Bold New Dem Approach - Run As Republican!

The NY Times Magazine lauds Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer as the new model of Democratic prairie populist that can reclaim the West for the Dems, and they even ruminate about his national aspirations.  But get a load of his positions:

The Big-Sky Dem
Schweitzer’s “Montana miracle,” in which Democrats took back the governor’s seat after 16 years and ended 12 years of Republican majorities in both state chambers, has been cited as evidence that the Republican bastions in the Western states are losing ground to a new, Democratic brand of libertarian-tinged prairie populism. No fewer than four recent books by Democratic strategists have mentioned Schweitzer as the kind of guy Democrats need to win back rural America. A fifth book, Tom Schaller’s “Whistling Past Dixie,” published earlier this month, also singles out Schweitzer and makes the previously heretical claim that the Democrats’ future lies in ignoring the South and embracing the West and Midwest, where voters are less evangelical and more independent.

...Schweitzer veers right on many economic and social issues: he opposes gun control, favors the death penalty and preaches about lowering taxes and balancing budgets. At the same time, he leans left on some issues that matter to progressives: championing energy conservation and environmental regulation, opposing governmental restrictions on

abortion

and criticizing free-trade deals. “He’s as much a prairie centrist as he is a prairie populist,” Bruce Reed of the Democratic Leadership Council told me.

The Times did not have the heart to wonder, but I did - where is Schweitzer on the question of gay marriage?  This is from an interview in Salon:

        But what about the political issues that go along with religion?       

Gays and choice, you mean? When you simply say, like I do, "I'm pro-choice -- I just think that's an       intensely private decision that every woman and her physician can and should be able to make, period" -- what       else is there? That's certainly not someplace for government to be sticking its nose.

When it comes to gay marriage, folks in Montana, they're pretty traditional about who ought to be marrying       who. They're not thinking that men ought to be marrying men and women ought to be marrying women. I think that's       pretty consistent across the country, except for a few enclaves on the East and West Coast.

That is a bit waffly, but he is certainly not a table-thumping advocate.  OK, John Kerry is also opposed, as is Hillary Clinton, as are most national Dems, but the real question is, what does Schweizter really believe?  Kerry, just to pick an example, almost certainly supports gay marriage but lacks the guts to say so.

Oh, well - a low taxes, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-military (I'm guessing...) conservationist could run very easily as a Republican.  Believe it or not, I have met very few Republicans who are emotionally committed to poisoning our air and water.

But could such a creature could run as a national Democrat?  Only in a party that really does not know what it believes or is afraid to run for what it stands for.

Comments

[tbrosz]

Why not? Arnold out here seems to be running as a Democrat.

[TexasToast]

Only in a party that really does not know what it believes or is afraid to run for what it stands for.

Gee Tom

What do Republicans "stand for"? What do Republicans believe? Do all Republicans support guns for everyone? Do all Republicans support "the fence"? Are all Republicans homophobic?

Do you really think "Gay Marriage" is the key issue making one a Democrat? Democrats are on both sides of that issue. You can try to define Democrats with your worst nightmare, but the Foley scandal is Republican self definition. Republican --> responsible management?

Almost an oxymoron.

How about the things Polosi said? I think 99% of Democrats will agree with these.

1. Break the lobbyists' stranglehold in Washington
2. Enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations
3. Allow federal funds for stem cell research
4. Cut the interest on student loans
5. Allow the government to negotiate with drug companies
6. Raise the minimum wage
7. Pay as you go

You guys took over in 2000 and we were running a surplus! Fiscal responsibility --> Republican? You have got to be kidding, unless fiscal responsibility means trying to fight a war on the cheap. You guys have broken the army. We aren't "safer" under your stewardship. Just more scared.

[Foo Bar]

pro-military (I'm guessing...)

I certainly think one can be pro-military and anti-Iraq war, but do you? From that article:

With his outspoken criticism of the war in Iraq — “I was very public before we went in that it was a bad idea, and history has borne that out,” he told me — Schweitzer has become a hero to progressives

Do you think someone with that position could run very easily as a national Republican right now?

