US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Limbaugh has in fact not yet backed anyone. He has criticized Rudy and others. If you hear his show, he encourages scrutiny and independant research.

The LOSER lib network "ERR America", which has failed, shouted rabidly to it's ten listeners exactly what to think and who to vote for. (In between hemorraging money). No tolerance, no thought, just do what Al Frankenjoke tells you to.

LIBS and lefties everywhere are checking their shorts daily - Rudy, Mitt, et al are coming...LOLOLOL and all the LIBS have.... lolol...is BILLARY! HAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAA

Actually the real tragedy is that once upon a time Rush Limbaugh called Rudy a "sometimes Republican." Now that "sometimes Republican" is getting his arse kissed by the talkshow hosts because Guliani leads in the polls and we know how they want to be on a winning team right? Neither Limabugh nor Hannity nor any other talker has convictions to go above and beyond the lastest Arbitron ratings. In the past Limbaugh and Hannity would be leading the attack on Guliani. Now they pay him homage.

Schwarzenegger's right, Limbaugh is irrelevent. But that's been true for the past 10 years. You all just have caught up to it.

Blarg: Sometime back I mentioned "A Feeling" I sometimes get, like something has already happened. I can see Hillary taking the oath of office. Maybe some of the Phys can explain, I sure cannot. I agree about Joe bringing the ticket down, and hope she will pick a middle roader for VP, where she is in case most folks don't know. Hope you get on board.

You people seem so surprised Rudy is pandering to the right. Hello, he's running for the Republican nomination for President! Pandering to the right and left to try and win a nomination is part of the campaign. You cannot win a primary without support from the party base, it's just impossible.

For you left leaning liberals that suggest you thought Guiliani was more independent and honorable than this, balogny! You know he's not nor would you vote Republican no matter who we nominate. Besides, all of the democrats are now pandering to the left. Apologizing for the authorization for war vote, except Hillary, which makes me respect her. She made a decision which she realizes is right, and won't apologize no matter what the radical left thinks. I have to give her props. But Edwards was the first to apologize, just look at how he's pandering to the left. He ran as a centrist democrat here in NC in 1998, now he's mr. left wing. Obama was already on the left, but is going even futhur now to satisfy Hollywood. Look at Richardson, calling for a "special cession" of the New Mexico congress to pass a civil union act for gays, all while he was out of the state campaigning for President. He's been gov. for over 4 years now, and this is all of a sudden important enough for a special cession. McCain has back tracked on the confederate flag and his view of Falwell and Robertson. Romney now suggests his views have "evolved" on abortion and gay rights. Fred Thompson and Hillary Clinton are the only 2 people in this race who have been who they are b/c they are honestly that person. Well, Fred's not officially in the race yet, but you can all tell I hope he runs.

In all honesty, your average American doesn't: support Limbaugh, have strict Biblical views such as Robertson and Dobson, doesn't go as far as the NRA in supporting freedom of gun use, support the Club for Growth's views on making cuts and balancing the budget, support the anti-abortion movement nor support big business. However the average American doesnt: support the gun control movement, support the gay rights movement, support the pro abortion lobby, support higher taxes, support preservation techniques as the radical environmental lobby knows them. The average American, in voting for President, usually votes for the better of the 2 candidates these 2 groups combine to nominate.

To some extent, I agree with you, lylepink. I don't have a problem with Gore distancing himself from Clinton. The VP needs to run as their own candidate, not an extension of the president. Bush Senior didn't run as a Reagan clone either.

But I agree that Lieberman was a terrible choice as Gore's VP candidate. He was too conservative. I remember a lot of people in 2000 complaining that both parties were the same. That's partially because Lieberman dragged the Democratic ticket so far right. Joe also had no stage presence or charisma, and it's not like he brought important experience to the ticket. He suppressed liberal support by being so conservative, and suppressed general support by being so lame. Lieberman may very well have lost the election for Gore.

Aussie view: There were around 20 of us coming and going that night and I remember quite clearly when he announced Lieberman as his vp pick I said flat out Gore just lost the election. We use the Electoral College votes to select our POTUS, and there are 538 and 270 is required to win, no matter what the popular vote may be. There was a lot of votes in Ohio and Florida, not counted, butterfly ballot, folks turned away from polls, on and on it was reported, correct or not, it didn't seem to matter when GW had seemed to have the Court in his pocket, poll workers in Florida, and on and on it went, true or not . As far as Bubba keeping it in his pants, I think that was pretty well balanced for many that would have liked to be on the giveing or receiveing end. The "Jealous and Envy" factor, as I call them.

Lylepink - I don't think you can blame Gore more than anyone for the current mess in the WH, I think you should blame the administration.

Bubba didn't hand Gore POTUS on a platter, that only would've been the case if Bubba had kept it in his pants. Gore did distance himself somewhat from Clinton because of this...did this cost him the election? Could well of done, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. Let's not forget who got 500,000 more vote in that election.

Truth Hunter: Your biggest problem is facing TRUTH. Most of us would like to live in La La Land, if you will only accept there is no such place, then you can begin to realize we are in the real world. The "do-overs" was one of my favorites that Hillary has spoken about. Richardson is much better qualified than Gore, and I expect him to be at State or the UN.

Lylepink, You don't think Gore had a good reason to be disgusted with the leader of the free world acting like a high school punk?

Who really lost the 2000 election.... was it Gore's reaction or Bubba's actions?

Gore has a lot to offer the country. And in my view his qualifications are second to none.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Lylepink.... I think we all agree there is no such animal as a "war on terror." What we "educated dummies" are trying to say, obviously not well, is that GW (and too many others) use this phrase CONSTANTLY to cloud the issue and instill knee-jerk fear in the electorate. Please read the Brzezinski article I referenced earlier, he says it much better.

Another Rovism I saw in a political cartoon.... "Dr. Strangerove," muttering and trying to keep his arm from giving the "salute." If you know the movie you'll know the scene with Peter Sellers. High comedy.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

No Name Poster: The problem of the Supremes would not have came into play except for Gore running away from Bubba, and in effect brought them in on the mess he created.

