I Save You Time And Pain!

I earn my paycheck with this one - the Times has a tedious, must-skip article about John Kerry's latest bloviations and obfuscations.  The article really ought to carry one of those warning labels that say "Do not attempt to read this while driving or operating heavy machinery".

However, the final paragraphs made my pain worthwhile, and you can skip the pain!

A spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, which skewered Mr. Kerry's speeches relentlessly during 2004, responded with a verbal shrug yesterday.

"John Kerry deserves credit for continuing to take himself so seriously, despite the fact that no one else does," said the spokeswoman, Tracey Schmitt.

That's bringing it!

MORE:  Ann Althouse has a high pain threshold and a great point.

Comments

[kim]

But, but, but....I have all those email addresses, and that's POWER!
=================================

[Cecil Turner]

Truly a public service. Nicely done.

[Other Tom]

A pompous, loathsome fraud.

[sad]

in a nutshell

[kim]

Integrity, integrity, integrity.
=================

[PeterUK]

"John Kerry deserves credit for continuing to take himself so seriously, despite the fact that no one else does," said the spokeswoman, Tracey Schmitt.

But he has such important hair!

[Rick Ballard]

Kim,

I think it was:

Integrity! Integrity. Integrity?

[sammy small]

John Kerry, 'reporting for doody'.

[richard mcenroe]

The fun part is, Kerry still has $45 million in unreturned campaign funds to keep laying stank on the Democratic primaries with. He's gonna be the gift that keeps on giving...!

[kim]

I think Kerry's candidacy should be encouraged.
=============================

[kim]

I mean, he really does exemplify the party. Listen to the trolls, the same beat of monkey wings you hear in Kerry's presence. Merrily we fahrt along.
========================

[Rick Ballard]

Kim,

I dunno, Gore might be a stronger candidate - maybe a Gore-Kerry duet?

Besides, the sight of Gorekerry bumperstickers would make me smile.

[obsessed]

Every six months or so, I feel compelled to pipe up and politely ask this very unusual blog community to explain itself to an outsider. Feel free to ignore me - I won't post again - but perhaps my question will inspire some thought. (or not)

ON WHICH of these issues do you intelligent conservatives think John Kerry would govern less well than George Bush ... and why?

1) execution of the war and managing the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq

2) managing the budget deficit

3) preventing large corporations and insurance companies from unethically (and/or illegally) taking advantage of American workers and consumers as a group

4) maintaining the separation of church and state

5) maintaining the integrity of the electoral process

6) managing relations with friendly and unfriendly countries to the ultimate advantage of the American citizenry

7) umpiring the inherent conflict of interest between the profits of large corporations and the protection of the environment over the long haul

8) communicating openly and honestly about the issues of the day

Are you folks honestly pleased, or even, moderately content, with the way Mr. Bush is dealing with any of these issues?

[clarice]

I think Kerry couldn't manage a cookie shop even if he stole the cookie recipe , and history proves me right.

[topsecretk9]

this very unusual blog community

you mean us foreign, red-stater, inbred, ignorant home-schooled double wide living hicks? Spare us your contempt.

[kim]

I'll dispense with the non-entity, Kerry, and answer as if the question were about any prominent Democrat.

1. Surely you jest.

2. Surely you jest.

3. We're all little guys to big Dems.

4. The Dems are missing out on a good way to combine separation of church and state, and anti-terrorist strategy.

5. Wisconsin, Seattle, East St. Louis.

6. Self-governing, freely functioning democracies love us, unless jealousy supervenes.

7. Choosing wise policy based on science not hysteria?

8. I agree it's bad when the best you can do to get the word out is to whisper among the Aspens.
======================================

[Rick Ballard]

There is no evidence of Kerry managing anything but a relationship with an heiress in his entire life, so the comparison is impossible.

Now if the question was: Would John Kerry or George Bush hamdle a pumice stone better - I'll go with John. He would definitely be better at any job in the cabana boy line.

Oh, and he's good at carrying water for the Drunk.

[Lew Clark]

ts,
I think he's talking about the two belly buttons each of us has. I want to know who leaked! That is not information to be shared with the outsiders!

[TM]

What an interesting list - it would be worth comparing that to the surveys about what was on voter's minds. I would hate to think I am alone in failing to give a rat's rear area about 2 through 8, at least as it relates to differences between Bush and Kerry. (E.g., Separation of church and state - please, Alito is coming, and the Pope is runnuing the Dept of Education. Save it for the fundraisers, please)

As to (1), the war, my perspective was simple - we may fail in Iraq, but I was never going to vote for a guy who was not committed to success. And there was no way (in my opinion) that Kerry was going to "lead" the large wing of his party that wanted him to reprise his Vietnam protest glory days, and attempt to persuade them to stay and fight.