[Les Nessman]

Pelosi will 'break the stranglehold of lobbyists'? That's like saying "I'm for 'good' things and against 'bad' things." I'd like to see the exact details of how she will actually do that. Eh, don't bother...the Reps won't stop lobbying and neither will Pelosi or the Dems. Typical boring political blather. It's a waste of time and pixels to seriously consider it further.

[Terrye]

Here in Indiana we have Ellsworth running as a conservative Democrat. That might help him get elected, but what will these guys do after they win? Ellsworth does not support cut and run in Iraq, he is prolife and does not support comprehensive immigration refrom, just enforcement. Where does htat leave him with the Democrats? Hostettler is telling folks that a vote for Ellsworth is a vote for Pelosi.

And as for running promilitary and anti war in Iraq, be careful with that. Most vets I know dislike the kind of people who hang out with the anti war crowd.

[Terrye]

Texas Toast:

What surplus? It was all smoke and mirrors anyway based on the taxes coming from nonexistent dot com companies that went bust. That surplus was gone before it hit the books.

I do remember Clinton saying we could not spend that pretend surplus because we would have to deal with the impending crisis in Soical Security. A crisis that Democrats said did not exist a couple of years later.

As for the war, well what was the alternative? No one wants a war for heaven's sake but short of backing down and ignoring the fact that Saddam was defying the US and the UN, how else was that going to end?

Maybe the antiwar people think that allowing Saddam to defy the cease fire and the UN as well as steal money from the UN and start up his weapons programs again was going to work out well but I doubt it.

Saddam would be standing on a balconey somewhere dressed like Don Corleone shooting off his AK blowing off about how no one can touch him, and he would be right. And somehow the people who support international law think that is a good idea?

There is a reason that terrorists from Carlos the Jackal to Abu Nidal and Abbas and Yasin and Zarqawi ended up in Iraq and if the antiwar people had been half as interested in coming up with rational realistic alternatives to dealing with rogue regimes like Saddam as they did undermining the mission and rooting for the enemy we might no be where we are today.

[Sue]

Texas,

You left off raising taxes. Why is that?

[Bob]

Thank you Terrye. I was just about to explode on Texas Toasted for the same thing.

It amazes me how stupid the democratic base is about economics. They love being lied to, and never once ask the real questions. If Clinton did so much for the economy, Please TT tell us which policy he initiated that created this windfall revenue stream... and don't you dare use his taxing the rich crap. It has been proven that the governments tax revenue actually was reduced from this bone headed make the moonbats happy trick.

These dismal results should not be surprising. Other Presidents who have followed high-tax policies also have experienced disappointing economic performances as a .result. Large payroll tax increases and bracket creep during the Carter Administration, for instance, helped stifle a robust economy and create the phenomenon known as stagflation. George Bush also inherited a strong economy, but his acquiescence to a large tax increase in 1990, combined with other significant reversals of his predecessors policies helped put an end to the longest peacetime expansion in Americas history.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg998.cfm>One Year Later: How the Clinton Tax Hike Is Harming America
by Mitchell, Daniel J.

One these days you moonbats will leave the confines of the the liberal press and get the education you've been robbed of!

[Sue]

You guys took over in 2000 and we were running a surplus!

I'm not going to defend the out-of-control spending of republicans. On that, we will surely agree. But I am tired of the surplus argument. You are smart enough to know it is a projection made on everything remaining the same. Nothing remained the same from the time the projection was made and when Bush took office. I realize that the average American believes the surplus story, and that Bush spent the money, but you are not average and you know the surplus was not there when he took office. It is paper money and based on a static theory.

[Sue]

What surplus? It was all smoke and mirrors anyway based on the taxes coming from nonexistent dot com companies that went bust. That surplus was gone before it hit the books.

I should have kept reading. You addressed the surplus.

[Bob]

Oh and TT I included the part about Bush Senior, because I think it's instructional to show it has nothing to do with which party is in power. The simple fact that "Taxing the Rich" is a huge mistake... just ask G. Herbert Bush why he wasn't re-elected?

Your Hero JF'n Kennedy was a Tax Cutter, but you morons have forgotten that little detail... it doesn't fit in to the Pelosi hysterical tantrum routine.