TG -

You don't get it. I don't believe in enlightenment, because that would indicate that there is a transcedent realm of truth to attain. I eschew absolutism and realize that when two sides of an artificially divided political equation can shoot fact after fact back at each other, that history becomes irrelevant as a source of truth.

In these cases truth needs to be created. I'm not about enlightenment, I'm about power, and who can tell a more convincing story of the world. And that person will be the one who can look at, say blarg and KOZ and reconcile them both without necessarrily conceding to either.

Thats why a good politican could so easily shift the debate on Iraq now, just by proposing a tertiary option. We don't pull out, we don't stay. We establish a list of "must-happens" for the Maliki led government and, if they don't happen, we pull out. This gives us bargaining power and flexibility throughout the region and hey, if Maliki doesn't come through then and start to throw some things in the directions of the Sunnis, then we know that he wasn't going to ever anyway, and staying the course would become a non-starter.

Or between Isreal and Palestine. Each country has factions staking out absolutist positions relative to the other country's right to exist, etc... In the case of Palestine, why not offer them aid in the amount that Israel gets and if certain conditions aren't met, they don't get it. And the reverse with Israel. Our problem there is we are trying to broker a deal between two people who believe they are each absolutely right. And if we are seen to be playing favorites even a little, then we inflame the problem.

Its like neutrality, but without the US sacrificing strategic power.

Actually, 'nauseous' can be correctly used for both meanings given.

jaa3--I used to suffer from your affliction. Read Hemingway and see if it helps with your writing.

JAA3,

I haven't missed the point. I understand completely that you think it is about enlightenment. That is liberalism in its purest form. Almost like born-agains but without the god. Only the saved souls or the enlightened ones have an understanding of what is true and correct and necessary to advance as a society. You eschew history because it doesn't suit the purposes of the re-made ethic. I get it. I really do - two legs bad four legs good. I just think it is poppy-cock. Intellectual arrogance in its best and greatest form. You might know poppy-cock. He is a well known political philospher from the 20th century inspired by the works of cockamamy.

Giuliani is dead in the water. What's it going to take for the media to finally wake up and smell the coffee? I think they like having him around because conservatives doubt he can win and yet don't have many viable alternatives. With McCain, for example, enthusiastically supporting the war and advocating sending significantly more troops to Iraq the Reps are struggling to find traction with any of their top tier candidates.

I have a great idea: the king of zouk vs. Hillary Clinton in the pro wrestling arena! Who do you think would win?

lyle, you might want to give a big portion of that blame to the u.s. supreme court, specifically to justices rehnquist, thomas, and scalia. i think karl rove also deserves some blame.

I hate how all you Libs ask me to give "reasons" for the things I say, and then when I sputter, say that I have not proven my point. The truth is, only Libs have to prove their points! using rules that I made up myself - 1) only zouk-sanctioned news sources are trustworthy. All of these "news" sources agree with me. 2) Dems are ALWAYS to be described as limp-wristed and weak on defense and cultural issues, and having a rabid need to subvert the free market, because 3) rich people are better than poor people. They just are, and the fact that they are rich proves it. Good people make money, bad people cannot.
Got it? thats why I never reply to any of you with logic or reasonable arguments, because you are playing by rules I dont understand. And I am scared and hostile toward what I don't understand, which is why I am a conservative. Also because I like to put people down and call myself "king."

Truth Hunter: NO! I was done with Gore when he turned against Bubba, who, IMHO, handed him the POTUS on a silver platter, and choose his hardhest critic as his running mate. I blame Gore most of all for this [choose word] in The White House.

"Only blarg, jaa3 and a very few others even bother to make any attempt at having an intelligent conversation."

Oh, and you do? You insult others constantly. You can't put together two sentences without belittling Democratic politicians and posters here who disagree with you. (Often in the process you mix up the two, criticizing Pelosi et al as if they posted here.)

If you want to have an intelligent conversation, stop being so obnoxious. And don't pretend you aren't doing it on purpose. If you want to act like an idiot, then nobody can stop you, but then you cede your right to complain about the discourse here. You can try for intelligent discussion or you can try for a screaming match. But you can't scream at others for not being intelligent enough. If you object to brainless drivel, then stop producing it. It's that simple.

Truth Hunter - A name for Karl Rove which you would probably like from another WAPO blog - Karligula.

jaa3 - unfortunately for you Che has many of us here conditioned to scroll down when we see a long posting.

May there should be a The Fix II where long entries with actual political philosphy and historical facts could be posted and read, without name calling and false history.

I know, wishful thinking.

I will do a little more to inform you well educated dummies. There is no "War on Terror", it is all in the mind. RWR's record on the economy was second only to H. Hoover. The National debt increased more under RWR, except for GW. These are undisputed FACTS, and with all your knowledge these facts should not be hard for you to find if, and I stress IF, you look for them.

Jaa3, Burke actually cautioned: "No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear."

That is how the Bushistas want to keep us, in a state of fear. Much easier to trash the Constitution and manage the serfs that way.

Burke rejected fear-mongering Bushistas.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

TG,

You willfully miss the point. Its not about enlightment - the idea all along is that no one is enlightened, but that the general discourse on this board is counterproductive to the sort of intellectual progress necessary to stave off the "real" violence KOZ noted earlier.

As for the rape analogy, it was hyperbole, as you are well aware. Perhaps a more apt example would've been the belief that the earth is flat - the possibility of that truth no longer enters the public sphere.

And increasingly that will be the case with "stay the course" proponents of the Iraq war, global warming deniers, etc...

Just as liberals were forced (though they haven't yet succeeded) to reinvent their ideologies for a post-Bush world, conservatives need to be involved in the same process of reinvention. The only difference for me is that I'm committed to liberalism and not to conservativism, in general terms, and so the perishing of the latter is of very little consequence in my own ideological network.

Zouk - Not creating history this time, just distorting it! The Congress stopped funding the Vietnamese long after we pulled our combat troops out. Otherwise, we would have just continued to fund their Civil War. If millions did die in Vietnam, it was before the cutoff.

It was facing reality. We finally pulled our head out of the mud in the rice paddy. Too bad we can't get it out of the sand in the desert.