As I said at the time, ironists may have enjoyed the thought of electing Kerry so he could play Nixon to Bush's Johnson, but I didn't trust Kerry to do it.

And enough about Bush's Johnson.

[topsecretk9]

And enough about Bush's Johnson.

HEH.

[kim]

Jackin' lumber all over camp or connecting at the roots?
==================================

[JM Hanes]

obsessed

We'll look for you in about 6 months or so when your "question" will be answered.

[PeterUK]

"2) managing the budget deficit

3) preventing large corporations and insurance companies from unethically (and/or illegally) taking advantage of American workers and consumers as a group

4) maintaining the separation of church and state"

Yeah! But John Kerry would never have built you a Golden Calf

[sammy small]

5) maintaining the integrity of the electoral process

Like the Dem precedent of appealing the 2000 election to the Supreme Court?

[Foo Bar]

Re: obsessed's issue 2, managing the deficit, I'm curious as to how many people think (a) the deficit is nothing to worry about vs. (b) Kerry would have been no better at getting it under control than Bush.

There could hardly be a clearer trend in the past 30 years than the pattern that national debt as a percentage of GDP goes down under Democratic presidents and up under Republican presidents.

I'm sure some people may have their rationales for not giving Carter and Clinton any credit for this (let me preemptively point out that defense cuts accounted for less than half of the swing from deficit to surplus under Clinton). But the idea that Kerry might have been better on (2) does not seem to me to be so absurd as to be immediately dismissible.

[JM Hanes]

TM

"However, the final paragraphs made my pain worthwhile, and you can skip the pain!"

We could all probably avoid a lot of pain, and get more news faster, if we read the New York Times backwards, don't you think? Pinch could roll out "Times Prime" and charge for one-click access to the last two paragraphs of all the articles that are actually fit to print.

In the meantime, Republicans could do with a lot more Tracey Schmitt and a lot less Bill Frist. Looking back at Election '04, it seems pretty clear to me that ridicule trumps both earnestness and viciousness at the polls.

[Rick Ballard]

FooBar,

What does the Constitution say about the authority over and responsibility for the budget? If the line item veto were in place, then some responsibility could properly be placed upon the President concerning the outcome. Without that authority all the President does is propose and threaten to veto.

[JM Hanes]

Foo Bar

The idea that we should be crediting or blaming Presidents for deficit management seems like a debatable premise, don't you think?

[JM Hanes]

Rick

Should have known the KGB would beat me to it!

[kim]

The Talmud, annual reports, and now the New York Times? Works for me.
=====================

[Foo Bar]

Rick and JM,

The flip side of that line of argument is that we should credit Tip O'Neill more than Reagan for increasing defense spending in the 80s and causing the Soviets to crumble because they couldn't keep up in the arms race.

Given a Congress that's virtually always divided within the 60/40 rangen the president's veto power (as well as his bully pulpit) make an enormous difference in what does and does not get passed, as I'm sure you both know.

I'm sure you guys criticized GWB for "misleadingly" campaigning on tax cuts, Social Security reform, etc., since that's (according to you) purely up to Congress, and the president is merely the boss of the executive branch.

[kim]

Well, ya know us hicks who vote so foolishly against our pocketbooks sorta jedge that the 'conomy took a double hit with 9/11 and the dot.com bust. It makes sense around the pickle barrel to cut taxes to give everbuddy a little moolah to lay around.
================================

[SteveMG]

The flip side of that line of argument is that we should credit Tip O'Neill more than Reagan for increasing defense spending in the 80s and causing the Soviets

That would be true IF Reagan had not advocated and proposed increased defense spending. And IIRC many (some?) of Reagan's proposed defense increases were actually reduced when the final budget was passed.

While the Congress disposes with what the President proposes (to turn the phrase on its head), what the executive proposes still has a great deal of influence over the process.

I think the larger point is still valid; that there's a sort of symbiosis between Congress and the President on budgetary matters. Whether that relationship would have led to smaller deficits under a Kerry presidency is, it seems to me, doubtful (assuming a GOP retention of Congress).

That however doesn't clear Bush of some frankly irresponsible budgetary decisions and proposals. Whatever more responsible proposals Kerry would have made would not, I think, have made much difference in terms of budgetary deficits as GDP% (from 3.5 to 3.0?) or, more important, overall spending as a % of GDP (which is of greater concern).