Pelosi is truly one of the dumbest POS I have ever heard or seen in politics, and you Demo's should get her thrown out sooner then later.

[Pofarmer]

There are a few good local Democrats around here. They have almost the same policies as Switzer, except most of the middle of the road Democratis are pro-life. Would a pro-life Democrat have any chance nationally?

And, why this obsession from the Libs with the 9/11 commission?? Hell, some of them were culpable in the problems leading up to 9/11. Are they gods or something? Even Bill Clintoon acknowledged that the 9/11 commission report was a "political document".

[Pofarmer]

Leave room for Barbara Boxer Bob.

[Sue]

Raising the minimum wage is my personal favorite. As if raising the minimum wage will put more money in their pocket. As soon as they raise the minimum wage, the cost of everything will be increased to offset the raise. Unless they are going to go for price controls, it is meaningless.

[Sue]

In one of the debates or an interview, I can't remember which, Kerry argued that a family of 4 making less than $30,000, saw no tax benefits. He used the example of some woman sitting in the audience, raising 3 kids. Sounds good, huh? Except she paid no income taxes. Indeed, if her taxes were done properly, she got a refund of income tax money she didn't pay in in the first place.

If they want to tax the rich, go after their income tax free municipal bonds. If you don't understand that, google Teresa Heinz Kerry's income tax and then scratch your head when you see her income ratio to the amount of income taxes she paid. The rich don't pay income taxes. They have figured out how to get around the term 'income'.

[Sue]

1. Break the lobbyists' stranglehold in Washington

Another personal favorite. I can't wait for Pelosi to tell the NEA to kiss her ass. I'll bet she doesn't count the NEA as a lobbyist.

[Bob]

Po... I try to forget about that dingbat! The Democrats have done more damage to the women's movement by putting forth such dumb broads in the name of equality. My wife just cringes when even seeing these female morons speak. The thing she really hates is if you question them, they accuse you of not liking "smart aggressive women"... yeah right! But Condi Rice, well I guess she's just a token! It's really unbelievable!

[Bob]

Sue,

When Mass. increased it's Minimum wage recently, someone (I'll try to find the article) proved that the average family of 4 in Mass who were on assistance we're actually making around $42K a year - with no taxes. With this new MW raise, they wouldn't be eligible for certain programs, and they would then be taking home less than before.

This is nothing more than a "feel good" policy and has no economic value what so ever.

Here in CT we've had a higher MW for years, and that's why CT. is one of the few states that still hasn't recovered job wise after 9/11. Most new jobs created have been in services, which is not healthy. But hey let's build some more Casinos, and get some more waitress jobs... But manufacturing jobs are leaving by the truckload. Notice that most if not all Casinos are in "RED" states. Why is that? Because it's the only thing they can do to create jobs... dead end jobs at that!

[Bob]

It's too nice out to stay inside... got to go.
Have a nice day everyone!

[Sue]

This is how democrats support out troops...

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/>Gateway Pundit

[TexasToast]

Cutting taxes without cutting spending does not result in economic growth. In fact, its not even cutting taxes - it is shifting taxes to our children and grandchildren. I suspect that Bush's tax cuts will have to be reversed if we are to "pay as you go".

Via DeLong

"In December, Gregory Mankiw, who used to be chairman of Mr Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, and Matthew Weinzierl, a colleague at Harvard University, published a "back-of-the-envelope guide" to tax rates and revenues.... [B]y their reckoning cutting taxes on labour would generate enough growth to recoup about 17 cents on the dollar, and a tax cut on capital could pay for more than half of itself. The government would take a thinner slice of a bigger pie.

Left out of these calculations is any guide to what happens when taxes are cut but spending is not. The budget deficits that ensue will tend to 'crowd out' investment, slowing growth. The CBO calculates that every extra dollar of federal borrowing reduces investment in the economy by 36 cents."

$332.5 Billion - That is the amount of money we have, so far, spent in Iraq - and we "cut taxes" in the middle of it?

PS

Did you notice that there is no budget resolution this year? The only appropriations that were approved were defense and homeland security - and those contained greater spending. They simply punted until after the elections all the painful stuff. An where was this year's "tax cut"? One would think that the Republicans would propose one just before an election ..........

