Therapy"
jexster,
cont.....
Nonresponse bias means those who responded may not necessarily reflect the views of those who did not participate. The response rate was ?? percent. (I'm disappointed not to see the response rate...maybe this fellow also has senior moments.) The results were adjusted slightly to compensate for demographic differences between poll respondents and the Ohio electorate as a whole. Although precautions are taken to ensure the sample reflects the demographic characteristics of the Ohio electorate, precise estimates for total possible error cannot be calculated. The poll was designed, conducted and financed by The Dispatch.
Darrel Rowland Dispatch Public Affairs Editor ...................................
40206. jexster - 9/5/2000 12:56:00 PM
This is the crucial and unanswered question Robt. Their answer is a concession that the ME of 2% does not account for measurement error
Like all polls, the Dispatch Poll is subject to possible error other than sampling error. Other sources of error can be unintentional bias in the wording of questions, data entry error or nonresponse bias.
The very first poll, the Reader's Digest polls of the 30's have the same problem essentially although their non-response bias and selection bias was compounded because of the readership angle.
40207. EricCartman - 9/5/2000 12:56:55 PM
Cellar:
So the media aren't doing their job. What else is new? Besides, regardless of the issue, readers/viewers are very rarely asked to any critical thinking about those issues. Generally it's just "here's the deal, make of it what you will". And since none of the Cheneys, including Mary herself, will talk about the subject, there's just not much to talk about.
What's "personal" for her ain't personal for those unlucky enough not have been born into her family. It's red meat. And heaven help you if you're in the service that Daddy Dick was once in charge of.
Yes, well, Fundie issues aside, the Democrats have been no less craven in their gay rights issues. Neither party will let Mary Cheney serve in the military. Neither will let her marry her girlfriend.
Of course if you were a pal -- like Pete Williams -- everything was OK. In fact when the heat was on, Cheney got him a job at NBC. Why not? It's part of the DOD after all.
Plus Pete was never out in the shit, undermining the unity of the squad.
I agree that it's a more substantial story than the "major league asshole" thing. All the MLA deal does is underscore the fact that W is a callow, indiscreet idiot. Wait till he has to greet the Chicom president. "Hey, there's that major league asshole from China, Jiang Zemin."
Diplomacy is a weird world, where even the seating chart can make or break a deal. Just imagine how this smartass frat-boy is going to go over.
40208. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:04:32 PM
Bush: "Mojo, Where's My Mojo, Anyone Seen My Mojo?"
ALLENTOWN, Pa. (Reuters) - George W. Bush just can't seem to get his groove back.
The Republican presidential nominee misplaced it somewhere in the Midwest a few weeks ago and was still searching for it as the campaign entered the final post-Labor Day stretch.
40209. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:05:39 PM
Bush said he was a ``plain-spoken'' man and proved it, calling Adam Clymer a ``major league asshole'' in an aside meant only for his vice presidential running mate Dick Cheney.
40210. Ronski - 9/5/2000 1:06:54 PM
Cellar,
Do have any links to sites about Lynne Cheney pushing NARTH-like scams and such? Not that I don't think she was capable of selling this sort of snake oil, but I'd love to see it in print somewhere, cyberwise or otherwise.
40211. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:08:17 PM
DNC Unveils Ad Attacking Bush Record of Leaving Children Behind in Texas
40212. Ronski - 9/5/2000 1:10:00 PM
Democrats have been slightly less craven on gay issues than the GOP has. Somewhat more hypocritical in the long run, given their touting of inclusion of gay people and trolling for votes among gays, but slightly less craven (see their platform vs. the GOP's).
40213. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:16:13 PM
C'mon Ronski. The Finance Chairman of the DNC - gay. The ambassador to Luxembourg - gay (no thanks to Jesse Helms).
If this were a dictatorship run by Democrats, you'd have no cause for complaint. But we aren't. We still have to deal with Republicans although there are secret plans now in development for Political Re-education Centers located in freshly burned hinterlands in Idaho.
Sssssshhhhhh.
40214. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:19:24 PM
National Stonewall Democratic Federation
40215. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:22:09 PM
Let's be blunt. No administration in US history has been as strong an advocate for the right of gay and lesbian people to be free from prejudice as the Clinton-Gore Administration. Even former Congressman Steve Gunderson, who is Republican and openly gay, has praised the Clinton-Gore Administration, calling Clinton "a real moral leader on behalf of justice and fairness for gay and lesbian people." And any serious assessment of Vice President Gore's public statements, actions, and progress in understanding the issues would show that he's clearly prepared to move the country even further in the direction of fairness for gay and lesbian people. It's equally clear that any rational analysis of George W. Bush's record and views would show that gay and lesbian rights under a Bush administration would either be ignored or seriously diminished.
National Stonewall Democratic Federation
40216. Ronski - 9/5/2000 1:29:10 PM
And when push comes to shove, as it did in the military and marriage, adios amigos.
40217. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/5/2000 1:30:42 PM
We all know who needs "Reparative
Therapy"
40218. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:33:20 PM
Ronski - That's because the Re-education Centers aren't ready yet. We have the building pads left over from the AIDs quarantine facilities the Reaganites prepared in the 80's but not much else.
40219. Ronski - 9/5/2000 1:59:52 PM
jexster,
I've known said finance chairman for many years, actually. It doesn't change my view of how little you can trust either major party on the subject of gay rights, though the Dems do have an advantage over the GOP here, and will as long as the Republicans pander to the religious right.
40220. Cellar Door - 9/5/2000 2:41:02 PM
I've been looking for specific texts by Lynne. But I've heard her go on about "Reparative Therapy" on the many shows she appeared on hin her Professional Meat Puppet days.
40221. Ronski - 9/5/2000 2:42:54 PM
FORMAL PUBLIC STATEMENTS (Have You Written Yours Yet?)
40222. CalGal - 9/5/2000 2:44:24 PM
BobbyJ,
That letter was a hoot!
40223. jexster - 9/5/2000 2:50:44 PM
Analysts See Massive Momentum Shift to Gore
Or as Poppy used to say We've got Mighty Mo!
40224. Cellar Door - 9/5/2000 2:51:12 PM
"And since none of the Cheneys, including Mary herself, will talk about the subject, there's just not much to talk about."
A serious investigative journalist wouldn't be deterred by such silence. There's a record out there that deserves explicating. Of course "investigative Journalism" is a farce these days what with creeps like John Stossel shilling for major corporations and clowns like Isikoff sniffing out semen stains thither and yon.
"Pete was never out in the shit, undermining the unity of the squad."
Ah but he was in charge of the shit. There he was, night after night in front of the blackboard, detailing how those famous "smart bombs" made their "surgical strikes." Had the Gulf War been popular he would have been played in the movie by. . . . Tom Cruise.
Luckily we got a real movie out of the deal -- "Three Kings."
Rather amazing that it was made, AND was hit to boot.
The problem with the press is that it can't see Mary Cheney as anything other than "scandal." Pardon me, but in the year 2000 there's nothing scandalous about being a lesbian, or having a family that isn't interested in having you brainwashed.
What's interesting (not "scandalous," just interesting) is that they see no harm in others having their children brainwashed.
This is a larger issue than the Cheneys -- or their party, or the Dems, or even gays and lesbians.
It speaks instead to the key questions: Who are we? How do we want to live? And what role should the government take in helping us to do so?
Unfortunately the press isn't interested in even asking such questions within its own ranks -much less utilizing them for the stories that need telling.
40225. Cellar Door - 9/5/2000 2:52:38 PM
toys
40226. jexster - 9/5/2000 2:54:57 PM
``In the debate on debate, Bush has very little leverage. He is out there trying to create interviews instead of debates but the longer he delays, the less chance he will have to make a decent deal,'' said Davis.
Baruch College political scientist David Birdsell said the Bush position on debates looked weak. ``Bush is making a hash of the debate on debates,'' he said.
Only the woeful RosettaStone and the benighted Ari Fleisher (sp?) seem to think otherwise.
2 Morons.
``Clearly, this has been an awfully good couple of weeks for Gore. Bush has had to scramble back up and has
not done a very good job,'' Birdsell added.
40227. jexster - 9/5/2000 2:56:16 PM
And why is that?
Because he's A MORON!
40228. jexster - 9/5/2000 2:59:37 PM
White House national security spokesman P.J. Crowley began a briefing about President Clinton's trip to New York by saying, sarcastically: ``Welcome to the James S. Brady briefing room at your media-friendly Clinton-Gore White House where seldom is heard of a disparaging word - particularly when the mike is on.''
40229. Ronski - 9/5/2000 3:16:51 PM
And John Stossel, in his recent TV outing showing the virtual impossibility of starting a small, family business in India due to the lingering influence of Britain's Fabian socialists under the Raj, was shilling for exactly which major corporation?
40230. Ronski - 9/5/2000 3:23:32 PM
Btw, I think Bush's position on the debates is going to prove a major blunder, and not because the Democrats wish it so. The NY Times quotes Bush advisors as saying that they carefully considered the move and decided that no one knew much about and cared even less about the debates commission, and that it would look like Gore was ducking TV appearances with Bush.
I don't think they're right. Among the ten percent of voters who have not made up their minds are many independents who are not idiots. If Gore and Lieberman play this right, and I suspect they will, they will make Bush look like the coward.
40231. Cellar Door - 9/5/2000 3:33:43 PM
"And John Stossel, in his recent TV outing showing the virtual impossibility of starting a small, family business in India due to the lingering influence of Britain's Fabian socialists under the Raj, was shilling for exactly which major corporation?"
All of them.
"Socialism Bad. Capitalism Good." A familiar refrain.
He's a coporate whore. "What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA" is his motto. Didn't you see the story about his credibility being auctioned on ebay?
Before the sale was stopped it was going for $3.20.
40232. Ronski - 9/5/2000 3:43:21 PM
All the attacks from the left on Stossel, and even the occasional stupidity on the part of his producers (such as in the recent organic food story), cannot change the fact that socialism has been proven bust, and free enterprise a benison.
40233. Ronski - 9/5/2000 4:32:47 PM
40234. Wombat - 9/5/2000 4:50:59 PM
The Cato Institute is particularly idiotic when it comes to foreign/military policy. They apparently do not believe that the United States should have one. If the United States wants to avoid "foreign entanglements," and concentrate on territorial defense (with small forces in Western Europe and Korea), than the military establishment could afford to be much smaller.
If the United States wishes to remain the one superpower, then it must be prepared to actually use its military in situations that might not be clear cut enough for the Colin Powells or George W. Bush's (or the Cato Institute brainiacs) of this world.
40235. Cellar Door - 9/5/2000 4:56:29 PM
"socialism has been proven bust, and free enterprise a benison."
Don't you mean a "Benetton"?
The equasion of capitalism with freedom is one of the biggest con-jobs of all time. My freedom should not be dependent of the slavery of others.
40236. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:37:43 PM
OK, I am back at dear ole SF State U where my stats professor has given me the skinny on the Ohio mail-in poll.
In a word "unreliable" because of the response bias. There is no way to correct for the bias in a mail in poll. There is a way to judge the accuracy through sophisticated "sensitivity" measures which, since they are beyond the scope of the course, I will not bother to investigate.
Such measures are not provided in the boilerplate furnished to Robert.
40237. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:39:11 PM
The CATO institute is equally imbecilic on legal matters.
The better question, what is CATO good for?
40238. concerned - 9/5/2000 5:45:32 PM
Re. 40234 -
Unfortunately for you, the repeated miserable military foreign policy failures of the Clowntoon administration argue against your point.
40239. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:49:48 PM
Two for 2000 Openly Gay Candidates Could Be Key to Democrats Regaining the House in November's Election
Two openly gay congressional candidates in Southern California are
shaping up to be key players in the Democratic Party's effort to win back the U.S. House of Representatives in November.
Long Beach nurse Gerrie Schipske, who is challenging Republican
incumbent Steven Horn in the 38th District, and Palm Springs City Councilman Ron Oden, who is attempting to unseat GOP incumbent Mary Bono in the 44th District, appear to be waging competitive races. Democrats need a net gain of five seats to win the House.
An August poll of 400 likely voters, conducted by Lake, Snell, Perry &
Associates, showed Horn holding only a slim 44 percent to 42 percent
lead over Schipske in the 38th District, a statistical dead heat.
"It's clear the families of the 38th congressional district are looking for someone new who places the same emphasis on quality health care,stronger public schools and affordable prescription drugs as they do," Schipske said
Aug. 28.
According to the poll, only 41 percent of voters said Horn has done an
excellent or good job and only 37 percent of voters said they would
vote to re-elect him. Schipske called that a "dismal performance for a three-term incumbent."
40240. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:54:26 PM
In 1995, Oden became Palm Springs' first black councilmember. He also became the Council's only gay member last year when he publicly
disclosed his sexuality while establishing local support to enact local domestic-partnership ordinances in the region. Oden, an ordained minister in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, has two daughters.
Oden believes Bono is vulnerable, citing a March online poll by the
Desert Sun in which he drew nearly 70 percent of the vote in a head-to-head match-up with the GOP incumbent. "Once again, the voters in this district are saying they want to take back their seat from the power brokers in D.C.," Oden said of the poll. "I am the strongest person to challenge the incumbent and will win in November."
70% sounds fishy to me.
40241. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:54:44 PM
toys
40242. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:54:59 PM
again
40243. jexster - 9/5/2000 6:01:57 PM
Kinsley is perilously close to trademark infringement with his latest
How Big An OxyMORON is GWB?
I claim trademark by use (indeed by overuse according to some).
One thing's beyond dispute however - Jexster hit the nail on the head once again.
40244. Wombat - 9/5/2000 6:02:27 PM
Which failures are those, Insouciant? The restoration of civilian rule in Haiti? The continued hard line on Iraq?, peacekeeping in Bosnia?, Kosovo?, steps toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Even the failures (Rwanda and Somalia) had more to do with reluctance toward committing the forces needed (which is what the Cato Institute and Republicans advocate).
Clinton's foreign policy can certainly be criticized, particularly in his first term when Warren Christopher was SoS, but its acheivements are tangible and positive.
40245. jexster - 9/5/2000 6:07:57 PM
The widespread suspicion that this man may be a dim bulb really lets Bush off too easily. It's not that he is incapable of thinking through the apparent contradictions in his own alleged core philosophy. It's that he can't be bothered. He'd rather just hold two opposing ideas in his mind at the same time. He turns out to be remarkably good at it.
Maybe two ideas aren't that much harder than one, if you're starting from scratch.
I ask for Ohio's legal opinion.
40246. jexster - 9/5/2000 6:22:59 PM
Clinton to attack GOP health care tax break plan
September 5, 2000
Web posted at: 2:35 a.m. EDT (0635 GMT)
From CNN White House Correspondent Major Garrett
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton plans to tout two new studies on Tuesday suggesting that government subsidies work better at increasing access to health insurance than do tax credits or deductions.
Basic microeconomics really and the same point I've made repeatedly about Bush's prescription drug sham, er....plan.
40247. jexster - 9/5/2000 6:23:18 PM
Moron
40248. RosettaStone - 9/5/2000 7:34:30 PM
Hey, Jexster. How's your health? Need an extra prayers next Sunday?
40249. jonesatlaw - 9/5/2000 9:18:49 PM
Ronski- might I suggest some wording borrowed from Miss Manners? Perhaps your parents could send out formal cards:
Mr. and Mrs. Xaiver Ronski
request the honor of your company
announcement that their son, Mr. Ronski Jr. is gay on the twenty first day of September, at 7:30 pm at the Stonewall Country Club. A small dance follows.
Formal Attire
r.s.v.p
40250. jonesatlaw - 9/5/2000 9:22:05 PM
Sorry, the layout is screwed up. I'm having a problem deciding how the press release should be done. They expect so much more detail than genteel correspondence usually includes.
Lets face it, with gay marriages banned, they haven't had to pay for a reception. It's one way to get a party thrown for you like your straight sibilings have had.
40251. joezan - 9/5/2000 9:24:08 PM
A serious investigative journalist wouldn't be deterred by such silence. There's a record out there that deserves explicating. Of course "investigative Journalism" is a farce these days what with creeps like John Stossel shilling for major corporations and clowns like Isikoff sniffing out semen stains thither and yon.
...this, from the author of Famous Hollywood Homos - Everything You Never Wanted To Know About Every Actor Who May Be Gay
Oh, the Humanity!
(Cue Elton John)
40252. joezan - 9/5/2000 9:36:44 PM
concerned:
Message # 40168
"This here's a good dog, Hilliary! Damn good dog!"
Any other caption suggestions?
"G--DAMMIT, BILL! I knew something was fishy that time I found this f---in' mutt wearing a thong!
40253. jexster - 9/5/2000 11:06:05 PM
Cllrdr - See Message # 40251
Saddled with a loser, their buckets of sludge greeted with an overwhelming shrug of the electorate's shoulders, the no-dicked Repugs are now pickin on fags.
yawn
40254. arkymalarky - 9/5/2000 11:19:00 PM
Stumbo,
To answer your last point first Message # 40176, there's a big difference between optional religious classes and fundamentalist religious instruction which is inseparable from the learning day. As for why I oppose vouchers to private institutions, I thought I made my reasons clear, but let me elaborate using your scenarios. If anyone receiving government assistance to get by has enough in their budget to give to private religious institutions, outside their small church donations, and certainly if they're giving an amount that would pay tuition to a private school, their benefits need to be cut way back. Government aid to support the needy is not meant to provide those kinds of luxuries, and that includes donations to the charity, cult, psychic network or whatever, of the recipient's choice. In addition there's the problem here (I doubt in Canada) of zero government regulation, minimum standards, or requirements to serve all types of students for private schools. Not that there's anything wrong with that. They can have complete autonomy to teach as they choose as long as they don't operate with government money, afaic.
40255. arkymalarky - 9/5/2000 11:19:18 PM
As far as the internship, I would like to see more than your personal observations regarding the worth of a year of practice teaching. The direct instruction under a master teacher--not one waltzing through to retirement on worksheets and built-up sick days, but a real master--is invaluable in preparing students to become teachers. Any one who's in that type of program who's finding diminishing returns after the first couple of weeks is probably not cut out to be a teacher, imo.
Most teachers in the past, unfortunately, learned just like I did, in their first year with some 100 to 150 student guinea pigs to help train them. That's why teachers are always told never to quit after their first year. It's an eye-opening experience in which they must learn everything with virtually no assistance. A one year internship clearly would go a long way toward fixing that problem.
40256. jexster - 9/5/2000 11:20:54 PM
Cllrdr -
Speaking of your area....I noticed a guy with a copy of The Celluloid Closet under his arm this eve....comments?
40257. arkymalarky - 9/5/2000 11:27:23 PM
Jones,
Amen on Message # 40180, and it goes double for state education departments and many administrative positions, the products of the educational institutions in secondary ed in particular, but also elementary, which in my experience is much weaker than it should be, who try to send teachers chasing papers instead of teaching students.
Oh, and btw, Stumbo, teachers' unions actually have precious little clout in many local areas, much less state and national. When Clinton implemented his big reform package in AR which many other states modeled and later improved upon (including TX, I'll admit) the idiotic leaders of the AEA picked the Teacher's Test to squawk about. A test any third grader should be able to pass and one over which any teacher who couldn't pass should have been handed a broom and demoted to toilet clerk. That's the only time in my 20 years I remember the teachers union having anything significant to say in anything besides Little Rock school issues. They do pretty well there, but it's a very adversarial and unpleasant relationship they and the LR administration have cultivated.
40258. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:24:22 AM
"This is very telling," says Jake Tapper of Salon.com, adding that the Bush campaign has also chewed him out for his coverage. "Of all the heinous people Bush has encountered, the one we hear him saying something negative about is the one who pointed out that Bush's record on health care is pretty weak. What does he think it's going to be like if he actually gets elected president? He's been spoiled by a press corps that has generally been intimidated or lazy or fawning."
"We think Adam is an excellent and very experienced reporter," says Michael Oreskes, the Times's Washington bureau chief. "They've never complained to us about Adam Clymer. They did raise some questions about that story, and we didn't agree with them. We take complaints by phone, fax and e-mail, but not generally by open mike. It's not the standard approach."
Strictly Bush League.
40259. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 1:07:50 AM
Well it's nice to know that people are still reading Vito, jex.
joezan, of course, has never read my book.
40260. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 1:50:41 AM
.
Keep today's NYTimes away from Shrub. Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman separately administer lessons demonstrating the wisdom of exercising caution when selecting opponents for a pissing contest.
Dowd
Krugman
40261. EricCartman - 9/6/2000 2:10:01 AM
RJB:
Not a bad Dowd column. But both links are the same one. Here's the Krugman column.
I hope.
40262. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 2:34:50 AM
Jones, #40180-1:
"It looks like we are not so far apart after all."
No, we're not; I agree with most of #40180 (though the devil, as usual, is in the details). But let me ask you yet again: do you think the teachers' unions would agree to the kind of reforms you describe? And do you think the Democratic party is likely to stand up to them? (See also my response to Arky, below.)
"Sadly, there is an important confounding variable for market based solutions. The public often chooses schools on factors other than excellence in the education of the student. I would say that there are a number of parents who would choose their child's school on the basis of convenience for the parent."
Probably; so their kids would get stuck in bad schools, just as they are now. But more responsible parents' kids would get a chance at going to better schools that they do not have now. I'd call that an overall improvement.
(Side note: this isn't really a failure of the market, but of creeping socialism, heh; absent guaranteed old-age pensions, parents would take their children's education -- which, after all, largely determines their future earning potential, and hence their ability to support them 30 or 40 years hence -- a lot more seriously. But I digress.)
40263. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 2:37:15 AM
Wombat, #40184:
This actually wasn't a religious school; as I said, the religion class was optional. (You had a choice between that, and "Human and Social Studies" -- unless you took both Latin and Greek, in which case you didn't have to take either of the first two.) In any case, though: clearly, government subsidies of such schools haven't made Canada into an oppressive theocracy. Why such a concern that it would happen here?
"The Constitution of the United States makes it clear that there shall be no established (state) religion. [...] the idea that the government cannot and should not allow actions that impose one faith on all remains a central tenet to the United States."
And why would allowing parents to choose whether their kids' share of the country's education spending went to a public school, a non-religious private one, or a religious private one amount to imposing any faith on anyone?
40264. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 2:38:55 AM
Arky:
"... there's a big difference between optional religious classes and fundamentalist religious instruction which is inseparable from the learning day."
Sure. But even if it's mandatory -- suppose that I compare two schools' academic programs, and decide that my kid would be better off yawning his way through an hour of bible-thumping every day, as long as he gets a much better education in math, English, and so forth? Why would you prevent me from making that choice?
"In addition there's the problem [...] of zero government regulation, minimum standards, or requirements to serve all types of students for private schools."
I have no objection whatsoever to some amount of regulation, and minimum academic standards; that should be a condition of getting taxpayer funding. (There's even more room for negotiation, here; e.g., religious classes not being mandatory could be a condition also. And if some schools refuse to meet that, or any, condition -- well, no harm done.) As for the all-types-of-students (physically handicapped? Mentally handicapped? Uncontrollably violent? etc.) issue -- again, the details would need to be worked out; but surely if it costs the gov't 10 times more to take care of Johnny than Jimmy, it ought to give Johnny's parents 10 times as large a voucher. And if, even then, no private school accepts him --so what? In what way has he been harmed? The money that was earmarked for him is still there.
40265. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 2:47:51 AM
Arky, cont'd:
"If anyone receiving government assistance to get by has enough in their budget to give to private religious institutions, outside their small church donations, and certainly if they're giving an amount that would pay tuition to a private school, their benefits need to be cut way back. Government aid to support the needy is not meant to provide those kinds of luxuries, and that includes donations to the charity, cult, psychic network or whatever, of the recipient's choice."
OK, good; so we seem to agree that parents being able to use gov't money towards (religious or not) private-school tuition -- just like welfare recipients being able to call up Dionne Warwick --isn't a central-tenet constitutional issue, but merely a question of public policy. Now, clearly the latter isn't a sound one; the issue is whether the former is.
(It might not be the only, or the best, solution -- I've yet to be fully convinced of that, myself, and most likely only extensive empirical tests would be conclusive. I'm pretty sure it would be better than the status quo, though.)
40266. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 2:56:33 AM
Arky, cont'd:
"As far as the internship, I would like to see more than your personal observations regarding the worth of a year of practice teaching." etc.
I guess I misread your earlier post; I was assuming that you meant a year of teacher training, with no ed. theory, but still in a simulated situation (such as prospective teachers giving daily classes to each other). I agree that having an experienced colleague look over one's shoulder and offer advice can be quite helpful. But then, heck, why even call it an internship? Experienced colleagues should always be there -- in an organized manner, not just out of the goodness of their hearts -- to help out the newbies, in just about any job. I'm not advocating "Let this be a challenge to you" writ large.
(This is not that different from what I went through in my first year as a TA; after a week of simulation, we were plunged into the real thing, teaching various sections of freshman courses --and a "mentor" would periodically check up on us, periodically schedule review sessions, was always available if we had any questions, etc. The only difference -- and a crucial one -- was that no weeding-out was possible, except perhaps in extreme cases.)
40267. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 3:04:22 AM
Arky, concl.:
"... teachers' unions actually have precious little clout in many local areas, much less state and national. When Clinton implemented his big reform package in AR which many other states modeled and later improved upon (including TX, I'll admit) the idiotic leaders of the AEA picked the Teacher's Test to squawk about. A test any third grader should be able to pass and one over which any teacher who couldn't pass should have been handed a broom and demoted to toilet clerk."
Answer me this, then: why is it that all Clinton could manage to implement, as far as teacher testing went, was a test that "any third-grader should be able to pass"? (Assuming, of course, that he even wanted to implement a harder one.) Could it be that the union had enough clout to block any test that you would've described as "a test any fourth-grader should be able to pass"?
Your first-hand evidence seems to support my thesis, rather than contradict it.
40268. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 4:10:59 AM
I dunno what to make of Krugman, BTW. Maybe he suffered a stroke shortly after getting the NYT job.
"Another big trick involves not mentioning that the tax cut will reduce the rate at which the federal debt is paid down, indirectly costing an extra $300 billion or so in interest payments."
No shit, Shylock; of course borrowing $1 today (or not paying back $1 today) means that I'll owe $1 plus the going interest, tomorrow. But the two options are equivalent -- esp. if I'm the U.S. government, and therefore get to pay the lowest interest rate available.
(I wonder if Paul would lend me a grand today, on condition I repaid him $1,001 a year from now. Surely he'd be happy to make that buck, right? After all, it's an "extra" buck.)
40269. jonesatlaw - 9/6/2000 4:40:08 AM
Stumbo- if you want teachers unions to swallow the bitter medicine of merit pay and teacher testing- it will have to be administered with a spoonful of sugar to paraphrase a famous English nanny. The sugar would likely be significantly higher salaries for those who make the grade, greater input to how schools operate, and some restoration of the social standing of the profession. The keys to social respect in the US of A are money, fame and power. Fame is really out of the question, so we are left with money and power. The power that teachers want is to have greater control of their classrooms, in discipline and instruction. Both are doable, if there is the political will to follow through with the promises of the candidates.
40270. Thoughtful - 9/6/2000 9:57:39 AM
Dare I tangle again with the all-consuming wisdom of the great stumbo? Call me a glutton for punishment, but here I go again.
Stumbo, dear "unsentimental *vulgarity*" (as Dowd says the editors suggest in her op-ed piece today), please explain #40268 to this very dense, not-even-good for ditch digging, no-mind.
If you are estimating a budget surplus that includes reduced interest payments due to paying down the debt, and then instead of paying down the debt you use the funds for other purposes, you can't correctly ignore the fact that the new choice you are making has the effect of raising interest expense and lowering the initial budget surplus estimate.
40271. Thoughtful - 9/6/2000 10:37:18 AM
Hey ducky, how 'bout posting a link to Nader's web site?
40272. Ronski - 9/6/2000 10:49:15 AM
Wombat,
Your Message # 40234 makes no sense. Exactly how does wishing to concentrate on territorial defense and maintaining a military presense in Western Europe and East Asia mean the same thing as not having a foreign/military policy? The foregoing is the policy, coupled with a reliance on free trade.
40273. Ronski - 9/6/2000 10:52:05 AM
jexster,
Re: Message # 40237, your dissection of Cato's legal position papers is eagerly awaited.
40274. Ronski - 9/6/2000 11:16:53 AM
Global Whining
(And the traffic in NYC is terrible because of it, too.)
40275. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/6/2000 11:22:00 AM
40276. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 11:35:03 AM
.
Thanks, Eric, for catching my bad link.
40277. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 11:37:07 AM
.
Wednesday September 6 10:21 AM ET
Gore wows women, Leads Bush in Missouri Poll
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuters) - Getting big support from women, Vice President Al Gore has erased a double-digit deficit in Missouri to pull ahead of George W. Bush by four points, according to a poll released on Wednesday.
The results fall within the survey's margin of error, making the race in the Midwest battleground state a statistical dead heat, according to the poll for the Kansas City Star.
Gore was down 11 points in a similar presidential campaign poll in July, but a surge in support from women helped push him ahead of the Texas governor in the latest survey, 45 percent to 41 percent. The margin of error was 4 percent.
In the poll of 621 registered voters conducted Aug. 31-Sept. 1 by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research of Washington,
Gore led Bush among women 53 percent to 35 percent. In the July poll, women voters favored Bush, 44 percent to 41 percent.
Green Party nominee Ralph Nader received 2 percent and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan got 1 percent in the latest poll. Eleven percent were undecided.
40278. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:08:29 PM
40279. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:09:59 PM
As Dick Armey recently told The L.A. Times, "George Bush is going to demonstrate a new axiom: Good manners make good politics."
40280. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 12:11:29 PM
.
Here are another two columns Shrub should be shielded from, lest he be overtaken by the vapors:
Debates Would Expose Bush’s Hollow Center...Joe Conason
Q&A through a crystal ball...Gene Lyons
40281. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:14:58 PM
Thanks for the Krugman link, Robt, EC.
His analysis of Bush's economic plan once again proves my point. The sum and substance of nearly all Bush proposals is flim-flam. Bush is trying to fool the voters into thinking he's got substance, that he's a "compassionate conservative" with half-baked bunk.
40282. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:18:58 PM
No shit, Shylock; of course borrowing $1 today (or not paying back
$1 today) means that I'll owe $1 plus the going interest, tomorrow.
But the two options are equivalent -- esp. if I'm the U.S.
government, and therefore get to pay the lowest interest rate
available.
Take a look at how much the US pays as interest on the national debt, a debt bequeathed to us and to our children by Reagan/Bush and threatened with further irresponsible growth by the flim-flam Moron.
The 2 options are equivalent
Visa's got an application in the mail today for Stumbo followed shortly by junk mail from Wee, Screw & Ewe, bankruptcy attorneys
40283. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:23:59 PM
But Mr. Bush's number games on taxes pale in comparison with his breathtaking audacity on Social Security. In case you have been in hibernation these last six months: Mr. Bush has proposed with great fanfare a partial privatization of Social Security, an idea that has its virtues(and its vices, but never mind that right now). But what is his plan? All we know is that he proposes to allow individuals to invest part of the money they currently contribute to Social Security, which will reduce the inflow of money into the Social Security system by $1.3 trillion over the next decade — and that he insists he will not cut benefits.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, GWB what GWB proposes requires a $1.3 trillion inflow of money from the General Fund over and above any amounts that may be required to meet the baby boomer retirements.
Bush doesn't put forth a detailed budget plan because to do so would show what he's shown in his speeches and in his stewardship of Texas gov't - the Moron can't add.
40284. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:33:23 PM
From Paul Krugman's Website
Here's why Bush's plans have me upset: our current situation is one in which, mainly through good luck - an unexpected economic boom, together with a political deadlock that has prevented both ambitious new spending plans and irresponsible tax cuts - we have managed to achieve an almost responsible fiscal policy. That is, our current situation - no wars or major military rivals, demography that is more favorable than it will be for the next couple of generations - is the sort of situation that, on any model, ought to be used to run surpluses and pay down debt. There's a good case that we aren't running surpluses as big as we ought, but at least we've
moved in the right direction.
Now along comes Bush with two major proposals: a huge tax cut, which not incidentally greatly reduces the progressiveness of the tax system; and a partial privatization of Social Security that makes sense only if substantial funds are transferred over from general revenue to make up for lost contributions. These proposals are made to seem less irresponsible than they are in several ways: by relying on CBO budget forecasts that make utterly unreasonable assumptions about
future spending; by not mentioning the budget implications of the Social Security proposal; and by engaging in petty dishonesty, like the fact that the cost of the Bush tax proposal is always given on a nine - let me repeat that: nine - year basis, without taking account of interest costs, and then compared with budget forecasts that are on a ten year basis. A realistic estimate may be that over the next 10 years Mr. Bush's tax cut would subtract around $1.9 billion from the budget, and that his Social Security proposal might require another $500 billion of support from general revenue. Given a realistic surplus projection, which will be in the hundreds of
billions rather than the trillions - well, you get the point.
40285. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:34:22 PM
The Paul Krugman Website (MIT)
40286. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 12:37:56 PM
Most important line in Lyons column linked by robertyjayb:
"The Washington press clique operates by a code of silence that forbids pointing out that a member is "spinning" facts to keep a "scandal" going."
40287. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:40:28 PM
and The Unofficial Krugman Website
40288. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 12:44:17 PM
.
Oh, dear. Yet another columnist seems to want to make Shrub's belly burn.
Bush's Wise-Guy
Side Is Showing...Lars Erik Nelson
Bush suffers from the image that at heart he is still a wise-guy college frat boy. That image is false; at heart he is still a wise-guy seventh-grader.
40289. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:45:31 PM
For those of us, especially those of us in CA, who are deprived
DNC Ad: The Bush Record - Its Becoming An Issue
40290. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:49:05 PM
Jake Tapper had it right when he said that the media has been giving the Moron a free ride.
NBC & CNN becoming party to his Great Debate Flim-flam is just the latest example. The Columbia Journalism Review's content analysis showing a 4:1 pro-Bush coverage bias is another.
Let's hope that the Potty Mouth incident proves to be the final straw, the turning point towards restoring fair coverage. With a 4:1 bias, there's much catching up to do!
40291. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 1:33:00 PM
.
40289. jexster - 9/6/00 11:45:31 AM
For those of us, especially those of us in CA, who are deprived
DNC Ad: The Bush Record - Its Becoming An Issue
Dammit, jexster, give warning of video in your links. My poor little machine choked and died.
40292. Dusty - 9/6/2000 1:38:30 PM
jonesatlaw
if you want teachers unions to swallow the bitter medicine of merit pay
Is merit pay really considered "bitter medicine"? Sad, if true.
40293. jexster - 9/6/2000 1:39:48 PM
In stark contrast to GWB manifest econ flim-flam & scam, the next President of the US announced a detailed budget plan including a $300 million hedge against overly optimistic budget assumptions
Here
40294. jexster - 9/6/2000 1:40:22 PM
"300 billion" - you'd think I came from Austin TX!
40295. Orca - 9/6/2000 1:54:33 PM
40296. Dusty - 9/6/2000 2:01:21 PM
jexster
Take a look at how much the US pays as interest on the national debt, a debt bequeathed to us and to our children by Reagan/Bush...
Reagan?
Attributing the debt to presidents is economic ignorance, but, even if you want to take a mindlessly simplistic approach and look at the change in debt while a President is in office, less than a third of the current debt was added during Reagan's tenure. Most of it came during the Bush/Clinton years.
(Please don't tell me that interest paid in recent years should be attributable to prior Presidents, no, don't throw me into that briar patch.)
40297. Thoughtful - 9/6/2000 2:41:31 PM
Dusty,
Federal Debt:
1980, 909.1
1988, 2601.3
1992, 4002.1
2000 est. 5617 (based on CBO data)
So under Reagan, the debt rose nearly 3 fold, in 8 years; under Bush it rose 1.5 times in 4 years; and under Clinton it rose 1.4 times over 8 years.
Federal Debt as a share of GDP (%)
1980 33%
1988 53%
1992 64%
2000 est. 58%
40298. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:26:27 PM
40299. Jonesatlaw - 9/6/2000 4:32:59 PM
Could some of the number literate and econ savy Moties address what the economic effect of Gore's $300 billion nest egg would be? Would it take money out of circulation? What would it do to interest rates, inflation etc? I'm asking for classical theory first, then you all can dazzle the dullards with competing models.
40300. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:33:03 PM
attributing debt to presidents is economic ignorance
See Thoughtful's post and read Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Non-Sense in the Age of Diminished Expectations - Paul Krugman
and tell me you still believe that horseshit.
40301. OhioSTOPAS - 9/6/2000 4:35:42 PM
Walter Shapiro, in USA Today today (huh?) on Bush and Cheney:
"[Bush's] I-didn't-know-the-microphone-was-on comment Monday morning will provide fodder for late-night comedians all week long. Adding to the hilarity was Dick Cheney's sycophantic follow-up, 'Yeah, big time.'"
Cheney's classic portrayal of the corporate-macho yes-man was funny, yes, but Bush was very lucky Cheney was so "sycophantic". For example, imagine how much MORE foolish Bush would have looked if Cheney had responded, "Ssh -this microphone might be on."
40302. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:36:25 PM
When Reagan gave us "voodoo" economics - the laughable Laffer curve - he gave us debt unprecedented in US history. Debt that, had it not been for Europeans and Japanese who were willing to take 7-8%+ notes, would have created a liquidity crisis the likes of which Brazil's worst nightmares don't approximate.
Economic Sense v. Non-Sense - burn it into your brain.
40303. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:38:32 PM
funny GOP money
40304. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:38:49 PM
toys
40305. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:46:55 PM
Don't look to me for models....Setting 300 billion of the surplus aside it seems to me is prudent. It would have some deflationary impact - no tax cuts, no gov't spending, and would exert downward pressure on interest rates.
At bottom, though, is its manifest prudence. Bush has more than frittered away the surplus with his scams all based upon projections that our unprecedented economic boom will continue and there will be no tax cuts or major spending increases.
Its one thing for a pol to court Rosie Scenario in an election year, quite another to run the government. Nonetheless, I don't fault an executive or wannabe executive for setting high standards and goals provided they have some ground in reality and provided that his plans also include provision for the downside.
Contrast then, the Gore SS plan with the Bush SS plan that Krugman so devastates in the above link.
40306. Dusty - 9/6/2000 4:47:19 PM
Thoughtful
Your post just helps to show that there are multiple ways to look at the debt. But until someone makes a credible argument that the President has sole responsibility, or even the majority of the responsibility, all of the measures are close to worthless in terms of commentary on a particular President.
40307. Dusty - 9/6/2000 4:50:13 PM
jexster
I've read enough of Krugman to know that he wouldn't even attempt to measure a President based upon the change in debt during the president's tenure in office.
If you can point me to an article that concludes otherwise, please let me know.