IOW, deficits under Kerry may have slightly declined as a % of GDP (half a point) but overall spending as a % would have gone up.

We'd just be treading red ink.

SMG

[Rick Ballard]

Tip O'Neill certainly deserves some credit regarding the military buildup of the '80's, some credit too for the tax cuts passed. Just as Gingrich deserves some credit for the tax cuts passed in the '90's and especially for finally getting a compromise package on Welfare Reform that Clinton would sign.

I am also prepared to give the Dems full credit for passing the giveaways enshrined in the budget as 'non-discretionary' items which are precisely what has driven the budget into deficit for the vast majority of the past fifty years regardless of who sat in the Oval Office.

They earned full credit and they should have it.

[boris]

Gingrich deserves some credit for the tax cuts passed in the '90's

Don't recall tax cuts in the 90's. Thought Gingrich just reigned in spending increases enough for the economy to catch up and produce a "surplus" (by including SocSec).

[boris]

Regardless of how much Bush "spends" on the war and boosting the economy, the real question long term is the automatic mandated government and entitlement growth. Those are the numbers that actually matter.

If W is not way out of line on that the other stuff is less important.

[Rick Ballard]

SMG,

Current deficit as a percentage of GDP is in the 2.6%-2.8% range according to the current CBO Report (pg 15 - it's a 1.5MG PDF - don't drop it).

[maryrose]

If history serves me right Clinton had to be led kicking and screaming to balance the budget and to enact welfare reform. The republican congress made him do it and then he bragged and tried to take all the credit.
Obsessed:
You are kidding me right? I mean with all those questions? Of course A dem candidate would do a lousy job in all those areas as history has proven. You however forgot the most important question- Which party and candidate will fight the hardest on the war on terror, who will take it to the terrorists and rout them out? THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND NOT the DEMOCRATS as proven by Clinton's half-assed attempts. Read history and get the answers to your questions there.

[Foo Bar]

and produce a "surplus" (by including SocSec).

Boris, I certainly agree it's dubious to include SS in what counts as a surplus, but for the record, in '99 and '00 we did have an actual honest-to-goodness "on-budget" surplus, i.e., a surplus excluding SS. In '99 it was trivially small, though (the budget was essentially precisely in balance).

This is a really useful doc when discussing these issues.

Gingrich certainly deserves credit for working with Clinton to get welfare reform done.

However, the '93 deficit reduction package, the one where John Kasich said he'd have to become a Democrat if it worked, was passed with 0 House Republican votes.

[Rick Ballard]

Boris,

You're right, of course - no '90's tax cuts. Just the Contract With America.

[SteveMG]

Rick:
Thanks.

I was using this (much lighter) chart:

Budget Deficits as %GDP

Not sure which of our sources is more accurate - off budget items, et cetera.

SMG

[Barney Frank]

boris,

Clinton raised the top marginal income tax rate when he first got in, but after the Repubs took congress the capital gains rate was lowered from 28 to 20.

[SteveMG]

Darned coding:

Here:

Deficits as %GDP

and here:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/tradedeficit/tables/budget
deficit.htm

Homer Simpson school of web design.

SMG

[boris]

have to become a Democrat if it worked

Actually it didn't work, stalled the recovery in fact. The Gingrich spending restraint coupled with a weak (but surviving) recovery is what produced the surplus.

[boris]

BF: after the Repubs took congress the capital gains rate was lowered from 28 to 20

Ok sure. I recall that the "cut" produced and increase in "revenue".

[Foo Bar]

weak (but surviving) recovery is what produced the surplus.

Are you really characterizing the economy under Clinton (unemployment dropped from 7.5% to 4%) as a "weak" recovery?

Non-defense discretionary spending as a share of GDP stayed flat in '93 and '94, when the Democrats controlled everything.

[larwyn]

FYI, Edwards followed Kerry on CNN yesterday. I believe most sane Americans said "Dear God, thank you for saving us".

Don't miss this:
Vanderleun trademarks "Synthia® McKinney" in Mas More Inaction, Gracias!
Immigration Reform: Mas More Inaction, Gracias!

.....And then it came to me like a revelation, like a bush bursting into flame, like a pillar of fire lighting my way out of the wilderness of potential congressional action into the Promised Land of utter congressional paralysis: Clone Cynthia McKinney!

