the reason for their coming loss. They're already making excuses.

It isn't Gore's fault, says the whisper.

The problem is ___ ______.

Two words: One four letter word beginning with B, one seven letter word beginning with Cl- and ending with -inton.


Jexster, as a gay man, do you agree with Bill Clinton that gays "feel his pain"?

Just curious.

441. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 7:53:50 PM

Jen:

I can't believe you think Al Gore "did this for publicity". If you think someone running for office would do this sort of thing for publicity, then I have a great candidate from Texas you will simply love because you will believe anything.

Sorry....just swept away by the vision of Als manliness.....

442. mgleason - 10/19/2000 7:54:02 PM

No, that would be all of his 'venereals,' as the pre-pubescent sister of my college roommate used to say.

443. Jenerator - 10/19/2000 7:55:19 PM

I'm surprised Gore didn't think of posing by the pool in a loose bathing suit with his doo-dads hanging out one side.

444. theDiva - 10/19/2000 7:56:38 PM

well, it's just weird, is all. Not just the magazine cover, the shape of the thing. It doesn't even look as though it's growing out of the normal spot.

445. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 7:57:52 PM

This is insane....you guys are just kidding, right? No one thinks this is real, do they?

446. mgleason - 10/19/2000 7:58:02 PM

Well, most politicians being notoriously dickless, a free electon microscope would have had to be issued to all would-be voyeurs.

447. mgleason - 10/19/2000 7:58:36 PM

Electron.

448. joezan - 10/19/2000 7:59:01 PM

...reminds me of that Emerson, Lake & Palmer album cover - "Love Beach" - that sold about 2,000 copies.

449. theDiva - 10/19/2000 7:59:11 PM

Judith

who the heck knows? Real or not, the dick looks weird.

450. Jenerator - 10/19/2000 7:59:33 PM

Judith,

It's his press tactics that I can't stand (in addition to his personality, policy, and looks). You know, the sensitive Gore on Oprah then the hip/phat Gore on Rolling Stone.

If Bush were down wit it, he'd go to Smackdown at the WWF and talk there first. Then Gore would have to do it too.

Ace,

You haven't heard this for awhile, but I love you. If you and Jack make me laugh that hard again, I'm going to send the trasncripts to Comedy Central, SNL, or Mtv.

451. theDiva - 10/19/2000 8:00:13 PM

Jen

For real. I particularly liked 'have you seen my hog?'

452. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 8:00:31 PM

"I can't believe you think Al Gore "did this for publicity". If you think someone running for office would do this sort of thing for publicity"

Judith,

How can a man allow himself to be photographed hundreds of times (as you are during a cover photo shoot) with a raging hard-on which needs air-brushing out?

It isn't like this was just ONE PICTURE. If it had only been one picture, they could have chosen another. Or swapped lower bodies from another photo.

The other "possibility" -- this one more charitable and complimentary to Gore -- is that he is just so naturally huge he had to be "reduced."

But... if he was huge, we would have noticed by now. The man is one of the most photographed men in the world, and he has a fondness for khakis. Presumably, if his girthy mass were so imposing, it would have shown up on film before.

I'm completely befuddled by this. I can't believe he did it on purpose... but then again, I also can't believe it was accidental. That's impossible.

Then again, I never would have believed a candidate would suck face with his wife at a convention, nor that a candidate would, for no apparent reason, stalk over to his opponent and lurk closely behind.

The man is fucking weird.


PS: Drudge was right again.

453. Jenerator - 10/19/2000 8:03:23 PM

A well-hung austistic, that's how history will remember him.

454. mgleason - 10/19/2000 8:06:01 PM

No, no, no. You forget the profession of most of the male covers of Rolling Stone. The issuance of socks for photo shoots is SOP.

455. dusty - 10/19/2000 8:08:53 PM

456. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 8:10:15 PM

Jen:

If Bush were down wit it, he wouldn't be Bush. Granted I feel about your little buddy Bush the way you feel about Gore but there is no way in hell Bush would go to a WWF Smackdown...momma would have a cow.

457. Jenerator - 10/19/2000 8:10:51 PM

Where's Cellar Door during all this discussion about Gore's masculine endowments?

458. dusty - 10/19/2000 8:11:13 PM

I think momma would probably fare better at Smackdown

459. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 8:12:36 PM

Ace:

I find it hard....heh heh heh she said hard...to think Gore would be walking around with a hard on at a photo shoot. This sounds strangely like a hoax...remember the shots of Bush Pere shaking hands with an alien?

460. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 8:14:46 PM

Judith:

Well, Inside.com is reporting that's what happened.

The photo looks air-brushed.

And Al Gore sucked face with Tipper, on camera, in front of 40 million people, for twenty seconds.

And then he claimed it was just "spontaneous."

You tell me.

461. Al D - 10/19/2000 8:15:09 PM

I read that Geronimo Pratt could not get a hard on without a weapon in his hand, and I mean real weapon-gun, knife, fungo bat,etc.

462. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 8:15:36 PM

"This sounds strangely like a hoax"

Inside.com is a real website, with real investors. I don't get the "hoax" angle. Unless they're looking for a libel suit.

463. marshame - 10/19/2000 8:17:10 PM

Judith

Go to Mote Cafe for non-penis-related inquiry (I don't want to be "off topic" here, and interupt the thrust of the conversation.)

464. marshame - 10/19/2000 8:17:57 PM

should have said...

I don't want to perform coitus interruptus here and spoil the thrust of the conversation.

465. marshame - 10/19/2000 8:19:53 PM

Wow, 200+ posts about Gore's "organ" and the subject of penis envy has yet to be mentioned...

466. AceofSpades - 10/19/2000 8:20:10 PM

Judith,

BTW, I do share your skepticism about most of this... but it simply cannot have been accidental (a man knows when he's erect and "showing," for god's sake; and you'd especially know this when someone's taking shots of your crotch).

So what up with the Inside.com story? What up with the airbrushing?

I don't know.

This has simply gotten too weird. Way too weird.

467. joezan - 10/19/2000 8:27:01 PM

Dusty:

That be the one!

It was shortly after that album that Keith-Of-The-Tight-White-Trousers had to move into his sound man's apartment for lack of funds, btw.

468. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 8:32:05 PM

Ace, I'm beat right now but I may try to find the story...it just seems way too weird to me, too.

And by the way, to answer something you said way upthread, no I would not be pleased as punch to see the photo of GW dancing bare ass naked on a bar. Save that for after he's elected....ha!

469. JudithAtHome - 10/19/2000 8:37:37 PM

Okay, I can't let this slide....in the first paragraph of the Inside.com article, they say the bunched-up material of his pants may be the culprit...you guys had a nice ride with this but it is clearly just that...a ride.

470. janjon - 10/19/2000 8:41:10 PM

Judith - Perhaps they got all excited (well, hot and bothered if you like) and took this thing for such a ride because they don't get much attention when it comes to their own.

471. joezan - 10/19/2000 8:54:16 PM

Is everyone ready for the joezan Poll?

I must warn you that this poll is thoroughly unscientific - though not entirely tongue-in-cheek - and has a margin of error of approximately +/- 30%.

Ok. On Monday the 16th I went door-to-door for the county Republican Party in a middle-class community , handing out the newsletter and pawning off my Bush/Cheney yard signs. Out of 109 residences, I was well-received at 61, told to get lost (or words to that effect) at 9, and the rest just took the newsletter and said they didn't have time (or words to that effect). Of the 16 homeowners on high-visability streets that I asked to place yard signs, 6 accepted.

Today my wife and I did the same in another middle-class community. Of 215 residences, we were well-received at all but 6. And all 35 homeowners we asked to place yard signs agreed.

I attribute this to the post-debate bounce, and Bonergate.

472. Orca - 10/19/2000 9:12:16 PM

Boner? Who said anything about an erection?

Read the Inside.com story:

(The word from Wenner Media insiders: Gore's bulgetastic portrait actually had to be ''brought down a bit.'' Here's hoping the unretouched shots don't surface on the Net -- at least not without a ''parents' protection page.'')

"Brought down a bit" refers to highlighted shadows and contrasts, which is a specific kind of airbrushing that anymore is done more often electronically than with an actual airbrush. Gore didn't have an erection. His bulge was, well, a little more pronounced than the art director thought appropriate. That's a package, boys, not a hard-on.

However, you are revealing more about yourselves than you'd like. If you think that men only have big bulges when they're erect, well ... it isn't hard to figure out where you'd get that idea.

Truly juvenile. If this is the kind of issue that the GOP is going to run on, I will go out on a limb and predict a big Democractic victory now. Polls be damned.

473. labwabbit - 10/19/2000 9:18:06 PM

Well.. real or not, "touched-up" or not, I think it's a damn good indication that whatever was up his ass fell out.

I think that perhaps he suffered a bout with warm-fuzzy math.

474. labwabbit - 10/19/2000 9:55:43 PM

Hahaha ..Funny stuff you sick, perverted, depraved bunch of sperm-burping miscreants!

LMAOWBSCOMN....(laughing my ass off with beer suds coming out my nose)

To the Mote archives indeed for future poignant reference. Might this be the longgggg-est running discussion without dysfunction in Mote history?

475. Webfeet - 10/19/2000 10:31:25 PM

I think Im going to puke. I just saw the pope flanked by al gore and dubya at some banquet. this has gotten totally out of control.

476. joezan - 10/19/2000 10:35:23 PM

I just saw a newsflash that said the Pope may step down.

What a way to end a career...

477. altitude /w attitude - 10/19/2000 10:39:25 PM

The Pope may step down to where? That doesn't sound right.

478. joezan - 10/19/2000 10:40:18 PM

...float down?

479. altitude /w attitude - 10/19/2000 10:42:12 PM

The Pope should be aspiring to upward advancement.

480. mgleason - 10/19/2000 10:48:58 PM

Joe, anything suspicious about the Pope's simar? (In view of the RS cover.)

481. joezan - 10/19/2000 10:55:13 PM

Latest Gallup Poll:

 
           Bush: 49%        Gore: 39% 

482. joezan - 10/19/2000 10:56:10 PM

Maria:

The Pope puts Algore to shame.

483. Webfeet - 10/19/2000 11:08:50 PM

No, no, it wasn't the pope. My apologies. It was Cardinal Egan or someone. They all look the same to me. What a revolting spectacle.

Apparently, the cardinal got wise and ducked out leaving al and dubya alone for an eternal twenty minutes in which neither of them spoke or even glanced at the other.

484. mgleason - 10/19/2000 11:13:52 PM

Webbie,

One good way to tell them apart is that only the Pope wears a white simar (the vestment with a cape that resembles a cassock).

485. arkymalarky - 10/19/2000 11:18:19 PM

Sorry if this has already been posted. Didn't have time to read back, but Dad sent this that he got in a forward:


Advance Debate Transcript

Jim Lehrer:
Welcome to the third presidential debate between
Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush.
The candidates have agreed on these rules: I will
ask a question. The candidate will ignore the
question and deliver rehearsed remarks designed to
appeal to undecided women voters.

The opponent will then have one minute to respond
by trying to frighten senior citizens into voting
for him. When a speaker's time has expired,
I will whimper softly while he continues to spew
incomprehensible statistics for three more minutes.

Let's start with the vice president. Mr. Gore, can
you give us the name of a downtrodden citizen and
then tell us his or her story in a way that strains
the bounds of common sense?

Gore:
As I was saying to Tipper last night after we
tenderly made love the way we have so often during
the 30 years of our rock-solid marriage, the
downtrodden have a clear choice in this election.
My opponent wants to cut taxes for the richest 1
percent of Americans. I, on the other hand, want to
put the richest 1 percent in an ironclad lockbox so
they can't hurt old people like Roberta
Frampinhamper, who is here tonight.
Mrs. Frampinhamper has been selling her internal
organs, one by one, to pay for gas so that she can
travel to these debates and personify problems for
me. Also, her poodle has arthritis.

Lehrer:
Gov. Bush, your rebuttal.

(cont)

486. arkymalarky - 10/19/2000 11:19:56 PM

Bush:
Governors are on the front lines every day, hugging
people, crying with them, relieving suffering
anywhere a photo opportunity exists.
I want to empower those crying people to make their
own decisions, unlike my opponent, whose mother is
not Barbara Bush.
(cont)
Lehrer:
Let's turn to foreign affairs. Gov. Bush, if
Slobodan Milosevic were to launch a bid to return
to power in Yugoslavia, would you be able to
pronounce his name?

Bush:
The current administration had eight years to deal
with that guy and didn't get it done.
If I'm elected, the first thing I would do about
that guy is have Dick Cheney confer with our
allies. And then Dick would present me several
options for dealing with that guy. And then Dick
would tell me which one to choose.
You know, as governor of Texas, I have to make
tough foreign policy decisions every day about how
we're going to deal with New Mexico.

Lehrer:
Mr. Gore, your rebuttal.Gore:
Foreign policy is something I've always been keenly
interested in.
I served my country in Vietnam. I had an uncle who
was a victim of poison gas in World War I. I myself
lost a leg in the Franco-Prussian War. And when
that war was over, I came home and tenderly made
love to Tipper in a way that any undecided woman
voter would find romantic.
If I'm entrusted with the office of president, I
pledge to deal knowledgeably with any threat,
foreign or domestic, by putting it in an ironclad
lockbox. Because the American people deserve a
president who can comfort them with simple
metaphors.

Lehrer:
Vice President Gore, how would you reform the
Social Security system?

487. arkymalarky - 10/19/2000 11:20:10 PM

Gore:
It's a vital issue, Jim. That's why Joe Lieberman
and I have proposed changing the laws of
mathematics to allow us to give $50,000 to every
senior citizen without having it cost the federal
treasury a single penny until the year 2250.
In addition, my budget commits $60 trillion over
the next 10 years to guarantee that all senior
citizens can have drugs delivered free to their
homes every Monday by a federal employee who will
also help them with the child-proof cap.

Lehrer:
Gov. Bush?

Bush:
That's fuzzy math. I know, because as governor of
Texas, I have to do math every day. I have to add
up the numbers and decide whether I'm going to fill
potholes out on Rt. 36 east of Abilene or commit
funds to reroof the sheep barn at the Texas state
fairgrounds.

Lehrer:
It's time for closing statements.

Gore:
I'm my own man. I may not be the most exciting
politician, but I will fight for the working
families of America, in addition to turning the
White House into a lusty pit of marital love for
Tipper and me.

Bush:
It's time to put aside the partisanship of the past
by electing no one but Republicans.

Lehrer:
Good night.


And Good Night Moties.

488. mgleason - 10/19/2000 11:22:13 PM

Thank you, Arky!

489. Al D - 10/19/2000 11:24:37 PM

arky
Good stuff, and not far from the truth.

Bush: 49% Gore: 39%
As I remember, I said 47% to41% and was called risky. Is Bush still toast? hummm

490. Webfeet - 10/19/2000 11:25:03 PM

The most hideous spectacle known to mankind of now running on C span. George Pataki, Hilary CLinton, Rudy G, Dubya, and AL are all bowing their heads, while some droning bishop leads them in prayer at a banquet at the Waldorf Astoria.

491. joezan - 10/19/2000 11:25:06 PM

That's hilarious!

Hey Arky - were you aware that Bush is leading Gore in the polls in your great state?

492. Electric Slide - 10/20/2000 12:33:33 AM

Bush hit a double tonight on Letterman.

Best ad lib was when David asked him what team he wanted to win in the World Series and Bush said: "the New York one."

493. joezan - 10/20/2000 12:45:42 AM

Latest Zogby Poll:

          Bush:  44%           Gore: 43% 

494. joezan - 10/20/2000 1:05:30 AM

"As for estate tax relief, the Gore plan is so complicated and restrictive that less than 1% of current heirs would qualify. Essentially, the estate has to qualify as a small business in which the decedent has to have 'materially participated' in the business in five out of eight years preceding death, and the beneficiary must 'materially participate' in the business five out of eight years following the owner's death for the next 10 years or the IRS could demand tax payment."

-- "Truth on Tax Cuts," The Wall Street Journal, September 5, 2000--

I did not know that.

495. Jenerator - 10/20/2000 1:19:02 AM

Yes, Bush was excellent on Letterman tonight. For awhile it seemed as though Letterman was intimidated by Bush's straighforwardness and was rendered incapable of asking any single important question(s). I've never seen an interviewer ask so many open-ended questions so quickly. A big interviewing no-no. I thought that the overall mood of the show was upbeat and pleasant, and I was impressed.

496. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 1:20:05 AM

I can't believe that you post the ss cola is based on the cpi and then argue that it's not a measure of inflation. Of course it is -- otherwise they wouldn't use it...duh.

Thoughtful: "They" (who?) wouldn't use "it" (what?) for what?

I tire of your stubbornness in indefensible positions. The COLA is not a measurement of inflation; it is set according to the CPI-W, which is a measurement of inflation. Suppose the government decided to pay no COLA one year because the SS trust fund was running short: would that mean inflation was zero? It's the difference between looking at a thermometer and seeing it's five degrees too cold, and adjusting your thermostat to make it five degrees warmer. The latter action is not a measurement. If you don't understand the difference after that, I can't help you.

Regardless, the reason you are arguing this absurd position is because you threw the SS COLA in there for the hell of it. I don't know why you did, but rather than admit that the sensible measurement of inflation is the CPI (and that is what Greenspan would look at), you are once again making a fool of yourself rather than conceding a minor point.

And I never said this was the only measure of inflation or the only one that Greenspan uses -- there you go again saying I said things I didn't say.

You are saying something I never said. I never said you said it was the only one. But above you repeat the error that he uses COLA at all. When the COLA is based on CPI-W, it's inane to think he reacts to an annual COLA that is a policy reaction to the CPI-W (not a measurement of anything), when he has the CPI-W in front of him every month.

It is every bit as likely he looks at those enormous wage increases baseball free agents are receiving.

497. joezan - 10/20/2000 1:44:39 AM

Jenerator:

How much you wanna bet the Gore camp will seize on his phrase "the Arabs" (when he was explaining US dependence on foreign oil) as some sort of indication of his racial/ethnic insensitivity.

BTW - I thought he did very well, too. He was obviously nervous, but just came across as very humble, genuine and honest. Most pols would never admit they felt no need to apologize, as Bush did when asked about the big-time asshole incident.

It seemed the audience really liked him, too.

498. Stumbo - 10/20/2000 3:23:03 AM

Copyright © 2000 by Mike Morton <mike AT new-word-order DOT com>. All rights reserved. You may reproduce this, in whole or in part, in any form if you retain this paragraph unchanged.

Top Ten Anagrams for "Compassionate conservative"

10. I innovate a scam: corpses vote!
9. Conspire to save a vast income
8. Comparison is even; cast a vote
7. Save Ipecac: vomit on senators
6. Sen. McCain votes to praise ova
5. Economist: "So, save -- avert panic"
4. TV smears: Pot! Cocaine! Evasion!
3. Come, vote: save patrician's son
2. Panacea is to censor movies, TV

And the number one anagram for "Compassionate conservative":

1. Me? Evasive on narcotic past? So?

499. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 5:32:30 AM

(Message # 494): The reason only 1% of heirs qualify for the estate tax relief for family-owned businesses you describe is not because the proposed legislation is complicated. Rather, it's because (contrary to Republican misdirection) very few inheritances consist of a family-owned business that is required to pay estate taxes.

500. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 5:51:07 AM

One thing I am still baffled about is the Republican charge that President Clinton has let the military decline, to the extent that the specifics are budgetary matters (soldier and sailor pay, supplies of weaponry) that have been in the control of the Republican-controlled Congress for the last 5+ years. If Republicans have been thinking for 5 years that military personnel needed a pay raise, why didn't they legislate one? Did Clinton veto, or threaten to veto, a military pay raise and I missed it?

(Equally baffling is the Democratic comeback that it was President Bush - and Defense Secretary Cheney - that began the decrease in military spending which was made possible by the end of the cold war. No, Bush and Cheney may have recommended it - and it was a good recommendation - but it wouldn't have happened if the Democratic Congress hadn't legislated it.)

501. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 6:00:36 AM

I guess both parties realize that the public has a very fuzzy grasp of who does what in Washington, and in the campaign season will sling stuff about what the President did or didn't do, without regard to whether he had the power to do or not do it. If you stop to educate the public regarding the intellectual incoherence of the other guy's charges, you're still standing there educating while the voters are streaming into the booth to vote for Other Guy. Even stupider is hoping that the media will educate the public. (Example: Michael Dukakis letting George Bush make the President's position on the death penalty the #1 issue in the campaign, even though well-informed people know that the death penalty for most crimes is a matter of state legislation with which the President has nothing to do.) Still, intellectually honest political commentators should be well-informed enough not to say things like, "President Bush cut military spending" or "President Clinton cut military spending".

502. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 6:09:54 AM

Which brings me to this statement by conservative pundit (and former aide to Newt Gingrich) Tony Blankley on last week's "McLaughlin Group" (link to transcript can be found at www.slate.com; go to "Slate Links"):

"Where was Gore in the last eight years, when the Republican Congress was trying to raise the budget on defense, and Clinton and Gore were keeping it down?"

Is there any truth whatsoever to Blankley's charge?

503. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 6:17:55 AM

Regarding the charge (made many times by Jack V., and others) that Al Gore lied when he has said he was "shot at" or "fired upon" in Vietnam, here's a passage from "Inventing Al Gore" by Bill Turque, describing Gore in a foxhole at Khe Sahn with photographer Mike O'Hara (btw, is this the guy Gore critics say was his "bodyguard"? I've forgotten), reporting on efforts to reopen an abandoned airstrip there. Says Turque (p. 84):

"Although the fire at the airstrip was nearly all outgoing, Gore took no chances, reinforcing the tarmac covering the foxhole with metal sheets. 'He seemed a little concerned,' recalled O'Hara . . ."

"nearly all outgoing" = some incoming = "shot at".

So apologize to Gore, Jack. Don't make him beat an apology out of you with you-know-what.

504. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 6:20:24 AM

I was pointed to Turque's account of Gore's Vietnam service by "The Daily Howler", www.dailyhowler.com. Most political posters here are familiar with this site, but for you new Moties it's a site that debunks most of the "Gore's a liar" tall tales that have been fed by Jim Nicholson to a compliant press.

505. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 7:56:23 AM

Yeah, it "debunks" these charges.

Al Gore didn't say "I invented the Internet." What he said was: "During my time in Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet."

I fail to see how that "debunks" anything, because Gore did not "take the initiative in creating the Internet." He could not have, as it was already created.

And no, he didn't say "I discovered Love Canal." What he said was: "And so I looked around for other places like that [Toone, Tennessee, which had a toxic waste problem. And I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal."