40308. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:53:39 PM
THE RICH, THE RIGHT, AND THE FACTS 40309. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:55:48 PM Dusty - He did in the above cited book and did so quite thoroughly. 40310. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 4:56:53 PM A news media gold mine. 40311. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:57:02 PM The book is short. Its pithy. It does not spare charlatans,right or left. 40312. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:59:50 PM Sorry Rose. 40313. JudithAtHome - 9/6/2000 4:59:52 PM George Bush shows up on NBC September 12 for an interview; Al Gore stays home. Bush looks like a fool for thinking an hour long interview on one network is a debate. 40314. jexster - 9/6/2000 5:00:51 PM None save Rosetta but then again I hear tell she's got one helluva long position in Serbian War bonds. 40315. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 5:06:02 PM Wrong, Jexster. NBC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC and C-SPAN will all cover it. Tim Russert will give the whole hour to Bush and he scores. 40316. Dusty - 9/6/2000 5:07:45 PM jexster 40317. JudithAtHome - 9/6/2000 5:19:49 PM ABC and CBS are not going to cover an event done by NBC. The top three networks are ABC, CBS, and NBC. 40318. jexster - 9/6/2000 5:20:16 PM From The Statistical Abstract of the US 40319. jexster - 9/6/2000 5:21:27 PM The excerpt and the link was on another point. Should have been clear. 40320. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 5:24:04 PM If Prince Albert doesn't show up, the headlines September 13 will be AL GORE: MISSING IN ACTION 40321. Thoughtful - 9/6/2000 5:33:34 PM Dusty, from Peddling Prosperity, 1994, a chapter on the budget deficit: 40322. Thoughtful - 9/6/2000 5:38:39 PM Another example from the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office January 1994 budget review: 40323. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 5:40:58 PM . 40324. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 5:49:23 PM 40320. RosettaStone - 9/6/00 10:24:04 PM 40325. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 6:02:27 PM Absolutely. He was flying F-102 jets protecting our southern flank from communist Cuba and the evil Soviet empire 40326. JudithAtHome - 9/6/2000 6:06:26 PM Major League....well, you know the rest. 40327. JudithAtHome - 9/6/2000 6:06:43 PM Big Time... 40328. glendajean - 9/6/2000 6:14:13 PM Living in Texas during those years, I remember how threatened we all felt. Invasion seemed imminent. Who knew if that bright light we heard about in school would come, forcing us to run into the ditches along the farm to market roads, ducking and covering our head from the atomic blast? 40329. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 6:21:01 PM Many are called. Few are chosen. Only the best flew the hot F-102. 40330. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 6:22:51 PM So he sent. . . Lady Bird. 40331. jonesatlaw - 9/6/2000 6:38:26 PM Rosetta Stoned-Only the best flew the hot F-102. In 1962, perhaps, but by the time Bush did his stint, the Delta Dagger was nearing the end of its phase-out. It was headed for the glue factory, and had been completely replaced by the F-106 Delta Dart in active units. 40332. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 6:42:43 PM Jones: When was the last time you flew a fast, single-seater military jet? 40333. jonesatlaw - 9/6/2000 6:52:12 PM Rosetta you have your head up Bush's six so far you can't tell if it's day or night. The F-102 entered service in 1956, and it was succeded by the F-106 in 1959. It was far outdated when Bush flew it. If only the best flew it, Bush, Mr. 25th percentile would have never got near it. 40334. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 6:53:54 PM Here's a REAL Air Force Flyboy. Not a Daddy's Boy fake like Dubbya. 40335. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:11:57 PM Let me get this straight. The B-52 went into service in 1954. Are the pilots flying it now, dumbies? 40336. jonesatlaw - 9/6/2000 7:17:28 PM Rosetta- Yes, the B-52 dates from the 50's, and they have been continuously upgraded and rebuilt over the years. They are still in service with active Air Force units. Many of the current pilots are younger thantheir aircraft. 40337. arkymalarky - 9/6/2000 7:25:13 PM Stumbo, Message # 40264 40338. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:25:13 PM AWOL? What are you talking about? 40339. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:27:00 PM Buy Serbian War Bonds! 40340. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:28:26 PM While Al Gore was servin his country in Vietnam, the Moron was AWOL in Alabama. 40341. arkymalarky - 9/6/2000 7:28:38 PM PS--the high school of choice for my husband's nephew, a kid who made a perfect score on his SATS in math, was the infamous Central High in Little Rock, known to have one of the best AP programs available in public schools. And though he was accepted to Yale he couldn't afford it and didn't qualify for the financial aid, so he's working on his second engineering degree at UofA and has managed that in about four years with all the AP tests he passed, having begun as a solid sophomore with Cal III as his first college math course. 40342. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:31:17 PM Some folks are born silver spoon in hand 40343. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:31:40 PM toys 40344. concerned - 9/6/2000 7:33:35 PM Re. 40336 - 40345. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:36:38 PM Right, concerned. These clowns are making it seem flying military jets is comfortable. 40346. concerned - 9/6/2000 7:37:05 PM From Christopher Hitchen's 'Bill of Goods' He's not exactly my cup of tea but he makes some telling points at the expense of US Socialists: 40347. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 7:37:15 PM Such bullshit! 40348. concerned - 9/6/2000 7:38:28 PM Did he say he wanted to end poverty as we know it? No, he said he wanted to end welfare as we know it. Did he say that the morals of the "greed decade" overclass could use an overhaul? No, he said that the morals of the underclass required strict attention. Did he quarrel with the Dixiecrats? No, he promoted Lloyd Bentsen to treasury secretary after picking a fight with Jesse Jackson over Sister Souljah. Gays in the military, along with people on death row and in public housing -- where warrantless searches were instituted -- joined the large number of Americans for whom "the era of big government" was not over, but had just begun. And those foolish enough to believe the promise about health care found themselves handed over to the tender mercies of the HMOs, an ongoing scandal that will now require a great deal more government regulation rather than less. 40349. concerned - 9/6/2000 7:38:45 PM A price has to be paid for all this, and the immediate as well as longer lasting cost is this: American Democratic liberalism has lost its honor and prestige and has proved itself as adept in making excuses for power as any Babbitt in the Nixon era. (Clinton's fawning speech at Nixon's funeral, I was told by the late, great, and prescient Joseph Heller, contained all you needed to know about him.) 40350. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:38:59 PM Come gather round people wherever you roam 40351. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:39:22 PM toys 40352. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:40:42 PM Cellar has a problem with Christopher Hitchens. 40353. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 7:42:03 PM Yeah right -- Hitchens is a Socialist. 40354. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:42:56 PM Avoiding Vietnam was the last smart thing the Moron ever did. 40355. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:44:09 PM When she was mayor, Dianne Feinstein flew an F-18 Blue Angel. 40356. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:45:54 PM Concerned: With CD regarding Hitches, you can't forget the problem of jealousy. 40357. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:47:46 PM Did she break her leg, jexster? She can't even walk straight. 40358. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:48:17 PM Whatever you think of George W. Bush, 40359. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:49:59 PM Rose - 40360. arkymalarky - 9/6/2000 7:51:22 PM Stumbo, 40361. arkymalarky - 9/6/2000 7:51:44 PM The current test teachers are required to take in their respective fields is the NTE, which is a thorough and rigorous test (at least in English, Math, Spanish, and Social Studies, which are all I've had direct or indirect experience with), but like any other national standardized tests of that nature (including the AP's fwiw), its effectiveness varies from state to state because they set the cutoff scores, just as different universities set cutoff scores for AP tests. 40362. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:55:11 PM Jex: That may be true since Clinton took over the military but not back in the 1960s. 40363. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:56:10 PM they had put 40364. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:56:44 PM What's with all this white space? 40365. concerned - 9/6/2000 7:57:45 PM 40366. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:59:35 PM Did you know that Gore had his teeth fixed recently. 40367. concerned - 9/6/2000 8:01:15 PM Re. 40366 - 40368. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 8:07:40 PM Only a Communist would get his teeth fixed! 40369. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 8:09:54 PM This is fun but I have to do homework with the kids. Toodle-oo. 40370. concerned - 9/6/2000 8:10:22 PM 40371. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 8:24:39 PM Look -- Gore's giving the Communist salute! 40372. bloodnfire - 9/6/2000 8:25:39 PM We had an amusing uproar here in the Panhandle of Florida the day before yesterday (Monday 4th). The Superintendant of Schools is running for re-election. His opponant notices that many of his 'vote for for me' signs are missing, and suspects the Superintendant. 40373. arkymalarky - 9/6/2000 8:28:03 PM How funny! It appears no nefarious political tactics are safe any more with modern technology. 40374. Wombat - 9/6/2000 9:01:44 PM Hey Rosie: 40375. Wombat - 9/6/2000 9:17:45 PM Let me get this straight, Insouciant. You cite Christopher Hitchens gleefuly as he criticizes Clinton/Gore for not being "Socialist" enough, and for emulating the Republicans in terms of what Hitchens considers threats to dissent. Can you see a slight inconsistency in this in terms of your proclaimed distaste for what you call socialism and your adoration of the sainted Reagan? 40376. concerned - 9/6/2000 9:23:01 PM re. 40375 - 40377. Wombat - 9/6/2000 9:40:28 PM I dare say you'll change your tune about Hitchens when he turns his critical spotlight on the vast spaces that make up George W's political philosophy, and his less than stunning record (compared to his current rhetoric) during his governorship in Texas. 40378. MsIvoryTower - 9/6/2000 10:15:13 PM Wombat 40379. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 10:44:25 PM The Ivins book is trash. I think she sold less than 5,000 copies. 40380. concerned - 9/6/2000 10:49:13 PM I'd sure hate to have my magnum opus be a lousy remaindered book like that. Was it a vanity publisher who had it printed? 40381. concerned - 9/7/2000 12:08:39 AM 40382. Stumbo - 9/7/2000 1:14:33 AM Jones, #40269: 40383. Stumbo - 9/7/2000 1:23:51 AM Th, #40270: 40384. Stumbo - 9/7/2000 1:30:23 AM Arky, #40337: 40385. Stumbo - 9/7/2000 1:35:22 AM Arky, #40360: 40386. jexster - 9/7/2000 2:50:15 AM GOP Fat Cats Worried They Done Bought A Dim Bulb 40387. jexster - 9/7/2000 2:53:48 AM While Rosetta Stone was busy trying to reduce her long position in Servian War Bonds and host lavish K St. Parties for Slobo's Re-election bid, there was trouble on the home front: 40388. concerned - 9/7/2000 2:59:39 AM BUSH AD KEEPS UP DEBATE PRESSURE 40389. concerned - 9/7/2000 3:01:02 AM Pinocchio Bore: Liar, debate promise breaker, no integrity at all. 40390. concerned - 9/7/2000 3:09:55 AM Weak on National Defense, Alphalfa Bore Stiffs American Legion National Convention 40391. jexster - 9/7/2000 3:10:44 AM Guess you aren't part of the inner circle of GOP fat cats, concerned. Didn't get the word about the third week in a row of Bush screw ups. 40392. jexster - 9/7/2000 3:11:39 AM "George Bush, Post 77, reporting for duty." - Howdy Doody 40393. concerned - 9/7/2000 3:12:04 AM Thankyuh! 40394. concerned - 9/7/2000 3:12:40 AM My 40393 was in response to 40391, of course. 40395. jexster - 9/7/2000 3:12:48 AM Flummoxed & Confused, Howdy Doody Changes Tune on Defense 40396. jexster - 9/7/2000 3:13:25 AM dim bulb 40397. jexster - 9/7/2000 3:14:33 AM Nite TD 40398. Thoughtful - 9/7/2000 8:51:15 AM jonesatlaw, not a complete answer, and maybe more of a question, but I've always thought that any kind of government "trust fund" was utter b.s. because the federal budget is run on a cash basis. There is no capital accounting. When they build a building, they don't set up an asset account for building and then deduct depreciation expense over a period of years. The cost of the building is an expense in the year it occurs -- all strictly cash basis. So things like a social security trust fund, etc. don't exist other than as an accounting gimmick. Each year the government takes in and spends. If they spend more than they take in, debt rises. If they spend less, debt falls. That's it. 40399. Thoughtful - 9/7/2000 8:59:25 AM stumbo, I think you are mistaken here. I'm sure Krugman is more than well aware of the time value of money. Obviously I'm not a mind reader, but I believe the point Krugman was making was the same one I'm making. W's budget proposal ignores the fact that by not paying down the debt, interest expense will rise. I think that because the entire gist of his argument was that W's proposal overspends what is probably already an overestimate of future surpluses, and thus is fiscally unsound. 40400. Dusty - 9/7/2000 9:25:46 AM Stumbo 40401. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/7/2000 9:31:08 AM 40402. JudithAtHome - 9/7/2000 9:31:19 AM Dusty: 40403. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/7/2000 9:50:50 AM ...Moreover, the Ivin's book is ranked 679th in Amazon.com sales, 16th and 10th in Primenet and charity/non-profit Purchase Circles, Rosey -- you and your candidate are the ones talking "trash." 40404. stostosto - 9/7/2000 9:51:17 AM Stumbo Message # 40268: 40405. rubberducky - 9/7/2000 9:51:41 AM HaHaHa 40406. stostosto - 9/7/2000 9:54:32 AM Of course what I refer to as "my five cents" are the remarks at the bottom of my last post. The blockquote is a quote from Stumbo's earlier post. 40407. RosettaStone - 9/7/2000 9:55:43 AM wizard: pretty funny. You're demented and mote is lucky to have you. 40408. Cellar Door - 9/7/2000 9:59:08 AM Actually it would be a good idea to give the page a redesign via an image of some sort -- say one of Dubbya created by Wiz, or some drawing or other that would be changed on a weekly or monthly basis. 40409. Jonesatlaw - 9/7/2000 10:39:03 AM Cellar- I would have to ask for equal time for Gore. I'm sure that there would be plenty of Moties who would volunteer concepts for the Wiz's work, or would seek the Wiz's skill in creating their own. 40410. joezan - 9/7/2000 10:56:40 AM 40411. joezan - 9/7/2000 10:57:45 AM 40412. Cellar Door - 9/7/2000 11:02:37 AM None of us work for the NYT, joe. 40413. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:06:03 AM Gore Up By 6 In Zogby Poll 40414. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:07:54 AM Joe Z - Problem is we want as many people as possilbe see the Imbecile in a real debate - no in 3 real debates PLUS Larry King. 40415. OhioSTOPAS - 9/7/2000 11:08:02 AM Joezan (Message # 40410): What's your point? 40416. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:10:06 AM If I were Bush I'd stop yappin about the debate adn start worryin about the ass-kickin Gore is giving him. 40417. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:11:22 AM Ohio - 40418. OhioSTOPAS - 9/7/2000 11:15:22 AM Maybe Bush's "I didn't know the microphone was on" APPARENT faux pas was actually deliberate attempt to gain identification with the Gipper. A stroke of genius that will pay off when the Reagan deathwatch begins in October. 40419. OhioSTOPAS - 9/7/2000 11:15:48 AM . . . actually a deliberate attempt . . . 40420. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:28:58 AM 6 1/2 should be 7 1/2 40421. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:38:59 AM Bush Debate Ploy Falls Flat - WPost 40422. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:49:43 AM 40423. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/7/2000 11:58:03 AM 40408. Cellar Door - 9/7/00 2:59:08 PM 40424. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:05:05 PM The Wash. Post article correctly underscores how Bush is making a big mistake in the "debate debate." Moreover, instead of talking about things that are arguably more important to his campaign, he talks about the debates, and digs a deeper hole no matter what his handlers claim. 40425. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:07:21 PM Ronski: We don't want to reduce the progressivity of the income tax system nor increase the increasing disparity of income in this country. See my Krugman post on the subject yesterday.... 40426. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:09:28 PM God forbid we return to the fallacious, irresponsible, unfair, inequitable, and economically non-sensical era of trickle down, supply-side, Laffer curve, voodoo economics 40427. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:10:48 PM The Rich, The Right & The Facts - Paul Krugman in the American Prospect 40428. robertjayb - 9/7/2000 12:15:25 PM . 40429. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:15:27 PM Figure 1 shows a picture that ought to be part of the consciousness of anyone who thinks about trends in the U.S. economy since the 1970s. The figure shows the rate of growth of income at selected points in the income distribution over several different periods. 40430. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:15:46 PM 40431. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:16:25 PM jexster, 40432. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:21:20 PM The "Krugman Calculation" 40433. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:22:35 PM Btw, the election is over. Barring some major gaffe by the Democrats, Gore will win thusly: 40434. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:24:34 PM Figure 2 ought to suggest to you that we are not talking about those schoolteachers: the really big income gains were not near the bottom of the top quintile, but at its top. Indeed, according to the CBO's numbers the share of after-tax income going to the ninth decile families between the 81st and 90th percentiles actually fell slightly between 1977 and 1989. So all of the siphoning went to families in the top 5 or 10 percent. And given Figure 2, one might well suspect that the bulk went to the top 1 percent. 40435. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:25:11 PM 40436. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:25:32 PM 40437. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:25:57 PM (I've been fence-sitting on a prediction, but what tips the scale for me is seeing that Gore has done what I thought he would, which is appeal to the middle class. The NY Times reported this morning that Gore has dropped "working families" for "middle class families" in his stump speech.) 40438. robertjayb - 9/7/2000 12:28:53 PM . 40439. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:30:02 PM Epstein's right to a point. He corrrectly identifies that the Bush programs give rise to the problem I have repeatedly noted of "adverse selection" and the problem underlying both the Gore and Bush programs that subsidizing service to any extent, increases service demand and thus exerts upward pressure on medical costs. 40440. JudithAtHome - 9/7/2000 12:30:17 PM I think Bush is making a huge mistake with this debate stuff; it looks as though he is afraid to debate Gore for 270 minutes. If he isn't confident enough to stand toe to toe with Gore for that amount of time, why should we trust that he is tough enough to stand up to the job of running the country? 40441. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:35:50 PM "Consider how health insurance affects the quantity of health care services performed. Suppose the typical medical procedure costs $100, yet a person with health insurance pays only $20 when she chooses to have an additional procedure performed.... 40442. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:35:51 PM Nonsense about Epstein. He proposes the marketplace and genuine competition, as opposed to more welfarism. 40443. Wombat - 9/7/2000 12:36:02 PM Judith: 40444. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:36:16 PM See above post. 40445. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:37:12 PM Still think I'm talking "nonsense"? 40446. RosettaStone - 9/7/2000 12:37:36 PM Bush will be there. For sure. 40447. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:39:42 PM Has Bush's Marie Antoinette comment about the debates been noted here? When told that some people did not have cable TV and thus would miss the Larry King debate, he is reported to have said, "They could watch it on their computer." 40448. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:39:47 PM Buy Servian War Bonds!!!! 40449. Wombat - 9/7/2000 12:40:35 PM Rosie: 40451. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:42:32 PM After 3 weeks of straight campaign bumbling, as the Moron continues to sink in the polls, you'd think he'd get the message... 40452. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:42:50 PM toys 40453. rubberducky - 9/7/2000 12:43:29 PM 40454. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:43:31 PM OK RD.... 40455. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:44:58 PM RD - 40456. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:45:14 PM Subsidization of benefits produces excessive use. End subsidization, and you end excessive use. Lower subsidization levels, and you lower excessive use. Only the latter is politically feasible at any time in the foreseeable future. 40457. rubberducky - 9/7/2000 12:45:27 PM jexster (and all other “Politics” posters – please take note) 40458. rubberducky - 9/7/2000 12:48:27 PM Re: Message # 40455, jexster. 40459. janjon - 9/7/2000 12:51:34 PM ronski - the only thing that surprises me about your predictions is the meager 3 point spread between Gore and W. It will be more along the line of 6. I agree, though, that Gore's electoral vote will touch or exceed 400. 40460. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:54:14 PM The Bush camp thinks it can challenge the commission's authority because, as a Bush adviser told the New York Times, "Nobody knows who the commission is." That's true. But there's a case to be made for the commission's authority. As the debate over debates heats up, the media are explaining to readers and viewers that the commission is led by the former chairmen of both parties, that it has sponsored all of the fall debates in the past three presidential campaigns, that it has arranged a broadcast consensus with the networks, and that it announced its schedule in January. What has Bush done to match these arguments? He hasn't made a case that the commission is partisan. He hasn't arranged a comparable broadcast deal with the networks. He has 40461. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:54:56 PM janjon, 40462. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:57:16 PM I never posted the entire article, only a fraction of it. 40463. janjon - 9/7/2000 12:58:47 PM W.'s "he won't debate" shenanigans either speak of abject desperation in Austin or a even-more condescending view of the intelligence/memory of the average American than I thought they had, or more likely a combination of both. 40464. Ronski - 9/7/2000 1:03:09 PM Minor complaint about the Wash Post article earlier on the debates: the commission is not non-partisan (as the League of Women Voters ostensibly is, they who earlier mounted the presidential debates); it is bi-partisan. 40465. jexster - 9/7/2000 1:05:06 PM I am betting the GOP will start transfering bucks to congressional campaigns deliberately starved in a failing effort to recapture the WH 40466. janjon - 9/7/2000 1:06:55 PM ronski. Of course, W. could campaign harder. But, will he? There is more than a little rigidity there and he really has made it clear that he wants (and needs) a very measured day. And, if he does, what do you think the odds are that he will indeed stick his big foot/mouth into the deep doo-doo. Not so much more of the misstatements (people are sort of used to that, now), but the peevishness, pettiness, smirkiness will reveal itself. Especially as the campaign continues to unravel. 40467. jexster - 9/7/2000 1:06:56 PM CNN's Candy Crowlie (sp) is reporting from the Bush campaign that they are bracing for a number of polls that show Gore in the lead and that major figures in the GOP are getting very worried. 40468. rubberducky - 9/7/2000 1:08:39 PM does anyone have any differing views on the previous belief that the GOP will hold both houses? 40469. vonKreedon - 9/7/2000 1:15:36 PM 40470. Ronski - 9/7/2000 1:16:37 PM I think the House will go Democrat by a few seats. And the GOP will lose a couple of seats in the Senate. 40471. vonKreedon - 9/7/2000 1:17:47 PM RD - I also would prefer that people write their own arguments, rather than simply posting extensive sections of other people's writing. Make an argument and include short relevant sections of sources to back up factual claims in the argument. 40472. janjon - 9/7/2000 1:20:33 PM vonKreeden. Gore is almost at the point where he doesn't have to do anything. Although it might be a good tactic for him to show up and proceed along the lines you suggest, if he chooses not to, only the true W. believers will conclude that W. is gaining any traction on this absolutely silly "let's talk and debate but only on my terms" gambit he's trying to pull off. 40473. janjon - 9/7/2000 1:21:24 PM ronski. Corzine's money and the Gore margin in New Jersey will make it Senator Corzine. 40474. Ronski - 9/7/2000 1:30:12 PM janjon, 40475. janjon - 9/7/2000 1:38:52 PM Ronski. Well, Pataki and the boys are obviously worried about the State Senate (ergo, or at least most of the ergo, the recent anti-gun violence law signed by Pataki and with a lot of hitherto neutral-to-opposed suburban GOP State Senators very very visibly on the bandwagon. 40476. Ronski - 9/7/2000 1:47:23 PM janjon, 40477. janjon - 9/7/2000 1:49:54 PM ronski. Well, she certainly has to continue to play nice. I am amazed at the number of people I meet (good liberals most) who absolutely despise her. And, for most, it is visceral and irrational. Most will still vote for her, thank God, since they remain sane enough to be able to contemplate the alternative. But. 40478. Thoughtful - 9/7/2000 2:24:33 PM re posting articles or major portions of them...I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that that constitutes a violation of copyright law. However, posting links to articles or posting minimal portions of an article is not. Posting an article with attribution is still a violation of copyright law....perhaps some legal beagles around here can enlighten us more on this issue. 40479. jexster - 9/7/2000 2:35:02 PM Open Mouth - Insert Foot by Tucker Carlson 40480. jexster - 9/7/2000 2:43:10 PM GOP Leaders Worried About Polls & Confusesd, Bumbling, Peavish Candidate 40481. janjon - 9/7/2000 3:15:53 PM Howard Kurtz has an interesting summary of the coverage today about the state of W.'s campaign and the GOP anxiety re same. It is: I've Been Saying For Some Time Now That It Is Gonna Be A GREAT Fall!!! 40482. janjon - 9/7/2000 3:19:07 PM The Kurtz article ends with these comments: 40483. Raskolnikov - 9/7/2000 3:31:28 PM Current Iowa electronic market prices: 40484. CalGal - 9/7/2000 3:37:54 PM All in all, a good day for the Dems. 40485. Ronski - 9/7/2000 4:48:11 PM Libertarian Harry Browne Surges Past Pat Buchanan in Tracking Poll 40486. Cellar Door - 9/7/2000 4:54:21 PM Most telling bit from Tucker Carlson piece: 40487. CalGal - 9/7/2000 4:56:59 PM Ronski, 40488. janjon - 9/7/2000 5:05:56 PM Hope Springs Eternal, eh, ronski? 40489. robertjayb - 9/7/2000 5:18:07 PM Gore ahead by 3 in CNN poll: 40490. jonesatlaw - 9/7/2000 5:31:48 PM Now is the time that the polls count, folks. There is a chunk of solid voters on either side, with a large bloc of uncommitteds. The game plan for GW was to get ahead early, and minimize the damage in the debates, keying on middle west battleground states. Texas is still Bush's as is the mountain west and plains states, but these are a standard republican base. There doesn't seem to be much indicating that Bush has a firm hold on enough swing states to be able to ride the electoral college to office. It still can be done, but time is short. Bush hasn't been long on details so far, and has to play catch up, since the issues he's picked have been traditionally democrats issues. He's playing with fire on the military angle- he forces the issue with Congress and the joint Chiefs- What money haven't they got that they needed? The GOP has been resisting additional spending for the Pentagon because they were trying to hogtie Clinton regarding Kosovo, as well as a few choice pork programs ordering equipment that the Chiefs never requested. 40491. ycmeehan - 9/7/2000 5:37:07 PM Jexster, 40492. robertjayb - 9/7/2000 6:08:51 PM . 40493. Cellar Door - 9/7/2000 6:50:09 PM "You can prep an ignorant man but you can't a stupid one." 40494. RosettaStone - 9/7/2000 7:19:59 PM Clearly you've never been starved, broke and offered fresh but greasy fish and chips by a local like I was in Bath, England, so many years ago. 40495. arkymalarky - 9/7/2000 7:58:18 PM Stumbo, Message # 40385 40496. CalGal - 9/7/2000 8:05:28 PM Just out of curiousity, why not post it in the Slow thread? I keep losing parts of it because it gets lost in the standard stuff. 40497. arkymalarky - 9/7/2000 8:14:21 PM Good idea that I hadn't thought of. I think it's about wound down, but...To Stumbo: I'll check the Slow thread tomorrow for any continuation of the discussion. 40498. Stumbo - 9/8/2000 1:22:36 AM Th, #40399: 40499. Stumbo - 9/8/2000 1:43:12 AM Arky, #40495: 40500. Stumbo - 9/8/2000 1:48:21 AM Arky, CG: 40501. CalGal - 9/8/2000 2:01:03 AM Poorly planned local news bullet: 40502. OhioSTOPAS - 9/8/2000 6:24:45 AM Since Joezan didn't answer my question in Message # 40415, I'll answer it. 40503. OhioSTOPAS - 9/8/2000 6:27:10 AM In any event, all of Gore's proposals on debates have been proposals to EXPAND debate. Gore has never offered to let Bush RESTRICT debate. 40504. thoughtful - 9/8/2000 7:14:01 AM jonesatlaw, on the $300 billion "trust", I saw Laura Tyson on Lehrer last night who is Gore's econ adviser and she did say that the $300 billion will pay down the debt as I thought. There really is no "trust fund" set aside. Gore's plan apparently is to eliminate the national debt by 2012. In my view totally unnecessary, but a better alternative than to tax cut away surpluses which may not materialize and then scramble to find ways to bring the budget back in to balance, just as the baby booomers are starting to retire putting strain on entitlements such as soc. sec & medicare. 40505. joezan - 9/8/2000 7:46:02 AM 40506. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 10:38:25 AM Give up guys. This "Debate over Debates" nonsense is going nowhere. Dubbya can't score points over what Gore said or didn't say because NOBODY GIVES A SHIT!!!! 40507. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 10:42:03 AM Just wait until Sept. 12th when George Bush shows up for the first debate on Meet the Press and Al Gore doesn't. 40508. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/8/2000 10:49:08 AM Yes, let's argue about the military, shall we? If your only tool is a hammer, every problem will look like a nail. . . 40509. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 10:53:01 AM Only the best flew jet fighters in the 1960 protecting LBJ's Texas. 40510. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 10:53:54 AM 1960s 40511. Wombat - 9/8/2000 10:55:43 AM Where were you serving in the 60s, Rosie? Jet jock, Gyrene, or chicken hawk? 40512. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 10:57:20 AM Only the best what? Drunken, coke-crazed, whore-fucking frat boys? 40513. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 11:06:20 AM LBJ made sure the Pentagon kept the best military flyers in Texas to protect his interests. With power, comes perks. 40514. Jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 11:32:16 AM Rosie- What color is the sky in your reality? 40515. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 11:38:09 AM Fat, ugly Joe Lockhart is out. 40516. Jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 12:11:52 PM Rosie, you nitwit, the protection of Texas would have been the active duty Phantom II's not the out to pasture Delta Dagger flown by Delta Dubya. 40517. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 12:16:21 PM Lots of sky to protect, jones. Lots of air space. 40518. Jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 12:21:15 PM Aircraft Carrier Cuba was a dagger in the stomach of oil-rich Texas. LBJ knew it and kept his best here. 40519. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 12:24:50 PM John who? 40520. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 12:30:08 PM He wasn't a jet-fighter....he was a jet flyer/pilot in training. 40521. Jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 12:30:25 PM Rosie- You can't stand Bush's second rate status, his chickehawk service and his AWOL episode that was covered up. You also can't stand the fact that Gore was in country instead of in the country club like your guy. 40522. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 12:32:12 PM Judith, stay out of this. This is guy talk. 40523. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 12:34:57 PM Sorry, I couldn't tell since you are trying to do most of the talking. 40524. Ronski - 9/8/2000 12:35:14 PM 40525. KuligintheHooligan - 9/8/2000 12:36:28 PM This is probably old news, as I just heard about it now via this e-mail sent to me. This was in a British newspaper, so I am told: 40526. Jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 12:36:30 PM Bush apparantly wasn't a strong enough candidate to induce Chenney to vote for him in the Texas primary. 40527. KuligintheHooligan - 9/8/2000 12:37:20 PM "Not that Clymer, schooled in the art of Times impartiality, doesn't tackle the debit side of the Kennedy ledger: his "achievements as a senator have towered over his time, changing the lives of far more Americans than remember the name Mary Jo Kopechne". Oh, well, that's okay then. 40528. KuligintheHooligan - 9/8/2000 12:37:44 PM US newsrooms are fully committed to diversity of gender, diversity of race, diversity of sexual orientation, diversity of everything except fundamental worldview: 92 per cent of journalists voted for Clinton-Gore. I'm not joking: that's the statistic. That doesn't mean 92 per cent of them are [expletives], but it does help explain why their papers are the dullest and most unreadable in the English-speaking world, with a pronounced tendency towards conformity. They're all agreed on what news is: news is "tepid applause" from Republican homophobes, not boos and jeers from tolerant Democrats. American political coverage is a private club, and it's no wonder more and more of the public just leaves 'em to get on with it. 40529. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 12:44:05 PM Real men don't repeat themselves, but I'll make an exception. 40530. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 12:47:14 PM THE AWOL INFORMATION IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND CONSERVABOTS LIKE YOU ARE IN DENIAL!!!!! 40531. rubberducky - 9/8/2000 12:47:49 PM Re: Message # 40525, etc. 40532. Ronski - 9/8/2000 12:50:33 PM Rasmussen: 16% of U.S. is philosophically libertarian, 32% centrist, etc. 40533. Wombat - 9/8/2000 12:51:01 PM Rosie: 40534. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 1:02:06 PM Absolute truth, CD?. Ridiculous. If he went AWOL, there would be a paper trail. 40535. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 1:03:42 PM rubber: As host I would appreciate it if you would act non-partisan. 40536. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 1:03:54 PM 40537. rubberducky - 9/8/2000 1:08:36 PM Stone 40538. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 1:08:46 PM He may have been working to the CIA during the time. Sometimes the best pilots did that sort of duty. 40539. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 1:09:01 PM He may have been working for the CIA during the time. Sometimes the best pilots did that sort of duty. 40540. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 1:10:48 PM (Jon Lovitz voice40541. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 1:11:15 PM (Jon Lovitz voice) "Oh yeah. I was working for the CIA. Yeah, that's the ticket." 40542. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 1:11:40 PM toys 40543. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 1:12:13 PM to the partisan host rubber, who criticizes posters he doesn't agree with 40544. rubberducky - 9/8/2000 1:19:50 PM Stone 40545. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 1:35:51 PM Wombat didn't post any personal info...he merely asked if Rosetta had served in Viet Nam, which of course from his diversionary tactics of yelling "personal info!!!" to you, we can assume he did not but feels free to poke fun of those who did. 40546. Orca - 9/8/2000 1:38:05 PM Ha ha ha ha ha ha! 40547. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 1:40:30 PM Orca: 40548. CalGal - 9/8/2000 1:46:56 PM Orca, 40549. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 1:53:43 PM I think it's hysterical Dick Cheney uses the excuse he was out of the country so he couldn't vote in 14 elections...I lived out of the country for 9 years and I voted in state and national elections by absentee ballots. Surely if little old me could manage it, a guy like Cheney ought to be able to do so. 40550. Ronski - 9/8/2000 2:08:40 PM It does seem to be turning out that while Cheney was vetting potential vice-presidential candidates, he neglected to vet himself. 40551. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 2:11:27 PM Yes...I wonder how many non-green card gardeners he hired to keep those Highland Park shrubs trimmed? 40552. Orca - 9/8/2000 2:14:44 PM Judith: I notice that the delusional levels are ripe for hilarity. For instance, he fervidly believes that Bush can just show up at NBC studios on Sunday and be put on the air, though NBC has specifically said it will refuse to do so. 40553. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 2:16:37 PM Orca: 40554. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 2:17:53 PM 40555. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 2:19:37 PM Rosie's getting more delusional by the minute. 40556. jexster - 9/8/2000 3:25:15 PM Real Plans for Real People'' 40557. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 3:30:13 PM Jeez, what is going on here? Could he be.... reinventing himself ??? 40558. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 3:39:48 PM Getting into flight school and flying supersonic (and tricky) planes like the F-102 is not a job for a coward, or a military press release writer like Algore. 40559. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 3:41:36 PM Oh grow up. 40560. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 3:45:48 PM No, Bush didn't join the Guard to run from military service. That's like accusing a person who takes a shower of not wanting to get wet. To be picked to flying fighters, pass the course, and to actually do it takes a person of decent character, intellect, reflexes, nerve...and ice water in his veins. 40561. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 3:49:05 PM Are you being coy with us, Rosie? Are you beating this dead horse because you want us to think YOU are a fighter pilot? Because I know a few fighter pilots and trust me, you sir are no fighter pilot. 40562. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 3:52:20 PM An F-102, for those who don't know, or who may have served those who flew them, was a Mach 2 interceptor that carried nuclear tipped anti-aircraft missiles and patrolled the airspace of North America for about 20 years, from the 1950s until the late 1970s. 40563. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 3:53:25 PM Judith: Were you the model for what's her name in Top Gun? 40564. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 3:55:22 PM I never saw Top Gun but I can pretty confidently say no. 40565. robertjayb - 9/8/2000 3:58:06 PM The F-102 was a fine aircraft and capable of supersonic speed stripped and going downhill. The follow-on F-106 was the Mach 2-capable real fast mother. 40566. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 3:58:13 PM The F-102 mission was to intercept Russian bombers. Especially from Cuba. So it takes a brave man to fly in the blue yonder protecting the citizens of a great country. 40567. Wombat - 9/8/2000 4:18:55 PM Rosie (who lives in Maryland): 40568. Cellar Door - 9/8/2000 4:28:11 PM Wow! Dubbya intercepted Russian bombers, justlike Tom Cruise in "Top Gun"! 40569. Jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 4:36:40 PM Rosie- The F-102 was a high altitude interceptor that was replaced by the F-106 by the time that Vietnam heated up. Since Vietnam had no high altitude bombers, I would be rather surprised to find it assigned to Vietnam duty. 40570. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 4:39:45 PM "Keeping the Soviet Bear Bombers out of American airspace was the job of the few and brave. The F-102 fighters from Texas." 40571. Wombat - 9/8/2000 4:41:16 PM Rosie: 40572. Jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 4:50:58 PM "F-102As stood alert at Bien Hoa and Da Nang in Sout Vietnam and at Udorn and Don Muang in Thailand. The F-102A was finally withdrawn from Southeast Asia in December of 1969. The F-102A established an excellent safety record in Vietnam. In almost ten years of flying air defense and a few combat air patrols for SAC B-52s, only 15 F-102As were lost. Although a few missions were flown over North Vietnam, the Southeast Asia-stationed F-102As are not thought to have actually engaged in air-to-air combat." 40573. Raskolnikov - 9/8/2000 4:52:29 PM In fact, the Corvair F102 "Delta Dagger", the USAF's first operational delta wing aircraft and world's first supersonic all-weather jet interceptor was what Castro used to kill Kennedy. It is a well-known fact that the third gunman was Raoul Castro, strapped to the landing gear while his brother Fidel's personal F102 flew over Dealy plaza. 40574. Wombat - 9/8/2000 4:55:31 PM And I was was reversing them F-102 (Delta Dagger), F-106 (Delta Dart) 40575. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 5:00:35 PM For the record, wombat, I never served in the military. I was at UConn during the late 1960s, early seventies, and had a high draft number, meaning no Alice's Restaurant defense for me. 40576. Wombat - 9/8/2000 5:08:03 PM Well thank you, Rosie. 40577. jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 5:13:40 PM Rosie- In addition to Bush defending us, don't forget we had Snoopy on the lookout for the Red Baron. 40578. Ronski - 9/8/2000 5:16:36 PM Rosie, 40579. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 5:19:22 PM That war, Ronski. The Balkan Civil War is another example of our leaders asking our military to be Hessians. 40580. Ronski - 9/8/2000 5:26:36 PM Rosie, 40581. Wombat - 9/8/2000 5:28:59 PM Rosie: 40582. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 5:32:30 PM Rosetta: 40583. RosettaStone - 9/8/2000 5:33:57 PM I don't feel badly that I didn't serve in Vietnam. I just wish that I had been born at a different age when I wouldn't have had the dilemna. 40584. Ronski - 9/8/2000 5:49:22 PM I seem to come from a long line of non-combattants. My grandfather left Europe in part not to serve the greater glory of Emperor Franz Josef in World War One. 40585. jonesatlaw - 9/8/2000 8:23:58 PM One of the biggest problems in Vietnam was the hit and miss way that people were called into the service and sent to war. I have heard people theorize that one of the reasons that GI's had difficulty in comming home was that they rotated as individuals and not in units. In WWII, the "good war" guys had time to decompress in units of guys they were familiar with before hitting civilian life. 40586. Cellar Door - 9/9/2000 1:00:54 AM "I was a conscientious objector and thus did not serve in Vietnam." 40587. Jack Vincennes - 9/9/2000 9:22:57 AM Excerpt from "Cellar's War: The View of the Average Grunt as he Endured the Southeast Asian Conflict from the Moviehouses of L.A." 40588. Indiana Jones - 9/9/2000 10:14:11 AM Gore's dubious school record 40589. Cellar Door - 9/9/2000 10:54:28 AM Actually Jack it was "The Hell of War As Experienced in the Rambles of Central park" where i enjoyed sexual congress with members of virtually every branch of the service on a weekly basis. 40590. OhioSTOPAS - 9/9/2000 11:01:31 AM Indiana J. proposes a new slogan for Dubya: 40591. jexster - 9/9/2000 11:46:59 AM GWB truly a dim bulb (25 watter I'd say) abandons his little debate charade 40592. jexster - 9/9/2000 12:00:52 PM The only thing this guy can do consistently is come up with slogans and make specious claims on issues where he is weak. 40593. jexster - 9/9/2000 12:06:02 PM Way to go Ohio! 40594. Indiana Jones - 9/9/2000 12:11:48 PM Al Gore's Gulf War vote put politics over principle 40595. jexster - 9/9/2000 12:21:48 PM Now you tell me, Who's standing on the side of the people?" Mr. Bush said. "You tell me, Whose plan is a real plan with real solutions? It's our plan. It's our plan." 40596. jexster - 9/9/2000 12:44:45 PM Indy - I suppose that your failure to mention that the article was written by Alan Simpson was inadvertant. Worse, Alan Simpson is distorting what he knows to be the truth - this sort of talk goes on all the time on the Floor. Senators forever remind their colleagues how hard this vote or that vote was even though usually they aren't. No doubt Simpson's done the same thing.W 40597. jexster - 9/9/2000 12:59:21 PM Cheney didn't even bother to vote in 14 of 16 Texas electionsAs Cheney's Problems Mount, GOP Strategists Dismayed 40598. jexster - 9/9/2000 1:16:56 PM This article from the AP makes the same point re: Bush....when he's getting his ass handed to him he reaches for a slogan and character attack. 40599. jexster - 9/9/2000 1:19:34 PM 40600. jexster - 9/9/2000 2:16:56 PM MoronSpeak for The Week Discovers Freudian Malapropism
From the American Prospect
Deconstructing the Income Distribution Debate
SYNOPSIS: Broad analysis of current Wage Disparity. Paints picture of rising inequity heightened by Reagan years and inattention. During the mid-1980s, economists became aware that something unexpected was happening to the distribution of income in the United States. After
three decades during which the income distribution had remained relatively stable, wages and incomes rapidly became more unequal. Academic researchers soon began arguing vigorously about the causes of the growth in inequality: was it global competition, government policy, changing technology, or some other factor? What nobody, whatever his or her political stripe, questioned was the fact that there had been a dramatic change in income distribution.
During 1992 this genteel academic discussion gave way to a public debate, carried out in the pages of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and assorted popular magazines. This public debate was remarkable in two ways. First, the conservative side displayed great ferocity in presenting its case and attacking its opponents. Second, conservatives chose to take an odd, and ultimately indefensible, position. They could legitimately have challenged those who have called attention to the growing dispersion of income on the grounds that nothing can, or at any rate should, be done about it. But with only a few exceptions they chose instead to make their stand on the facts to deny that the massive increase in inequality had happened.
Since the facts were not on their side, they were forced into an extraordinary series of attempts at statistical distortion.
More
The tooth fairy didn't do it.
George Bush shows up to NBC for the September 12 debate on Meet the Press. And taunts Al Gore for not showing up after he already accepted.
Bush has already fucked the pooch in the Great Debate over Debates. When ABC & CBS said to nobody's surprise that they'd not be party to the Bush scam, the jig was up.
We want real debates that everyone can see. We want the non-partisan Presidential Commission debates.
As one former Reagan/Bush speechwriter put it: "Nobody's buyin Bush's peekaboo without purpose"
Judith, go away. Cazart wants you in TT.
Not even a hint in the excerpt. Was that intended to illustrate your point, or simply to identify the book?
I need something more to justify reading it.
This is a major league faux pas by the Bushter.
Interest on the National Debt, 1999(est)$227,000,000,000
Defense Spending, 1999 276,000,000,000
It deals with the problem of increasing income disparity.
Just like Vietnam, he hide behind a typewriter in the military flak office in Saigon.
"At first glance, you might think that the US deficit problem began long before Ronald Reagan. The federal government has run a surplus in only one year out of the past thirty. Why blame Reagan for the continuing trend?
"The answer is that until the Reagan years, budget deficits were samll and economically more or less irrelevant. A simple indicator of that irrelevance is the ratio of federal debt to GDP, a measure of the size of debt compared with the size of the economy....In terms of the size of the its debt realtive to the size of its tax base, the US government was in noticeably worse shape when John F. Kennedy took office than it was when Jimmy Carter left it.
"After 1980, however, the gradual downward trend became a steep climb. The era of deficits had begun."
_______________
I've posted this stat before. Someone calculated the difference between the budgets Reagan proposed and the budgets finally passed by Congress. The difference over his presidency was .06%. I would say there is evidence that the Presidents' proposed budgets and those passed by Congress.
"...the deficit picture is significantly brighter than it appaeared one year ago when the CBO projected that the deficit would soar above $350 billion by FY 1998. CBO now projects that the fedearl budget deficit will fall from $223 billion in the current year to below $170 billion in 1996....The dramatic improvement since last January is largely the result of the enactment in August of a major package of tax increases and spending cuts -- the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993."
As you may recall, this was the tax increase that Newt and company said would put the country in the deepest recession ever. Despite much wrangling and political maneuvering, the tax package passed. (I may be wrong but didn't Gore cast a tie-breaking vote on this?) Clinton (and the smart economists he's hired) gets full credit for this one.
Don't crowd the Shrubster, he needs his rest...
WACO, Texas (AP) - It will harder to get a look at Gov. George W. Bush's ranch near Crawford.
That's because McLennan County commissioners have restricted traffic near the 1,600-acre spread.
Motorists cannot park, stop or stand along about three miles near the ranch, which is at the intersection of Prairie Chapel and Rainey roads.
If Prince Albert doesn't show up, the headlines September 13 will be AL GORE: MISSING IN ACTION
Just like Vietnam, he hide behind a typewriter in the military flak office in Saigon
As opposed to the exemplary bravery of George W. Bush.
Thank the Lord George W. Bush prevented this from happening.
We had just lost a president because of the Cubans, and LBJ wanted the best to protect his state.
By the time Bush was at the controls both pilot and plane were in the bottom 25%.
Gosh darn it, you people are pathetic.
Any military jet is dangerous. Very. Only the brave fly them. Cuba and the Soviet Union were our enemies in the 1960s and the Texas National Air Guard were part of protecting the Gulf Coast from their Bears, MiGs and submarines.
But, you can't avoid the fact that your third rate hero was in a third rate aircraft when he wasn't AWOL.
"Why would you prevent me from making that choice?"
If you're saying that my insistence that you pay for your own child's private education instead of having the state pay for it is depriving you of choice, I don't see how that can be so in a capitalist society. Tell you what--I want my child to go to an Ivy League university. I can't afford it, so let's just let the government foot the bill. After, of course, they've sent her to the elite private academy of my choice.
Regarding your response to Wombat on religion, I must point out that these schools are already in existence with these curricula. What makes you think that free government money will suddenly change that without government regulations to go along with it? And if that were to be the case, wouldn't it defeat the concept of parents choosing what type of school their children attend?
Again I think capitalism along with government-funded good, basic care for the young, old, and infirm works best here. Make sure everyone has the basics provided for them in the highest quality possible with the amount of government financial strength we have and those who choose to make a more elite or a religious private institution a priority for their kids can show their commitment by earning the extra money to pay for it.
WRT Johnny, the special needs kid, if he hasn't been harmed in your example, he sure hasn't been helped that I can see. What the sam hill good is earmarked money if he can't use it to get in the school his parents think is best for him? Are you saying he can take that money and use it however he chooses within the public schools? For private tutors? To spend however his family sees fit? But Joe Lower-middle Class' "normal" kid gets his choice of schools, whether it's Moonie Academy or Falwell High.
Again I ask you, when was the last time you flew a F-102?
They've still not found records that he reported for duty Rose although Sen. Shelby's on the case.
In short, I don't see any way that offering vouchers to private schools isn't going to open up a big can of worms with little measurable benefit for most children it's supposedly aimed at helping over that of simply letting them choose among public schools .
Lord don't they hep themselves Lawd
But when the tax man comes to the door
The house it looks like a rummage sale yall
It ain't me, It ain't me
I ain't no millionaire's son
It aint me, it ain't me
I ain't no fortunate one
Whatever you think of George W. Bush, he easily beats the pencil pushing REMF who barely showed up in Vietnam.
Darn hard stuff, if you get my drift.
And Bush was responsible for protecting our Gulf Coast from the evil empire and their lackies.
The Clinton years, in other words, have completed and locked in the Reagan revolution. They have also effectively lowered the boom on dissent. It is now more or less axiomatic that "politics" will continue to be conducted in the way creatures like James Carville conduct it -- as a managed interface between focus groups and high-tab donors, where the holders of the purse strings get to decide which questions are asked in the opinion polls and which candidates get to be chosen before you and I have any say in the matter. This process was pretty far advanced by 1992. But it's now so much taken for granted by the Republicrat duopoly that some conservatives even feel safe in questioning it.
It wouldn't be fair to say that Clinton did all this after reluctantly discovering the limitations of power, or in response to pressure from polls and the center. After all, polls consistently show strong and well-informed majorities in favor of national health insurance, and who's going to claim that the White House acted to make itself popular on that issue? (Not enough special-interest enthusiasm.) No, we were fairly warned as early as 1992 that Clinton wanted to move the party and the country to the right, and this after eight years of Reagan and four of Bush.
We are supposedly entering "legacy time," and I think history will record with some astonishment that this remorseless progress toward a corporate state was accompanied by a chorus of support from the politically correct. During the impeachment battle, for example, feminists rallied around a man who hit on the help and then trashed his conquests if they complained. African American leaders described as "our first black president" a character who as a candidate had made a point of executing the mentally deficient Rickey Ray Rector, who ditched Lani Guinier, humiliated Betty Currie, and vetoed a United Nations resolution calling for international action to forestall the genocide in Rwanda. Liberal academics and intellectuals flocked to a president who had bombed Sudan in dog-wagging style, deceived his Cabinet, taken wagonloads of off-the-record money from Indonesian and Chinese special interests, and rented Mr. Lincoln's bedroom to the fat cats.
By riding what would have been Bush's boom had 1992 not been an election year, Clintonism has obscured much of this for now. I'm sure that there are people reading this and saying to themselves: "Yeah, but what about the Supreme Court and the Christian Coalition? What about a woman's right to choose?" Those were exactly the things that had liberals waving their arms in panic when Ronald Reagan won in 1980, except that back then they expressed concern about matters like poverty and racism and the arms race and human rights as well. If you look back and think about it, you may agree that neither Reagan nor Bush instituted a microsecond of school prayer or declared a single actual fetus to be a citizen, and that neither would Dole have, and that most certainly neither will this junior Bush. But it's important for the maintenance of consensus that some people keep on being scared of what might happen and probably won't; otherwise, they would not be such easy prey for what can happen and actually has. There is even a name for this tactic -- it's called "triangulation" -- and eight years of it have been much more than enough.
And admit that the waters around you have grown
And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin
Then you better start swimin or you'll sink like Rosetta Stone
For the times they are a changin'!
Come Senators and Congressmen please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway, don't lock up the hall
For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled
For the battle outside ragin
Will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a changin'!
Socialist Hitchens is the real thing, something Demo hacks don't understand
A NATIONAL SOCIALIST!
It's a small world that they live in.
Gore did his five months behind a desk writing press releases. Bush flew hot F-102 over the coastline hunting down Soviet MiGs.
I think he's a dim bulb
The line it is drawn the curse it is cast
The slow one now will later be fast
as the present now will be past
The order is rapidly past
For the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a changin'!
You don't have a clue do you?
The mission of the Texas ANG is 1) to protect the borders against Okies 2) to search and destroy Santana's armies
On the internship, it's a term for which the student teacher is completely unpaid that is considered part of the education degree program. The teacher wouldn't teach all classes, but would take two or three of the master teacher(s)' classes and grade, tutor, attend meetings, and everything else that goes along with teaching. IOW, you don't have your own schedule, but take parts (hopefully in varying degrees of size, ability, behavior, etc) of an existing teacher or teachers' loads. It wouldn't be a full regular class load and the intern teacher is not solely responsible at any time. If he/she has problems it is up to the supervising teacher and university advisors to help. It's very much like what you describe in your TA experience.
Message # 40267
OK, on the teacher test, I didn't explain that one very well either (all right, no comments from anyone--and that means you, Rose ;->--I do better irl, I promise), partly because it's hard to keep it from being a long and complicated story. One of the big criticisms of AR teachers was incompetence on the most basic levels--that colleges had passed people with ed degrees who couldn't even do the basics in the three r's. The test was never meant to be more than a measurement of whether that was true, and teachers who failed it would be removed. They had several chances to take it, and I don't know how many failed at least once, or whether any were ultimately dismissed. It was a breeze to me and most people I knew, and I didn't pay any more attention to it. The stink raised about it by the AEA while everything else was ignored was something I found embarrassing as a teacher. Nothing changed as a result of their protests in that regard, either.
cont
And I agree with Jones, but the most important cure to the teacher shortage is the bottom line. Math majors who think they're going to be teachers have a hard time turning down signing bonuses that are larger than their first year's income would be, in addition to yearly salaries twice what they would make as teachers. This is happening in the small nearby university's math dept at an alarming rate. They get intended math ed majors who go for straight BS's or even hire out in their junior years to companies who foot the bill for their senior year in ed. It's about the same for Chem and Phys majors.
Remember that just a few years earlier Kennedy had been killed in Texas by a Soviet/Cuban mole and had put offensive weapons on AirCraft Carrier Cuba.
Only the best protected our southern flank against the infidels.
A Major League Scumbag Pitching Another Slimeball
Too bad they didn't do soimething about the rest of his face. 
Needs Hall Pass for another Iced Tea Break
So he sets a trap. He places one of his placards in a conspicuous place on the highway, and hides a video camera behind a bush. The camera clearly shows the Superintendant driving up in his truck, his own voting slogans plastered all over it, and 'close up' shows him reaching out of the truck door, snatching his opponant's sign, and slinging it into the back of his pickup, before driving off.
The video tape was on the evening news on Monday evening, and yesterday morning (election day) ! It's south of us in Bay County (Panama City), and I haven't heard the final results. But as early returns came in, he was being beaten two to one by his opponant.
A reporter went into his office on Monday and challenged him to explain his actions. The man straight facedly said..'Well, I know I shouldn't have taken his placard, but that videocamera is dirty politics' !! And the beat goes on....
You might be old enough to have been drafted. Did you serve? Fly the hot jets, hang out with the Marines?
My reading of Christopher Hitchen's ideological position in this article is that he himself appears to have more libertarian left wing tendencies than socialist ones.
I understand that Molly Ivins has published a book on the short, but happy, career of GW. She calls the book "Schrub", The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush. Have you read it?
I feel sorry for her because she has cancer.
"... if you want teachers unions to swallow the bitter medicine of merit pay and teacher testing- it will have to be administered with a spoonful of sugar to paraphrase a famous English nanny. The sugar would likely be significantly higher salaries for those who make the grade..." etc.
"For those who make the grade" -- precisely. The unions are afraid that a large percentage of their current members -- maybe more than half -- would not. If I lose my job, is it any consolation to me that the guy who replaced me is getting more money (and more power, etc.) than I used to get?
"If you are estimating a budget surplus that includes reduced interest payments due to paying down the debt, and then instead of paying down the debt you use the funds for other purposes, you can't correctly ignore the fact that the new choice you are making has the effect of raising interest expense and lowering the initial budget surplus estimate."
But that's not related to what I'm objecting to.
In the sentence I quoted, Krugman implies (or seems to be implying) that interest payments are an "extra cost." But they're not; $1 today is worth more to me than $1 tomorrow, and even more so than $1 a year from now (and I'm not talking about inflation, here). The going annual interest rate represents a market consensus about how much more $1 today is worth than $1 a year from now. If that rate is r, then there is no difference between paying back $X today and $X(1+r) a year from now; that $Xr is not an "extra cost."
Now, one could make a subtler argument as to why the government's choice of this or that option might slightly change the interest rate, by some small amount, say, delta r. Then what must be repaid a year from now would be $X(1 + r + delta r), and that $X(delta r) might be considered an extra cost. But this looks much less impressive; so Krugman, no doubt knowing full well that many readers will come away thinking $Xr is an extra cost, carries merrily on -- who cares if they're misled, as long as it makes them more likely to accept his main thesis. This, to me, looks more like the attitude of a propagandist than an economist.
Or maybe he really does think it's $Xr. I dunno.
(Meanwhile, my Shylock line -- which was the real reason I even bothered posting #40268 -- seems to have failed to bring the house down. Oh well.)
"If you're saying that my insistence that you pay for your own child's private education instead of having the state pay for it is depriving you of choice, I don't see how that can be so in a capitalist society. Tell you what--I want my child to go to an Ivy League university. I can't afford it, so let's just let the government foot the bill. After, of course, they've sent her to the elite private academy of my choice."
Well, technically speaking, yes, all of these are examples of denial of choice; but what we're discussing is whether such denial is reasonable. It's perfectly reasonable for the govt to deny you the right to choose something that would cost it (i.e. the taxpayers) more. But I don't see why it's reasonable to deny it if the cost is the same. Likewise, I don't see why it's reasonable to deny it based on a cost not borne by the govt (such as your kid having to sit through religious classes); it should be up to you, the parent, to decide whether that cost is worth the benefits.