Yes, it was then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized the Synthia® McKinney clones would be infinity squared more inconsequential than your average congressman. Because Synthias® would be able to hear themselves blather day after day without a scintilla of shame or self-consciousness. The Synthias® would not be just idiots... they would be cloned idiots, chips off the original blockhead, sports derived from the macromolecule of the primeval idiot. These would be clones who blathered from their ceaselessly heaving, eternally victimized hearts, who had oceans of blather to siphon up and spew, who were the parthogenetic children of the mother of all blather, who were filled with original spite... but they had the drool... the drool... to blather on whenever even so much as a Web-Cam was pointed vaguely in their direction. If I had ten of these clones our troubles with legislative creep and the creeps of the legislature would be over very quickly. You have to have politicians who are utterly ineffective... and at the same time who are able to utilize these primordial instincts to do less than nothing lest by doing something they lose their power to do nothing... without anything but the ambition to have ambition... without passing laws that will be enforced less than the present laws... without passing any legislation, only gas. Because it's legislation that always slips American citizens the high hard one from behind. -- **

"Yes, yes," I muttered, mad with the essential brilliance of the idea, "It is a perfect plan. Just look at what one Synthia® McKinney managed to do in only a week as the media tried in vain to direct the nation's carefully reduced attention span to an approval of 'Mas Millions More,' 'DeLay Departs with No Delay' and "Bush Leak-Lied!" It would have been a perfect trifecta for them, but instead that had to shuffle off stage left muttering Curses, foiled again! And all because just one Synthia® would not, nay could not ... Shut. Up."

[larwyn]

PC update:
"Most sane Americans said

"Dear ____, thank you for saving us"

FILL IN THE BLANK:
A. God
B. Ohio
C. Diebold*

C is for those BDS sufferers who still retaining some brain cells still need to slam Pubs.

[Foo Bar]

I don't really have a strong opinion on that capital gains tax cut one way or the other, but let's note that it didn't happen until '97, when the deficit was already the lowest it had been in more than 20 years.

[boris]

as a "weak" recovery

The recovery was cut in half by the tax increase. "Weakened" if you so desire to gush about ol' BJ.

working with BJ to get welfare reform done

Ha ... Dick Morris told BJ "no reform, no 2nd term"

[larwyn]

You must see the rebroadcast of
"Weekends with Maury and Connie"

I haven't flipped out or ODed on Allergy meds.

The first segment on Katie taking over CBS Evening News:
(paraphrase)
M: "We have an exclusive interview with the only woman that ever anchored solo any Network newscast"

The Connie and Maury interviewed Connie. It is HILARIOUS!

[clarice]

Think how much it must gall Rather to see that he is being replacement by an even more obvious airhead than himself.

[clarice]

*replaceD*..not "replacement" URGH

[kim]

Does he notice?
=========

[Nash]

I'd have thought the public figures no one was paying attention to would have no one devoting entire blog threads to them. Protest this much, much, TM? (doubled word intended, read it again.)

Then again, I see medium sized mammals flying out of orifices, so my grip on reality differs from yours.

[kim]

Hey we're just trying to give him the due he thinks is his. Noblesse ennui, nest pass, what?--- what?
================================

[kim]

Uh, ennuyee, annoy me no.
===================

[Barney Frank]

I am probably as conservative as anyone here. However any argument that Bush or the Republicans have anything other than a disgraceful record on deficits, spending or the size of government is on the losing side of the argument.
The fact is Clinton and the Democrats were better on non defense discretionary spending. Period. and every conservative should be furious about that.

Now budget deficits whether Republican or Democrat have very little correlation to a healthy economy, inflation, interest rates or anything else.
Trade deficites are almost always a sign of a healthy economy.
And the capitol gains tax cut yielded huge tax revenues to the governement, just as Reagan's income tax cut did and Bush's income tax and dividend and capitol gains tax cut did.

[SteveMG]

I'd have thought the public figures no one was paying attention to would have no one devoting entire blog threads to them.

Well, as you can see the thread quickly split on to the issue of how a Kerry presidency would have looked in comparison to Bush and then further splintered on to the subject matter of deficits and the economy.

A thread is only as strong as its original post. And frankly, there wasn't much much tensile strength with a "What is Kerry up to" aluminum thread (so to speak).

SMG

[kim]

Kerry doesn't have to spin very fast before his case splinters.
==================================

[SteveMG]

Kerry doesn't have to spin very fast before his case splinters.

Thanks for topping me.

Appreciate it.

Although I have to admit it didn't take much (aluminum thread?).

SMG

[Nash]

Well, as you can see the thread quickly split on to the issue of how a Kerry presidency would have looked in comparison to Bush and then further splintered on to the subject matter of deficits and the economy.