Once again, the full quote merely confirms Gore's embellishment. Gore did not "find" Love Canal.

Absurd. When someone says, "Al Gore claims to have invented the Internet," the Gorons all chant in unison, "He didn't say *that.*" No, he said he "took the initiative in creating the Internet," which is precisely the same thing.

Go look up the words, Ohio. Look up "initiative" and "create."

506. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 7:57:47 AM

Puh-leeze.

The only Gore lie "debunked" is the Love Story boast. On that score, he seems to have gotten a slightly raw deal, though not a completely raw deal.

507. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 8:06:06 AM

Main Entry: 2initiative
Function: noun
Date: 1793
1 : an introductory step -- took the initiative in attempting to settle the issue
2 : energy or aptitude displayed in initiation of action : ENTERPRISE -- showed great initiative

Main Entry: 1cre·ate
Pronunciation: krE-'At, 'krE-"
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): cre·at·ed; cre·at·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin creatus, past participle of creare; akin to Latin crescere to grow -- more at CRESCENT
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to bring into existence --God created the heaven and the earth --Gen 1:1 (Authorized Version)
2 a : to invest with a new form, office, or rank --was created a lieutenant b : to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior --her arrival created a terrible fuss--create new jobs
3 : CAUSE, OCCASION -- famine creates high food prices
4 a : to produce through imaginative skill b : DESIGN -- creates dresses
intransitive senses : to make or bring into existence something new

"During my time in Congress, I took an introductory step in bringing into existence something new, the Internet."

Once again:

How the fuck is this "debunked"?

508. Electric Slide - 10/20/2000 8:08:59 AM

Newsweek's Bill Turque also reported (with names of people who did it with him) the fact that Algore smoked Thai Stick daily for two years after he returned from Vietnam. That drug use might have been one of the reasons he failed out of Divinity School and became a Grateful Dead fan.

I've only smoked Thai once, in college, and I can tell you firsthand, that's bad shit.

509. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 8:09:34 AM

Ohio will now change the terms of debate. He will now argue that "Vint Cerf gives Al Gore tremenedous credit," and that "Al Gore really did have a role in writing legislation to spur the evolution of the Internet."

This is what these assholes do. It's so predictable.

They will make the assertion: "He never said that."

When it's proven that he *did* say precisely what he's reported to have said, they do not concede the point; rather, they then argue "Well, he did sort of do what he said he did. Sort of. A mean, a little bit. There's a grain of truth there. Somewhere. Just not much."

Having avoided confronted the question head-on, they are then free to assert again next week: "He never said that."

510. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 8:51:22 AM

"Ohio will now change the terms of debate." This from someone who responds to my comment about Gore's Vietnam experience with "Gore said he created the Internet!"

The internet was created by the connection of networks and in particular the opening up of government-owned networks to commercial use.

Didn't Gore take the initiative in getting this done? (namely, sponsoring the legislation called, I believe, the High Speed Computers Act.) If not Gore, who?

511. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 8:52:11 AM

From reading today's papers, it looks as though the Waldorf dinner was much funnier than Letterman.

I was disappointed that Letterman tried to be serious and grill the governor. He spent a lot of time on capital punishment (which Bush of course cannot afford to crack jokes about, meaning he couldn't do what you really go on Letterman for)--and Gore supports capital punishment anyway. He also pressed Bush on the environment.

The Top 10 list was okay, but like I said, it sounds as though for laughs I'd rather have seen Al and George speak at the Al Smith dinner.

512. Dusty - 10/20/2000 8:55:01 AM

Did anyone else catch Gore and Bush at the Al Smith dinner last night?

By all accounts, both Gore and Bush were extremely funny. I turned it on after Gore had finished, so I can only go by what the pundits and guests said, but they were unanimous in declaring him funny (yes, including Hannity and the GOP Congresscritter).

Then Bush spoke and he was excellent.

The dinner was in New York. Bush commented on what a great city it was for baseball fans like himself and Hillary. (She laughed)

Then after expressing relief that Milosevic was out of power, another hard to pronounce leader gone, he said, we need more politicians named Al Smith.

Both sides also gave good marks to Bush for his performance (although one Democrat was pissed that, when Bush spoke about the death of Cardinal O'Connor, and praised him for a number of stands, he mentioned the unborn.


One of the guests quoted someone as saying that this type of performance was now required. Presidential candidates had to show that they had a personality. Coombs remarked that if having a personality was a plus, then Gore should win, because he has several.


I wish I had caught the Gore segment. Hannity was wondering where this side of Gore has been; he had been very funny.

513. Dusty - 10/20/2000 9:00:39 AM

OhioSTOPAS

The Internet (meaning, interconnected computers) already existed. However, by law, it was not open to commercial companies. That is, the federal government created something with taxpayer money, then refused to let the taxpayer access it (lest you misunderstand, that course of action is defensible in many cases). The legislation that Gore pushed help remove this restriction.

Critical? Yes, to give him credit for the Internet is roughly like praising the janitor (who unlocks the entrance gates) for the Taj Mahal.

514. Dusty - 10/20/2000 9:04:02 AM

I missed this one; very funny.

Gore jokingly crowed about his strategy of using "real people" to illustrate policy points. "Like the woman who's here tonight, whose husband is about to lose his job. She's struggling to get out of public housing and get a job of her own. Hillary Clinton, I want to fight for you!"

515. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 9:21:13 AM

"The Internet (meaning, interconnected computers) already existed. However, by law, it was not open to commercial companies."

Then it wasn't the "Internet" as that term is used today.

516. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 9:40:31 AM

"Then it wasn't the "Internet" as that term is used today."

Funny. It was called the "Internet."


Perhaps Al Gore invented the United States Marine Corps, "as that term is used today."

517. CalGal - 10/20/2000 9:47:49 AM

Gore was very funny. He went into a long detailed explanation of how he didn't exaggerate--that when Segal created Ollie, he sought to capture the essence of Gore, with all of his finest qualities. And Ollie doesn't exaggerate.

And that he was going to get all of his interruptions out of the way before Bush started speaking.

Bush's best line was that he was grateful to Smith for proving once and for all that no guy named Al could be the commander in chief.

518. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 9:52:11 AM

Are we done with the Rolling Stone thing?

Because I just wanted to say I'm really surprised that Al called the Beatles his favorite musical act.

After looking at that cover, I thought he'd say Tom Jones.

What's new, pussy cat? Whoa-oh-OH!

519. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 9:58:26 AM

Or maybe Steely Dan.

520. mgleason - 10/20/2000 10:04:05 AM

Or maybe Steely Dan.

Now, that's funny.

521. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 10:04:08 AM

I don't think the Ohios have done much for Gore on this point. Gore's own staff smelled the vulnerability in their guy in 1988 when they wrote him a memo telling him to knock it off, and it is a stench that could lose him this election. In fact, does anyone really question his intelligence or his skills or the economic perfomance of the last eight years or the relative peace abroad (while we have had some recent issues, they do not involve large amounts of personnel, and our larger scale actions have been generally successful, or, at least, defensibly so).

Nor are there truly wedge issues working for the GOP. Instead, they are generalized bromides of the military in disrepair, power back to the people, working together, less partisan fighting. But they are bromides offered by an affable and seemingly genuine, down-to-earth candidate.

So, the electorate questions who Gore is and what he will say. Like a dog smells fear, the electorate may actually sense that the man is so uncomfortable with himself that he chronically lies or exaggerates, and that such a condition is a real problem. And when the Ohios attempt to parse every misstatement, it reminds the electorate of the one thing the electorate truly dislikes about Clinton.

522. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 10:04:16 AM

But the steadfast "admit no fault" line has remained. And in the end, it makes both Gore and the defender look a little silly. Either the man built his own house with his hands, raised 10,000 chickens, played the role of investigative reporter putting people in jail, grew tobacco with his own hands, grew up on a farm, did not know that the Buddhist Temple was a fundraiser, and cosponsored McCain-Feingold, or he did not. Either his sister was the first volunteer for the Peace Corps and his father was a champion of civil rights, or they were not; either he accompanied James Witt to Texas, or he did not; either his mother-in-law's prescription drug situation was a true recitation, or it was not.

It is also the personal nature of the excesses. For example, the Gore claim that the drug companies pay more for marketing and ads than for R&D is false. But it falls into that category of falsehood that is a mixture of debate time excitability and policy. It is less egregious and not quite so odious as the "I am Batman" crap.

As this litany appears, the defenders will itch to parse each one out to demonstrate that through better yoga, they are, in fact, facsimiles of truths. Instead of a straight acceptance of the problem, they hang on to "Well, it was not then known as the Internet."

Add that to the other disservice done Gore by his supporters - i.e., the egghead sneering at Bush as some backward, pampered mental midget - and 1988 may have been transformed into 1980.

523. mgleason - 10/20/2000 10:07:24 AM

This is pretty funny, too: a Jesuit who decries pilpul.

524. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 10:08:08 AM

Hitchens must have seen "the cover":

Here comes Albert Gore Jr., striding purposefully toward us with a big chopper resting easily on his shoulder. He is pumped and ready; his handlers have been making him up to look like a cross between Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he actually does resemble a bronze condom stuffed with walnuts. In advance he announces his fealty to the corporate state order, his deference to the military, his eagerness to please authority and his commitment to Star Wars, the war on drugs and the ownership of politics by money.

But aaah...look at the handle on the guy!

Christopher Hitchens

525. glendajean - 10/20/2000 10:18:16 AM

Jack, sorry you're so upset about those poor dumb Gore supporters. Pray for our souls.

526. bubbaette - 10/20/2000 10:20:39 AM

I said months ago that the election should be decided by measuring the candidates' yingyangs.

527. glendajean - 10/20/2000 10:28:07 AM

Speaking of Gore defenders, here's a New York Times story about them.

Selected quotes:

"The governor is a high-risk choice," said Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska in a telephone interview. "I've got concerns about whether or not he's up to the job."...

...Mr. Kerrey, who is retiring from the Senate early next year to become president of the New School University in New York, said in the interview that "competency is an issue and there are serious questions about Governor Bush."

He added: "When I hear him answer a question about the Middle East, I don't hear experience talking. I hear: `I was a governor. I've got a vision. And I stick with my friends."'

Mr. Kerrey said he was particularly concerned about Mr. Bush's ability to handle complicated trade, defense and foreign policy matters. "Many of the answers in the debate indicated to me that on foreign policy and defense issues he's going to have to contract out to get other people to advise him," Mr. Kerrey said.

528. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 10:31:20 AM

Glendajean:

Panic Button Time.

The alarms are all blaring.

529. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 10:31:25 AM

Prediction post:

I predicted at the time of the Republican Convention that George W. Bush was going to win this thing, and I of course see no reason to change that prediction now.

That said, it's somewhat unsettling to me to see such an obviously mediocre intellect be elevated to the highest office in the land. Perhaps it's a function of growing older and thus losing respect for your elders, but should Bush become president, I will have no doubt that we have someone who is no more intelligent than your average Motier. Moreover, the man evidences nil intellectual curiosity or wonder, which IMO is even more damning. Nevertheless, raw intellect is not the single quality upon which to base one's decision, nor perhaps even the most significant.

The Democrats virtually had no choice but to nominate Al Gore, and I don't think it's necessary to list all the reasons why. OTOH, I've never quite understood how or why George W locked up all the Republican funding and pols so long before the election. I've never understood (completely) why the Republicans were so gungho on him so early. Is this really the best they could do?

I will more than likely vote for George W. Bush because of the big picture, it's a close election, and because we really have to choose between the two. But I must confess there are times when a voice whispers inside my head, "You've got to be kidding." Maybe that voice has been put there by the Democrats, but I don't think so.

530. bubbaette - 10/20/2000 10:33:01 AM

Oh for god's sake, GJ, get with the program. Nobody gives a hoot whether Bush can walk and chew gum at the same time -- the issue is the size of Gore's equipment.

Let's focus on what's REALLY important here. All that stuff about issues and competence just diverts attention from the real concerns.

531. Cellar Door - 10/20/2000 10:34:23 AM

Dogs smell fear, Jack. They also lick their balls.

Christopher Hitchens (like Ace, La Sullivan, and Drudge) has no dick. No wonder he's so obsessed with Al's. In fact all the Repububs have Penis-On-the-Brain. Some write columns about it. Others spread items via their Useful Idiots in the media. And still others make a grab for the dicks of policemen while jerking themselves off in public rest rooms.

532. glendajean - 10/20/2000 10:35:46 AM

Ace -- not panic, disappointment. I'm always surprised when a Democrat wins a presidential election.

533. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 10:40:30 AM

"It's somewhat unsettling to me to see such an obviously mediocre intellect be elevated to the highest office in the land."

Even more unsettling is that the public doesn't seem to realize it, as demonstrated by polls reporting that roughly half of the viewers thought Bush won Debate No. 3.

534. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 10:45:17 AM

"Let's focus on what's REALLY important here. All that stuff about issues and competence just diverts attention from the real concerns."

Aren't you happy you didn't remove Clinton from office? Aren't you glad you traded two years of Clinton for eight years of Gore?

Did you really think there wouldn't be a consequence?

A year ago Bush was ahead in the polls, 54-39. Sight unseen. Why? Because people wanted Clinton/Gore *OUT*.

The Democrats insinuated Bush wasn't competent. The polls tightened. But now America has seen Bush, and has decided that he meets the threshhold of competence.

Thus, the polls slide, slowly, to the position they were at a year ago. Because it's time to "move on" from Clinton/Gore.

I'm bewildered at how bewildered Bubbaette is.

Clinton/Gore lied & broke laws for eight years. Once again: Did you think nobody would factor this into their decisions?

535. bubbaette - 10/20/2000 10:49:01 AM

Not to worry Ace. I'm already saving my nickles for the "Impeach Bush" movement which I expect to get rolling before the inaugeration in the even Dubya's elected. I expect that there are hundreds of little things that deserve protracted investigation.

536. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 10:49:08 AM

In Politics, I linked to a story about one of the people Bush seems to think is a good person to put in a position of power. Bob Kerrey hit the nail on the head..."I was a governor. I have a vision. I stick with my friends."

537. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 10:50:36 AM

Or, viewed from another direction:

Clinton managed to stay in office because Americans just don't bother reading the newspapers. They're dolts. They're uninterested.

Did you think that this would only cut in one direction?

538. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 10:51:50 AM

"Not to worry Ace. I'm already saving my nickles for the "Impeach Bush" movement which I expect to get rolling before the inaugeration in the even Dubya's elected. I expect that there are hundreds of little things that deserve protracted investigation."

Yeahp. You'll find that a difficult trick with a Republican Congress and no independent counsel statute. Isn't it great that Clinton killed the IC law?

539. bubbaette - 10/20/2000 10:52:22 AM

I think Bush's cocaine snorting and heavy drinking should be good for at least 4 years investigation and several thousand gallons of printers ink.

540. Jonesatlaw - 10/20/2000 10:53:26 AM

I was wondering what Jack thinks about our man Kerrey's assesment of Dubya?

541. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 10:54:05 AM

On the other hand:

"Right Wing Republican Pollster" John Zogby shows the race at 44-44.

542. bubbaette - 10/20/2000 10:54:22 AM

Who gives a shit about the independent counsel? Try the bastard and hang him in the press.

543. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 10:55:05 AM

Did you think nobody would factor this into their decisions?

It's factored into mine.

544. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 10:55:06 AM

What makes you think there will be a Republican Congress if Bush wins, Ace?

545. glendajean - 10/20/2000 10:55:26 AM

Jones -- it was meanspirited of me to quote your Senator, but I couldn't resist.

546. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 10:58:34 AM

"What makes you think there will be a Republican Congress if Bush wins, Ace?"

Congressional polls are nearly tied. Plus the Democratic Caucus contains around 25 southern "Democrats" in name only. These men are actually Republicans who just can't call themselves "Republicans" due to still-living Southern hatred of Yankee Republicans.

Plus, James Trafficant will vote for Denny Hastert as Speaker of the House.

Even if you win the House (which is unlikely), liberals will not control it, and you will simply not have the votes to start some ridiculous investigation of Bush.

547. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 10:58:53 AM

Jack (Message # 521): A litany of falsehoods or alleged falsehoods like the one you've provided could be constructed for most politicians. Certainly George W. Bush could not meet the standards of candor and perfect recollection you set for Gore. Certainly RNC chairman Jim Nicholson's lies about Gore's alleged lies far exceed, in variance from truth and willfulness, anything Gore has said.

You keep talking about Gore's dead father and sister. Is it really such an awful thing to say something nice about your dead relatives (especially in the presence of your mother, the deceaseds' wife and mother)? You seem to think any statement about Gore Sr's laudable actions in the area of Civil Rights (e.g., standing up to the Dixiecrats and not signing the Southern Manifesto) is a LIE if it's not accompanied by a disclaimer like "although he voted against the Civil Rights Act in 1964." (And what's your beef regarding Nancy Gore Hunger and the Peace Corps? Is it that she was only TIED for "first volunteer"?)

Surely this is less to be upset about than lies over billions or trillions of dollars ("I believe a tax cut for the rich will spur the economy and lead to benefits for all without causing a deficit. I believe a tax increase for the rich will wreck the economy" - every Republican), not more.

548. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 11:00:20 AM

...and of course, Judith, there is next-to-no-chance that Dems will gain the Senate.

The Senate is gone. Forget about the Senate.

549. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 11:00:20 AM

Ace: Some weirdness in that poll (not saying that invalidates it, but weird nonetheless).

Bush won both independents and Republicans and won Republicans by a greater margin than Gore won Democrats.

Bush won all age groups except the 18 to 24s.

So the sample seems a little weird if all that produced a tie.

550. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 11:03:09 AM

Indy:

That's very weird. If you win all age groups except 18-24's (who are the worst voters in America), how do you end up tying?

Supposedly Zogby corrects for this-- he knows, for example, that 18-24 year olds invariably *CLAIM* they are absolutely certain to vote, but in fact only 30% of them do.

Weird.

551. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 11:05:26 AM

Ace, let me know when the shrewdest political thinkers call you and offer you a top job as guru...I'll send you a plant for your new desk.

552. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 11:07:33 AM

Judith,

I don't understand the snide reply. My analysis is pretty conventional. I don't think you would/could dispute it, and I don't think that Jack, Indy, Dusty, Ohio, or anyone else would find much fault with it, either.

553. glendajean - 10/20/2000 11:08:39 AM

"and you will simply not have the votes to start some ridiculous investigation of Bush."

Alas, the Republicans did.

554. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 11:13:21 AM

GJ:

If that investigation was ridiculous, you must believe that the CEO of a large corporation, accused of sexual harassment, should either not be questioned about sexual liasons with other employers, of, if he is questioned, he is immune from the rules of perjury and any investigation thereof.

Is that what you believe?

If you want to outlaw the invasive questions asked in sexual harassment suits, there are a lot of Republicans who would gladly join you.

Will you join us?

Or will you stand by the feminists, and President Clinton himself, who pushed for such fishing expeditions?

Please take a stand on the issue. But you cannot claim these questions are fair game for a CEO but not fair game for a President you support.

A nation of laws, not men, and all of that.

555. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 11:14:32 AM

Given the perceived results of the debates, which Gore was widely expected to win, and given the current polls, I think it is impossible to say that the public doesn't have a problem with Gore.

My hope is that they perceive worse problems with Bush by election night.

I can't think of a good precedent for this. 1980 *should* have been a walk in the park for Carter's opponent. Bush is no Kennedy, so we can't use 1960. The lack of a central dividing issue like Vietnam disqualifies 1968.

556. glendajean - 10/20/2000 11:20:15 AM

Whitewater -- no charges against the president
Impeachment -- not even a majority vote on the articles

Travelgate -- no charges

Personnel files -- no charges

I have no problems with Clinton being disbarred for his lying under oath to Paula Jones attorney (as much as I do have reservations about sitting presidents dealing with civil suits, particularly ones that are as politically freighted down as this one was).

If, as you point out, the Democratic Party is suffering because of this angst, then you must see that the Republican Party has suffered as well.

Speakers resigned: 2
Derailment of the Contract With America
Lack of working majorities in either house

Stupid and dumb to impeach the president. Waste of time. Waste of money.

557. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 11:20:58 AM

"My hope is that they perceive worse problems with Bush by election night."

Nineteen days left, right? Or eighteen?

I mean... isn't this late to change the fundamental perceptions of the two men? If the country was going to deem Bush unqualified, wouldn't they have done so already?

And...

There's the little problem of a 2 to 1 money advantage in the closing weeks. The RNC has husbanded its resources stingily until now.

And...

Gore must now devote precious resources to expensive advertising in California's LA & SF markets... while Bush spends money in the cheaper markets of the state, where his message resonates better.

558. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 11:24:10 AM

"Speakers resigned: 2"

Please! We all cheered when Gingrich resigned... he was dead-weight, a bad-publicity lightning rod. And who the fuck is Bob Livingston?!?!

"Derailment of the Contract With America"

What? Clinton had already signed 7 of its nine legislative provisions into law. (The tenth provision was a term-limit pledge.)

Besides. The Contract was largely a gimmick.

"Lack of working majorities in either house"

True enough. But it looks like it got us a majority in the one House that matters-- the White House.

GJ, we don't have to convice 100% of the American people to vote for us. We only need 51%.

In fact, given Ralph Nader, we need a bit less than that.

559. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 11:27:54 AM

There's no way to avoid the fact that Gore *should* be up by 15 points.

And it's not all Gore's fault that he isn't winning. It's Gore's fault he's losing (slightly) a tight race, but it's Bill Clinton's fault he's in a tight race at all.


I mean, I think that's pretty undebatable. I think most people would concede this.

560. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 11:28:20 AM

I mean... isn't this late to change the fundamental perceptions of the two men?

Time for the AWOL story. Was Gore laying the foundations for it in the debate when he kept emphasizing his service in Vietnam? Put it in an ad.

The risk is it backfires, and the Democrats still think this election is winnable without it, so they don't want to flush their chances down the commode on the gamble.

Otherwise, Bush better be ready for all hell from the media as they've realized, despite everything, he may win. Expect coverage like the first two weeks after the Democratic Convention (RATS, asshole, etc.).

You can see in Matt Lauer's face his disbelief and disgust that Bush will be the next president. And I don't know how much longer it will be before Dan Rather just says, "What is the matter with you morons? How can you elect the--and I quote--'least-qualified candidate' to ever seek the office?"

561. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 11:30:32 AM

Indy:

You assume Republicans don't have nasty dirty-trick ads ready to run on Gore.

Shame on you.

562. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 11:33:25 AM

"Time for the AWOL story."

There's no there there. Even if he was AWOL for a period of time, which is unproveable, there's no getting around the fact that he served the necessary number of days for an honorable discharge.