I'm not sure I understand the 2nd paragraph, but certainly the govt regulations on participating private schools should be limited to, well, again, reasonable ones. Minimum academic standards, sure. Mandatory study of I, Rigoberta, no.
"WRT Johnny, the special needs kid, if he hasn't been harmed in your example, he sure hasn't been helped that I can see."
I wasn't claiming he was helped (if no private school accepted him). But would you oppose a policy that would help a great many, on the grounds that it doesn't help some small minority?
Well, we actually did get paid (about $1K/month --enough to subsist on -- plus a tuition waiver). Is the internship you're describing concurrent with the (4-year?) program, or does it come afterwards?
"The test [...] was a breeze to me and most people I knew, and I didn't pay any more attention to it. The stink raised about it by the AEA while everything else was ignored was something I found embarrassing as a teacher. Nothing changed as a result of their protests in that regard, either."
Well, right, nothing changed. As opposed to, say, a harder test being given the next year.
And, again, I do also agree about the bottom-line thing -- if public schools significantly raise their standards for teachers, the only (non-coercive) way to get enough candidates who meet those standards will be to significantly raise the salaries. But, again -- the unions care about their current members.
Bush's current taunting of Gore on presidential debates - both in a new television ad and in stump speeches - was also angering some Republicans, said GOP officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
While Bush's pre-emptive ``agreement'' last Sunday to participate in one formal debate and two on TV talk shows was initially cheered as bold strike by Bush, his subsequent refusal to negotiate terms on other formats with Gore was viewed with increasing concern.
Author: DEBORAH ORIN/NYP
INDIANAPOLIS - Republican George W. Bush unveiled a TV ad yesterday blasting rival Al Gore as an untrustworthy debate-dodger as the two sides angle for political advantage.
"If we can't trust Al Gore on debates, why should we trust him on anything?" asks a woman's voice.
It goes on: "Does Al Gore now mean debates depend on his meaning of 'anytime, anywhere'?"
Bush got some back-up when the American Legion's national commander introduced him at its convention and said Gore had refused to appear.
"You deserve better than that," Commander Al Lance told the vets, noting that Bill Clinton had the courage to speak to the convention about why he avoided the Vietnam draft.
Gore aides blamed schedule conflicts. Bush aides suggested Gore skipped it because its commander has said, as has Bush, that the military is weak on readiness.
At the American Legion - on a jammed four-state day reflecting the tense state of a race that is just three days old - Bush again pounded the Clinton-Gore team for letting the U.S. military slide.
"Let's get something straight - these are not criticisms of the military. These are criticisms of the current commander-in-chief and the vice president for not providing the necessary leadership," Bush said.
He'll ratchet up the readiness issue today as he stumps with Gulf War heroes Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf - reminders of his dad's administration.
Bush - who served at home as a pilot in the Texas National Guard during Vietnam - wore his Legion cap and told the crowd, "George Bush, Post 77, reporting for duty."
Guess you're what we in the biz refer to as a Lone-Star swillin Gore Bore
Welcome to the big leagues, this ain't the Bushies any more! Its da Big Show!
What a loser!
imbecile
dumbkopf
dim wit
nit wit
MORON
(Meanwhile, my Shylock line -- which was the real reason I even bothered posting #40268 -- seems to have failed to bring the house down. Oh well.)
I first thought it was a typo, then I saw who wrote it and realized it couldn't have been a mistake, then realized it was quite clever. But I didn't think of a useful response, so I simply enjoyed it and moved on. "40379. RosettaStone - 9/7/00 3:44:25 AM
The Ivins book is trash. I think she sold less than 5,000 copies.
I feel sorry for her because she has cancer."
At least she doesn't suffer from terminal stupidity! 
You might be able to suggest something over in the Anniversary thread...about listing this place in search engines? 
My five cents:
"Another big trick involves not mentioning that the tax cut will reduce the rate at which the federal debt is paid down, indirectly costing an extra $300 billion or so in interest payments."
Which two options are equivalent? Borrowing and not reducing debt? The way I interpret Krugman, that is his point exactly. And his charge is that Bush's proposal doesn't recognise that.
No shit, Shylock; of course borrowing $1 today (or not paying back $1 today) means that I'll owe $1 plus the going interest, tomorrow. But the two options are equivalent -- esp. if I'm the U.S. government, and therefore get to pay the lowest interest rate available.
I don't know if Krugman has the numbers right, of course, perhaps Bush really has somehow accounted for the higher interest payments that his plan would occour due to the higher level of government debt. But I don't see anything conceptually wrong with Krugman's statement.
In fact, go to anniversary thread and see discussion on how to promote mote. Maybe your visual talents can be used to help get more posters.
A great idea!
Vice President Algore, on CNN's "Larry King Live," 03/14/00:
VICE PRES. GORE: The second challenge is to eliminate the 30-second
and 60-second TV and radio ads, and instead debate twice a week with a different issue each time. Would you be willing to. . .to host one of the first debates, Larry?
MR. KING: Absolutely, of course.
VICE PRES. GORE: Well, I accept. I accept.
What's the problem, you Major League Assholes?
Giants lead grows to 6 1/2
Who Let the Dogs Out!
Bush League Asshole & Loser.
Next crucial sign - look for reports that the RNC is sending $$$ to their cash-starved Hill campaign committees.
Don't you think it might also be wise to haul RR out of the meat freeezer in Tarzana?
October may be too late
Mr. Gore told his audience to "read my plan," a pointed reference to the infamous pronouncement by former President George Bush, father of Mr. Gore's current rival, who told voters, "Read my lips: no new taxes."
"My plan wasn't built on cross- your-fingers economics that says we can give more to the people who already have the most and then just hope the benefits trickle down to the middle class," Mr. Gore said, again contrasting himself with the Reagan- Bush era.
To demonstrate a fiscally conservative approach, Mr. Gore said his $300 billion rainy-day fund would be a hedge against overly optimistic surplus projections.
"If today's economic forecasts fall short, this new reserve fund will guarantee that we will not have to cut education or health care," Mr. Gore said. "And unlike the promises made on the other side, we won't be running deficits and endangering America's prosperity."
Actually it would be a good idea to give the page a redesign via an
image of some sort -- say one of Dubbya created by Wiz, or some
drawing or other that would be changed on a weekly or monthly
basis.
40409. Jonesatlaw - 9/7/00 3:39:03 PM
Cellar- I would have to ask for equal time for Gore. I'm sure that
there would be plenty of Moties who would volunteer concepts for
the Wiz's work, or would seek the Wiz's skill in creating their own.
What "page" are you talking about . . ."Flack?"
Then there is the slightly chilling remark from Gore, posted above, about his opponent wanting to give "more" to the "people who already have the most."
Who is the "we" who is doing the giving? And then there is the fact that generally the people who have produced the most have the most. God forbid they should be allowed to keep it.
We, as in We The People.....
A Table Talk poster wants to know:
Why do I have visions of little rat-sized suitcases being shoved into lifeboats on the S.S. Bushtanic?
heh-heh-heh
The income distribution is measured in percentiles. For example, the first set of bars shows the rate of growth of income of the family at the 20th percentile (the top of the bottom quintile). The choice of percentiles ranging from 20 to 95 means excluding the real extremes. Some very important developments are missed by these exclusions, especially at the top. But this picture still gives us a useful baseline.
The three periods chosen are 1947-73, 1973-79, and 1979-89. The first period represents what Alice Rivlin has called the "good years" the great postwar boom generation. The remaining two periods show the "seventies" the period from the business cycle peak of 1973 to that of 1979 and the "eighties" from the 1979 peak to the 1989 peak.
What do we see in the figure? First, the 1947-73 numbers show what real, broad-based prosperity looks like. Over that period incomes of all groups rose at roughly the same rapid clip, more than 2.5 percent annually. Between 1973 and 1979, as the economy was battered by slow productivity growth and oil shocks, income growth became both much slower and more uneven. Finally, a new pattern emerged after 1979: generally slower income growth, but in particular a strong tilt in the growth pattern, with incomes rising much faster at the top end of the distribution than in the middle, and actually declining at the bottom.
In some of the conservative critiques I will describe below, apologists claim that the 1980s represented a normal process, that there was nothing unusual or distressing about the rise in inequality. As the discussion gets a bit complicated, it will be useful to retain the basic image of Figure 1:"good" growth looks like an all-American picket fence; growth in the 1980s looked like a staircase, with the well-off on the top step.
This is the starting point of Krugman's analysis in the article you can find under "American Economy" at the above link. Krugman's views in the article are also contained in a chapter of his "Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Non-Sense...."
I didn't say we should. I am no fan of Reaganomics, or Bushonomics either.
See here for more:
Bush, Gore, Medicare and The Gloomy Truth
(NY Times site, requires free registration)
It is a remarkable fact that incomes have soared so much at the top of the U.S. income distribution. But is it important? Until recently, most economists thought not; growing poverty might be an important social issue, but the fact that some people are very rich was only a social curiosity.
My own contribution to this discussion was to point out that there is a sense in which the rise in incomes at the top is in fact a major economic issue, and to offer a shorthand way of conveying that point: the now infamous "Krugman calculation" that 70 percent of the rise in average family income has gone to the top 1 percent of families....
The rise in average income relative to median should not be a surprise, given Figures 1 and 2. That is exactly what one would expect to see when incomes become more unequal, because when incomes at the top of the scale are rising faster than the average, incomes farther down must correspondingly grow less rapidly than the average. In an arithmetic sense, we can say that most of the growth in productivity was "siphoned off" to high-income brackets, leaving little room for income growth lower own. I emphasize that this is only an arithmetic point: it says nothing about the economic forces at work, in particular whether something else could or should have happened.
When I say that growth was "siphoned off" to high-income families, however, who am I talking about? Are we talking about two married
schoolteachers, whose $65,000 income is enough to put them into the top quintile? Or are we talking about Donald Trump?
Gore 48%
Bush 45%
Nader 3.5%
Buchanan 1.5%
Browne 1%
Others 1%
Gore will get more than 400 electoral votes.
To get a sense of this and, to be honest, to help attract attention to a trend that I thought had been neglected I proposed the following thought experiment. Imagine two villages, each composed of 100 families representing the percentiles of the family income distribution in a given year in particular, a 1977 village and a 1989 village. According to the CBO numbers, the total income of the 1989 village is about 10 percent higher than that of the 1977 village; but it is not true that the whole distribution is shifted up by 10 percent. Instead, the richest family in the 1989 village has twice the
income of its counterpart in the 1977 village, while the bottom forty 1989 families actually have lower incomes than their 1977 counterparts.
Now ask: how much of the difference in the incomes of the two villages is accounted for by the difference in the incomes of the richest family?
Equivalently, how much of the rise in average American family income went to the top 1 percent of families? By looking at this measure we get a sense of who was "siphoning off" the growth in average incomes, accounting for the fact that median income went up so little.
The answer is quite startling: 70 percent of the rise in average family income went to the top 1 percent.
What does this tell us? Since the 1970s median income has failed to keep up with average income or, to put it differently, the typical American family has seen little gain in spite of rising productivity. So when we speak of "high income" families, we mean really high income: not garden-variety yuppies, but Tom Wolfe's Masters of the Universe.
Wealth distribution. Wealth the assets that families own and income are different though related things. Wealth is typically much more concentrated than income: current estimates are that the 1 percent of families with the highest incomes receive about 12 percent of overall pretax income, while the wealthiest 1 percent of families has some 37 percent of net worth. Precisely because wealth is so concentrated, it is difficult to measure accurately from sample surveys: a random survey of a few hundred or even a few thousand people will contain only a handful of really wealthy people.
Nonetheless, researchers at the Federal Reserve Board have tried to use sophisticated sampling procedures to deal with this problem. For some time their surveys have shown that average wealth was rising much faster than median as in the case of income distribution, a sure sign of growing inequality. In March, 1992 they released a working paper that showed a sharp increase in the concentration of wealth even since 1983, with the share of the top 1 percent of families rising from 31 to 37 percent.
Recently, several academic researchers (Claudia Goldin and Brad DeLong of Harvard, together with Edward Wolff of New York University) have put together long-range historical estimates on wealth distribution. They suggest that the concentration of wealth in the U.S. reached a trough in the late 1970s at a level not seen since the nineteenth century, then surged rapidly back to 1920s levels. The point is that the wealth numbers confirm the general picture of a dramatic and rapid increase in economic inequality in the U.S.
(And the fact that Bush continues to make a mess of his campaign.)
Bush has Republicans running for cover...Robert Novak...the lizard strikes
"Undeniable panic is gripping partisan Republicans, from rank-and-file voters to seasoned political operatives, with two full months left before the presidential election. They are dismayed not so much about the surge by Al Gore but the loss of confidence in George W. Bush.
"This mood may reflect the very nature of the Grand Old Party. One Bush adviser puts it this way: "When Democrats face trouble, they circle the wagons; Republicans head for the tall grass." Perplexed by the boost the vice president was given by his pedestrian acceptance speech in Los Angeles, they are panicked by Bush's seeming inability to counter it."
He proposes no solution other than letting the old and the poor die.
c. Economists often blame the health insurance system for the excessive use of health care. Give your analysis of why might the use of care be viewed as "excessive"
d. What sort of policies might prevent this excessive use"
from Mankiw Priniciples of Microeconomics, Ch7
And if Bush decides to go through with next Tuesday's gambit on "Meet the Press," Gore should drop by and ask precisely that question.
What is your military record? Did you serve?
That debate shit don't flush
Small wonder the GOP suckers Bush ripped off for millions are getting worried about their investment.
...and start picking up your own toys!
Anyone who wishes to speak intelligently to the point that the rich deserve to keep their tax dollars would do well to read the excerpts. I can't help it if they don't.
i'd like to see and end to the cut-and-paste of entire articles.
i'd prefer if you post a excerpt or two (reference Greystroke in Current Events as an example) along with a link and make your point.
as an example, messages Message # 40432 through Message # 40436 are unnecessarily long. I dare say no one other than you is reading it. besides, you make no effort to string them together or even credit the author.
this must stop - this was pointed out to you over the weekend, and i thought maybe the point was made. i'd rather not step in, but will if this persists.
thank you for cooperating
(40450 was deleted and this is a repost due to toys)
Anyone who wishes to speak intelligently to the point that the rich deserve to keep their tax dollars would do well to read the excerpts. I can't help it if they don't.
then make the points yourself and don't post article after article that no one is reading anyway.
been silent about the commission's plan all year and has waited until September to announce, with a week's notice, his alternative plan. In the contest of authority, he is trying to beat something with nothing. William Saletan
You may be right, but I'm guessing that the GOP will do something to staunch the bleeding. Bush can campaign harder (he spends only minutes at some campaign stops), they can run far better ads than they have, and so on.
I would be happy to make the points myself RD without quoting, just rewording an analysis that is rather involved.
I bet I could do so and only use 25% more post space.
Nonetheless, I get your message. This is your thread.
I hope you got mine.
Do W.'s handlers really think that he can get away with (a) his arbitrary setting of the ground rules (which, of course, at its core means rejecting the now time-honored role of the Commission that sets up the Presidential Debates) and then (b) accusing Gore of being double-faced (and relying on some historically out-moded comments in doing so?)
True, there is a large core of people out there for whom this or any other election just doesn't attract their attention, but these so-called undecided VOTERS do pay more than just a modicum of attention to what is going on.
Someone up there hit the nail on the head when he/she said to watch what happens to the RNC's money shortly - if it starts going to the Congressional races, then even the true believers will have lost their faith in W.
Granted, I have a bias. And, I hardly ever see W. making his comments because I rarely watch t.v. But, I listen to the radio a lot, and he really does come over as being exceedingly shrill and simple-minded. Part of it is inflection (as in his mantra about it being the PEOPLE'S money), but overall it is just shallow.
As for his "major league asshole" comment - it was interesting to read some commentary that this is right dead on what you might expect in a fraternity milleau. Except, W. presumably would have grown out of that mode by now. At any rate, my reaction was that "it takes one to know one."
if Gore wins by a decent margin (which is looking more and more likely), what will happen to the Congress?
i'm starting to wonder if more GOPers than Lazio have something to worry about these days
(jex: yes, you point is received)
Gore will, IMO, make a big mistake if he does not appear on Larry King and insist that the first order of business is nailing down a debate schedule that is accessible to those without cable or internet. Gore can go on and roast W on W's obvious reluctance to debate in a format that includes more depth than softballs tossed by King for an hour. W's only real, though desperate, hope at this point is that Gore will give W's campaign some traction on the "Gore is untrustworthy" theme, so Gore needs to show up for the debate.
So many races depend on local factors, however. In NJ, for example, Franks is gaining on Corzine, which may make a Democrat-held Senate seat (Lautenberg's) go GOP. Corzine is prone to gaffes, and is really too far to the left for the state, while Franks is an unthreatening moderate.
You may be right about NJ, too. We'll see. Franks certainly is still behind, but I think he has the mo', if not the money.
Also, as you know, the NYS legislature is generally impervious to coattails. What is your most wildly optimistic prediction about how the NY State Senate will end up if Gore trounces Bush by twenty points?
I suspect it will be life as usual in Albany. State Senate still GOP, but not by as much. Assembly very much still Dem. Some cynics say that both sides like it that way.
What is your current take on Hillary/Ricky? (sorry, couldn't resist, but his propensity to have photo-ops taken in amusement parks or while eating outlandishly sized hot dogs, etc., really do make him seem what he is - a not very mature looking 42 (or is it 43) year old.)
I agree that both sides like it that way. They can blame the other for not passing good new laws or decommissioning bad old ones.
I think Hillary is a slight favorite now. Lazio's campaign is not catching fire with anybody, and Hillary does not seem quite the dangerous interloper that she once did to some of the state's swing voters.
I think she is actually beginning to grow on people, whereas Lazio is looking a little callow.
I give it to Hillary by three points.
"Our final empirical evidence about the state of Bushworld comes from National Review, where the editors of that conservative bastion declare up front: "The campaign is going badly for George W. Bush." Their prescription: Bush should jettison this "compassionate" stuff and start serving up red-meat conservative issues.
Even Jonah Goldberg, editor of NationalReview.com, has had his confidence shaken a bit: "I still think Gore will lose, but it is dramatically less obvious than it was just a few weeks ago. Bush is behind in the national polls. His campaign is off-stride and the press finally has an excuse to come home and beat the tar out of the Republican candidate, as its instincts normally dictate."
Perhaps. But for today, at least, it is mostly Republicans who are beating the tar out of the Republican candidate."
It is only a matter of time before the Rabid Right gets more than just restive and starts spouting off about what THEY think this election is all about.
That is when you can conclude that it will be a Gore landslide.
Presidential Vote Share
Gore .50
Bush .487
Presidential Winner Take All
Gore.562
Bush .432
NY Senate Winner Take All
Clinton .558
Lazio .429
Congressional Control
GOP House and Senate .442
GOP House, Dem Senate .010
Dem House, GOP Senate .458
Dem House, Dem Senate .087
(Yes. I know that it means nothing.)
Clymer, meanwhile, did his best to prove Bush's assessment correct. "I'm disappointed in the governor's language," he prissily told the Associated Press. As if a lifelong reporter in his 60s could be shocked to hear a grown man swear.
Tucker, who wasn't so much as his father's hard-on back then, has swallowed whole the standard-issue view of the era. Would that a Time Machine were operative to show this clown, and others like him, precisely how genteel it all was.
The era of swearing is NOW.
Lord, that was funny, the headline. It was the word "surges" that got me.
Actually, if Browne were to bound ahead of Nader as well, I would be a happy puppy.
(you somehow neglected to mention that Browne is now back to where he was month ago. Pat is on a one way path down. Couldn't happen to a more deserving soul.)
How many people involved in those tracking polls? Another way of asking whether it was more than, say, the views of three people involved in this herculean leap over.
"In the poll conducted September 4-6, Gore appears to have a slight edge among the poll's 1,259 respondents, including 777 likely voters. Among the likely voters, 47 percent said they plan to vote for Gore, the Democratic nominee for president, while 44 percent said they plan to cast ballots for GOP nominee Bush. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll has a margin of plus or minus four percentage points, meaning the two are in a statistical dead heat."
I suppose you heard what Christopher Hitchens said about Bush and the upcoming debates on the Chris Matthews' show a day or two ago. If you didn't, here it is, not exactly in his own words but the meaning is correct: "You can prep an ignorant man but you can't a stupid one." (I have to go to a meeting so I can't check all the postings to see if you already have this pearl of wisdom from Hitchens).
“There’s not a single one of us that’s not discouraged,” said Tom Slade, a former Florida legislator and state GOP chairman. “We had a 15, 20 point lead. We were just whistling down the street, and now we’re whistling past the graveyard.”
That applies perfectly to Hitchens. Cockburn and Sullivan too.
British political journalism is exactly like British cooking.
I practically ate the brown paper bag, I was so hungry.
(Thanks for taking the effort to discuss this with me, btw, since our online time is so different).
To answer your question about the one-year internship, it is in addition to, not concurrent with, the coursework. I don't know if they do it the way it was done for you, but they should. This is something that's done at UofArkansas, but I hope it takes on elsewhere, personally.
On the teacher test, its purpose was to weed out teachers who got degrees due to poor university standards in ed depts and were hired and became entrenched in the system. It wasn't meant to be an entry test, though there are several tests administered to students along the way to hopefully weed out the incompetent ones, including some kind of basic skills test that must be passed before a graduate can be issued a teaching certificate. As I said, though, the NTE, which is a very good and rigorous test to the best of my memory, is now required for all teachers in the field they will be teaching. I had to take one in both English and social studies for both to be on my teaching certificate.
The biggest obstacle to graduation for current teachers, though, from what I hear, is the new College Algebra requirement. Bob (my husband--a h/s math teacher) says they should be required to take Calculus, too, then maybe they will produce better math students for him.
On private school vouchers, my main problem is with government money being used to subsidize private businesses or religious institutions. I know it's done in some other cases and I don't like that, either.
On a related subject: Just saw an interesting news report on ABC, btw, on the imminent shortage of principals. It's become a thankless job, and the $75-100,000 a year salaries aren't enough to keep them any more. I wouldn't be a principal if my salary were a million a year.
Well, like I said, I dunno whether he meant $Xr or not. The way he phrased it screams yes; his professional reputation, of course, screams no. But if he knows it's not $Xr yet phrases it so many readers will think it is, that's pretty bad, too.
Dusty, #40400:
Heh. Thanks. If it put a smirk on even one person's face, it was worth posting after all.
300, #40404:
I meant that borrowing and not borrowing are equivalent. Sorry if my phrasing wasn't clear.
Ronski, #40447:
That is pretty funny. (Though I think I do know at least one person who has a high-speed modem, but no cable.)
Cellar, #40486:
Actually, the most telling bit is that you can't tell the difference between "in his 60s" and "in the 60s".
"... the one-year internship [...] is in addition to, not concurrent with, the coursework."
I'm not so sure that's a good idea. Who wants to spend an extra year unpaid? This might be just as great a contributing factor to the lack of good candidates as the higher salaries and signing bonuses in other fields.
"On private school vouchers, my main problem is with government money being used to subsidize private businesses or religious institutions."
Not subsidize as much as simply do business with, really. You don't insist that the Air Force should make its own planes, do you? Or that government offices should only be built by govt-owned construction firms and lit with electricity from govt-owned utilities, that civil servants only use govt-manufactured computers running a govt-designed OS, print stuff out only on paper from govt-owned mills, while sipping coffee made from govt-grown beans, with cream from govt-milked cows?
And there is no a priori good reason that I can see for the govt not to do business with religious institutions, if they happen to be able to offer some service that the govt needs performed (such as teaching children to read and write) -- as long as they're not given any special favors because they are religious institutions.
As I write this, there hasn't been a post here in over 5 hours. Right now, for whatever reason, this is The Slow Thread.
And yes, this conversation is winding down, esp. since I'm going out of town for a few days (though perhaps others might wish to continue it). See y'all sometime next week.
"What's next, after the mayor of San Jose admits to an affair with a co-worker? There could be a rise in your electric bill...."
Joezan's apparent point in his Message # 40410 is that Al Gore is - as George W. Bush contends - reneging on an offer to debate on Larry King Live.
However, the quoted exchange is clearly an offer by Gore to engage in a lengthy series of debates, only one of which would be on Larry King's show. At least in this case, Bush's claim to be accepting an offer Gore has made is phony.
Ohio - Message # 40502:
Actually, I didn't see your question.
But then, it was a rather stupid question, wasn't it?
Because the argument from your side has been, for whatever reason, that the Larry King Show is not the appropriate place for a debate - not that it's not the place for a first debate.
Furthermore, in March, when Pinocchio made this statement there was no talk of 5 debates - it was months later that GWB made that challenge. Hence, it is only reasonable to assume that Algore's promise to make King's show the setting of ...one of the first (debates) did not exclude the chance that it would be the first.
I'm just surprised Pinocchio hasn't yet denied making the statement.
It's the difference between a jet jock F-102 fighter and a PR news release writer. 
Worst WH press secretary in the history of the Republic.
Aircraft Carrier Cuba was a dagger in the stomach of oil-rich Texas. LBJ knew it and kept his best here.
Bush flew the military jets protecting the country. Gore re-wrote lying press releases telling the jaded press corp in Siagon that we were winning the Vietnam War.
The second rate guys went to Vietnam? Tell John McCain.
You just can't stand the fact that Bush was military-jet fighter, Gore was a PR flack protecting his boss.
Still the case.
"STAND well back. Bush has - gasp! - "gone negative". He has unleashed - aaargh! - "the politics of personal destruction". And what's more, the guy he's personally destroying is a blameless journalist. As every TV viewer in America knows by now, while up on the podium waiting to speak, genial George Dubya spotted a familiar face in the crowd. Forgetting there was a microphone mere inches from his plastic smile, the governor chortled to Dick Cheney: "There's Adam Clymer, major-league a****** from The New York Times." "Oh, yeah, he is," agreed Cheney. "Big time."
Anyway, Bryant Gumbel, the widely unwatched CBS anchorman, was not impressed: "Bush may have even taken yet another step backwards by sticking his foot in his mouth with a vulgar comment." On this issue, Bryant knows whereof he speaks. The grand panjandrum recently interviewed a Christian conservative about the Supreme Court decision on gay scoutmasters, at the end of which he handed over to the weather guy. Unfortunately, the camera lingered on him just long enough to catch him dismissing his interviewee as a "f***ing idiot".
But it seems it's one thing for a media [expletive] to call a conservative an [expletive], quite another for a media [expletive] to be characterised as such by a conservative [expletive]. The expletive in question, Adam Clymer, is after all the acclaimed author of Edward M Kennedy: a Biography, in which he salutes his subject "not just as the leading senator of his time, but as one of the greats in history . . . a lawmaker of skill, experience and purpose rarely surpassed since 1789". (cont)
But the assholian status of Mr Clymer is not under serious investigation. Instead, on the news shows, the clip of Dubya's frightful lèse-majesté has been broadcast again and again. The benign explanation is that, well, you know how the networks tend to play up anything they get on video. But there's all kinds of stuff they get on video that mysteriously never makes it to air. While I was mooching about the Democratic Convention last month, six Boy Scouts walked out on stage to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. They were booed by delegates. "It was pretty insensitive," said one - not about the booing but about the decision to let the Scouts appear at the convention in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling permitting the organisation to exclude openly gay scoutmasters. So there were the rank and file of the Democratic Party jeering half a dozen bewildered young boys. This is amazing, I thought, and assumed ABC, CBS, NBC et al would be on top of the issue. But no, not a peep. The New York Times and Washington Post likewise considered it unworthy of mention.
By contrast, when gay Congressman Jim Kolbe addressed the Republican Convention, the Times devoted no fewer than four stories to his reception. As he spoke, 12 members of the Texas delegation, being disapprovers of homosexuality, quietly bowed their heads in prayer. Even worse, most of the rest of those hard-hearted Republicans "offered only tepid applause", tutted the Times. "Tepid applause"! Is there no end to the hate these bigots aren't prepared to spew? (cont)
William Powers summed it up beautifully in the National Journal: "The journalistic establishment is like one big pretentious snot-nosed French waiter, and it's time for America to hurl a glass of ice water in its face and give it the boot." Calling 'em a******s is an excellent start. Way to go, Dub!" [END]
Both candidates served their country.
After Gore almost fled to Canada, Gore's senator daddy got him a press aide job in the army and he did five months in Siagon with two military guards protecting him. One of them, who was given a camera and told to watch over favorite son military PR flack, recently talked about it in a L.A. Times story.
George Bush took incredible risks learning to fly a jet fighter and protecting the motherland from the communist menace to the south.
Our military was concerned about an attack from Cuba. Less than five years earlier, a Cuban/Soviet-sponsored killer had murdered our President.
This AWOL disinformation is pure bs and everyone knows it.
well, someone had to pick up the cheerleading from concerned.
Real men who ask others on this thread whether or not they have flown jet fighters should be prepared to answer the same question. What did you do during the (Vietnam) War, Rosie?
You just don't like it that he was like Hans Solo and took "risks" defending the country flying the single-seater, hot-fighter jets against the real Evil Empire.
host i may be, that doesn't preclude me from participating.
when i post as host, i make that clear from when i am not.
now, if you still don't like it, too bad. every host posts in a non-host fashion at theMote. get used to it.
re: invasion of privacy.
I would you like to inform Wombat, who lives near me in Maryland, that I don't give out personal information about myself on the internet.
Thank you
i never claimed non-partisan status did i? just that i am a fair host – which i am.
as for Wombat, which post contains personal information? if he didn't post such information, then i have no idea of what it is s/he has done wrong. you must be specific.
Funniest Post of the Year (Unintentional Stupidity Division): I would you like to inform Wombat, who lives near me in Maryland, that I don't give out personal information about myself on the internet.
Stick around...he tops himself frequently.
Heavens, I'm embarrased. I missed that one completely.
Cellar: What I note most about the Bush AWOL matter is that if these same simple facts in your Message # 40536 existed on the record WRT to Al Gore, we'd be hearing demands for congressional investigations, Dan Burton would be out shooting melons again, the RNC faxes would be whirring, and the Fox talk shows would natter endlessly about it. Democrats just don't have the Repubs' lust for hand-to-hand-kick-em'-in-the-nuts combat.
Yes, and the delusion that should Bush do so, it is Al Gore that would suffer!
The question of the day: Did White House Joe Liehard resign because he was caught fibbing on whether or not Bill Clinton shake hands and talked to Castro yesterday in NYC. At first the White House said it didn't happen.
Of course it all depends on your definition of "shaking hands."
The Cuban dictator is obviously grateful to Clinton for sending back his love child to the motherland.
I guess the fact that the Dubbya's election prospects are going south has unhinged him.
Who writes this guy's slogans???????????????????
Bush did it, on his own, and did it well. I have talked to 102 and 106 pilots and they said it was nice plane, a joy to fly, but not easy or forgiving. No room for error. And yes, some F-102 groups went to Vietnam but the red menace from Cuba was real and threatening.
Of course the other major presidential candidate did write terrific press release about the Viet Cong body counts and how we were winning their Civil War.
Did you serve in Vietnam? y/n
If so, what arm of the service: Army y/n; Navy y/n; Air Force y/n; Marines y/n; Coast Guard y/n.
If so, did you see combat? y/n
By the way, based on your postings over the years, the biggest leaker of personal information about yourself is...you.
Guess I'm changing my vote. We want a man like that for president, don't we folks?
So says Major Gravitas
You are conflating the F-102 Delta Dart and the F-106 Delta Dagger. The F-102 topped out at Mach 1-something (810 mph), did not carry nuclear air-to-air missiles and was in front line service until 1960.
Its job was to fly up very high to attack Soviet bombers of the era, which were propellor-driven Bears. From the description given on the USAF Museum web site, the F-102's guidance system did most of the work, even firing the plane's missiles when locked onto its target. It carried no cannon armament, so air-to-air combat with fighters may have been a risky proposition.
The fighters that followed it (F-104, F-106) were almost twice as fast.
This source confirms that F-102's were removed from Vietnam before Bush started flying them. Further, they were being phased out of Guard service while Bush was flying them:
"Large-scale retirement of the F-102A from the ANG began in late 1969 and continued throughout the 1970s. The last F-102A finally left ANG service in October of 1976, when the 199th FIS of the Hawaii ANG traded in their Delta Daggers for F-4C Phantoms. Most of the retired F-102As ended up in the boneyards at the Davis-Monthan AFB storage facility. Many were subsequently converted into remote-controlled drone aircraft. "
Source-F-102
Our involvment in the Vietnam Civil war was illegal, immoral and I hated both LBJ and Nixon for getting us in and not getting us out.
I'm embarrassed now that I didn't serve and wish that I had been born in another era when we weren't the world policemen.
I've encouraging my oldest son, who is working on his Eagle project in the Boy Scouts, to do military/peace corps service between prep school and college but his mother thinks otherwise. Unfortunately service now is a "caste system" problem for some middle class parents.
Not me. I would like all five kids to do it, if only to help us pay some of the bills for college afterwards.
Time will tell if that happens.
Where do get off insulting Al Gore, who probably felt about the same as you did about Vietnam, but went anyway; while defending George Bush, who supported the war, as long as he didn't have to fight in it. He took the middle option, which I guess is better than some, and his time in the Guard was certainly less safe than, say, Dan Quayle's.
Since you will probably ask, I was 11 in 1968.
I gather your position is that while the war was immoral it was also wrong not to go fight it? That service to one's country trumps objections to the war?
Or do I misunderstand your post?
I feel differently about the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
I understand your reasoning about your children serving today, about the class distinctions, and also about the difference between the Gulf War and Kosovo, but I did not understand why you felt badly about not having served in Vietnam.
I was a conscientious objector and thus did not serve in Vietnam. I do not have any particular negative feelings about those who did. I respected their decision.
Yet I have wondered what the Vietnam experience would have been like, and have had long discussions with men who served (and also with some women who were there as nurses). I am aware that I missed something that was of critical importance to many in my generation. But I do not feel badly about not going. I think I made the right decision.
The last time the US was not in some way the world's policeman was in the 1890s.
You have such gall. I don't want to hear another word from you about Al Gore's service to his country or George Bushs, either.
My father, who retired a colonel in the NY National Guard and served in the 77th Army division during WWII winning many medals fighting the Japanese in the Northern Marinas (Siapan) and Okinawa, thought I was stupid not to go into the ROTC when I first started at UCONN. By the time I was a senior in Storrs, he was glad I hadn't.
His brother was sent to the Italian Front, and managed, much like the Czech national hero, the Good Soldier Schweik, to cause so much trouble they sent him way back behind the lines and made him bake bread.
My father was an inspector in the Signal Corps in World War Two and never got to see anything but factories in the Midwest.
I just said no, and the selective service said okay. Funny thing was that when I was called up to do alternative service such as emptying bedpans in a U.S. hospital, I answered, correctly, the question about homosexual tendencies, and was promptly awarded a 4-F.
No queers near our bedpans!
If I'd only known.
In addition, nearly everybody went in WWII. My father in law was drafted despite the fact that he was over 30, was married and had two kids and one on the way.
And I was a Big Fag who didn't serve in Vietnam because the military considered me far too immoral to be entrusted with the responsibility of raping and murdering Southeast Asian peasant.s
"Dark as night, every step brings a crackle of popcorn or the goo of old soda. A minute into the march, I'm at my post, riveted as Bruce Dern strips and enters the ocean naked and despondent. I turn to Sergeant Kubrick, but he clamps a hand over my open mouth and says, 'It's about the duality of man.' 'Dinky Dau, motherfucker,' I say back, and settle in for another double feature of hell on earth."
Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of ''Inventing Al Gore,'' he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard).
I LOVE the Navy!
"Vote for Bush - Gore isn't THAT much smarter!"
Against campaign reform -came up with a slogan ("reformer with results") and a buddhist temple ad.
Against Patient's Bill of Rights - ran ads, made claims that he led the fight in Texas for a PBR, when he actually vetoed the bill several times, only to sign it when the Legislature removed enforcement provisions. The Texas PBR may be useful for Bush's shameless huckstering and perhaps toilet paper in a pinch but other than that, not much.
Poorly Conceived Policy Initiatives - to deal with the growing perception that his "new ideas" are just so much Texas steer shit, what did the Moron do but come up with a slogan "real plans for real people"
Not only is he one of the least capable men to run for President in 100 years, he is fundamentally dishonest.
UR state's now a dead heat
"Damn it, Howard! If I don't get 20 minutes tomorrow, I'm going to vote the other way."
Yup Howdy Doody's short on substance, not terribly bright, but he's always got an inane slogan at the ready.
This is Senate Floor small talk. Senators don't make vote deals this way. Simpson's full of crap but the bad thing is that he knows he is and doesn't care.
He did it with McCain. He's doing it now. The more you see of Bush, the more you realize that he's a dissembling little twit. You simply cannot trust the guy, and not in the sense that you can't trust him to follow through on this or that, as for most politicians. GWB isn't to be trusted in what he says at the time he's saying it.
Its almost pathological.
"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness."--Ibid.
40601. jexster - 9/9/2000 2:17:16 PM
toys
40602. Indiana Jones - 9/9/2000 2:27:52 PM
jexster: Anyone who reads the article will discover its author, even without looking at the byline: it's a first-person account.
"Senators don't make vote deals this way."
You should write to Simpson and explain to him how such deals actually work.
40603. OhioSTOPAS - 9/9/2000 2:38:12 PM
Please. The link in Message # 40594 is an ugly lie by an ugly liar.
40604. Indiana Jones - 9/9/2000 2:40:07 PM
Congresswoman Disclaims Gore Comment
A black congresswoman who asserted Vice President Al Gore has a low ``Negro tolerance level'' backed off Friday, saying the claim was in a draft statement not meant to be released.
Rep. Cynthia McKinney's office issued a statement on Aug. 29 related to a lawsuit brought by three black Secret Service agents in which she said Gore's ``Negro tolerance level has never been too high.''
``I've never known him to have more than one black person around him at any given time,'' said McKinney, D-Ga.
Guess McKinney got the Loretta Sanchez treatment.
40605. Indiana Jones - 9/9/2000 2:40:17 PM
Toys
40606. robertjayb - 9/9/2000 3:06:57 PM
.
Gore Holds His Lead...NEWSWEEK’s new poll shows his post-convention momentum continuing...
"September 9 — Vice President Al Gore leads Texas Gov. George W. Bush by a margin of 47 percent to 39 percent among registered voters, according to a new NEWSWEEK poll. In a poll of likely voters, the margin remains the same, with Gore besting Bush 49 percent to 41 percent."
40607. robertjayb - 9/9/2000 3:07:40 PM
rats
40608. robertjayb - 9/9/2000 3:08:36 PM
?
40609. robertjayb - 9/9/2000 3:32:59 PM
.
Bush Rejuvenates at Texas Ranch, Readies for Battle
"We are going to keep George W. Bush on the defensive," one Gore aide said. "He has run mainly on his charm. We are going to squeeze the charm out of him."
heh-heh
40610. robertjayb - 9/9/2000 3:39:25 PM
.
In state polls (Reuters):
-In New Hampshire, Gore and Bush were deadlocked at 42 percent apiece in an WMUR-University of New Hampshire poll. The poll of 786 likely voters was taken Sept. 1-6 and has an error margin of 3.5 percentage points. Earlier polls were already showing the race close.
-In Illinois, Gore was at 44 percent and Bush at 40 percent in a Chicago Sun-Times-Fox News Chicago poll. The poll of 600 likely voters was taken Tuesday and Wednesday and has an error margin of 4 percentage points, making the race statistically tied.
-In Texas, Bush led 53 percent to 30 percent in a Scripps Howard Texas Poll.The poll of 1,000 adults taken Aug. 7-30 had an error margin of 3.5 percentage points, larger for subgroups like registered voters.
40611. vonKreedon - 9/9/2000 4:54:03 PM
Mr. Gore! Please don't squeeze the Charmin'!
40612. Cellar Door - 9/9/2000 6:34:08 PM
40613. robertjayb - 9/9/2000 8:04:10 PM
.
Any doubts about why Halliburton seemed eager to be particularly generous with the departing Mr. Cheney?
Cheney's Firm Profited From 'Overused' Army...The Washington Post
"Brown & Root has done $2 billion worth of logistics business since winning an exclusive Army contract in 1992 and stands to do another $1.2 billion by 2004. "The first person to greet our soldiers as they arrive in the Balkans and the last one to wave good-bye is one of our employees," Cheney said in an interview last year with The Economist magazine.
"A long-time defense contractor, Brown & Root has deployed employees to Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Hungary, Albania, Croatia, Greece, Somalia, Zaire, Haiti, Southwest Asia and Italy to support Army contingency operations since 1992. As of this week, the company had 13,130 employees in the Balkans--about 90 percent of them local hires, the rest from the United States, often retired military."
40614. CalGal - 9/10/2000 11:12:02 AM
It is interesting to see that Cheney is tanking, lately.
40615. Cellar Door - 9/10/2000 11:22:09 AM
A lot sooner than I would have expected too.
Politics aside, there's a world of difference between being a behind-the-scenes power player and operating in an upfront position. He suffers particulrly in comparasion to Lieberman's bouncy affability.
I guess we're doomed to a politics of PR, with actual issues and ideas tossed to the four winds. And on that level Gore-Lieberman is in the best position to win.
40616. CalGal - 9/10/2000 11:27:51 AM
Politics aside, there's a world of difference between being a behind-the-scenes power player and operating in an upfront position.
I agree. So does Maureen Dowd, in The Tao of Dick
Never choose a back-room guy you think would be good at governing, because if he's lousy at politicking, he may never get to the governing part.
I still dislike Lieberman intensely, but apparently he makes everyone "feel good".
40617. Cellar Door - 9/10/2000 12:06:11 PM
I have numerous reservations about Lieberman too. But where the pubber hits the road he's a practical politician. he made that clear weeks ago when he said that he was there to support Al Gore and Gore's positions -- even if he differed with some of them for one reason or another. In other words he's a professional, not an ideologue. And so is Al.
The chimp and the robot are professionals too.
Working for the "private sector."
40618. CalGal - 9/10/2000 12:20:39 PM
Ancedote.
A presidential adviser was fresh from persuading the French government to smash the "French connection" by which heroin destined for America was refined from Turkish opium in Marseilles. Boarding a helicopter to bring his glad tidings to President [name withheld], the adviser, [name withheld], who then still had Harvard's faith in government efficacy, found himself traveling with cabinet member [name withheld], embodiment of University of Chicago realism about powerful appetites creating markets despite governments' objections. When ]the adviser] (who tells this story) told [cabinet secretary]about his achievement, this conversation ensued.
Cabinet sec, dryly: "Good."
Adviser: "No, really, this is a big event."
Cabinet sec, drier still: "Good."
Adviser: "I suppose you think that so long as there is a demand for drugs, there will continue to be a supply."
Cabinet sec: "You know, there's hope for you yet."
Name the president, the adviser, and the cabinet secretary.
40619. stostosto - 9/10/2000 12:34:07 PM
President: von Kreedon
Adviser: stostosto
Cabinet sec: CalGal
40620. stostosto - 9/10/2000 1:06:11 PM
Oh, shoot, I was planning to cut back on my inbred references...
40621. arkymalarky - 9/10/2000 1:07:52 PM
Well, good luck to you Sto. That's an impossible goal for an Arky, I'm afraid.
40622. stostosto - 9/10/2000 1:08:40 PM
Chicken.
40623. JudithAtHome - 9/10/2000 1:16:25 PM
Tucker Carlson needs to cut his hair...he's lost so much weight, that huge mop on top of his head is making him look even younger than he did as a chubby, cherubic pontificator.
40624. RosettaStone - 9/10/2000 2:18:31 PM
"I have listened to the tape and I'm not sure if Mr. Gore is saying James Riady--or Dottie, or Lottie, or even John Gotti."
--Democratic congressman Henry Waxman
Absolutely priceless quote. Classic Clinton/Gore-defender strategy.
40625. JudithAtHome - 9/10/2000 2:27:30 PM
Was anyone watching CNN just now? Chrisrine Amampour was interviewing Arafat and I looked away to take a phone call and next thing I know, he is walking off the set....what happened? He was arguing with her about "her people"...
And does Arafat have Parkinsons?
40626. RosettaStone - 9/10/2000 2:30:51 PM
LOL! Do you know how few people watch CNN? Less than 200,000 prime-time. It's one of the reasons they just fired Clinton-buttboy Rick Kaplan as their news president. Tom Johnson is next.
40627. JudithAtHome - 9/10/2000 3:00:18 PM
Look, you jerk...I watch CNN on SUNDAY MORNINGS...that is what I am asking about.
For someone who was crowing about how many people would tune in to watch your flyboy Bush on Larry King...ON CNN...you seem to be sending mixed signals now with your glee at how few actually watch the network. Which is it? Do millions watch or do fewer that 200,000?
40628. PelleNilsson - 9/10/2000 3:29:50 PM
Yes, Arafat is thought to have Parkinsons's disease.
40629. JudithAtHome - 9/10/2000 3:31:08 PM
Thank you, Pelle.
40630. thoughtful - 9/10/2000 4:32:08 PM
"40299. Jonesatlaw - 9/6/00 4:32:59 PM
Could some of the number literate and econ savy Moties address what the economic effect of Gore's $300 billion nest egg would be? Would it take money out of circulation? What would it do to interest rates, inflation etc? I'm asking for classical theory first, then you all can dazzle the dullards with competing models."
As I said earlier, the $300B nest egg is really just a surplus that is used to pay down the national debt -- national debt being the stock of previously accumulated deficits.
Keynes would tell you that the government should run a deficit, boosting aggregate demand, when the economy is growing too slowly and a surplus, shrinking aggregate demand, when the economy is growing too quickly. The idea is to use the federal budget as a countercyclical balance wheel. Today's economy is growing too fast in the opinion of many economists so the budget surplus is appropriate. By reducing aggregate demand, the surplus is helping to reduce the inflation rate. The surplus is also helping to lower interest rates in two ways:
40631. thoughtful - 9/10/2000 4:49:12 PM
In terms of the effect on money in circulation, the Fed is the final arbiter of that. The treasury has been buying up long-term treasury bonds -- one reason why the interest rates on long T-bonds is as low as it is -- which has the effect of putting money into the system. But the Fed is capable of sterilizing that with its own open market activities.
Here are some other reasons for using the projected surpluses to pay down the debt:
40632. Indiana Jones - 9/10/2000 4:56:55 PM
Long Washington Post article on the lameduck:
"He came into office as the Man From Hope, and Clinton plainly hopes to leave that way as well. But there is one theme that has snaked darkly around and under the optimistic image Clinton seeks to project to the world. It is grievance.
"In September two years ago, Clinton summoned his Cabinet to apologize for the Lewinsky affair, and he made a startling admission: He had been angry nearly every day of his presidency.
"I told him in our interview that I was astonished to learn that he had harbored this much resentment, and asked him if he did still. 'I'm not by nature an angry person,' he said, adding, 'I work on it all the time.'"
40633. jexster - 9/10/2000 5:24:15 PM
There is a split in the GOP about how to stem the steady tide toward Gore. One camp argues that they cannot win on issues as Clinton proved for 8 years. So guess what this camp wants to do? Just what they did for the past 8 - character assassination, trivia, sleaze
Here
40634. jexster - 9/10/2000 5:28:02 PM
Looks like its gonna be slime, slander & slogans for 2 months
40635. dusty - 9/10/2000 6:15:49 PM
thoughtful
As I said earlier, the $300B nest egg is really just a surplus that is used to pay down the national debt -- national debt being the stock of previously accumulated deficits.
If Gore's "nest egg" is to be used to pay down the debt, then it is an inapt term. It may be a politically savvy selection, but it is misleading.
Keynes would tell you that the government should run a deficit, boosting aggregate demand, when the economy is growing too slowly and a surplus, shrinking aggregate demand, when the economy is growing too quickly.
My recollection is that one problem with this proposal is the lag time between realizing that a deficit/surplus is needed, and the actual implementation.