[pagar]

""""How about the things Polosi said? I think 99% of Democrats will agree with these.

1. Break the lobbyists' stranglehold in Washington.""""""""

With George Soros's checkbook lying open on her desk, she's going to break the lobbyists'
stranglehold in Washington?

With Union after Union pouring every dollar that they can steal from their members into the Democrats campaign funds; After the Union leaders get their rakeoff. She's going to break the lobbyists' stranglehold in Washington?

People actually believe her?

[Sue]

Texas,

You reinforced what I already said we agreed on. Out of control spending. We will part ways though on where I consider the spending out of control.

[Terrye]

Texas Toast:

Oh puhleaze, the Demcorats are always bitching that Bush did not spend more on education, more on health care, more on infrastructure, more on just about everything. Except the military. Remember Clinton's peace dividend? What a big fat joke that was. If they get elected they will raise taxes on everyone and increase spending. Simple as that.

John Travolta bought his friend Oprah Winfrey a $750,000 car as a gift. You can raise his taxes, he is so rich he won't feel it..that is why so many rich liberals like that kind of policy. Raise taxes, throw a little money at the peasants and hope they stay in line.

I work with lower income women with children who get back more money from the government than they ever paid in taxes so how has Bush ripped them off?

As for Iraq, flying the no fly zones was not free, it was not cheap and Iraq was not going to go away.

If Clinton had resolved the problem while he was presdient instead of just passing it along to the former governor of Texas to deal with the Democrats might be in a position to bitch about it. But he did not resolve it.

I tell you what, Saddam is not dead yet why don't Democrats run on putting him back in power and if that ends up costing us more money and more lives than the war on Terror then you guys take the heat. Go ahead, do it.

[Pofarmer]

As for Iraq, flying the no fly zones was not free, it was not cheap and Iraq was not going to go away.

One number I saw said the no-fly zones were costing about 4 billion a year to keep going.

[Geek, Esq.]

It's Montana--Ted Kennedy style Democrats wouldn't get more than 25% of the vote out there.

[Bruce Hayden]

Of course, with the no-fly zones, we have to come back to what would have happened if we had not invaded Iraq when we did. This is what is ignored by those who say we shouldn't have gone in there.

Remember, Saddam Hussein had bribed the French, Russians, and to a small extent, the Chinese, and was clearly doing so to get sanctions lifted. And it was working - he had been assurred that the next sanctions vote would fail.

Without the backing of the U.N. Security Council, we wouldn't have been able to internationally justify the no-fly zones or attempts to keep SH from redeveloping WMD, which the Iraqis were poised to start up the day that sanctions were lifted.

So, imagine our place in the world, with Saddam Hussein able to stare down the Great Satan with impunity. He attacked Kuwait and was ousted by us. In order to keep us from running all the way to Baghdad, he agreed to a number of things, including inspections, etc. But then, he throws out the inspectors, and the U.N. ultimately backs down. Who would be the winner then? Who would be the hero of the Middle East? And how much influence and power would we have left? We would be seen throughout the Moslem world as the paper tiger that OBL called us.

[Bruce Hayden]

As to the assertion that lobbying is an equal opportunity crime, I am not totally convinced. Yes, the NEA is one of the most powerful lobbyists in D.C.

But one reason that I suspect that Republicans get in trouble with lobbyists more than Democrats do is that the Democrats, at least in the Senate, seem better able to self-fund. An exterminator turned Representative is most likely more in need of external funds for gaining election than a Rockefeller, a Kennedy, or now, even a Kerry. Or even a Pelosi. There is a huge amount of wealth on the left side of the isle, and the bulk of it was not gained through hard work by those who have it. And when it was, it seems much more a result of being the right place at the right time, than through 80 hour weeks and risking the family house and dog.

Of course, the other side of the ledger is that pork is anethema for many, if not most, Republicans, and so can be tarred for indulging in it. But it is part of the way politics is done on the Democratic side. So, instead of being thrown out for being caught engaging in it, Sen. Byrd could safely and happily run on his title of "Senator Pork" for years of Democratic control. This comes, IMHO, from the Democrats traditional power base of big city political machines, where that sort of thing is how they ran those cities - trading patronage and pork for votes.