Soldiers go AWOL sometimes. It's illegal, and they catch hell, but often they're just given a chewing out and no formal notation is ever made.

And Bush's situation was complicated as hell... getting transferred to a unit that didn't exist, then applying to another unit... how the hell are you going to make a stink about that?

And, once again, even if he didn't show up *then*, he made up the time later. It's in the record.

563. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 11:33:31 AM

Ace: But we already don't like Gore. If Bush can be made unlikeable, then Gore should win on experience and perception of intelligence.

564. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 11:36:04 AM

IJ:

Well, there are eighteen days left, dude.

I mean, I'm still waiting for the naked picture, the abortion (the DNC is peddling that), the videotape of his cocaine arrest...

But with eighteen days left?

I can't remember a "scandal" coming out this late in the game. Can anybody else?

565. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 11:36:18 AM

Ace: There has been a pattern to the polls. Gore does something to piss the public off, and his numbers drop. But as a week or two passes, he recovers, presumably due to the lack of immediacy of his personality and as people recall how good things generally are (a theme he has finally been emphasizing - I half expect to see a return to those "up/down" speeches he gave in 1996). This pattern may easily continue. Right now I would still bet money on Gore, simply due to political fundamentals, but I won't give odds.

I'll just point out that your hopes for the election are borderline bipolar - swinging from euphoria to dispair at the drop of a hat, whereas the pattern of this election should have taught you that change is constant.

566. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 11:37:08 AM

Ace:

re: Message # 552

Since you are the master of it, I guess you recognize snide when you see it. I apologize. I can only plead bad sportsmanship, I guess. Your writing off the entire election as a win for Bush and the Republicans just makes me sick inside....sort of like you would feel if Clinton had served 8 years with a Democratic majority and Hillary had passed Socialized medicene, to boot.

I see such a doofus in the person of Bush and am perplexed that others see him as qualified. To quote TS Eliot, he is "a hollow man" to me and it distresses me that others don't recognize that.

And please don't come back at me with how shallow Gore is....I am not a Gorette, regardless of what you perceive in me.

567. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 11:39:03 AM

how the hell are you going to make a stink about that?

Ace: I just don't see anything else for them to throw at the guy at this point. That he's an intellectual lightweight is old, and the majority apparently doesn't care.

Democrats look at the stuff that bothers them: guns, capital punishment, pollution, etc. They have to find an issue to pry a little of Bush's base off (the ones who'd really like an excuse to vote for Pat) and those deciding on the character/integrity issue.

Otherwise, they can just keep doing what they're doing and hope it suddenly starts working.

568. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 11:40:14 AM

"I'll just point out that your hopes for the election are borderline bipolar"

True, and not true. I'm really far more worried than I'm pretending.

"whereas the pattern of this election should have taught you that change is constant."

I dunno... The Democrats had their hopes pinned on the debates exposing Bush as an idiot.

Well guess what? Gore won one, Bush won one, and they tied on another.

Most people didn't watch the debates; but they know from their friends, the polls, and the commentary that Bush was pretty much Gore's equal.

So... I dunno. Seems to me that the big knock on Bush has been exposed as untrue... Why wouldn't they revert to their original intentions?

569. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 11:42:15 AM

Ace:

It hasn't been exposed as untrue...it's only being perceived as untrue.

It is, in fact, true.

570. mgleason - 10/20/2000 11:43:24 AM

Raskolnikov, I always dither about spreads, but It Is Time: Gore by seven.

571. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 11:44:07 AM

Ace: Which original intentions are those? The ones back in July, August, or September?

572. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 11:44:23 AM

"I just don't see anything else for them to throw at the guy at this point."

Mediscare and the race card, which they're already doing.

The Mediscare thing is sort of a good issue; they're going to run a big ad blitz about Bush promising the same trillion twice. Bush's people have, I understand, a counter to it, so we'll have to see how it shakes out.

Another trouble is, apparently, that most undecided voters *like* Bush's SS plan, so it's tough for Gore to attack Bush on it without, counterproductively, driving more undecideds into Bush's camp.

And the race card...

I don't know how effective this will be. I do know Dems really, really, really need a big black turnout... But can they get it? Is Bush "scary" enough? Do blacks like Gore enough?

573. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 11:45:24 AM

Gore by one. GOP keeps both houses.

574. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 11:47:59 AM

"It hasn't been exposed as untrue...it's only being perceived as untrue."

Yes, he's one of those many Yale-educated, Harvard-MBA-holding, successful-Governor-of-a-large-state
-and-tied-or-winning-the-race-for-the-Presidency idiots we all know and love.

If Bush is an idiot... how the hell is he beating Gore? What precisely does this say about Gore?

575. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 11:48:42 AM

Last post for now and one more comment about the "doofus" issue:

I don't think Bill Clinton is a total idiot, but neither do I buy the last two years of trying to build him up as something he's not. In his first term, he pretty much was a rube. One of the reasons I'm less worried about either Bush or Gore winning this race is that eight years of Bill Clinton have convinced me that--at least with a divided government--you can have a rather terrible president and the country not go down the tubes.

As long as he's not a total psycho. And I think in that respect, both of these men--even Gore with his penchant for Walter Mitty--are far more mentally stable than Clinton.

576. Fielding - 10/20/2000 11:50:33 AM

The Up / Down speeches were 1992.

577. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 11:51:28 AM

Social Security should have been made a major issue months ago, and has often been effective in the past.

I think Bush has made a mistake on this issue by not coming clean on how he will pay for it. His claim that it growth of privatized funds will make up the difference can be made to sound too much like voodoo economics. He should have instead skipped his tax cut in order to pay down the debt, allowing transition costs to be funded from general revenue without a tax hike.

578. Wombat - 10/20/2000 11:51:42 AM

(sigh) Gore loses. Dems take back the House.

579. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 11:52:31 AM

Fielding? Yo!

He did them in 1996 too. I had forgotten them from 1992.

580. glendajean - 10/20/2000 11:53:23 AM

I am a little surprised that Bush hasn't completely broken away (although perhaps Gallop is telling us that). I kept expecting that last week. Perhaps the debate stalled the breakaway for a few days.

The best thing Gore has going for him is that there are so many competitive Congressional races.

In Indianapolis, the Republicans are running a black professor against Julia Carson, a good vote getter in a city that is getting more Democratic. She is pulling out the stops to win re-election.

That will help Frank O'Bannon, the Democratic governor, defeat McIntosh, the Republican challenger. It won't help Gore.

581. Fielding - 10/20/2000 11:53:40 AM

"If Bush is an idiot... how the hell is he beating Gore? What precisely does this say about Gore?"

The people prefer a bimbo to a know-it-all.

582. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 11:54:12 AM

Gore's speeches aren't going to cut it. The networks only play a few seconds of a speech, and barely anyone watches anyway (surely undecided apathetic voters aren't watching).

It's all advertisements from now on. There is no more Big Free Media -- the debates are over.

And what issues can Gore run on...? He can't run on gun control; not without writing off Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. He can't make a big deal out of the choice issue... same problem.

Health care? A good issue, I guess.

The environment? I guess, but...

583. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 11:55:34 AM

Ace: "Its the economy, stupid".

584. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 11:56:25 AM

"His claim that it growth of privatized funds will make up the difference can be made to sound too much like voodoo economics."

I don't know, Rask. It's pretty straightforward, actually.

If Gore can make people understand what "transition costs" are in the first place -- which is tricky --surely Bush can explain the fairly simple principle that you'll have to give up a certain part of your rate of return to make up for the money the government has staked you with in the first place.

585. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 11:57:27 AM

"Ace: "Its the economy, stupid"."

Which no one gives Clinton credit for, nevermind his Second Banana.

I think the GOP should run ads with Ed McMahon claiming credit for the success of the Tonight Show.

586. bubbaette - 10/20/2000 11:57:29 AM

I'm wondering what the first investigation should be -- cocaine use or the use of the UT trust funds to benefit Bush's cronies. Maybe both together?

587. jexster - 10/20/2000 11:57:33 AM

Photo Phinish?

588. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 11:58:09 AM

"If Bush is an idiot... how the hell is he beating Gore? What precisely does this say about Gore?"

That he's not promising everyone a tax cut.

589. Wombat - 10/20/2000 11:58:33 AM

He could mention the Republican congress' role in the last six years of promoting responsible, bipartisan governance.

He could remind people that the programs that the Republicans are proposing to "save" were passed by the Democrats over virulent Republican opposition (and recycle some of the 1994 victors' statements about what they'd like to do with them).

590. Fielding - 10/20/2000 11:59:08 AM

Bush wins the popoular vote. Gore wins enough states to win the EC by 14 votes. Conservatives put extreme pressure on the EC voters to violate the law. 3 do, so Gore wins by 8.

Republicans keep the House, keep the Senate by one vote, Strom Thurmond dies in December, so a 50-50 deadlock allows Kosher-Dog to cast the deciding vote.

591. bubbaette - 10/20/2000 11:59:17 AM

And as for not having the "votes" to start an investigation, who the hell needs votes? All we need is a benefactor with deep pockets and a mission.

592. jexster - 10/20/2000 11:59:34 AM

Which no one gives Clinton credit for, nevermind his Second Banana.

You aren't everyone

Thank ya Jesus!

593. glendajean - 10/20/2000 12:00:01 PM

Taxes, the Market and Luck Underlie the Budget Surplus.

594. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 12:00:27 PM

I'd bet a million dollars that Gore's estimate of the transition costs are, of course, ludicrously overinflated anyway.

He's almost certainly assuming that ALL taxpayers would be offered the SS retirement account plan --which they won't be; it's intended for young people (under, say, 50) only, because otherwise you can't really count on the long-term trend of the stock market -- and he's assuming that all people would jump at the program, which they wouldn't.

25% of citizens are so out of it they don't even bother to register to vote. They won't bother signing up for the SS Retirement Account plan.

595. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 12:01:53 PM

"Which no one gives Clinton credit for".

Yes, they do.

596. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 12:03:05 PM

"Yes, they do."

Sure.

597. jexster - 10/20/2000 12:03:47 PM

Important factor to factor in when making predictions

About one in seven Americans likely to vote on Election Day say they have not yet picked a presidential candidate. With the polls showing a close race between Al Gore and George W. Bush, the choices made by these as-yet-undecided voters could well determine the outcome....groups that normally lean Democratic have a higher proportion of undecided voters at this point in the campaign. The undecideds are more numerous among women (17%) than men (10%), and among minorities (19%) than non-minority whites (11%).

This finding of the Vanishing Voter Project at the JFK School is confirmed indirectly by polls showing that Bush voters watched the debates more than Gore voters by about 10 points.

Gore voters evidently prefer baseball.

GO METS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

598. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 12:03:50 PM

Polls have been taken on this question. Clinton comes out third on the list, behind technology and Greenspan, and just barely ahead of the Republican Congress.

599. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 12:05:48 PM

Incidentally:

Zogby Poll

Lazio 43%

Hillary 42%


It's time for them to go.

600. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 12:10:10 PM

"He's almost certainly assuming that ALL taxpayers would be offered
the SS retirement account plan -- which they won't be; it's intended
for young people (under, say, 50) only, because otherwise you can't
really count on the long-term trend of the stock market -- and he's
assuming that all people would jump at the program, which they
wouldn't. "

Ace: This doesn't help. Stock market returns in themselves can't make up the loss in SS revenue if those who receive SS benefits don't have any stock market returns.

Additionally, the Social Security surplus exists on paper only. When the SS trust fund starts cashing in its T Bills in ~10 years, the money to redeem those bills has to come out of general revenue, meaning increased taxes, reduced benefits, or spending cuts elsewhere.

This being the case, all a partial privitization does is bring this financial problem to a head *sooner*, as ~1/6 of SS revenues will be put in private accounts, unable to pay current retirees.

601. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 12:11:00 PM

"Polls have been taken on this question. Clinton comes out third on the list, behind technology and Greenspan, and just barely ahead of the Republican Congress."

Cite please. I know better than to take your word for it.

602. jexster - 10/20/2000 12:11:11 PM

Direction of Country Satisfaction Ratings Highest in Years

603. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 12:12:30 PM

"Stock market returns in themselves can't make up the loss in SS revenue if those who receive SS benefits don't have any stock market returns."

You misunderstand. Those who have SS Retirement Accounts will have to "give back" a portion of their gains above a certain level to be paid back into the SS trust fund.

604. glendajean - 10/20/2000 12:12:56 PM

Lazio is running his first deadly effective ads -- asking New Yorkers to name 3 things Hillary Clinton has done for the state. It's all done very low key without discordant music or sneering announcers. Just average people laughing and saying that they couldn't come up with one thing.

I'm surprised Clinton hasn't responded, unless the money isn't there.

Meanwhile, somebody in New York or New Jersey once voted 7 times for increase in property taxes. I haven't a clue who she is or what party she represents, but on the basis of these attack ads alone, I would be very tempted to vote for her.

Marge somebody has voted seven times to increase property taxes. We see a picture of Marge and the numbers 1 through 7 are counted on screen while a voice counts to seven. Incredibly irritating and it runs at the beginning and the end of a commerical break during the Today show.

605. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 12:16:08 PM

Re: 603

Which will mitigate, though not wipe out, transition costs.

In any event, this is a bullshit issue, because Gore refuses to reform the system, and the system *will* go bankrupt without reform. His "lockbox" cannot save it; his "paying down the debt" cannot save it; his "reduced interest payments" cannot save it.

Gore is, once again, lying. His plan GUARANTEES a bankrupting of a system, whereas Bush's holds out hope for solvency.

606. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 12:18:25 PM

"You misunderstand. Those who have SS Retirement Accounts will
have to "give back" a portion of their gains above a certain level to be paid back into the SS trust fund."

I haven't seen the specifics on this part of Bush's proposal. Got link?

You do realize, though, that it would require a minimal 100% annual returns on the money, with a 100% tax, to avoid dipping into the SS surplus or general revenue?

607. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 12:22:25 PM

Jones

I like Kerrey. I just disagree with his assessment of Bush. It is musty, much like assessments of Reagan in 1980.

Ohio

As I said, your insistence on depruning every tree in the Gore's Yosemite of lies has divested you of the view of the forest. "A litany of falsehoods or alleged falsehoods like the one you've provided could" NOT "be constructed for most politicians." But becasue you continue to say as much, you contribute to the collective blindness.

"You keep talking about Gore's dead father and sister. Is it really such an awful thing to say something nice about your dead relatives (especially in the presence of your mother, the deceaseds' wife and mother)? You seem to think any statement about Gore Sr's laudable actions in the area of Civil Rights (e.g., standing up to the Dixiecrats and not signing the Southern Manifesto) is a LIE if it's not accompanied by a disclaimer like "although he voted against the Civil Rights Act in 1964." (And what's your beef regarding Nancy Gore Hunger and the Peace Corps? Is it that she was only TIED for "first volunteer"?)"

Short answer: yes. Even if the facts were true, it is a bit offputting to see death and intimacy traded for votes. When the pitch comes wrapped in falsehood, it further cheapens. When it is then larded with hypocrisy ("Paging Mr. Eskew"), it becomes insufferable.

But Gore has no qualms saying, "I'm a great guy because I only nail my wife and my four kids came here tonite of their own volition and I served in Vietnam, and did I tell you I served in Vietnam?" so I understand his attraction to perversion of the personal.

608. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 12:23:39 PM

"You do realize, though, that it would require a minimal 100% annual returns on the money, with a 100% tax, to avoid dipping into the SS surplus or general revenue?"

Huh?

I'm tired of talking with you about this. Blah, blah, blah. Gore's plan bankrupts SS -- period. You have conceded as much; then you offer, "I wish he wasn't being so cowardly about it..."

So, obviously you do not think the solvency of SS is a very important issue. So why are you holding it against Bush that his plan, too, is open to criticism?

It's just goofy.

609. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 12:24:39 PM

And Gore by one.

GOP holds the House by the grace of Mr. Traficant.

And the Democrats pick up NO seats in the Senate.

610. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 12:25:17 PM

"In any event, this is a bullshit issue, because Gore refuses to reform the system, and the system *will* go bankrupt without reform."

Much further in the future than under Bush's proposal. Gore proposes paying down the debt, which will free up funds currently used for interest rate payments. Bush instead prefers a larger tax cut.

"His "lockbox" cannot save it; his "paying down the debt" cannot save it; his "reduced interest payments" cannot save it."

No, but they help. I agree that neither plan is ideal. I also will say that Bush's plan could be *made* workable if it is given some sort of revenue source, such as the money he currently wants to use for tax cuts.

"Gore is, once again, lying. His plan GUARANTEES a bankrupting of
a system, whereas Bush's holds out hope for solvency."

Gore's plan guarantees nothing of the sort. It creates a separate retirement system which could easily be used as a springboard to a much more privatized system sometime in the future, long before a crisis comes to a head. Bush's plan, without a funding source, creates problems very quickly.

611. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 12:26:07 PM

Jack,

Did you miss the fact that Gore used another corpse to make a political point?

First or second sentence of the last debate: "Mel Carnahan, a great governor, a close friend of mine and Tipper's, who brought his state up into one of the top five in health care..."

And, of course, Gore seemed to fuck James Byrd's torn-apart corpse with equal relish.

612. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 12:27:20 PM

Could someone please explain to me how the Bush plan on SS works? Is he saying that you can take a certain percentage of the money that would've gone automatically to SS and invest it yourself in whatever you want? Will there be overseers to make sure you don't take that money and blow it on bingo and pork rinds?

613. Ronski - 10/20/2000 12:29:08 PM

glenda,

The candidate of whom you speak was also upbraided by local newspapers for running a particularly nasty campaign herself. Her opponent is an anti-abortion fanatic. Not much of a choice.

614. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 12:29:53 PM

"So, obviously you do not think the solvency of SS is a very important
issue. So why are you holding it against Bush that his plan, too, is
open to criticism? "

I think it is an extremely important issue. I just think that Gore's plan is considerably less irresponsible than Bush's as it is funded, doesn't promise something for nothing, and improves the financial position of the US government, potentially allowing future reform.

I am convinced that Bush's plan is DOA. Without funding, it won't pass, and his tax cut will hurt the solvency of the country.

615. Jonesatlaw - 10/20/2000 12:30:49 PM

Glendajean- Its not meanspirited to quote my Senator. I usually agree with him. He is famous for saying what he thinks, politics be damned. Case in point, the famous Clinton is an unusually good liar quote. I think he is dead on on his evaluation of Bush lite.

When I think about the comming election, I am not overly pleased with my choices. I would be happier with the thought of Kerrey becomming US President, and not President of the New School. The main reason for this is his willingness to take on difficult issues and cut across party and special interest lines to come to workable solutions. Witness his work with social security. He is understanding of the interests of business, particularly small business, without being willing to grant business carte blanche to rewrite the tax code or screw consumers. But most importantly, he understands the reality of the new multipolar world. Our comming president will make far more decisions that will put servicemen and women in harm's way. Kerrey understands how grave a decision this is, and how necessary it may be. His experience in Vietnam is an important plus for understanding unconventional and small scale warfare. His genuine heroism has been literally tested under fire. His leadership abilities are unquestionable. However, he is not a choice. So I evaluate the remaining choices against Kerrey's standard.

616. Jonesatlaw - 10/20/2000 12:31:08 PM

Bush gets points for genuinely working across party lines in Texas. But the parties in Texas are far closer than they are in Washington.

Gore gets points for duty and loyalty through the Clinton fiascoes. Gore also gets points for even light duty in Vietnam. He had the chance to take advantage of the breaks Bush received in abundance during the war, but he served. Further, he served as an enlisted man, not as an instant gentleman officer, as Bush did. This is important on two levels. One is that it is an example of Gore's character. Second and more importantly, Gore has seen a good deal of the new low intensity warfare that the next President will face. even though he was not a veteran of many firefights, he toured the country a lot.

617. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 12:31:25 PM

Ace:

Remember Tucker Carlsons interview with GW about Karla Faye Tucker? When he described the way Bush mocked her, screwing wp his face and saying "Please don't kill me!"? I'll take someone "using a dead guy" in a speech way before I'll take someone gleefully making fun of someone he's about to kill.

618. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 12:31:56 PM

"Much further in the future than under Bush's proposal."

Hee, hee, hee. 2037 vs. 2022. I'll take that tradeoff, given the fact that younger workers will have such a magnificent retirement fund, unconfiscatable by the government.


"Gore proposes paying down the debt, which will free up funds currently used for interest rate payments. Bush instead prefers a larger tax cut."

Gore won't have the money to "pay down the debt," as he proposes to spend more than the surplus. Even if he did, this merely allows us to borrow a *little* more later. It does not eliminate the need for borrowing.

"No, but [his proposals] help."

Help, schmelp. Only reform can save the system, which Bush is committed to, and Gore is committed *against*.


"Gore's plan guarantees nothing of the sort."

Yes it does. He is against reform, and without the form, the system goes bankrupt. It is a mathematical, actuarial certainty.

"It creates a separate retirement system which could easily be used as a springboard to a much more privatized system sometime in the future, long before a crisis comes to a head. Bush's plan, without a funding source, creates problems very quickly."

Blah blah blah. If you want to postulate hypothetical "What If?" solutions on Gore's behalf, you should be just as eager to do the same for Bush.

619. glendajean - 10/20/2000 12:34:26 PM

Jones -- it was meanspirited (in a flippant way) because Jack has admiration for Kerrey and that is probably the only reason I linked the article or pasted his quotes.

620. glendajean - 10/20/2000 12:35:16 PM

Ronski -- then a pox on them both. But that ad is particularly grating.

621. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 12:36:14 PM

Not at all.

Kerrey is great.

But so am I.

Thus, we can disagree on a higher plane.

622. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 12:36:53 PM

Judith (Message # 612): "Could someone please explain to me how the Bush plan on Social Security works?"

I really don't know, Judith.

You'd have to ask Governor Bush.





(trying to keep straight face)





(snicker)






HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

623. jexster - 10/20/2000 12:37:20 PM

Bush's Rosy Scenario - A Partial Birth Abortion: Congress Sets Record for Budget Busting Pork

624. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 12:37:58 PM

And Bush advantage number two surfaces.

The egghead "He's a dummy! Da' Moron!" guffaw.

626. jexster - 10/20/2000 12:41:20 PM

Appearing before cheering congressional Democrats on Capitol Hill, Clinton brutally critiqued Bush's performance in his final debate with Vice President Gore Tuesday night, saying at one point "I almost gagged" when Bush claimed credit for HMO legislation in Texas that he originally vetoed.

