Once again, when there is a Democratic President who wants to spend money on people as opposed to giving tax cuts to the wealthy, George Voinovich becomes a "deficit" hawk. We saw this before during the Clinton and Bush administrations.
When Clinton was President, George Voinovich talked about the need for a balanced Federal budget. Although interestingly enough we don't remember a lot of praise for Clinton from Voinovich when the Clinton administration left a surplus for his successor to squander.
But when Bubble-Boy became President and wanted to pass his reckless tax cuts in 2001and then again in 2003, where was Voinovich? Well, ol' deficit hawk George was right there with him, agreeing to his cuts in 2001 and 2003. Now in 2003 the deficit hawk is given credit for helping to cut Bush's tax cuts in half, although half of budget busting tax cuts is still half too many. Ol' deficit hawk George, however, then voted to extend the expiration date of tax cuts which had the effect of undoing his work in 2003.
By this time you may be wondering why in the world we are ranting about George Voinovich on Martin Luther King Day. Let's face we could be ranting about the Massachusetts special election or talking about what King meant to America, why are we ranting about George?
Well, it is because we read this article in the Plain Dealer about how George is trying to cap off his career by helping create a budget commission to control Federal spending. Once again the PD is acting like the public relations officer for George's Senate office and telling us how great George is for caring about deficit and the Federal budget.
Although, come to think about it, at least in this article the reporter does point out how Voinovich supported Bush's tax cuts. That is something new for the PD, acknowledging, however obliquely, the hypocrisy of Voinovich on budget deficits when Republicans are in power.
Hey, no matter what happens in the race for the U.S. Senate seat from Ohio, at least we won't be treated to the PD creaming their jeans for Voinovich anymore. (See, and you probably thought this article was going to end on an angry note.)
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Monday, January 18, 2010
Saturday, December 06, 2008
U.S. Debt Under Clinton Compared to Debt Under Bush
A reader sent us a link to a page on the United States Government website where you can calculate the public debt of the United States to the penny. We used this application to compare the debt incurred under the Clinton Administration to the debt incurred under the Bush Administration as of Friday, December 5, 2008.
As you can see from the graph below, Bubble-Boy wins this dubious honor. Under Bush the public debt of the United States has gone from 5.7 trillion to over 10 trillion in eight years. Folks, this is what happens when you combine reckless, radical, right-wing tax cuts with a Republican Congress who keeps funding their pet projects.
You can check out the actual numbers for both presidents to the penny by going here.
As you can see from the graph below, Bubble-Boy wins this dubious honor. Under Bush the public debt of the United States has gone from 5.7 trillion to over 10 trillion in eight years. Folks, this is what happens when you combine reckless, radical, right-wing tax cuts with a Republican Congress who keeps funding their pet projects.
You can check out the actual numbers for both presidents to the penny by going here.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The Big Dog Lays It Down at the 2008 Democratic National Convention
Take a look at President Bill Clinton's speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. He made the case for Senator Barack Obama and framed the issues in a very constructive way. Take a look at it:
Saturday, April 12, 2008
No One is Entitled to the Presidency
One of the real problems that the Hillary Clinton campaign has had during the battle for the Democratic nomination is the sense that her campaign advisors, and her husband, believe that she is somehow entitled to the Democratic nomination. This attitude is what, according to an article in the L.A. Times, drove New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to endorse Barack Obama.
The reason why no one is entitled to the presidency, or the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, is that presidential elections are about the future, not the past. They are about what is going to happen in the next four years more than they are about what happened in the past four years, or in the case of the Clintons, 16 years ago. Yet, when you read news reports about her campaign, and when you read about the reaction of her husband to former supporters of his backing Barack Obama, you get a sense that the Clintons believe that she is entitled to the Democratic nomination.
This sense of entitlement is not working for them. A lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton electoral pattern. It gives the impression that the presidency is somehow an inherited position. This is a concept that is foreign to Americans. When you convey a sense of entitlement, you are increasing the feeling of discontent that a lot of people have with the idea of another Clinton presidency. Add to that the fact that a lot of Democrats are unhappy with her support of the Iraq War resolution and what many see as racially tinged attacks on Obama and you can understand why she is behind in the polls.