Also, last year after one of Zouk's "slight of facts" dissing Carter as a peacenik, a poster provided empirical evidence that the Reagan build-up was a long-term program started by Carter. Reagan did expand it and made sure that it was pushed through, but the dumping on Carter is just falsifying history again.

How did the History teachers in those private schools never catch on to you, Zouk?

It is really a shame that you Cons rely so heavily on propaganda and lies.

It is really a shame that you Libs rely so heavily on conspiracy and nonsense. Only blarg, jaa3 and a very few others even bother to make any attempt at having an intelligent conversation. I disagree with their policies but champion their effort to explain them.

the other nitwits on this site are bringing the entire endeavor to a new low with every new mornic insult, nazi reference, cynicle claim and truth-free fact. the worst offender just spews bile and hopes to encourage anyone to share his lonely and gloomy existence. I don't mind partisanship, advocates for a position or even meanness, but I do object to brainless drivel. try to get a grip.

Zouk out.

Lylepink, Glad to see you correcting the record for Gore. Does this mean you might support him if he enters the race?

You'll never get the Bushistas to stop rewriting history, after all that's the only way they can have a legacy.... in five years they'll claim it was the Dems and Clinton who lied us into Iraq.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Just because one claims to be an intellectual doesn't mean they are one. Anonymous invokes hitler for some reason as a way to discredit. So we have to revise our formula - Non-enlightened one = rape, murder, and hitler.

Remind me again who the hate mongerers are?

What I love about the anti-intellectualism on this blog is that my referencing of philosophers is perceived as touting my own brilliance, when in fact it was intended as a genuine suggestion of some interesting (at the very least) reading that I think helps frame some of the debates that occur here.

To TD or whoever mentioned Edmund Burke, I will reread him to try to glean why you think he deals a crippling blow to my belief system. Burke was conservative in many ways, but I think his political philosophy is actually quite conducive to my sort of liberalism.

And tarheel, while I'm glad you value simplicity in an 80 year old picnic-mate, I hope you don't extend these values to world leaders. And if what we are arguing here is how world leaders should proceed, then shouldn't we exhibit a trapping of the intellectual acumen it takes to do so?

And KOZ, your comments related to metaphor and 9.11 were fairly disgusting even for you. Don't pretend that your experience of that violence was visceral and "real" for more than a few days at the most, and that everything sense hasn't been precisely metaphorical in that its been a way of interpreting that event.

All I was suggesting with my talk about metaphor, is that the conservative description of the world enthroned after 9.11 in Iraq and elsewhere was a failure, because it did not properly understand the socio-political complexities that undergird contemporary global politics.

Anyone who can still use the word "terrorism" without feeling somewhat uncomfortable about its imprecision has today's world all wrong.

I noticed that Zouk mentioned Perot above?

Why did I hear the Outter Limits theme begin when I read that?

Was it Zouk? Perot? Or both?

I hope that Zouk had his tinfoil hat on when he received the message to credit Perot.

Very good... "tinkle on" economics. Is that something like "New World Hoarder."

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

truth denier, I think your tin foil hat is one size too small.

blarg, I also said that the President has the agenda and the pulpit. reagan came into office preaching about strength in the military. He fully intended to change the peacenik diplo-babble of the Peanut era. congress took notice and feared for their jobs. so yes, the Dem congress deserves some credit for actually passing the Reagan tax cuts and defense build-up, but ultimately it would have never happened without him causing this.

another example shows the downside of the coward Dem congress. remember what happened in vietnam - the congress refused to fund s vietnam, despite pleading from President ford. the result was millions murdered. They did not consider the consequences of their actions. this seems to be a recurring problem with Dems.

Notice how our little friend keeps bringing up Al Gore and the Internet. This is A BALD FACE LIE. They know it and keep on bringing up things like this when GW or a member of his team is in trouble.

Aussie - It was "tinkle on" economics, not "trickle down"

Increase the flow of tinkle and you get the idea of what happened to the less than rich.

Laffer = laugher!

BTW, Tarheel - Did you catch the indictment of David Stockman, today?

There was a hidden agenda to all of those deficits, just as there is now. Rule One for Reaganites and Bushies is Hate the Federal Government!

What is one way to get rid of it? Bankrupt it! Give bread and circuses to the general population (tax cuts), just make sure you give more to the elite before the bill has to be paid.

It works.

Eventually somebody had to restore fiscal responsibility. Who was it? Clinton, but in doing so, he did what all the Reaganites claimed they were doing, but never did. He actually cut the federal workforce by something like 600,000 employees.

Did the services provided by the Federal government go away? Of course not, they were privatized. So, Federal workers disappeared, but the costs to the taxpayers didn't go down, because the pigs were feeding at the contractor trough.

When the Democrats credit Clinton for reastoring fiscal sanity, the Reaganites secretly chuckle. He did their dirty work for them after they made their public grab (tax cuts again, they cure anything and everything) and as a bounus they continute to profit as contractors.

Crazy Webb leads by example - his office considering going postal now.

"Senate aide was arrested Monday on charges of bringing a firearm into the Russell Senate building, U.S. Capitol police told NBC News. Kimberly Schneider, a spokeswoman for the police, said the aide worked for Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va. He entered the building at 10:50 a.m., she said, and was in possession of an unregistered firearm. "

'that's precisely the point: a feudal system. keep the poor, poor and powerless serfs, their existence dependent on their powerful masters, make sure the wealthy hold all the cards and power and that there is absolutely no upward mobility possible.'

There's a difference in proportional tax rates and redistribution in terms of dems, they manage to do it so irresponsibly that families end up being able to sit all day long on a porch only to get a check from the postman every monday.

See--another one. proud to be parrot is here too.

Hitler really hated intellectuals, too. First group he went after -- intellectuals, 'elites', academics... then homosexuals and finally jews. Well you need the jews for your Rapture so I guess that's why you hate the muslims instead. but you have to have someoen to hate, don't you? that's what you carrion eaters feed on.

'that's precisely the point: a feudal system. keep the poor, poor and powerless serfs, their existence dependent on their powerful masters, make sure the wealthy hold all the cards and power and that there is absolutely no upward mobility possible.'