Clinton also blasted Republicans for dragging out year-end budget negotiations over education, Medicare, the minimum wage and a host of other issues. He threatened to force lawmakers to stay in town by signing temporary spending bills--necessary to keep the government open--lasting only one day.

"Can you imagine a Democrat going home and running for reelection saying, 'Vote for me so that next year I can finish last year's business'?" Clinton said. "Now we wouldn't do that and we shouldn't let anybody do that. We need to stay here until we resolve this."

Clinton's comments, especially those about Bush, were among his most pointed of a campaign season in which he has largely stayed on the sideline--at the request of
the Gore campaign. The attack surprised even his own aides--some fretted it might cross the Gore camp--yet pleased congressional Democrats who have been
unhappy with what some consider Gore's failure to draw sharp distinctions with the GOP ticket.

627. jexster - 10/20/2000 12:43:48 PM

Looks like Indy's been visiting an RNC site for his pictures.

Trouble with Bush's numbers is he doesn't provide them in key areas - SS transition costs, StarWarsII etc.

Also missing, 1.6 trillion in tax cuts.

628. jexster - 10/20/2000 12:44:56 PM

JV's right.

Bush has a lock on the Moron vote.

629. rubberducky - 10/20/2000 12:45:58 PM

Gore obviously needs to bump off a relative so that we can hear more stories about how swell he is for having been related to him/her.

630. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 12:46:49 PM

jexster

I still think your CK lover with the belly-button penis will win, but if he does not, I am pleased to see that you will have adopted "It's the stupid people, stupid!" as your first line of defense.

633. jexster - 10/20/2000 12:47:18 PM

Local Control of Schools? Bush's Voucher Mandate

634. joezan - 10/20/2000 12:47:52 PM

635. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 12:48:09 PM

"Can you imagine a Democrat going home and running for reelection saying, 'Vote for me so that next year I can finish last year's business'?"

Hey, Jex, isn't that pretty much Al's campaign slogan?

The chart, BTW, is from the National Taxpayers' Union.

636. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 12:48:45 PM

637. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 12:48:48 PM

Judith - I see such a doofus in the person of Bush and am perplexed that others see him as qualified. To quote TS Eliot, he is "a hollow man" to me and it distresses me that others don't recognize that.

Perhaps it is time to question your perceptions. I suggest that you see Bush as a doofus because you want to see Bush as a doofus. Perhaps if you viewed him with a more open mind, you would come to a different conclusion. The people who have worked closely with him (including Democrats) say he is intelligent and quite capable. I think they would be in a better position to know the truth. I a little introspection on your part might resolve your dilemma.

638. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 12:50:22 PM

Analysis of Bush and Gore's new spending proposals by the National Taxpayers Union

639. glendajean - 10/20/2000 12:52:40 PM

Democrats around Bush -- Hugo Berlanga, from Corpus Christi? I don't think so. The late Bob Bullock, one of the meanest people in politics ever? Yeah, right.

640. glendajean - 10/20/2000 12:53:14 PM

Could somebody figure out Jozean's toys and fix this?

641. joezan - 10/20/2000 12:54:26 PM

It's fixed here.

I can't figure the font thing, though, if that's what you're saying. I didn't mess with font.

642. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 12:54:57 PM

Appearing before cheering congressional Democrats on Capitol Hill, Clinton brutally critiqued Bush's performance in his final debate with Vice President Gore Tuesday night, saying at one point "I almost gagged" when Bush claimed credit for HMO legislation in Texas that he originally vetoed.

Clinton originally vetoed Welfare Reform twice and yet Gore is now claiming credit for it and its success.

643. rubberducky - 10/20/2000 12:58:43 PM

Zan

the font is "messed with" when you use the < PRE > tag.

the margins are fucked because IJ's #635 slipped in between the above mentioned tags. it won’t be fixed til the posts scroll off.

644. glendajean - 10/20/2000 12:59:57 PM

NY TIMES: Al Gore's Journey: Once Close to Clinton, Gore Keeps a Distance

Mr. Clinton relied heavily on him, especially at this time, presidential aides said. Mr. Gore stiffened Mr. Clinton's resolve against Republican efforts to dismantle environmental regulations, zealously raised campaign funds, as the world now knows, and even made it his business to make sure the cabinet secretaries stayed on message. "He was relentless," said the former consultant, who has no ties to or affinity for Mr. Gore.

In 1996, the vice president's support of the welfare-reform bill was considered decisive. "Gore was clearly telling the president to sign the Republican bill, even though it was punitive," said Mr. Reich, who strongly opposed the bill. "There were very, very few voices inside the administration telling Clinton to sign the bill, and Gore was the adviser in chief, the most important voice in favor of signing."

645. joezan - 10/20/2000 1:01:39 PM

RD:

Oh. But my margins are fine.

646. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 1:26:52 PM

JJ:

Were you the one who said he wasn't very familiar with Texas politics? Because I can see by your wholesale buying of that "I'm a uniter, not a divider" line that you are not.

Instead of advising me to keep a more open mind, why don't you do the same while checking into some of the claims he is making about his Texas governance. If he gets along with Texas Dems it is not a shock to me...many are so far to the right that were they facing North, they would reside in Louisana.

647. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 1:28:02 PM

Get this page straightened out....what post needs to go off the page to fix it?

649. jexster - 10/20/2000 1:30:00 PM

Kerrey & Others Blast Bumblebrained GOP Candidate aka The Moron

650. jexster - 10/20/2000 1:31:30 PM

I Know What You Did in Texas

651. jexster - 10/20/2000 1:38:24 PM

RHETORIC: "When you total up all the federal spending he wants to do, it's the largest increase in federal spending in years and there's just not going to be enough money."

BUSH: "Forget the Journalists"

REALITY: Bush's Attack is "Dubious" Because He Counts Half of Gore's
Tax Cuts as Spending Increases. According to the Los Angeles Times, "The Bush campaign comes up with figures that are three times Clinton's 1992 budget or LBJ's spending plan at the start of the Great Society only by counting about half of Gore's tax cuts as spending increases. For example, they do that for Gore's subsidies to help middle-income families save for retirement. But applying the same rules to Bush makes him look like nearly as big a spender as Gore."
[Los Angeles Times, 10/5/00]

Current Spending Under Gore and the Administration when Measured
as a Percentage of the Economy is Lowest Since 1966; Under Gore's
Plan it Would Be the Lowest in 50 Years. According to the Los Angeles
Times, "Gore proposals are measured against the usual yardstick of spending as a percentage of the economy, they look considerably more modest. Spending in the Clinton-Gore budget for the current fiscal year is the lowest since 1966.

By 2008, under Gore's plan, it would be the lowest in 50 years." [Los Angeles Times, 10/5/00]

The New York Times Says that Gore Has Three Times More Debt Reduction than Bush. Al Gore's plan is fiscally conservative as he is proposing to pay down $3 trillion of the national debt - the largest debt reduction ever proposed by a Presidential candidate. According to the New York Times, "Mr. Gore proposes to use about $3 trillion to reduce federal debt. By contrast, Mr. Bush's plan would reduce the debt by at most $1 trillion." [New York Times, 9/8/00]

652. jexster - 10/20/2000 1:41:52 PM

Bush Shit Cans Health Commish Who's Embarrassing Him

I know what he did in Texas even if Weiner doesn't!

653. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 1:44:16 PM

Jex:

I linked a story from my local paper about this guy in Politics earlier in the day.

654. jexster - 10/20/2000 1:46:18 PM

In all the political debate about how to
spend the rapidly emerging budget surplus,
almost nothing is said about where it came
from. It is a patchwork creation, hard to keep
sewn together.

Taxes thrown off by the soaring stock market
contributed handsomely to the surplus. So did
higher tax rates on the rich, enacted just
before their incomes surged ahead of other
Americans' in the booming economy of the
1990's. Cutbacks in military spending after the
cold war also helped significantly. Without
these three windfalls, the budget would be in
deficit today.

More

655. jexster - 10/20/2000 1:49:05 PM

The truly troubling thing is Judith is that the Moron appointed idiots like this to begin with.

Texans are choking because he appointed a chemical industry lobbyist to head the environmental agency and permitted polluters to "voluntarily" comply with emmission standards.

Weiner's got his head up his ass.

656. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 1:54:15 PM

Wow, the NY Times certainly took an "unusual" angle on the commissioner story Jex cites. It says the guy was removed for "embarrassing Bush." Now, when I started reading it, I thought it was likely this guy had been pointing out some things wrong in Texas with regard to healthcare and Bush was embarrassed by that. Five paragraphs into the story, I was still under the same impression.

Then we get to what he was removed for:

In April, in an interview with The New York Times, Dr. Archer minimized the importance of health insurance, saying he doubted that coverage really mattered to health. In the same interview, he attributed the state's high teenage pregnancy rate to its Hispanic population lacking the belief "that getting pregnant is a bad thing."

He has apologized for the comments.

In the past week, a black woman who was fired from a high-ranking job filed a discrimination complaint against Dr. Archer after he made
references to her race and to lynching in a meandering conversation that she secretly taped.


Do the liberals think this was a bad move by Bush?

657. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 1:57:49 PM

Ace:

Kindly read the first few paragraphs of this link. I told you this yesterday but you preferred to believe Al Gore was walking around with an erection:

The Penis Envy Wrap-up

Regardless, it was a very funny ride yesterday afternoon...

658. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 2:00:18 PM

IJ:

Read the link in Politics from my local paper...please. It has more detail on the remarks and on the LEGALLY taped 45 minutes.

659. Fielding - 10/20/2000 2:02:12 PM

"Do the liberals think this was a bad move by Bush?"


No. Actually, this is the part of the story that liberals might have an issue with:

"Mr. Bush approved Dr. Archer's appointment as commissioner in 1997. The son of Representative Bill Archer, the Republican who heads House Ways and Means Committee, Dr. Archer is a favorite of social and religious conservatives in Texas. He has said Mr. Bush asked him to apply for the job"

I guess if you are not a liberal, you won't have a problem with GWB asking an ignorant bigot to apply for this job.

660. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 2:07:08 PM

IJ:

The post # in Politics is #45768.


Fielding:

Welcome to the Mote and to this thread in particular.

I'm getting quite tired of people begging off by saying they are unfamiliar with Texas politics; that is what Bush is counting on. Everyone is just supposed to take his word for it that "he can get the job done" which of course, he can...just not in the way he is saying he can.

661. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 2:07:52 PM

Fielding

I imagine it would upset liberals as much as one of their own traficking with Al Sharpton for votes. Except, it was widely known that Mr. Sharpton was an ignorant bigot prior to the kowtowing. I'm not sure if the same can be said about the erstwhile Mr. Archer in 1997. His recent comments are spicy, but they still don't have that Dikc Lamm ageist quality of stating that the elderly had a responsibility to die younger. Too bad.

662. CalGal - 10/20/2000 2:08:45 PM

Fielding,

Hiya.

True, to some extent. The problem is more why did Bush pick such a guy, than what he is saying.

Still, canning him quickly will probably assuage the masses.

663. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 2:11:23 PM

Judith: The story you linked seems more matter-of-fact than the NYT.

Fielding: It's SOP that cronies get the jobs. Need I remind you of some Clinton appointments (Dick Morris, Jocelyn Elders) and attempted appointments?

I guess if you are not a liberal, you won't have a problem with GWB asking an ignorant bigot to apply for this job.

When the man's bigotry became known, Bush removed him.

664. Dusty - 10/20/2000 2:12:36 PM

Can someone please clean up the messed up margins? Isn't there someone around who can do this? [And then remove this post]

665. Fielding - 10/20/2000 2:12:55 PM

Jack:

Gore (or for that matter Clinton) has not appointed somebody like Al Sharpton to a position in Government. Bringing up Sharpton as an apology for Archer is pretty disingenuous. One of the biggest concerns about Bush is the possibility that he will appoint people like James Watt or Clarence Thomas to his government.

666. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 2:13:11 PM

I don't know anything about this Archer. I do know that the selection of individuals for administrative positions who later say or do dumb things is a bi-partisan affliction.

667. CalGal - 10/20/2000 2:13:29 PM

Jack,

But Al Sharpton isn't being slotted into a job in commerce or industry. In fact, he's not an appointed official at all, is he?

668. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 2:15:09 PM

Jack:

If you think Bush didn't know what sort of bigot this jerk was prior to appointing him, then you have to believe he never met the guy and just appointed him at the request of the guys dad...admittedly, he may have done that. But in Texas, people with biases don't just keep then internalized...Archer didn't sit around sipping tea and nibbling scones and discussing Chaucer with GW.

If you believe GW hired him without knowing what he was like at all then I have an oil rich square of land in my flower garden I'd just love to sell you...

669. CalGal - 10/20/2000 2:15:14 PM

Well, I don't think Bush is particularly prone to making bad appointments. I think that would be one of his strengths, if he won.

And bad appointments certainly is a bipartisan failing.

670. Fielding - 10/20/2000 2:15:18 PM

"When the man's bigotry became known, Bush removed him."


You mean known to the National Press. I understand that Texans have known this for some time.

671. glendajean - 10/20/2000 2:16:08 PM

Dusty, shut down your explorer or netscape and come back. I did that and the margins are fine now.

672. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 2:17:44 PM

Fielding.

First, it is disingenuous to lump Thomas into the ranks of the Watts, the Butzes, the Archers, and so forth. You may not like him, but he is simply not consonant with the target of your outrage.

But you are correct. It is disingenuous to equate the selection of an individual for service who later makes crass and/or offensive remarks with the knowing meeting with and attempt to gain the support of an individual who - prior to the meeting -demonstrated his ignorant bigotry.

The latter situation if far more egregious. My apologies.

673. Dusty - 10/20/2000 2:18:31 PM

glendajean

OK, I tried that. Still fucked up.
Is it so difficult for someone to remove the offending psot?
Is there no one around with delete capabilities?

674. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 2:18:55 PM

Of course, I can surmise many things, and I can "understand" many more.

Facts and consistency are nicer.

675. glendajean - 10/20/2000 2:19:24 PM

Health Commissioner is a big appointment in Texas. I am not sure that Bush would have directly picked him. Many appointments like this are the result of a board (and the governor tells the board --when he or she finally has a majority on the board -- who to pick -- or at least has some knowledge of the candidates). I think the legislature has made some of these appointments subject to the governor.

676. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 2:20:12 PM

dusty:

How many posts do you view per page? I do 20 and it's gone from my screen....

677. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 2:20:37 PM

For example, some in Mr. Gore's Secret Service detail have alleged racism.

I can surmise from this fact. I can also say "it is my understanding" that Gore doesn't want blacks on his detail.

But that would be irresponsible.

678. glendajean - 10/20/2000 2:21:08 PM

Sorry, Dusty. Mine are ok now.

Maybe we should write in

short lengths till this

clears up.

Haiku "election" thread

anyone?

679. glendajean - 10/20/2000 2:22:45 PM

Jack -- do you think Gore doesn't want

blacks on his detail? I thought the

beef with black Secret Service men

was with management -- and that this

is a complaint that goes back before this

administration.

680. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 2:22:59 PM

GJ:

Did you read the article I linked? In it, Senator Moncrief was quoted; I'll ask him if Bush knew Archer (which I am almost certain he did, given who both mens fathers are) next time I see him, which should be in about 2 weeks.

681. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 2:23:06 PM

Indeed, Black Secret Service agents have charged that Gore
made no effort to address racial complaints about his security detail, and Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., responded that "Gore's Negro tolerance level has never been too high."

But that is surely her mere "understanding."

682. Fielding - 10/20/2000 2:23:34 PM

Jack:

"It is disingenuous to equate the selection of an individual for service who later makes crass and/or offensive remarks with the knowing meeting with and attempt to gain the support of an individual who - prior to the meeting - demonstrated his ignorant bigotry.

The latter situation if far more egregious. My apologies"


If I understand this correctly, than GWB's appearance at Bob Jones University would, in your eyes, disqualify him from the White House. Or wereyou just kidding about meeting with known bigots being worse than appointing them.

683. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 2:24:40 PM

GJ

I think no such thing. I'm only stretching my technique of supposition and understanding.

684. Dusty - 10/20/2000 2:25:24 PM

JudithAtHome

I view 100, and it is still there. I suppose I could change the number of posts viewed, but the problem still should be fixed, because anyone who isn't currently reading will come in to catch up, and get a messed up screen.

685. glendajean - 10/20/2000 2:26:35 PM

I have no doubt that Bush and Dr. Archer are well acquainted, given his dad replaced Bush's dad as congressman. Governors interact with their Health Commissioner --- usually.

Jack -- I had not heard about that complaint. Glad to know that you are quoting Cynthia McKinney these days. It will be good for you.

686. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 2:27:18 PM

Fielding

Not at all, just as Gore's moshing with Sharpton is not a disqualification. But both men are deservedly vulnerable to charges, Bush for speaking to a school that codes racial division, and Gore for cozying up to a known bigot for votes.

687. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 2:27:20 PM

Jack:

You are sounding like the Prime Minister in House of Cards today...very British. "You might think that; I couldn't really say" with the arched eyebrow.

688. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 2:29:17 PM

glenda

It's one of those baseless suppositions I keep for just these occasions.

Juditha

If you are trying to get on my good side by likening me to Frances Urquart, you are succeeding.

689. glendajean - 10/20/2000 2:32:16 PM

I always thought Cynthia McKinney got in trouble for her slash first, think about it latter comments. Perhaps this is not one of those moments.

690. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 2:33:21 PM

glenda

By her esteemed record, I'm sure it is well-grounded in the most verifiable bed of wild speculation.

691. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 2:33:23 PM

Judith - If you think Bush didn't know what sort of bigot this jerk was prior to appointing him, then you have to believe he never met the guy

I worked with a guy for many months before finding out he was a bigot. He was careful about what he said at work. Eventually he let slip an anti-Semitic remark, and the game was up. It is more than possible that Bush didn't know about Archer.

692. glendajean - 10/20/2000 2:34:01 PM

Dusty -- Judith figured it out. It's only fixed when the offending post is off your page. Since we're at 20 posts per page, we don't have the distortion anymore.

As far as deleting the offending post, I guess Jones has to do that and he doesn't seem around. It was something Jozean posted, citing poll numbers -- I think.

693. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 2:34:57 PM

JJ

It is certainly more than possible.

But the "more than possible" aspect is simply less than convenient at this juncture.

694. rubberducky - 10/20/2000 2:35:59 PM

GJ:

Judith figured it out

ahem

Message # 643

695. Jonesatlaw - 10/20/2000 2:36:12 PM

Post 625 deleted because it screwed the margins. Junior, please repost it and adjust the size to something between 150-200 and check for dust. I want everybody to see your content, just not your HTML.

696. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 2:37:13 PM

Jones

Spreads are up. Tell the gang.

697. Dusty - 10/20/2000 2:38:09 PM

glendajean

Well, duh, I knew that. But it isn't "fixed". It only looks ok for those people with only a few posts per page and who never plan to view posts a few above the offending one. It isn't "fixed" for anyone who isn't currently reading and who might actually want to read the past posts. It isn't "fixed" for any newcomers who might want to read the prior discussion beofre weighing in.

698. Dusty - 10/20/2000 2:39:22 PM

Jonesatlaw

Not yet
check 631

699. Fielding - 10/20/2000 2:39:49 PM

Jack:

"Not at all, just as Gore's moshing with Sharpton is not a disqualification. But both men are deservedly vulnerable to charges, Bush for speaking to a school that codes racial division, and Gore for cozying up to a known bigot for votes."

Gore is not a supporter of Al Sharpton. GWB came to Bob Jones and not only lent credibility to the institution, but also praised it. So GWB is much more vulnerable to this charge. In any case, inviting a known bigot to apply for a job in his administration is much worse than asking one for support.

700. glendajean - 10/20/2000 2:41:05 PM

Ducky -- Judith figured out why dusty's page was screwed up but most of ours was not. She asked how many posts per page... You, of course, figured out first that once the offending post was off the page, everything would return to normal. My bad.

JJ Dallas Morning News: Official on paid leave for remarks -- Bush agrees with move for health commissioner

Selected quotes:

Don Gilbert, Health and Human Services Commissioner, said that Dr. Archer's "inappropriate comments" must be investigated before he can complete a previously scheduled performance review. Gov. George W. Bush, for years a staunch defender of Dr. Archer, said Thursday that he agreed with the decision....

Dr. Archer repeatedly has drawn criticism for making offensive remarks about minorities and women, and for bucking the Legislature's directives on matters such as school-based health clinics. Despite mounting calls for his resignation, the obstetrician-gynecologist from Houston had always enjoyed the strong backing of Mr. Bush – until this week.

I don't have a clue about this guy one way or the other, having lived out of state since end of '94. But it is ridiculous to act as if Bush wouldn't know his health commissioner.

701. Dusty - 10/20/2000 2:41:12 PM

and 632

(and feel free to eliminate of of my posts where I am simply whining about the margins)

702. glendajean - 10/20/2000 2:41:57 PM

Dusty, I feel your pain.

703. rubberducky - 10/20/2000 2:43:58 PM

GJ

well, the glory hog has been satisfied

hahahahaha

704. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 2:43:58 PM

Dusty:

Read Jones post above; it's fixed now.

Ducks:

I wasn't trying to steal your fire....

Jack:

Frances Urquart was a turn on for me but I'd never want to see him above the first story of a building.

and JJ:

You really DON'T know anything about Texas, do you?

705. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 2:45:09 PM

Fielding - GWB came to Bob Jones and not only lent credibility to the institution, but also praised it.

BJU is not racist. This was debunked months ago.

In any case, inviting a known bigot to apply for a job in his administration is much worse than asking one for support.

If you can prove Bush knew Archer was a bigot you maight have a point. That hasn't been proven, just asserted.

706. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 2:47:43 PM

JJ:

Face it, you are gonna lose this one.

707. Dusty - 10/20/2000 2:47:59 PM

JudithAtHome

I read it, thanks.

But please read mine where I point out that it NOT yet fixed.

BTW, apologies to Gledajean for my attitute. I shouldn't take out my irritation on you.

708. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 2:48:37 PM

Judith - I know quite a bit about Texas. The difference is that my view is not clouded by the same veil of hatred that obviously obscures your view.

709. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 2:50:57 PM

Dusty:

As the Great Stumbo once blasted me for misspelling a word, this could all have been avoided by previewing before posting...I've tried to do just that each time I link but still slip up on spelling.

710. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 2:51:05 PM

Judith - Face it, you are gonna lose this one.

I am sorry that you see this as some kind of competition. I thought this was a discussion to establish facts. Apparently, you see it differently.

711. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 2:52:31 PM

JJ:

I have no hatred for the little guy; I'm just a realist. How could I possibly HATE someone who is such a great source of amusement for me?

712. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 2:52:53 PM

Fielding

"Gore is not a supporter of Al Sharpton. GWB came to Bob Jones and not only lent credibility to the institution, but also praised it. So GWB is much more vulnerable to this charge. In any case, inviting a known bigot to apply for a job in his administration is much worse than asking one for support."

A charming but ultimately futile distinction. They both lent their names to institutions/individuals who espoused racist notions. For votes.

As for your now added charge that Mr. Archer was a "known bigot" at the time of his 1997 appointment, is this verified, or is this what we often refer to as a "McKinney"?

713. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 2:53:28 PM

Here's a pessimistic (for Democrats) thought about the polls:

I'm afraid that the polls might be underestimating the vote that Governor Bush will get, because some people may be embarrassed to tell pollsters they're going to vote for the moron. I think Bush is going to get a lot of votes from voters who think, "Bush is unqualified, and his policies might lead to a deficit and hurt the economy, the environment, and the poor . . . but I sure wouldn't mind a tax cut for me." This, I know, is my pro-Gore liberal bias speaking, but other than strong anti-abortion or other social conservative views I can't see any reason to vote for the Governor other than a desire for more money in one's pocket.

When polled, rather than admit to this shallow selfishness, many of these voters will claim to be undecided or even in favor of Gore. But in the privacy of the voting booth, they'll vote for Bush and take the money.

I fear that on election day Bush will outperform the polls, just like Jesse Helms always does.

714. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 2:56:41 PM

From POA:

In the race for Florida’s 25 Electoral Votes, Texas Governor George W. Bush has taken a narrow lead over Vice President Al Gore.

Bush leads Gore 46% to 42% in a survey with a 3-percentage point margin of sampling error.

715. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 2:58:35 PM

Oh give it up, JJ...I know you aren't that thin skinned. It is highly unlikely Bush didn't know this guy was like this...read the articles, man. This isn't the first time he's been called on that sort of behavior and yet he gets a pass from Bush until 3 weeks before the election?

What you fail to understand is the way TEXANS...and male Texans in particular, talk. Even Richard Nixon let loose with racial remarks when he was among pals...what makes you think Bush didn't hear Archer before appointing him? It's not like guys think that is some sort big deal here in this state...it is full of bigots. I thought you realized that.

716. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 2:59:29 PM

I have no hatred for the little guy; I'm just a realist.

Your demonstrated understanding of reality is limited at best.

717. glendajean - 10/20/2000 3:00:28 PM

Ohio -- ultimately, as much as I disagree with a candidate, I like to think that I respect the voters enough to not totally disqualify what they do because of their disagreement with me. You're right that people may think that people they would look bad if they admitted voting for Bush. But that says a lot about how they perceive Gore as being a smarty pants.

But then I was one of those people who yelled "you idiot" every time Reagan gave a State of the Union address.

718. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 3:01:11 PM

Indeed, the vice president met privately with Mr. Sharpton twice, once at the Manhattan home of his daughter, Karenna.

And in true profile in courage mode, Mr. Gore stated, "I did not meet with Rev. Sharpton publicly; I met with him privately,"
Gore said. "I will not violate the privacy of that conversation."

He he he.

719. Fielding - 10/20/2000 3:01:15 PM

JJ:

"BJU is not racist. This was debunked months ago."

I didn't call it racist. Nonetheless, BJU students of mixed ancestry are required to "register" as one race, and are only permitted to date other students of the race the register under. Is that a policy that you want to defend?


"If you can prove Bush knew Archer was a bigot you maight have a point. That hasn't been proven, just asserted."

Where is an open mike when you need one?

Actually, that is part of the problem. I don't think GWB cares enough to check these things out before making appointments.

720. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 3:03:35 PM

JJ:

Your demonstrated understanding of ME is limited at best.

721. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 3:04:23 PM

Judith - If you are going to make claims that Bush knew about Archer and still appointed him, you will have to provide some evidence. Claiming that "he must have known" doesn't wash. If you want to be that prejudiced in your views, I can't stop you. Just don't expect me to accept your views blindly.

722. glendajean - 10/20/2000 3:05:08 PM

Archer's appointment was probably a sop to the religious right (a very powerful force within the Texas Republican Party). Given concerns about abortion, AIDS education -- condom distribution, etc., the true believers probably wanted someone in this position who they felt comfortable with. It probably helped that his dad was Congressman Archer. Bush the Elder still lives in his District.

723. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 3:06:43 PM

Fielding:

Your last remark, about him caring enough to check these things out, is probably very true. He spends 30 minutes studying a death penalty case, why should he give any more to appointments? After all, his decisions in the DP cases are infallible, why not consider the appointments to just as righteous?

724. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 3:07:16 PM

Fielding - Nonetheless, BJU students of mixed ancestry are required to "register" as one race, and are only permitted to date other students of the race the register under.

This policy was not enforced. It has since been rescinded.

725. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 3:09:42 PM

Judith - Your demonstrated understanding of ME is limited at best.

Unfortunately, the more I understand about you, the less I like.

726. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 3:11:43 PM

JJ:

The next time I'm at a social function with Senator Moncrief, I'll ask him. I've known him since he and my sister were in high school together. I'm sure you won't take his word for it, second hand, but that's the best I can do.

727. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 3:15:26 PM

JJ:

Okay, you don't care for me...that is fine. I'll stop now and you do the same. Let's just agree to avoid one another from now on, okay?

728. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 3:15:55 PM

Al Gore appointed as his running mate a man who until only recently made regular prayers to God for having made him born male.

729. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 3:16:07 PM

Glendajean - I try to respect the voting public, but when half of them say Bush won Debate No. 3 it's not easy. No reasonably intelligent person could honestly think Bush won that debate. That result has got me thinking that a large number of people have decided they'll vote for Bush to get a tax cut, regardless of his lack of qualifications, and are blowing smoke to rationalize their decision. ("I really thought Bush did well, honest! He showed, uh, . . . leadership! Yeah, that's it!")

Or maybe half of our population is stupid enough to listen to Bush's babbling for 90 minutes and not realize how poorly he performed. Now THAT'S a pessimistic thought.

730. marshame - 10/20/2000 3:20:12 PM

Isn't it possible that a large proportion of people prefer someone who, while not the most polished speaker, gives a straightforward answer that they can believe, as opposed to a slick, over-bearing, know-it-all politico whom they don't believe, no matter how detailed his answers?

731. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 3:20:33 PM

Glendajean - I try to respect the voting public, but when half of them say Bush won Debate No. 3 it's not easy. No reasonably intelligent person could honestly think Bush won that debate. That result has got me thinking that a large number of people have decided they'll vote for Bush to get a tax cut, regardless of his lack of qualifications, and are blowing smoke to rationalize their decision. ("I really thought Bush did well, honest! He showed, uh, . . . leadership! Yeah, that's it!")

Or maybe half of our population is stupid enough to listen to Bush's babbling for 90 minutes and not realize how poorly he performed. Now THAT'S a pessimistic thought.

732. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 3:21:07 PM

Ohio

Eggheadedry will be the death of you. Your viewpoint is the same dazed viewpoint of so many otherwise fine intellects, as if your lawyerly standards as to who wins a debate trumps dumb ole' mountain folk who actually and moronically hone in on the fact that a) there are not exactly worlds between the candidates policy-wise; and, b) there is something more disconcerting about a man who will do or say anything - including getting on his knees and singing "Mammy" - to be president than another who appears confident win or lose, and naturally bemused by the process.

733. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 3:24:00 PM

Ohio - Or maybe half of our population is stupid enough to listen to Bush's babbling for 90 minutes and not realize how poorly he performed.

Or maybe half the population sees something you are unable or unwilling to see. You remind me of a guy who drives the wrong way down a one way street and curses the other drivers for driving the wrong way.

734. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 3:24:36 PM

Moreover, I think they - unlike the smart set - realize that the men are selling themselves first, and their policies second, as the policies they espouse are mere blueprints. So, when Gore gores Bush on certain inconsistencies, or does his Mr. Wizard on the math, they are unimpressed. Or when Bush declares that certain people will get certain sums certain in his tax proposals, they are similarly unimpressed.

But when one guy stalks the other guy like Bundy in the bushes, it can have an effect.

735. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 3:27:23 PM

729 & 731: How'd that happen? Oh well, anything I say is of course worth saying twice.

736. Orca - 10/20/2000 3:28:28 PM

Ohio: Re Message # 713 ... Actually, I suspect rather the opposite effect -- that it is Gore's support, not Bush's, that is muted. Given the shrieking, hectoring and incredibly juvenile quality of what passes for conservative rhetoric these days, many in the center-left are simply declining to make themselves targets and not participating. My understanding is that the representation of Republicans in the polling data is turning out to be higher than previous estimates of their percentages in the population at large. While that could be attributed to a shift in party allegiance, some pollsters are also noting an increasing percentage of potential pollees who are refusing to participate. (See this piece: Zogby said when he started polling in 1984, the response rate was about 65 percent. Now, he says, it is about 33 percent.)

737. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 3:30:32 PM

"your lawyerly standards as to who wins a debate"

Oh, come on. Bush couldn't manage an intelligent answer to any of the questions he was asked. And when he occasionally lapsed into coherence, he lied (example: his fairy tale about how he delivered the patient's bill of rights).

738. marshame - 10/20/2000 3:30:46 PM

While channel-surfing last night, I stumbled across a show on Oxygen TV (I give it 6 months before this channel tanks completely). It had some GenX hostess interviewing a reporter before a live audience of other GenXr's about the election. The GenX'r asks the female reporter (who was from the Washington Post, I believe) to repond to each question from the Gore and Bush points of view.
GenX'r: First and foremost, the number one issue of the campaign: a woman's right to choose. Where do the candidates stand?
Reporter: Gore is very definitely for a woman's right to choose. Bush is pro-life, and wants parental notification and that sort of thing. Plus, don't forget that the next president will probably appoint 2 or 3 supreme court justices. Since all the tests to Roe v. Wade have been on a 5 to 4 vote, the next president could change it all.
GenX'r: Yeah, it's hard to believe, since we've all grown up with Roe v. Wade, but it used to be that women didn't have a choice about their own bodies, yeah!
GenX'r: Okay, now let's take some questions from the audience.

The questions from the audience were the candidates' stances on the following:
1. Tax credit for college tuition
2. The environment

There may have been one or two others, but none of them pertained to tax cuts, health care, social security, or foreign policy. At the end, the hostess just wagged her head and wondered aloud how anyone in their right minds could be for anyone but Gore. The reporter managed to maintain a shred of dignity and was non-commital.

Fortunately, any airhead who would fall for this crap is very likely NOT going to vote anyway.

739. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 3:32:06 PM

Orca - Given the shrieking, hectoring and incredibly juvenile quality of what passes for conservative rhetoric these days

Careful, Orca, you're projecting.

740. Orca - 10/20/2000 3:34:10 PM

Two days of "Bonergate," and I'm projecting. Try projectile vomiting.

741. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 3:34:30 PM

Ohio:

Do you check your e-mail often?

742. marshame - 10/20/2000 3:34:51 PM

"a large number of people have decided they'll vote
for Bush to get a tax cut""

Is there something wrong with that?

How about people who think that the government should solve all their problems, so they vote for the guy who will give them the biggest welfare break, or go along with their social agenda, or some other item of self?-interest?

Sorry, but wanting some of my own tax dollars back is not evil or selfish.

743. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 3:36:59 PM

Marshame: You found Governor Bush's answers "straightforward"? Maybe you can tell me, from his straightforward answers, whether he supports affirmative action or not.

744. marshame - 10/20/2000 3:39:09 PM

Ohio
The answer I heard was that he supports affirmative action, when it means equal access, but he does not support quotas. I thought it was pretty plain.

How about his answer on whether or not the top 1% of income earners will get a tax cut? Do you think he was clear in his answer to that one?

745. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 3:39:13 PM

Judith - Okay, you don't care for me

On the contrary if I didn't care for you, I wouldn't bother to engage you. It is just that your political rhetoric of late has taken on a disturbingly "Jexster-like" quality. I suppose it could be attributed to frustration over the direction of the election, but your "Bush is a doofus" routine does not lend you credit.

746. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 3:39:17 PM

Ace:"Hee, hee, hee. 2037 vs. 2022. I'll take that tradeoff, given the fact that younger workers will have such a magnificent retirement fund, unconfiscatable by the government."

Earlier than 2022. The SS surplus is currently scheduled to go in the red in 2015 *without* having 1/6 of all revenues diverted to private retirement accounts.


"Gore won't have the money to "pay down the debt," as he proposes
to spend more than the surplus."

You keep repeating this, and then refuse to provide a cite. Your claim runs counter to everything else I have read about the two candidate's proposals.

"Even if he did, this merely allows us to borrow a *little* more later. It does not eliminate the need for borrowing."

Better than sending us into even worse deficits by not only refusing to pay down the debt, but raiding the Social Security surplus to fund transition costs, as Bush has proposed.

I'll certainly believe that you don't care what happens to retirees as long as you get yours, but I am sure you realize that *seniors* care, and that they are a pretty powerful voting bloc.

747. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 3:39:47 PM

Judith: I usually check my e-mail every day. I'm at OhioSTOPAS@aol.com (not right now, though - I'm hard at work on my office computer).

748. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 3:40:49 PM

Orca

Bonergate was a testimonial to the man. Lighten up.

Ohio

Suit yourself. You're the smart guy. Duh peoples is duh morons.

749. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 3:41:49 PM

Marshame: If you think it's bad for the country to go back to deficit spending, but you vote for the short-term benefit of a tax cut for you anyway, then I'm afraid it is selfish.

750. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 3:42:46 PM

Marsha - The answer I heard was that he supports affirmative action, when it means equal access, but he does not support quotas. I thought it was pretty plain.

You're right. Bush made it clear where he stood in spite of attempts to cloud the issue.

751. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 3:46:07 PM

Ohio - Is it selfish for people to want to keep their own money rather than have it appropriated to fund a larger, more intrusive federal government?

752. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 3:47:16 PM

Rask - You keep repeating this, and then refuse to provide a cite.

Indy provided a cite earlier today. If you scroll back, I am sure you will find it.

753. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 3:50:33 PM

JJ:

This is the only political forum in which I participate..perhaps my rhetoric of late has seemed strident because I'm so used to reading things from people like concerned...sorry I called Bush a doofus. I'm sure I'd be more admired were I to come up with something comparable to "the White House Rapist" or some 200 posts on Al Gores penis.

And so what if I am getting antsy about this election? Do I not have the right to worry if the person who is being lauded here is someone I feel is wrong for the job? I don't insist that you praise Al Gore or the Democrats; why do you get so peeved that I use an innocuous word like "doofus"? Bush has been called much worse in this thread and you let it slide. I'm not whining; just wondering why I have to be worried about seeming "disturbed".

754. marshame - 10/20/2000 3:53:15 PM

Ohio

"the country to go back to deficit spending"

I don't buy that Bush's plan will bring us back to deficit spending. I know that's the way Gore is trying to paint it, but to the contrary, I think that Gore's big new programs would be far more likely to lead to deficit spending than Bush's tax cut.

755. marshame - 10/20/2000 3:57:39 PM

Ohio

What it comes down to is this: we all know that statistics, especially projections, can be manipulated to show whatever we want. Bottom line is: I believe Bush; I don't believe Gore.

756. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 3:59:49 PM

JJB: It seems to me that a Bush/Republican government would be "intrusive". Mandatory federal tests of students every year in every grade sounds like an intrusion. So does having the government decide for a woman whether or not she will have a baby.

757. Fielding - 10/20/2000 4:00:58 PM

Jack:

"A charming but ultimately futile distinction. They both lent their names to institutions/individuals who espoused racist notions. For votes."

Not futile at all. Meetings with potential constituents are important. Gore should meet with Sharpton. Bush should meet with the Log Cabin Republicans. This is not the same thing as visiting an institution and appearing to endorse its views.


"As for your now added charge that Mr. Archer was a "known bigot" at the time of his 1997 appointment, is this verified, or is this what we often refer to as a "McKinney"?"

I'll take the fact that someone knew to record the conversation as evidence enough. The real point is not whether GWB knew, but whether he was interested in knowing. An executive has to be responsible for his/her appointees.

758. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 4:03:48 PM

Marshame: See Message # 651 for excerpts from newspaper articles regarding whose plan is more likely to lead to deficit spending.

759. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 4:04:15 PM

Yes, I seem to recall Clinton being raked over the coals enough for Henery Cisneros, Ron Brown, et. al.

760. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 4:26:52 PM

Judith - I'm sure I'd be more admired were I to come up with something comparable to "the White House Rapist" or some 200 posts on Al Gores penis.

Not by me. I think the name calling on both sides is childish and unnecessary. As far as the other topic, "Ooh, ick!" is about as much as I care to say.

Do I not have the right to worry if the person who is being lauded here is someone I feel is wrong for the job?

You can worry if you want, but I believe you worry unnecessarily. There are alot of partisan political operatives preaching gloom and doom if Bush gets elected. There were similar predictions about Clinton. We have survived Clinton, and regardless of how you feel about Bush, we will survive his presidency whether he is right person for the job or not.

Bush has been called much worse in this thread and you let it slide.

I consider the source. There is no point in arguing against irrational hatred. I was afraid you were falling into that trap.

761. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 4:33:11 PM

Ohio - Mandatory federal tests of students every year in every grade sounds like an intrusion.

It does? It sounds like accountability for receiving federal dollars to me.

So does having the government decide for a woman whether or not she will have a baby.

No one is suggesting that government decide whether or not a woman has a baby. Government does have an interest in protecting that life once it has been created. A woman should always have the right to choose whether or not she gets pregnant. Once they are pregnant, there is another life at stake, and there are other factors which must be considered.

762. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 4:35:39 PM

JJ: Ace cited the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, not the very partisan National Taxpayers Union. In just a quick glance through NTU's analysis, I saw that they counted $400 billion put into the Medicare Trust Fund as "spending", when it is savings by any rational accounting. I saw little reason to bother to look further.

763. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 4:37:05 PM

JJ:

I just have a lot of things on my mind lately and may have been getting a tad carried away. I know the country will survive anyone who is elected.

But have you ever had occassion to just have your teeth set on edge at the very sight of a person? For me, it used to be Jim Carrey and that was easy enough to avoid...but I've had this guy as Governor for 4 years and for 2 more years he's been running for President and I react to him as I do to a migraine...it feels like a knife in my skull each time I see his face.

764. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 4:40:15 PM

Judith - But have you ever had occassion to just have your teeth set on edge at the very sight of a person?

Clinton, Hillary, Gore, Carville, Davis, Begala, Rivera, etc.

765. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 4:40:22 PM

marsha:

One problem I have with that yearly testing is the tests become all important and that is all they study for...surely you recall all the scandals of recent times when school officials and teachers were altering test scores and neglecting other studies so they teach the kids the tests? (I mean here in Texas; don't know if that goes on everywhere.)

766. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 4:42:06 PM

JJ:

Your teeth must be worn to nubs! :-) I'm actually more tolerant than you...fewer people irk me that badly.

767. marshame - 10/20/2000 4:46:07 PM

Ohio

Obviously I do not share your reverence for the NYT and the LAT. So what if their headlines says that Bush's plan sucks? I'm sure I could find comparables re the Gore proposals. And we could each find analyses that support what we chose to believe. So as I said before, the bottom line is:
I believe Bush, I don't believe Gore.

That puts me in the large marjority who answered the CNN poll on believability, where Bush out-scored Gore something like 70-30.

See the thing is, a vote is a vote is a vote, whether it's a studied, contemplative one, or a vote on whether you like his smile. If it just sticks in your craw that Bush is going to be elected by the "great unwashed" or the ignorant masses, or whatever you tell yourself, I can sympathize, I felt the same way in '92.

768. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 4:48:31 PM

Further to my Message # 758, here is something from the LA Times of October 5 (which Jexter referred to before):

BUSH ASSERTIONS
* Gore's budget "plan is three times larger than President Clinton's proposed plan eight years ago. It's a plan that will have 200 new programs . . . or expanded programs. It will create 20,000 new bureaucrats. . . . He's going to grow the federal government in the largest increase since Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1965."

Verdict: Dubious.
The Bush campaign comes up with figures that are three times Clinton's 1992 budget or LBJ's spending plan at the start of the
Great Society only by counting about half of Gore's tax cuts as
spending increases. For example, they do that for Gore's subsidies
to help middle-income families save for retirement. But applying the
same rules to Bush makes him look like nearly as big a spender as
Gore.
When Gore proposals are measured against the usual yardstick of spending as a percentage of the economy, they look considerably more modest. Spending in the Clinton-Gore budget for the current fiscal year is the lowest since 1966. By 2008, under Gore's plan, it would be the lowest in 50 years.

URL for complete article: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/elect2000/pres/money/20001005/t000094678.html

769. OhioSTOPAS - 10/20/2000 4:49:49 PM

I don't care if a person is "unwashed" or poor. I care if he or she is uninformed or, in some persons' cases, willfully ignorant.

770. joezan - 10/20/2000 4:50:39 PM

Judith:

Regardless your feelings toward GWB, the fact is that the more visible he is, the more liked he is.

With Gore it's just the opposite.

771. JudithAtHome - 10/20/2000 4:52:56 PM

joezan:

I don't care if Gore is liked or not.

Whatever....the man is well liked. Hooray.

772. CalGal - 10/20/2000 4:53:16 PM

Fielding,

Meetings with potential constituents are important. Gore should meet with Sharpton. Bush should meet with the Log Cabin Republicans. This is not the same thing as visiting an institution and appearing to endorse its views.

This isn't a like analogy, is it? Gore should meet with Sharpton, Bush should meet with Bob Jones. Or Gore should meet with pro-life Democrats who want a consitutional amendment to ban abortion, Bush meets with the LCRs.

And hi!

773. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 4:54:18 PM

Rask - I saw that they counted $400 billion put into the Medicare Trust Fund as "spending", when it is savings by any rational accounting.

Why isn't this spending? This is the fund from which Medicare payments are made, isn't it? That is not money that can be used for other purposes. It is essentially the prepayment of Medicare. Since it will not appear on budget as the services are expensed out, it is reasonable to account for it when it is allocated.

I saw little reason to bother to look further.

There's a surprise.

774. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 5:01:45 PM

Ohio - The Bush campaign comes up with figures that are three times Clinton's 1992 budget or LBJ's spending plan at the start of the Great Society only by counting about half of Gore's tax cuts as
spending increases. For example, they do that for Gore's subsidies
to help middle-income families save for retirement.

Half of what Gore claims are tax cuts are really spending increases. His plan for matching investments for retirement is a direct subsidy, not a tax cut in any accurate meaning of the term. The subsidy is completely unrelated to the amount of tax owed or paid by the individual receiving the subsidy. Passing this off as a tax cut is just another Gore lie.

775. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 5:03:27 PM

"Why isn't this spending? This is the fund from which Medicare payments are made, isn't it? That is not money that can be used for other purposes. It is essentially the prepayment of Medicare. Since it will not appear on budget as the services are expensed out, it is
reasonable to account for it when it is allocated."

This isn't the way accounting is done. When you sock away money for a rainy day, it is savings. When you draw that money out of savings, it is spending. Using your logic, putting money into a bank account is spending if you know it is going to be used for a specific purchase some time down the road, like rent. In which case, how do you account for it when the money really *is* spent? You can't count it as spending twice.

776. Fielding - 10/20/2000 5:06:38 PM

CalGal:

"This isn't a like analogy, is it? Gore should meet with Sharpton, Bush should meet with Bob Jones. Or Gore should meet with pro-life Democrats who want a consitutional amendment to ban abortion, Bush meets with the LCRs."

You are correct. It is not intended as a like analogy. Rather, it is intended to argue that candidates should meet with constituent groups that want to meet with them and not get criticized. The Bob Jones appearance, however, wasn't a meeting with constituent groups, it was a public appearance. GWB was demonstrating his pleasure at associating with BJU as a way of signalling to the South Carolina far right that he would play ball with them.


"And hi!"

Hello. Glad to be here.

777. glendajean - 10/20/2000 5:10:08 PM

Fielding -- welcome to the Mote! It's probably best that you didn't try us yesterday.

778. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 5:10:46 PM

Rask - The money is counted when it is allocated, not when it is actually spent. This is true for most government funding. In this case, Gore is allocating $400 billion to Medicare. Medicare payments will be paid from this fund. The payments will not reappear in the budget when they are actually paid. It is the equivalent of prepaying your health insurance for a year instead of paying for it month by month.

779. Jenerator - 10/20/2000 5:13:23 PM

[CellarDoor, two days ago I was in a women's boutique shopping when three gay men came in looking for pageant wear. They were going on and on about the last presidential debate. To my surprise, I heard one of them say, "That Al Gore is such a prick!" I looked over to the one who said it and asked, "Oh, you didn't like Gore's debate last night? Are you for Bush?" To which he replied, "Oh yes honey. That Gore is bad news. I don't care if I can't get married, all I care about is what's best for my money, so I'm going for Bush."]

780. glendajean - 10/20/2000 5:18:13 PM

What a boon to the Bush campaign -- Dallas drag queens.

781. Electric Slide - 10/20/2000 5:18:39 PM

Latest from USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll.

Bush up by 10

BUSH: 50%

GORE: 40%


(oh, yeah. Scary Gore won the debate this week. Oh, yeah. LOL)

782. CalGal - 10/20/2000 5:19:09 PM

Fielding,

Oh, okay, I see the distinction. But I can't believe that Gore hasn't appeared somewhere with Sharpton as part of a public appearance.

783. glendajean - 10/20/2000 5:19:56 PM

What's happened to the margins here -- again.

784. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 5:20:12 PM

"Rask - The money is counted when it is allocated, not when it is actually spent. This is true for most government funding."

You don't know what you are talking about.

"In this case, Gore is allocating $400 billion to Medicare. Medicare payments will be paid from this fund. The payments will not reappear in the budget when they are actually paid."

This is just completely wrong. This is not how accounting is done. You keep giving Gore shit about wanting to count a spending increase as a tax cut, and you turn around and try to count savings as spending.

What the hell is savings anyway, if it isn't putting money away for future use?


"It is the equivalent of prepaying your health insurance for a year instead of paying for it month by month."

No, it isn't. The situation you describe is spending. The money is gone. Out the door. Traded for a year-long contract. Someone else now owns the money. In the case of the Medicare trust fund it still belongs to the government.

How the hell do you do *your* books?

785. Fielding - 10/20/2000 5:22:59 PM

GJ:

"Fielding -- welcome to the Mote! It's probably best that you didn't try us yesterday."

Thanx for the welcome.

I read yesterday's sizable discussion. It was interesting how the Republican Moties thought it was so big, but the Democrats weren't as impressed. This leads to an obvious conclusion that only my being a newbie keeps me from giving voice.

786. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 5:24:02 PM

"For example, they do that for Gore's subsidies
to help middle-income families save for retirement."

Ummmm, when you spend money by redistributing it to citizens who didn't earn it, that IS spending and not a "tax cut," and this is not terribly controversial terminology.

If you want to define Welfare as a "tax cut for unwed mothers," knock yourself out, but it's quite obvious you're torturing the language to hide your actions from the public.

787. CalGal - 10/20/2000 5:25:55 PM

Fielding,

Honey, don't hold back on our accounts.

788. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 5:26:03 PM

Note:

Which isn't to say it's not a good plan (retirement subsidies, that is), but call it what it is-- New SPENDING, and not a tax cut.

789. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 5:28:28 PM

the very partisan National Taxpayers Union.

The NTU is not "partisan." They favor lower taxes, which is an issue that in most cases favors Republicans, but they do not endorse high-tax Republicans over low-tax Democrats. By such a definition as you appear to promulgate, labor unions, environmental groups, and blacks are all equally partisan when they support a candidate who they perceive as addressing their issues. Generally, however, the definition of being non-partisan is voting on an issue, rather than a party.

For example, here is a quote from the NTU Web site:

"With the current Republican Congress acquiescing to and even surpassing the President's huge requested spending increases, there is little hope for fiscal conservatives that Washington will halt its headlong rush to squander surpluses that belong to the over-burdened American taxpayer. What is missing in both Presidential campaign camps are hard details that show how to decrease wasteful government spending."

The NTU disagrees with your idea that setting aside tax money to spend on Medicare later is somehow not spending. For that reason, much as with your dismissal of the 500+ economists who endorsed Bush, you label them as partisan and choose to ignore what they have to say.

Do you just do that with anyone who disagrees with you?

790. Fielding - 10/20/2000 5:29:04 PM

CalGal:

"Oh, okay, I see the distinction. But I can't believe that Gore hasn't appeared somewhere with Sharpton as part of a public appearance."

Its possible, but Sharpton isn't very political. He represents no real ideology except what is best for Al Sharpton. It would be hard to link Gore to Sharpton as some kind of evidence of anything. If someone is looking to attack Gore for associating with a dubious group, I think your more likely to find him associating with some radical tree-hugging outfit than Al "fashionplate" Sharpton.

791. CalGal - 10/20/2000 5:32:51 PM

Fielding,

He represents no real ideology except what is best for Al Sharpton.

That may or may not be true, but he is kowtowed to by Dems because he has a very large following of (primarily) black people.

This is a bit like saying that feminists have no real ideology except to represent the interests of the women who give them money. That's quite true--but they're catered to because they purport to speak for
"women".

And a treehugging group doesn't prove the point that (I thought) you and Jack were debating, which is that we tend to be quite a bit more lenient on black racists than white.

792. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 5:33:09 PM

Putting money into a trust fund IS spending too.

It might be good spending. But there's lots of good spending.

If you're taking public money and SPENDING it in any fashion, you're spending.

Would Rask object -- "But you can't count Defense Spending as spending! That's merely savings for future security!"

Of course not.

Retiring debt IS spending public money. So is "putting money into a trust fund." Every dime the government pays out is spending.

793. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 5:34:15 PM

Rask - The Medicare Trust Fund is not a savings account. It is the funding mechanism for Medicare payments. It is not a savings account because it will not appear on the budget again when it is actually spent. If you think this is in error, then please explain what you think is really going on.

794. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 5:37:47 PM

Gore is lying...it's not a lockbox after all.

Down the road, the government is going to refund that money to us, rather than spend it.

795. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 5:40:35 PM

Bush cracked 50?

Impressive.

796. JJBiener - 10/20/2000 5:43:27 PM

Rask - Are familiar with Flexible Spending Accounts? It is money that you put into an account (pre-tax) and can later spend on child care or medical expenses depending on how the account is set up. It is not savings because you can't take it out and put it back into your budget. It is money used for future spending. It is reasonable to call this spending even if the actual expenditure hasn't yet been made. The money will never reappear in your budget so this is the only way to account for it. This is the same as the Medicare Trust Fund.

797. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 5:43:37 PM

Fielding

I want to make sure I'm being fair.

Gore twice meeting privately with an avowed bigot with sizable support in New York politics to get the support of that bigot is better than Bush speaking to a crowd, none of whom are proven bigots, at an institution that holds a bigoted policy because "candidates should meet with constituent groups that want to meet with them and not get criticized" but the "Bob Jones appearance, however, wasn't a meeting with constituent groups, it was a public appearance. GWB was demonstrating his pleasure at associating with BJU as a way of signalling to the South Carolina far right that he would play ball with them."

And Gore was signaling what to whom by twice meeting privately with Sharpton?

He he he. Welcome. You'll do well here.

798. glendajean - 10/20/2000 5:45:30 PM

Why does it feel like one should have gone to parochial school to understand this argument?

799. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 5:49:20 PM

Cal

My point was not directed at "we." My point was that criticism for an appointment three years old when the appointee gets stupid is kind of goofy. To demonstrate it, I threw some bait for Fielding. Instead of admitting that private huddles with avowed bigots are worse than the appointment, Fielding predictably rejoined, "Oh yeah. Bob Jones." To which I said, "Bush is rightly criticizable, as is Gore for meeting with Sharpton."

To which Fielding made his bones by his circumlocutions and well-versed goofiness.

800. CalGal - 10/20/2000 5:57:46 PM

Jack,

Well, at a certain point the equivalency tests are silly. But unless Bush's appointee was famous for his bigotry, I don't see it as being anywhere near as problematic as Sharpton or Bob Jones.

Although "you'll do well here" seems a bit much.

801. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 6:01:27 PM

oh, man...

Bush 50 Gore 40

I know it's already been posted.

But Jesus!

Oh, lordy.

This could be -- could be -- the end.

If a couple of other polls show Bush ahead by 6+, we're all done, folks. Shut down the thread, lock the doors, last one out switch off the lights.

802. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 6:01:34 PM

glenda

Not at all. Even public school types should get the following:

"Meeting with a bigot to garner his political support is okay AS LONG AS YOU DO IT IN PRIVATE because you are only meeting with a constituent group (in this case, an individual who meets the weight limit for designation as a 'group'").

So, Bradley's the real bigot, because, in his bid to out-pander Gore, he met with Sharpton publicly.

Meanwhile, at the apartment of Gore's daughter in March, Sharpton is hustled in the back way, disguised as a Coke machine, so that Al Gore can meet with a "constituent group."

803. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 6:02:02 PM

Ace

Easy Striker.

804. glendajean - 10/20/2000 6:02:09 PM

Ace, of course, you know this poll is the Gallup Poll.

805. glendajean - 10/20/2000 6:03:08 PM

Public school types don't have that kind of moral weighing conversation.

806. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 6:04:17 PM

Glenda,

Yes, it's Gallup, but yesterday it was 39-49-- thus, the spread has held for two straight days.

It's difficult to chalk it up to a weird skew when it happens two days in a row.

807. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 6:04:40 PM

Cal

It may have been, but Fielding deserved it by disappointing me. And he has the same name as that yak in that awful Jennifer Connelly movie "Waking the Dead."

808. glendajean - 10/20/2000 6:05:40 PM

Fielding is the good school teacher in Passage to India.

809. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 6:05:44 PM

glenda

I know. The kids are too busy mainlining Ritalin and spitting on the flag.

810. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 6:05:45 PM

Jack,

"Easy Striker"? I don't get the reference.

I think it really might be over. Tomorrow's polls will give a hint.

Consider--

The reported panic & solemness in the Gore camp;

The euphoria of the Bush camp;

and now Gallup showing Bush by ten two days in a row.

811. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 6:06:12 PM

I don't think this was posted previously. It's the transcript of Archer's taped interview. I'm always struck by just how self-absorbed your average pol is.

Seems mostly boring to me, but I'm probably insensitive.

812. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 6:08:12 PM

Ace

(easy, Striker - I dunno. Not particulalrly well thought reference to the Airport movies, bringing in the crippled jumbo jet).

On the poll. This will be very close, so a) the negative ads in the can will matter; b) the grass roots will matter; c) the October Surprise will matter; d) the state-by-states become more crucial, and they are all very close (at least, the ones that matter). Were it October 30, 2000, different story.

813. CalGal - 10/20/2000 6:09:24 PM

Jack,

You have the same name as the dumbfuck who let his boss blow him away in a kitchen.

And if people didn't disappoint you, you'd get fussy and quit posting.

814. glendajean - 10/20/2000 6:10:10 PM

We've got action down on the street outside my office window. Three Indy cop cars around a black pick-up truck. It makes me feel like I'm back in DC.

And on that note, I'm out the door.

815. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 6:11:56 PM

This will be very close, so a) the negative ads in the can will matter;

Ehhhhhh... I dunno. What the hell is left to say?

b) the grass roots will matter;

We have more money for GOTV. We're energized; they're despondent. They just don't *like* Gore, while we *do* like Bush.

c) the October Surprise will matter;

No one will buy it. Yes, SOMEONE is going to get bombed in the next two weeks; but people saw this two years ago. We destroyed an asprin factory and killed three janitors at a cost of several million dollars worth of cruise missiles.

d) the state-by-states become more crucial, and they are all very close (at least, the ones that matter). Were it October 30, 2000, different story.

Eh. Fuck you and your "state by states." National polls determine the state by states, ya dirty bastard.

816. Jack Vincennes - 10/20/2000 6:11:57 PM

Cal

Easy Striker.

Ace

I just don't want to see you get your heart broken again. I can't bear to see you hurt.

Adios folks.

(Fielding, my apologies for rudeness. Cal is correct. I retract my uncalled for comments, but keep in place my withering deconstruction of your flim-flammish cockledoodlery).

817. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 6:13:32 PM

Oh, missed this one:

"This will be very close,"

Not necessarily, Jack. *MOST* races break at some point. Very few actually go down to the wire.

You are assuming this race is "destined" to go down to the wire.

It needn't. Many races have been very tight through September and mid-October, only to break at the end.

818. CalGal - 10/20/2000 6:14:30 PM

Jack,

???

I meant no disrespect. After all, the man dressed well.

819. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 6:14:58 PM

IJ:"The NTU is not "partisan." They favor lower taxes, which is an issue
that in most cases favors Republicans, but they do not endorse
high-tax Republicans over low-tax Democrats. By such a definition as
you appear to promulgate, labor unions, environmental groups, and
blacks are all equally partisan when they support a candidate who
they perceive as addressing their issues. Generally, however, the
definition of being non-partisan is voting on an issue, rather than a party. "

Fine. Change "partisan" to "loony right".

"The NTU disagrees with your idea that setting aside tax money to
spend on Medicare later is somehow not spending. For that reason,
much as with your dismissal of the 500+ economists who endorsed
Bush, you label them as partisan and choose to ignore what they have
to say. "

Because it is a sure sign of a political hack job. Someone cooking the numbers to make them disfavor a certain candidate.

820. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 6:24:00 PM

JJ: "Rask - The Medicare Trust Fund is not a savings account. It is the funding mechanism for Medicare payments."

Government trust funds only exist on paper. They are accounting creations that state that the Treasury "owes" Medicare billions of dollars that Medicare will begin claiming when its surplus disappears in a dozen years or so. Medicare, just like Social Security, is currently running a surplus - taking more money in from payroll taxes than it is paying out in expenditures. But in the infinite wisdom of Congress, Medicare's books are on the general budget, whereas Social security is off it.

"It is not a savings account because it will not appear on the budget again when it is actually spent."

You are just making shit up. This is dead wrong. We have been putting money into the Medicare trust fund for decades. It doesn't show up on the budget as an expense. It shows up as an increase in the size of the Medicare Trust Fund.

821. Electric Slide - 10/20/2000 6:25:06 PM

New Zogby "American Values" research shows that Bush/Chency positions are favored on: Social Security, estate tax, partial birth abortions, gun control, China relations.

Gore/Lieberman positions favored on school vouchers, minimum wage and charter schools.

But 20 of 25 issues are in Bush's favor.


http://www.zogby.com/news/RealNews.html

822. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 6:30:05 PM

"Rask - Are familiar with Flexible Spending Accounts? It is money that
you put into an account (pre-tax) and can later spend on child care or medical expenses depending on how the account is set up."

Yes, I use one for day care.

"It is not savings because you can't take it out and put it back into your budget."

Have you used these? Sure you can take them out and put them back in your budget. You submit a form containing proof that you spent the money on child care, and the holding company writes you a reimburement check out of that account.

"It is money used for future spending. It is reasonable to call this spending even if the actual expenditure hasn't yet been made."

Money is taken out of my paycheck and deposited in this account (tax exempt). I also write out checks to pay for Day Care. These checks are then reimbursed from the day care account. According to your bizzare accounting, I paid for day care twice. Whereas any sensible person would realize that it is a savings account, albeit one with a lot of restrictions.

The money will never reappear in your budget so this is the only way to account for it. This is the same as the Medicare Trust Fund.

It *does* re-appear in the budget, the same as the Medicare Trust Fund.

823. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 6:45:52 PM

Rask:

I, personally, have never seen a budget broken up into "revenues," "spending," and "savings."

AFAIK there's just "revenue" and "spending." And if it ain't "revenue," it's "spending."

824. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 6:54:38 PM

Ace:

But what happens when revenue exceeds spending? You get savings. Gore is proposing "to put the Medicare surplus in a lock box". That is, he is promising to *save* the Medicare surplus, rather than spend it on programs or use it for tax cuts, like Bush wants to do. This is a very fiscally prudent act. Yet you all want to call it spending.

I think there is something fundamental you IJ and JJ are not understanding here. The Medicare surplus exists on paper *whether or not* Gore puts the money aside. That is, the legal obligation to future Medicare expenses occurs under either Gore's or Bush's plan. The difference is that Gore wants to *save* for that obligation. Bush doesn't.

This is why I instantly came to the conclusion that the NTU was a hack job. It characterizes fiscally prudent savings as "spending" 400 billion on "Medicare Solvency".

825. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 7:04:17 PM

As far as another accounting lecture:

There is just revenue and expenses on a budget. The latter gets subtracted from the former and you get a surplus or deficit. Accumulated deficits are "debt". Reducing the debt, or increasing assets elsewhere, is "savings".

The specifics of where that surplus goes indeed don't show up on the budget. The budget just lists "surplus". It is *still* a surplus whether it gets used to pay down the debt (per our discussion yesterday), put in the Social Security Trust fund, put in the Medicare trust fund, or stored as cash in an interest bearing account. Any of those are "savings".

826. Electric Slide - 10/20/2000 7:23:51 PM

INDIES FAVOR BUSH 50% TO 39%, SAYS ABC/WASHINGTON POST

George W. Bush has opened a double-digit lead among independents and now run even with Al Gore among women, continuing his edge in the presidential race, says ABC News/Washington Post Daily Tracking Poll.

While Gore scored well among independents and women after the last presidential debate, it hasn't helped his standing in these key groups. Independents in fact have moved in the opposite direction, now favoring Bush by 11 points, 50 to 39 percent.

Bush also is now essentially even with Gore among women, 45 percent to 46 percent, and still hold a double-digit lead among men (now 13 points).

827. jexster - 10/20/2000 7:30:24 PM

ABC NEWS

Oct. 19 — There was a debate within the final presidential debate last night.

Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, has been talking about privatizing Social Security since the campaign began. Last night, he explained in St. Louis that he wants to let workers invest some of their payroll taxes in the stock market.

Vice President Al Gore attacked the plan, criticizing Bush for not explaining how he will pay for the transition from one system to the other.

The question left unanswered is: Since current retirees count on the Social Security trust fund to finance their retirement, how will Bush make up for what Gore charges is a $1 trillion loss from the fund?

“What he’s not told us is where he’s going to come up with the rest of the money,” says Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization. “The other money has to come from either a decrease in federal expenditures, a decrease in Social Security benefits, a decrease in say, Medicare or Medicaid, or education or defense spending or has to come from increased taxes.”

828. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 7:39:03 PM

Slide:

Thanks, but be sure to post the results for the main poll while you got them handy, okay?



ABC News Poll: Still Bush 48 Gore 43

829. Electric Slide - 10/20/2000 7:56:43 PM

28 Republican governors to join George W. Bush on Sunday in Austin and barnstorm the country...830. AceofSpades -10/20/2000 8:17:36 PM

"If everyone here in this audience was dead in the middle of the middle class," Albert Gore declared in Tuesday's debate against George W. Bush, "then the tax cuts for every single one of you, all added up, would be less than the tax cut his [Bush's] plan would give just one member of that top, wealthiest 1 percent."

...

"In fact, that was not true," said Damon Ansell, AFTR's vice president of policy. "Gore's allegation was way off the mark, yet again." AFTR's Chad Cowan dug deeper into the numbers. He added up census figures for male and female wages and calculated an average U.S. salary for 1999 of $32,287. Bush's plan would offer an American earning that sum a $300 tax cut. That means the 145 people the Gore-Lieberman campaign says were in the St. Louis debate audience would share total Bush tax cuts of $43,500. Gore's villain, who earned $330,000 — most likely through embezzlement — would see a Bush tax cut of $12,864.

So, here again, Al Gore lied. This is neither an embellishment, nor an exaggeration. This wasn't even close. The audience's aggregated Bush tax cut was 338 percent larger than Bush's tax relief for that awful rich guy who deserves neither respect nor, even, a passport.

831. Electric Slide - 10/20/2000 8:35:03 PM

Bill Clinton's favorite pornographer, Hustler publisher Larry Flynt, aka Jabbe the Hut, was the a guest on CNN's CROSSFIRE tonight and claimed that George W. Bush paid for an abortion 23 years ago.

He mentioned no name of the woman.

832. jonesatlaw - 10/20/2000 8:45:03 PM

Ace- try again. Your example confuses mean and median. If we took what the most frequant level of income was for the middle class, and compared that to the most frequent income for the upper one percent, the numbers would look far different. Similarly, the comparision that is given is between the average income of ALL americans versus some unknown number for the upper one percent. Is the $330,00 figure mean, median or mode for the upper one percent of the population according to income? Since the discussion is abount outliers by definition, it can make a significant difference.

Bush and his pals count on just such ignorance. I have only the barest of the basics of statistics, and yet I can understand this. Why can't your "expert?"

833. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 8:45:44 PM

The Medicare surplus exists on paper *whether or not* Gore puts the money aside. That is, the legal obligation to future Medicare expenses occurs under either Gore's or Bush's plan.

Rask: You are the one attempting an accounting trick.