Do you:
40636. jexster - 9/10/2000 6:21:25 PM
Prosperity for America's Families - Download Your Very Own in Adobe Format Today!
40637. jexster - 9/10/2000 6:25:56 PM
Actually, I think its an inaccurate simplification that Keynes advocated only the use of fiscal policy - surpluses and deficits, to manage aggregate demand.
He placed greater reliance on monetary policies except in the most serious situations where monetary policies alone would be ineffective.
Keynes was a monetarist!
40638. jexster - 9/10/2000 6:33:53 PM
Gore's plan to set aside $300 million is not a deficit reduction feature. Its a reserve fund intended to help defray unexpected expenses or deal with economic slowdowns.
Its not really a new idea. Many states and cities who do not have the luxury of running deficits are taking advantage of the Clinton Boom establishing "rainy" day funds as a slight hedge against Bush's election, Voodoo Economics, earthquakes, hurricanes or other natural disasters
40639. dusty - 9/10/2000 6:43:26 PM
jexster
Actually, I think its an inaccurate simplification that Keynes advocated only the use of fiscal policy - surpluses and deficits, to manage aggregate demand.
Did someone make such a claim?
40640. dusty - 9/10/2000 6:47:18 PM
jexster
Gore's plan to set aside $300 million is not a deficit reduction feature. Its a reserve fund intended to help defray unexpected expenses or deal with economic slowdowns.
I hadn't heard this. If true it's incredibly stupid. I presumed that Gore had some advisors with a clue. Can you provide a link to this claim? I'd hate to report this silliness to my friends, and then learn that the claim isn't true.
40641. dusty - 9/10/2000 6:54:58 PM
jexster
I just realized you did link in their plan.
And yes, they included a reserve fund. They really are this stupid!
40642. dusty - 9/10/2000 7:29:58 PM
As jexter points out, many cities and states do maintain rainy day funds. They are typically restricted from running a deficit, so this is a prudent decision for them. It also makes sense for households to have a rainy day fund, as most households do not have the authority to issue money. But a Federal rainy day fund? A gimmic, just like the use of the term "lock-box"; an attempt to sound prudent, while peddling nonsense.
40643. rubberducky - 9/10/2000 7:36:54 PM
so what (and why) should be done with the surplus, dusty?
40644. dusty - 9/10/2000 7:46:17 PM
rubberducky
I'd like some combination of tax-cuts and debt reduction. (No, I haven't given much thought to the optimal mix). Of course, this isn't saying very much, as both major candidates have promised this. But I don't like creating a flim-flam category like a reserve fund, and pretending that this is economically rational.
40645. dusty - 9/10/2000 7:49:58 PM
From the Gore-Lieberman document:
In fact, by the end of September, we will have paid back $360 billion of debt over three years – the largest three-year debt pay down in history.
How should one interpret this claim? If you had 10,000 in credit card debt, paid off 2000, but added 1700 in new charges, bringing your debt to 9,700, would you say you've paid down your debt by 2000 or 300? I think most honest people would say 300.
But I don't believe this is the nature of their claim. I don't think they are looking at either the gross redemption of bonds, or even the net redemption. I think they are comparing to what they might have spent. To put it in terms of the credit card comparison, it is as if you were thinking about buying a big screen TV for 2000, which would bring your debt up to 12,000, but you decided against it, and declared that your current debt of 9700 is 2300 below what it might have been had you spent according to your plan. Does anyone have a spouse who would accept this "argument"?
Are there any voters who will accept this claim?
Someone please let me know if there is a more credible explanation of their claim.
40646. dusty - 9/10/2000 8:00:16 PM
There are quite a few positive aspects of the Gore-Lieberman plan. it is nice to see relatively more emphasis on tax cuts and debt deduction in comparision to the economic proposals of Demcrats in the past.
40647. Spartan - 9/10/2000 8:25:28 PM
There is a wealth of information on these topics at www.context.co.nz -really worth checking out.
40648. Spartan - 9/10/2000 8:28:47 PM
40649. CalGal - 9/10/2000 8:30:32 PM
Here's the Context link.
Are you from New Zealand, Spartan?
40650. CalGal - 9/10/2000 8:31:02 PM
Whoops. I should refresh. Sorry.
40651. dusty - 9/10/2000 8:32:00 PM
Interesting site
40652. RosettaStone - 9/10/2000 8:54:48 PM
So it has come to this from the old gay lady?
Drudge is posting that babyPinch's NYTimes will be reporting tomorrow that President Bush never taught his sons to use condoms.
40653. Cellar Door - 9/10/2000 9:52:26 PM
No condoms? Uh-oh. What's next? A bastard or an HIV diagnosis?
40654. jexster - 9/10/2000 11:12:40 PM
Bush Road Kill on Campaign Trail - Race is Over
40655. robertjayb - 9/11/2000 12:54:12 AM
.
Dead Heat In Florida...Bush, Gore Tied
"In a recent Portrait of America (POA) telephone survey of Florida’s likely voters, Al Gore and George W. Bush are in a dead heat, each with 43% of the vote.
"The candidates have swapped places since POA’s last poll, which showed Bush in the lead with 42% to Gore’s 35%.
"Rasmussen Research conducted the survey of 507 likely voters in Florida on September 7, 2000. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is +/- 5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence."
40656. jexster - 9/11/2000 1:11:10 AM
From the Gore-Lieberman document:
In fact, by the end of September, we will have paid
back $360 billion of debt over three years – the
largest three-year debt pay down in history.
How should one interpret this claim?
One shouldn't. The quoted statement is a clear, unambigous interpretation of undisputed fact as is the sentence which follows. It too is an unambigous statement of undisputed fact - for the first ime in generations we have begun to pay back our debt.
The statements need no interpretation. They are clear. They are factual. They do not magically become less clear, or less acurate by inventing new facts as you do in your patently false analogy.
We can draw inferences from facts. For example, it is reasonable to infer that during the Clinton administration the fiscal condition improved to a point where the government could pay back rather than refinance debt.
You don't need analogies or interpretation. You just need to learn some facts!
40657. jexster - 9/11/2000 1:21:23 AM
Just the facts m'am!
From the Depty Treasury Secty's Statement Re: August Quarterly Refinancing
By the end of this fiscal year, we will have achieved three straight years of unified budget surpluses -- a feat unimaginable just a few years ago. The unified surpluses for the three years are estimated to total over $400 billion. These surpluses cap the longest series of improvements in budget results in the history of the United
States.
As the President announced on Monday, this year we will pay down $221 billion of publicly held debt. This reduction in our publicly held debt consists of a reduction of $210 billion of privately held marketable debt and $11 billion of nonmarketable debt. In all, this will bring us to a total reduction in publicly held debt of
approximately $360 billion in just three years.
The Clinton administration is fiscally responsible. Sound fiscal policy produced surplus. Surplus permits debt payback. The Reagan/Bush administration based its fiscal policy on economic quakery. They ran up debt the likes of which this country has seen only in major war. The federal debt grew to unimagiable proportions. Debt service alone cost over 200 billion each year and was the second largest government expenditure.
Reagan Bush Fiscal mismanagement ---->massive deficits ------> new debt required to pay interest on existing obligations -------> huge debt service requirements crowd out private investment ------> economic stagnation
Clinton-Gore Fiscal Management ------> reduced government demand in credit markets ------> lower interest rates ------> economic expansion -------> surplus -------> reduce principal for first time in generations
Got it? Sure you do.
40658. jexster - 9/11/2000 1:44:39 AM
I'd be delighted to provide a link Dusty. But your claim that "reserves" and "lock boxes" are gimmicks, is yet more evidence that you really do not know much about public finance and fiscal policy.
The current surplus is based on Budget Act spending targets that are fanciful whether the economy contiunes to expand or not. Economic slowdown increases countercyclical spending and reduces revenue. Debt cannot be reduced. Interest payments rise.
The distinction you make between state and federal governments is a distinction without a difference. If the federal government decides to continue balanced budget policies under reasonable spending assumptions for any appreciable length of time, the reserve concept makes emminent good sense either as a reserve for unforseeable spending requirements, forseeable expenditure increases in existing programs that politicians would rather not recognize, revenue downturns, new spending programs that Gore and Bush propose.
The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided to meet General Fund spending requirements, mask task cuts, and hide the need for revenue increases or spending cuts. The "so-called" combined budget was the gimmick, and a roundly criticized gimmick at that.
40659. jexster - 9/11/2000 1:50:00 AM
Liberal politicians in the 50's were first to distort Keynesian theory. Eventually the distorted Keynes became the "common" understanding - tax cuts and spending increases are best for expanding Aggregate Demand, the opposite for contraction. Keynes preference for monetary tools all but disappeared from the public understanding.
40660. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:11:38 AM
Not only is reserve idea meaningful in a federal context, I would argue that the the Balance Budget statute becomes something of a sham without such a feature.
Contingency is a generally accepted budget practice in business planning which despite the greater contingency risk to goverments, is ignored in public practice.
40661. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:28:21 AM
for a contrary view (contrary, incomplete, misguided and generally full of shit) see How Kinsely Manages Not to Be Right Every Time :)
40662. vonKreedon - 9/11/2000 2:28:49 AM
Ducky - You don't have a link to the Nader campaign web site in the Candidates link section. It's at http://www.votenader.com/.
40663. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:51:26 AM
On the subject of social security Speech by Fed Reserve Governor Gramlich
Kinsley is playing word games WRT "pay as you go". Gramlich makes this quite apparent. Kinsley also ignores the damage done by raids in the 70's as well as the manifest political wisdom that FDR consciously employed in crafting key features such as flat rate; pay as you go; no actuarial basis.
There were political reasons for these choices. FDR realized that above all he had to have a system which stood the test of time. Kinsely alludes to the fact that both conservatives and liberals support features for different reasons. He only touches on the subject for the political play of the century immediately produced support across the spectrum - different ideological castes produced consensus, a sustaining consensus which makes SS uniquely successful.
40664. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:14:46 AM
Nine Misconceptions About Social Security
Among the nine (described in the article)
- Social Security is hand a hand to mouth accounting fiction
- The government uses overly optimistic numbers to convince people that Social Security will be there for them. The situation is much worse than the government admits.
- The demographics of the Baby Boom will place an unbearable burden on the Social Security system.
- If people invest their money themselves, they will get a higher return than if they leave it with the government.
- Social Security gives tens of billions of dollars each year to senior citizens who don't need it.
The last was a favorite of my grandfather. A confirmed FDR hater, he'd often give me lectures on various politcal & economic truths, things every young boy should know. "Why I don't need that check..much better those who need the money get it" Of course, he never returned a dime
40665. Thoughtful - 9/11/2000 8:35:20 AM
Dusty, There is an objection that fiscal policy changes move too slowly to have an impact on economic cycles. I disagree in that there are two ways that fiscal policy works. One is through automatic stabilizers such as unemployment compensation and a progressive income tax structure. These levers can kick in even before anyone is aware that there is an economic slowdown at work, e.g., we were well into the 91 recession before anyone even knew we were in a recession. The other aspect of fiscal policy -- the tax and spending programs as generated by congress can happen way to slowly to be effective given: a) the short downturns we typically experience, the last one being less than a year long and b)the political reality that things like tax increases and spending cuts are very difficult to achieve -- that's why we've been running deficits for so many decades.
Remember too that monetary policy is not immediate. Lags can typically run between 12-18 months or more before they start to take effect....that's why the Fed must be proactive rather than reactive as it tries to steer economic growth.
Re many economist not thinking the economy is growing too quickly -- you will always find an economist to counter an argument. However, the wise ones (IMHO), like Greenspan and company, clearly see a need to slow the economy down from its 5-7% pace to something more reasonable at 3-4% given the very tight labor markets and rapid wage growth.
40666. Thoughtful - 9/11/2000 8:39:21 AM
jex, as dusty pointed out, I never said Keynes said fiscal was the only policy. I only pointed out his view on how to use fiscal policy to manage growth.
I haven't yet had a chance to look over the Gore or Bush plan, but as I said before, government accounting is cash accounting. Talk of soc sec trust, and other "savings" is BS. There is no capital accounting, and whether they are setting aside $300B or not, the effect of it will be a reduction in the national debt. This is not to be confused or compared with state & local accounting where they do run capital accounts -- depreciating buildings, roads, etc. over a period of years and borrowing against those investments with municipal bonds.
40667. Thoughtful - 9/11/2000 8:40:04 AM
See today's NY Times for a Krugman op-ed on what's wrong with the Gore plan.
40668. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2000 8:45:37 AM
Gore takes on Hollywood
Vice President Al Gore and his running mate, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, said today that if the entertainment industry did not stop marketing violent films, recordings and video games to children they would propose legislation or new regulatory authority allowing the federal government to sanction the industry.
In an extended interview on the veranda of the vice president's residence, Mr. Gore said he would give industry officials six months to "clean up their act." If they do not, and if he and Mr. Lieberman win the November election, the vice president said he would encourage the Federal Trade Commission to move against the industry by using its power to prohibit false and deceptive advertising.
40669. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 8:47:44 AM
Re: Message # 40662, vonKreedon.
added.
thanks for pointing that out.
40670. Dusty - 9/11/2000 8:50:38 AM
jexster
The quoted statement is a clear, unambigous interpretation of undisputed fact as is the sentence which follows.
Well, I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt that it might be ambiguous. If it is unambiguous, then they are simply lying.
(Frankly, I don't believe this; I betting on ambiguity.)
You restate that the debt reduction is 360 billion. Restating an error does not constitute supporting evidence.
I had intended to provide a link to the US government site summarizing the day by day amount of debt, but I just checked and it seemed to be missing. So I will try again:
The Public Debt To the Penny
The highest value of the debt was on 12/31/99. The debt on that day was 5,776 billion. As of last Friday, the debt is down to 5,681 billion.
This is less than a 100 billion reduction.
Please tell me the unambiguous interpretation that reconciles the claim of 360 billion of debt reduction with the unambiguous change in debt of less than 100 billion.
40671. Thoughtful - 9/11/2000 8:54:20 AM
jex, thanks for the link to the Gore tax plan -- I thought W. had finally put his out as well, but I didn't see it on his web site (I heard it went on for 297 pages or some such thing). Would you have a link to it?
Thanks.
40672. Dusty - 9/11/2000 9:02:30 AM
jexster
I'd be delighted to provide a link Dusty.
If you actually read what I post, you'll see that I noted you already have provided a link.
The current surplus is based on Budget Act spending targets that are fanciful whether the economy continues to expand or not. Economic slowdown increases countercyclical spending and reduces revenue. Debt cannot be reduced. Interest payments rise.
Meat tenderizer rubbed on a bee sting can reduce the pain.
If the federal government decides to continue balanced budget policies under reasonable spending assumptions for any appreciable length of time, the reserve concept makes emminent good sense either as a reserve for unforseeable spending requirements, forseeable expenditure increases in existing programs that politicians would rather not recognize, revenue downturns, new spending programs that Gore and Bush propose.
We don't have a balanced budget policy. There was an attempt to enact such a policy as a Constitutional amendment. (I opposed it.) Should such a misguided law get passed, then there would be an argument for building in a reserve fund. But it wasn't passed. There is no justification for the federal government holding a reserve fund.
The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided to meet General Fund spending requirements, mask task cuts, and hide the need for revenue increases or spending cuts. The "so-called" combined budget was the gimmick, and a roundly criticized gimmick at that.
No kidding. I'm among those who roundly criticized the gimmick. I'm happy to see that you oppose some gimmicks, at least. Perhaps you can explain why you don't see "lockboxes" as gimmicks.
40673. Dusty - 9/11/2000 9:07:24 AM
jexster
The Atlantic Monthly article contributes more to misinformation, than to correcting misinformation. Elaboration later.
40674. Dusty - 9/11/2000 9:20:25 AM
Thoughtful
There is no capital accounting, and whether they are setting aside $300B or not, the effect of it will be a reduction in the national debt.
I'm trying to think how the mechanics would even work. A state can buy T-bills, or even leave some in a bank deposit. But if the Fed buys T-bills (or bonds), this would be a reduction of debt. I suppose they could put 300 billion in a savings account, but I would hope they wouldn't be that stupid. And I hope they would not be allowed to hold corporate debt or stocks.
40675. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2000 9:37:58 AM
40658 is gobbledygook.
The current surplus is based on Budget Act spending targets that are fanciful whether the economy contiunes to expand or not. Economic slowdown increases countercyclical spending and reduces revenue.
The first sentence is unknowable, the second sentence somewhat contradicts the first while stating the obvious.
The distinction you make between state and federal governments is a distinction without a difference.
Sophistry.
If the federal government decides to continue balanced budget policies under reasonable spending assumptions for any appreciable length of time, the reserve concept makes emminent good sense either as a reserve...[or for] new spending programs that Gore and Bush propose.
You just called these assumptions "fanciful," now you're saying they're "reasonable." In any case, more words = less meaning. You're saying the reserve concept makes good sense as a reserve. Tautology? Or for new spending programs, but you just said it makes good sense "under reasonable spending assumptions."
Your style of argumentation reminds me of cazart: call Dusty uninformed, state a bunch of tautological mumbo-jumbo, and pretend as though you've made a point.
40676. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 10:13:03 AM
from Slate's Today's Papers:
The LAT fronts a fascinating case involving a Massachusetts woman who is being kept in state custody to protect her unborn child. The woman, who is nine months pregnant, is a member of a 13-person religious sect that views science and religion as blasphemy, denies the existence of the United States, and denounces education, government, banking, and entertainment. The woman's two previous children are alleged to have died because the group refused to seek medical help. A juvenile court judge ordered the woman to be hospitalized until her baby is born. The judge also said he could hear the unborn child's voice in the courtroom: "And it said, 'I want to live. I do not want to die. I do not want to die like my brother Jeremiah did.'" The judge has appointed an attorney to represent the fetus. Feminist groups are outraged. The fundamentalist Christian woman has refused legal counsel for herself (believing in prayer over law), but reproductive rights lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union have filed
friend-of-the-court briefs.
i am continually amazed how our courts contradict themselves. how in the world can a piece of tissue be assigned a lawyer? i don't see old livers and hearts assigned lawyers when they are to be removed from the body. where's the outrage?
yet, that's exactly what happens here. a fetus, which according to pro-abortion people, is a mass of tissue and nothing more (which the courts agree with) is assigned a lawyer. hmm, maybe i should ask the courts if it's ok to pop the next zit i find, the zit might not like that.
i also suppose the millions of fetuses aborted since Roe v Wade had no such "voice" and were perfectly happy to be murdered.
40677. CalGal - 9/11/2000 10:19:27 AM
Actually, the courts disagree that the fetus is a piece of tissue at nine months--despite what pro-choicers say.
40678. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 10:39:58 AM
CG:
well, it kinda has to. otherwise, the courts knowingly condone murder.
but, i agree there is some debate. i, myself, support 1st trimester abortions, but not after.
the difference being, i have no moral problem "murdering" a non-viable tissue mass. after 3 months, tho, my support fades with each passing week.
40679. CalGal - 9/11/2000 10:45:40 AM
otherwise, the courts knowingly condone murder.
They don't. That was the whole purpose of the trimester rule. Originally, abortions at that stage were allowed only if the life of the mother is in danger. Then they changed it to "life or health", which provided a loophole that you could drive a truck through.
But the whole reason for these restrictions is because in the third trimester, the fetus is considered to have some rights.
I grant you, the rights are rather flexible--it's only a life at 22 weeks if someone kills it without the mother's permission.
But still, no one but the most adamant pro-lifers (none of whom sit on the court) consider a third trimester fetus to be tissue.
40680. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 10:48:59 AM
oh, i see what you're saying, Cal - and agree.
40681. DaveM - 9/11/2000 10:53:35 AM
rubberducky -
Judges are ordinary humans - there are plenty of loons out there. Contradiction is inevitable. It doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about "the courts" - even at the federal level, the 4th circuit and the 9th circuit are about as different as imaginable.
CalGal -
I don't know of any pro-choicers that say that the fetus is nothing but a piece of tissue at nine months.
Dusty -
I think Jexster's debt reduction statistics stem from the difference between projected debt and actual debt, though I didn't look too closely. That is not necessarily a poor way to look at things.
40682. CalGal - 9/11/2000 10:55:48 AM
Dave,
I don't know of any pro-choicers that say that the fetus is nothing but a piece of tissue at nine months.
I've seen people on both this thread and several in TT say exactly that. Are there any activists who say so publically? Probably not anymore, although I wouldn't be surprised if there were some questionable statements made back in the 70s.
40683. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 11:05:17 AM
Re: Message # 40681, DaveM.
Judges are ordinary humans - there are plenty of loons out there. Contradiction is inevitable. It doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about "the courts" - even at the federal level, the 4th circuit and the 9th circuit are about as different as imaginable.
well, i don't know a whole lot about the court system, this is true. however, i didn't know it was such a burden for judges to adhere to some basic legal precepts. among them, tissue masses shouldn't have lawyers.
40684. DaveM - 9/11/2000 11:07:45 AM
Dusty -
Sorry, I didn't see your 40645 before posting. That seems like an entirely reasonable way for govt. to calculate its debt. Your analogy is poor because you were considering completely discretionary spending. Your kid is looking at colleges, right now, right? Say s/he enrolls at a fancy university with predicted tuition expenses of 20k fr. yr., 21.5k so. yr., 23k jr. yr., and 24.5k sr. yr. After three years of steady tuition increases and significant planning on your part about your future budget, the university decides to leave your kid's tuition at 23k for that last year. Have you saved 1500 or O?
Cal - There were probably a lot of questionable statements made in the 70s.
40685. DaveM - 9/11/2000 11:12:06 AM
Ducky -
Judges often don't mind precedent. I'm pretty sure that there are disagreements among the courts about: 1. whether fetuses are simply tissue masses (or tissue masses +); 2. how interests are allotted legal representation; 3. how people involved in moronic cults are treated.
Besides, you are ignoring the basic fact that everyone should have a lawyer. Keeps the job market strong.
40686. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 11:22:23 AM
Dave
Besides, you are ignoring the basic fact that everyone should have a lawyer. Keeps the job market strong.
i like you - so i'll spare you my anti-lawyer screeds.
40687. Dusty - 9/11/2000 12:44:09 PM
DaveM
I think Jexster's debt reduction statistics stem from the difference between projected debt and actual debt, though I didn't look too closely.
I agree. I tried to make that point in Message # 40645
That is not necessarily a poor way to look at things.
I'm sure reasonable people could argue about whether this is a valid way to look at the numbers, and I suspect decent arguments could be made in favor of presenting numbers this way. But I contend that such an approach should be clearly labeled.
Calling it a 360 billion debt reduction, is nice and clean, but misleading IMHO. If they said instead, the debt at the end of September will be 360 billion below what it might have been had we spent and borrowed more, it would be more accurate, but wouldn't have that nice sound bite quality they were looking for.
Do you think the average reader of the proposal reads we will have paid back $360 billion of debt over three years and automatically knows that this does not mean the debt is 360 billion lower than any time in the past? Instead, it is 360 billion lower than some projection of what the debt might have increased to under some alternative spending assumptions?
40688. Dusty - 9/11/2000 12:45:49 PM
oops, posted before refreshing and seeing Message # 40684
40689. Dusty - 9/11/2000 12:47:27 PM
DaveM
Say s/he enrolls at a fancy university with predicted tuition expenses of 20k fr. yr., 21.5k so. yr., 23k jr. yr., and 24.5k sr. yr. After three years of steady tuition increases and significant planning on your part about your future budget, the university decides to leave your kid's tuition at 23k for that last year. Have you saved 1500 or O?
Neither. I am out 23k after making the payment.
40690. robertjayb - 9/11/2000 1:08:16 PM
.
Bush has narrow edge in POA poll:
September 11, 2000
Presidential Tracking Poll
"In the race for the White House, George W. Bush and Al Gore are virtually tied in the popular vote. In Portrait of America's latest 3-day average Bush has 42.5% while Gore has 41.7%; Ralph Nader, 3.2%, Pat Buchanan, 1.4%, Harry Browne 1.3%, Howard Phillips .2%, and John Hagelin .3%. These results from a nightly Portrait of America Presidential Tracking Poll reflect interviews conducted September 7, 9 and 10."
40691. jexster - 9/11/2000 1:57:28 PM
The Bush-bashing may have faded for the moment, but Vice President Gore won the media skirmishing this morning by figuring out once again how to make news.
It doesn't hurt, in this poll-obsessed age, that he's putting good numbers on the board as well — good enough that one newspaper now declares him to be ahead in the all-important Electoral College race.
And his running mate keeps getting good press, too.
The tenor of George W. Bush's coverage, meanwhile, might best be gleaned from the Drudge Report headline describing a major newspaper profile: "Bush Dad Never Told Him to Buy Condom."
The day's big score involves an interview that Gore and Joe Lieberman granted to the New York Times on the veranda of the vice president's mansion. In what the Times describes as "a clear appeal to voters concerned about moral issues, and particularly to women with children," the duo unloaded on the entertainment industry.
This was cleverly timed because the Federal Trade Commission is about to release a study (reported by The Washington Post today) blasting the industry for marketing violent, adult-oriented entertainment to kids, which will keep the issue in the headlines.
more here
Get the picture? Bush's bloated corpse crawling with maggots lying alongside the 2000 Campaign Trail. The Great Campaign Trail Roadkill proceeds apace as Gore continues to dominate in the coverage battles as he has done in each week since selecting Lieberman.
40692. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 2:03:09 PM
Jex
do you agree with Gore's pandering wrt his "ultimatum" given to the "entertainment industry"?
to me, it smacks of ill conceived silliness to try and tell an entire industry what/how to market its product. other than liquor and cigarettes, i can't think of another instance of this. isn't this just campaigning with no spine?
40693. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:07:08 PM
No I don't think that the Government has the authority to sanction the entertainment industry for their speech. It is "commercial speech" to be sure. Perhaps an argument can be fashioned that it is less deserving of protection that other types of speech but I find the distinction unpersuasive.
Still, media violence is, I think, a troublesome social problem and something need to be done.
Taking of lawyer hat, reaching for "Great Campaign Trail Roadkill Y2K"chapeau, Its a KICK ASS Move!
40694. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:08:38 PM
As far as marketing products go cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, pornography, medications, and guns are regulated to one degree or another
40695. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 2:08:52 PM
i'll take that as a "yes, it is campaigning with no spine, rubberducky"
heh
40696. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:10:47 PM
The sale of goods or services manufactured or produced in harmful ways or which have harmful effects are extensively regulated in general both domestically and by way of import control
40697. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:11:35 PM
what exactly would campaigning WITH a spine mean, in the context of addressing the various so-called sins of the entertainment industry?
40698. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:12:34 PM
No I don't think I agree with your "no spine" remark. Actually its the tougher stance requiring substantial spine especially given the Democrat's relations with the entertainment industry.
Mucho Spine...Mucho Roadkill
40699. Wombat - 9/11/2000 2:14:21 PM
Al Gore (Campaigning with spine):
Violence sells and there's nothing you can do about it! If you cannot control your own kids, it's your own damn fault! Ever heard of the "off" button?
40700. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:15:59 PM
WRT: Spinelessness, I think RD is beginning to appreciate that George W. is, as I have called him for over a year, indeed my first moniker, The Chicken Man.
In fact, in the history of craven candidates, we've not seen GWB's like very often.
RD is now troubled that I might be right - again - thus the back-breaking, shoulder-dislocating reach
40701. Thoughtful - 9/11/2000 2:16:42 PM
vonKreedon, thanks for posting about the Nader site. Obviously ducky has his 40702. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:17:24 PM The "just use the off button" is just so much horsewaste. Its the CYA for irresponsible production to blame the victim 40703. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:18:06 PM Wombat - for one of the few times I can think of, I disagree with you. No question that parents should shoulder much of the burden in terms of what type(s) of violence/entertainment creeps into their kids' lifes. 40704. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 2:19:11 PM Re: Message # 40697, janjon. 40705. Wombat - 9/11/2000 2:19:44 PM Janjon & Jexter: 40706. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:21:41 PM jexster - did you read the fascinating episode in today's Times about W.'s relationship with his father? I guess I'm not surprised that others are picking up on the condom/raincoat comments (although I am surprised that the Times saw fit to include that little tidbit). There's a lot of other stuff in there that would make a Freudian drool. 40707. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 2:21:48 PM Re: Message # 40699, Wombat. 40708. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:22:48 PM Sorry Wombat...I took you seriously but was also somewhat querulous that you'd have said such 40709. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:22:57 PM wombat - ah, that makes me feel much better. I don't like having my vision of the world and those who inhabit it subject to inexplicable quirks! 40710. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 2:23:07 PM Re: Message # 40701, Thoughtful. 40711. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:23:51 PM RD - Well rain on my fuckin parade. Damn I thought I had another Bushite by the 'nads 40712. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 2:25:14 PM Jex 40713. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:27:09 PM JJ - Maybe the Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy of Nattering Nabobs of Negativism, having taken righteous offense at the Bush League Slime of Clymer, is moving to correct the coverage imbalance in favor of the Moron....Perhaps the Moron is beginning to emerge in the public imagination 40714. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:29:21 PM FLINT, Mich. –– After securing core support among women and minorities, Al Gore is using his evolving populist message to break George W. Bush's lock on a constituency crucial to Republican victory: white working-class and moderate-income men. 40715. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:31:09 PM 40716. Wombat - 9/11/2000 2:31:43 PM Guys: 40717. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:35:23 PM Wombat - trust me, ages 6 and 3 are a piece of cake as to what is about to happen in terms of control over what your kids see/hear/read/absorb. First, they develop their own observations and ways of getting info. Then come sleepovers. Then... 40718. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:35:40 PM Bush is out of his league, that is the The Bush League. He should have stayed with the Austin Armadillos. The GOP moneybags wasted their money buying GWB's ticket to the Big Show. 40719. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 2:36:19 PM ...Al Gore is using his evolving populist message to break George W. Bush's lock on a constituency crucial to Republican victory: white working-class and moderate-income men. 40720. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:40:15 PM jex - I suppose one shouldn't be surprised that W. is still out their putting up that not-very-jutted chin and pronouncing "I'm gonna win. You can book it.", since that is traditional for politicians who figuratively are at the mast of the Titanic. But, somehow, you get the feeling that he still believes/wills it to be so. If I didn't think it was indeed the pleasing-Daddy syndrome that led him to choose that disaster Cheney, it does seem plausible that he did so mostly because he didn't think it would make any difference who he picked. He was going to win and therefore unquestioned loyalty to him and his family was paramount. 40721. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:43:51 PM As in past elections, the Democrats have collected millions of dollars in campaign contributions this year from the entertainment industry. But Mr. Gore, who has chastised the industry even as he solicited its wealthy leaders, suggested that he was not concerned about alienating his backers in Hollywood and New York City. 40722. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:47:14 PM JJ- Its rare for any politician headed for the bone yard to admit it. Having been up close and personal in a few campaigns, I'm here to tell 'ya that it takes an unbelievable committment of energy and ego. It is a world unknown to most, very hard to imagine. 40723. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:50:39 PM jex - I suspect that among other things it means that another potload of tv spots that the RNC had prepared will just sit on the shelf. Gotta believe that they were set to go with more of their tv/movies=moral decay=Dems in general, Clinton in specific and Gore by osmosis crap. Yet another plan on how to gain some votes from women foiled. 40724. jexster - 9/11/2000 2:51:37 PM RD- what's maddening is the special interest politics that have grown up in America since the 70's. A huge disconnect of empathy in society. I am not black, so I don't appreciate "black" issues; not a woman, so "equal pay for equal work" isn't important; not a tree hugger etc etc etc 40725. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:51:59 PM jex - I agree that McCain was about as likely to occur as it was to envision that (a) JFK would go for LBJ and (b) LBJ would accept. 40726. Ronski - 9/11/2000 2:52:50 PM janjon, 40727. Wombat - 9/11/2000 2:53:47 PM RD: 40728. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:53:57 PM jex - it all started when the Dixiecrats walked out in 1944. The beginning of the end of the BIG UMBRELLA. For both parties. 40729. Ronski - 9/11/2000 2:55:52 PM 40730. Wombat - 9/11/2000 2:56:39 PM What I enjoyed about Lazio was his description of Castro as a "terrorist" and Arafat as something other than one. Say good bye to the right wing Jewish vote.... 40731. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:57:00 PM ronski. I even wonder if Clinton did the handshake at least in part in the hope that it would cause Rick to react the way he did. A little trap. 40732. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:58:35 PM ronski. oops. Yes indeed, the walkout was '48 but the first big convention ruckus was in '44. 40733. janjon - 9/11/2000 2:59:39 PM Lazio should stick to stuffing his mouth with sausages at county fairs. They taste better than feet. 40734. Ronski - 9/11/2000 3:00:24 PM 40735. Wombat - 9/11/2000 3:01:01 PM Janj: 40736. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 3:01:36 PM Re: Message # 40724, jexster. 40737. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:03:47 PM The Bushes are really excellent Republicans in at least one respect, they are a vicious, petty, vindictive lot - traits that emerged in full fetid flower over the past 8 years as the "politics of personal distruction". 40738. Ronski - 9/11/2000 3:07:53 PM It is interesting that the predictions that Hillary's campaign would vie with the presidential race for national media attention have proven wrong. Aside from this photo business, the Senate race has all the excitement of a councilman's contest in Sleepy Hollow. In the time of Washington Irving. 40739. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:11:34 PM I'm not so certain that your cynicism is justified RD or at least it is misplaced. 40740. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:15:15 PM JJ - Good point. Bush is no JFK. McCain is no LBJ 40741. Ronski - 9/11/2000 3:16:17 PM And some gays have had the sense not to trust political society for the advancement of their interests, as important as it is ultimately to codify equal treatment for gay people. 40742. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 3:22:26 PM Re: Message # 40739, jexster. 40743. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:33:32 PM WRT the genuineness of Gore's concern about media violence marketing, I have no doubt that it is the real deal. 40744. Jack Vincennes - 9/11/2000 3:34:04 PM In a rapid-fire series of light questions about his personal side, Winfrey asked him, "Favorite cereal?" This exchange followed: 40745. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 3:36:35 PM Jack 40746. RosettaStone - 9/11/2000 3:37:39 PM Did she ask him about whether or not his daddy taught him about using condoms, the way the NYTimes did to Bush? 40747. glendajean - 9/11/2000 3:42:36 PM personally, i think he'll go with grits to show he's more of a man 40748. Jack Vincennes - 9/11/2000 3:43:01 PM I make no judgments. 40749. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:43:38 PM Not only gays Ronski most interest groups. 40750. janjon - 9/11/2000 3:44:08 PM Stone. Read more carefully. If that is possible. The Times was just restating some comments W. made to some other publication some years ago. 40751. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:44:44 PM JV - I dunno about judgments for if you made no judgement you made no point either 40752. janjon - 9/11/2000 3:44:52 PM jack - your point being? 40753. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:48:54 PM Yes Gore is telling the entertainment industry not to market violence to kids. That is exactly what he is doing. The FTC report concludes that the entertainment industry's actions subvert their voluntary ratings system. Gore will call for a remedy to false and deceptive ad practice on the theory that the ratings system is undercut in a conscious, deliberate way by advertising practices. Its akin to the tobacco companies putting warnings on cigarettes at the same time gutting them with Joe Camel. 40754. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:50:57 PM That last was for RD. 40755. Jack Vincennes - 9/11/2000 3:51:52 PM jexster, janjon 40756. janjon - 9/11/2000 3:53:25 PM you've come a long way, jack. A long way. 40757. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:58:52 PM RD/Ronski - I am gay. I am for DOMA at least insofar as I believe that gay marriage is not good policy and perceive that it furthers a dumbing down of hetero marriage though I also see constitutional full faith and credit problems and although I also believe that society should sanction and support responsible, committed, monogamous relationships for same sex couples. 40758. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 3:58:55 PM Re: Message # 40753, jexster. 40759. jexster - 9/11/2000 3:59:45 PM Yes JV, Gore is one love maker and heart breaker. 40760. jexster - 9/11/2000 4:02:05 PM RD - read your articles before you link, indeed before you type, certainly before you claim my post nonsense 40761. janjon - 9/11/2000 4:02:33 PM And, he likes the Breakfast of Champions too!! 40762. jexster - 9/11/2000 4:06:09 PM Again, we're back to "just turn it off". That is non-sense. Just an excuse, just blame the victim. Caveat emptor is not an answer to the charge. Its a defense in avoidance. 40763. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 4:10:36 PM Re: Message # 40760, jexster. 40764. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 4:11:30 PM 40765. jexster - 9/11/2000 4:12:21 PM Oh sure it does RD. Whether voluntary or not, the point's the same. In fact, the conduct of those who shield themselves with voluntary warnings is more culpable than those who are required to put warnings on. 40766. jexster - 9/11/2000 4:13:18 PM ITs a marketing ploy exactly what the FTC says. 40767. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 4:18:29 PM the point you're over looking, Jex, is that the companies decided to do something to help parents weed out content. they don't, by and large, do that. so, boo-hoo they market silly-nilly "mature" content at 15 year-olds. such a horrific crime! 40768. jexster - 9/11/2000 4:19:09 PM Sen Brownback (R-KS) is on CNN - a perfect example of a Republican who cannot decide whether to shit or go Brownback 40769. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 4:19:29 PM damn i'm having editing problems today 40770. jexster - 9/11/2000 4:22:51 PM I'm not overlooking anything RD. The industry put those warnings on knowing and intending to render them useless. You are correct. The warnings are a marketing ploy. 40771. jexster - 9/11/2000 4:27:28 PM Damn do I know my Moron or what! 40772. janjon - 9/11/2000 4:32:59 PM I can hardly wait to hear Cheney spew forth "Real Plans for Real People 40773. Ronski - 9/11/2000 4:33:00 PM Jexster, 40774. Jack Vincennes - 9/11/2000 4:33:25 PM "Who is fool enough to be suckered by this marketing ploy?" 40775. janjon - 9/11/2000 4:34:45 PM jack - less than two months before your misery ends. 40776. Ronski - 9/11/2000 4:35:17 PM I meant to post about the new slogan. 40777. Jack Vincennes - 9/11/2000 4:36:42 PM janjon 40778. janjon - 9/11/2000 4:37:34 PM A current Marist poll gives Gore a 25 point lead over W. in New York. As in State, not just City (where it would be more like about a 45 point lead). 40779. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 4:37:59 PM Re: Message # 40768, jexster. 40780. Jack Vincennes - 9/11/2000 4:39:11 PM Asked what he likes to sleep in, Gore – whose wife once suggested in a broadcast interview that he sleeps in the buff – said with a guilty smile: "A bed." 40781. Jack Vincennes - 9/11/2000 4:39:59 PM Winfrey replayed the tape of the Gores' passionate embrace at the Democratic National Convention last month. Winfrey's narration included "Hello, baby." 40782. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/11/2000 4:40:29 PM 40783. janjon - 9/11/2000 4:40:58 PM jack - I do in fact know what you mean. I cannot listen to W (most of my listening is via radio, not t.v., so I don't really know what effect a face and moving mouth would make) without getting a nasty little shiver. And, back in the days when I occasionally had to contemplate that he might become my....leader....let alone, commander in chief, well..... 40784. janjon - 9/11/2000 4:42:58 PM A bed? That is lame. 40785. robertjayb - 9/11/2000 4:46:38 PM . 40786. jexster - 9/11/2000 4:47:53 PM The FTC reports that 80 percent of movies rated R are being marketed to teens and a memo "we need to find a way to sell this stuff to kids" 40787. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 4:50:36 PM i'm sure that Rev Al will kick ass when he gets in office and stop all that evil bidness 40788. jexster - 9/11/2000 5:04:37 PM I dunno whether he will or not. I am not sure its a good idea even. I have no reason to believe that he doesn't mean what he says. 40789. jexster - 9/11/2000 5:17:15 PM RD - Gore said what he said RD....he wants the FTC to sanction deceptive advertising practice....You have no reason to doubt that statement. Neither can you challenge the certainty that the result cannot be achieved unless someone tries to do it! 40790. jexster - 9/11/2000 5:17:59 PM 40791. jexster - 9/11/2000 5:19:44 PM Why is JV so hung up on the Big Kiss? 40792. jexster - 9/11/2000 5:20:16 PM 40793. Raskolnikov - 9/11/2000 5:23:11 PM I think JV is just appalled that Gore might actually *plan in advance* to kiss his wife on national TV (although Tipper was obviously caught off guard by it). 40794. Cellar Door - 9/11/2000 5:32:03 PM When a woman said she was praying that ``God was going to make you a president,'' Bush rushed to her corner of the room and leaned across a row of seniors to reach her. She leaned across, too, and caressed Bush's face as he gave her a quick kiss. 40795. robertjayb - 9/11/2000 5:48:35 PM . 40796. labwabbit - 9/11/2000 5:52:24 PM The lead is Gore's first outside the margin of error since the tracking poll began in April." 40797. Raskolnikov - 9/11/2000 6:11:35 PM Gallup 40798. Raskolnikov - 9/11/2000 6:16:32 PM 40799. labwabbit - 9/11/2000 6:20:28 PM 40800. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 11:06:31 PM Re: Message # 40789, jexster. 40801. labwabbit - 9/11/2000 11:42:40 PM ...heavy mental gymnastics. 40802. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 11:46:11 PM um 40803. CalGal - 9/11/2000 11:50:01 PM Hey, Ducky, if it's not a hassle, could you add the Gallup poll to the butterscotch bar? The Zogby one might be another neat one to add. 40804. rubberducky - 9/11/2000 11:57:29 PM 40805. jexster - 9/12/2000 12:23:58 AM Why Dis Man Be Smilin'? 40806. jexster - 9/12/2000 12:24:27 AM I think Al's quite the hottie 40807. vonKreedon - 9/12/2000 1:07:00 AM 40808. EricCartman - 9/12/2000 2:37:33 AM Message # 40762 is a classic example of the muddleheaded feel-goodism Lieberman (and Clinton, for that matter) has dabbled in in the past. The irony of the phrase "shaming Hollywood into doing the right thing" is apparently lost on Rev. Joe. Good thing movie flacks have a sense of humor, and since they don't have souls, it's impossible to insult them. So it's a safe hand to bite. S&M is big in Hollyweird, or so I'm told. 40809. EricCartman - 9/12/2000 2:38:10 AM Vince Message # 40780: 40810. EricCartman - 9/12/2000 2:38:25 AM Message # 40788 & Message # 40789 could literally have been written by a young Tina Turner, always certain that Ike would never beat the shit out of her again. Why? Because he said so. Look, I'll give the guy credit -- he's more qualified than W. So is one of my cats. 40811. angel-five - 9/12/2000 8:38:40 AM Bah, all of this is irrelevant. President Gore; mark my words. Bush is looking tired and weak. Gore is smiling like a man who knows he has three more aces in his sleeve. People are finally admitting that they aren't really fatigued by Clinton. And the debates are coming. And admit it, folks. Gore is so close to the middle of the road on most things that there really won't be a hell of a lot of difference between him and, say, a socially and environmentally hip Republican. It's ridiculous that things like the election of our president get decided by non-facts like one of the candidate slipping his wife some tongue on camera --really, what's next, bare tits on page 3? -- but there you have it. Gore will be better for our nation than a industrial whore from the most damaged state in the union, but he'll get elected because he actually looks like he's alive, now, and that puts him ahead of Bush. And it'll be two years into his presidency before everyone figures out that Tipper didn't actually like the kiss, but that's fine by me, anyway. Anything that Tipper doesn't like can't be all bad -- she's a half-baked flaky blonde with the brains of a collie and by all appearances Al should sue her charm school for a breach of their maintenance contract, but if you study her long enough you'll figure out that behind that glitzy vapid smile lurks the natural viciousness of a food-depped sewer rat. I guarantee she routinely slaps Al in private and has kicked him in the sack at least once. But look at it on the bright side; the two of them ought to keep us all entertained for a while. 40812. stostosto - 9/12/2000 8:42:27 AM Pentangeli: 40813. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 9:05:48 AM The bushies have stepped into it once again with the latest anti-Gore ad where the subliminal message "RATS" was slipped in in a single frame. The fact that they are doing it at all is bad enough....but their "it was a mistake -- it wasn't intentional -- somehow part of the word 'bureaucrats' got left in" is just absurd. As Tom Friedman says in today's NY Times -- don't insult the intelligence of the electorate. It's a losing strategy every time. 40814. angel-five - 9/12/2000 9:18:13 AM There's a perfectly sane explanation for all of this, actually. They considered the intelligence of the average non-partisan projected Bush voter. Then they wanted to make 'em hungry. 40815. angel-five - 9/12/2000 9:18:14 AM There's a perfectly sane explanation for all of this, actually. They considered the intelligence of the average non-partisan projected Bush voter. Then they wanted to make 'em hungry. 40816. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 9:33:25 AM the current tagline for "Politics" is: 40817. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 9:48:33 AM Then the bushies proved that it just ain't the idiot up front. I visited their web site yesterday and, like so many web sites, they have a question for the day -- a way to get the surfers involved in the site. Yesterday's question was, In Which State is Cheney Registered to Vote? Sheesh! Why would they so foolishly bring attention to the fact that they are skirting the Constitutional requirement that running mates be from different states? How dumb can you get? 40818. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 9:49:13 AM Bush Explained? 40819. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/12/2000 10:17:49 AM How about: Propaganda Ping Pong Anyone? 40820. JudithAtHome - 9/12/2000 11:08:50 AM Politics: the good, the bad, and the ugly 40821. janjon - 9/12/2000 11:18:49 AM angel. You're wrong about Tipper. I plead guilty to knowing her rather well and having liked her immensely for all the time I've known her (back to the time Al first became a Senator.) Among her other many attributes, no collie in brains be she. Very bright. Very analytical. Perhaps more importantly, very decent. She's been deeply involved in many more worthy projects than she's ever been given credit for because she does much of what she does on an anonymous (sometimes even incognito) basis. 40822. janjon - 9/12/2000 11:21:15 AM vonKreeden. Regarding Al's appearance with Ophrah yesterday, if you read back a bit here you will note that our good Jack V. got himself all in a dither (well, not as much as a dither as he CAN get himself into about the good Al) about it all. This of course told me, even before I read the news stories today, that Al had hit a home run. 40823. JudithAtHome - 9/12/2000 11:24:14 AM Politics... 40824. Cellar Door - 9/12/2000 11:46:52 AM 40825. angel-five - 9/12/2000 11:53:37 AM Real gems don't censor. 40826. janjon - 9/12/2000 12:01:24 PM even the brightest jewels sometimes have a minor flaw. 40827. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 12:02:19 PM jan 40828. janjon - 9/12/2000 12:04:02 PM jack - I just sensed you were too bright not to eventually come to your senses. Welcome aboard! 40829. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 12:05:34 PM And the funny he made with Oprah when she asked his favorite ceral, and he said "Oprah", punning that he meant "serialized TV show"? 40830. janjon - 9/12/2000 12:06:56 PM we're not hiring him to put on a soft shoe show, Jack. Or a baseball game. 40831. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 12:08:09 PM Oh, but we should. He's THAT good. 40832. janjon - 9/12/2000 12:09:04 PM as I said, welcome aboard kid! 40833. JudithAtHome - 9/12/2000 12:12:10 PM The Vanity Fair piece also says GW sets aside 3 hours a day to play video games...misses his days of the joystick in that fighter plane, no doubt. 40834. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 12:12:45 PM so, jack, i see janjon must agree with jexster's Message # 40806. 40835. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 12:14:28 PM duck 40836. angel-five - 9/12/2000 12:15:11 PM Any more, say, than imposing a R rating on a movie and People intimate with the MPAA rating system and how it absolutely governs content in a film, from the conception to the completion, would probably tell you that 'censorship' is quite a good word to use to describe what the MPAA does. You might not want to use that example. Tipper, and the PMRC, not only tried to accomplish in music what the MPAA has already accomplished in cinema, but they failed, and they got made to look like hapless morons in the effort to boot. Christ, even Dee Snider made them look sad. Censorship isn't a minor flaw, Janjon, and neither is ineptitude. I'm sure that to some folks Tipper Gore is a perfectly lovely human being, but if she's as bright as you'd paint her then her judgment is abysmal -- it's gotta be one or the other. She undoubtedly spent a lot of time remaking herself since that debacle and distancing herself from it -- you don't hear the letters PMRC much anymore, let alone from her, do you? -- but a fool with a dozen handlers is still a fool. 40837. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 12:17:11 PM She did seem dazed during her DNC spech. I thought it might be the tonscillectomy she received from her husband, but she does have a suburban housewife's prescription drug-induced demeanor. 40838. angel-five - 9/12/2000 12:18:26 PM I wasn't going to be the one to say it, but, yeah. Of course, to you, that prolly just makes her sexy. 40839. JudithAtHome - 9/12/2000 12:18:54 PM JV: 40840. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 12:19:08 PM Well . . . okay. Fair shot. 40841. robertjayb - 9/12/2000 12:20:14 PM . 40842. glendajean - 9/12/2000 12:24:34 PM The Vanity Fair piece also says GW sets aside 3 hours a day to play video games...misses his days of the joystick in that fighter plane, no doubt. 40843. angel-five - 9/12/2000 12:26:01 PM Right under the Coast Guard radar, to boot. 40844. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 12:32:04 PM J@H 40845. JudithAtHome - 9/12/2000 12:35:50 PM I daresay Harrison Ford or Bill Pullman or Kevin Kline or Michael Douglas or even Michaels FATHER would do as well as GW. 40846. labwabbit - 9/12/2000 12:37:02 PM a5 40847. janjon - 9/12/2000 12:37:22 PM jack - she gave her talk BEFORE THE KISS . And, she did not look or act dazed. Cogent, intelligent, with it. 40848. jexster - 9/12/2000 12:40:58 PM This election is turning into a farce. 40849. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/12/2000 12:42:41 PM CD- Thanks for the headsup [-- lousy visuals, though!] 40850. bubbaette - 9/12/2000 12:44:16 PM sorry, but I don't want to see either of the candidates sucking face. 40851. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 12:44:52 PM janjon 40852. janjon - 9/12/2000 12:46:00 PM I recommend to all an article in this week's New Yorker about Ms. Hsia and the Buddhist Temple to-do. 40853. labwabbit - 9/12/2000 12:46:10 PM Well I have a question about public kissing behind a podium... 40854. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/12/2000 12:46:37 PM . . . and did someone say: "RATS?" 40855. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/12/2000 12:47:42 PM BUBBA!!!! 40856. janjon - 9/12/2000 12:47:49 PM Well, Jack you got the nimble part down pat, lets now work on the quick. 40857. jexster - 9/12/2000 12:48:47 PM Houston -- DOWN HERE in the land of the tumbleweeds, they'll insult a man by saying he's ``all hat and no cattle.'' It sort of means he's full of hot air. 40858. jexster - 9/12/2000 12:50:45 PM Doesn't JV have anything else to talk about? 40859. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/12/2000 12:51:09 PM Jex- That's the reason BushLIGHT™ is depicted as a hat in Doonsbury. 40860. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 12:51:29 PM jexster 40861. jexster - 9/12/2000 12:52:09 PM But are you comfortable with Cllrdr giving you a sex life? 40862. labwabbit - 9/12/2000 12:52:34 PM GW: (see pic above) Hey babe is the mike turned rats off? 40863. OhioSTOPAS - 9/12/2000 12:53:23 PM The Bush campaign's use of subliminal advertising was particularly stupid because it required the candidate to come forward and try to pronounce "subliminal". 40864. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 12:59:24 PM Re: Message # 40858, jexster. 40865. janjon - 9/12/2000 12:59:45 PM If things continue on their current path for, say, a week or so more, watch the GOP rats begin to scurry. As in, more funds being diverted to the Congressional races. And, not just House. I would think that in the bottom of their collective hearts, the RNC is now getting more than just a little concerned about whether they will keep control of the Senate. Trent is NOT going to sit by and watch that happen, W. be damned. 40866. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:03:25 PM As far as leading discourse, I'd be delighted to accept. 40867. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:05:05 PM Here's the Moron on CNN 40868. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 1:05:22 PM rubberduck 40869. janjon - 9/12/2000 1:09:13 PM Jack - Thinking about the Senate, how do things look in Virginia? 40870. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/12/2000 1:09:28 PM I'd rather see him bite Jack! 40871. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:10:28 PM RD its easy. The polls are clearly moving in Gore's direction. All polls show him in the lead including Gallup now 7%. Gallup has been the worst for Gore among polls that have gone all over the lot. 40872. janjon - 9/12/2000 1:12:58 PM Moreover, a number of issues where real differences exist between W. and Gore and which will only serve to increase Gore's swaying to him of the undecided voters haven't even been "aired" in detail yet. Abortion rights and gun control, to name two biggies. 40873. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:13:03 PM Bush is just so much armadillo carrion on the Campaign Trail. 40874. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 1:13:26 PM janjon 40875. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 1:15:20 PM Angel 5: why do you think Tipper's PMRC stint was bad judgment on her part? You may not have liked her actions, but from a PR standpoint, her actions were successful (they got the voluntary labelling they wanted) and prescient, given the current national mood about such things. 40876. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 1:17:02 PM Ohio, 40877. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:17:39 PM JJ - Gore changed the playing field, with his convention speech that most of the pundits panned, he in one night, changed the framework of the race, its very dynamic from one of personality/"scandals" to his home turf. 40878. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:18:33 PM I'll take that bet. GOP up 2 is fantasy land. 40879. janjon - 9/12/2000 1:18:39 PM Jack - I would bet you heavily that it won't be 54-46. 52-48 maybe, but 51-49 is more likely. 40880. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:21:35 PM There are only 2 paid pundits who can match my analytic performance this year - William Saletan (Bill is God) and the guy who writes the On the Campaign Trail for the Post.... 40881. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 1:21:48 PM jan 40882. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:23:51 PM The real significance of the violence in media flap is not so much that it plays well with women and Reagan Democrats, its that it further innoculates Gore on the Clinton negatives leaving only the considerable Clinton performance positives 40883. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:24:35 PM I don't only post what I read JV, I tell you what tommorrow's paper is going to say... 40884. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:26:52 PM I'm havin a ball this year. Not only around this cyber dump, I'm involved with local young Demos in a Stop Nader effort and 2 campaigns for supervisor. 40885. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 1:27:06 PM quick update on the MN Senate race. The primary today will probably select Mark Dayton as the Dem nominee. I personally consider Dayton the worst of the 4 Dem hopefuls (I'll be voting for Yanisch, I think), but he has high name recognition and a lot of money (heir to Dayton's/Target/ department store fortune). At the same time, Rod Grams is taking a lot of flak since a top aide/girlfried was evidently the anonymous circulator of a possibly illegal anti-Ciresi (another Dem contender who was the front runner a few months ago) was e-mailed from a Hotmail account that had occasionally been accessed from her home. 40886. CalGal - 9/12/2000 1:30:30 PM Rask, 40887. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 1:30:42 PM Senate will of course be affected by the Presidential election. If it ends up looking like a rout for Gore (premature to call, but not at all out of the question given Bush's currently lackluster campaign and his weak performance in past debates), a lot of close Senate races will ride on Gore's coat-tails. I still would bet on a GOP Senate, but I would take shorter odds on a Dem win than most. 40888. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:31:02 PM Howard Kurtz - Gore on A Roll 40889. jexster - 9/12/2000 1:34:04 PM Bush, who needs to go negative, has crumbled in the face of criticism that an ad that isn't even remotely negative is a Bush slime job because of a subliminal message 40890. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 1:36:15 PM "I read something recently on that race--the Dems were caught off 40891. vonKreedon - 9/12/2000 1:36:29 PM 40892. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 1:40:44 PM Vk 40893. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 1:42:24 PM vK 40894. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 1:43:26 PM or two. 40895. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 1:44:02 PM Jex: actually, the winning candidate dominated for such a length of time in every election after 1960, with the exception of 1980, where it was nip and tuck most of the way. Bush can look to 1976 and 1968 for hope, in that a candidate way behind for most of the race came within a hair of catching up in the last couple of weeks (but neither won). 40896. vonKreedon - 9/12/2000 1:48:51 PM 40897. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 1:56:01 PM Vk 40898. CalGal - 9/12/2000 1:57:33 PM I think the one surprise has been Bush's discomfiture when he's behind. Great winner, not such a terrific fighter. 40899. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 1:59:35 PM how big is a surprise is it though, CG? 40900. CalGal - 9/12/2000 2:03:29 PM I was referring to both incidents, although I realize I wasn't clear. Yes, the McCain situation brought out the same reaction--cranky, fumbly, upset. 40901. vonKreedon - 9/12/2000 2:06:33 PM 40902. rubberducky - 9/12/2000 2:08:40 PM vK 40903. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:11:19 PM Now that the voter's are getting engaged, they are getting engaged on issues, engaged on Gore's terms not Bush's 40904. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 2:14:40 PM From CNN 40905. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:15:00 PM I wish you could be more specific Rask....I am talking about the parry and thrust of the campaing in specifics....Bush cannot get traction on anything...every time he tries to take the initiative from Gore we see shit like "Major League Asshole", "Dick Cheney Doesn't Vote" etc etc. 40906. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:17:46 PM Voters do in fact make a distinction WRT negative campaigning between issue/record criticism (legit) and "personal attacks"/mudslinging (risky) 40907. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:20:06 PM Kurtz accurately reviews the bidding for the first month of serious campaigning thusly 40908. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 2:21:08 PM I was going by poll standings, which are a more reliable indicator of how a campaign is going than the number of negative headlines. For instance, while Bush was taking media heat in 1988 for the selection of Quayle, he was rising steadily in the polls. 40909. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:23:04 PM The GOP isn't captive to the media, they're captive of their candidate. 40910. janjon - 9/12/2000 2:25:29 PM W. isn't as dim as his newest mispronuciation would indicate. Although absurd in concept and naive in terms of thinking they would get by with it, the *RATS* hubbub is, somehow, sublime. 40911. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 2:26:17 PM the difference between attacking a policy and attacking a person is a perfectly sensible distinction, and was surprised when Bush accused Gore of going negative over Gore's attacks on Texas' performance. 40912. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:28:52 PM No I'm not talking polls Rask. I think the polls this year stand on a different footing from those in the past. Unprecendented peace and prosperity have led to a quiescent and unusually volatile electorate. 40913. janjon - 9/12/2000 2:29:26 PM Jex. It all goes back to the fundamental and collosal miscalculation that W. and his handlers (as in Karl Rove) made - even though they truly did believe it would be a close election, never in their wildest dreams did they think that Gore would get there without going negative (and having to do it first). So, they felt quite comfortable taking the high road and making all those wonderful announcements that THEY were going to keep this a positive campaign. (While, of course, reserving the right to respond if attacked, just like they had to in South Carolina when McCain had the gall to compare W. to Big Bill. Right.) 40914. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:30:50 PM I also believe that a composite look at polls from March to August for the past 7 elections will show vastly more divergence this year than previously 40915. janjon - 9/12/2000 2:33:15 PM rask - you've certainly hit one of my buttons. I hate the out of context and distorted use of prior votes in advertising. 40916. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:33:19 PM JJ - Right on. Gore in something akin to "Art of War" has used his enemies momentum against them. Now they're in his trap and can't get out. 40917. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 2:33:54 PM Rask 40918. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:36:37 PM Things are changing now but because of electorate volatility the horse race poll results are not as important as in the past. Better to look at the headline war, media coverage, Poppy's "Mighty Mo",and the underlying issue and personality questions in the polls. Gore is kicking ass on each of these fronts and the effect is beginning to show in the horse race results 40919. janjon - 9/12/2000 2:37:18 PM jack - truth is one thing (like in a candidate indeed having voted against xyz) but the whole truth is better (like in the vote was a procedural one and in fact was made to keep something else from being tabled or whatever.) 40920. janjon - 9/12/2000 2:38:20 PM Speaking of Poppy, how long before he decides that he also has to come charging out and rescue his boy? 40921. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:39:10 PM Horton was a race card play. Therein lay its effectiveness. JV can spout the party line defense all he wishes but every analysis by independent academics confirms what any fool knows....The Horton Theory was the same that Helms ran in his Senate race ad against affirmative action showing a black hand taking a job away from a white. 40922. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 2:39:11 PM jan 40923. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 2:40:14 PM jexster 40924. vonKreedon - 9/12/2000 2:41:48 PM 40925. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 2:42:19 PM Vk 40926. janjon - 9/12/2000 2:42:27 PM jack - I miswrote. In my ideal world, there would be fair context for all political ads. Ergo - I should have written that it SHOULD be truthful in the complete context. 40927. vonKreedon - 9/12/2000 2:43:03 PM 40928. janjon - 9/12/2000 2:43:58 PM What ads? Granted, my t.v. watching is verrrry limited, but I haven't seen a single Presidential campaign ad. Hillary and Ricky is another matter, of course. 40929. jexster - 9/12/2000 2:44:36 PM If anyone is interested in getting beyond the partisan and really learning something about negative campaigning, I strongly suggest that you read "Going Negative" by Ansolalbehere (MIT) and Iyengar (Stanford). 40930. janjon - 9/12/2000 2:44:46 PM I guess that is what living in a Gore-up-by-25-and-climbing state does for you. 40931. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 2:46:47 PM I've only seen a few fuzzy ads for both guys. No raw meat yet. 40932. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 2:55:05 PM "I also believe that a composite look at polls from March to August for 40933. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 3:02:44 PM "Horton was a product of Dukakis' policy, which had long been 40934. janjon - 9/12/2000 3:03:21 PM I agree with most all of what you've said, and indeed I think that their recognition of these historically tested factors underlies W's handlers comments for weeks that they expected the race to be a close one. As I said above, however, I doubt very much that they expected Gore to come close and now ahead without having gone (or being perceived as having gone) negative. Thereby shooting a major if not fatal hole in their strategy and plans. 40935. janjon - 9/12/2000 3:04:51 PM rask - I also agree with your comments that we indeed will see some "clever" ads from Gore soon. Well, at least many of you will. 40936. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 3:08:10 PM 40920. janjon - 9/12/00 2:38:20 PM 40937. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 3:13:05 PM I think this "real people" thing is a total failure -- if we're the "real people" who are the Bushes? Obviously the superior Greenwich-ites/Tokeneke club members who are gracious enough to perform public service for the underclassed and under privileged. 40938. janjon - 9/12/2000 3:13:05 PM thoughtful - well, this one is the Big Enchilada for Poppy. Not just about money. This is about REVENGE!!! 40939. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 3:13:51 PM Yeah, but Poppy doesn't have what it takes -- but watch out for the silver fox! 40940. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 3:15:50 PM I think it was here that someone linked an article about W's first visit to Texas, asked directions and was told to turn right at the next cattle guard. He asked what color the guard would be wearing! 40941. janjon - 9/12/2000 3:17:12 PM "Real Plans for Real People" will go down as one of the stupidest political slogans of all time. Condescending as hell. And, especially stupid when you look at the pedigrees of the principal messengers. Not even W. would deny that he is manor born, in a political sense. And, can you see that phrase tripping off of Cheney's lips without immediately being met with incredulity or guffaws, depending on how polite and close the audience is or whether it is on t.v. 40942. janjon - 9/12/2000 3:18:24 PM The Silver Fox is formidible indeed. It actually would be fun to see her cut loose. 40943. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 3:32:42 PM I think the Bush's not knowing about grocery scanners or ordering pizza really hurt them in the last election -- not major election issues -- but a sign of how out of touch they were with the electorate. The fact that W. has to try to prove he's "one of us" proves that he isn't. 40944. robertjayb - 9/12/2000 5:37:57 PM CNN Daily Tracking Poll: 40945. janjon - 9/12/2000 5:41:13 PM Are there any reputable polls out there that don't show Gore in the ascendency? Either consistently pulling ahead or steadily rising to now being even, depending on the poll? 40946. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 5:41:22 PM Every since Slackjaw introduced me to Bayesian statistics, I have started wishing that polls didn't say whether a difference was statistically significant, and instead listed the probability that the difference was due to chance. With that poll's numbers, it can't be much more than a 10% chance. 40947. Thoughtful - 9/12/2000 5:41:58 PM The problem with that poll is it doesn't ask the RATS. Today's key question is how will the RATS vote in the election! There's certainly enough of them to swing it either way. 40948. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 5:44:09 PM There is also something in statistics called meta-analysis, which basically uses the results of multiple studies to figure out whether they collectively are more statistically significant than any of them are individually. I don't know that much about how to do it, but given the number of polls all showing a slight lead for Gore in the last few weeks, I have found myself wondering what they could tell us. 40949. janjon - 9/12/2000 5:46:34 PM I see that this CNN poll covered about 750 voters. Are these from all fifty states? Weighted for the more electorally significant states? 40950. Jack Vincennes - 9/12/2000 5:55:41 PM The national polls mean little to nothing, unless the spread gets to a consistent 10%. 40951. CalGal - 9/12/2000 5:59:49 PM It's been said for a while now that the whole race pretty much depends on about a million voters spread out in about 10 states. Odd, when you think on it. 40952. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 6:00:20 PM "I see that this CNN poll covered about 750 voters. Are these from all 40953. janjon - 9/12/2000 6:00:53 PM a 15 point spread in Illinois? Gawd. 40954. janjon - 9/12/2000 6:02:52 PM Yeah, the swings aren't really that much. 60-40 is definitely a landslide. That boils down to 6 to 4 out of every ten (duh), which ain't much, McGee. 40955. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 6:03:06 PM "The national polls mean little to nothing, unless the spread gets to a 40956. jexster - 9/12/2000 6:17:26 PM I don't think the national polls mean too much at this point for reasons previously stated at least insofar as the horserace question goes 40957. jexster - 9/12/2000 6:20:45 PM Here are some excerpts (brief) from the Vanishing Voter's latest e-mail 40958. jexster - 9/12/2000 6:23:16 PM Also interesting question is how intensely are the voters focusing. We are all well aware that Bush is proving himself to be a stumblin bumblin good ole boy (all hat, no steers) but if most people aren't paying attention then it doesn't matter as much. 40959. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 6:24:33 PM "the danger of straining too hard at poll numbers 40960. bubbaette - 9/12/2000 6:25:40 PM Stop me if you've heard this one before: 40961. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2000 6:26:10 PM and from what I have seen, no recent poll has fallen outside any other recent poll's margin of error. 40962. RosettaStone - 9/12/2000 7:57:18 PM George W Bush and the evil right-wing conspirators are trying to implant microchips in my brain to monitor my conversations with the Lord...!!! They will try with you, too. Be wary of their plot! Reject their evil doings. 40963. robertjayb - 9/12/2000 8:19:02 PM . 40964. RosettaStone - 9/12/2000 8:30:34 PM Anyone read Drudge tonight? 40965. labwabbit - 9/12/2000 9:51:22 PM 1. Thank you for introducing us to Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, 40966. jexster - 9/12/2000 11:53:37 PM The Little Mouse That Roared: RATS Flap Drowns Bush Message on Health Care 40967. jexster - 9/12/2000 11:59:35 PM Here's a sublimable message for Stone 40968. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/13/2000 12:01:07 AM 40969. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:10:58 AM Rask - I thought that was what I said +/-3 or 4 point spread ie a spread of 3-4 points positive to 3/4 negative. 40970. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:17:05 AM That said, I've already wasted more time on the trial heat the relevance of which I think is less than the attention paid. 40971. angel-five - 9/13/2000 12:19:05 AM Rask: But that labelling wasn't what Tipper campaigned for. She and her accomplices wanted much more. They came up far short of it -- and, if you're just talking about them coming out of the affair with some good press and a good photo op victory over scumbag rock, well, the hearings sort of put an end to that. 40972. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:19:43 AM Additonal Gore lead outside margin of error - CBS/NYT 40973. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:35:11 AM If the Moron isn't battling the Rat Patrol, he's defending himself against accusations he has dislexia! 40974. angel-five - 9/13/2000 12:37:44 AM Ah! And in that campaign add he wanted to attack the 'arts'. It makes much more sense now. 40975. Jonesatlaw - 9/13/2000 12:54:59 AM GW BUSH: 40976. Jonesatlaw - 9/13/2000 12:55:23 AM Conservatives hate affirmative action and want the system to let people into college and jobs and military stuff based on hierarchial numbers crunching from some computers and standardized tests and stuff. 40977. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:56:55 AM Rask - my bad...UR right the margin of error CNN for eg the horse race could be in the latest Gallup 44-52 Gore 38-46 Bush. 40978. Jonesatlaw - 9/13/2000 1:01:07 AM Hey- is the "W" for Willard? Maybe he could play that old Micheal Jackson tune for his next commerical. 40979. jexster - 9/13/2000 1:10:40 AM Jonesy - You don't mean "Willard" you must mean "Widlard" 40980. rubberducky - 9/13/2000 9:51:14 AM 40981. mgleason - 9/13/2000 9:56:37 AM Oh, lord-love-a-duck, stop with the 'subliminable' messages. 40982. rubberducky - 9/13/2000 10:03:00 AM "The point is, this is a way to help inoculate me about what has come and is coming." 40983. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 10:36:51 AM "Rask - my bad...UR right the margin of error CNN for eg the horse race could be in the latest Gallup 44-52 Gore 38-46 Bush." 40984. JudithAtHome - 9/13/2000 10:37:04 AM Ducks: 40985. rubberducky - 9/13/2000 10:41:24 AM J@H 40986. JudithAtHome - 9/13/2000 10:43:17 AM Hows about: 40987. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 10:45:17 AM A5: 40988. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 10:57:44 AM I know most of you here think the federal government is the solution to all of our problems whether it has the constitutional authority to solve the problem or not. Maybe you should reconsider. If you had a brain in your head, you'd understand the importance of the 10th amendment and how it means, in the case of entitlement programs, that people in New Jersey wouldn't have to suffer because of California's fraud and mismanagement. As it is now, money from each tax payer is being wasted equally. Ain't that grand? I know, let's throw *more* money at it! 40989. rubberducky - 9/13/2000 11:04:00 AM welcome Cygnus, but how do you already "know" what "most" of us think? 40990. robertjayb - 9/13/2000 11:04:07 AM . 40991. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 11:04:25 AM Where's Ronski? Here's the #1 reason not to vote for Harry Browne even though he's the best candidate in the race. He has no chance to keep Al Gore out of office. 40992. janjon - 9/13/2000 11:06:23 AM Not one of her top-ten best, but today's column by Maureen Dowd is not too shabby: Hope the underscoring comes through 'cause if it doesn't the point of the column is lost 40993. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 11:06:37 AM rubberducky, I've been reading the posts in this thread. 40994. JudithAtHome - 9/13/2000 11:13:45 AM You know, people can laugh about the verbal mistakes GW makes all they want but havew they stopped to think how they will cringe when he continues to do this on a world stage? Can you imagine the thankless task an interpreter will have? 40995. RosettaStone - 9/13/2000 11:18:47 AM Where shouldn't there be any handicapped jokes? 40996. alan ladd - 9/13/2000 11:22:27 AM Hi there--I am new around here. Yesterday, I posted in the movie thread, and there has not been a post in 22 hours. So, I figured I'd come over here and kill this thread. http://www.savannahjournal.com/news/lafon.shtml 40997. Wombat - 9/13/2000 11:24:05 AM Cygnus: 40998. PsychProf - 9/13/2000 11:26:33 AM Alan...welcome. The Movie thread is discontinuous in posting frequency, as many anchor threads are. I enjoyed yer Shane thing... 40999. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 11:29:01 AM 41000. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 11:29:12 AM 41001. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 11:29:18 AM Gee, I guess you're right Wombat. We should just lower ourselves to the level of our competition. 41002. JudithAtHome - 9/13/2000 11:29:21 AM oops. 41003. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 11:29:29 AM 41004. JudithAtHome - 9/13/2000 11:34:23 AM Alan: 41005. jexster - 9/13/2000 11:42:31 AM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore (news -web sites) has opened a seven-point lead over Republican George W. Bush (news-web sites) in the latest Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday -- the first time his lead has been outside the statistical margin of error. 41006. jexster - 9/13/2000 11:49:10 AM Gore Overcomes Problems With Likeability - CBS/NYT 41007. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:00:46 PM CNN led its midafternoon newscast today with its follow-up to the report. "No detail is too small or too fleeting to cause a controversy," a CNN anchor noted. In its piece about Mr. Bush's tarmac appearance, the network also pointed out that Mr. Bush mispronounced "subliminal" four times 41008. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:02:16 PM toys 41009. janjon - 9/13/2000 12:06:48 PM You mean he didn't even say subliminable? He said sublimable? 41010. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:06:53 PM ST. LOUIS--Joining up with the Bush campaign in Florida yesterday, I was feeling disappointed that I'd missed all the catastrophe of the last few weeks: the failure of Bush's debate-evasion maneuvers, the fizzle of his first attack ad, assholegate. But dawn broke at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach with fresh disasters aplenty for the Republican nominee. 41011. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:07:53 PM JJ - I heard sublimable, but then again I missed RATS when they aired his killer commerical 41012. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:11:46 PM Bush May Suffer From Specific Language Impairment 41013. OhioSTOPAS - 9/13/2000 12:16:37 PM I've had to reconsider my scoring of a draw in Message # 40863. Hearing Dubya on the radio, I thought he successfully made it to the end of "subliminal" despite stumbling. But hearing him again on television, it was "sublimibibble". 41014. OhioSTOPAS - 9/13/2000 12:20:20 PM Message # 41010: Governor Bush's interview performance on Good Morning America was panned by dimwit radio commentator Michael Reagan for yet another reason: Reagan said Diane Sawyer asked Bush about the FTC report on the entertainment industry's marketing of violence to kids - a front page story Monday - and Bush didn't know anything about it. 41015. janjon - 9/13/2000 12:20:47 PM The Weisberg article is well worth reading. I think it sums up the fundamental source of W.'s problems quite well - he's really not interested in policy. Just in winning. Which I do in fact think he is. It would be extremely against human nature not to want to win the race once you've gotten this far. And, I suspect his competitiveness along these lines does, now, outweigh his desire for revenge for Poppy's loss. 41016. OhioSTOPAS - 9/13/2000 12:21:17 PM Now that Pat Buchanan's got 12 million dollars with which to try to take conservative votes away from Bush, it doesn't look good for the governor. 41017. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:21:20 PM The great sublimable dispute may just go down in history as a draw. 41018. janjon - 9/13/2000 12:23:20 PM So, is it this week or next that the RNC begins (quietly, they will fervently hope) to divert $$$$ to the Congressional races? 41019. janjon - 9/13/2000 12:23:56 PM oh, jexster, are you there? 41020. robertjayb - 9/13/2000 12:23:58 PM . 41021. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:24:39 PM I was wondering about the third party effect myself. One would think that Nader would draw from Gore, Buchannan from Bush. But polls seem to suggest that Nader draws from Bush too. 41022. OhioSTOPAS - 9/13/2000 12:26:02 PM With Bush's good poll numbers six months ago - hell, six WEEKS ago - who thought Bush would be behind Gore even with Buchanan at only 1%? 41023. bubbaette - 9/13/2000 12:26:09 PM toys 41024. robertjayb - 9/13/2000 12:26:37 PM toys 41025. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 12:27:48 PM I have to say that any diagnosis of dyslexia without first-hand testing of the person strikes me as very speculative. All we really know is the guy has a chronic problem with pronounciation, which could have (m)any of several root causes, from inattentive mis-readings of a teleprompter or notes, (or inattentive readings combined with a need for glasses), to a very poor vocabulary. Personally, I would say that if it is indeed dyslexia, or any other reading disorder, it reflects positively on Bush, not negatively, as it excuses many of his gaffes. Reading disorders are not necessarily related to intelligence, although they frequently give people the impression that they are. 41026. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:28:51 PM JJ - I'm not predicting they will start to send $$$ to their Senate and Congressional campaign committees. After all, Bush has been moving recently to wrest control of the RNC from the powers that be. 41027. janjon - 9/13/2000 12:31:17 PM I agree with Rask. If it is dyslexia, so be it. And, more power to W. as he copes with it. 41028. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:33:31 PM I also thought it funny that, in speaking of his RATS ad, Bush said "We're taking it out of the rotation" Maybe he's beginning to wax nostalgic for the good old days at the Texas Rangers. When men were men, assholes were assholes, and the good taxpayers of Tarrant County made him a millionaire. 41029. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:35:27 PM My brother weighs in by e-mail 41030. robertjayb - 9/13/2000 12:36:51 PM . 41031. jexster - 9/13/2000 12:39:13 PM Yup Florida looks to be in play. To think, just 6 weeks ago Cheney and Bush were whoopin it up here in California talking about how they were going to make a serious play for the state forcing Gore to spend kazillions to hold his base and now the worm has indeed turned 41032. janjon - 9/13/2000 12:43:50 PM Meanwhile, Hillary defeated her opponent (a doctor who was probably put up to it by the GOP to test the waters as to how big an anti-Hillary vote would turn out) in the primary held here in NYState yesterday. 41033. Wombat - 9/13/2000 12:44:42 PM Cygnus: 41034. Ronski - 9/13/2000 12:52:24 PM Not only is it impossible to diagnose dyslexia from the armchair, reading problems are a complex group of disorders. I sense that it is inattention and a poor vocabulary on Bush's part, since I know people who are truly dyslexic and never make the kind of mistakes when speaking that Bush does or his father did. 41035. Wombat - 9/13/2000 12:57:32 PM Or a ssa-eloh? 41036. jexster - 9/13/2000 1:05:02 PM On a heavier note, yesterday's CA papers carried stories that Gray Davis was proposing a massive increase in CalGrants to guarantee low and middle income high school grads with good grades full tuition to any state university and up to $10,000 for private schools. 41037. glendajean - 9/13/2000 1:05:05 PM When Bush ran against Ann Richards in 1994, according to her internal tracking polls, he was not behind (and she had a favorability rating that never went below 60%). Texas was trending heavily Republican (today, there aren't any Democratic statewide officeholders left) and the only question was how would suburban, mostly Republican women vote. They were the ones who put Richards into office (just barely) after her Republican opponent said several stupid comments that were particularly offensive to women. 41038. jexster - 9/13/2000 1:12:12 PM Thanks Glenda for shedding light on the myth that GWB is some sort of political demi-god. 41039. Ronski - 9/13/2000 1:15:55 PM glenda, 41040. Ronski - 9/13/2000 1:20:07 PM Also, in Texas in '94, Bush's win was part of a brief but strong national Republican trend. Remember the Congressional Class of '94? 41041. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 1:24:34 PM 41042. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 1:24:37 PM 41043. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 1:26:38 PM 41044. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 1:30:37 PM 41045. Thoughtful - 9/13/2000 1:32:56 PM Today's NY Times, Krugman attacks Bush's tax plan -- it just doesn't add. Maureen Dowd makes fun of the RATS ad in a clever way -- subliminably! 41046. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 1:42:47 PM Hey Wombat, that was my point, genius. But, if we pass something like the healthcare system her majesty Hillary proposed (and Al Gore supports), the federal government will have control over a huge part of our economy. That sad thing is, you seem to actually want that despite referring to "the failed socialist states". 41047. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/13/2000 1:49:36 PM 41048. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 1:56:36 PM 41049. Ronski - 9/13/2000 2:00:30 PM Thoughtful, 41050. janjon - 9/13/2000 2:07:06 PM Ronski. But nobody - and I mean nobody - has as much problems with his figures as does our little Ricky. That so-called tax plan of his is about as half-baked and porous as can be. 41051. Ronski - 9/13/2000 2:11:53 PM Beavis, Butthead and Bush. It doesn't surprise me about the frogs, given that Bush pere, as president, used to sic his dog on the squirrels on the White House lawn, slaughtering them in great numbers, no doubt. You would think that the limousine drivers would have killed more than enough of them accidentally. 41052. Ronski - 9/13/2000 2:13:58 PM 41053. Jack Vincennes - 9/13/2000 2:16:49 PM Washington Post 41054. janjon - 9/13/2000 2:22:26 PM Ronski. Much closer to a draw than a squash. They could, in fact, run a squash against Hillary and said veggie would attract a sizeable vote. 41055. Wombat - 9/13/2000 2:25:28 PM As it happens, Cygnet, I thought the Clinton health plan was a cumbersome load of nonsense. I prefer a single payer plan--or choice of plans, using existing deductibles and employer contributions, administered by the Federal sector. If--for constitutional reasons--you would rather have fifty bureaucracies administer such a plan, then fine, although it would certainly be less efficient. It would also be considerably more efficient than the "system" we have now, and would serve everyone. It would not be as efficient as the libertarian dream of pay as you go with no insurance at all, but that is a kind of efficiency that I suspect most people will want to avoid. 41056. Ronski - 9/13/2000 2:26:17 PM 41057. janjon - 9/13/2000 2:32:37 PM Ronski. I doubt it. I am sure we will hear lots and lots from Ricky asking Hillary to point to one thing - just one thing - she's DONE for New York. She, on the ther other hand, will indeed try to tie him to the parts of his "record" that he would just as soon forget. If he is really stupid, he might even try a surprise geography quiz on her (of course, she could no doubt fling that one right back at him, since I doubt he's been north of Manhattan very much in his life until recently). In other words, more or less a shrill circus. 41058. janjon - 9/13/2000 2:44:21 PM what is your current take on things around here, Ronski? 41059. jexster - 9/13/2000 2:48:09 PM Also, in Texas in '94, Bush's win was part of a brief but strong 41060. jexster - 9/13/2000 2:51:12 PM Well, Bush is behind, but he's been behind before. He was briefly 41061. glendajean - 9/13/2000 2:55:17 PM When Bush ran against Richards in '94, I believe Clinton's popularity in Texas was around 20%. Not a great year to run as a Democrat. 41062. Ronski - 9/13/2000 2:55:19 PM janjon, 41063. jexster - 9/13/2000 2:57:46 PM The fundamentals continue to move to Gore 41064. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 2:57:48 PM Wombat, you obviously haven't thought through what you said. How can a federal bureaucracy possibly be more efficient than a state bureaucracy? When the New Jersey system doesn’t have to take care of citizens in Florida, it’s simply has to be more efficient. Sure, citizens in a state that’s run inefficiently may feel “left behind” by citizens in a state that’s run efficiently. But that’s tough shit for them. Either move out of the state or get involved in their local government. Gasp! Conscientiousness is unthinkable! 41065. janjon - 9/13/2000 2:59:52 PM ronski - your views on almost everything (except certain manifestations stemming from your favorite political creed) are always welcome. I had the Hillary/Ricky to-do in mind, but feel free to comment as you wish. 41066. glendajean - 9/13/2000 3:00:10 PM The l-word is still potent among the true believers and the Clinton haters. But probably doesn't pack the punch it used to. Good call on D'Amato. He and Finkelstein used that word over and over successfully in the past. 41067. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:01:30 PM Glenda - I think its a good rule to discount media horserace punditry for the simple reason that its an Iron Rule of Politics that the media love a tight race. They always play this up. Indeed I have seen many times the media predicting "tight" races that ended up as landslides. 41068. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 3:02:23 PM BTW, I just heard that if you categorize people based on education level and look at for whom they intend to vote, the largest gap in favor of Gore is in the "high school dropout" category. By a 2-to-1 margin, high school dropouts favor Gore. You Gore lovers are in good company. 41069. glendajean - 9/13/2000 3:03:27 PM Ronski -- I would imagine that the true believers on the right need red meat from time to time. They didn't get it in the Republican convention. Their vice presidential candidate has a lesbian daughter (ok, according to her mother, she's not declared, but we do know that her daughter lives with a woman, took a job with Coors to build customer relations within the gay and lesbian community, and has a less than Republican big hair "do"). They've given Bush a free ride, but I don't think compassionate conservativism or real solutions for real people get them to the polls or make them happy. 41070. janjon - 9/13/2000 3:03:58 PM It will take a tremendous gaffe by Gore (highly unlikely, and if it occurs it will be in terms of how he comes over as opposed to his substance) AND a remarkably good showing by W. in the debates (especially the first one), for this race to turn around in W.'s favor. Granted, given the level of expectations, many will determine that W. will have had a remarkably good showing simply by not ending up with any egg on his face through either being unknowledgeable or truly mangling grammar/pronunciation. But, the odds of Gore making a gaffe aren't very high. He's been through all of this, many a time. 41071. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:04:54 PM A supporter of the Impaired One trashing the ignorant? 41072. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 3:05:33 PM "If I were the Gore people, I would be 41073. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 3:07:04 PM Duhhh, Cygnus X-1, Al Gore tells me there really is such a thing as a free lunch, and I believe him. 41074. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 3:10:45 PM Gore's worst gaffe would be something that confirms the worst perceptions people already have about him, by claiming that he was one of the Mercury 7, or something. And if he resorts to that condescending, patronizing tone he often uses in debates, he risks pissing off the many voters whose instincts are to give arrogant eggheads swirlies over electing them to the presidency. 41075. Cellar Door - 9/13/2000 3:11:24 PM Oh boy -- turn on the tube! The DOJ has a house nigger in front of the court house claiming that the Wen Ho lee case "has nothing to do with race." 41076. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:11:41 PM When A Campaign is Laughable It in Trouble - Time 41077. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:12:11 PM He's not a house nigger he's chinese. 41078. glendajean - 9/13/2000 3:12:16 PM Jexster -- It's my feeling that Bush has lost votes, but that Gore has gotten them. It's an amazing story, if you think about it, that he has done so well with such a great economy and no war going on. Speaks volumes about the weight of Clinton's "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" actions and the impeachment process. 41079. Cellar Door - 9/13/2000 3:13:15 PM A house nigger is a house nigger is a house nigger. 41080. glendajean - 9/13/2000 3:13:38 PM That should be, Bush hasn't lost votes, but that Gore has gained votes. 41081. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:14:57 PM I Can't Stand All This Bush-is-a-Moron Smugness - Time 41082. janjon - 9/13/2000 3:15:41 PM I speak from a sort of vacuum, since as I mentioned yesterday we aren't getting any Presidential ads here in New York, so I really don't know the extent to which either or both side is in fact engaging in issue/record ads. BUT, regardless of whether it is driven by a change in the mood of the press, more focus on Big Al, or whatever, it is inevitable that both sides are going to pick up on the issue/record ads at the very least. Those of you getting such ads are going to learn a lot more about what has been going on or not going on in Texas than you ever thought possible. 41083. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 3:15:59 PM 41084. Ronski - 9/13/2000 3:16:45 PM janjon, 41085. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 3:17:33 PM The Gallup pole is in the link. 41086. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 3:18:02 PM 41087. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:18:08 PM Bush has been losing votes. In fact, Candy Crowlie, CNN's reporter on the Bush campaign, reported last week or maybe the week before some whistling-past-the-graveyard in the Bush camp to the effec that they were taking consolation in this very fact. 41088. Wombat - 9/13/2000 3:18:44 PM A Federal bureaucracy does a very good job administering social security, medicare, and medicaid. The Federal government also has the resources to provide these services in a way states don't. 41089. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 3:19:29 PM glenda: It is something that Gore could also take advantage of, by trying to make Bush appear overly scripted. Also, the national journalists who host these things would end up helping Gore, by asking oddball spins on questions and getting more prosecutorial when Bush dodges the question in favor of a pat answer. I would also bet that Gore will push for another one of those "town meeting" debates, where such a tactic would come across very poorly. 41090. janjon - 9/13/2000 3:22:28 PM Actually - that Time article contained a very simple statement of truth - there is no question that W. will embark very soon on what everyone in the world will recognize as being very strong negative attacks. They've really got not choice. 41091. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:22:55 PM The best hope Bush has, albeit a slim one, lies in the fact that all his stumbling, bumbling and fumbling is happening at a time when the electorate is still paying less attention to the race than at comparable times in the past. 41092. Wombat - 9/13/2000 3:24:14 PM So it will be a contest between who will seem less scripted. Hmmm. 41093. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:24:36 PM WRT town meeting formats - Gore does well in them and Bush thinks he does too. 41094. janjon - 9/13/2000 3:26:27 PM ronski. Is your state senator the one who was elected in a b-election following the GOP push to repeal the NYC commuter's tax as a sop to his election effort? If so, speaking as a recently born-again, but fervent, dweller of the City I say fie on him. Fie. May he lose by a landslide and flood. 41095. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 3:27:25 PM 41096. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:28:32 PM Seems to me that while the media's focus on Bush bumbling did not begin with Assholegate, its certainly picked up steam since then. Then again, they've had an abundance of material to work with. 41097. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 3:28:35 PM Wombat: I have always thought that Gore's biggest weakness as a debater was to *appear* to be scripted when he was being spontaneous. 41098. Thoughtful - 9/13/2000 3:29:32 PM Has any schedule been set yet for the debates? Since the debate debate quieted down, I haven't heard anything. 41099. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 3:30:29 PM Nothing yet. Last I heard they were negotiating over how to negotiate, or something. 41100. glendajean - 9/13/2000 3:33:43 PM My ever slight middle aged memory says that Gore did quite well debating Quayle in '92 and Perot on NAFTA. I think Dole/Kemp was so far behind that it didn't matter much. 41101. jexster - 9/13/2000 3:34:12 PM Speaking of housen----rs JC Watts Panic Attack - Urges Bush to go on the Offensive 41102. Thoughtful - 9/13/2000 3:34:17 PM Can it be over the shape of the table? Shades of Vietnam.... 41103. Ronski - 9/13/2000 3:37:50 PM 41104. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 3:39:03 PM "My ever slight middle aged memory says that Gore did quite well 41105. glendajean - 9/13/2000 3:40:12 PM Thoughtful -- I would imagine that Bush is trying to limit his vulnerablities (whatever his campaign thinks they are -- less hostile panel, chance to chat more, less need for policy answers). They've got an idea of a format that would help their man in something that nobody thinks he will do well. 41106. glendajean - 9/13/2000 3:42:59 PM Vanocur cut Reagan off. If he hadn't, the mental alertness charge would have hurt him. Of course, Reagan defused much of that with his joke about old age. 41107. janjon - 9/13/2000 3:43:06 PM 41092. Wombat - 9/13/00 8:24:14 PM 41108. glendajean - 9/13/2000 3:46:07 PM The press like best to be vultures. It looks like they are picking over Bush' selection of Cheny as a vp. Lieberman looks like a great choice (hope he doesn't have a mistress out there somewhere, wouldn't that be the kiss of death). I bet Bush is kicking himself for not convincing Powell to join the ticket. 41109. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 3:46:56 PM Hell, Desert Storm couldn't win an election for Bush pere less than two years afterwards. There is no way that it will help his son 10 years later. I can't believe Bush fils even thinks it will. I suspect he is just surrounding himself with reputable people in hopes that it will rub off and allay some fears. 41110. Jonesatlaw - 9/13/2000 3:50:29 PM Where does Bush come up with these tag lines? The "real people" thing reminded me of "coke, its the real thing" which is not where Bush wants to go. 41111. jexster - 9/13/2000 4:00:35 PM Gore Campaign Receives Package of Secret Bush Debate Prep Materials Turns over to FBI 41112. janjon - 9/13/2000 4:02:31 PM rask - you would think that W. and his would realize that. But, time after time we get "remember Desert Storm" shoveled out by them. I think it goes to the ultimate vacuity at play here. They don't have policies, they have memories and the desire to revenge Poppy. 41113. janjon - 9/13/2000 4:07:20 PM jex - I smell a rat. 41114. glendajean - 9/13/2000 4:09:54 PM Damn. Maybe it was the guilty soul who stole Jimmy Carter's debate briefing book and gave it to the Reagan campaign in 1980. 41115. Wombat - 9/13/2000 4:19:24 PM As long as they photocopied everything before handing it over to the FBI... 41116. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 5:07:26 PM Current Iowa Electronic Market prices (real money being invested): 41117. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 5:08:48 PM ducky, why isn't Krugman's NYT column on the sidebar? 41118. janjon - 9/13/2000 5:09:02 PM Iowa Electronics Market, eh. 41119. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 5:16:14 PM Brain child of the U of Iowa's business school. It is a futures market. I find it a fascinating representation of the changes in the race, as the prices are determined by real people placing real bets. 41120. janjon - 9/13/2000 5:31:51 PM Fascinating. 41121. janjon - 9/13/2000 5:38:07 PM Quinnepiac poll out today shows that in New York, among likely voters, it is Gore 60%, Bush 31%. 41122. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 5:41:37 PM The IEM is pretty accurate. I recall, for instance, that just before the 1996 election, Dole's Winner Take All price dropped to around 5 cents, indicating that prices aren't substantially driven by partisanship (although I do think there is a slight GOP bias to the market). 41123. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 5:43:10 PM "The latest presidential poll results are now on www.gallup.com 41124. Thoughtful - 9/13/2000 5:43:13 PM Raski -- great link. That's so much fun. 41125. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 5:44:55 PM I have been kicking around throwing a hundred bucks there to play around with, but my suspicion is that it would get too addicting. 41126. Thoughtful - 9/13/2000 5:46:10 PM glendaj, of course Bush is trying to minimize exposing his vulnerabilities. The problem is it's not just people like me, but obviously his own people who fear his performance in a debate. The problem is, when you're president, international and domestic negotiations on policy issues often hinge on one's ability to persuade with words. That's the concern here and a very real one. Regardless of how right your positions are on an issue, it won't do a bit of good if you can't persuade the opposition of your rightness. Frankly I don't think W. is up to the job. 41127. janjon - 9/13/2000 5:46:32 PM Oooooh yes. Addicting that would be. I'll just peek in a lot for the rest of the so-called season. 41128. stostosto - 9/13/2000 5:48:09 PM Iowa Electronic Market on Presidential Voting Shares (VS) 41129. stostosto - 9/13/2000 5:51:36 PM 41130. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 5:57:03 PM We are talking about the University of Iowa here. Iowa City is the only place in the entire state which wouldn't be improved by being paved and turned into a parking lot for Minnesotans and Illini. 41131. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 5:57:32 PM Hell, you wouldn't even need to pave it. 41132. glendajean - 9/13/2000 6:04:28 PM I lived in Iowa City for a couple of years back in the late 70s while attending grad school. U of I is firmly committed to empirical quantitative research over qualitative research -- or at least it did when I went there. 41133. glendajean - 9/13/2000 6:12:16 PM Thoughtful -- I want Gore elected president, and frankly, I would love to see Bush self-destruct in a debate. But that is my personal opinion. 41134. glendajean - 9/13/2000 6:12:51 PM They are a bit of circus -- they = debates 41135. rubberducky - 9/13/2000 6:32:53 PM Raskolnikov: 41136. jexster - 9/13/2000 6:51:23 PM Gore Close To Crossing Rubicon 41137. jexster - 9/13/2000 6:54:01 PM 1117. Raskolnikov - 9/13/00 10:08:48 PM 41138. jexster - 9/13/2000 6:59:54 PM Environmental Voters For Gore - Bush Slime Alert! 41139. jexster - 9/13/2000 7:01:41 PM Evidence that the campaign is heating up...the usual voter registration crew was out on Castro St. this afternoon hawking 41140. jexster - 9/13/2000 7:30:36 PM I've not seen a single Presidential campaign ad 41141. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 7:33:14 PM Ducky: It is similar format to the other NYTimes columnists you have linked: 41142. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 8:04:44 PM Message # 41021: 41143. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 8:05:10 PM vK Message # 41042: 41144. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 8:16:52 PM Cygnus X-1 Message # 41068: 41145. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 8:17:15 PM Anyway, what does it mean? Well, in Rush-land, it has the connotation that dummies vote for Gore. This is condescending, to say the least. I know some very intelligent people who, for one reason or another, never got a diploma. Certainly that doesn't speak well of their ambition or ability to finish things, but it doesn't necessarily have to do with their ability to understand and process information. Not everybody does well in the one-size-fits-all meat-grinder that many American public schools have become; that doesn't mean they're idiots. 41146. jexster - 9/13/2000 8:31:10 PM Yea Eric I don't think that Nader's necessarily going to take votes away from Gore. 41147. Cellar Door - 9/13/2000 8:41:47 PM Nader is a mirage. 41148. lemwalker - 9/13/2000 8:54:32 PM So here I am one of the very few Americans without tv. And I get polled again! 41149. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 9:21:24 PM Hey, don't fret EricFartman. I wasn't trying to insult you. You can always get your GED. 41150. LadyChaos - 9/13/2000 9:49:22 PM 41151. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 9:55:52 PM BTW, anyone who votes "for the person" on a national level is flat out ignorant. If you can't see the underlying ideologies then you should be unqualified to vote. You may think Bush is an idiot (even though it was Gore who flunked out of two grad schools), but I'd vote for a department store mannequin if it would keep Al Gore’s socialist ideas from being passed. Here's why. 41152. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:04:37 PM Dept. of Justice Investigating Gore 41153. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:04:47 PM Democrats will surely say that Clinton would have vetoed the bill in any case because he and the Democrats generally have opposed tort reform — and get a lot of support from trial lawyers as a result. 41154. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:06:14 PM 41155. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:06:31 PM 41156. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:06:41 PM 41157. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:07:27 PM 41158. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:09:06 PM 41159. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 10:11:33 PM 41160. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:13:03 PM 41161. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 10:18:30 PM 41162. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 10:19:19 PM I can see it clearly. If Al Gore were a Republican, we'd be swarmed with headlines: "Gore in bed with trial lawyers!" "Who loves lawyers? Al Gore does!" 41163. Wombat - 9/13/2000 10:19:31 PM I'll just wish you luck in blowing it out of all proportion. Kind of like what you did with the Los Alamos spy scandal, when you were ready to string up the entire administration for treason. Have a nice day, and keep trying. 41164. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:22:47 PM 41165. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:26:32 PM 41166. Indiana Jones - 9/13/2000 10:27:35 PM Hey it happened last election. 41167. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:29:17 PM 41168. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:31:06 PM 41169. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 10:32:18 PM 41170. Wombat - 9/13/2000 10:32:43 PM When Tom DeLay states that legislative priorities will be dependent not only on how much companies contribute to the Republicans, but on how little they contribute to Democrats, somehow I don't see your outrage as being disinterested. 41171. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 10:32:44 PM Message # 41146: 41172. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 10:34:12 PM If you had any balls, you'd have quoted the entire post instead of taking a sentence out of context but then I think yours belong to the ace of spades. 41173. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 10:36:40 PM Cygnus Message # 41149: 41174. Wombat - 9/13/2000 10:38:58 PM Did Rush Limbaugh finish college? Inquiring minds want to know. 41175. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 10:42:33 PM Mr. Fartman, are you suggesting I shouldn't listen to any talk radio? Why, then I'd be as ignorant as you and be inclined to vote for backwards, ignorant populist like Ralph Nader. But, I'll now do more than repeat what I heard. 41176. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 10:43:38 PM Wombat: 41177. Wombat - 9/13/2000 10:47:45 PM I suspect there is an inverse relationship to intelligence and listening to talk radio. Cygnet is certainly demonstrating it. 41178. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 10:48:39 PM Hey Wombat, do your parents know your on the computer at this hour? 41179. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 10:50:08 PM Probably not, right? After all, a young wippersnapper such as yourself can go and get an abortion without parental consent, so why shouldn't you be able to go online without them knowing? 41180. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 10:51:56 PM 41181. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 10:52:16 PM Message # 41175: 41182. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 10:52:26 PM I know how Al Gore can beat the rap on this latest scandal. He can claim diplomatic immunity. After all, he practically had Chinese citizenship at that time. So, he can claim he was conducting official Chinese embassy business. 41183. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 10:55:28 PM Oh, that's right Mr. Fartman. I forgot the rules. If it comes from a conservative, it must be untrue. 41184. Wombat - 9/13/2000 10:59:07 PM Cygnet: 41185. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 11:01:03 PM 41186. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2000 11:02:01 PM Nah, I'm going to go beat my grandmother over the head with a frying pan and steal her Medicare check. That's what a good, cold-hearted conservative does. 41187. Wombat - 9/13/2000 11:03:17 PM Hey, whatever rocks your world... 41188. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 11:07:32 PM 41189. vonKreedon - 9/13/2000 11:09:46 PM That should be whom they hit up for contributions. 41190. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 11:19:24 PM 41191. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 11:26:21 PM 41192. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/13/2000 11:27:59 PM 41193. AceofSpades - 9/13/2000 11:33:10 PM 41194. EricCartman - 9/13/2000 11:45:20 PM Message # 41183: 41195. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/13/2000 11:45:21 PM Hey Stewed, do you everstartthinking? 41196. jexster - 9/14/2000 2:05:54 AM Ace is always yappin about bribery. He's as tired as he is wacko. 41197. stostosto - 9/14/2000 6:51:09 AM 41198. joezan - 9/14/2000 7:59:27 AM 41199. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 8:09:22 AM Does Cygnus (or Rush Limbaugh, since he appears to think for Cygnus) think that only those with at least highschool diplomas should vote? 41200. joezan - 9/14/2000 8:57:28 AM 41201. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 9:14:54 AM Joezan 41202. Cygnus X-1 - 9/14/2000 9:53:15 AM bubbaette, as a matter of fact, I would. It was no mistake that owning property used to be a prerequisite for voting. It was to keep idiots from casting misinformed or uninformed votes for demagogues intent on gaining power at the expense of the country (ie. Al Gore). Not all votes are equal. If you don't know anything about the issues or anything about the Constitution, I don't care what you "feel", you don't deserve to vote because you're ignorant. And there's a lot of ignorance in this country as evidenced by the number of women swayed by "the kiss". Any such woman not only shouldn't be allowed to vote, they should be stuck cleaning toilets for a living. 41203. rubberducky - 9/14/2000 9:57:01 AM X: 41204. Cygnus X-1 - 9/14/2000 10:01:37 AM Mr. Fartman, Re Message #41194. You continue to attack the messenger rather than the message. Are you sure you're not voting for Al Gore? 41205. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 10:19:06 AM Cygnus 41206. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 10:21:46 AM On the trial lawyer thing: So far, all we have is a memo written from DNC flunky to her boss suggesting that he use probably illegal language to solicit campaign contributions. Since I find bribes reprehensible (its why I hated D'Amato and loved the Abscam sting), it is certainly worth interviewing the flunky, her boss, and the trial lawyers in question to see if a crime was actually committed, but this is pretty fucking scant evidence of any crime by Gore. Ace is once again jumping to conclusions so fast that it is clear his premises are sinking. 41207. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 10:22:13 AM I also think, Cygnus, that you do your cause more harm than good the way you spout off. Frankly, most people who read your posts would be more inclined to vote against any candidate you might support. The Repubs already have enough of a problem being identified as the party of intolerance and misogynism without your confirming that impression. 41208. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 10:27:08 AM Additionally, voters without a high school diploma are disproportionately black in this country, and blacks have overwhelmingly supported the Democratic party, regardless of income and education, since 1936, so this is certain to skew the results. 41209. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 10:29:45 AM Actually, I am not very right on that. While it is true that blacks are less likely to graduate from high school, it is only by a small amount. 41210. Cygnus X-1 - 9/14/2000 10:34:17 AM Like I said before, at the national level (and to a larger extent the state level) I don't support a candidate, I support an ideology. If Republicans have been misidentified as racists or misogynists, it's only because they support equal opportunity - not equal outcome. 41211. Cygnus X-1 - 9/14/2000 10:35:50 AM That's a very racist thing for you to say, Raskolnikov. 41212. Cygnus X-1 - 9/14/2000 10:36:18 AM I for one am offended. 41213. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 10:42:11 AM That would make you both offended and offensive. Fortunately, I have better things to do with my time than to attempt rational discourse with an irrational person. 41214. Cygnus X-1 - 9/14/2000 10:48:56 AM Uh oh, bubbaette, please don't tell me you were actually swayed by "the kiss". Shame on you! 41215. rubberducky - 9/14/2000 10:54:04 AM X-51 41216. Cellar Door - 9/14/2000 10:54:49 AM Hillary won the debate, the voters say. 41217. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 10:55:39 AM I watched no part of either convention. I base my vote on issues, not sound bites and photo ops. 41218. janjon - 9/14/2000 11:26:36 AM I see that Ace is off on another one of his indignant/constipated toots. 41219. janjon - 9/14/2000 11:27:32 AM ronski. Did you watch Hillary and Ricky last night? Reactions? 41220. robertjayb - 9/14/2000 11:58:23 AM . 41221. jexster - 9/14/2000 11:58:43 AM Forget irresponsible fiscal policies, forget their politics of personal destruction. The best reason, the screaming imperative to elect a Democratic Congress has to be putting an end to endless Reagan Memorials. 41222. glendajean - 9/14/2000 11:59:37 AM I still say that they should re-name Washington, DC to Reagan, DC, and get it over with. 41223. glendajean - 9/14/2000 12:00:23 PM Oops. Sorry, Jex. 41224. DanDillon - 9/14/2000 12:03:00 PM The old goose has a new aircraft carrier being commissioned in his name as well: the USS Ronald Reagan. 41225. janjon - 9/14/2000 12:03:00 PM There should be a prescribed time period, say 50 years after leaving office, before any memorial (other than, perhaps, the naming or renaming of facilities) is erected for a President. 41226. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 12:04:54 PM I think an edit should be sent down from Congress requiring that henceforth, each newborn male shall be named Ronald and each newborn female shall be named Reagan. 41227. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 12:05:15 PM That's "edict", not "edit" 41228. Ronski - 9/14/2000 12:15:33 PM janjon, 41229. glendajean - 9/14/2000 12:23:11 PM The Slate guy thinks its a done deal ... again. 41230. CalGal - 9/14/2000 12:23:16 PM Oh, did I miss the debate? Bummer. 41231. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:23:47 PM From my read of the NYT I give the win to Lazio but then again, I'm a Ragin Cajun of James Carville School 41232. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:24:55 PM Since Labor Day, the media have released about 20 polls on the presidential race. Three show a dead heat, one shows George W. Bush leading by a single percentage point, and the rest show Al Gore leading by one to 10 points. In the latest polls, Gore leads by an average of five points. It's fashionable at this stage to caution that "anything can happen," that Bush is "retooling," and that the numbers can turn in Bush's favor just as easily as they turned against him. But they can't. The numbers are moving toward Gore because fundamental dynamics tilt the election in his favor. The only question has been how far those dynamics would carry him. Now that he has passed Bush, the race is over. 41233. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:25:48 PM Why Bush Will Lose - William Saletan 41234. robertjayb - 9/14/2000 12:26:22 PM . 41235. robertjayb - 9/14/2000 12:28:26 PM . 41236. Ronski - 9/14/2000 12:29:11 PM jexster, 41237. Cellar Door - 9/14/2000 12:30:53 PM It was a debate not between Hillary and Lazio, but Hillary and Tim Russert. The man's a boor and a boob. 41238. ycmeehan - 9/14/2000 12:30:58 PM Frick and Frack, Eric? You can't mean that, not you, not really. 41239. janjon - 9/14/2000 12:31:16 PM Ronski. Thanks. I saw it. Agree with much of what you say. Thought that Lazio demonstrated that he could hold himself together in such a setting. Most of his responses were articulate and cogent (in the context of soundbites). His comebacks (clearly well-rehearsed) about aspects like Hillary's references to Newt were good. 41240. Cellar Door - 9/14/2000 12:33:35 PM The desire of the "mainstream" press to humiliate Hillary Clinton at every opportunity is breathtaking. 41241. Cellar Door - 9/14/2000 12:34:07 PM Hell, Ace has better manners than Tim Russert. 41242. janjon - 9/14/2000 12:36:16 PM Russert indeed can be criticized on at least one aspect of the use of those 1998 tapes. As indicated above, it really does seem to be commonly accepted that Hillary had been misled by Bill. For Russert at this date to ask her whether SHE should not apologize to the American people for having - her having - misled them was a distortion that someone in his position last night should not have made. 41243. janjon - 9/14/2000 12:37:07 PM Manners? Ace? Gimme a break. 41244. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:38:17 PM I'm not alone among Motitites, JJ for one, have said that Bush only leads when he's in a phantom campaign. 41245. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:39:23 PM Yea that shit that Russert pulled. If I were Hillary I would have told him to stick a large dildo up his butt. 41246. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:39:59 PM JJ=Janjon not JJBeanHead 41247. Jonesatlaw - 9/14/2000 12:46:02 PM Ace- Gee, I wonder if the National Manufacturer's Association's contributions to GOP campaigns had anything to do with the GOP spearheading tort "reform.?" I wonder if you have the same view of the many stories of arm twisting by Trent Lott, "suggesting" that certain GOP supporters come through again with contributions if they wanted to see action on their issues? 41248. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:46:29 PM Battleground notwithstanding 41249. Ronski - 9/14/2000 12:47:51 PM janjon, 41250. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:50:17 PM Ronski - Lazio didn't leave well enough alone....he pounced on the impication of Russert's slimey question to the effect "As we've just heard, she can't be trusted....." 41251. Ronski - 9/14/2000 12:53:53 PM Voter.com does not suprise me, nor does the fact that the Rasmussen tracking poll has Bush with a very slight lead (within the margin of error). Gore's good fortune is that he is neck and neck with the challenger in early to mid September. As long as he does not permit himself to be painted as a terrible lefty and does not get preachy and condescending, the strength of the economy should overwhelm the new-broom-sweeps-clean sentiment, according to virtually all the economic and electoral models. I still say Gore by three points. 41252. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:55:52 PM Daily News Poll: Hillary Kicked Butt 41253. jexster - 9/14/2000 12:56:59 PM Voter.com is what we "statisticians" call "an outlier". But it does show the weaknesses of tracking polls so early..... 41254. janjon - 9/14/2000 1:00:29 PM ronski. No apologies needed! Your off the top of your head stuff is miles better than much of the crap spewed forth around here (um, Ace is back, as you may know.) 41255. jexster - 9/14/2000 1:02:37 PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Al Gore(news - web sites) enjoys a six-point lead over Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush (news - web sites), according to a poll released on Thursday. 41256. mgleason - 9/14/2000 1:13:27 PM Yes; I, too, think that Saletan did a good job. 41257. Ronski - 9/14/2000 1:13:44 PM What I found most compelling about the figures Saletan used was the significant drop in those who had previously said they would never vote for Al Gore. 41258. Cellar Door - 9/14/2000 1:14:28 PM Just listening to CNN. A "new fundraising scandal" -- for Al Gore, of course, as the Repubs are as pure as the driven snow doncha know. 41259. jexster - 9/14/2000 1:18:46 PM The Communitarian Platform (Libertarians Must Die) 41260. Ronski - 9/14/2000 1:21:52 PM jexster, 41261. jexster - 9/14/2000 1:22:06 PM MG - I too remember those Carter stumbles. UR post also called to mind a Senate party I attended immediately following JC's inauguration (I had an SRO in the VIP area! - posture, posture). Very painful recollection, of a Demo operative gushing "Its about time! We Democrats were born to govern" OUCH 41262. jexster - 9/14/2000 1:24:06 PM A communitarian perspective recognizes both individual human dignity and the social dimension of human existence. 41263. jexster - 9/14/2000 1:24:37 PM No individual dignity for libertarians! Death to libertarians! 41264. janjon - 9/14/2000 1:25:54 PM Saletan generally has both a sure and deft touch and interesting perspectives. A good read. 41265. jexster - 9/14/2000 1:42:38 PM Watch Al and Karenna Gore Schiff Live Webcast 2:15 EDT Today! 41266. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 1:48:30 PM Ricky also didn't do himself well upstate by rather proudly pointing out that he had been there SIX times already. 41267. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 1:51:10 PM Cart is correct in his retort to VK re: modern liberalism. The players are certainly interesting, and political campaigns are always enjoyable, but no ideological struggle is at stake in this election (unless you are childish enough to believe that Roe v. Wade might be at peril with a troika of Bush appointees, a fear ladled out for dimwits). Take, for instance, what I and most everyone on this thread takes to be the imminent election of Mr. Gore. He certainly offends me, just as Bush offends many as a a little rich frat boy with a vendetta against the King's English, but my distaste for Gore is almost purely personal, based upon the way in which he has morphed ideologically (and added the nasty trick of condemning as evil those who hold the same positions as his own, inconvenient prior stands), the individual manner in which he has presented himself to people over the years, specific statements and actions, a severe discomfort with what makes him tick (I think it is primarily fear), and that ever-present condescension that his handlers appear to have beaten out of him (hopefully, the tonic has a shelf-life of over two months). 41268. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 1:51:34 PM 41269. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 1:51:42 PM 41270. jexster - 9/14/2000 2:04:10 PM intellectually incapable of divining raising soft money from, say, the allegations leveled against Mr. Gore. 41271. Cellar Door - 9/14/2000 2:04:28 PM Actually if Tipper is smart (I doubt she'll let Al within a mile of the invitations list) she'll invite Danny of "The Real World" to the White House --with football player Corey Johnson as his date -- instead of Ellen and some Anne-Equivalent. 41272. jexster - 9/14/2000 2:06:05 PM Cllrdr - How are you coming with your assignment to give JV a little luvin? Need special attention in the french kiss department. Spare no toungue! 41273. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:07:09 PM Jack, 41274. jexster - 9/14/2000 2:11:27 PM jibber jabber yabber yiibber blather blather JV watches too much TV 41275. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 2:14:14 PM jexster 41276. Cygnus X-1 - 9/14/2000 2:16:32 PM jonjon, Re Message #41254, I think Ronski has made it know on this message board that he already has a significant other. 41277. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 2:17:02 PM Gore equals Corelone? Preposterous! We all know that Gore's the anti-christ 41278. jexster - 9/14/2000 2:18:07 PM Speaking of TV, here's a purty picuture 41279. jexster - 9/14/2000 2:19:27 PM JV...you not only don't know Willy Brown, you don't know squat. 41280. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:20:04 PM Similarly, it is lazy, but en vogue, to look at a campaign finance system that can be criticized, and thereafter become intellectually incapable of divining raising soft money from, say, the allegations leveled against Mr. Gore. 41281. jexster - 9/14/2000 2:20:13 PM Gore as Corleone 41282. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:21:02 PM Ducky, didn't he post that yesterday? 41283. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 2:29:27 PM and keep in mind that nothing is yet pointing toward a crime, much less a crime which implicates Gore. All we have is a flunky memo recommending wording that is probably illegal. We don't know that the wording was ever used in talking to the potential donor, and there is no evidence even implying that Gore did anything illegal. More likely than not, the flunky had no clue that she was recommending anything illegal, and thought she was just making something explicit that everyone knows is implicit (you think businesses donate to both parties because they are ambivalent?). I can't imagine anyone high up at the DNC would be quite dumb enough to directly solicit a bribe and I therefore can't imagine that the wording was actually used (who the hell takes phone call wording recommendations from subordinates anyway?) 41284. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 2:29:54 PM Cal 41285. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 2:32:22 PM Rask 41286. Ronski - 9/14/2000 2:32:44 PM Jack, 41287. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:33:23 PM Jack, 41288. Dusty - 9/14/2000 2:34:55 PM jexster 41289. rubberducky - 9/14/2000 2:35:18 PM CG: 41290. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 2:36:32 PM I'll admit to being disappointed in VK's response. The direct solicitation of a bribe is not something that *everybody does*. 41291. Ronski - 9/14/2000 2:37:04 PM And if jexster tries to take over the libertarian phone booth for their next meeting, he can expect trouble. 41292. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 2:37:22 PM Cal 41293. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 2:38:51 PM Is the communitarian movement that thing pushed by Amitai Etzioni? If so, I haven't heard much about it lately, but it was more than just a few people 5 years ago (when as part of my grad school job, I helped organize a communitarian conference on campus). 41294. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:39:08 PM I was just wondering. Over night there just seemed to be a lot of graphics. Sorry to be thread nanny. 41295. rubberducky - 9/14/2000 2:41:27 PM well, the graphic in Message # 41278 was posted in Message # 40969, on 9/13/00 12:10:58 AM, but i'll allow it. 41296. Dusty - 9/14/2000 2:41:53 PM jexster 41297. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:42:09 PM I think bribes are quite common, but then I always assume the worst. However, I think there are better ways of stating it. 41298. Dusty - 9/14/2000 2:43:17 PM Jack Message # 41267 et al. 41299. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 2:44:00 PM Cal 41300. Cellar Door - 9/14/2000 2:44:20 PM I've just e-mailed the NYT demanding that their editors provide a full and thorough explanation of their role in the persecution of Wen Ho Lee. 41301. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2000 2:44:36 PM Surely you've read it? 41302. glendajean - 9/14/2000 2:46:35 PM With no intention of piling on JV, that was some love note about Clinton, funny and honest. As far as Gore being Corleone, well, he slapped Perot around on the Nafta debate, but he never shot Moe Green in the eye. 41303. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:49:16 PM And they are often unsurprisingly idiots. 41304. Dusty - 9/14/2000 2:52:11 PM Raskolnikov Message # 41283 41305. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 2:52:15 PM Cal 41306. glendajean - 9/14/2000 2:52:26 PM Celler -- there's a hefty security guard who lives with his mom in Atlanta that tells me that the press doesn't ever, ever really admit such errors, and if they do, they tend to skip over the Second Coming headlines they used when first they started their prosecution. 41307. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:54:26 PM GJ, 41308. glendajean - 9/14/2000 2:55:51 PM Jack -- I decided not to read the VF article because of the diagnosing him for ADD and dyslexia. If the author thinks they have the ability to make dugejmens aobout ... Has anybody heard about the Hillary/Lazio debates...GOd, I wish the lectio .. ...... 41309. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 2:56:12 PM Also, I saw the Lazio-Clinton debate. I thought they both did quite well, and they were refreshingly honest as to their views on each other's shortcomings. They were also adept at staying on message. It was a good rumble. 41310. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 2:57:11 PM glenda 41311. Dusty - 9/14/2000 2:58:16 PM 41312. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:59:03 PM GJ, 41313. CalGal - 9/14/2000 2:59:55 PM ARe the clinton/lazio debates going to be rerun? I'm sorry I missed them, but it's nice to see Hill did good in her first time out. 41314. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:00:33 PM In VK's defense, I think what he objected to was being crowned with Ace's adjectives. VK wanted a serous discussion (as he is wont)and Ace likes to taunt (as people do on both sides of the aisle around here). 41315. JudithAtHome - 9/14/2000 3:03:18 PM If GW were some senator running for Govenor from Louisana or.....oh, Arkansas, his little forays into Dubonics would be a matter of ridicule the likes of which we've never seen but because he is a Bush and the "successful" Govenor of Texas, people assume it's something that will just go away once he's crowned. Is no one embarrassed by this? Is anyone concerned how foolish this man will look on the world stage? 41316. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 3:08:54 PM Juditha 41317. CalGal - 9/14/2000 3:11:17 PM And one with Altzheimers, no less. 41318. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 3:12:56 PM A troika of embarrasments. I'm sure the Sudanese must have been tittering every chance they got. 41319. CalGal - 9/14/2000 3:16:02 PM Just so long as he doesn't trip on the way out of an airplane. I mean, some things are just too much for our national pride to withstand. 41320. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 3:17:06 PM I think that there's a bit of a difference between physical disabilities and having a poor command of one's native language. (Unless it's true that Bush is learning disabled) 41321. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:18:12 PM Carter had hemorrhoids. 41322. CalGal - 9/14/2000 3:18:57 PM Not really. I think the Presidency can withstand an occasionally fumbletongued President. 41323. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 3:19:18 PM Did the hemmies affect his speaking ability? 41324. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:21:09 PM I'll let you be the judge. The only reason we know that was because the press was on one of its let's have all the medical facts (I think Kennedy's Addison disease had recently been disclosed) and Carter release his entire medical record. Grown reporters promptly reported on the presidential pain in the butt. 41325. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 3:21:33 PM bubbaette 41326. CalGal - 9/14/2000 3:21:44 PM Bubba, 41327. Ronski - 9/14/2000 3:23:36 PM Churchill suffered from severe depressions, and didn't do too badly as a leader. 41328. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 3:23:53 PM Cal 41329. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:23:56 PM Bit of a drinker, too. 41330. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 3:24:15 PM I seem to recall similar concerns about Clinton making a mockery of the United States on the world stage when his sexual intimacies were revealed. 41331. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2000 3:24:41 PM Most of the people in the world never hear the U.S. president speak. Most of those that do hear him through an interpreter. 41332. Ronski - 9/14/2000 3:24:53 PM Luther had piles, too, but left a mark on history. 41333. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:25:08 PM Jack, you are always doting on the French. Embarrassing. 41334. Ronski - 9/14/2000 3:25:23 PM 41335. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 3:26:16 PM Patton was dyslexic. It confused the hell out of the Germans. 41336. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:26:32 PM Well said, Indy. Although personally, I'm against puking on foreign heads of state on their own soil. 41337. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 3:26:34 PM Jack 41338. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 3:27:11 PM And the fact that his family doubled as extras on Hee Haw. 41339. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:28:08 PM Ronski -- there's a great statue of Luther in Thomas Circle (14th & Mass Ave) in Washington, DC. He looks like he is in great stride and you better not mess with him. 41340. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 3:28:27 PM I think that the international mockery wrt Clinton's extramarital activities was leveled at his accusers more than at Clinton himself. 41341. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 3:30:48 PM IJ 41342. Jack Vincennes - 9/14/2000 3:32:23 PM bubba 41343. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:32:23 PM It could be genetic. 41344. CalGal - 9/14/2000 3:32:55 PM There were also plenty of Americans who thought that Carter must be a moron because of the southern accent. 41345. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:33:45 PM Well, Missy, thaaank you 41346. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 3:35:25 PM I saw Ronnie Jr. in the National Ballet at Va. Tech. Mercifully, the ensemble kept him off the stage most of the time. Have to admit that I probably wouldn't have gone if I hadn't been curious to see junior in a tutu. 41347. glendajean - 9/14/2000 3:38:05 PM Bubbaette -- I heard he's still bitter about being accused of being light in his loafers. 41348. mgleason - 9/14/2000 3:41:30 PM I'd not thought about Churchill's 'black dog' in ages, Ronski. It's time to dip into The Wilderness Years again. 41349. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2000 3:42:57 PM bubba: Bush won't be attending any and will leave all that nasty overseas business to people like Rice, Powell, and Cheney while he catches up on the video games, naps, and baseball. Like Clinton, he may show up for the photo op at the end, but will ask that it occur on U.S. soil to prevent any chance of air sickness. 41350. JudithAtHome - 9/14/2000 4:03:03 PM Fine...if he's elected, I hope all of you enjoy him to the fullest. Maybe three hours a day playing video games will improve his verbal dexterity...it's a cinch the state of Texas will save money after he's out of office. No way will he need a Library. 41351. CalGal - 9/14/2000 4:05:41 PM Maria, 41352. glendajean - 9/14/2000 4:10:20 PM Judith -- as you probably know, the State Capitol in Texas was restored, beginning with Clements in his last term and the process continued through most of Richard's term. She greatly reduced the actual governor's office, opting for a different arrangements of offices in the rather small governor's suite. Back in '63, after the assasination, Connally had built a football field size office that only had a couple of windows. Richards went back to the room that was the original governor's office. 41353. marshame - 9/14/2000 4:11:25 PM What a pleasant relief to find this thread full of light-hearted jousting and witty reparte. Not the usual nasty slugfest. 41354. mgleason - 9/14/2000 4:16:23 PM CalGal: 41355. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 4:26:05 PM Gilbert's bio of Chruchill is on my short list of books to read soon. It seems to be the definitive bio, and wasn't written very long ago. 41356. CalGal - 9/14/2000 4:27:48 PM We should probably take it to the Books thread. God knows it doesn't get enough activity. 41357. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 4:30:13 PM Regarding my indifferent response to the appearance quid pro quo campaign money and policy in our political system I offer the following examples from The New Republic and the Nation from the last four years: 41358. mgleason - 9/14/2000 4:31:36 PM John Charmley wrote a singularly charmless 'revisionist' political biography of Churchill in the David Irving style. 41359. JudithAtHome - 9/14/2000 4:34:22 PM VonK: 41360. racehorse - 9/14/2000 4:35:17 PM 1) Are you for or against the allowance of open homosexuals to serve in the military? FOR 41361. racehorse - 9/14/2000 4:36:20 PM 9) Were you for or against a vote of impeachment of President Clinton in the House of Representatives? AGAINST 41362. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 4:40:54 PM From The Nation, this is a somewhat lengthy bit on Tobacco money and Repub, and particularly Bush, policies: 41363. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 4:42:01 PM .... 41364. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 4:42:47 PM And finally, from The Nation, a series of questions a la House Impeachement Investigator questions to Clinton: 41365. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 4:42:52 PM VK: The thing is, the line between a bribe and a campaign donation is certainly blurry. The key difference, as I see it, is whether there is an explicit agreement for a quid pro quo. While I certainly agree that PACs often make implicit bribes, and that politicians expect rewards for services rendered, I do see a line that cannot be crossed. If a politician crosses that line, I think he should be nailed to the wall. 41366. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 4:43:06 PM I recognize, and the articles in TNR and the Nation point out, that the Dems behave in the same way as the Repubs cited above. Given that this is the effective rules that we wage our adversarial partisan contests then it is in the interests of the candidates to play to the best of their abilities. For the Repubs to whine now that the Dems are fielding a team as talented, or more so, than the Repubs in the creative field of campaign finance, is...well...whining. 41367. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 4:52:54 PM Now, Jack O' and Ace, if you can convince me that this memo ties, in a way that would warrant bringing charges, Gore to a promise that if the Trial Lawyers pay then Clinton will veto the tort reform bill, then I will change my tune. But I don't see that in the reports so far. 41368. Jonesatlaw - 9/14/2000 5:05:55 PM VK- It seems that the process is reversed somewhat- the "bribe" was to be paid after the action, not before. 41369. glendajean - 9/14/2000 5:10:48 PM Gore's numbers are up in Ohio. 41370. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 5:15:56 PM 41371. vonKreedon - 9/14/2000 5:17:17 PM 41372. Dusty - 9/14/2000 5:41:23 PM Jack Vincennes
40271. Thoughtful -9/6/00 10:37:18 AM
Hey ducky, how 'bout posting a link to Nader's web site?
But, not very many parents live on top of a mountain and self-school at the same time. (And, those that do are usually religious nuts anyway, among their other peculiarities.)
Nah, the fingers don't just point to the parents.
what exactly would campaigning WITH a spine mean, in the context of addressing the various so-called sins of the entertainment industry?
oh, i dunno. how about being specific? what is an example of what Gore babbling about to win the soccer mom vote? what, exactly, would he do about it? how is this not gonna bring up free speech issues - etc.
Re: Message # 40698, jexster.
No I don't think I agree with your "no spine" remark. Actually its the tougher stance requiring substantial spine especially given the Democrat's relations with the entertainment industry.
Pish. it is simple as can be for Gore to attack the "entertainment industry" (whatever the hell that is) - who else are they gonna support? Bush? Nader? hahaha - as if.
If you've read my past posts here you would, I hope, realize that I was mocking RD's "spineless" comment.
yes, good. i like that.
Re: Message # 40700, jexster.
RD is now troubled that I might be right - again - thus the back-breaking, shoulder-dislocating reach.
um, i hate to break it to ya, but i'd rather the pandering Gore win than that idiot Bush.
whoops.
no slight intended, i really did miss that!
hun, i'm gay
no way in hell i'd vote for that idiot.
Over the past month, many of these male voters, who played a key role in presidential elections throughout the 1980s and who provided the margin in the 1994 Republican takeover of the House and Senate, have been shifting their allegiance to Gore.
"I'm liking him more, the more I see of him. I wasn't sure where he stood at first. As vice president, he was kind of hidden away," said Steve Burroughs, 48, who nine years ago shifted into public school teaching at much lower pay after he lost his job when the AC Delco spark plug plant cut its work force. More recently, Burroughs said, "Gore's more aggressive, more aggressive as far as economic issues are concerned."
Damnit I love straight men! All that testosterone just oozing from every pore, dripping in every comment. If they're gettin hard now, just wait, Gore-Lieberman ass kicking begins in earnest after the Olympics
That said, with young children one can exert a great deal of control over what they watch. At the Wombat household, as long as I remember to set the TV to PBS before going to bed on Friday and Saturday, my wife and I are secure that Wombette (6) and Wombino (3) will be watching reasonably wholesome fare if they get up before us. I just wonder when Wombette will figure out how to change channels through the VCR...
yes, i'm just sure all those honkies just love Reverend Al railing against the "entertainment industry".
it's so maddening - all this specific messages for specific groups bullshit.
Had he picked McCain, we wouldn't be as happy campers about now.
"Those who don't like it, well, they don't like it," he said.
And the Nyt also reports reaction from GOP leaders...once again, they don't know whether to shit or go brown
As for McCain, that never was in the cards, about as likely as Bush receiving a first-ever brain transplant
What with Holy Joe (as the great Maureen Dowd has pegged him) even possibly plucking off some of the religious right vote (!!!! - hey, those votes count), it is beginning to seem as if the only group left that W will be able to count on are (many but hardly all of)the rich and the disgruntled white middle to somewhat lower class male.)
Its this political environment that maddens, not the fact that politicians do what they are supposed to do in it.
That was pretty funny I thought, the White House releasing a picture of Lazio warmly shaking Arafat's hand, after Rick criticized the president for shaking Castro's.
Lazio then sputters that what he did was not the same as Clinton and Castro, or Hillary bussing Arafat's wife.
Lazio going after Bill Clinton on this one was quite dumb. First of all, there are not a lot of Cuban-Americans in NY. (In NJ, it would have made more sense.) Second, I think New Yorkers are actually aware of the fact that the president is not the Clinton who is running for the Senate seat, as they finally have figured out which George Bush is actually running for the presidency this year.
Rick is not getting very good advice. He'd have been better off sticking with the Governor's people.
We may be experiencing Gore's "Sister Souljah" moment.
janjon,
1948.
By the way have you seen the picture? It is not exactly a perfunctory little handshake. Warm and extra-claspy is what comes to mind.
Yes, it does seem clear that Lazio isn't getting the benefit of really clear-headed advice.
janjon,
True.
That depends on how often the griddles are wiped and how elderly the sausages are.
Its this political environment that maddens, not the fact that politicians do what they are supposed to do in it.
i'll agree with that. my point was just that i doubt all those white males (middle class, especially) would take very kindly to Rev Al & Holy Joe (that is cool - gonna steal it) bashing their favorite forms of entertainment.
sure, sounds good in the abstract - til WWF isn't shown in prime time any longer or Tomb Raider IVVIXXM isn't put out because it is too violent
and that's the point here. neither one of those two are going to do a damn thing about the "entertainment industry". that's the only reason Gore even speaks of it and the bucks keep on coming in.
Case in point, the Bushies are sharpening their knives for one of their own, Frank Farenkopf, co-chairman of the Bi-Partisan Debate Commission NYT article
Take the "gay rights" issue for example. Many gays are quick to criticize Clinton for not living up to every expectation that they had of him yet no President has done more for gay rights. They see compromise as sellout. They feel used.
That's really the same dynamic that is at work in your cynicism.
What is really happening is the reality of pluralist democracy at work in an atomized society operating with value-disconnects.
I'm not so certain that your cynicism is justified RD or at least it is misplaced.
[begin rant]
i'm not. honestly, what do you see Gore doing? telling “the entertainment industry” to not market to kids? please. let's not forget that the "ratings" system is completely voluntary. who rates this shit? they do. they control it all. so, all i can see them doing is trying to censor everything like movies are (which, again, isn't gov't controlled).
and yeah, Clinton played nothing but lip service to gays to get them to shut up, hold their nose, and vote for him. well, that's what he got for the most part. and it isn't just that moral less hack that has sparked my "cynicism" either. it's general disgust at the lies and people who are only too happy to swallow them as long as their little world is unmolested.
[end rant]
First, its credible because it runs counter to the views of an important Democratic interest group.
Anecdotally, I had lunch Friday with a good friend whose father is a retired US Senator and whose brother is also heavily involved in the Beltway political scene. Both are big time Gore supporters. My friend related that his brother who with dad knows Gore personally and fairly intimately, told him that Gore is in fact quite the "boy scout"
Gore: "'Oprah.'"
Winfrey, with a smile but insistently: "Favorite cereal!?"
Gore: "Oh, I thought you meant serialized TV show. . . . Ummm, Wheaties."
Winfrey: "For real?"
Gore: "Yeah!"
Winfrey: "Okay, when's the last time you had some?"
Gore: "Uh, it's been a while. I don't, I typically don't eat cereal in the morning now but sometimes I do. When I do, I like Wheaties."
how do you think Bush will answer the all important breakfast question when he goes on her show next week?
personally, i think he'll go with grits to show he's more of a man
I can hear it now: "Splash me a dash of those grits."
I must have been the only person to read the NY Times article this morning and missed the condom comments.
I let "Oh, I thought you meant serialized TV show. . . . Ummm, Wheaties" stand on its own merits.
Another anecdote. I was chatting with a radical lesbian classmate, one who I put in the class "pollyana progressive".
She's a mess - radical feminist, WTO rioter type. She was commenting on a professor's assertion that, contrary to the beliefs of some, the political system is really and truly a product of many actors acting in independent pursuit of their interests. She took strong exception. To her the world is a vast conspiracy against the poor and oppressed and women etc when in fact its more an oligopoly of interest, actors who only appear to act in concert who manage to develop alliances of interest with others of like mind, not in some meeting in a smoke-filled room, but rather by arriving independently at common positions on matters of common interest.
Blame instant communications, not conspiracies. Perhaps that's a distinction without a difference in the end for the result looks the same. Perhaps too such a view is emotionally comforting. Its also true that the view is not correct and ultimately because it obscures reality those who indulge its emotional consolations comforts are doomed for that reason to be totally powerless to change reality.
You cannnot change that which you do not know. This handicap has a curious consequence. Because you cannot change things to your liking, your self understanding as victim is reinforced.
Even though the context of the Times article today was W.'s relationship with his father, I do think that the inclusion of that little tidbit was a bit beneath them.
My point is that he's positively swell.
I also believe that gays should serve in the military yet believed at the time Clinton tried to achieve that result he was making a serious tactical error which would end up undermining achievement of the objective.
I also support Universal Health Insurance, yet I also believed at the time it was tried that trying was a mistake that would undermine achievement of the goal
I do not believe that Clinton was insincere, just stupid
The FTC report concludes that the entertainment industry's actions subvert their voluntary ratings system. ... Its akin to the tobacco companies putting warnings on cigarettes at the same time gutting them with Joe Camel.
nonsense. here's an article to tell you otherwise. a quote:
Video game makers stress that more than 70 percent of their customers are over 18. According to the Interactive Digital Software Association, the industry trade group, adults buy nine of every 10 video and computer games sold in the United States. Only 7 percent of video games sold and rated since 1995 fall into the mature category.
iow, the parents buy this shit for their own kids. but, some how, it's blaming the "victim" to point that out. no, it's the evvvvvvvvil money grubbing companies that make our pristine America befouled of bad, bad, children.
He's also an ass-kicker.
A report released Monday by the Federal Trade Commission says that even movies rated R - which require an adult to accompany children under 17 to the theater - and video games that carry an M rating for 17 and over are routinely targeted toward younger people.
i'm fully aware of that. still doesn't diminish the point of who is buying the agents of doom does it?
by the by, it is voluntary to put those silly arbitrary "ratings" on games, movies, and TV shows. it is not voluntary to do the same on liquor and cigarettes.
are the "subverting" by marketing to kids? eh, probably. they're just going where the money is. but, how can you "subvert" something they themselves set up? it's all a marketing ploy anyway.
insert "y" as needed
most assuredly is worth the bib, bad ole gummit involved. at least, that's what Gore tells the soccer moms.
He admits that video games are too violent. He admits that something should be done. He cannot agree that Gore has said anything that from his viewpoint makes great sense.
We should shame the industry into compliance
Has worked magnificently hasn't it?
What a fucking Moron! There are six billion reasons, all bearing the likeness of George Washington, that the industry has not and will not do anything
bib = big
I smoke cigarrettes. I started just about the time that the SG warnings appeared. At the same time, the tobacco companies were declaring that cigarettes were not hazardous to my health.
I make no claim for damages to my health but was the practice unfair and deceptive at the time? Sure it was. Should the practice have been enjoined? You bet.
CLEARWATER, Fla. (Reuters) -Hoping to ignite momentum in the presidential race, Republican nominee George W. Bush (news - web sites) armed himself with a new slogan and a fresh style on Monday, chatting informally with elderly voters on everything from Cuba to classrooms.
Preempting the usual bingo game at the Top of the World retirement complex that is home to 10,000 seniors, the Texas governor, in shirt-sleeves and microphone in hand, stood in the midst of a packed recreation room answering questions and stressing his ``Real Plans for Real People''
Gimme a slogan, gimme some slime, and I can fool enough of the people enough of the time!
Now who is "reinventing" himself?
Who is fool enough to be suckered by this marketing ploy?
Like stock options! Lots of them.
As one example.
You used this "dumbing down" phrase with regard to gay and heterosexual marriage before, and I still fail to see how expanding marriage to gay people would do this, given the shambles which heterosexuals have caused the institution to be in all by themselves. Please explain yourself, because you are sounding strangely like Pat Robertson on this subject.
If your answer is that some gays do not want marriage, my response is that those gays are not likely to sign up for it. If you are saying that gay men are more likely to be involved in serial relationships than heterosexual couples, my response is: show me that that would still be the case after the State stopped discouraging gay male relationships through various disincentives (and note that lesbians probably have higher rates of fidelity than heterosexuals do). And then explain to me why equal treatment under the law -- a product of the Enlightenment -- is no longer a good idea.
You also neglected once before to answer my question as to why children of gay couples should not have the same rights as children of heterosexual couples (which essentially cannot be achieved without giving gay couples the same rights of inheritance, social security, etc.).
And you did not answer my question why we gay people should be forced to enrich the legal profession in order to achieve some protection of assets from money-mad first cousins and other relatives if a partner dies, when straight couples do not need to do so.
Folks who cream to earth tones.
Or begins.
Well, no, actually that won't happen until Jan. 20, 2001.
I understand "real plans." That suggests plans that are good, are thought-out, would work well, etc.
What the hell is "real people" supposed to mean?
No androids need apply?
The process, from his calculated sucking the eyeballs out of his wife's head to being so gosh darn plucky on Oprah, has a steeling quality. Every day, the nausea induced by the campaign makes the actual expected governance all that more attractive.
Ricky had better eat up on those free sausages while he has a chance.
He admits that video games are too violent. He admits that something should be done. He cannot agree that Gore has said anything that from his viewpoint makes great sense.
hmm. i didn't see the interview, but could it be that Gore offered nothing more than meaningless platitudes and vague non-enforceable warnings?
could be.
"One of the reporters asked me afterward, 'Were you trying to send a message?'" Gore recalled in a tone of bemused shock at the idea. "I said I was trying to send a message to Tipper."
Gore Ahead by 25 Points in New York State - Poll
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Vice President Al Gore holds a 25-percentage-point lead over Texas Gov. George Bush among likely voters in New York state in the presidential campaign, a poll released on Monday said.
"The poll, by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, found Democrat Gore ahead of Republican Bush by 52 percent to 31 percent among registered voters, with 1 percent of respondents saying they would vote for Independent Pat Buchanan if the election were held now, and 4 percent favoring the Greens' Ralph Nader.
"Bush's support remained the same among likely voters, but Gore's increased to 56 percent, the poll found. Undecideds fell to 8 percent among likely voters from 11 percent among registered voters, with most skewing toward Gore."
The FTC also reports that violent videos are heavily marketed on MTV where 50% of the audience is under 18.
Joe Camel LIVES!
Holy Joe will see to that
heh
Could it be that JV never been kissed?
Are Republicans congenitally impotent or are they just hard up?
A sigh went up in the room.
About as spontaneous as Tim Russert's smile
Where is all this kissing leading?
Maybe Bush should up the ante by fucking Laura next time they're on camera together.
CNN/Gallup tracking poll:
"Results from Monday, September 11, show Vice President Gore stretching his lead over Texas Gov. George W. Bush to 7 percentage points, 49% to 42%. The lead is Gore's first outside the margin of error since the tracking poll began in April."
..maybe it's not just Tipper's he's been kissing.
As an FYI, they have an e-mail service where you can be notified when they update their Presidential election polls.
picking up lab's toys.
sorry...
please mind the one's in the dark stairwell.
RD - Gore said what he said RD....he wants the FTC to sanction deceptive advertising practice....You have no reason to doubt that statement. Neither can you challenge the certainty that the result cannot be achieved unless someone tries to do it!
um, whatever. i'll believe it when his holiness does something of substance (read: never)
btw, why haven't you answered Ronski's Message # 40773. i, for one, would be fascinated at the metal gymnastics required.
yes, mental. hell, it's late.. heh
And thanks, Rask, for linking it in.
Zogby & Gallup were added 
My wife watched Al on Oprah, said she hasn't felt this good about our political future since....well, since Al's speech at the DNC. Al seems to have managed to pick up some of Slick's slickness after all, hallelujah!
Anyway, it's just an extension of Tipper's placebo, begun in the '80s with her bipartisan group of Washington Wives that simply had too much time on their hands between hostessing, schmoozing, and lookin' purty next their man. I don't know if it's true anymore (but I wouldn't be surprised), but for several years after the PMRC labels took effect, the advisory sticker was a badge of honor and a useful sales gimmick.
The dark side of that was that a few record store owners in Florida did time and paid fines for selling 2LiveCrew tapes to 12-year-olds. Talk is cheap; exactly where does the moral rubber meet the road, when it comes to the inchoate phrase "marketing violence to youngsters"?
Asked what he likes to sleep in, Gore – whose wife once suggested in a broadcast interview that he sleeps in the buff – said with a guilty smile: "A bed."
Good lord. I'm afraid to ask if this is even true. Who the hell sleeps in pajamas, besides a six-year-old? Not that I want to hear lurid details about Rev. Al's adept and frequent waxing of Tipper's ample booty, but must people really be coy about sleeping in the nude? Are we catering to the giggling-third-grader demographic now?
But let's not pretend that the word of a guy who uses iced tea as an excuse actually has any worth.
That's as sober a political analysis of the current state of the US campaign as yet I have seen.
The Bush people are doing the same thing they did in '88....look honorable, stay above the fray, and behind the scenes encourage the Atwaters et.al. do their dirty work.
What's happening in politics that you want to discuss?
anyone have any ideas for a different thread tagline they want to see used (needs to be short)?
and, yes, i realize i'm opening myself open for some free shots, but i'm not scared.
An article in the magazine Vanity Fair by best-selling author Gail Sheehy, who frequently writes psychological portraits of politicians, concluded that the Texas governor's often-mocked malapropisms on the campaign trail could stem from dyslexia, a language-based disability in which the sufferer has trouble processing words or sentences.
...
Sheehy quotes several experts as saying those sorts of error could be caused by dyslexia. She also quoted Houston dyslexia expert Nancy LaFevers as saying, "The errors you've heard Gov. Bush make are consistent with dyslexia."
...
One of Bush's younger brothers, Neil, had been diagnosed as dyslexic, she said. 
A real gem.
Machinations of mans oldest sport...
We could quarrel, of course, as to whether what she advocated was censorship in the full sense of that word. Any more, say, than imposing a R rating on a movie and then enforcing the age limit rule that requires.
He was abfab. Smashing! The kind of guy you just want to squeeze.
Wow. The guy is a natural.
when are you gonna admit it too?
I get wood from the vice-president during his speeches. So personal.
then enforcing the age limit rule that requires.
Watch it....those drug-induced demeanors get a lot of stuff done in suburbia!
September 12, 2000
Presidential Tracking Poll
"In the race for the White House, George W. Bush and Al Gore are virtually tied in the popular vote. In Portrait of America's latest 3-day average Gore has 42.6% while Bush has 41.4%; Ralph Nader, 2.9%, Pat Buchanan, 1.6%, Harry Browne 1.0%, Howard Phillips .2%, and John Hagelin .3%. These results from a nightly Portrait of America Presidential Tracking Poll reflect interviews conducted September 9, 10 and 11."