There's a difference in proportional tax rates and redistribution in terms of dems is that they manage to do it so irresponsibly that families can sit all day on a porch only to get a check from the postman every monday.

Interesting how congressional budgeting works.... they can allocate all they want, BUT until it is spent it has no effect.

Budgeted monies go into the black hole of the DOD, Homeland Security (ever wonder how much fence has been built along the border or how New Orleans is faring) and other agencies never to be seen or heard from again.

The congress allocates the money, the administration spends it, or diverts it. So, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer thanks to the Bushistas.

For more detail, check with Halliburton. :>)

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Aussie, no one here knows the answer to that question. Hence the blaming/crediting dilemma. The president submits a budget and congress ignores it and writes a new one. then the president has to sign it or start again.

The emergency military budget is a good example. bush asked for $94 B for military expenses ONLY. the Dems in congress added in about 24 billion more on spinach, avacadoes, dairy, peanuts, rural schools, widows, rent subsidies, A/C repairs . they also added languge that would insure a defeat eventually in Iraq. It passed the house barely and is headed to the Senate, where it probaly won't pass. Even if it does, it has to be worked out in committee to eliminate any difference between Senate and house. then the president can either sign it or not.

So who do you think deserves credit/blame for this?

Oh I see cam is another of the living dead... it's almost dark. they're starting to come out...

I couldn't agree more TG. jaa's elitist screed is so nauseating. He is why I can't stand liberals.

Here's one for the thought police:

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it!
I would rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post."

berger*, lol too funny not to correct.

"This zouk character really has a lot of time on his hands. Think he works for the Ministry of Disinformation?"

I vote that he works at the RNC. Or, is that actually the same thing?'

Pretty much. Or maybe just one of those loons who wander around dressed in rags and sheets, ranting about the evils of government and the black helicopters...

'I vote that he works at the RNC. Or, is that actually the same thing?'

Only from the viewpoint of having the ability to shove things like Sandy Burger cases under the carpet.

I just read jaa3's last post about nausea. I think I am going to be sick. Wait. I think, therefore I am. Whew, that's a relief. Wait, relief can mean a release of tension. But it can also mean a type of sculpture or even relate to topography. This must mean, according to Neitzche, that the landscape of the presidential election points to our next president. Introducing Harold Stassen. You are our only hope, Harold. Yes, I know he is dead. But that has not stopped Anna Nicole Smith from getting air time 24/7.

Okay, Zouk. Now we're getting somewhere.

So Congress is responsible for the health of the economy. And under Reagan, you believe the economy was healthy. (I phrase it like that because others disagree.) So you have to admit that the Democrats get the credit for that. Right?

lol nonsense 'you who shall not be named' or however many spaces you call yourself. If I had wanted to mean 'well, said zouk', I would have put 'well, said zouk', fall back on something new next time. Now, (with a comma) go scuttle along and get the last word in on the other post.

'The problem with the GOP economic model is that it turns us into a third-world country.'

that's precisely the point: a feudal system. keep the poor, poor and powerless serfs, their existence dependent on their powerful masters, make sure the wealthy hold all the cards and power and that there is absolutely no upward mobility possible.

"This zouk character really has a lot of time on his hands. Think he works for the Ministry of Disinformation?"

I vote that he works at the RNC. Or, is that actually the same thing?

JAA3 - So, the point is that we must move beyond the rhetoric of KOZ and the dissenters because their ideas are accepted as being akin to rape and murder a la your analogy. Phew. Glad I got it. Non-enlightened view that does not enhance dialoge in the manner that those that deem worthy = rape and murder.

Good stuff. I know you like to read so check out Edmund Burke. Maybe too old school for you but he does a good job of pointing out how your theories are a bunch of garbage.

Try some punctuation, Cam. Is it 'well, said zouk' or well said, zouk' or some guy named well said 'zouk'

no matter how you phrase it it's an oxymoron and quite impossible, but do try to learn english.

All that hunting and you still haven't had any success finding the truth.

Blarg - this is something that I have often wondered, about US politics: how much influence does the president have on setting economic policy in comparison to congress?

Zouk - interesting what you say about me being in the southern hemisphere. Maybe there's some truth there, after all, America is a good example of people living in southern areas having a warped view on reality ;-)

I said new jobs, truth avoider. Please stay away from economics, it makes you cranky.

Blarg - I stand by my views that it is congress which should get credit/blame for most domestic issues, especially budget. I credit some presidents and others for bringing the case to the attention of the public - Kennedy - tax cuts, Perot - spending, Reagan - defense, Bush - proactive foreign policy. the president shouold get the credit/blame for foreign policy, as well as all responsibility for the most part. I do not like the idea of general pelosi at all.

We have been on a very long expansion since Peanut left office. It seems most of the credit may be due to the Federal reserve. I can certainly cite blame when congress adds to bills proposed by the president.

JAA - I think I'll stick with Strunk and White instead of pompous NY Lib.

Aussie, Don't listen to KOZ.

Wal-Mart employs more people than any other company in the U.S.... and their goods come mainly from foreign countries thus fueling our huge and crippling trade deficit while at the same time depressing wages.

The problem with the GOP economic model is that it turns us into a third-world country.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Well said zouk.

Irregardless of your views on diction, I am different than you. However, you arrived at this conclusion, you can continue to use your bad language for free if you have to.

something tells me you have some whiney answer for all your own foibles.

Aussie, the key to this argument is that small businesses start a large portion of new jobs in the US economy. this ability to pay for one additional employee is, at the margins, very dependent on marginal tax rates. the new employee goes on to spend his income on big screen TVs and the like and the TV industry goes wild. those emplyees buy yachts and the boat builders do well. Etc.

If your assumption is that all good jobs are government jobs, you may not like this economic chain reaction.

"I just think grammer is important,"

as is spelling

KOZ, Goebbels doesn't count as a philosopher. Jaa3 wins.

"The two literal senses of nauseous, "causing nausea" (a nauseous smell) and "affected with nausea" (to feel nauseous), appear in English at almost the same time in the early 17th century, and both senses are in standard use at the present time. Nauseous is more common than nauseated in the sense "affected with nausea," despite recent objections by those who imagine the sense to be new. In the sense "causing nausea," either literally or figuratively, nauseating has become more common than nauseous: a nauseating smell. "

"Blarg - didn't you hear, the Reagan economy (Dem congress) was just all borrowed money. If it was good, credit reagan, if it was bad, blame the Dems."