One of the strengths of the Clintons is that they don't really care what others think about them. Most character traits that work for you in some situations work against you in others. This one is no exception.
The reason why no one is entitled to the presidency, or the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, is that presidential elections are about the future, not the past. They are about what is going to happen in the next four years more than they are about what happened in the past four years, or in the case of the Clintons, 16 years ago. Yet, when you read news reports about her campaign, and when you read about the reaction of her husband to former supporters of his backing Barack Obama, you get a sense that the Clintons believe that she is entitled to the Democratic nomination.
This sense of entitlement is not working for them. A lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton electoral pattern. It gives the impression that the presidency is somehow an inherited position. This is a concept that is foreign to Americans. When you convey a sense of entitlement, you are increasing the feeling of discontent that a lot of people have with the idea of another Clinton presidency. Add to that the fact that a lot of Democrats are unhappy with her support of the Iraq War resolution and what many see as racially tinged attacks on Obama and you can understand why she is behind in the polls.
One of the strengths of the Clintons is that they don't really care what others think about them. Most character traits that work for you in some situations work against you in others. This one is no exception.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Is One of the Clintons' Strengths Also a Big Weakness?
One of the strengths of both of the Clintons is that they don't really care what others, especially the media, think of them. This was seen in 1992 when the media wrote him off time and time again. First it was Gennifer Flowers, then it was the issue of the draft, then it was the issue of his supposed trip to Russia when he was a Rhodes Scholar, and on, and on, and on. Every time the pundits told us that Clinton couldn't win and, of course, he won.
Then he was president, the trend continued. The media claimed that he was a lame-duck president after the 1994 Republican take-over of Congress. Many thought that he would be a one-term president. Of course, he easily won re-election in 1996.
Next came the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Again many in the media predicated his demise, and again he survived.
Through all of these crises, the Clintons drew strength from the fact that they didn't seem to really care what others thought. There was a great line from Hillary Clinton when the Gennifer Flowers issue was blowing up and a reporter asked her if her husband was going to drop out. Her response was something like, "We will leave when the voters tell us to leave, not before."
This attitude of the Clintons drives many in the media crazy. First of all, it diminshes their role. The media likes to think that they are gate-keepers of the political system. Many reporters see themselves as part of the system, even though they never run for office, or run a campaign, or serve as advisers. When they take a shot at a candidate and pronounce that candidate dead, well, damn it, that candidate should have the good grace to die. Only the Clintons don't.
Their attitude also drives reporters crazy because most of them, indeed most of us, don't have that kind of self-confidence and some people resent those who do. Most of us, if the media was telling us that our stuff stank, might wonder if, indeed, it does stink. Only the Clintons don't.
Which leads to the premise of this entry. Often in life a character trait that works for you in one situation will work against you in another. It could be that Bill Clinton didn't realize the impact that his statements about Obama were making, or the reaction that they would cause, because, in the past his judgment has been shown to be so much better than others, especially in politics. Thus, he made some really unfortunate remarks that ticked off not just commentators, but African-American voters in South Carolina, and voters of all races in other places.
Of course, the other thing that the history of the Clintons tell us is never to underestimate them. They work best when their backs are against the wall. If Obama doesn't win enough delegates to beat her on February 5, it might be hard to beat her at all. One thing is sure, when the Clintons are involved, you are in for one wild ride.
Then he was president, the trend continued. The media claimed that he was a lame-duck president after the 1994 Republican take-over of Congress. Many thought that he would be a one-term president. Of course, he easily won re-election in 1996.
Next came the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Again many in the media predicated his demise, and again he survived.
Through all of these crises, the Clintons drew strength from the fact that they didn't seem to really care what others thought. There was a great line from Hillary Clinton when the Gennifer Flowers issue was blowing up and a reporter asked her if her husband was going to drop out. Her response was something like, "We will leave when the voters tell us to leave, not before."
This attitude of the Clintons drives many in the media crazy. First of all, it diminshes their role. The media likes to think that they are gate-keepers of the political system. Many reporters see themselves as part of the system, even though they never run for office, or run a campaign, or serve as advisers. When they take a shot at a candidate and pronounce that candidate dead, well, damn it, that candidate should have the good grace to die. Only the Clintons don't.