[Bruce Hayden]

But I do think that TM is right here. This guy could easily pass as a moderate Republican in much of the country, and seems to the right of some of the RINOs we have.

[Terrye]

Pelosi's nephew can thank Murtha for some big fat DoD deals that helped make the Pelosi family richer than they already are. Which is saying something.

Do Democrats honestly believe that the only people in Washington who make deals are Republicans? They can not be that naive.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

1. Break the lobbyists' stranglehold in Washington

*Show me a single Democrat politician that doesn't use lobbyists for fund raising. Just one. If you can of course.

2. Enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations

*Already done. Which is why we've got the Department of Homeland Security. Which is why nothing F-ing works now.

3. Allow federal funds for stem cell research

*They are available. For *adult* stem cell research, just not for embryonic. Why is that? Oh because there's over 1,200 adult stem cell therapies undergoing testing and clinical trials right now while there are ZERO embryonic therapies even under consideration. Perhaps that's because embryonic stem cells tend to become virulently cancerous a huge percentage of the time.

4. Cut the interest on student loans

*Where is this even an issue?

5. Allow the government to negotiate with drug companies

*Well that's pretty bloody stupid. One reason why there are issues in making vaccines is because a lot of companies got out of the business. Why? Because the government "negotiated" with them to reduce prices and then it no longer became profitable.

The same reason why many European drug companies have either gone out of business or moved operations out of Europe. Because the "negotiations" in Europe made the drug business there a waste of time.

6. Raise the minimum wage

*Another empty gesture that really doesn't accomplish much.

7. Pay as you go

*?? Didn't you Democrats fight this tooth and nail?

[Terrye]

Bruce:

The party that is dominant gets in more trouble, because they have more power. Money follows power.

[Bruce Hayden]

But I do think that his position is a bit misleading on abortion. Yes, phrasing the question as government restrictions on abortion plays well to the western libertarian voter in Montana. But that is deliberately misstating the issue. Rather, the issue today is not whether a woman should have significant control over her body, but rather, when does that control cross over into the taking of a life. And, in particular, the debate is not in the 1st trimester, but the 3rd. Without a big shift in the Supreme Court, 1st trimester abortions are going to remain freely available.

But the two real debates today on abortion are 3rd trimester abortions, where the fetus is not only very viable, but is several minutes away, via emergency C-section, from healthy babyhood.

And second, there is the question of whether the state should be able to prevent knowledge of this surgical procedure from the parents of minor girls. This is the one medical procedure that can be performed, drug that can be given, etc., that a minor's parents can be kept in the dark about (ok, maybe also birth control).

I find it ludicrous that schools need parential permission these days to administer Asperin, Tylenol, etc. to minors, but not only do the parents get no say on abortion, they don't even have a right in most of the country to even know about it.

And that is why phrasing the debate as being about the woman's control of her own body is misleading.

[Florence Schmieg]

Seldom mentioned is the fact that Saddam Hussein's two evil sons were waiting in the wings to inherit the whole mess and from what I've read were exponentially worse than their father. That regime had to go!!

The only recommendations from the 9-11 report that went absolutely nowhere were those directed at the congress itself. The bi-partisan agreement to ignore all of them speaks volume. Whenever I hear a congress person start on the meme that the administration has not followed through on ALL the recommendations, I remember that and do not listen any further.

[Bruce Hayden]

1. Break the lobbyists' stranglehold in Washington

So, only liberal organizations can lobby Congress. When the NEA, ACLU, League of Women Voters, AFL-CIO, etc. are restricted from lobbying or having preferential access to legislators, then I would also support limiting the Chamber of Commerce, big corporations, Indian tribes, etc. from lobbying.

2. Enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations

I would have more faith in such if Goerlich and Ben-Venista hadn't been on the commission. Anyone here heard about the "Goerlich Wall"? Yes, the very same former Asst. AG who had put up the wall between domestic law enforcement and national defense that was repeated implicated elsewhere as a major cause of 9/11 was on the Commission.