Good point, SMG. We were for talking about Kerry before we were against it.

[larwyn]

Barney,
Agree with you on Trade Deficits.

Lou Dobbs and the rest don't get that more than a third of the TD is actually owed to ourselves,
our major U S A Corporations!

Of course Dobbs et al would never break that out or explain it.

[Foo Bar]

The recovery was cut in half by the tax increase

Well, I'm sure you have your reasons for believing this, but I wonder if you might be open to reflecting on the possibility that your belief that nothing good can come of tax hikes has risen in your mind to the status of an unfalsifiable postulate, i.e., a belief that could not possibly be falsified by any empirical observation. In other words, no matter how well the economy does after a tax hike, if you look back retrospectively you can always tell yourself that things would have gone even better without the tax hike, thereby enabling yourself to cling to your prior beliefs.

The real test of a theory is whether it makes specific predictions which can then be tested. Clinton made a specific prediction that his deficit reduction package would cut the deficit in half. Kasich, to his credit, had the guts to make the prediction that the package would not work, as did Gingrich, who said it would increase the deficit and lead to a recession.

By the end of Clinton's first term, a term whose first half had Democrats in control of Congress, the deficit had in fact been cut in half.

[Foo Bar]

Re: welfare reform, certainly it went a bit farther than it might have under different political circumstances, but Clinton did campaign on it in '92.

[SteveMG]

but Clinton did campaign on it in '92.

Clinton certainly deserves more credit than many critics wish to give him. And perhaps less than his supporters want to give him as well. Perhaps we're too close to his service historically to get a clearer look as to what his years look like.

But it's interesting that there appears to be nothing of his legacy within the current Democratic Party. No one is saying, "I'm a Bill Clinton Democrat" the way folks say "I'm a Reagan Republican."

Where's the Clinton legacy? The most successful post-war Democratic president in history appears to have no supporters.

Indeed, the netroots argue that the Clinton-style centrism is too weak, too much inside politics, too much beholden to the lobbyists and go-along types in Washington (cf. Hillary). They want heads to roll, preferably Republicans but for the near term they'll take a bagful of Democrats.

The call for bringing the party back to the center, as Clinton argued, is harshly rejected by the louder voices we hear and read.

Even his greatest short-term success, raising taxes to lower interest rates which helped fuel the expansion, seems to be rejected. Who among the Democrats is calling for deficit reduction? And not sotto voce, but a full-throated call for reducing the red ink? Clintonomics? Haven't heard that phrase for years now.

Strange, it's like the nineties didn't happen.

SMG

[windansea]

it's the voices you don't hear or read that usually determine election results

[Nash]

Who among the Democrats is calling for deficit reduction? And not sotto voce, but a full-throated call for reducing the red ink? Clintonomics? Haven't heard that phrase for years now.

Strange, it's like the nineties didn't happen.

It's a good point you make--a wistfulness for the golden days of yore.

Let's have a re-do then. Let's have Clinton as President in 2009. The President will clean up the mess in Iraq, cut the deficit and eventually run a smallish surplus, all without taxing anyone except Bill Gates and Ted Turner. In the 2nd term, President Clinton will get a blowjob and you guys will patriotically attack the President and the troops for conducting a war in some far off land. President Clinton will maintain a 60-plus approval rating even as you guys impeach her, and then it will be Neil's turn.

k?

[JM Hanes]

Foo Bar
"I'm sure you guys criticized GWB for "misleadingly" campaigning on tax cuts, Social Security reform, etc., since that's (according to you) purely up to Congress, and the president is merely the boss of the executive branch."

As I recall, I said your premise was debatable. As a rule, however, I've always thought that Presidents are credited with far more economic influence (for good or ill) generally than they actually have, regardless of party. As for budgets in particular, I think the fact that the Prez can propose and veto, but cannot legistlate spending is a significant stumbling block in drawing reliable conclusions about Presidential deficit management. In this context, even the veto is more blunt instrument than useful tool.

Tip O'Neill: I'm sure he isn't the only one who should be sharing the limelight on defense spending. The idea that Reagan singlehandedly brought down the USSR has always struck me as a sort of conservative version of the Camelot meme. Ditto for the whole ongoing beatification thing. It's almost as annoying as the folks who immediately accuse anyone who critiques the Clinton administration of trying to change the subject or obsessing about sex. Clinton has become a virtual third rail in foreign policy discussions.