Their attitude also drives reporters crazy because most of them, indeed most of us, don't have that kind of self-confidence and some people resent those who do. Most of us, if the media was telling us that our stuff stank, might wonder if, indeed, it does stink. Only the Clintons don't.
Which leads to the premise of this entry. Often in life a character trait that works for you in one situation will work against you in another. It could be that Bill Clinton didn't realize the impact that his statements about Obama were making, or the reaction that they would cause, because, in the past his judgment has been shown to be so much better than others, especially in politics. Thus, he made some really unfortunate remarks that ticked off not just commentators, but African-American voters in South Carolina, and voters of all races in other places.
Of course, the other thing that the history of the Clintons tell us is never to underestimate them. They work best when their backs are against the wall. If Obama doesn't win enough delegates to beat her on February 5, it might be hard to beat her at all. One thing is sure, when the Clintons are involved, you are in for one wild ride.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Once Again Peggy Noonan Declares the End of the Clintons
For what has to be the one thousandth time, Peggy Noonan has declared the end of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Once again she is sure that everyone will see through the Clintons. She is sure that the Clintons, by running an aggressive campaign against Barack Obama will tear apart the Democratic Party and allow Republicans to swoop in and start getting black votes.
Of course she announced this in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, in the same column in which she blames Bush for tearing apart the Republican Party. It is obvious that Noonan isn't aiming her message at rank and file Democrats since most rank and file Democrats don't read the Wall Street Journal. No, she is aiming it at Republicans, assuring them that even if Bubble-Boy has seriously damaaged the prospects of the GOP, the damage is only temporary.
Part of the problem here is that Republicans have never accepted the legitimacy of the Clinton presidency. Therefore, the fact that the Clintons have electoral success amazes and confounds them. The same attitude is observed on the left among people who can't stand George W. Bush. A lot of Democrats see Bush as the beneficiary of the equilavent of a black-robed coup and then as the beneficiary of the 9-11 attacks on America. Just like Republicans convince themselves that if Ross Perot hadn't been on the ballot in 1992 and 1996 they would have won, Democrats believe that if the 9-11 attacks hadn't taken place, Bush would have been a one term president.
Of course, in politics, as in the world in general, it doesn't matter what could have happened, it only matters what did happen. Bill Clinton was president and George Bush did get re-elected. Conservative pundits can continue to act as if the Clintons are through politically and, while they do, the Clintons will continue to run campaigns, and will probably win a fair share of them.
Of course she announced this in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, in the same column in which she blames Bush for tearing apart the Republican Party. It is obvious that Noonan isn't aiming her message at rank and file Democrats since most rank and file Democrats don't read the Wall Street Journal. No, she is aiming it at Republicans, assuring them that even if Bubble-Boy has seriously damaaged the prospects of the GOP, the damage is only temporary.
Part of the problem here is that Republicans have never accepted the legitimacy of the Clinton presidency. Therefore, the fact that the Clintons have electoral success amazes and confounds them. The same attitude is observed on the left among people who can't stand George W. Bush. A lot of Democrats see Bush as the beneficiary of the equilavent of a black-robed coup and then as the beneficiary of the 9-11 attacks on America. Just like Republicans convince themselves that if Ross Perot hadn't been on the ballot in 1992 and 1996 they would have won, Democrats believe that if the 9-11 attacks hadn't taken place, Bush would have been a one term president.
Of course, in politics, as in the world in general, it doesn't matter what could have happened, it only matters what did happen. Bill Clinton was president and George Bush did get re-elected. Conservative pundits can continue to act as if the Clintons are through politically and, while they do, the Clintons will continue to run campaigns, and will probably win a fair share of them.
Monday, December 03, 2007
National Debt has Exploded Under Bubble-Boy
The Associated Press has a story out reporting that the national debt of the United States is increasing by nearly a million dollars per minute or 1.4 billion dollars a day. When George W. Bush took office, the national debt stood at 5.7 trillion dollars. Now, after nearly seven years of his administration, six of which his party controlled both houses of Congress, the national debt stands at 9.13 trillion and is set to go over 10 trillion dollars by the time he leaves office.