3. Allow federal funds for stem cell research

Why? Why not eliminate federal funding for medical research altogether? Because, of course, the liberal purpose of government is to provide generous funding for liberal pet projects. Besides, again, this is misleading. Federal spending is available for stem cell research. It is just not available for funding using stem cells harvested from aborted fetuses.

4. Cut the interest on student loans

Why? Presumably, these students got those loans to pay for education so that their incomes would be higher throughout their lives. In other words, an investment in their future.

Esp. troubling to me is that those who scrape and scrimp to save for their childrens' college would be penalized here by being taxed to pay even more for scholorships for the kids of those parents who were much less prudent. So, which behavior do you want to encourage? Saving for your kids college? Or buying that new car and boat, and letting the rest of the country pay for it?

5. Allow the government to negotiate with drug companies

Ok, great idea. Drive down the profits of the drug companies in order to curtail their ability to fund the next generation of drugs.

6. Raise the minimum wage

Another great idea: raise the cost of hiring young single adults, most often living at home, in order to price some them out of the market, in order to raise the wages of those above them on the wage scale. No surprise that the big force behind this is invariably the unions, and their incentive is not to help those late teens and early 20s living at home, but to push up their own wages. Of course, they aren't the ones whose jobs are as directly at risk here.

7. Pay as you go

Code speak for raising taxes. Never mind the Laffer effect, and never mind that when pushed to identify what would be cut in order to "Pay as you go", the only answers you get is the War in Iraq and reducing pork and inefficiencies in government. We can ignore the first, because that is invariably handled separately. As to the later, the hypocricy is that the fastest way to reduce inefficiencies would be to make it much easier to fire government workers for incompetency, laziness, etc. But these same government employees are one of the stronger Democratic constituancies.

The other thing is that one of the reasons that many conservatives will not support raising taxes is that it is much easier to keep pressure on spending when the option of raising taxes is off the table. The general tendency of Congress is to spend money like a drunken sailor, in order to maintain their seats. And without the pressure of limited tax revenues, there would be even less constraint on this Congressional tendency.

[Syl]

TT

what happened to the POOR?!?!??!?

Where was the news flash:

The Poor in America have disappeared!

It's all about the middle-class now!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Syl]

Hey folks, America is doing fine. The Democrats no longer worry about the poor! Now they are oh-so-concerned about the middle class!

This is great news.

If the Republicans remain in power for another decade or two, the middle-class, too, will disappear and Democrats can worry themselves about how...

the rich are getting the shaft!

[Tollhouse]

4. Cut the interest on student loans

*Where is this even an issue?

The mythical youth vote that will come in and save the day for the dems. The Godot of the Dem party.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'You guys took over in 2000 and we were running a surplus! Fiscal responsibility --> Republican? You have got to be kidding.'

You might want to check your chronology, Tex. The Republicans took over both houses of Congress in 1994. Though it was Phil Gramm's package of tax increases and SPENDING RESTRAINTS in 1990 that resulted in the surpluses of the late '90s.

As for Montana, I knew they were headed in the wrong direction when they caved on highway speed limits.

[SaveFarris]

1. Break the lobbyists' stranglehold in Washington
2. Enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations
3. Allow federal funds for stem cell research
4. Cut the interest on student loans
5. Allow the government to negotiate with drug companies
6. Raise the minimum wage
7. Pay as you go

Notice that Dems only want to implement PayGo AFTER they do the other six. Anyone think that funding stem-cell research and cutting loan rates will be revenue-neutral? How about implementing new security policies and policing lobbyists?

[TexasToast]

I can't help but notice that everyone on this thread (with the exception of Sue) is attacking the Democratic program and not defending the Republican one.

That is, if there is a Republican program anymore besides bridges to nowhere and starve the beast.

[Larry]

You guys took over in 2000 and we were running a surplus!
TexasToast | October 08, 2006 at 01:01 AM

Toast, here's the public debt at the end of each fiscal year of the Clinton administration. As you can see, it increased every year. The selling of the surplus meme is equal to or worse than "Bush lied, people died."