Social Security: I don't really believe what any candidate has to say on the topic of Social Security "reform," although I'd have to give GWB props for actually taking a shot at it after his election -- even if the results (per Congress!) were pretty predictable. Of course, it's much easier to follow through on a campaign promise to do nothing, so I'm not sure how the SS issue would work to Kerry's advantage if that's one of the elements you have in mind.

Tax Cuts: Does anyone think Bush would have gotten his tax cuts through a Democratic Congress? In the end, what he really got was something of a limited modified handout. Assuming that Kerry actually had any plausible, feasible, plan for deficit reduction -- which I certainly don't recall -- the idea that he would prove persuasive enough to enlist the support of a Republican Congress defies imagination. One could posit, for the sake of argument, Kerry as Prez with a Democratic Congress, but a discussion so far removed from the realm of the possible seems rather pointless.

[JM Hanes]

Nash

"Let's have a re-do then...."

LOL! Would we have to include the part where the economy tanks 3 months after Clinton reduxor leaves office?

[boris]

a disgraceful record on deficits, spending or the size of government

Show me the great poll numbers for big spending cuts and smaller government.

Don't see it.

That kind of self defeating vent just gives momentum to the cut and runners. There's nothing "conservative" about going down in flames over some short sighted "principle" not shared by a significant fraction of voters.

Want support? Get more voters. Too bad it's such a hard sell issue ...

Voters want nanny government. The only difference right now is the republican nanny is willing to fight terror and cut taxes. Deal with it.

[Rick Ballard]

JMH,

That's an excellent comment. If there was an honest Dem centrist who the lefty Wily E. Coyotes would leave be for a bit, they would have a prayer. Someone who actually believed what the SHillwillys mouth could win.

As a Rep I have to breathe a sigh of relief as I look around and realize how very, very few Dem centrists actually exist. Death is going to have to occur before the Phoenix can rise from the ashes.

[clarice]

Yes, Rick. I thought death would occur earlier, but Willy was able to bridge the gap between the various at odds (see Blacks v. Hispanics on immigration, eg.) special interest groups that reside in the Dem tent. But unless a carnival barker gets the nomination, I don't see another Willy in their near future, and by the time one arrives, the party will be dead.

[JM Hanes]

On a related topic, have folks been paying attention to the news from Massachusetts? The cynical among us will note that the emphasis headlined as "Mass. Bill Requires Health Coverage" hides the real light here under a bushel:

What resulted is a proposal that health-care experts say is unlike any other in the country. What to do about the 45 million Americans without health insurance has flummoxed both the Bush administration, whose proposal for "health savings accounts" fizzled, and that of Bill Clinton, whose broad plan for health-care changes fell flat.

[maryrose]

One more comment and then I will return to the topic of this thread.
Clinton DECREASED DEFENSE spending and Kerry helped him do it. Thus we had to get back up to speed because Clinton was embarassed about dodging the draft and did nothing but drop a few bombs and MISS BIN LADEn . He then decided with Berger and Albright to let Bin Laden RIDE.
Kerry will run in 08 because he has a huge ego and in his world He just missed being elected. Gore has a greater claim and will give Kerry a run for his money as will Edwards.I don't see the dems being smart enough to pick a governor or someone who can actually win. Repubs have Guiliani, Romney Condi in addition to some interested senators. Dems best bet is Bayh but they won't rally behind him.

[larwyn]

TAC PLOT?
R/S/S collects big $$$ for each New Dem Slogan?

"6 & 60 in 06" bit the dust only after Ed Henry announced it on
CNN. No one at CNN ever read the bible.

"Bush, the Jack Bauer President" didn't sound so snarky after
"E!" rated it the number ONE TV SHOW!

AND NOW THIS:

GatewayPundit: Shortly After Pomp, Dems Drop "Smart & Strong" Charade
Remember the big to-do thirteen days ago where those staunch fighters for freedom surrounded a stage and (*snicker*) unveiled a plan on how they were NOW going to be tough on the terrorists? Remember that "Smart and Strong" bit? Remember the photo-ops? They even put together a "Real Security" plan.

Well, as Wilsonizer points out... It's gone!

That wonderful plan on capturing Osama bin Who(?), promising to vote pro-intelligence, redeploying forces, and securing borders has been dropped from the front page of the Democratic Party's webpage in less than two weeks.

Sure you're all working on next week's.

[MarkD]

Actually, he said "John Kerry, reporting for booty."