Judith -- I can't imagine that that's true, but if it is...just think, a president like Harrision Ford and the guy from Independence Day,William somebody or other. He can fly the big one.
Bill Pullman
GJ:
I'm all for Presidents indulging in a little R&R but I think GW needs to devote those 3 hours a day to studying.
heh-heh.
Yesterday's news stories for Gore - Boffo Appearance on Oprah! Gore Warns Entertainment Industry
For Bush - Bush Fighting for Life in Florida! Bush To Modify Ad Calling Bureaucrats "rats"
Roadkill 2000 about sums this one up
This is Jack's idea of "wood" . . .
I assume he kisses her like that all the time, before and after her speeches.
I mean, I can't believe it would be a one-time tonscillectomy brought about by foucs groups and calculation.
Where are his hands???
By the way, I take the foucs to mean that, your current posture notwithstanding, Al the man is still on your list. You control your feelings pretty well, though.
And I had such hopes.
George W. - all hat, no cattle
How bout GWB's bloated maggot ridden corpse alongside the Campaign Trail
Won't somebody give him some toungue and shut him up already?
I nominate Cllrdr.
I'm comfortable with you taking the lead on discourse.
MsGW: *mmm* I don't rats know *mmmpf*
GW: RATS!!! BIG-TIME!
(To Dubya's credit, though, he wrestled "subliminal" to a draw.)
How bout GWB's bloated maggot ridden corpse alongside the Campaign Trail
now i'm curious. how does an equal footing to a slight trailing in most polls equate to the above?
P.S. i'd still love for you to answer Ronski's post to you from yesterday.
Conversely, I wouldn't be at all surprised if, say in a couple of more weeks, Lieberman indeed decides to give up the Senate race. That one seat might make the difference.
Either way, I think it will continue to be the GOP in the majority in the Senate, but by maybe two seats, like in 51-49.
Hasert, on the other hand, had better start thinking about going back to being a quiet go-with-the-flow backbencher, 'cause no way he will end up being in any of the GOP minority posts in the House. DeLay (and those he choses) all the way.
Consider the track record -
- identified Bush as a loser one year ago
- first to identify the Moron factor in November
- predicted before the first primaries that Bush would fall apart in any serious race
- from March to August correctly identified Bush lead as phantom
- first to spot this election as unprecedented in terms of voter decisions
- predicted Gore would make up at least 20-25 points in polls by Nov. 7
- predicted in outline the substance of Gore's acceptance speech change the race from personallity to issues
-while the pundits were pissing on Gore's speech, immediately saw that it changed the fundamentals of the race
I'm gonna win this race on issues the Rat's in the trap for sure
Instead of telling us what Bush is saying, they're talking about the Rat Ad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a Moron!
Don't hold your breath. You don't discourse with the rabid. You shoot them in the head.
Any composite look at polls shows Gore up by about 5% or so. Usually, convention bounces come down a bit. This has not happened in this race. In fact, the contrary has occured - Gore has gone up.
In every week for the last month, Gore has consistently dominated Bush who has been put on the defensive and can't get out of his rut.
This is starting to be reflected in the poll dynamics.
Gore is now seen as equally likeable
Gore now has the lead on "leadership" questions
Gore's lead on most issue questions is substantial, as high as 25%
Bush totally fucked his best weapon, the Buddhist Temple ad had no impact whatsoever.
{For those who have ever been to Texas, think dead armadillos on Farm to Market Roads)
Things in Va look like things in NV - the GOP will pick-up two seats. Robbhad to struggle against North. This does not bode well for him, given that Allen is hugely popular. Allen has also done the smart thing - he has gone negative in his ads early, and thereby, he is making Robb counterpunch, instead of getting any message out.
So, GOP +2 will make it 56-44. Add Connecticut (despite the giddiness of you and the rabid, the race is not quite yet over, and Lieberman will not give up his Senate seat).
57-43.
Then, the GOP has varying shots at NY, NJ and NE. Give them one. 58-42.
The Democrats have varying shots at seven seats (MN, MI, DE, WA, PA, MO, FL).
Give them 4.
And you get no change.
So . . . that's GOP
"(To Dubya's credit, though, he wrestled "subliminal" to a draw.)"
Being a born-again Texan, I thought he wrestled it to a drawl.
Moreover, he's checkmated Bush. Bush must go negative. But after all that whining about how Gore was about to go negative, Gore never did! Gore will only tallk about Bush's Texas record or Cheney's in terms of campaign issues, not personality. He's making the dim bulb case subtly and without direct personal attack.
Now what's a Moron to do having bitched about negative campaigning that never happened?
I notice that you put PA in there as a possible for the Dems. Don't I wish. Santorum was the one guy I really wanted to get rid of this time around, but the cards they do not look so great.
If you take PA out of the equation, then that only gives the Democrats 6 vulnerable seats. Which means, they must hold NV, hold VA, hold NY, hold NE, and hold NJ and still take 4 of those 6 seats to get to 51-49.
jexster
Go post something you just read or something.
Listen to me and learn
I wish I didn't have classes this semester.
My take on a Dayton/Grams match up. Grams will attack Dayton is too liberal, the same tactic he used successfully against Ann Wynia in 94. It isn't an unfair charge (which is why I dislike Dayton), given some of his policy proposals (his "all businesses of whatever size must offer health care to employees" plan is particularly vulnerable). Dayton is much fiestier than Wynia, however, and will counter-attack Grams as too far to the right (in a liberal state) and the tool of big business (evidently a Dem theme this year, dovetailing with some of Gore's rhetoric).
Key factor: Grams' campaign chest is comparatively low. Dayton has money to burn, and has been burning it very effectively in the primary, with some TV ads that sent him from third in a weak field to towering frontrunner in a couple of months.
current prediction: Dayton will buy himself a Senate seat.
I read something recently on that race--the Dems were caught off guard by having four contenders, so they really haven't had time to focus on ousting Grams yet?
I can't recall any election (memory starts 1968) where one candidate has so dominated the other for 4 sucessive weeks at this point in the election.
Anyone have suggestions?
Today's coverage for Bush - the Rat Ad.....
guard by having four contenders, so they really haven't had time to
focus on ousting Grams yet?"
yeah, but that won't matter. With less rich candidates it may have mattered, but Dayton successfully avoided going negative (while Ciresi and Yanisch had a very public squabble), and he has shown a strong determination to dig deep into his pocketbook to spend his fortune to buy the senate seat, and has also shown effectiveness in doing so.
Grams might try to make that an issue in itself in egalitarian Minnesota, but it has rarely been a successful campaign strategy, and Dayton is well-known enough, and has paid his dues in the public sector (two state cabinet appointments and a stint as state auditor, an elected position in our state), that I don't think the tactic would work.
RD - I think that the race is over, and Al has won, because Al has completely recaptured the women's vote. The things that Jack O'Niner decries, the kiss, the cutesey Oprah appearance, are things that women have received very positively, based on focus group reports and the reaction of my wife. Before the convention Gore was behind Bush in polling of women. Since then he has, aaccording to Gallup, taken an 18 point lead over Bush among women before the Oprah appearance. If Gore has a 20% lead among women he wins.
A while ago Ace ran a hilarious set of posts mocking how we kept hearing that Al was soo funny and articulate and at ease when he wasn't on camera. Ace posited that this was such desperate spin, since how smart/at ease/funny can a guy really be if no one ever sees it. Well Ace, there it is.
Anyone who believes that what has occurred in recent weeks is an indication that the race is over is an amateur.
What makes the race "over", however, are a few simple truths evident even before Bush was selected: a booming economy, a smart Democratic nominee, a dearth of issues that separates the candidates, a budget surplus that makes the race a bidding war (traditionally, fertile ground for a Democrat) and a GOP captive to the tut-tuts of the media when it comes to negative campaigning.
well, i agree it looks that way. but i just think that declaring anyone's campaign a "bloated" etc, etc "corpse" on a 5% lead is silly. it's not looking good for Bush - but it is only 5%.
i think Bush could put in some fluff and get women to like him more. as in he's going on Oprah's show next week too, you know. so, who knows? there's a month to go.
i'm just discovering this new "calendar" invention.
Jack wrote, ...a GOP captive to the tut-tuts of the media when it comes to negative campaigning. The Bush campaign hoisted this petard themselves, dear, when they lambasted Gore for his supposed personal attacks and promised to run a "different" campaign.
If, to your mind, negative=personal attacks, then your point might be valid. As it is, you can wage an entirely negative campaign without lodging one personal attack. Of course, the media makes no distinction. And the Bush campaign defers to the tut-tuts of Howard Kurtz. Which was my point.
And I publicly call for the dropping of the transatlantic, effeminate and lame use of "dear" in discussion.
he had a near coronary during the primaries when McCain (rightly) started kicking his ass
But once it was over, he reverted so smoothly to the amiable leader that you could almost swear it didn't happen.
He went negative (or the minions did) to get out of that. I wonder why he isn't doing it here?
But Jack, dear, the GOP made no such distinction, since what they were trying to accuse Gore of was the "negative" attacks on the Governor's record in Texas.
but Jack is correct when he points out "the media" makes no distinction when they bitch about "negative attacks" on character or on policy. from both sides of the isle, i admit, but still it is very annoying.
Meanwhile, one GOP strategist is complaining that the Bush campaign is "terminally gaffe prone"
As if on cue, Bush appears talking about the "subliminal" rat message and mispronounces the word not once but twice - "sublimable"
(My favorite part)
"Bush said Tuesday that he believes the ad's creator, Alex Castellanos,' assertion that it was not his intention to create a subliminal ad. Castellanos said he flashed the word --part of "bureaucrats" -- so it would look more visually interesting, and that it was just a coincidence that the letters appearing first spelled out "rats."
Now, an editing glitch I could believe...
In fact, every week the sum and substance of coverage has been Gore on Roll, Bush Getting Desperate...
Carter and Reagan were neck and neck until October. Bush didn't have Dukakis by the nads until October. Carter's lead continually slipped in 1976. HHH and Nixon went at it hammer and tong throughout.
JFK/Nixon is too far back for me.
There isn't too much that detailed studies of negative campaigning agree on except this one.
If anyone is interested I will dig up the citations to various professional journals that back up my claim
There are times when it is remarkably easy to cut through the fog of political analysis and the layers of campaign rhetoric and decipher, in a moment of unsurpassed clarity, just where the presidential candidates stand.
The contrast yesterday was unmistakable: Gore high-fiving Oprah; Bush struggling to explain why he isn't running away with Florida.
That's all you need to know. Today's press coverage continued to reflect the Gore-on-a-roll, Bush-in-a-tailspin tone that has been the dominant media story line since the Democrats decamped from Los Angeles.
That's all you need to know.
This guy has been yelping for months about politics of personal destruction when personal attack is his only salvation. So by fits and starts have the Republicans tried to employ there #1 weapon with remarkable fecklessness.
The fact that the media is on hair-trigger alert re: negative campaigning has absolutely everything to do with the inept campaigning of its nominee
Vaguely reminds me of the RoseMary Wood's heavy metal to the pedal erasure of those famous 18 minutes.
I would say, however, that "negative" gets confounded when policy criticisms involve things which are misleading or taken out of context. The Willie Horton ad is an example, and you always see ads for Congressional elections where "he voted for partial-birth abortions" (or something) is referring to some minor parasitic rider on an omnibus budget bill that the candidate voted for. That stuff annoys me more than personal attacks.
Amongst pollsters, there has been a debate over the appropriateness of "forcing the choice" issue. Gallup's people have been engaged in debates with the Vanishing Voter Project on this question. Gallup claims the past confirms the validity of forcing choice in poll questions while VVP claims that this is bad practice this year (until about now) due to volatility being without recent precedent. Under the VVP view, only about 60-70% of the electorate has made a choice that they will most likely stick with in Nov. The VVP is now finding a solidifying electorate in their most recent work.
So I ignore most past poll history including the Labor Day Rule and look to the visible campaign's content in these weeks immediately following the convention.
Now, they are hoist upon their own collective petards. And, hopefully, with a lot of dough tied up in ads that they now don't feel comfortable in using.
I also mentally tune out whenever I hear that ominous world-is-coming-to-an-anxious-end music at the beginning of an ad, usually coupled with some extraordinarily unflattering grainy black and white image of some candidate.
This is especially bad news for a Republican if you buy the theory that personality based attacks resonate much better with "their" voters than is the case for Demos
Horton was a product of Dukakis' policy, which had long been criticized in Massachusetts. The Horton ad is the inverse of an ad showing a "real" person (Edna Ferbish) who will lose her farm and tractor is she doesn't get prescription drug benefits, which Candidate X opposes, except Horton as outgrowth of policy is a proven fact, and the Ferbish situation is conjecture.
A true personal attack is "Bush is too stupid to be president" or "Gore is a liar." It goes to the heart of who you are, not your record or the results therefrom.
Of course, if you have evidence of both, the attacks seem perfectly legitimate.
In the end, all attacks that have a basis truth are legitimate and should be used with wild abandon.
Its a "sublimable" thing
I don't quarrel much with your comments about if it is truthful it is fair. It just has to be truthful within the complete context.
No, it doesn't. There is no time for context in a 30 second ad stating that the Bush environemntal record in Texas is dismal, and context is not in the interests of the campaign airing the ad.
But was it accurate?
Jack O'Peg O'My Heart - Are you saying that it is true that Bush's environmental record is dismal? Man, those ads are effective!
Easy, dear.
I don't expect my hopes to be realized.
I'm never easy, dear.
Its a short book well worth the time. It also contains a fine discussion of why Horton worked.
I sent Jacob Weisberg an e-mail detailing the relevance of the book to something he wrote on the subject in the spring. He answered that he'd heard good things about the book from colleagues and based on my e-mail, intended to read the copy he had lying around.
Yea he may have been feeding me BushShit but maybe not
the past 7 elections will show vastly more divergence this year than
previously"
Moreso than the incumbency ass-whuppings in 1972, 1984, and 1996, but not for the other four. That has been my point. Despite testaments to the volatility of voter preferences, trend lines of poll results are amazingly consistent, with major inflection points only occuring at predictable intervals, such as after each party convention.
Take a look at Gallup's trend line for this year. Doesn't it look quite a bit like the one in 1988?
and compare with...
1976
1980
and 1992.
This year has also been quite stable, with only one or two movements that extend outside of the sampling error.
This isn't worth writing a major treatise, but I had two points:
1) the past four weeks are nothing out of the ordinary for one candidate to dominate a campaign.
2) voter preferences are not as volatile as you seem to think, particularly after the conventions. You seem to be implying that Gore's recent run as an exception amidst volatile campaigns of yesteryear where voters preferences swing wildly from one candidate to another. If so, I think you are taking the horce race aspect of the journalistic coverage a bit too seriously.
criticized in Massachusetts. The Horton ad is the inverse of an ad
showing a "real" person (Edna Ferbish) who will lose her farm and
tractor is she doesn't get prescription drug benefits, which Candidate
X opposes, except Horton as outgrowth of policy is a proven fact,
and the Ferbish situation is conjecture."
It wasn't Dukakis' policy. It was his Republican predecessor's. Dukakis ended the policy after the Horton fiasco brought the problem to light. (going by memory from 1988, when I worked for the Dukakis campaign)
But I didn't bring this up to attack Bush/Atwater specifically. It is just the most famous instance of the ad type that I was describing. This sort of advertising disingenuity is a bipartisan problem, and I am sure we will see it from the Gore campaign (Gore has never been a fair fighter) before long.
Speaking of Poppy, how long before he decides that he also has to come charging out and rescue his boy?
Janjon, as I recall, it wasn't Poppy, but friends of Poppy who bailed W. out of his business jams in the past -- the question is, do they know anything about politics?
Or more as Maureen Dowd suggests, the royalty whose birthright is the presidency. This campaign nonsense is just to humor the little people.
But, as we all know, this is just part of some longstanding super duper masterplan, because W. certainly isn't going to reinvent himself this campaign. 
"Interviews with 732 likely voters, conducted September 9-11, found Gore -- the Democratic nominee for president -- holding a six-point lead over Republican rival Bush. Gore claimed 48 percent of the survey's likely voters, while Bush had the support of 42 percent. But with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent, Gore's advantage is statistically insignificant."
As Lily Tomlin said, the problem with the rat race is, if you win, you're still a rat.
Having not a statistically oriented bone in my body, I always get stopped short at how small these samplings are.
Independent, state-by-state polls from competitive states matter.
Recent state-by-states for those states in play, which are
AZ
AR
DE
FL
GA
KY
LA
MI
MO
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NC
OH
PA
GA (9/5-10)
Bush 46%
Gore 40%
IL (9/5-7)
Gore 50%
Bush 35%
MO (9/5-7)
Gore 45%
Bush 40%
NH (9/5-7)
Bush 42%
Gore 42%
fifty states? Weighted for the more electorally significant states?"
Looks to me like random sampling, with no weighting. An accurate poll which dealt with the vagaries of the electoral college would be very expensive, requiring 500-1000 respondents from all 50 states. But I don't mind ignoring the electoral college for the most part, as the results of the college are rarely different from the results of the popular vote, and none of these exceptions occurred in the past 100 years.
How about PA, OH and MI?
consistent 10%. "
I think that is an overstatement. Statistical significance in a CNN style poll occurs at an 8 point margin on *one* poll. If I see 5 of them all pointing toward a 5-9 point lead for Gore, I will consider myself justified in seeing that they collectively mean something, if only the preferences of the voters at the current time.
The issue/character questions that shows the real dynamic of things or more accurately is suggestive as one statistics wag once remarked
Statisticians use statistics much like drunkards use lightposts -more for support than for illumination
The wisdom of this, the danger of straining too hard at poll numbers becomes quite apparent when a series of polls taken of the same population (likely or registered voters) each claiming a 95% confidence level of accuracy within +/-3 or 4 point spread, wind up with figures well outside the confidence range.
Although Labor Day, the unofficial kick-off of the general election campaign, has passed, more than one-third of all Americans and one-quarter of registered voters have not yet picked a presidential candidate.
This finding is at odds with many national surveys, which show only a small percentage of uncommitted voters. But these surveys push respondents to choose from a list of candidates, not offering them the option of remaining undecided.
The Shorenstein Center poll poses the question differently: "Which
presidential candidate do you support at this time, or haven't you
picked a candidate yet?" The respondents who said "no candidate yet" were then asked whether they leaned towards one of the presidential candidates.
That said, the latest Voter Involvement Index:
===============================
VOTER INVOLVEMENT INDEX
Aug 30 - Sept 3 34%
Aug 23 - 27 34
Aug 16 - 20 42
Aug 9 - 13 38
Aug 2 - 6 39
July 26 - 30 32
Source: Shorenstein Center Poll
for the Vanishing Voter Project
Sampling error: +/- 3%
In March it was 43
becomes quite apparent when a series of polls taken of the same
population (likely or registered voters) each claiming a 95%
confidence level of accuracy within +/-3 or 4 point spread, wind up
with figures well outside the confidence range."
You are mis-stating the claim. It isn't a +/- 3 or for point spread, it is +/- 3 or 4 *points*, meaning that Gore's could be 3 or four points in either direction, which would probably drive Bush's score a similar number of points in the opposite direction. A poll showing Gore at 48 and Bush at 42 with 4% confidence interval means there is a 95% chance of the true result being Gore with 52 and Bush with 38, or Bush with 46 and Gore with 44. (the don't knows, naders, and buchanan's throw off the precision of this, but you get the picture).
An Israeli doctor said, "Medicine in my country is so
advanced, we can take a kidney out of one person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in six weeks."
> >
A German doctor said, "That's nothing! In Germany we can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in four weeks."
> >
A Russian doctor said, "In my country medicine is so advanced, we can take half a heart from one person, put it in another, and have them both looking for work in two weeks."
> >
The American doctor, not to be outdone, said, "Hah! We're about to take an asshole out of Texas, put him in the White House and half the
country will be loking for work the next day."
> >
Clinton, Lazio Polls:
"ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Two polls released Tuesday show Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Rick Lazio still locked in a tight Senate race after three months of campaign appearances, press releases and attack ads.
"A Marist College poll of 516 likely voters gave Clinton 50 percent and the Long Island congressman 47 percent. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 points. In a Marist poll in June, they were tied at 42 percent.
"A Quinnipiac University poll of 803 voters gave Clinton 49 percent and Lazio 44 percent. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 points. In Quinnipiac's June poll, they were tied at 44 percent.
"The telephone surveys were conducted Sept. 5-10.
"The numbers come on the eve of the candidates' first debate, planned for Wednesday, beginning at 7 p.m. EDT. MSNBC plans to broadcast the debate nationally at 10 p.m. EDT."
If published in the NYTimes, big problems for Hillary.
Monica Lewinsky, Dolly Kyle Browning, Kathleen Willey, and
Juanita Broaddrick. Are there any others that we should know
about?
2. Thank you for teaching my 8-year-old about oral sex. I had
really planned to wait until he was about 10 or so to discuss it
with them, but now he knows more about it than I did as a
senior in college.
3. Thank you for showing us that sexual harassment in the work
place (especially the White House) and on the job is OK, and
all you have to know is what the meaning of "IS" is. It really is
great to know that certain sexual acts are not sex and one
person may have sex while the other one involved does NOT.
4. Thank you for reintroducing the concept of impeachment to a
new generation and demonstrating that the ridiculous plot of
the movie, "Wag The Dog", could be plausible after all.
5. Thanks for making Jimmy Carter look competent, Gerald Ford
look graceful, Richard Nixon look honest, and Lyndon Johnson
look truthful.
6. Thank you for the 72 House and Senate witnesses who have
pleaded the 5th Amendment and 17 witnesses who have fled
the country to avoid testifying about Democrat campaign fund
raising.
7. Thank you for the 19 charges, 8 convictions, and 4 imprisonment's
from the Whitewater "mess" and the 55 criminal charges and 32
criminal convictions (so far) in the other "Clinton" scandals.
8. Thanks also for reducing our military by half, "gutting" much of our foreign policy, and flying all over the world on "vacations"
carefully disguised as necessary trips .
Also, please give my regards to Hillary, when/if you see her.
Tell her I'm working on a "Thank You" letter for her.
Ain't it great. See how even the baleful Rosetta's caught in the trap.
Kill All Serbs! Kill! Kill! Kill!
And several polls are outside that spread including Gallup though for some odd reason they have mixed apples and oranges.
In their latest tracking poll they have a +/- 3 spread @95% yet claim that their 4 way race showing Gore 49 Bush 42 is within the margin.
This is not correct for the 4 way race though it is for the 2 way, just barely.
As for other polls besides Gallup which exceed their margins of error, 2 Newsweeks and ACR show a definite movement in Gore's direction. No bounce deflation, bounce building
Look then at the trend of Gallup, one of Bush's strongest pollsters since they started in November: 
Larry Bartels of Princeton praised his colleagues at the American Political Science Assn convention for their election modeling. He said that the work was valuable because it refocuses attention from the horse race to the underlying fundamentals.
That means look at the questions asking "Regardless of who you plan to vote for who is better...." and look at gender gaps (Gore increasing lead with women, decreasing deficit with men) and look at the campaign itself (Gore scoring positive coverage, Bush cursing reporters, talking about rats, and begging coverage for issues - a return to Gore's turf!). In the fundamentals you will see a more powerful movement toward Gore than in the trial heats which you might think of as a lagging indicator.
So follow Larry Bartels suggestion - follow the fundamentals
From ABC News:
Sept. 12 — George W. Bush today denied suggestions his often mocked struggles with the English language mean that he has dyslexia, as a magazine article reports.
“I’m not dyslexic,” Bush said this morning in an interview with ABCNEWS’ Good Morning America.
“That’s all I can tell you.”
In an upcoming issue of Vanity Fair magazine, writer Gail Sheehy suggests that dyslexia runs in his family and quotes experts saying that Bush has exhibited behavior that could indicate dyslexia.
“The errors you’ve heard Governor Bush make are consistent with dyslexia,” the magazine quoted one speech expert saying.
That's all he can say about it because he's not dislexic, he's A MORON
Ain't this great!
Dude, the press keeps calling you a conservative, and that's not cool. But I thought about it, and realized that you are really a liberal. I know that you are really the cool liberal candidate.
Conservatives have urged Americans to "just say no" to drugs, while liberals talked about "experimentation" and youthful rebellion that didn't require long prison terms or limit their civil rights.
You showed that you could say yes to drugs, as long as you chill for seven years or so.
Conservatives think that teenagers shouldn't be coddled, and should grow up by the time they're 18, especially if they commit a felony like drug use.
Liberals said you should "do your own thing, man" and if you needed to, take a few more years to get your head together before you settle down in life. "Don't trust anyone over thirty." Being the cool liberal you are, you showed the conservatives that you can still party 'till you're 40, and the old man and his buds will get you a job where you can just chill and still have cash for your stash. No need to get too uptight and be a geezer with a regular job and a suit.
Conservatives get upset if somebody says a "bad word" on the radio. They want censorship and shit.
Liberals say express yourself, and want to validate your feelings, wherever you are comming from. You've set us free, man. Hey, if you feel that a guy's a major league asshole, you should be able to just say it without everyone going postal about it.
Liberals want to use affirmative action that looks at an indivdual without limiting choices to standardized tests, that looks at a person's involvement in their ethnic community as much as rankings or tests.
You have managed to get Yale and the Texas Air Guard pick you over people with higher test scores, because of your commitment to your people. I mean, just because your test scores were average,they shouldn't forget your involvement in the WASP community. No way that Texas had enough Yankee WASP's who were pilots for the Texas ANG.
Conservatives don't want the Federal Government involved in education, want to eliminate the Department of Education. Liberals want the Federal government to fund education and give the Department of Education even more money.
You showed your liberal stripes here to be sure. Keep the Department of education, and give it more money to hand out. You want the Department to hold the local school boards to demonstrate their success to the satisfaction of the Department of Education or they won't get federal funds.
Conservative like the death penalty. Liberals don't like it. This is the one thing I don't get. I mean, I understand how you would think that overdosing some dude on drugs is a lot cooler than frying somebody in the chair. You can tell me man, do you slip them some 'shrooms or something with the last meal, or is it just downers that these guys are shootin? I mean, downers can be real cool before you pass out, you know?
If you answer this last one right, you might be the most counter-culture liberal dude we've ever had run for President.
On sample error
with a sample size of 1,000 national adults, (derived using careful random selection procedures), the results are highly likely to be accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. Thus, if we find in a given poll that President Clinton’s approval rating is 50%, the margin of error indicates that the true rating is very likely to be between 53% and 47%. It is very unlikely to be higher or lower than that.
To be more specific, the laws of probability say that if we were to conduct the same survey 100 times, asking people in each survey to rate the job Bill Clinton is doing as president, in 95 out of those 100 polls, we would find his rating to be between 47% and 53%. In only five of those surveys would we expect his rating to be higher or lower than that due to chance error.
more on that "corpse" (emphasis mine) :
A NYT front-page effort says that the paper's fresh polling reveals the closest post-Labor Day presidential race in 20 years. The headline and accompanying graphic chalk it all up to Al Gore's increased and George W. Bush's slightly settling likeability.
(Slapping ducky's nano-rats away from keyboard.)
Not sure if I can dissect what you are saying here, but an additional factor could be that some polls include Nader and Buchanan, and others do not, which can easily throw off the results by another 3-4 percentage points.
I thought you were going to change the thread tagline......
well, i was going to, but couldn't think of anything to replace it with. i liked your 2 suggestions, but they didn't have the "oomph" i wanted.
also, is the name "Politics" interesting enough? that could change too.
thoughts anyone?
The Oomph Thread....
and we mean Politics, not old silent film starlets
"But that labelling wasn't what Tipper campaigned for. She and her accomplices wanted much more."
I am going by recollection here, but I could have sworn that I saw Tipper Gore, during the hearings, say several times to the press that they voluntary labelling was what they wanted. It was something I followed very closely at the time. Now, 15 year old memories can certainly be wrong, so if you have a cite on this I would be interested in seeing it (all my relevant reference books are at home, so I can look it up tonight if needed).
"
They came up far short of it -- and, if you're just talking about them coming out of the affair with some good press and a good photo op victory over scumbag rock, well, the hearings sort of put an end to that."
Huh? I am saying that the hearings were part of the good press. She certainly pissed off a lot of hardcore civil libertarians and rock fans, but everything I recall was that her spiel, and the hearings, played very well in Peoria. Keep in mind that I am not arguing whether her actions were right (although I think they were). I am just disagreeing with your earlier statement that her actions during the PMRC hearings showed poor judgment by creating a PR disaster for her. I am arguing that she was successful in her efforts (which were much more limited than most people seem to think - not surprising given the hysteria around the issue), and that her actions were generally a PR success, even more so in hindsight, given the current fashion for criticizing the entertainment industry.
Gore Leads Bush by 7 Points in Reuters/Zogby Poll
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore has opened a seven-point lead over Republican George W. Bush in the latest Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday -- the first time his lead has been outside the statistical margin of error."
"The poll of 1,005 people who said they were likely to vote in the Nov. 7 presidential election found the vice president leading the Texas governor by 46 to 39 percent. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader had 4 percent while Reform Party hopeful Pat Buchanan scored 1 percent.
"Gore's lead was just outside the statistical margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points in the survey conducted by pollster John Zogby from Sunday to Tuesday."
We're faced with the pending doom of socialism. Al Gore wants to ram it down our throats. True, Bush is a lighter flavor of socialism since he supports the dept. of ed, social security, medicare, and gov't provided prescription drugs. But, our first task should be to limit socialism's damage to our country. After all, when a doctor treats a mortal gunshot wound, the first thing he does is stop the bleeding. Then, he takes out the bullet. We have to stop the bleeding.
Subliminal or Subliminable - W. is doing an execrable job.
Because if it weren't for the handicapped, we'd never get parking places.
Anywho, I am leaning toward Gore, as Bush seems to be self-destructing daily, but my Canadian friend sent me this story on Gore's uncle--file under eccentric southern good ole boy tales--dark side:
Since the US government first became "Socialistic" in the 1930s, the US has somehow staggered through the rest of the century to become the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever seen.
Where is Ronski? We could use a Libertarian with brains.
Now?
Now!
Against what non-socialist country can you compare us? Give me a break nimrod.
Yes.
Twasn't you what killed the thread but I...mine was the last post in movies yesterday.
The poll of 1,005 people who said they were likely to vote in the Nov. 7 presidential election found the vice president leading the Texas governor by 46 to 39 percent. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader (news - web sites) had 4 percent while Reform Party hopeful Pat Buchanan (news - web sites) scored 1 percent.
Gore had drawn level with Bush among men while retaining a 15-point advantage among women. In fact, the result of the poll was similar to the outcome of the 1996 presidential election, which President Clinton (news - web sites) won by eight percentage points, beating Republican Bob Dole by 16 points among women while trailing by a single point among men.
``Gore is doing much better among men and especially independent voters. He is also performing better in the crucial Midwest region,'' said pollster John Zogby.
In English subliminal,/i>
In MoronSpeak sublimable
Incredible. This guy's vocabulary really sucks. Big Time or Major League - either way.
On Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer confronted him with two hot stories. The first, from the front page of this morning's New York Times, alleged that the Republican National Committee burned a subliminal message ("RATS") into one of its anti-Gore ads. The second, in the new issue of Vanity Fair, asserted Bush suffers from dyslexia.
More Hot Rats from Jacob Weisberg
A genetic condition according to Weisberg or he may just be a Moron
Dubya was still standing at the end of the bout, but it's "subliminal" by a unanimous decision.
But, boil it all down - he's still just a surface guy.
Can't we all just get along?
Can't we all just agree that he's impaired and leave it at that?
alan ladd,
Quite a story...almost a movie treatment. I suspect it has enough gritty elements to ensure we will hear of it again.
One thing, though, "Accuracy in Media," isn't always.
Maybe third party voters are voting against the status quo as much as they are voting ideologically?
All I am saying is don't be surprised if this happens or if pressure starts to build from the bottom up, from candidates in difficulty for such a move.
Charles Cook reports that the Republican House CC is unsually cash poor this year due to Bush fundraising and concentration of funds at the RNC.
But, even leaving his instantaneous disclaimer aside, I doubt it is dyslexia. He gives every evidence of having just been lazy when it comes to vocabulary.
sounded more like subliminable
Mason-Dixon Florida poll shows Bush at 45%, Gore at 43%
TAMPA, Fla. (Reuters) - Vice President Al Gore's support among voters in Republican-leaning Florida has surged, putting him in a statistical dead heat with Texas Gov. George W. Bush, according to a poll published on Wednesday.
Bush led with 45 percent, followed by Gore with 43 percent, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader with 2 percent and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan with 1 percent in a poll conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. for several Florida media organizations.
The telephone poll of 803 registered Florida voters who normally cast ballots in statewide races was conducted Sept. 8-11 and had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.
She won 82-18%. Ricky did a stupid thing, though. (duh). He had announced several days ago that anything over THIRTY percent for the opponent would show severe problems for Hillary, blah blah blah.
The sages and pundits then chimed in at about the 25% level.
Had Ricky started out at,say, the TEN percent level (which would have been highly defensible in my opinion, given Hillary's name recognition, official backing, etc., and the opponent's total anonymity), then eighteen wouldn't be looking too good.
So it goes.
There is nothing to compare the United States to. The central government plays a miniscule role in the US when compared to the failed socialist states, and with our social-democrat colleagues in Europe. You'll have to do better than that.
On a lighter note, a comedienne on WEVD radio in NY yesterday, when the topic of Bush and dyslexia came up, asked, "Did he call the reporter a Hole-A?"
It called to mind a supply/demand case from an econ prof. He claimed that college tuition inflation (I paid 6,000 for private law school in 1977 which now costs 22K+) is due to the increase in aid available to student - huge increases in college loan amounts and Pell grants which did not exist back then. The increased aid, in his view, has increased demand yet there has been no increase in the supply of college and university classrooms and instructors.
The result according to the prof is that tuition is grossly inflated and the money is going to pay higher salaries to and hire more administrators who figure out how to cram more students into the same space with the same teaching resources. Pay for college professors has not, according to this guy, increased very much. He advocated construction of more universities - a rather long lead time item it would seem to me.
Perhaps some of our education experts would like to speak to this. This professor is politically to the right of Genghis Kahn but often makes sense to me notwithstanding. I have noticed a huge increase in recent years in low over head, min cap trade schools and have often thought this the result of increase student aid.
Could all these extra funds to higher education be doing little more than creating an inflationnary spiral - more aid creates upward pressure on tuition which requires more aid and so on....
In 1998, his re-election was a cakewalk.
With the exception of John McCain's mini-run from New Hampshire to Michigan, he and his campaign have been quite used to being in front, with a strong and steady lead. Gore, oth, has suffered from attachment to Clinton, lousy press and a campaign staff that has been re-invented about 3 or 4 times.
Now Gore has Bill Daley running things, his press has improved, and his base has returned home. And Bush's strengths (not Clinton, doesn't scare women and children, and almost Clintonesque in making policy statements about little things) are no longer helpful to him.
I wonder how much longer before his conservative base will need some care and feeding, too? They put things on hold because it looked like Bush was going to win. With the race getting closer and the momentum shifting, will they start demanding more?
Ann Richards support was a mile wide and an inch deep. Texans have been increasingly republican over the past 30 years. They love their Bushes, resent Clinton's '92 win, and were happy to give W Revenge for Poppy.
Bush has never run in a difficult race save when he got his ass kicked running for Congress and now for President.
He simply is not what he's been cracked up to be by the media and hard up Republicans.
You raise an excellent point about Bush's base. Perhaps that is already starting to happen, as some GOP columnists are calling on W to start using the "L" word against Gore. What do you have in mind as to what the right will be asking Bush to do?
Of course, the right is unlikely to go to Harry Browne (pity) or Howard Phillips (chilling thought), or Buchanan (equally chilling), since there is still no sentiment for third-party candidates this year.
But they can stay home. D'Amato suffered from this in '98 (and several things of his own making). And one more thing, D'Amato's losing campaign was based largely on calling Schumer a liberal (it had worked in previous races), but it failed to do the trick. Perhaps liberal isn't as scary to some people as it once was.
This month's issue of Reason has some interesting interviews with the Representatives who actually are stepping down because of term-limit pledges, btw.
Well, Bush is behind, but he's been behind before. He was briefly behind Gore/tied with Gore during the bruising primary season.
Bush moved ahead again later.
That said, Bush wasn't behind or tied for more than a week before. This current trend is about three weeks old, which is cause for worry.
But then, Bush has been tied/behind in the past.
It should also be born in mind that while Zogby and a one-day CNN poll put Gore up by 7, the well-respected Battleground poll shows the race as a one-point dead heat, and Portrait of America shows a similar dead heat.
Ron - Yes, Bill and Al, with help for Newt et al as contrast, have rehibilitated the concept of Liberal. I was always dismayed by the way that Dems from Carter to Dukakis let the Repubs smear them as Liberals, as opposed to defining and embracing the term and taking the opportunity to label the Repubs as Conservative.
VonK:
The liberal-smearing is about to begin again.
You may believe that "liberal" is no longer a "bad word." Personally, I think it is.
We'll see what the American people think.
PS: According to Al Gore's own numbers, he spends *more* than the entire projected surplus. According to other people's numbers, he spends $900 billion more.
Will the American people care about that? We shall see.
Ace - Yeah, we will see about the public mood regarding both the concept of Liberal and the tactic of using the term as a smear.
Can you provide cites for your projected budget numbers vis a vis the projected surplus?
Wiz - that's gross.
Both good columns, as is Jerry Jasinowski's going after Gore for attacking the business community, despite the fact that it is business which is responsible for the current prosperity in the first place.
Neither Bush's nor Gore's numbers add up very well, and are based on rosey predictions.
And here is an interesting column from the Dismal Scientist.
Otoh, the author of that piece would apparently never consider the possibility that the entry-level worker who is denied a first job because of a rise in the minimum wage is due any consideration or sympathy.
And that should have been empathically challenged, I guess, though emphatically may do as well.
janjon,
So will Ricky get squashed by Hillary, or will it be a draw?
Forbes Seat Likely to Turn Republican, Again
"The apparent primary defeat last night of Rep. Michael P. Forbes (D-N.Y.), who switched parties last summer after accusing House GOP leaders of intolerance, dealt a blow to Democrats' hopes of recapturing the House this fall, political analysts said.
Regina Seltzer, a 71-year-old librarian who led the congressman by roughly 50 votes in yesterday's balloting, is little-known and has few financial resources. Brookhaven Town Supervisor Felix Grucci, who easily won the GOP primary, starts the general election campaign as a prohibitive favorite, political analysts said.
"This is seat-by-seat warfare, the battle for control for the House, and Democrats, who are already behind by six seats, can't afford to lose any more," said Amy Walter, House editor for the Cook Political Report.
National Republicans made defeating Forbes one of their top priorities this election. While they were focused on defeating him in the general election, they also ought to undercut him in the primary. The GOP provided New York Republicans with $80,000 so it could mail Democratic primary voters pamphlets touting the congressman's 100 percent Christian Coalition rating during his first term, as well as his opposition to abortion rights.
In other words, the I-hate-Hillary crowd is large enough (and comes in a significant measure from what otherwise would be good Democratic voters) to make this close, instead of a cakewalk.
She's doing a very good job consistently projecting herself as non-threatening, earnest, obviously quite intelligent, concerned, deeply knowledgeable, etc. He, on the other hand, has gathered no gravitas - none.
All said, Big Al's 25 plus spread will bring her in, at less than a 5 margin.
Also, I think the the get-out-the-vote efforts will favor the Dems., especially in areas where the anti-Hillary vote ain't so big. And, then there is that gushy Ricky/Arafat photo.
So you think the debate will not produce any clear winner?
national Republican trend. Remember the Congressional Class of '94?
Good point Ronski. I forgot to add the very important fact that GWB beat a woman in The Year of the Angry White Man.
behind Gore/tied with Gore during the bruising primary season.
Which only goes to prove the point that in a real race, Bush is a real loser.
20 point leads shadow boxing in phantom campaigns is one thing. This is the Big Show and all numbers for Gore have been moving up since his convention.
Call it the bounce that never came down.
Call Bush Roadkill 2000.
The NY Times story on their poll pressed that this will be one tight race. While Gore has retained his base and picked up some independent support, Bush has not disappeared. Gore has improved on his likeability, and that's a big killer for Bush. I guess this will make the debates more important than ever, and that Bush will need Gore to make a so-called gaffe. If I were the Gore people, I would be nervous about the good press. At some point, they'll get tired of Bush and go back to his failings and shortcomings.
Karl Grove, Bush' campaign guru, said a year ago that this 1896, the year McKinley ran by being statesman like from his Ohio porch. That's obviously not going to be the case.
My take on the health of the Mote, or the safety of the republic, or the state of the state?
Gore's Image as Potential President Improves One of Gore's major problems has been that many Americans did not see him as presidential material. For most of this year, until the Democratic convention, just about half the public said he has "the personality and leadership qualities a president should have." Since the convention, however, that proportion has risen to 62%.
By contrast, Bush was initially perceived very favorably by the public on this dimension, with about two-thirds of Americans saying he has those presidential qualities. However, since the Democratic convention, the proportion of voters with that opinion has dropped to 57% -- giving Gore a slight edge on a dimension that had been dominated by Bush for most of the past year. Gallup
The federal government is not supposed to make sure no one gets left behind. It’s supposed to make sure no one is held back.
Turns out, suburban women like gun control and are defensive about anti-abortion politics. And frankly, there hasn't been any overt McGovern type liberalism in a long time, not since Nixon was president and created EPA, relations with China, offered a guaranteed income, set up wage and price controls, and pressed for busing.
I'm certainly not predicting a Gore landslide. I don't predict final outcomes until mid October as a rule but I neither do I put much stock in these prognostications.
I wonder why high school dropouts would favor Gore? Could it be that the more ignorant you are the more susceptible you are to demagoguery?
nervous about the good press. At some point, they'll get tired of Bush
and go back to his failings and shortcomings. "
I think this is correct, so long as Bush stops giving the press a reason to beat up on him. My take is that Gore is taking the press' current bloodlust over Bush as an opportunity to act presidential, but that if the press turns its attention back to him, I think his best strategy would be to start attacking Bush's smoke and mirror economic plans. The latter would be more viable if his own plans were in better order, but switching the topic back to anything related to the economy is almost certainly a good plan in these times.
Oth, Clinton-hating is the briar patch for Republicans. They get into and they can't let it go. Nor do they appreciate that others don't share their passions. They spend an awful lot of energy kicking Bill Clinton, and I think it distracts from their selling their program to the rest of the country.
As far as the debates: I heard Ann Richards talk about her debate with Bush. No matter what was asked, he smiled and gave his "pat" answer. She said you could ask him if the weather was nice, and he would say one of his formulaic responses. She thought he was incredibly disciplined in staying on message. I'm not sure that kind of response will work in a national debate, but we'll see.
(Thanks Gertrude)
Neither can I!
I also agree that, perhaps as a desperation move, the "L" word will be unleashed. Gore has to be expecting that, and I think has positioned himself quite well to respond. Is it liberal to want his type of health care program? So be it. Is it liberal to want his type of tax cut? So be it. Say, by the way - did all of you people know what W. thinks about gun control or abortion? Lets talk about those issues a bit.
And it will be back to the drawing board for W. and his.
Cyg - Could you cite your numbers on HS drop out support of the candidates?
Another potential reason for the less educated supporting Gore is that they tend to be less well off and fit into his "working class" that he promises to fight for, they certainly don't seem to be people that Bush and the Repubs speak for.
Let's see, ignoring the 2nd Amendment, privatization, and fee-for-service health care for the moment (savor it!), I would say that the health of the Mote is fairly good for its first year, the Republic is in no real danger for the time being, and New York will see Hillary win narrowly and Gore win so hugely in the state that the GOP might actually lose a Senate seat or two (my state senator, who represents Rockland and Orange Counties, might be vulnerable). It was, as usual, a good night for the incumbents yesterday, and will be a fairly good one in November as well, but a surprise or two is possible if Gore wins by 20 points, which I think a real possibility.
Damn, that would, of course be a poll
But as Stu Rothenberg pointed out yesterday, these votes may have moved into the undecided category but are now moving to Gore. He went on to point out that Gore is nearing 50%, and that will be close to a point of no return for Bush.
If you go on a state-by-state basis, people will move to states that are more generous, placing an undue burden on those states.
I daresay many people are "held back" by the health care "system" that we have today. And while you are slinging trite truisms about the role of government, bear in mind that if you are "held back" often enough, you get "left behind."
Wanna bet Gore isn't ready for it?
I say the hope is slim because Gore has Bush in a box on two key points - the campaign is now defined in terms of issues and the media are on hair-trigger alert against the mudslinging we all expect Bush to resort to and which he needs to resort to in order to have any hope of making the race close in the last weeks.
If Bush actually had the knowledge to back up his easy going and spontaneous demeanor, he would kill Gore in a debate.
I'd hardly be surprised to see such a format for one debate
Wombat - I wouldn't bet on that either. Gore seems very at ease with his script at this point, while Bush is still searching for his motivation.
I went to the bushies web site yesterday and the cited a favorable article from 9/5 Boston Globe so I went there to find it -- it ain't there. Curious.
janjon,
I believe he is the one and the same.
debating Quayle in '92 and Perot on NAFTA. I think Dole/Kemp
was so far behind that it didn't matter much."
Gore did adequately against a lightweight Quayle, crushed Perot in what people thought beforehand was a very bad idea in that Perot would crush Gore, and he defeated Kemp largely on the basis that Kemp reminded people of Albert Brooks' anchoring fiasco in "Broadcast News". Bush won't have Kemp's problems, and the expectations game isn't skewed in Gore's direction this time like it was againt Perot. You can draw your own conclusions on a Quayle/Bush comparison.
Personally (from a campaign standpoint), I hate debates. They are large fields of land mines. As Darrell Royal once said about throwing a football (three things can happen and two of them are bad), debates are risky endeavors.
The two, in our era, who did well at them are Reagan and Clinton. Reagan's "There you go again" was a classic. He had problems in '84 with Mondale, but Sandy Vanocur saved his butt when he started talking about wandering down the California coastal highway. Clinton feeling that little girl's pain while Bush the Elder looked at his watch was another classic.
So it will be a contest between who will seem less scripted. Hmmm.
If Bush actually had the knowledge to back up his easy going and spontaneous demeanor, he would kill Gore in a debate.
But, he doesn't have the knowledge, Wombat. Far from it.
As things continue to go downhill for him, I wouldn't be at all surprised for him to haul out Colin Powell again and just declare that he will be his Secretary of State. The old-I'll-surround-myself-with-all-sorts-of-good-tried-and-true-(Daddy used them too and they are great)-experts effort to effect gravitas.
When will W. and his handlers wake up to the fact that Desert Storm is at best yesterday's news. It may have seemed glorious at the time, but I really don't think it has the afterglow that W. and his would like to think it does.
I wonder if it also contained GWB's copy of English for Dummies?
Gore Vote Share: .517
Bush Vote Share: .473
(this share pays off at the percentage of the vote that the candidate gets, so the price is an equilibrium between shares who think the candidate can do better and those who think he will do worse)
Gore, Winner Take All: .597
Bush, Winner Take All: .404
(this pays off $1 if you win, $0 if you lose, and therefore generally shows the markets' expected probability of each candidate winning)
Both of these show gains for Gore in the past week. Bush's WTA price is the worst it has been in the IAM's dataset.
Is this the brainchild of some bored porkbelly traders?
The Iowa Electronic Markets
I think this is also worthy of a sidebar link.
Hillary/Ricky is currently:
0.565/0.428.
Hillary's trend over the last month is up, Ricky's down. By a considerable amount.