09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
SOURCE: BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

Tax revenues are up sharply since the '03 tax cuts. Now, if we can only find some fiscally responsible pols to hold spending down..................yeah right.

Somewhere between a third and half of the $300 billion are defense revenues that would be spent without war.

[Patton]

1. Break the lobbyists' stranglehold in Washington
(CODE FOR RAISE TAXES)
2. Enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations
(CODE FOR INCREASE SPENDING ON LOCAL DEMOCRAT FIEFDOMS)
3. Allow federal funds for stem cell research
(CODE FOR INCREASE SPENDING)
4. Cut the interest on student loans
(CODE FOR SOAK THE RICH TO PAY FOR OUR STUDENT LOANS)
5. Allow the government to negotiate with drug companies
(CODE FOR PUT AMERICAS DRUG COMPANIES OUT OF BUSINESS)
6. Raise the minimum wage
(CODE FOR LAY OFF UNSKILLED LABOR SO WE CAN BLAME THE REPUBLICANS)
7. Pay as you go
(CODE FOR REPEAL ALL TAX CUTS RETROACTIVELY)

[Patton]

Notice the Democrat have ZERO to say on the Global War on Terror.

The most important issue facing the country and their response is, HEY, DID YOU SEE THAT INNOCUOUS E-MAIL FROM THE GAY CREEP!?

The 9/11 Commission only mentions Al Queda in 2 of their 41 recommendations. And the recommendations are complete BS and the House can't implement any of it, its not even their job.

Since most won't read the recommendations, here's a sample of the complete worthless BS:

"39. A specialized and integrated national security workforce should be established at the FBI consisting of agents, analysts, linguists, and surveillance specialists who are recruited, trained, rewarded, and retained to ensure the development of an institutional culture imbued with a deep expertise in intelligence and national security."

Wow, a big DUH!

[Patton]

Here is some more idiocy from the Commission:

""Finally, to combat the secrecy and complexity we have described,the overall amounts of money being appropriated for national intelligence and to its component agencies should no longer be kept secret. ""

Ohh, there you go, so annnounce to our enemies where we are putting our major financial efforts. That's a great plan.

So the Democrats are vowing to reveal our nations secrets if they are put in power.

[Pofarmer]

Ahh, the Democrats answer to everything.

The outbreaks have sparked demands to create a new federal agency in charge of food safety. Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, both New York Democrats, are sponsoring legislation authored by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., to create the unified Food Safety Agency.

"This recent outbreak must be a wake-up call to get our food safety house in order, because right now it's in pure disarray,"Schumer said at his Manhattan office."We need to have one agency take charge to ensure the next outbreak isn't far worse."

This in response to the recent Spinach e-coli outbreak. We've had a problem, so, obviously, we need another govt agency!!!

Breathtaking.

[Jane]

Insane. Simply insane.

[Pofarmer]

Does anyone recall an instance of Halliburton being accused of selling defective equipment to the U.S. military in Iraq?

[TexasToast]

Larry

Your numbers show an increase of 1.5 trillion of public debt during the Clinton years, and hide the fact, that at the end of his term, we were actually moving in the right direction. Here is a CBO Chart. Kind of revealing wouldn’t you say?

What is our public debt today? 8.5 trillion. And what is the signal domestic “accomplishment” of this administration (besides tax cuts, that is)? A new entitlement that was passed because the republican leadership in the house held the vote open until they could twist enough arms to pass it. That is quite a record to run on.

Defense appropriations? A third to a half “built in”?
Here is another link. Intel">http://www.intel-dump.com/">Intel Dump.

[Larry]

Toast, the CBO chart shows surplusses when there were none, as you saw on the BPD chart.
Yes, the budget was headed in the right direction, but there were no surplusses. Reckon CBO lies to us? Two significant factors seldom discussed: 1) Balanced budget was part of the Republican Congress' "Contract with America". (The president proposes; the congress disposes.) 2) U. S. military forces were drawn down by roughly 50%. As much as I'd love to bash Clinton for the drawdown, it was initiated in Bush 41's administration. This didn't stop Clinton from claiming credit for the largest reduction of government personnel. Point being, 1.5 million fewer military personnel certainly had major impact on budgets.