[Larry]

Here's my cut & paste for Kerry fans:

The John Kerry who: 1) Lied to congress at the Winter Soldier hearings. 2) Attended meetings
where assassination of elected officials was proposed. 3) While a commissioned USN officer met
not once, but twice, with representatives of the enemy. That John Kerry? These are publicly known
facts, not innuendo. Not "fake, but accurate". Youthful indiscretion? Show us how he's changed. I
was very disappointed that this despicable piece of shit was the best the once-great democratic
party could come up with. But, oh well, Gore was the best they could do in '00.

[JM Hanes]

Rick & Clarice

I wouldn't be too sanguine about the demise of the Dems as opposed to reading it as a cautionary tale. If Republicans continue to blow off their own centrists, they'll have similar problems. As a social liberal, it's entailed considerable compromise for me to vote Repbulican, and in fact, I pretty consistently split my vote between candidates I can tolerate and ones I can't.

Without a viable 2nd party, variability within the party in power -- or what some identify as cracks in the coalition -- will become an increasingly significant factor. Giuliani's numbers already reflect this, I believe. Will the GOP's base on the right tolerate a move to the center, the way centrists have tolerated the conflation of Conservative with Republican?

Few would deny that GWB is almost sui generis ideologically, without an heir apparent. As a result the party may have trouble heading off an ideological battle royale in its own Election '08 primaries and/or have trouble getting out the base if they're actually willing to run a Giuliani. I'd note that America's Mayor has been quietly cultivating the faith based right which suggests that his political instincts are still pretty sharp.

[maryrose]

markD
LOL

[Larry]

Trade deficites are almost always a sign of a healthy economy.
Barney Frank | April 08, 2006 at 02:03 PM

Simply put, trade deficit means we can afford to buy more goods and services from foreign sources than they can afford to buy from us. Mostly, that's a good thing. Also, it's self-correcting.

in '99 and '00 we did have an actual honest-to-goodness "on-budget" surplus, i.e., a surplus excluding SS. In '99 it was
Foo Bar | April 08, 2006 at 12:33 PM

Wrong, FOO B. National debt increased every year of WJC's administration.

[larwyn]

Never forget that Kerry did his "reporting for duty" in front of a redition of OLD GLORY drained of the RED. (All that Heroes' blood, gone)

French or UN blues would best describe it and the angle of flowing representation distorted the stars. Squint and you could see Fleur de "Lies".

Of course it made a great backdrop for THK's Ketchup Red suit.

How did they get Hill into a yellow suit?

[vnjagvet]

JMH:

I'm in about the same position as you are.

The last election was easy because of my profound disagreement what I saw as JFK's cynical use of his Vietnam experience to enhance his national security bonafides.

Unless the Democrats nominate someone I trust on the jihadist/terrorism issue (that would not include H. Clinton, Kerry, Gore or Clark), I will vote Republican.

That issue trumps all others for me.

[vnjagvet]

SiSSIes uSE PREVUE

[Rick Ballard]

JMH,

If Giuliani hones his position on gun control and abortion to a fairly strict constructionist viewpoint then he will be OK with the evangelicals. The actual focus remains the SCOTUS and if Stevens should retire and be replaced, or another liberal justice succumb to actuarial probabilities - and if the replacement is deemed as suitable as Roberts/Alioto - then Giuliani would win, but not by much. I don't think he will be the candidate but that configuration would be successful.

If Hillary shows up, it doesn't matter much who the Republican candidate might be. She loses.

The Reps only have to retain one house to be effective - that's the kicker and that result is extremely likely. Stats on homeownership are the critical measure and there has been a 5% increase in that number since 2001. The social garbage will always be trumped by economics.

[richard mcenroe]

obsessed — Put aside the man's personal dishonesty and seemingly compulsive lying, and his arguably treasonable conduct when he met with the North Vietnamese to coordinate the activities of VVAW.

In all the time the man has been in the Senate he has NEVER introduced a major piece of legislation. In fact, he has one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, somewhere down around 15%.

He admits that on 9/11 he sat "stunned" for over 45 minutes.

Turn the question around — what on God's green earth qualifies him for the job?

[kim]

Well, he's pretty sure he looks regal.
====================

[JM Hanes]

vnjagvet & Rick

It's sort of ironic, but I suspect Hillary might actually be fairly tough (and I'd wager tougher than Bill) on foreign policy/security issues. Despite the requisite pandering to the left, she's been remarkably steady on Iraq, and whether merely symbolic or not, I was glad to see her actually put in an appearance in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, both press and politicans have pretty much ignored the fact that the former Prez, himself, offered some amazingly supportive remarks on Iraq etc. at several strategic moments -- Republicans were not about to give any props to the former Prez, and Democrats just stuck their fingers in their ears.