The article points out that the consequences of this increase in the national debt:
But the interest payments keep compounding, and could in time squeeze out most other government spending — leading to sharply higher taxes or a cut in basic services like Social Security and other government benefit programs. Or all of the above. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will have added to our nation's debt problem to the tune of about 2.4 trillion dollars over the next decade, according to the article.
What the article doesn't stress is that Bush's reckless, radical tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 greatly contributed to this problem. Between 1993 and 2000, the years of the Clinton administration, the deficit between what the government spent and what it took in as revenue decreased. This followed the 1993 tax act of Clinton's which Republicans claimed would ruin the country's economic. In 2000, the goverment actually ran a surplus of 86.4 billion dollars.
Now, it is true that in 2001 that surplus had turned into a 32.4 billion dollars because the economy had entered a mild recession. But that relatively small deficit exploded after Bush's tax cuts went into effect. Here are the numbers for the annual defict,in billions of dollars, according to the Congressional Budget Office:
2001-32.4
2002-317.4
2003-538.4
2004-568
2005-493.6
2006-434.5
As can be seen, Bush's tax cuts of both 2001 and 2003 were followed by massive increases in the deficit. Although Bush and his Republican allies tout the recent decline in the deficit as "proof" of the effectiveness of his tax cuts, 2006's deficit of 434.5 billion dollars is higher than any annual deficit under Reagan, his father, or Clinton. Boy, that Harvard MBA that his supporter bragged about in 2000 has really helped our nation.
The article points out that the consequences of this increase in the national debt:
But the interest payments keep compounding, and could in time squeeze out most other government spending — leading to sharply higher taxes or a cut in basic services like Social Security and other government benefit programs. Or all of the above. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will have added to our nation's debt problem to the tune of about 2.4 trillion dollars over the next decade, according to the article.
What the article doesn't stress is that Bush's reckless, radical tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 greatly contributed to this problem. Between 1993 and 2000, the years of the Clinton administration, the deficit between what the government spent and what it took in as revenue decreased. This followed the 1993 tax act of Clinton's which Republicans claimed would ruin the country's economic. In 2000, the goverment actually ran a surplus of 86.4 billion dollars.
Now, it is true that in 2001 that surplus had turned into a 32.4 billion dollars because the economy had entered a mild recession. But that relatively small deficit exploded after Bush's tax cuts went into effect. Here are the numbers for the annual defict,in billions of dollars, according to the Congressional Budget Office:
2001-32.4
2002-317.4
2003-538.4
2004-568
2005-493.6
2006-434.5
As can be seen, Bush's tax cuts of both 2001 and 2003 were followed by massive increases in the deficit. Although Bush and his Republican allies tout the recent decline in the deficit as "proof" of the effectiveness of his tax cuts, 2006's deficit of 434.5 billion dollars is higher than any annual deficit under Reagan, his father, or Clinton. Boy, that Harvard MBA that his supporter bragged about in 2000 has really helped our nation.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Could Bush Use Secret Service Records to Sink HRC?
AlterNet has an article out that raises the possibility that George W. Bush could use Secret Service records to damage Hillary Clinton's candidacy. The article points out that both Hillary and Bill Clinton are entitled to Secret Service protection. This means that where they go and who they meet are known to Secret Service agents. If Bush got hold of this information and if such information was embarrassing, it could be made public at a crucial point in the 2008 election, say after Labor Day, but before November?
The author of the article, Robert Parry, points out that Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush pressured State Department officials to examine documents relating to Bill Clinton's travels to the former Soviet Union when he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford. The Bush campaign was looking for proof that Clinton tried to renounce his United States citizenship while he was in Europe and participated in anti-American rallies overseas while the Vietnam War was being fought. So the idea of using government documents to discredit political opponents is not new to the Bushies.