Results for Sep 10-12, 2000 **
Bush: 41%
Gore: 49%
Buchanan: 1%
Nader: 4%
Don't Know: 5%" 
Click for better image
(I have some family in Iowa, by the way. "E-o-va" as my grandma used to call the place. Never thought it so sophisticated as to be able to come up with something like that IEM concept).
I have very fond memories of the town.
As far as proof of leadership -- I suppose, although the memory of seeing Carter and Ford standing there for 20 minutes in silence because the sound had gone out, scared to make a move, didn't inspire me about their leadership skills. They are a bit of a circus.
There was media research done on the Kennedy-Nixon debates. People who heard it on radio thought Nixon won. People who saw it on television thought Kennedy won. In McCluhan terms, tv is cool, radio is hot, and the two candidates were typed similarly.
I don't think that they're Lincoln-Douglas affairs now days. I suppose they do give us some sense about the candidates.
mainly because i don't subscribe to the site.
what's the link & i'll post it 
ducky, why isn't Krugman's NYT column on the sidebar?
We Want Krugman! We Want Krugman! (rats, rats rats)
_____________________________________________________________________
Bush Campaign Makes Misleading Attacks On Gore's Environmental Record Texas Ranks 49th in Spending on State Parks
Nashville - September 13 - George W. Bush's campaign today made
misleading attacks on Al Gore's environmental record. Gore has worked within the current Administration to protect the nation's environmental treasures and to create 13 new national parks. As governor of Texas, Bush has not made state parks a priority. Texas, Bush's home state, ranks 49th out of 50 states in spending on state parks.
Lick Bush! buttons
While Mr. Bush has repeatedly called upon Mr. Gore to elevate the discourse and not sink to harsh commercials, voters gave the vice president higher marks for his advertising campaign. Two-thirds of voters said Mr. Gore was spending more time explaining what he would do as president than he was spending attacking Mr. Bush; half said the same of Mr. Bush.
More than a third of voters have seen advertisements for Mr. Bush, and
they are divided over whether they mostly explain things about Mr. Bush or attack Mr. Gore. About a third have seen advertisements for Mr. Gore. But those viewers, decisively, say Mr. Gore's commercials explain things about Mr. Gore rather than attack Mr. Bush.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/#krugman
Maybe third party voters are voting against the status quo as much as they are voting ideologically?
Gosh Jex, ya think so? Sheesh.
....Bill and Al, with help for Newt et al as contrast, have rehibilitated the concept of Liberal. I was always dismayed by the way that Dems from Carter to Dukakis let the Repubs smear them as Liberals, as opposed to defining and embracing the term and taking the opportunity to label the Repubs as Conservative.
Come on, vonKreedon. "Bill and Al" didn't "define and embrace" the term "liberal", so much as co-opt it. Compared to, say, Trent Lott or Dick Armey, you could call them "liberal", but not under any neutral definition of the word, not by a long shot.
And that's where the post-Cold War neo-cons have won the war of words -- by successfully equating "liberal" with "communist" (ask Ace if you don't believe me), they forced the Democrats to abandon the idealistic wing of the party and haul ass to the center, snagging GOP ideas at will. Not altogether a bad thing, but not "liberal" either.
....I just heard that if you categorize people based on education level and look at for whom they intend to vote, the largest gap in favor of Gore is in the "high school dropout" category. By a 2-to-1 margin, high school dropouts favor Gore. You Gore lovers are in good company.
Heh. You heard that on Rush Limbaugh's show today, about 20 minutes before the end of the show. I know, because I heard it too. I won't bother to point out that using Rush Limbaugh as a source of statistical verity might not be such a great idea if one wishes to retain a veneer of intellectual honesty, but just for shits and giggles, let's say the stat is true. Hell, it probably is true, but I would be curious to know just how many high-school dropouts actually bother to vote in the first place.
But even idiots know who's more likely to help them when they're down and out, and who will just leave it all up to divine providence, or the magic of the "free market".
Could it be that the more ignorant you are the more susceptible you are to demagoguery?
Yes, that's why I now believe that bureaucrats are really rats, because I have been sublibiminably programmed to think so.
Can it be that the more ignorant you are, the more likely it is you'll believe a guy who decries politics-as-usual, and bleats about wanting to "change the tone" of political discourse, yet calls people "assholes" and "rats"?
If you had any balls, you'd have quoted the entire post instead of taking a sentence out of context but then I think yours belong to the ace of spades.
Do not trust the polls. Wanted to know if I was 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Claimed to be 'confused'. They said that made me a 'moderate'. Suggested 'mugrump' as alternative. If they are asking someone like me, who doesn't know if he is descended from the aristocracy or just white trash, lots of folks must be hanging up on them.
So I just lied in my answers. Had to! Only given two choices for answers. Support local control of schools; think parents should beat their children. Support the environment; think most of you assholes should leave the planet. Support gun control; don't think they should be allowed to breed or operate on their own. Know I have 'control' of my guns. Who am I voting for? That is the question. Well by God I just don't know. But it will definitley be for someone who doesn't win.
Plausible denial.
Did anybody read today's Maureen Dowd column?
FUNNY AS HELL!
Over Fund-Raising From Trial Lawyers
Wednesday, September 13, 2000
Sources tell Fox News that the Department of Justice is now investigating another fund-raising matter involving Al Gore.
Fox has obtained documents detailing Gore's efforts to raise money from trial lawyers back in 1995.
After attending a fund-raiser in Houston in November 1995, the documents show Gore tried to follow up several days later with a call to a Texas trial lawyer named Walter Umphrey, but Gore was unable to reach him.
A call sheet written by Democratic National Committee staffer Erica Payne was then given to DNC official Don Fowler to follow up with. The instructions for the call on Gore's behalf reads as follows.
(December 13, 1995)
"Reason for call is 'Sorry you missed the vice president. I know (you) will give 100 thousand dollars when the president vetoes tort reform but we really need it now. Please send asap.'"
The president did veto tort reform (which limits the amount of jury awards in lawsuits, anathema to trial lawyers) on May 2, 1996.
Umphrey did follow through with contributions after the veto. The exact date is not known, but FEC reports show a $30,000 contribution in the second quarter of 1996. He gave another $10,000 that November.
Over the last four years, he and his firm have given $800,000 to the Democrats. One source says before the veto, Umphrey had not contributed any money.
The bottom line is that the documents suggest that Gore was involved in a fund-raising effort in which there was a "quid pro quo" for contributions.
Interestingly, one of the senators who was most outspoken in opposition to Clinton's veto was one Joseph Lieberman — now, of course, Gore's running mate.
Umphrey is also under grand jury investigation in Texas for his tobacco-fee arrangement, under which he gets $25 million every three months. The Texas attorney general is looking into "misconduct and wrongdoing."
Time Magazine's version:
A Dinner, a Memo and a Gusher of Texas Law Money
TIME Special Report: In 1995, as a law harmful to trial lawyers hung in the balance, Vice President Gore traveled to the Lone Star State for a fund-raiser with top attorneys...
Trial lawyers, long a cornerstone of Democratic fundraising, have outdone themselves for Al Gore's presidential race. Even before the successful Democratic convention in August, they had given $7 million to the party's campaign committees. No surprise given Gore's consistent opposition to federal legislation that would limit court awards to victims of corporate negligence.
But roll back to fall 1995 when Republicans, in fresh control of both houses of Congress, were fashioning such tort-reform legislation. President Clinton, trying to position himself between the GOP and liberal Democrats as he prepared for his 1996 re-election campaign, alarmed the trial bar with talk of compromise. "He did indicate his willingness to sign a bill that met certain parameters," says Fred Baron, a Texan who is president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
At the time Clinton and Gore had committed themselves to raising $3 million for an end-of-the-year burst of campaign TV ads. On Nov. 28, 1995, Gore flew to Houston for a intimate fundraising dinner at the home of high-profile trial lawyer John Eddie Williams. His guests included attorneys who have made fortunes representing individuals claiming harm from asbestos, tobacco and other products.
Two days later, the vice president was given memos by a Democratic National Committee staffer, Erica Payne, suggesting follow-up calls to some of the Texas lawyers who attended the dinner. Among the names was Walter Umphrey of Beaumont, who made his fortune suing asbestos manufacturers and was the lead lawyer for the state of Texas in its suit against the tobacco industry. (He would later share $3.3 billion in attorneys' fees when the suit settled in 1998.) Umphrey is described in the memo as "close to" Williams, who hosted the event, although it is not clear that he was at the dinner. Regardless, the memo suggested asking Umphrey for $100,000 to help pay for the TV buys, noting that "Walter is closely following tort reform."
Just how closely was made clear in a similar memo two weeks later to DNC Chairman Don Fowler from party staffer Payne. The memo, obtained by TIME, provided a suggested script for Fowler to use in his call to Umphrey: "Sorry you missed the Vice President: I know [you] will give $100K when the President vetoes tort reform, but we really need it now. Please send ASAP if possible."
Fowler's lawyer, James Hamilton, said in an interview that "Don does not recall placing the call to him, talking to him or seeing the call sheet." Umphrey did not return a call seeking comment. In any case, he did not contribute immediately. Payne's lawyer, Thomas Dwyer, said she did not intend to suggest a quid pro quo between the president's veto and a contribution.
He waited until the tort reform bill reached a crucial moment — the day the legislation went to Clinton's desk. His firm, Provost & Umphrey, contributed $7,500 on April 30, 1996. The president vetoed the legislation two days later, May 2. On July 17, the firm gave another $30,000 to the DNC, with $10,000 more coming in the fall. In the 1998 mid-term elections, as Clinton's impeachment hung in the balance, Provost & Umphrey donated more than $260,000 to Democratic Party committees. And so far in this election, it has written checks totaling $420,000 to the party.
Gore's office said that the vice-president appears not to have made the late November call to Umphrey, but that in any case the two did not speak. Gore spokesman Jim Kennedy noted that the memos have long been in the possession of both Capitol Hill investigators and the Justice Department's campaign finance task force. "Republicans and others have had this for more than 1,000 days," Kennedy said. "No one found it interesting till 1,000 hours before the election."
But one informed source said the task force only recently discovered the memo to Fowler.
Let me guess:
"It's his private, personal business."
"Everybody does it."
"You can't proooooooooooooove anything."
"Let's move on. For the children."
NY Times and AP and USAToday to follow with similar stories...
I'll take B) Everyone does it, who cares?
God, VonKreedon, you're pretty disgusting.
Sure I'm disgusting; we're all disgusting, the system is disguting and we need to reform it. Until we do I'm sure as hell going to trust Al to play the game to the utmost of his abilities, to do less would be disgusting.
On a side note, did anyone notice they lawyer in question is being investigated for arranging $25 million per month as part of the tobacco litigation settlement? It's nice to see that "the people" are getting this settlement money and not "the powerful."
VonKreedon:
"We're" not disgusting; you are.
Please explain why Nixon had to resign if "everybody does it."
Christ, you people really are sick. Newt Gingrich was quite right to call you such.
"the system is disguting and we need to reform it."
Does this mean:
-- We need to pass new laws, because the Democratic candidates liberals support already break the laws presently on the books, and we need to give them new, more stringent laws to break;
or
-- Democrats just can't win without breaking the law, and we need to change the law to give Democrats a competitive advantange without lawbreaking; or
some combination of the above?
I love it. A charge of solemn bribery -- the very definition of corruption -- and VonKreedon robotically intones about "the system."
Hey idiot, bribery is illegal and has been since at least Imperial Rome. What new "reform" do we need to make it clear to your boys they can't take quid pro quo money?
And it's not like Gore superimposed "RATS" in an ad or anything.
(Let me guess: Umphrey missed Gore because one of them was out taking a "tea" break.)
Indy:
We need to "reform" the system to make it clear that bribery is illegal. Pass it on.
Amended list of crimes which "everybody does" and which are "old news" and "private, personal business" which "don't affect a politician's peformance":
-- perjury
-- obstruction of justice
and now:
--bribery
But, you know, Janet Reno is investingating this, so there's nothing to worry about.
Justice will be done.
(That sentiment from Free Republic.)
Oh no. I see that I've once again incurred the estimable wrath of The Oracle of the Tenderloin, fresh from another afternoon "polling" session at The Tool Chest, reeking of too many Sea Breezes, and irritated because his usual pickup line of once knowing one of Mo Udall's flunkies has failed him yet again.
No, I didn't reprint your entire post (though I did link it, doofus), because I saw no change in context. For the record, here's the whole thing: I was wondering about the third party effect myself. One would think that Nader would draw from Gore, Buchannan(sic) from Bush. But polls seem to suggest that Nader draws from Bush too.
Maybe third party voters are voting against the status quo as much as they are voting ideologically?
Perhaps I'm simply too dense to grok the subtle nuances in your prosaic design. Evidently the seamless transition between the two paragraphs was designed so as to fool the unwary (such as myself). But yes, I see now the full context of what you had posited. I stand corrected. (rolls eyes)
I don't think that Nader's necessarily going to take votes away from Gore.
Aside from mine, probably not. That has less to do with Gore's righteousness or Nader's badness, and more to do with sheer apathy and political inertia.
If you had any brains, you'd be pissed at your candidate's inchoate moralizing over video games and movies. You'd wonder why Your Hero is running in a statistical dead heat against a mumbling, stuttering fuck who has trouble enunciating multi-syllabic words. And you'd recognize that at the end of the day, after all the dog-ate-my-homework excuses and the shady fundraising tactics and the political waffling and fudging, there really isn't a huge difference between Frick and Frack.
Instead, every bit of fluff and flatulence that tumbles from Gore's ass to your ears gets regurgitated as if it were the Sermon on the Mount, with no real elucidation or allowance of the possibility that he's full of shit. No, as if in the throes of battered-wife syndrome, you breathlessly gush about how Gore will sign McCain-Feingold and really really do something about campaign finance reform. How do you know that? Why, because he said so at some $1000 a plate fundraiser!
I suppose it's about time for yet another poll indicating a tie, and some deathless prose valiantly attempting to frame that as some sort of victorious repudiation of marauding Huns.
Hey, don't fret EricFartman. I wasn't trying to insult you. You can always get your GED.
Oooh, ow. Ya really got me there, college boy. Clearly I'm dealing with the next Buck Henry.
But, you know, keep on keepin' on with those trenchant observations you pilfer from the Rush Limbaugh show.
No, he got a 4F because of a boil on his ass.
Wait. I'm thinking of how he avoided getting drafted for Vietnam. My bad.
Ace - I'm sorry but I have to stop talking to you because I just cannot take this, Christ, you people really are sick. I know, thin skinned of me, but I just can't handle the all you leftist Klowntoon impeached rapist enabling idiots... style of discourse from someone that I'd like to have a conversation with.
At any rate, this does indeed have the flavor of the hysteria that the Repubs here tried to whip up about the equally clear cut Wen Ho Lee treason case, all bluster and no real crime. But it may provide some cover to put the RATS fiasco behind us, for the children.
Mr. Fartman, are you suggesting I shouldn't listen to any talk radio?
Oh, let's dispense with the formalities. Mr. Fartman's my dad. You can call me Sir. No, I would never suggest that you stop listening to talk radio. Someone has to keep wastes of oxygen like Rush Limbaugh and Paul Harvey out of the unemployment line.
But you don't have to mindlessly parrot the guy, either.
And congratulations on successfully linking to Rush's "Stack Of Stuff". The only thing I want to know is whether Limbaugh really churns this crap out himself, or if it's one of those roomful-of-monkeys-with-typewriters deals. Maybe he has a set of flashcards, each with a buzzword or stock phrase -- like "Algore" or "liberals want everyone to be ignorant" -- and he and his staff just throw darts and assemble the pieces.
Like Mad-Libs for morons.
I am probably older than you, and have long since passed the stage where I would draw inspiration from someone as stupid as a talk radio host.
I will now curl up with an incredibly detailed history of the Nomonhan incident and leave you to your Playboy (assuming all the pages aren't stuck together).
Tuck your head under your wing and sleep tight.
VonKreedon,
I'm not sure I want to have a "conversation" with someone who laughs off corruption & bribery when it suits his political purposes.
I *thought* good people had, when push came to shove, an absolute bottom-line as far as gross political corruption.
I personally abhor Nixon's crimes. I do not excuse them due to any partisan sympathies. And I would not excuse such crimes committed by a Republican in the present day.
But apparently it's tough to be a liberal/socialist; it's just too difficult to convince the people of the rectitude of your bizarre agenda. So certain corners have to be cut, and certain laws must be broken.
And that's the way it is. And therefore it's all accepted and expected.
Very well. As you like it.
Personally, VonKreedon, I must decline your invitation to excuse gross corruption and law-breaking. I'll stick to my puritantical and prudish views on bribery & c.
And if that means we don't get to chat, so be it. It occurs to me, perhaps, that there really is no point talking to someone who excuses bribery by the Vice President, anyway.
Ace - I simply fail to see in the stories that you cite anything that appears out of the ordinary of modern US politics. Each of the parties has constituencies that they cater to and whom they hit of for contributions. The oil companies know that the Repubs butter their bread, the trial lawyers know that the Dems butter theirs. You wax indignant about the supposed bribery, but it is far from clear to me that bribery happened. As you say, the Dems will claim, correctly, that Clinton was going to veto the bill whether or not Mr. Umphrey wrote a check or not, so this is hardly bribery. If I believed bribery had occurred then I would hold a different position.
But roll back to fall 1995 when Republicans, in fresh control of both houses of Congress, were fashioning such tort-reform legislation. President Clinton, trying to position himself between the GOP and liberal Democrats as he prepared for his 1996 re-election campaign, alarmed the trial bar with talk of compromise. "He did indicate his willingness to sign a bill that met certain parameters," says Fred Baron, a Texan who is president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
Significance: Clinton's vote was not a no-brainer as the liberals insist. Tort reform is/was popular, and Clinton had indicated the possibility of compromise, which is anathema to the Trial Lawyers on this subject.
So...
[Umphrey] waited until the tort reform bill reached a crucial moment — the day the legislation went to Clinton's desk. His firm, Provost & Umphrey, contributed $7,500 on April 30, 1996. The president vetoed the legislation two days later, May 2. On July 17, the firm gave another $30,000 to the DNC, with $10,000 more coming in the fall. In the 1998 mid-term elections, as Clinton's impeachment hung in the balance, Provost & Umphrey donated more than $260,000 to Democratic Party committees. And so far in this election, it has written checks totaling $420,000 to the party.
I repeat:
The note said:
"We know you will give $100K when Clinton vetoes the legislation..."
VonK, why was Umphrey waiting to give his donation until after the veto if he was certain Clinton would veto it?
In addition, note that Gore and Umphrey had already agreed that the $100 K would come AFTER the veto.
Not that the $100 K would come by a certain date, or in a week, or in the unspecified future.
Nope.
The agreement was: Veto, then $100K.
Why did Gore and Umphrey agree to this curious linkage of executive action and money?
If the $100K was not to insure the veto, why was it only to come after the veto? Why not just give Gore the money right away? Or say, "I'll send you $100K in a month."
Nope. Veto, then you get your money.
+ 
= another Democrat in the senate.
Hey, dude, Hillary lost the debate tonight. Do you ever stop spinning?
I forgot the rules. If it comes from a conservative, it must be untrue.
I didn't say that at all; in fact, I already acknowledged that your Rush-stat probably is true. So what? What I contest is Limbaugh's analysis of that stat, faithfully parroted by you.
The fact (let's go ahead and just take the stat as a factual given) that 2 out of every 3 high-school dropouts vote Democrat strikes me as more of an economic factor, rather than an educational one. But because a big chunk of Limbaugh's über-thesis is that liberals want people to be dumb so that they'll have to depend on liberals, he does his little song-and-dance about how all these faithful morons are rewarding their benefactor Algore.
Well, sorry Jethro, but that smells like a huge load of hack bullshit to me. And so far, you've done absolutely nothing to back it up.
[Ace, I was around UCONN in the late sixties -- I wonder if we've met?]
jex
I agree. It's so much more inspired to, say, yell "moron!" three times a minute.
Good one, sto.
I have to say that vonKreedon's is the most frenetic performance of the old Demobot Bop I've ever seen.
I guess that's what comes of pretending to be a Libertarian for so long.
Perhaps Cygnus and Rush would be more comfortable with voting requirements that many of the southern states imposed back during "separate but equal" days -- literacy tests and poll taxes. After all, what the hell good is representative democracy if everyone has the vote.
I didn't watch the debate last night, but did see some clips on the pundit shows.
Lazio needs to relax. He seemed very uncomfortable, especially when on the attack. Still, I think his performance was pretty effective.
But what I'm sick of hearing is this hogwash about how connecting Hillary to her hubby only serves to increase the sympathy people feel for her. I think Maureen Dowd started this load of tripe a few months ago, and it's now the Demobot mantra.
In the first place, the Clintons have always claimed, since way back in the Arky days, that they are each other's closest, most trusted advisors. Then, upon assuming command of this country, Bill hands over the reins of his single largest domestic policy issue to her. For the last 8 years, every discussion of Hillary's role in national politics has been argued, from the conservative side - myself included - that she's had too much influence. This is always countered from the liberal side that that's how it should be, since Hillary is so "smart", etc.
You can't have it both ways, guys. Either accept that her role in state and national politics has been negligible at best - in which case she needs to stop touting her "experience working on issues which affect the entire nation" - or admit that, as Bill's "closest advisor" during his 20-odd years in politics, she is at least as responsible for his decisions - such as his failure to increase NY's rightful share of federal revenue, now at a deficit of $15,000,000,000 - as she wants Lazio to be for whatever decisions Newt Gingrich has made.
What is New York's "rightful" share of federal revenue?
so
owning land makes one non-ignorant? if not, how does the gov't determine this?
tests? witty bumper stickers?
Here's evidence. It's widely accepted that the public school system is failing. Despite decreases in class size and increases in funding, scores have either remained flat or declined. Anyone with half a brain should realize that the system needs to be reformed. Otherwise, we're going to end up with an ignorant populace. Conservatives would rather have an educated populace that can take care of themselves, so they support vouchers. Liberals like Al Gore oppose any reform whatsoever and propose no solutions to the problem. What else can we conclude other than that they actually want and ignorant populace?
I guess you should stick to parroting Rush.
What you are proposing is similar to the noises I hear from many conservatives -- that only conservatives should have the vote. Good thing your type is in the minority.
On Limbaugh's education stats. It is pretty common knowledge that higher education is linked to a tendency to vote Republican, but this is quite simply because education is strongly correlated with income, and if there is any defining difference between the two parties, it is that they primarily cater to different income groups. It should also be noted, however, that according to the most recent Gallup poll, Gore is favored by more college graduates than Bush, although the difference isn't statistically significant.
Actually, I don't hope to sway a Gore supporter to vote for Bush. That's getting a person to admit they're ignorant which is pretty tough to do the more ignorant a person is. I'm just hoping to shame them by their lack of understanding of our governing principles and the stupid things that substitute for that understanding they don't have. Hopefully, it will be enought that they just won't vote at all.
how much land does one need to stop being ignorant?
Anyone have balloons that need filling? Bicycle tires? Hot air now available in spades.
Never mind the rancid smell. It dissipates quickly. 
In the race for the White House, George W. Bush and Al Gore are virtually tied in the popular vote. In Portrait of America's latest 3-day average Bush has 43.2% while Gore has 42.1%; Ralph Nader, 2.8%, Pat Buchanan, 1.8%, Harry Browne .9%, Howard Phillips .2%, and John Hagelin .1%. These results from a nightly Portrait of America Presidential Tracking Poll reflect interviews conducted September 11, 12 and 13.
The Goofer isn't even dead yet (though some suspect his body is being kept in a Tarzana meatlocker for an October Surprise) and
GOP Congress About to Blight US Mall With Reagan Memorial
Hell he's already got an airport and an International Center (gross) named after his sorry ass.
In Reagan's case, any such memorial will seem like a hollow idea at the end of that time period.
I did not see anything but clips afterward, since I left a little late and the debate was on while I was driving home, and I did not hear quite all of it in the car (at some point the signal faded as I drove through our little mountains).
But from what I did see on the post-morti this morning I thought that Hillary looked senatorial, while Lazio looked a bit callow. Still, Rick had some good answers. Both were playing to their base. And lots of the usual groping for the center while trying to paint the opponent as an extremist.
Frankly, I would have found the debate noteworthy only if someone bombed, and I did not really expect that to happen. Hillary did not come apart at any time, and neither did Rick. No KO for either.
My biggest reactions are two that are negative for Lazio. I thought asking Hillary if she misled the American people was boorish. I think most people believe Hillary really did not know about the Lewinsky affair until the DNA surfaced and Bill asked his lawyer to fess up for him with Hillary (at which point the crockery flew).
So how the hell could Hillary have misled anyone? A stupid attempt to link Hillary to Bill's lie. Worse, it was a missed opportunity for Lazio to elevate himself above that kind of sniping.
The second was the theatricals at the end. Hey, this is New York. Do you anyone who is going to sign a paper without reading it first, much less a lawyer?
I give maybe a slight edge to Hillary, just on demeanor.
Bush up by six: voter.com poll......
WASHINGTON, DC (Voter.com, Sept. 14) - The lead that Al Gore once enjoyed in most presidential polls in wake of the Democratic convention has all but disappeared, according to the latest Voter.com Battleground 2000 poll released Thursday. The survey reports that the vice president’s numbers are slipping and George W. Bush is back on top for the first time in weeks. The survey, based on a four-day rolling sampling of a total of 1,000 likely voters, was conducted by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake of Lake, Snell, Perry & Associates and Republican pollster Ed Goeas of the Tarrance Group.
The most significant finding from the poll was that among a select group of voters deemed most likely to cast a ballot if the election were held today, 50 percent said they would pull the lever for Bush, 44 percent for Gore, 4 percent for Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader and 1 percent for Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan. The polls margin of error is 3.1 percent.
Seems voter.com is the skunk at the garden party.
Remember the different reactions of those who watched the Nixon-Kennedy debates and those who only heard them.
Hillary looked good, Lazio not quite as good.
There is only about ten percent of the electorate left for grabs, maybe less. These people are not particularly ideological, and will be impressed by such things as demeanor.
One wants to give a multi-billion dollars tax cut to the super-rich--the Bush version of the failed theory of trickle-down economics--the other proposes relief to the middle-class who will probably spend most of it and thereby avert a recession. For me, that in itself is enough to return the inept Bush leaguer back to Texas.
However, I really do believe that his decision to be as strident and as aggressive as he was was a bit of an overkill and indeed might have left a sour taste for many viewers. Especially in view of Hillary's very comforting demeanor.
By the way, the question about Hillary misleading the American people did not come from Rick directly. It was from Tim Russert. And, she responded beautifully. And, I would be confident that overall that questions/response created more goodwill for Hillary than not. (In other words, I certainly agree that most Americans do believe that she was misled, etc.)
I also agree that Rick's late debate tactic of pulling out the one-sheeter and DEMANDING that Hillary sign it RIGHT THEN AND NOW was too cute by a mile. Especially in the context of having had Russert earlier run a video of his famous soft-money "I'm tied to Moynihan" ad where he denied that it had come from his campaign etc. Lame.
I also think that in terms of upstate votes, Rick made a big mistake by simply saying that he thought the area had turned the corner in terms of economic improvement as compared to Hillary's sympathetic comments about how a masterplan was needed, and that it that included a casino so be it.
She certainly used "we" as in (but not expressed) "we New Yorkers", but it flowed o.k.
On to the next. Hopefully at a more civilized later hour.
concerned has better manners than Tim Russert.
We're in good company. Saletan concludes A candidate who puts pride before prudence, refuses to learn from his mistakes, and is capable of living for days in an alternate political universe can only survive while he's ahead....Stick a fork in him. He's done
Did Clinton know of the exchange between the democratic party operative and the trial attorney in question? Is is a bribe if one would have acted in the same manner without the contribution?
Finally Sherlock of Spades ignores the issue of whether the "tort reform" bill contained the provisions that Clinton wanted before he would support "tort reform."
I missed the question from Russert, as you can seee, but I now realize that I did hear someone on the radio point out that it came from Russert and not Lazio himself. Still, Lazio could have risen above that moment. And I agree that Hillary handled the upstate economy question pretty well. Mind you, the kind of master plan I would prefer for the region is pretty much opposite the one Hillary might have in mind (although I think casinoes are swell if that's what people want). The trouble for Rick is that he can't go the usual GOP route and call for lower taxes and fewer regulations to stimulate the upstate economy because he can't criticize the Governor (for not going far enough down that road). If he'd been smart, he'd have criticized the Assembly Democrats for standing in the way of development in the region, or something along those lines.
I apologize that this is off the top of my head. I have yet to read the complete transcript or any of the newspaper coverage, and, as I said, I did miss quite a chunk of it.
And, Jex hit it right on the head. Lazio would have scored many many points by being gracious after the Russert knifing. Instead, he chose to try to twist the blade a bit more.
I don't see where he comes off or what traction he gets calling Hillary "untrustworthy" anyway. Opportunist, carpetbagger, lacking real experience - all of those have at least the patina of some justification. But, untrustworthy?
Incidentally, Ricky also didn't do himself well upstate by rather proudly pointing out that he had been there SIX times already. He then parroted Schumer's comment that he would be around so much the next six years that people would get tired of him, but I don't think that carried as much water as the fact that six times ain't a lot. Hell, I suspect Hillary has been almost everywhere there is to go up there at least 15 times by now.
Gore led Bush 47 percent to 41 percent among all voters, according to the Pew Research Center poll of 1,999 registered voters, which had a 2.2 percent margin of error.
That's just outside the margin of error.
But I return to my oft made point "its the fundamentals stoopid!". The Saletan article does a good job analyzing those fundamentals.
Regarding the Bush 'team,' I am reminded of the Carterites' fumbles once they got to DC, but these guys are bombing on the road.
Never say never again.
"At issue the wording of a single phone call that may or may not have taken place."
Forget an independent counsel -- we've got to put Al in shackles and dump him in solitary confinement over this one!
Not only are we as a group fully familiar with that dreck, we are amused by it as well.
I am an endorser of the Communitarian Platform. I am thus committed to the re-education, forcible if necessary, of all liberatarians.
I also support the immediate confiscation of all firearms with use restricted to controlled gun and hunting clubs.
Has Ronski gone to watch the webcast or is the craven Libertarian running for his life!
Mz Phys lives in upstate NY and I've visited there more than Rick Lazio. Maybe I should run for the Senate.
But do I think for one minute that should he rule, he will be overtly
"liberal"? Of course not. I expect him to be solidly Clintonian. A
finger-to-the-wind DLC gradualist who will be long on symbol and speech, and short on expending anything for any cause that might require precious political capital. So some taxes will be cut; none will be raised; a conservative, pay-off-the-debt mentality will take precedence over any large entitlements; estate taxes will not be eliminated, but they will be lessened for those that require a hassle-free pass through for their wealth (in fact, the estate tax pass-through is scheduled to increase from $650,000 in 2002); capital gains tax reduction will occur; we'll get a hefty, if not astronomical, increase in defense spending, and nothing too crazy will emanate from the White House.
The most I'll have to suffer is ticky-tack FMLA proposals (to have it cover parent-teacher conferences and employers of 20 or more, as opposed to 50 or more), prescription drug benefits for the old folks, a hate crimes law, an attack on Jack Valenti and Marilyn Manson as the source for why Johnny has a gun, a few million FILL-IN-THE-BLANK marches and a reunion of Anne "I've lost my way and I'm looking for Robert Downey, Jr." Heche and Ellen "I Told Everybody I Was a Lesbian and I Became As Funny as Judy Tenuda Sniffing Her Armpits" Degeneres for state dinners.
And when the last few true liberals put down their latest Lapham column, Gore will shout "I kept abortion legal" and that will be that.
In contrast, I was convinced that Mondale and Dukakis were solid, old-line liberals, and even if they weren't, they were of the mealy stripe ill-equipped for 1980s foreign policy challenges. So, I actually worried about their possible ascensions. As with Gore, my revulsion for Clinton was almost purely personal. I can report that he met most of my expectations, but the fact that he buried modern liberalism under the weight of his excesses and timidity, essentially turned the Democratic Party into the Rockefeller (Nelson, not Jay) wing of the GOP, and handed Congress and the majority of governorships to the Republicans was a pleasant and unexpected surprise.
It took Reagan to lay down the slogans, but Bush, Clinton, and I suspect Gore will have been capable stewards for his pro-defense, anti-welfare, anti-big government line.
On the Ace/VK dustup, I'm with Ace (says Gary). VK's response to the allegation is an articulate part of the modern theme derived from the Godfather II, wherein Michael Corleone says to G.D. Spradlin "We are all part of the same hypocrisy, Senator."
That is a well-written line, but the Senator was a mere shill and briber. Corleone, conversely, was a brutal mass murderer whose victims came to include his brother-in-law, his own brother and a prostitute whose murder he tied to the Senator (for leverage).
But if one is inclined to minimize Corleone's heinous acts, in an intellectually breezy manner, one can wave a hand and say, "Ah, they are all part of the same hypocrisy."
Similarly, it is lazy, but en vogue, to look at a campaign finance system that can be criticized, and thereafter become intellectually incapable of divining raising soft money from, say, the allegations leveled against Mr. Gore.
Huh? I guess you mean "distinguishing" subuliminalbely speaking.
Even so, we're still left with jibberish (or is it ibberjish?).
Ah to hell with it. Just go watch the Gore/Schiff webcast JV
Actually, there is some truth to that. If the Senators didn't shill, the murder and brutality would be part of a different system.
That being said, likening Gore to Corleone is...well, it's almost Ace like in its overstatement.
I do. Unlike you, when viewing, I'm not parked on a bus bench looking through the window of a Sharper Image while bumming nickels and exclaiming, "I made Willie Brown! I did! He even sent me an email!"
Now back to the Sopranoes with you. Off you go.....
Well, I personally think campaign finance reform is idiotic, and I don't confuse the two. But to pretend that all politicians wouldn't use whatever power they can to get what they want seems a tad....silly.
I realize that you disagree--and of course, you Speak From Experience.
But that is undoubtedly part of the problem. The public doesn't think that what Gore (supposedly) did is all that appalling. They imagine it goes on all the time.
The public usually isn't all that imaginative, so it's hard to believe that they aren't correct.
(this presumes that you'll stop giving jexter the attention he craves and answer someone else. g)
Silliest ass thing I've heard since Howdy Doody's Acceptance Speech
That the public may be just as incapable as VK from making a distinction is irrelevant. They are both wayward and lazy. And I'm wedded to giving jexster the attention he craves. After all, I am a compassionate conservative.
I was careful to discuss the "allegations" against Gore. It was these allegations that VK dismissed with the modern "Oh, it's all the same" shorthand. Of course, if those who would otherwise endeavor to investigate the allegations are similarly inclined, or, as Cal points out, the public imagines it goes on all the time, the point is moot at birth.
I just hope you don't get misidentified as a Libertarian or a Serb.
No, you misread. I am not talking about campaign finance reform--although I realize that vK was. I am saying that the public doesn't really think it's all that shocking that these things might occur. Nothing to do with CRF.
BTW, I also don't think that this is proven, but that's kind of besides the point. What matters is whether anyone will care if it were proven--and I don't think they will.
At least part of this is due to the overblown rhetoric of both sides over the years. But I think part of it is also based in reality.
Message # 41262
I just engaged a nationally recognized polling company to query communitarians to find out whether they are happy to have you in their fold. I was informed that, due to the size of the communitarian movement, they would have to do a 100% poll to ensure statistical credibility.
The results are in.
The good news is that a clear majority, 67%, accepts you into the movement. The bad news is that there was one vote against you.
Message # 41278 is a repeat? i'll have to check
If your point is that the public does not care or will not care, I don't disagree.
it's the last time i think it needs to be posted, however.
Silliest ass thing I've heard since Howdy Doody's Acceptance Speech
Really? I thought for sure I had seen the communitarian platform posted recently. Surely you've read it?
Jack,
That is part of my point--but also that they might be right in not caring. I don't mean that they agree with me, but rather that the public is often surprisingly sensible.
Nicely said.
And they are often unsurprisingly idiots. In the end, I'll trust my own judgment in such matters over the "sense" of the public, even at the peril of being the minority voice. Besides, my lack of kinship with the public helps in keeping my streak of incorrect predictions intact.
I reccomend that all who post here do likewise.
(Though I doubt I'll get many takers.)
Judging from his post to Ronski, I don't think so.
To be honest, my dislike of Bush is also personal, and aside of his defeat of Ann Richards for which I hold him personally responsible (g), I think it probably centers around his expectation of coronation without his need to sweat for the crown. His father exhibited that a bit, too, now that I think about it. For me, he makes no compelling case that he has either the interest or the skill to be president. Perhaps, if he is elected, we will read glowing reports after the first year of his ability to "grow on the job."
When he ran for governor in 1992, he ran on the slogan of changing the status quo. But once in office, he did what many previous governors did, hide in the office, make a few efforts at something big, and then shrugged when it didn't happen. Of course, he got a state government that was in much better shape than his predecessor, but that's another argument.
I think that the Umphrey charge related to Gore is serious. Obviously, the Rs who sat on it for months and then orchestrated its release thought it was helpful. As I said yesterday, they put a lot of effort into this kind of stuff, and I am not sure it helps them as much as they imagine it does. We'll see what happens. Interesting if this is the first of... or the big bomb they've kept in a box for that special rainy day.
If that weren't a given, it wouldn't be a surprise when they are sensible now, would it?
. In the end, I'll trust my own judgment in such matters over the "sense" of the public, even at the peril of being the minority voice.
Honey, you wouldn't know what a minority voice was if a whole host of them sang the Hallelujah chorus in your ear. I don't mean in the EOE sense, either. You're status quo all the way, even to your disdain for the "public".
All I'm pointing out--and this is a minority view (although not as singular as some of mine)--is that the public has proved astonishingly correct over the years about what to care and not care about in the political arena. Would that they were as astute in other areas of interest.
I was nodding along with you up until the last sentence: (who the hell takes phone call wording recommendations from subordinates anyway?)
I have a book at home written by a Washington insider. One thing he said (about pols working in DC) "Never write what you sign, never sign what you write"
It isn't perfectly parallel to this situation, it emphasized that politicians are rarely the authors of things they say or write. While I have no doubt that any decent politician has enough common sense to make changes to material handed to him or her, I'll bet that a large percentage of phone call wordings are written by subordinates.
I'm in touch with the people. I watch Soul Train.
Glenda (and everyone else)
Read the Gail Sheehy piece on Bush in Vanity Fair (a woman named Hudson is on the cover; hopefully, she won't get the Gretchen Moll jinx). For those who loathe him, it will provide more fuel for their rages, but it is well-written and provides the most comprehensive insight into the guy I've yet read (so much better than these 12 part "And then Gore/Bush took a dump . .." pieces put out by the Post).
Hahahah!
Actually, I enjoyed the attempt at diagnosis. It was somewhat of a reach, but certainly not mean-spirited, and definitely not without some basis for the conjecture.
Raskolnikov
I'll admit to being disappointed in VK's response. The direct solicitation of a bribe is not something that *everybody does*.
Same here. In fact my take on the Ace/vk dustup, to pick up on the jack V theme, is that vk felt that Ace was over the top because vk's words didn't accurately describe what he truly believes, or at least the interpretation I (and others) have put on the words doesn't match the intended meaning of vk.
Two in a row.
I still think that the operative issue for Bush is that he is a comfortable winner, but a miserable fighter. I don't know that this has anything to do with class or money, in the end. How disappointing.
Oh, I know...many world leaders look like fools; the planet keeps spinning. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I want someone representing me who looks and sounds like a leader. A buffoonish Governor is fine but he's just too GOOFY to be a President. (I'll shut up about this now...I know I've said it all before.)
I am terribly concerned that he may flub words were he to be President. In fact, I can't believe we had a president in a wheelchair, and another one with crippling Addison's disease.
No difference whatsoever, no matter the reason, when the arbiter is the world stage. And if the world stage deems the disability/quirk foolish.
No, but they made him reaaaaaal cranky. In fact, it's why he cancelled the Olympics.
It's all suddenly clear to me now. He shoulda gotten one of those rubber donut cushions for his chair.
And I say now what I said then.
"Never let the French abuse our president. That's our job."
When I've heard Bush, he does no worse than his father (and in fact has managed to keep from puking on any foreign leaders).
Indy,
Well, so far.
Point taken. There were also plenty of Americans who thought that Carter must be a moron because of the southern accent.
But how many times has bush Jr. had the opportunity to ralph on foreign leaders? How do we know that he won't be barfing his guts out at every summit?
No. I know for a fact that the French attache' howled at the idea of Clinton masturbating in a sink.
And the Germans were passing jokes on his gift of a ceramic frog to Lewinsky for months.
But we are talking pikers in embarrasment. Remember the Reagan family? Horoscopes for the wife, bad ballet from the son, kleptomania from the other son, and a Playboy spread from the daughter that begged me off of sex for weeks (well, that and my own tongue-tied pick up line of "Me. You. Sack. Now. Erg").
Well, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Exceptions to every rule, and all that.
His father loses the "vomited on foreign head of state" contest 1-0, but Clinton loses the "used cruise missiles to relieve stress" contest going away. I think the latter is much worse in terms of international relations.
(Though I think most furriners have a worse opinion of the average Joe American than they do of our leaders. Not that any of these cosmetics really matter when it conflicts with national interest.)
I am currently reading the Lindbergh biography, which I very much recommend if you haven't read it. I'll be looking for a Churchill bio some day--any recommendations?
Bush came into to office and had the original football field size office rebuilt with private funds. He wasn't elected governor to preside over tiny office space.
Carry on!
Churchill's official biographer, Martin Gilbert, published a very manageable abridged version of his multi-volume biography. I do not hesitate to recommend it.
I've not read the Lindbergh, but it's on my 'to read' list. Thanks for the recommendation.
From The New Republic:
But, when Congress moved to correct its mistake, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah led a GOP effort to quash the correction. On June 28, one day after the Senate voted to not fix the mistake, Glaxo dumped $100,000 into the Republican National Committee. Two months later, it unloaded another $100,000. Overall that year, Glaxo contributed $487,500--nearly $400,000 more than in the previous Congress. And, while Glaxo could legally reward Hatch with only $5,000 in political action committee money, it was able to express its gratitude in larger terms by donating $15 million (at Hatch's encouragement) to a cancer center at a university in the senator's home state.
....
In the summer of 1995, GOP Conference Chairman John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, showed just how blurry the line between the interests of big business and the business of the country can be. During the same week the Appropriations Committee voted against ending a federal price support program for tobacco, Boehner walked the House floor and handed out $500 PAC checks to Republican members from tobacco giant Brown & Williamson
....
Now this is my favorite evolution of quid pro quo:
Some corporate lobbyists no longer bother with the fiction that they aren't buying law: they actually write the legislation they want and slip it to the lawmakers along with the money. Before the first vote was cast in the 104th Congress, a host of lobbyists who had helped fund the Republican revolution of 1994 sat in Tom DeLay's office penning the anti-regulatory provisions of their dreams.
But don't you know those are just minor instances? It's not as though they have any unsigned phone memos or anything....
2) Are you for or against a ban on partial birth abortions, except when the life or physical health of the mother is in jeopardy? AGAINST
3) Are you for or against hate crime laws? AGAINST
4) Are you for or against the death penalty? AGAINST
5) Are you for or against school vouchers? FOR
6) Are you for or against allowance of organized prayer in public school? AGAINST
7) Are you for or against allowance of an organized moment of silence in public school? AGAINST
8) Were you for or against the bombing campaign in Yugoslavia? FOR
10) Were you for or against a vote for conviction of President Clinton in the Senate? AGAINST
11) Are you for or against the ratification of the nuclear test ban treaty? FOR
12) Are you for or against the decriminalization of marijuana, cocaine and heroin? FOR
13) If you had to choose a president for the year 2000 from the announced candidates right now, whom would you choose? GORE
14) What political writer or pundit best represents your views? NONE
15) Are you for or against an across the board tax cut of 2%? DK
16) Are you for or against an across the board reduction in all government expenditures by 1.5%? DK
17) Are you for or against federal registration of all firearms? FOR
18) Are you for or against federal registration of all handguns and semi-automatic weapons? FOR
19) Are you for or against a 30 day waiting period prior to purchase of a gun? FOR
20) Are you for or against a criminal background check prior to purchase of a firearm? FOR
21) Are you for or against the allowance of women to serve in combat roles? FOR
22) Are you for or against a ban on soft monet (sic) contributions by corporations, labor unions and private individuals? AGAINST
23) Are you for or against continuation of the independent counsel law? FOR
When it comes to tobacco money, however, the real muscle for the Republican Party is the vast sum of soft money that Philip Morris, RJR Nabisco, Brown & Williamson and US Tobacco donate to the GOP in chunks of $10,000, $100,000 or more. Since 1991 the tobacco industry has contributed $15,570,000 to the Republican Party in soft money, with two-thirds of that coming during the last two election cycles. (Recently virtually all of tobacco's money has gone to the GOP--in 1999, by a factor of 10 to 1.)
....
Whether it's a result of the people he surrounds himself with, the money that the Republicans get from the industry or some natural proclivity to defend a pariah industry, Bush has compiled a significant string of actions on tobacco's behalf. In September, after President Clinton and the Justice Department announced a federal lawsuit against the industry seeking to recover billions of dollars in government expenditures to care for the health-related effects of tobacco, Bush was quick to announce his opposition.
....
In Texas, too, Bush has coddled the industry. When Texas's then-Attorney General Morales and a team of lawyers forced the industry to agree to pay Texas $17 billion in damages, allowing the state to recover some of what it has spent over the years caring for sick and dying smokers, Bush--who refused to back Morales's lawsuit--actually sued the Attorney General to block the payment of more than $2 billion in legal fees due to the private attorneys who handled the case. All by itself, Bush's action, if successful, could unravel the entire agreement, saving Philip Morris billions of dollars--and costing taxpayers in Texas an equal amount in lost revenue. (At the time, Morales said that Bush's lawsuit "is about one thing and one thing only: a Republican presidential campaign and political contributions from big tobacco.")
Then, earlier this year, a coalition of health groups, including the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, pressed Bush to support a $60-million-a-year smoking prevention program aimed at children, using money from the tobacco settlement. But Bush ignored the calls, which included a personal appeal from former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, with the result that the Texas legislature agreed to spend just $10 million. Matt Myers, executive vice president and general counsel of the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids, says that $10 million is about what the tiny state of Vermont spends on such programs.
Dan Burton (R-Indiana): Do you admit or deny that in 1997 you accepted illegal contributions from Sikh temples and from Zaire's reviled despot Mobuto Sese Seko, returned only after negative publicity? Do you admit or deny that you tried to extort a sizable donation from a lobbyist for Pakistan?
Tom DeLay (R-Texas): Do you admit or deny that in 1995 you drummed up Congressional support for an easing of anti-dumping regulations sought by a Mexican cement company for which your brother was the lobbyist?
Jay Kim (R-California): Do you admit or deny that between 1994 and '96 you received $230,000 in illegal contributions from South Korean corporations? Oops, you've already admitted it in a plea bargain, which is why you're wearing that electronic ankle bracelet and why your wife calls you "the most crime-committing person I know." You were defeated in a Republican primary, but if Hyde stays on schedule you'll still get to vote on Clinton's impeachment, ankle bracelet and all.
Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho): Do you admit or deny that in 1994 you accepted illegal campaign contributions originating in Hong Kong? And do you admit or deny that you failed to disclose $50,000 in under-the-table financing for your 1994 campaign, delaying an admission of fault until one day after the House deadline for filing ethics complaints?
Bill McCollum (R-Florida): Do you admit or deny that you paid your top Washington aide $100,000 in ethically dubious "consulting fees" for campaign work?
JackieO' refered to my attitude towards the accusations of bribery as "modern". This clearly incorrect. My attitude is a classic example of post-modern ironic detachment.
That is, until I resorted to research and citations to back up my attitude. A true post-modern would never have put in the effort when a simple "whatever..." would do as well.
well, that and my own tongue-tied pick up line of "Me. You. S