You've said today that Reagan caused economic expansion which lasted until the late Clinton years. You also said that the president doesn't set economic policy, and that we should credit the gains in the late Clinton years to the Republican Congress.

Please explain this inconsistency in your own words, without referring to anyone else's posts or any German philosophers. Who deserves credit/blame for the economy, the president or Congress? And in which case should you credit the Democrats for their positive effect on the economy?

I like grammar too, not so much spelling. that would be Sartre. and I think jaa is exactly right. He is nauseous.

Cheers JD - I guess what I'm saying is that it's a pretty long bow to draw that by cutting taxes for the rich, the poor will benefit in the end. I don't believe that the 'trickle down' does occur.

As for the effect on the overall economy and on overall growth? Both sides can debate that one pretty well, as you and Blarg have both shown with your stats.

ttt - love it. seems he forgot to read Satre along the way.

Blarg - didn't you hear, the Reagan economy (Dem congress) was just all borrowed money. If it was good, credit reagan, if it was bad, blame the Dems.

Tarheel - so sorry about your loss to our vaunted G'town. better luck next time.

JAA - was the trade towers falling down too much actual violence for you? what about the metaphor of murdering children? how about kidnapping 15 british sailors. Maybe we should talk to them about it for the next year, while they complete their nuclear bomb they intend to use for metaphoric violence.

Back to nuance again, this time over poor Freddy. I tell you what, you list all the philosophers you have read and I will list all mine and the winner is who applied them to a real world situation. Or is that a little too William James for your Trotsky taste?

Rudy informs wives he is ditching them during public press conferences, and Hillbilly Heroin Rush finds his future ex-wives online. I suppose there is some kind of new media synergy there.

That's "nauseated," jaa3. If you are "nauseous" then you actually cause nausea. Not to be a stickler. Common mistake. I just think grammer is important, especially when people are holding themselves out as uber-intelligent.

"It is the congress that gets/accepts blame for the economy. the pres proposes, the congress approves/edits."

What an interesting statement! The Democrats were in control of Congress all throughout the 80s. I guess that means Reagan didn't do squat for the economy, and the Democrats were behind the successful 80s economy. Right?

Is that the same brezinski that lost the cold war to us. now he's figured out how to lose another war to the enemy? I think I'll stick to VDH.

The philosophers noted have everything to do with what I say as all define progress as the ability to invent new languages and synthesize new discursive practices from what appear to be oppositions in reality. And, characteristically, KOZ, you missed all nuance of Nietzsche and seem to have misread his idea of violence as actual violence as opposed to a metaphor for the epistemological violence that must be done to old systems of thinking in order to progress as an individual and then, as a society.

This epistemological violence is what today we might just call the interrogation of the world around us.

And please don't call me condescending when you author sentences that I know you don't believe as a means of freezing debate. The condescension there - the assumption that we wouldn't see through you - is far greater than any self-congratulatory rhetorical pomp I could infuse my academic language with.

You spend all day blogging about Clinton's infidelities, etc... and slinging mud and encouraging those who are more proximate to me politically to respond in the same way.

All I'm saying, and call this condescension if you will (but I consider it my own violence), is that all of this vitriolic back and forth is a weak form of politics and not on either side of the fence (and perhaps because those metaphors would no longer do) have I seen a politican courageous enough to look at two opposites, look at this divided nation, and create a narrative that makes sense of it all.

It's all this clinging to history that makes me nauseous.

"Three fired U.S. attorneys balked at seeking death penalty
L.A. Times, by Richard A. Serrano, Tom Hamburger & Ra
As a U.S. attorney in Grand Rapids, Mich., Margaret Chiara, who once studied to become a nun, appealed several times to the Justice Department against having to seek the death penalty."

What? I don't even know what you're talking about, but you can't take individual cases and blow them up to fit whatever you're trying to prove - and whatever it is, it probably can't be proved, sorry. ;)

jaa3

Although I am not a liberal, I agree with you to a great extent on Iraq. The level of discourse on the subject has been ludicrously juvenile - 'blood for oil' versus 'surrender monkeys'. War supporters act as if we were facing a single enemy and that we just need to hang in there and defeat that enemy ignoring the various competing factions. Too many of the Democrats in Congress act as if we can turn our backs on the mess we made.

As for the Reaganomics discussion, cutting marginal tax rates does stimulate the economy. That is basic Keynesian economics. The original tax reduction and reform package passed early in Reagan's administration did a lot to stimulate the economy and simplify the tax system. We had marginal rates around 70% at some levels if I recall correctly. The other major factor in the economic recovery was the Federal Reserve wringing inflation out of the economy at the cost of a severe recession in the early 80's.

The problem was that spending rose at a much greater rate than federal revenues. Reagan explicitly promised that he could cut taxes drastically, raise defense spending and balance the budget because supply side economics would stimulate the economy to the point that the increased revenue would cover the increased spending and. That never happened. The deficits spiraled out of control and it was the tax increase packages enacted under Bush I and Clinton that restored some semblance of fiscal stability. Even the 'surpluses' of the Clinton years, however, did not cover the unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare.

The fiscal situation today is even direr. Major reform is absolutely necessary to head off a real disaster in Social Security and Medicare. Private investment accounts for Social Security are a fine idea - but diverting money from Social Security to set these up is absurd under current circumstances. Medicare is an even bigger looming disaster. Solving these problems will involve creativity and a willingness to forego partisan posturing - so I hold out little hope.

"Of the 469,000 D.C. residents age 16 and older living in the District of Columbia today, an estimated 36 percent function at the lowest level of literacy."

Dem schooling results

Talk about hubris. jaa3, your extensive vernacular is too copious for our diminutive comprehension. Please elucidate more explicitly. Great, now we can add jaa3 to the list of long rambling, pseudointellectuals whose posts we can just pass over. Flexing your vernacular doesn't validate an argument. In other words, try not to be so obviously condescending.