Of course, Americans would like to think that Secret Service agents wouldn't take part in such things, but during Bill Clinton's administration one of his earlier critics was a retired FBI agent, Gary Aldrich, who worked in both the Bush and Clinton White Houses. So, don't be so quick to discount Parry's thesis. After all, just a few short years ago most Americans would have assumed that the Attorney General would have no trouble denouncing torture.
The author of the article, Robert Parry, points out that Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush pressured State Department officials to examine documents relating to Bill Clinton's travels to the former Soviet Union when he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford. The Bush campaign was looking for proof that Clinton tried to renounce his United States citizenship while he was in Europe and participated in anti-American rallies overseas while the Vietnam War was being fought. So the idea of using government documents to discredit political opponents is not new to the Bushies.
Of course, Americans would like to think that Secret Service agents wouldn't take part in such things, but during Bill Clinton's administration one of his earlier critics was a retired FBI agent, Gary Aldrich, who worked in both the Bush and Clinton White Houses. So, don't be so quick to discount Parry's thesis. After all, just a few short years ago most Americans would have assumed that the Attorney General would have no trouble denouncing torture.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Chris Matthews Claims Cheney Pressured NBC to Silence Him
Chris Matthews was at a 10 year anniversary party for the cast of Hardball, his nightly television show, and when he made some remarks, he claimed that the difference between the Clinton and Bush Administrations was that the Clinton Administration never tired to silence him. This is a quote from an article about the event:
In front of an audience that included such notables as Alan Greenspan, Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Sen. Ted Kennedy, Matthews began his remarks by declaring that he wanted to "make some news" and he certainly didn't disappoint. After praising the drafters of the First Amendment for allowing him to make a living, he outlined what he said was the fundamental difference between the Bush and Clinton administrations.
The Clinton camp, he said, never put pressure on his bosses to silence him.
“Not so this crowd,” he added, explaining that Bush White House officials -- especially those from Vice President Cheney's office -- called MSNBC brass to complain about the content of his show and attempted to influence its editorial content. "They will not silence me!" Matthews declared.
He also used the line that the Bush Administration has "finally been caught in their criminality." This is yet one more sign that Washington media types have turned on the Bushies. This is going to be one long year and approximately three months for them. Not as long as it will be for the rest of us, but long nevertheless.
In front of an audience that included such notables as Alan Greenspan, Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Sen. Ted Kennedy, Matthews began his remarks by declaring that he wanted to "make some news" and he certainly didn't disappoint. After praising the drafters of the First Amendment for allowing him to make a living, he outlined what he said was the fundamental difference between the Bush and Clinton administrations.
The Clinton camp, he said, never put pressure on his bosses to silence him.
“Not so this crowd,” he added, explaining that Bush White House officials -- especially those from Vice President Cheney's office -- called MSNBC brass to complain about the content of his show and attempted to influence its editorial content. "They will not silence me!" Matthews declared.
He also used the line that the Bush Administration has "finally been caught in their criminality." This is yet one more sign that Washington media types have turned on the Bushies. This is going to be one long year and approximately three months for them. Not as long as it will be for the rest of us, but long nevertheless.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The Power of Passivity in American Politics
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read the Washington Post's account of Attorney General Gonzales testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, July 24, 2007. The story details how Senators from both political parties were frustrated and angry with Gonzales's testimony. Gonzales refused to answer questions from both Republican and Democratic Senators.
Based on his behaviour, the Post today editorialized once again that he should either resign or be asked to resign his position. Yet, nothing will happen. Why? Because to a great extent the American system of government is built on people doing what they are supposed to do and if one of the actors in that system, in this case the President, just refuses to take certain actions, the system has little means of forcing such an actor to do otherwise.
If Gonzales won't resign, which he won't, and if Bush won't ask him to resign, which he won't, that only leads the option of impeachment. Impeachment, though, is a slow mechanism and, even in this case, a very uncertain one. First Articles of Impeachment would have to be introduced in the House of Representatives. Then, they have to be assigned to a committee, in this case, probably Judiciary. Next the Judiciary Committee has to report out such Articles for the whole House to consider. Assuming that such Articles would get a majority vote on the floor of the House, the issue then goes to the full Senate for a trial. Finally, after a trial, two-thirds of the Senate would have to vote for impeachment before he could be removed from office. Given the fact that Gonzales only has less then 17 months to go before he is replaced by a new President, it is doubtful that all the above could get accomplished in that period.