If you look again at the chart, you see it compares Gore's spending to the surplus. Now, if Gore is allocating part of the surplus to "Medicare solvency," that has to be figured into the comparison.

If you don't think it should be counted as spending, it should not be counted in the bar labeled "on-budget surplus for next 10 years," either. If you would like to reduce each bar by $400 billion, fine, but the comparison will be even worse for Gore. The ratio of his expenses to the actual surplus will change from about 3:2 to about 5:3.

Bush's budget calls for an increase in funding for Medicare to $441 billion over the next 10 years, adding $216 billion, though he doesn't label it "Medicare Solvency." Even if we don't deduct anything from his bar (which in all likelihood we should), he will still be well under the total surplus, while Gore will be worse the wear and tear.

And the $400 billion "liability" doesn't occur "regardless." It's extra in case estimates are wrong about how much Medicare we'll need in the future. (For example, Gore wants to lower the eligibility age to 55. He may be wrong in his estimate of how much that costs.) Unlike Social Security, you don't suddenly reach "Medicare age" and start drawing a pre-determined, guaranteed check.

From Gore's own Website (PDF): "If we take in more in payroll taxes than we pay in Medicare benefits, we should save the additional payroll taxes to prepare for the future of Medicare." He also says we should take any interest savings and put that in the "lockbox" too. Clearly, there is no budgetary obligation to do the latter.

834. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 8:50:05 PM

Jones:

You're talking out of your ass. As usual.

835. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 8:50:33 PM

"If you don't think it should be counted as spending, it should not be counted in the bar labeled "on-budget surplus for next 10 years," either."

Nice catch, Indy.

836. jonesatlaw - 10/20/2000 9:05:47 PM

Ace- you know I'm not, and you're too embarrassed to say it.

837. AceofSpades - 10/20/2000 9:06:10 PM

Al Sharpton & Adolf Hitler: Perfect Together

Sharpton Disses Lieberman Again

The Rev. Al Sharpton, who called Al Gore's VP selection of Joseph Lieberman "political racial profiling" three months ago, has dissed the VP pick once again. According to Cindy Adams' Nwe York Post column on Friday, Sharpton attended the opening of Ashford & Simpson's new joint, the Sugar Shack. As Sharpton entered the room, he blurted out, "There is no way there is going to be a Hadassah in the White House" - a reference to Lieberman's wife. According to Adams, Lieberman fans who were present grabbed cell phones before those words even finished passing through the reverend's lips.

838. jonesatlaw - 10/20/2000 9:24:49 PM

. He added up census figures for male and female wages and calculated an average U.S. salary for 1999 of $32,287
IOW he made up his own "median income." He also got the math wrong.
The census figure for 1999 Male income is $36,476 while the average Female income for full time workers is $26,324 for an average of $31,400.

839. Al D - 10/20/2000 9:32:24 PM

Jones
That average would only be true if there were the same number of women as men earners. Is this the case? The important thought to keep in mind is that, no matter what a higher earner would get, under Bush's plan, if you pay taxes you will get a cut. Why fixate on the fact that someone else would get more?

840. Al D - 10/20/2000 9:34:38 PM

Sharpton was no where the influance Fharrakan has with Blacks, and he has no love for Jews. The Black vote this year might be very low.

841. Al D - 10/20/2000 9:35:12 PM

was=has

842. Stumbo - 10/20/2000 9:50:13 PM

Jones:

"[Ace's] example confuses mean and median. If we took what the most frequent level of income was for the middle class ..."

Well, actually, the most frequent value is referred to as the "mode," not the "median."

At any rate, I somehow doubt that a $32,287 vs. $31,400 difference -- esp. since, as Al pointed out, the latter number should likely be higher -- could account for Gore being wrong by a factor of more than 3.

843. jonesatlaw - 10/20/2000 9:50:39 PM

US Census median income for all races, all marital status, ages 18-64 for 1999 is $23,452. But hey Ace, your expert's only off by a little less than 10k.

844. jonesatlaw - 10/20/2000 9:55:48 PM

Stumbo- thank you for the correction. It has been too long since I've had even the basics, median is the value where half of the samples land on one side of the value and the other half lie on the other side, when placed in a rank order. (each half less one, of course)

845. Stumbo - 10/20/2000 9:56:18 PM

BTW -- averaging means is a mathematically reasonable thing to do (as long as they are appropriately weighted), but averaging medians (or modes, for that matter) is not.

But I guess it can sorta do in a pinch, if no other data is available.

846. jonesatlaw - 10/20/2000 9:57:50 PM

Stumbo- in any event, the numbers that Ace's example is correcting Gore with are far enough off to make me question the rest of them.

847. Stumbo - 10/20/2000 10:05:33 PM

Jones:

Could it be possible that the census figures include everyone, i.e. both workers and non-workers? If so, that would very likely explain why the median of that is far below the median for (either male or female) wage-earners.

(There are also folks 65 and over who still work -- and many of them do so precisely because they're making damn good money. That's another factor that could help explain the discrepancy.)

848. Stumbo - 10/20/2000 10:12:51 PM

(The latter census figure, as opposed to the former ones, I mean. You specified "full-time workers" in the former case, but not the latter.)

849. Stumbo - 10/20/2000 10:31:21 PM

Judith, #709:

Thanks for the epithet (now I know how Mark Levine feels), but...

I didn't blast you merely for misspelling a word. I blasted you for misspelling a word, in a sentence in which you blasted GWB for mispronouncing one.

It's a glass-houses thing. Everyone makes mistakes, careless or otherwise; some may be caused by deficiencies in intelligence, some may not be. But we, in this forum, have the luxury of a preview feature; someone speaking on live TV obviously does not. So we (i.e., you, in this case) should be the last to cast those proverbial stones.

850. Angel-Five - 10/20/2000 10:37:18 PM

That may be true, but you and I both know that Bush is an idiot. You just like the idiot's policies and I don't.

851. Al D - 10/20/2000 10:41:54 PM

Angel-5
A good source told me that you usually shoot your I.Q. in golf. Is that about right?

852. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 11:00:35 PM

IJ:

If you don't think it should be counted as spending, it should not be counted in the bar labeled "on-budget surplus for next 10 years," either. If you would like to reduce each bar by $400 billion, fine, but the comparison will be even worse for Gore. The ratio of his expenses to the actual surplus will change from about 3:2 to about 5:3."

The thing is, only the Gore camp believes that Medicare should be put off budget. Bush doesn't think it should. Ignoring off-budget plans is perfectly justifiable if both candidates believe they shouldn't be touched (Bush has contradicted himself on whether the SS surplus will be touched, but the NTU evidently takes his web site at its word). Taking Medicare off budget would require an explicit acknowledgement that Bush plans on spending the Medicare surplus.

So my point stands, that paper was a political hack job.

"Bush's budget calls for an increase in funding for Medicare to $441 billion over the next 10 years, adding $216 billion, though he doesn't label it "Medicare Solvency." Even if we don't deduct anything from his bar (which in all likelihood we should), he will still be well under the total surplus, while Gore will be worse the wear and tear."

You are assuming that the NTU's numbers are accurate. As I have pointed out above, they are obviously playing around with the numbers to make Gore's plans look worse.

853. Raskolnikov - 10/20/2000 11:00:55 PM

"And the $400 billion "liability" doesn't occur "regardless." It's extra in case estimates are wrong about how much Medicare we'll need in the future. (For example, Gore wants to lower the eligibility age to 55. He may be wrong in his estimate of how much that costs.) Unlike Social Security, you don't suddenly reach "Medicare age" and start drawing a pre-determined, guaranteed check."

No, no, no. The Medicare Surplus is there in case estimates are *right* about how much Medicare expenses we will need in the future. Medicare and Social Security are being financed the same way. Back in 1982, Washington saw a demographic crisis coming, and they chose to run surpluses for 30 years in order to handle the demographic requirements. If you spend the Medicare Surplus, as Bush wants to do, you will have considerably less savings (in this case more debt to finance) when that demographic crisis hits.

It also personally pisses me off when the Medicare and Social Security trust funds get ignored. They are the two most regressive taxes on the books. This can be arguably justified by using them to fund programs which are extremely progressive, as SS and Medicare are. But when you just treat their surpluses like general revenue, as Bush wants to, that justification vanishes.

"From Gore's own Website (PDF): "If we take in more in payroll taxes than we pay in Medicare benefits, we should save the additional payroll taxes to prepare for the future of Medicare." He also says we should take any interest savings and put that in the "lockbox" too. Clearly, there is no budgetary obligation to do the latter."

True on the latter point. But so what? It still isn't spending (by definition - if a tax cut isn't spending, and I note that the NTU is diligent about not counting spending as tax cuts, then it is sheer hypocrisy to count increased savings as spending), and the National Taxpayers Union's report is still guilty of political hackery.

854. Electric Slide - 10/20/2000 11:12:44 PM

Matt Drudge is headlining the early-1970s abortion allegation regarding George Bush and an unknown woman, revealed by Larry Flynt on CNN this evening.

I think it's a brilliant "knife in the back" move on the part of Drudge to credit CNN with the story is such an obvious fashion. He has learned something from his White House lawsuit with Sid Vicious.

Now the sludge is on "the all-news cable network" with its hundreds of investigative reporters to either prove the story---or to expose pornographer Larry Flynt's Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. The hex is on Ted Turner's boys and girls to clean up the shit.

After all, CNN is the news organization that wouldn't air Bill Clinton's girlfriend Gennifer FLower's accusations of her late 1970s abortion of BillyJeff's son and Juanita "Put some ice on it" Broaddrick's rape story.

855. Angel-Five - 10/20/2000 11:25:08 PM

Al D: For 36.

856. Angel-Five - 10/20/2000 11:28:25 PM

In other words, bogey golf with a couple doubles. But then to me golf is a good way to drink.

857. Indiana Jones - 10/20/2000 11:46:01 PM

Rask: You can wave your hands all you want and call NTU "loony" or "partisan," but you cannot have it both ways.

If the money allocated to Medicare is a previous obligation, then it is not surplus. It can't be counted on either side.

If the Medicare money is not a previous obligation, then it is new spending and must be counted on both sides (both in the surplus bar and in the new expense bar).

Moreover, strange that Gore would brag about the additional money he is committing to shoring up Medicare if it belonged to Medicare all along.

858. Stumbo - 10/20/2000 11:49:59 PM

A5, #850:

Well, I haven't been terribly impressed by Gore's intellect, either.

As Littlewood put it:

"I never hold inarticulateness, or even what seems dull stupidity, against a [Fellowship] candidate (there are examples!), but there is a sort of fluent asinity about which there is no doubt."

(BTW -- the day I can play bogey golf, I'll be a happy man.)

859. Indiana Jones - 10/21/2000 12:04:12 AM

White House says recent Texas record not so bad after all

860. joezan - 10/21/2000 12:58:55 AM

Driving home from a concert by a Christian rock singer tonight, listening to the local Christian rock station, my wife and I were treated to two Algore radio ads (actually the same ad, twice).

In it, Gore mentions affirmative action and his commitment to it, and then goes into a litany of bones he has tossed (vicariously, for the most part) to some "African Americans". I stopped counting how many times he says African American(s) at about 6.

Now, I'm sure this ad played well in Detroit. But the listening area of the radio station I heard it on encompasses the whitest, most affluent district in the state. It also happens to be the most conservative area in the entire USA.

Now, I'm sure that among all these gun-toting, card-carrying members of the VRWC there must be at least some who are undecided.

And I believe that this major boner has gone a long way toward settling the issue for many of them.

Who's supposed to be taking care of details like this?

861. Angel-Five - 10/21/2000 1:03:28 AM

Oh, come on. None of those yobbies is undecided.

862. Angel-Five - 10/21/2000 1:04:28 AM

ARE. Jesus christ. That'll teach me to edit two sentences into one.

863. joezan - 10/21/2000 1:11:58 AM

A5:

That may be true.

So why waste the money here?

864. Angel-Five - 10/21/2000 1:27:36 AM

Joezan:

It's possible that there are other folks to be concerned with. You know, white, affluent citizens in that region who actually believe that Affirmative Action is a good idea and therefore wouldn't be prone to vote against Al Gore just because he tries to help African Americans. I mean, surely you must know one or two people like that?

865. joezan - 10/21/2000 1:47:07 AM

It's the percentages, A5.

Gore and Bush are in a dead tie in MI. As in every other part of the country, it's the undecideds both are sucking up to.

But you tailor your message to your desired audience - and you don't do that with some generic appeal to the choir, especially where the choir is so thin - and especially in a battleground state.

I can guarantee you that George W is running ads in Wayne county. But I can also guarantee you that they are not touting the conservative George Bush.

Believe me, this was a mistake - this is an ad aimed for the Detroit-metro area which somehow found its way over here.

866. Angel-Five - 10/21/2000 1:58:14 AM

In the last election something like 70% of the upper class voted Dole. That still leaves 30% who are still battling between receiving a fat tax cut and doing the things that got them to vote for Clinton last time. Those aren't horrible numbers. You may be right but I'd imagine you're less right than you believe.

867. Angel-Five - 10/21/2000 1:58:58 AM

And let's not forget the auto execs that Gore was stroking in the second debate.

868. Raskolnikov - 10/21/2000 1:59:43 AM

Indy:

"If the money allocated to Medicare is a previous obligation, then it is not surplus. It can't be counted on either side."

The Medicare surplus isn't a previous obligation. It is money that is collected via payroll taxes for anticipated future obligations.

"If the Medicare money is not a previous obligation, then it is new spending and must be counted on both sides (both in the surplus bar and in the new expense bar)."

You don't get it. I'll try once more. Imagine that you make 40k this year, and spend 35k. Of the 5k left over, you put 2k into an IRA and 3k into a fund dedicated for your child's college tuition 15 years from now. Now, all of the 5k left over from this year is *still* savings. It isn't "spending" by definition, because it hasn't changed ownership. The Medicare Trust fund works the same way.


"Moreover, strange that Gore would brag about the additional money he is committing to shoring up Medicare if it belonged to Medicare all along."

The reason he brings it up is that every President since Reagan has *spent* the Medicare surplus instead of saving it, just as Bush wants to do.

869. joezan - 10/21/2000 2:32:50 AM

Ace - Message # 806:

Yes, it's Gallup, but yesterday it was 39-49-- thus, the spread has
held for two straight days.

It's difficult to chalk it up to a weird skew when it happens two days
in a row.

True. But to me, the most impressive thing is that:

1) Bush has maintained his lead in virtually every major poll over the last 3 weeks, and:

2) In most polls the leads are increasing. It's a two-steps-forward, one-back kinda thing, but they are increasing.

870. joezan - 10/21/2000 2:46:54 AM

A5:

It's late, so I'm not really grokking your point in your last two posts. But lemme give you a ferinstance:

During the primaries both Bush and McCain spent bookoo bucks on TV and radio ads, especially in the week before the vote.

On every local station, it was as if the two were maintaining a circular dialogue, trying to prove which was the more pro-life candidate.

On the Friday before the vote I happened to be in Ann Arbor -the most liberal city in MI. Again, the airwaves were flooded with Bush and McCain ads. Only, there it was Bush in full Compassionate Conservative mode, while McCain's ads all touted the bills he'd co-authored with Democrats in the Senate. Not one word about abortion.

871. jonesatlaw - 10/21/2000 3:12:27 AM

Baxk to Al's point regarding weighting the averages wrt male female ratios. The number of females to males is higher in every age group of persons over 18. Since the females have the lower number- the weighted average would be lower than the figure I gave. Also, the lower figures will reduce the amount of the tax refunds per 'middle class' person. However, there won't be a change for the higher income person. Also, the 330k per year is the floor for the upper one percent of the population by income. Given that the top 5 percent receive about 50 percent of the income Americans earn in a year, I would imagine that the median for the upper one percent is a bit higher than Al's number.

872. jonesatlaw - 10/21/2000 3:15:31 AM

I think in fairness that Gore routinely lumps into the Bush tax cuts the amount of estate taxes he proposes to eliminate. Unless the tax expert figures this in- he's not comparing apples to apples.

873. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 10:24:43 AM

This story doesn't bring glory to either party but it gives one a glimpse of Texas politics in action. I've heard about the leaflets but this phone message is a new twist:

Democrats say GOP trying to scare voters

874. jexster - 10/21/2000 11:36:41 AM

Since George W. is obviously not well-suited to dealing with the complex policy issues that are the stuff of the job he's seeking, he will, by his own admission, "be relying on good people".

Take a look at one of these "good people".

Bush's Whacky Commish of Love

875. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 11:47:02 AM

jex:

Thank you so much for solving the major question that occupied so much of yesterdays discussions: in the article you linked, a quote from the mouth of GW Bush himself: "I know Reyn Archer."

Please, JJ, joezan, and others who yesterday gave me grief over this: The Governor KNOWS Archer....he knew him before he appointed him and admits that he KNEW him....

876. dusty - 10/21/2000 11:49:07 AM

On the Paula Zahn TV show (running now), Gore was asked to rate his performance in the debates. He said the first was "too hot", the second was "too cold", and the third was "just right".

The odd thing is that he things this Sibyl-like behavior s a good thing.

877. jexster - 10/21/2000 11:49:41 AM

What If Anything Are Pre Election Polls Worth

Stats Geeks: Check out the link in the article to the October newsletter of the Statistical Assessment Service.

Judith - I guess you've discovered that 9 time out of 10 the wingnut brigade around here makes up things as they go along.

878. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 11:54:30 AM

Jex:

I am fuming over that article...after all that nonsense from yesterday, I read the Slate article and see that they are asking the same thing I did...how did this guy merit an appointment from Bush?

Of course, no one is around today and once they get here, they probably won't read your link....well, I can link now, too, and I will RE-link it if necessary....ha!!!

879. jexster - 10/21/2000 11:55:44 AM

Bush Economic Policies Light on Fact, Heavy on Fantasy - NYT

880. jexster - 10/21/2000 11:56:59 AM

Watch that relinking Judith. You might get deleted.

881. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 11:59:34 AM

dusty:

Can you tell who Dick Morris is sucking up to now? That guy is so transparent, he could used as saran wrap.

882. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 12:00:14 PM

Jex:

:-)

883. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 12:03:28 PM

Dick Morris just said Hillary and Rick are tied..."Hillary has 50 and Rick has 50, if you give him the undecideds, as you should...."

Why? Why can't you give Hillary the undecideds, Dickie?

884. jexster - 10/21/2000 12:03:37 PM

“God forbid the public should ever find out that all sampling error and its 95 percent confidence interval really say is that if you conduct the same biased survey among the same unrepresentative sample 100 times you will get the same meaningless results 95 times within plus or minus some percentage points of the result of the particular survey being reported.”

-- Harry O’Neill, Roper Starch Worldwide

885. joezan - 10/21/2000 12:03:59 PM

You poor, pathetic, desperate people...

886. dusty - 10/21/2000 12:04:32 PM

JudithAtHome

yes, he is.

But he comes up with good lines.
After explaining how he told Clinton that he wasn't supposed to the arguer-in-chief, he said:

[I paraphase]:
"If you want to hire a lawyer, hire Gore. If you want to hire a President, hire Bush."

887. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 12:08:12 PM

Dusty:

Oh, I know he comes up with good lines...anyone who can talk a hooker into letting him suck her toes and be filmed doing it and then recoups enough to be back in the limelight as a pundit who is listened to HAS to be adroit at good lines...

888. jexster - 10/21/2000 12:11:27 PM

Molly!

WASHINGTON -- As they used to say, long ago and far away, there it is.

Tuesday night's debate gave us the real Al Gore and the real George W. Bush. Gore won -- he may even have killed -- but he's still annoying. One can only conclude that that smarmy, pietistic streak of his is absolutely authentic; that's exactly who he really is.

He's sharp as a razor, knows his onions (does anyone else outside of Congress know what "Dingell-Norwood" is?) and will probably be a
good president. Bush not only amply demonstrated his vast ignorance but also was so profoundly misleading on his supposed role in the
Texas Patients' Bill of Rights that I have to conclude he knowingly lied.

It's possible to not know or be confused about a lot of things, but Bush cannot possibly believe what he said: "As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the state of Texas, to get a patients' bill of rights through." He was there, I was there, and that's flat untrue. He reviewed the details of the bill a! ccurately, so it was clear that he had recently prepped on the subject.

To add insult to injury, Bush went on to claim: "But we did something else that was interesting. We're one of the first (actually, the first) states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage."

What is called the Patients' Bill of Rights was actually a package of bills, only one of which was ever controversial. That's the bill Bush hated so much that he refused to sign it. He had to be talked out of vetoing it because the veto wouldn't stand.

Texas Rep. Hugo Berlanga, who was chairman of the Public Health Committee at the time, and Kim Ross, lobbyist for the Texas Medical
Association, both fought him on it.

889. jexster - 10/21/2000 12:12:07 PM

In 1995, his first year as governor, the Texas Legislature passed a Patients' Bill of Rights, and George W. Bush vetoed it. In 1997, the
Legislature passed very much the same Patients' Bill of Rights, this time by a veto-proof majority, and Bush re! fused to sign the crucial
segment of the bill, the very one he bragged about -- that in Texas you can sue an HMO for denying you coverage.

He refused to sign it because he hates trial lawyers and didn't want them to be able to sue HMOs. That's what that whole fight was about for two sessions.

The person who deserves the credit that Bush so egregiously took for bringing R's and D's together in support of a strong bill is a Republican state senator, David Sibley of Waco. Bush was an impediment throughout the entire process.

No one expects Bush to know the difference between Chernomyrdin and Berezovsky, but the one subject that he `is' supposed to know
about is the state of Texas. In the course of these debates, he has claimed that the governor of Texas appoints state Supreme Court justices,which is a hopeless howler. He dwelled with great relish on the claim that all three killers in the most notorious murder case of our time gotthe death penalty. Only two! of them did. And Bush in fact did nothing to stop a hate crimes bill, which was the Legislature's effort to bring something good out of that case, from stalling. And now he claims that he passed the Patients' Bill of Rights, which in fact was passed in spite of him.

If Al Gore had twisted the truth as grossly as Bush did on the Patients' Bill of Rights, every Republican in America would be screaming liar,liar, liar.

890. jexster - 10/21/2000 12:12:27 PM

It is harder to tell if Bush actually believes his repeated claim that he is a leader who brings Republicans and Democrats together. Can he
possibly think that he, rather than the since-deceased Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, was running the state? I'm not sure which would be more
troubling -- if he knows it's not true or if he actually thinks it is.

I have tried repeatedly to explain to non-Texans just how weak an office the governorship of Texas is, but even if Bush suffers from the
illusion that he has a powerful job, he must know he doesn't work a! t it by anyone's measure. `The New York Times' has just discovered,
with an air of great wonder, that Bush doesn't even work 9 to 5 and that he knocks off work every day for a couple of hours to jog and play video games.