There are a lot of ivy league educated men without a shred of common sense, which constitutes real intelligence. Some even have affairs with White House interns. How smart was that? I sat by a gentleman at a church picnic. He must have been around 80. He said, I ain't got much education. But I got common sense. That's a lot more than most of them Washington fellas got. Hear! Hear! Gramps.

'you'll crawl through broken glass to grovel for them, won't you?'

You have serious sensitivity (lack thereof) problems, dude.

Three fired U.S. attorneys balked at seeking death penalty
L.A. Times, by Richard A. Serrano, Tom Hamburger & Ra
As a U.S. attorney in Grand Rapids, Mich., Margaret Chiara, who once studied to become a nun, appealed several times to the Justice Department against having to seek the death penalty.

Reason enough for you?

The Libs worst side always comes out when they try to discuss economics. sorry Dems, it is mathematically based and can't be done wtih your usual FEELINGS approach. I suppose you will call me names and ignore any and all facts, as usual.

Truth, you remind me of an elmer fudd kind of hunter. you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you. the economic turnaround came after hillary care bombed and the Dems were thrown out - in 1994. It is the congress that gets/accepts blame for the economy. the pres proposes, the congress approves/edits. Look what happened this week with a defense bill. R asks for 94 billion for military. D loads it up with 25% more for everything else you can think of. the same old, same old. Admit your progeny. It hasn't changed much over the years.

First Romney, then Rudy, wonder when the dems will take to the air, or Brownback, lol.

Anonymous/coward said:

"'Most intelligent people realize that the deficits were caused by increased spending (a Democratic congress, btw), partially from the Defense buildup to bankrupt the USSR.'

sorry, no. most 'intelligent' people know that republican contractors were on the take in a major way just like now . you'll crawl through broken glass to grovel for them, won't you?"

Ahem...your proof, please. And throw in the relevence, while you're at it.

KOZ... There is no "war on terror." The only possible war on terror would have been in Afghanistan going after Bin Forgotten. What we have is a colonial occupation of an oil country. Get real.

If our craven government wasn't pouring our treasure into another country in an occupation based on lies, then with a few minor adjustments Social Security would have been sound for another 75 years at least. Ask any honest economist.

School choice? Just another way to pander to the far-right by funding religious schools. No Child Left Behind hasn't made us smarter.... just look around.

And, insofar as "special subsidies" are concerned, you must mean those for corporations, especially the tax breaks they get for sending jobs and manufacturing out of the country.

Creating a climate of paranoia in the country and attacking another hasn't made us safer, it's just made corporations richer.

If you want a learned opinion about the disasterous effect of our "war on terror" on the national psyche, I suggest you read
"Terrorized by 'War on Terror' " by Brzezinski:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Blarg, thanks for the link, you realize that if you continue to argue based on logic and numbers, you'll endanger your liberal status, don't you? :-)

Seriously, Heritage is rightwing and CBPP is lefty, most objective people would say. I like the fact that Heritage's chart was year-by-year though, whereas yours are broken down by decade - not enough granularity for analysis.

Aussie, I understand your view that income equality is something to strive for. That's a little too socialist for me, but hey it's a free country (for now).

Some people might say that income inequality is just the excellence rising to the top after government got out of their way. Guaranteeing equal outcomes (not just equal opportunity) reeks of schadenfreude. Or even more cynically: The left wanting to keep the poor down, and therefore dependent on them and government. Keep them on the plantation, so to speak.

jaa - wow you must be so smart to quote all those philosophers in your introductory paragraph that have nothing to do with what you say. then you end with some diplomatic journals. Is bill murray your idol? your intermediary point is that all of us who can't be as smart as you because we get our info from the MSM. what PAP. all that diplo-babble got us into this mess in the 90s with your all talk and no action klinton.

you may actually have something there in the text of your remarks but your condescension and arrogance don't allow anyone but the most superficial poseurs access. reading NYT editorials and Neitzche do not make you a sage, unless you process the information. Neitzche believed quite strongly that the weak deserve to die as evidenced in the "will to Power" and others. this was very contrary to the christian position at the time and quite brave and brilliant. the Gay science had more to do with the fun aspects of philosophy, how amusing its contradictions were for example. My pal Freddy would not support anything but the most aggressive approach to Iraq. but while quoting Neitzche, you seem to be "outdated, regressive, dangerous and ill-informed" - certainly outdated. I am pleased that last weekend you found a reason to consider rape to be evil. consider that the first in a long line of morals you may find one day if you read enough NYT editorials. but don't take it from me, I always thought rape and murder were immoral. I guess that makes me ""outdated, regressive, dangerous and ill-informed". Perhaps we should call blogging the gay politics of our time. Neitzche would laugh at that one. you, however don't seem to have his sense of humor and nothing near his intellect.

'Most intelligent people realize that the deficits were caused by increased spending (a Democratic congress, btw), partially from the Defense buildup to bankrupt the USSR.'

sorry, no. most 'intelligent' people know that republican contractors were on the take in a major way just like now . you'll crawl through broken glass to grovel for them, won't you?

I just do not believe that trickle down economics works. It just causes deficits - as truth hunter says, just charge it and worry about it later.

Now I'm not saying that you should tax the rich at 80% of their income, but I do not believe that by lowering taxes on the rich that the benefits will flow down to everyone, on the contrary it only widens the rich poor gap. Just my opinion, you're perfectly entitled to yours.

Given the site you quoted, here is some stats on the inequality that supply side economics causes:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/4Inequality.htm

'truth hunter - you mean there is no war against terror'

let me type slowly, so you can understand. no, there is no war against 'terror' any more than there is a war against 'fear' or 'anger' or 'sadness'. Terror is a feeling, an emotion.

'Terrorism' is an act, a tactic. It is not a viewpoint or a belief system. Timothy McViegh was by every definition a terrorist -- yet, somehow, the US has not attacked Oklahoma.

What we have is an occupation to seize another sovereign country's resources. Most of the terror that is going on is paid for by US tax dollars.

"This zouk character really has a lot of time on his hands. Think he works for the Ministry of Disinformation?"

He lives in his mom's basement in Orange County.