By the way, the power of passavity isn't just exercised by Republicans. During the Clinton impeachment process, the Republicans assumed that Clinton would be pressured by Democrats to resign and allow Gore to become President. They didn't do that and the Republicans found themselves impeaching a President but not being able to force him to leave office. In that situation, President Clinton also triumphed by just being stubborn in not doing what other actors in the political process expected.
Of course, we Democrats think that Clinton's position was justified and Bush's position isn't, but neither Bush nor the Republicans are bound to accept our version of reality, just as we weren't bound to accept theirs during the Clinton fiasco.
The bottom line? Never underestimate the power of just not doing anything in the American system.
Based on his behaviour, the Post today editorialized once again that he should either resign or be asked to resign his position. Yet, nothing will happen. Why? Because to a great extent the American system of government is built on people doing what they are supposed to do and if one of the actors in that system, in this case the President, just refuses to take certain actions, the system has little means of forcing such an actor to do otherwise.
If Gonzales won't resign, which he won't, and if Bush won't ask him to resign, which he won't, that only leads the option of impeachment. Impeachment, though, is a slow mechanism and, even in this case, a very uncertain one. First Articles of Impeachment would have to be introduced in the House of Representatives. Then, they have to be assigned to a committee, in this case, probably Judiciary. Next the Judiciary Committee has to report out such Articles for the whole House to consider. Assuming that such Articles would get a majority vote on the floor of the House, the issue then goes to the full Senate for a trial. Finally, after a trial, two-thirds of the Senate would have to vote for impeachment before he could be removed from office. Given the fact that Gonzales only has less then 17 months to go before he is replaced by a new President, it is doubtful that all the above could get accomplished in that period.
By the way, the power of passavity isn't just exercised by Republicans. During the Clinton impeachment process, the Republicans assumed that Clinton would be pressured by Democrats to resign and allow Gore to become President. They didn't do that and the Republicans found themselves impeaching a President but not being able to force him to leave office. In that situation, President Clinton also triumphed by just being stubborn in not doing what other actors in the political process expected.
Of course, we Democrats think that Clinton's position was justified and Bush's position isn't, but neither Bush nor the Republicans are bound to accept our version of reality, just as we weren't bound to accept theirs during the Clinton fiasco.
The bottom line? Never underestimate the power of just not doing anything in the American system.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Bush Administration Keeps Corrupting the Rule of Law
As this article from the Washington Post makes clear, the Bushies are appointing partisan hacks to be immigration judges. This is a quote from the article:
At least one-third of the immigration judges appointed by the Justice Department since 2004 have had Republican connections or have been administration insiders, and half lacked experience in immigration law, Justice Department, immigration court and other records show.
The rule of law can be corrupted so many ways. An obvious way to corrupt the rule of law is for judges to take bribes. Another way is to apply the law in ways that favor one group over another. A third way is shown here: appoint unqualified people as judges because of their party connections.
Deep down inside Bush doesn't believe in the idea that the law should be applied equally to everyone. He is a person who has benefited from a system that rewards those who are born into the right social class. He was raised by a mother and a father who truly believe that the rich are better than the rest of us. Then, he couldn't get into law school at the University of Texas. Not exactly Harvard or Yale. No wonder this guy hates people like the Clintons, people who got into Yale Law School on their merits and not on their connections.
Because Bush really doesn't believe in the rule of law, he doesn't mind trashing the system by appointing unqualified judges. Alberto Gonzales, being a sycophant and all around Bush butt kisser, is more than willing to help him carry out the politicization of the Justice Department. This administration can't end fast enough and when it is over, Americans are going to have to do major repair work on the Department of Justice to remove the taint of corruption that Bush and Gonzales will have left behind.
At least one-third of the immigration judges appointed by the Justice Department since 2004 have had Republican connections or have been administration insiders, and half lacked experience in immigration law, Justice Department, immigration court and other records show.
The rule of law can be corrupted so many ways. An obvious way to corrupt the rule of law is for judges to take bribes. Another way is to apply the law in ways that favor one group over another. A third way is shown here: appoint unqualified people as judges because of their party connections.