This does not come as news to Texans. Our governors have varied on how much attention they pay to the job. Some have been compulsive
workers -- John Connally, Mark White and Ann Richards all come to mind as full-time governors, putting in killer hours most of the time.
Bill Clements, too, worked more than Bush does.

On the other hand, Dolph Briscoe spent most of his governorship on his ranch, and they've all knocked off work to go dove hunting.

I have thought since he first ran that George W. Bush was too light to be governor of Texas. Frankly, I can't imagine why anyone would
consider him for president. He's not smart, he doesn't know much and he doesn't work hard.

The truth is, he is not terribly interested in government or how it! works. Damned if I know why he's running. He is a nice fellow. I've always liked him. I like lots of people who I don't think should be president.

891. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/21/2000 12:16:07 PM

892. dusty - 10/21/2000 12:21:33 PM

jexster

Quoting that irresponssible "journalist" again?

Tell you what. You show me where she retracted and apologized for her recent lie, and I'll read your latest quote form her.

893. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 12:21:40 PM

jex:

Of course, you know that Molly Ivins lies constantly. She couldn't possibly know what she is talking about...she just lives in Austin and hangs out with people in politics. She's no Matt Drudge, that's for sure! (s)™

894. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 12:23:31 PM

dusty:

Which recent lie is that?

And how many journalists retrack their lies, on average?

895. jexster - 10/21/2000 12:24:56 PM

At least four polling organizations are conducting daily tracking polls on this presidential race, yielding at least 240 polls. Nearly all have a 95 percent confidence level. That is, one out of every 20 polls will produce outcomes beyond the specified margins of error by chance alone. That means we can expect about 12 of these 240 to differ from actual opinion by more than the margin of error. So the September
Newsweek poll could have squeezed the trigger on a perfect design but gotten a wild shot by sheer chance. Unfortunately, it is just those
“outlier” results that will suggest the most dramatic changes from earlier polling numbers, and hence be more likely to draw media coverage.

896. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 12:28:09 PM

Please accept my profound apology for misspelling "retracT"...I meant no disrespect to the forum.

897. jexster - 10/21/2000 12:30:18 PM

From Stats Assessement

Many reporters also forget that in a two-person race, the margin of error applies to each candidate. (ME!)

Hence, the actual level of support with a +/- 3 percent margin of error is 6 percent wide for each candidate. That is, there are two dancing bears inside the box, each with a fuzzy buffer zone 3 percentage points wide on either side of him, left and right. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they spread apart.

So, which bear is actually in the lead? As a general rule of thumb, if the margin between the candidates is greater than twice the sampling error for the poll (i.e. Candidate A has 41 percent, Candidate B has 48 percent, with a total margin of error of 6 percent), then the candidate with the greatest level of support is leading. It is more reliable to focus on changes in an individual candidate’s level of support, rather than the horse-race divide, because it only has one margin of error.

898. jexster - 10/21/2000 12:31:31 PM

dusty -

Perhaps you disagree with ole Molly.

Then have the balls to say just exactly what you disagree with and why.

899. jexster - 10/21/2000 12:41:06 PM

900. jexster - 10/21/2000 12:46:25 PM

Zogby

901. jexster - 10/21/2000 12:48:23 PM

902. jexster - 10/21/2000 12:49:57 PM

ABC

903. jexster - 10/21/2000 12:51:13 PM

Gallup

904. robertjayb - 10/21/2000 12:53:26 PM

.
Bush breaks 50% in latest Gallup Tracking Poll...

The Gallup Poll: Presidential Election NewsAlert
************************************************

The latest presidential poll results are now on www.gallup.com
Results for Oct 18-20, 2000 **

Bush: 51%
Gore: 40%
Buchanan: 1%
Nader: 4%
Don't Know: 4%

** among Likely Voters

905. AceofSpades - 10/21/2000 12:57:45 PM

906. jexster - 10/21/2000 12:59:11 PM

Bush Leadership Style Riddled With Contradictions & Inconsistencies - Post

907. AceofSpades - 10/21/2000 1:01:19 PM

Dusty,

"On the Paula Zahn TV show (running now), Gore was asked to rate his performance in the debates. He said the first was "too hot", the second was "too cold", and the third was "just right". "

The sad thing is that Gore is obviously so obsessed with the media's perception of him. Can you imagine Presidents Reagan or Bush the Elder changing their debate peformance after being "forced" by their staffs to watch a Saturday Night Live parody?

908. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 1:05:33 PM

Speaking of forced, Bushs reading of the top 10 on David Letterman was really lame.

909. jexster - 10/21/2000 1:09:03 PM

910. joezan - 10/21/2000 1:40:56 PM

Wow!

You mean, Molly Ivins - the Molly Ivins, paragon of bipartisan fairness in journalism - agrees with you that Bush is somehow not fit for the job?

Wow!

Let's watch the polls drop, shall we?

911. Stumbo - 10/21/2000 1:40:59 PM

Jones, #871:

"The number of females to males is higher in every age group of persons over 18. Since the females have the lower number- the weighted average would be lower than the figure I gave."

But among full-time workers, there are probably more males than females, in every age group. And surely this is the relevant ratio. Housewives (and househusbands) shouldn't count.

912. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 1:47:34 PM

joezan:

Can you deny some of the things she's said in that column? He didn't sign that portion of the Patients Rights Bill and Bob Bullock was responsible for bringing most of the Democrats into the "working together" fold and the Patients Bill of Rights did come up twice for a vote and....well, you get the idea.

Just because you consider her a Bush hater, it still doesn't refute the fact that what she has said is true.

913. dusty - 10/21/2000 2:10:45 PM

JudithAtHome
And how many journalists retrack their lies, on average?

Many responsible ones.

I documented her lie earlier.

She made fun of Bush's comment about increasing exploration in Mexico to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

But instead of accurately saying he referred to gas exploration, she said energy exploration (or something similar), trying to leave the impression that Bush did't know that Mexico was a foreign country.

The statement Bush made was perfectly reasonable, it was only Molly's, uh, "paraphrase" of it that made it look silly.

But I don't think it was accidental. She basically decided to make up a statement that supported her nonsensical point, counting on the gullibility of her readership. She is clever enough to make the change so that she can claim her paraphrase wasn't technically a lie, but no one with a room temperature IQ would accept that she made an honest mistake.

If you don't recall the incident, I'll find the exchange; I think it was in this thread.

914. dusty - 10/21/2000 2:16:30 PM

JudithAtHome

Just because you consider her a Bush hater, it still doesn't refute the fact that what she has said is true.

But her williness to lie does bring it into question. Again, if she had the integrity to retract her statement, I'll give her another chance.

(And no, I don't reject every columnist on the basis of a single error, but I've read many columns from Molly before. But no, before you ask, i haven't kept a running record of prior lies, mistatements, or other biased propnouncements.

915. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 2:22:37 PM

dusty:

I recall it very well...in fact, it was one of the times I had asked Ducks to link her column of the day and he told me she was linked in the butterscotch bar. And I recall all the vitriol slung her way over that and in turn, toward those of us who with lower IQs who believe many of the tricky things she so deviously puts forward.

I admire that your ability to so thoroughly delve into her mind and see so clearly her evil scheme, though....quite a feat.

916. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 2:24:22 PM

scratch the "that" in my last sentence.

917. dusty - 10/21/2000 2:24:30 PM

JudithAtHome

I don't believe for a minute that you fall for her tactics.

Do you think it was an honest mistake?

918. dusty - 10/21/2000 2:26:39 PM

JudithAtHome

Tell me you honestly think Bush doesn't know that Mexico is a foreign country.

I know you have incredible antipathy for him, and manage to see everything about him thorugh a negative lens, but do you truly believes he thinks Mexico is one of the States?

919. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 2:29:28 PM

Dusty:

The woman has cancer and she drinks...yeah, it could very well have been an honest mistake or it could be exactly what you say, a nefarious scheme to dupe the Yahoos.

My point in the question to joezan was: many of the things she said in the column Jex linked are TRUE....and they can be proven to be true. I know some of them are true because they are on record in Austin and I remember it being a big deal that he refused to sign that portion of the bill...yet he claimed credit for it in the debate. So who is stretching the truth here?

920. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 2:33:28 PM

Dusty:

I do not nor have I ever claimed that Bush is unaware that Mexico is not part of the United States. In fact, I am positive he knows it is not...he made reference in the last debate that his state has a lot of immigration from "another country" in refuting his states low ranking in healthcare for children. He was very smooth in doing that...a point for him, I thought at the time.

921. dusty - 10/21/2000 3:14:26 PM

JudithAtHome

I do not nor have I ever claimed that Bush is unaware that Mexico is not part of the United States.

I believe you. But that is what Molly was suggesting, and you made reference to believing her (those of us who with lower IQs who believe many of the tricky things she so deviously puts forward. ).

I didn't think it could be true. I'm happy to hear it is not. (And I know better than to think you belong in a low IQ category. Blinded by antipathy to Bush perhaps, but not low IQ)

922. dusty - 10/21/2000 3:22:59 PM

JudithAtHome

My point in the question to joezan was: many of the things she said in the column Jex linked are TRUE

Could be, I don't know.

Given that the source is one with a record of distortion, I have three options:

1. Accept uncritically the possibility that she got it right this time
   
2. Do my own research, to see if this charge has legs
   
3. Ignore it, until someone with a better record of credibility makes the charge
   

923. marshame - 10/21/2000 3:29:16 PM

Mexico's not part of the United States??

924. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 3:33:03 PM

Dusty:

I swear I am going to be forced to start using my trademarked symbols for sarcasm, irony, and humor of you don't stop taking me so seriously. My remark about those of us with low IQs was meant to be funny.

I am not Blinded By Antipathy any more than you are against Gore...I have seen a bit more of the man than I care to and honestly feel he is out of his league but I don't think he is the antiChrist or hate him, by any means.

When people in this thread spew out all sorts of stuff aimed at Clinton and Gore, it is obvious they hate them. I make statements about Bushs lack of smarts or his malapropisms and call him a doofus and suddenly I'm labeled a strident harridan.

This is Politics...there are many sides in Politics and I always thought that in this country, you were allowed to like...and NOT like...whomever you choose. Am I just supposed to sit here and nod to myself while Bush is put up on a pedestal by all of you when I disagree about his qualifications for being put there? Are you upset that I am old enough to be your mother and am being hateful about someone I don't like....DON'T LIKE, not hate...what is the deal here?

I have had that Blinded By Antipathy or Steeped In Hatred thrown at me before over this Bush stuff and frankly, it's always mystified me why I'm singled out for this label....which, by the way, I do think either phrase would be a great band name....

And another thing: I don't refer to Bush by anything other than GW or Bush...I don't call him sick names or corny nicknames or demeaning names at all as some do around here. Yet I am "strident"....go figure.

925. Al D - 10/21/2000 3:35:57 PM

I think Molly is reliable, and every bit at unbiased and factual as Rosie O'Fatass, who I would suspect is another supplier of wisdom to Judith and jexster.

926. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 3:40:00 PM

Al D:

Who stepped on your toes?

By the way, at 5:30am tomorrow, my time, I will be at the airport receiving a box of mauna pua...care package from someone passing through...

927. dusty - 10/21/2000 3:40:22 PM

JudithAtHome

My remark about those of us with low IQs was meant to be funny.
Well, I had hoped so, but I panicked that you might have misunderstood my earlier post. Having been misunderstood many times, I thought I would make sure. No problem.

I didn't call you strident, but I don't think our relative reactions to Gore are in the same league. You list half-dozen posts where you have defended Bush, and I'll do the same for Gore. I'm confident I can do so. I don't recall you ever defending Bush.

928. Al D - 10/21/2000 3:42:25 PM

Judith
Go to Inferno for ammusing Hawaii story.

929. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 3:43:18 PM

Al:

I really hate to burst your smug little bubble of opinion about me but I have never watched Rosie O'Donnel in my life nor do I care to...and to lump me in with Jexster is probably insulting to him, I am such a lightweight "hater". So happy to provide you with a target to be attacked, however...CalGal could use a break.

930. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 3:51:26 PM

Dusty:

How could I list half a dozen posts defending Bush? I have no intention of "defending" him...I DO NOT LIKE THE MAN. Now we have to defend those we don't want as President? Will I have to start defending Buchanan next?

I don't care who you want to vote for; it is your choice. If you disagree with my choice, fine. I have no desire to hurl insults at you over your choice...you're perfectly free to express yourself. I just want the same opportunity.

And you said just now that those facts "may" be true, about Bush not signing that part of the bill; that fact IS true. If you care enough to ever check it out, please just pause as you read the proof and think "Hmmmm, Judith was correct."

Oh, and I never said you called me strident...that was Jack. I'm getting it from all sides lately...(h)™

931. Al D - 10/21/2000 3:53:30 PM

Judith
Sorry if I offended you and it seems I did. As far as CalGal is concerned, she is ahead of me in insults, really very mean ones, 20 to 1. Why take anything said on the Mote seriously?

932. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 3:56:05 PM

Well, I'm not taking anything else at all today because I'm off to watch a trashy movie and eat grapes...have a nice weekend, y'all.

933. JJBiener - 10/21/2000 4:17:21 PM

Judith - I read Jex's link about Archer. What exactly do you think we should be crucifying Archer for? I would like the specific quote, please.

934. dusty - 10/21/2000 4:27:25 PM

JudithAtHome

Of course you don't have to defend Bush. But when you say:
I am not Blinded By Antipathy any more than you are against Gore
you suggest an equivalence between our relative positions. You are free to dislike Bush, but I'd prefer that you not imply I feel the same way about Gore. That's all.

935. JudithAtHome - 10/21/2000 5:21:07 PM

Dusty:

When I wrote that remark, I should have said..."any more than IF you were against...". Sorry for not being more direct. I wasn't accusing you of anything.


JJ:

I couldn't care less if Archer were hung from the yardarm or not; my remarks were in regard to yesterday when I linked to an article about his behavior and I was blasted for "assumning" that Bush had known Archer prior to putting him forward for the job from which he is currently suspeneded...

You and a few others were on me about claiming Bush knew the man; in the article Jex linked from Slate, it clearly states that Bush did indeed know the man before he recommended him.

If you think making remarks such as he made is proper behavior for Archer, feel free to defend him. I happen to think he made several remarks over the last few years that could be considered insensitive and crude but he was never called on them so I guess it follows that he didn't offend anyone. If he had been a Democrat, you might fell differently...

936. Indiana Jones - 10/21/2000 10:31:26 PM

Bush as President

937. Al D - 10/21/2000 11:19:48 PM

An interesting article, one that gives the lie to claims that Bush is an idiot. The one paragraph about Hilary's health care group is a little misleading, IMO. She did not turn the group loose to devise a plan; she hand picked the people, and while the fact that the meetings were secret will keep truth from us, she no doubt was a strong leader of them.

938. Cellar Door - 10/22/2000 12:39:37 AM

"I'm the kind of person who trusts people," he says. "And I empower people. I am firm with people. On the other hand, I'm a decider. I do not agonize. I think, I listen, and I trust my instincts and I trust the advice I get. And I'm an accessible person."


In short AN IDIOT!

939. JJBiener - 10/22/2000 1:37:05 AM

Judith - You were blasted for jumping to conclusions or at the very least accepting accusations against Bush and Archer without evidence. I believe the discussion involved Archer being a bigot and Bush knowingly appointing a bigot.

What I am trying to figure out is which comments from Archer do think indicate he is a bigot. I want specifics. If you can't demonstrate that Archer is a bigot, how can you expect Bush to come to that conclusion? It seems to me that you have just accepted that Archer is bigot because someone has claimed he was a bigot and since Bush knew him, Bush must have known and appointed him anyway. If there is a reasonable explanation for your position, please share it with us.

940. jonesatlaw - 10/22/2000 2:58:38 AM

JJ- How about you read the papers and decide for yourself for once as opposed to jumping to Bush's defense like a rookie public defender dying for their first case?

You want proof, prove they are wrong.

941. AceofSpades - 10/22/2000 9:58:53 AM

How about you read the papers and decide for yourself for once as opposed to jumping to Bush's defense like a rookie public defender dying for their first case?

You want proof, prove they are wrong.

Hee hee hee. Oh, the irony. Jones accusing JJ of jumping to a politician's defense, knee-jerk, like a "rookie public defender."

Oh, my. That is funny.


In related news...

It's over. Lock the door and turn out the lights:

Bush Lead Jumps to 4 Points in Reuters/MSNBC Poll

By Alan Elsner, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican George W. Bush (news - web sites) has opened up a four-point advantage over Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites), according to the Reuters/MSNBC daily tracking poll released on Sunday.

Sixteen days before the Nov. 7 election, the race stands at 45 percent for the Texas governor and 41 percent for the vice president in the poll of 1,206 likely voters conducted Thursday through Saturday by pollster John Zogby. This is the largest Bush lead since the daily survey began on Sept. 29.


That's the Zogby poll, gents--otherwise known as Al Gore's erstwhile last ray of hope.

942. joezan - 10/22/2000 10:06:34 AM

"Good afternoon. I'm Al Gore, and I'd like to tell you about myself. I know a lot about hardship, because I came into this world as a poor black child in a tiny town in the back- woods of Tennessee. I was born in a log cabin that I built with my own hands. I taught myself to read by candlelight and helped support my 16 brothers and sisters by working summers as a deck hand on a Mississippi River steamboat.

My mother taught me the value of education, so every day; I would walk 5 miles to a one-room schoolhouse. I was a mischievous, fun-loving scamp, though I never dreamed that one day, my youthful escapades would serve as the inspiration for "Huckleberry Finn." Back then, black folks in the south were second-class citizens. One day, a traveling minister came through town, and I asked him if anyone was ever going to do something to guarantee civil rights for all Americans. Well, I guess I made an impression. You see, the minister's name was Martin Luther King, Jr.

My father was a United States Senator. He once perched me on his knee and said, "Son, if you work hard and listen to your mama, someday you can live in a hotel in Washington, D.C., and go to an exclusive prep school." But life of privilege was not for me. After getting my high school diploma, I took a job in a hot, dirty textile mill. I was so appalled at the treatment of the workers there that I organized a union. Later, that experience inspired a movie – which is why, to this day, my close friends at the AFL-CIO call me "Norma Rae."

[continued...]

943. joezan - 10/22/2000 10:09:02 AM

"When word got out what an 18-year-old factory worker had done, Harvard called and offered me a scholarship. I captained the hockey team to four consecutive national championships, but I also played football and was good enough to win the Heisman Trophy. During my college years, I lived in a housing project and moonlighted playing lead guitar for a little rock band. You may have heard of it -- the Rolling Stones.

But there was a war going on, and I felt I had to serve my country. So I enlisted in the U. S. Army and went to Vietnam. I was deeply opposed to the war, but I did my duty as a soldier and came back home with the Medal of Honor and the Croix de Guerre.

When I got back, I took a long journey across this great land of ours. I've crossed the deserts bare foot, man, I've breathed the mountain air, man, I've traveled, I've done my share, man, I've been everywhere. And the people I met at truck stops and campgrounds and homeless shelters on that journey all said the same thing: "Al, we need you in Washington."

I knew they were right, but first I had to take care of some other business---building the World Trade Center, founding the Audubon Society, doing the clinical research that proved smoking caused cancer, and coming up with the recipe for Mrs. Field's chocolate chip cookies."

[continued...]

944. dusty - 10/22/2000 10:09:12 AM

jonesatlaw

??

So if I were to claim that you were a bigot, the onus would be on you to prove otherwise? Doesn't seem reasonable.

If someone claims that Bush should have known that Archer was a bigot, isn't the burden of proof on those making the allegation?

945. joezan - 10/22/2000 10:10:21 AM

"Finally, I deferred to the demands of the people of Tennessee and allowed them to elect me to the House of Representatives and the Senate. And then one winter day nearly nine years ago, for no particular reason, I answered the call of the people once again and took the oath of office as Vice President of the United States.

Since then, I've been part of the most successful administration in American history. Many times Bill Clinton has been pondering some grave decision and has asked me what to do. And when I would give him my thoughts, he would invariable say, "Of course. That's brilliant. Why didn't I think of that?" During the darkest days of the impeachment battle, the president told me he only wished he had listened when I told him to stay away form that dark-haired intern.

So after I decided to run for president, I sat down with him and asked if he had any suggestions about how to conduct my campaign. And Bill Clinton gave me a few simple words of advice -- words I'll never forget. He looked me in the eye and he said, "Al, just tell the truth, it's always worked for me."

"truth" by Kevin Hammond

946. jexster - 10/22/2000 10:58:03 AM

For months I've been saying this was Gore's election to lose.

I predict (DRUM ROLL)



49%, 289 EV

Gore - 45%, 249 EV

Actually, I -- this may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it.

When I'm talking about -- when I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking about myself, all of us are talking about me."< i>

947. jexster - 10/22/2000 11:04:29 AM

Dems Looking At 4 Seat Gain in CA

Other predictions:

Democrats take House +3
Dems pick up 1 seat net in Senate

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

948. jexster - 10/22/2000 11:04:54 AM

toys

949. jexster - 10/22/2000 11:09:30 AM

GOP Fight With Clinton Over Immigration Splits Party, Threatens Efforts to Make Inroads with Latinos

950. AceofSpades - 10/22/2000 11:18:38 AM

Stupid, Out-of-Touch, or Evil?

Every four years since at least 1952, the press engages in the quadrennial game of calling the Republican candidate Stupid, Out-of-Touch, or Evil:

1952, 1956: Ike -- Out-of-Touch

1960: Nixon-- Evil

1964: Goldwater -- Out-of-Touch (*plus borderline Psychotic)

1968, 1972: Nixon -- Evil

1976: Ford --Stupid, Out-of-Touch

1980, 1984: Reagan-- Stupid, Out-of-Touch, AND Evil (the coveted Trifecta!)

1988: Bush -- Out-of-Touch (*Plus: Borderline Stupid and Borderline Evil)

1992: Bush II: Out-of-Touch

1996: Dole -- Out-of-Touch

2000: Bush the Younger-- Stupid

Yawn.

The other cute thing I notice is that when Republicans win or are winning, the press is filled with stories about how stupid the public is, about how uninformed they are, about how they vote merely on "image" rather than "issues," style over substance.

Well, you know, the Press is right on this point. But the Public was just as stupid, uninformed, shallow, and touchy-feel "image" obsessed when it voted for Clinton in 1992 & 1996.

Only *then*, the Press trumpeted the Public's interest in "issues," and complimented it for being so smart.