I think he is an old angry drunk, collecting empty beer cans and grudges, filled with self loathing and bitterness, cheering on "The Bush Team" in a desparate attempt to belong to something, to just exist in the shadow of what he pathetically thinks of as a winner, becasue everything else around him has been such a large failure. I pity him.

Republicans make create huge financial disasters, then adults have to come along and clean them up. Just the way it works.

http://www.cbpp.org/3-3-03tax.htm

The charts on this page, an article from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, show that the average growth in tax revenue was much higher in the 90s than the 80s. The 1981 tax cuts were followed by abnormally slow growth in tax revenue; the 1990 and 1993 tax increases were followed by significant growth.

So there's hardly a consensus among economists that Reaganomics has been "proven" to work.

Truth and anonymous/coward:

Still awaiting your numbers-based evidence and proof.

Most intelligent people realize that the deficits were caused by increased spending (a Democratic congress, btw), partially from the Defense buildup to bankrupt the USSR.

This zouk character really has a lot of time on his hands. Think he works for the Ministry of Disinformation?

He can't have a real job- he's too vicious. Although maybe he's a junkyard dog, a brain-damaged pit bull.

Aussie... Don't listen to the GOP propaganda machine. Reaganomics was nothing more than credit card prosperity.... spend and charge it to the future. The little guy got left holding the bill. It took Clinton and the 1992 Democratic legislature to fix the mess.

So, if you liked Reaganomics, you'll love Bush's treasury-busting deficits.

Please, let's stop rewriting history. GOP fiscal conservatism is an oxymoron.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

'Aussie, just out of curiosity, what was 'failed' about Reaganomics?' it was voodoo economics, just like Bush I said. Borrow tons and tons of money to funnel to contractors/supporters and to give tax cuts to the wealthy/supporters--bait and switch.

-tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts in programs and higher costs for everyone else, expensive and incompetent privatization and the results of course ---HUGE deficits that took years [annd higher taxes for the middle class] to pay down.

all smoke and mirrors, just like now.

Just as Bush is the "decider" Giuliani had better hope he can become the "convincer" because he's going to be very, very busy jumping through hoops to persuade all the neo-cons and evangelicals out there that they should overlook his liberal social views and get out to the polls. And he's going to need all their votes and more, because Giuliani doesn't stand a chance of winning his home state in the general election as we New Yorkers have had our fill of Giuliani's petulant arrogance and could care less whether we ever hear from him again. He doesn't stand a snowball's chance of winning dogcatcher in New York, let along president.

So if he's not to get crossover votes from Democrats in the general that means he's going to have to completely reinvent himself and figure out how to win over all the Red State evangelicals. And I frankly don't see how he survives their litmus test for moral dogmatism. He's definitely going to have to come up with a good song and dance routine to get past their condescending gauntlet.

Knowing Giuliani as we do, I'm confident that this endeavor is about stroking his overblown ego and mostly reflects his unwillingness to recognize that he just happened to be in the right place at the right time at a moment when his approval ratings were in the garbage, and that his career was literally pulled back from oblivion by 9/11. A rotten turnip could have done what he did following the terrorist attacks, but people being what they are were so terrified they were willing to defer to anyone in authority who promised to keep them safe from the boogieman. Fortunately for Giuliani he grabbed the headlines, and fortunately for us his 15 minutes are more than over.

Sooner or later Giuliani's campaign will peter out and that'll be the last we here from him.

truth hunter - you mean there is no war against terror? when you say restore courage and a can-do attitude you certainly can't support the Dems surrender attitude? do you support "can't do" on social security? how about "can't do" on school choice? how about the courage to eliminate special interest subsidies throughout government? how about the "can't do" as far as cutting programs and lowering taxes?

retreating in Persia will only lead to more hiding under the bed as our enemies will then have the luxury of going on the offensive in the USA against civilians. explain.

'Aussie, just out of curiosity, what was 'failed' about Reaganomics?' it was voodoo economics, just like Bush I said. Borrow tons and tons of money to funnel to contractors/supporters and to give tax cuts to the wealthy/supporters--bait and switch.

-tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts in programs and higher costs for everyone else, expensive and incompetent privatization and the results of course ---HUGE deficits that took years [annd higher taxes for the middle class] to pay down.

all smoke and mirrors, just like now.

Reaganomics, or cutting marginal tax rates as a means to both stimulate the economy and increase federal revenues, has been proven. Check this chart out

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart.gif

(And lefties, please don't start hammering the fact it comes from Heritage unless you have some facts...NOT OPINIONS/EMOTIONAL DRIVEL...that dispute it)

TG: I think you've missed the point of my earlier post - particularly the "dialogical" aspect of democracy. My view of politics is very much founded in dialogue, dissent, the acceleration of discussion, etc... - it is out of these that progress is born. (cf. Kant/Hegel's definition of "cosmopolitan", Nietzsche of "Gay Science" on play, or, more contemporaneously, Rorty on "liberal ironism").

However, the premise of democracy is not to relativistic as to disown all hierarchies and definitions of value. For instance: Zizek in his op-ed in the Times this weekend discussed rape as something society has internalized and accepted as something bad. Noone argues about rape, murder, etc... - it is assumed, and rightly so, given the way we define our society, that these things are just wrong.

Similarly, with people like KOZ who insist on speaking of the world in metaphors that are outdated, regressive, dangerous and ill-informed, I believe it is best to ignore them as a way of marking that society has progressed beyond such anachronistic ways of thinking the world.

So, I welcome debate, but there is very little debate that occurs on these boards, and I implicate both sides of the political spectrum. "Debate" here, and I've followed these boards closely for nearly a year now, tends to mean a pitting of information gained from one mainstream news source against information gained from another mainstream news source, the problem being that all mainstream news sources are fundamentally depthless in their reporting and frequently fail to include relevant socio-political analysis and history.

Take Iraq for example: most MSM depicts the House vote to pull out of Iraq as a capitulation to terrorists or a triumph of the American public and a Democratic congress.

Really, its neither. Staying the course and pulling out are both inane options. But the binary nature of our culture forces public debate to disavow nuance in favor of ease and simplicity.