Deep down inside Bush doesn't believe in the idea that the law should be applied equally to everyone. He is a person who has benefited from a system that rewards those who are born into the right social class. He was raised by a mother and a father who truly believe that the rich are better than the rest of us. Then, he couldn't get into law school at the University of Texas. Not exactly Harvard or Yale. No wonder this guy hates people like the Clintons, people who got into Yale Law School on their merits and not on their connections.
Because Bush really doesn't believe in the rule of law, he doesn't mind trashing the system by appointing unqualified judges. Alberto Gonzales, being a sycophant and all around Bush butt kisser, is more than willing to help him carry out the politicization of the Justice Department. This administration can't end fast enough and when it is over, Americans are going to have to do major repair work on the Department of Justice to remove the taint of corruption that Bush and Gonzales will have left behind.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Bill Clinton's Advice to His Wife
The New York Times on Sunday ran a story about Bill Clinton's role in Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign. This is a quote from that article:
Advisers say his advice to her can be boiled down to a few broad themes. He urges her to remember that the biggest person gets elected (in other words, the one who rises above political pettiness) and that the most optimistic candidate wins. He has encouraged her to talk about average people who work hard and play by the rules, classic Clintonian language. And she has, using those phrases and other themes in talking, for example, about regular Americans who are “invisible” to the Bush administration. (Advisers say Mr. Clinton did not devise the invisible line.)
Note that absent in those themes is anger at the Bush Administration. Indeed, according to the New York Times quote above, Bill Clinton thinks that anger is counter-productive politically. He believes that optimism is more appealing to the American electorate than anger.
The problem for Hillary Clinton, though, is that a lot of Democrats who vote in the primaries are really mad at the Bush Administration. The war in Iraq, reckless tax cuts for the rich, gutting of environmental laws to help campaign supporters, the politicization of the U.S. Department of Justice, just to name a few of the wrongs done by the Bushies, is enough to tick off the mildest mannered Democrat.
So here is the dilemmna facing Clinton and other 2008 Democratic presidential candidates: How do you satisfy the activists in the Democratic Party while appealing to independents and Republicans in the fall campaign? Keeping in mind all the while that if you don't win the nomination all the appeals in independents don't mean squat.
The link for the NYT article is in this entry's title. The site may require registration before you can read the article.
Advisers say his advice to her can be boiled down to a few broad themes. He urges her to remember that the biggest person gets elected (in other words, the one who rises above political pettiness) and that the most optimistic candidate wins. He has encouraged her to talk about average people who work hard and play by the rules, classic Clintonian language. And she has, using those phrases and other themes in talking, for example, about regular Americans who are “invisible” to the Bush administration. (Advisers say Mr. Clinton did not devise the invisible line.)
Note that absent in those themes is anger at the Bush Administration. Indeed, according to the New York Times quote above, Bill Clinton thinks that anger is counter-productive politically. He believes that optimism is more appealing to the American electorate than anger.
The problem for Hillary Clinton, though, is that a lot of Democrats who vote in the primaries are really mad at the Bush Administration. The war in Iraq, reckless tax cuts for the rich, gutting of environmental laws to help campaign supporters, the politicization of the U.S. Department of Justice, just to name a few of the wrongs done by the Bushies, is enough to tick off the mildest mannered Democrat.
So here is the dilemmna facing Clinton and other 2008 Democratic presidential candidates: How do you satisfy the activists in the Democratic Party while appealing to independents and Republicans in the fall campaign? Keeping in mind all the while that if you don't win the nomination all the appeals in independents don't mean squat.
The link for the NYT article is in this entry's title. The site may require registration before you can read the article.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
A Question for our Readers: Should Al Gore Run in 2008
If you click on this entry's title you can read an article from a British newspaper about how supposedly a secret team of Al Gore advisers are assembling in private to put together a Gore campaign. The theme of the article is that Gore isn't backing this group but isn't telling them to stop either. This article, along with Bill Clinton's mention of Gore possibly running in 2008 on the Larry King show the other night, is bound to trigger some political speculation.