As a conservative pundit somewhere commented, a lot of Republicans would rather eat glass than vote for Hill, and I think that makes them underestimate her potential appeal depending on who tops the GOP ticket. I personally can't get past the mere possibility of Wm.J. as First Gent, but considering his consistent popularity stats, he may not be as big a drawback for others. As long as Hillary never lets him speak first at a joint appearance again, she might not do as badly as CW on the right assumes.

[JM Hanes]

Rick

I'd be interested to know what sort of honing as to gun control and abortion you're suggesting.

[larwyn]

Dr. Sanity

DON'T QUESTION HIS...RELIGION

The headline in the New York Times reads:

"Kerry Sharply Criticizes Bush on Several Fronts"

After reading the article, here's how I would have framed the story:

"Kerry Cites Koran As Important Source In Developing his Social Conscience"

Why, you may ask, would you read an article about John Kerry, the man who would be king? Well, I'm always interested in Kerry's rantings because they are so fruitful from a psychiatric perspective.

RTWT Althouse also weighs in on this also.

And check out "THE IRANIAN CIRCLE GAME" , Dr Sanity begins with:
Nuts to Seymour Hersh (one of the reasons I don't subscribe to the New Yorker anymore);

I'm rather partial to
First Laddy.

[larwyn]

Darn again! Better?

[Rick Ballard]

JMH,

On guns, he said this about six years ago:

I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons.

Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000

I can do an ellision from that in my sleep. On abortion, he has a tougher row to hoe. He is going to have to do a reverse-Gore and get to compliance (of a sort) with church doctrine. I don't know precisely how he will do it but I know that when it becomes necessary, it will be done.

I thought Giuliani did an outstanding job under great stress (compare and contrast with Nagin and Blanco) but aside from that he does absolutely nothing for me. Which is a fair indicator of why he won't make it to the top slot.

[Foo Bar]

Wrong, FOO B. National debt increased every year of WJC's administration.

Larry,

I think we're both right, actually. Recall that the national debt has 2 components: the debt held by the public and intragovernmental holding, which largely consists of the SS trust fund.

The debt held by the public was mostly definitely decreasing even in simple, nominal dollar terms in the late 90s. The total debt does seem to have very slowly creeped up in nominal dollar terms because we had such large SS surpluses, which are reinvested in a special type of treasury bonds, i.e. they add to the intragovernmental holdings part of the national debt. So it looks like even in '99 and '00, when we had an on-budget surplus, the SS surplus being turned into bonds did result in tiny increases in the total national debt in nominal dollar terms (although certainly not in GDP% terms or in real terms, i.e,, accounting for inflation). That was really just an artifact of the way the SS program works, though.

[MayBee]

JMH:It's sort of ironic, but I suspect Hillary might actually be fairly tough (and I'd wager tougher than Bill) on foreign policy/security issues.

I agree. Actually, I tend to think Bill has found religion on the toughness required for foreign policy/security. I have it in my head that Clinton and Bush 43 have found peace with each other because they are the only two that really understand what is out there, and what has to be done. In retrospect, Clinton was nowhere near tough enough.
Hillary has been firm, and its lost her the "netroots". I think that's a good sign, not a bad one.
OTOH, Kerry is actively courting the netroots. A sure sign he's someone I never want or could have wanted.

[SaveFarris]

Kerry is scheduled to Meet the Russert this morning. I'm putting the over/under on "incompetent" and "Shinseki" mentions at 10.

[kim]

Chances are zippo that he has any clothes on.

There's a book title for the Dem's Presidential Campaign in "04: I'm in Love with a Stripper.
==================================

[larwyn]

Kerry sticks his head up - Vanderleun WACKS!
The Hamlet Men..Vanderlen strikes again!"

... Kerry was all of Sharpton's bleached Iago and Dean's muddled Malvolio. He incorporated the treachery of Wesley Clarke's stupified Macbeth. He contained that whisp of untrustworthiness sensed in Moseley Braun's botched Goneril, and mirrored, without merit, the vanity of John Edwards' shrewish Katerina. From his recently discovered campaign demands we now learn that Kerry's "requirements" echo the performance by Kucinich of a puckish Oberon in drag and in mime. Kerry even had his own quadrophrenic Ophelia, Teresa, who entertained by inviting her multiple personalities of Empress Tamora, Queen Gertrude and Lady Macbeth to join her in regular noonish wine and cheese parties on their private jet, "The Flying Squirrel""......Vanderleun 4/10/06

Gotta read