There are a lot of reasons why Gore would be a strong candidate:
1. Last time he won the popular vote and almost won the Electoral College vote;
2. He already has great name recognition;
3. He has already staked out a position on the environment that resonates with a lot of voters;
4. He was against the war from the start;
5. He can raise money; and
6. He is identified with the successes of the Clinton administration and has none of Bill Clinton's personal baggage.
There are also some reasons why he shouldn't:
1. The media doesn't like him and would be attacking him for his supposed flaws;
2. The conservative press would be all over him; and
3. His life is going pretty good so why put himself through all that crap?
Tell us what you think by posting your comments.
There are a lot of reasons why Gore would be a strong candidate:
1. Last time he won the popular vote and almost won the Electoral College vote;
2. He already has great name recognition;
3. He has already staked out a position on the environment that resonates with a lot of voters;
4. He was against the war from the start;
5. He can raise money; and
6. He is identified with the successes of the Clinton administration and has none of Bill Clinton's personal baggage.
There are also some reasons why he shouldn't:
1. The media doesn't like him and would be attacking him for his supposed flaws;
2. The conservative press would be all over him; and
3. His life is going pretty good so why put himself through all that crap?
Tell us what you think by posting your comments.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Regent University Hypocrites?
One of our readers, OHDave, posted a comment on one of our entries about Regent University inviting Rudy Giuliani to speak on April 17, 2007. What he found interesting about this invitation is that Pat Robertson was very criticial of Bill Clinton for his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and for allegedly lying about it at a deposition for a civil lawsuit. He pointed out in his comments that it is pretty well documented that Rudy was carrying on an affair with his third wife while he was married to his second wife.
We searched and, sure enough, OhDave was right, Regent University has invited Rudy to speak on April 17, 2007. If you click on the entry in this title, you can read the press release. At the bottom of the press release is a email address and a phone number for the media relations officer at Regent University. Maybe someone wants to join OhDave in finding out why the double standard with respect to Clinton and Giuliani.
After all, Clinton is still married to his wife, didn't get a divorce, and is close to his daughter. On the other hand, Giuliani is on his third wife, went through a messy separation from the mother of his two children, and, consequently, his relationship with his children is strained.
Could it be that some conservative Christians only care about morality when it promotes their political agenda?
We searched and, sure enough, OhDave was right, Regent University has invited Rudy to speak on April 17, 2007. If you click on the entry in this title, you can read the press release. At the bottom of the press release is a email address and a phone number for the media relations officer at Regent University. Maybe someone wants to join OhDave in finding out why the double standard with respect to Clinton and Giuliani.
After all, Clinton is still married to his wife, didn't get a divorce, and is close to his daughter. On the other hand, Giuliani is on his third wife, went through a messy separation from the mother of his two children, and, consequently, his relationship with his children is strained.
Could it be that some conservative Christians only care about morality when it promotes their political agenda?
Monday, March 05, 2007
Conservative Blogger Calls Upon CPAC to Ban Coulter Next Year
In the past we have often stated our view that conservatives and Republicans apply one set of rules to others and another set of rules to themselves. An example of this is seen when Hillary Clinton is attacked as Machivallian for staying married to her husband while the double adulterer, Rudy Giuliani, is praised by the same conservatives. Another example is that perjury allegedly committed by Bill Clinton is a crime deserving of impeachment while Scooter Libby allegedly lying to a Federal Grand Jury is no big deal. We could go on, but you get the idea.
Therefore, we were pleasantly surprised to learn that a conservative blog, The American Mind, is leading a petition drive to have Ann Coulter banned for future events such as the Conservative Action Political Conference. This blogger has decided that calling John Edwards a "faggot" is not defensible and that her appearances at such events does more harm than good for the conservative cause. We compliment The American Mind for this position.
Therefore, we were pleasantly surprised to learn that a conservative blog, The American Mind, is leading a petition drive to have Ann Coulter banned for future events such as the Conservative Action Political Conference. This blogger has decided that calling John Edwards a "faggot" is not defensible and that her appearances at such events does more harm than good for the conservative cause. We compliment The American Mind for this position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)