As a liberal, and quite liberal at that, I've been against the war from the beginning, but hesitant about measures to pull out of Iraq wholesale because I think it decreases our strategic position in the Middle East.

Right now the Middle East is in chaos, a chaos that I believe was largely precipitated by our invasion of Iraq. The miasma of Arabic nationalism, sectarian violence, religious zealotism, etc... is a matrix that very few American politicans, and especially not those in the White House or Congress (both sides of the aisle here) seem willing to confront.

In a situation of chaos, the only realistic option is increased flexibility and leverage. To do this, we need to stop talking about capitulating to terrorists in Iraq when our absolutist support for the Maliki government is what fuels aspects of sectarian violence and also threatens our relationship with Saudi Arabia and the relative stability of the Kurdish north. We need to establish aggressive diplomacy with Maliki, tell him we'll pull out, unless a) b) c). Once Maliki and the Shia militias he tacitly allows are robbed of their US backing, Maliki will be forced to make broader gestures towards the Sunni populations, which will cool tensions with Saudi Arabia. At the same time, we need to engage Iran diplomatically to ensure they don't become the defacto backers of Shia militias in our stead. Iran is of very little threat to the US (or to Israel). They've simply capitalized on anti-American fervor as a way to solidify their power base in the Middle East. Iranian leaders are wary of dissent and fractures in their own country and the ascendancy of a moderate base, and the only reason they puruse nuclear-anything is because they know the US's current stance places us in a position of paralysis and inaction.

And the last piece of the puzzle? Equalizing Israeli/Palestinian relationships by being willing to engage Hamas, because of the significant aspects of Hamas (and other Islamic organizations like the fairly moderate Brotherhood who the US lists outright as terrorists) are more interested in nationalism these days then holy war and seem willing to broker a deal.

What prevents us from this strategic shift and wholesale reconfiguration of our stance in the Middle East is hubris. But hubris accomplishes nothing in politics and is of consequence to no one but leaders and their concerns over legacy.

The picture I painted of the Middle East is simplistic in itself due to space considerations, but sit down and read Foreign Affairs, London Review of Books, New York Review of Books, American Conservative, journals on both sides of the political aisle and see what academics, who have devoted their lives to the study of international politics have to say about the state of the world. Thats dialogue, because it involves the braodening of one's knowledge and doesn't allow us to remain in this narrow and hermetically sealed space of narrow and superficial ideology.

Listened to Rudy's ad. Ah yes, more politics of fear.... "the war against terrorists," you can be sure he'll play his 9/11 card for all its worth.

Rudy going into full red-alert campaign mode and joining the war-mongering Bushista echo-chambers of Rush and Hannity shows that he's not prime time material.... casting his lot with yesterday's-news political hacks.

Personally, I'm looking for a leader who will restore courage and a can-do attitude to the country.... aren't you tired of being told to hide under the bed?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Strategically brilliant really.

Can you think of any more nurturing environments for Rudy's message then Rush Limbaugh's show? A mobilized contingent of 3-5 million Republicans listening at the same time, all on the fence about who to vote for - where should he advertise if not on Limbaugh?

aussie, since you are in the southern hemisphere, I think perhaps you have your literature upside down. Reaganomics is widely considered to be a smashing success and responsible for an expanding economy that only slowed down briefly at the end of the clinton term.

Aussie, just out of curiosity, what was 'failed' about Reaganomics?

I like trial lawyers. My point was that most other people do not. they appear on the list of most untrusted professions barely beating out used-car salesmen, jounalists and congressmen (other people's). I think all citizens should have representation in court. Most people don't quite get this and don't like lawyers (liars). It is a bias that anyone running for office needs to accomodate. I don't neccessarily trust rudy at this stage but he is better then the alternatives offered for the brief quotes above. He hit my sweet spot in three quick ideas. win the war, cut government, let the market rule. amazing how easy it is when you know what you are doing. contrast hillary trying to explain anything, or obama trying to come up with a view with teeth.

I guess I would say that being a trial lawyer should not be your sole (or nearly so) qualification for office. Particularly if you have a reputation for being creative with the facts. Maybe all Dems have this problem, it comes from the top - kerry, gore. why do they exxagerrate so much that the initial, perhaps agreeable point, is lost? 20 foot rise in oceans - ha ha. invented the internet?? war hero with three medals, never needed a doctor. the list is long.

"supply side economics"? Oh dear, not more of that failed Reaganomics again...

Actually Mark, if you ever bothered to actually consider my points you would understand that I have never advocated giving any taxpayer money to anyone. would you like to make up some more points of view for me?

KOZ - you always avoid this one: why do you constantly spew your distrust of trial lawyers and conveniently forget that your choice for the WH, Rudy, was one himself?

watch me post 8 in a row without saying anything interesting.

This issue of White House personnel using RNC email accounts to get around governmental records archiving regulations could turn out to be a very big deal. Rep. Waxman has put the RNC on notice not to destroy any of these emails.

According to the National Journal, about 95% of Karl Rove's email traffic has been on these RNC email accounts.

Can executive privilege even conceiveably cover emails from the Republican National Committee? By any definition, those aren't emails written or received by anyone in their capacity as a presidential advisor. They're private and have nothing to do with the president in his executive capacity.

"My campaign is about [ ] and [ ]," Giuliani says in the ad. "We need strong [ ] to stay on offense in the war against
[ ] '

Insert heavily focus-grouped hot buttons here...

his case developed right in the middle of Governor Perry's 2006 re-election campaign. While Texas is a Republican state, and the Republicans expected to win, still at that time, Governor Perry was facing an election challenge from Carole Strayhorn, a third party candidate who was also a former Republican comptroller in Texas."

He continued: "I would speculate that the political powers in Texas and Washington in the Republican Party were not interested in this sex scandal coming to light. Sutton and Gonzales let their political responsibilities outstrip their legal responsibilities, and as a result you had children who were in danger of sexual abuse and were left in that danger."

apparently pediophilia is something the republican party just shrugs off... ask mark foley.

"The U.S. attorney's office in Texas actually prepared indictments in this case," Angle told WND. "But when the word came from Washington, that's when Baumann wrote his letter declining prosecution. Sutton's office dropped the matter on the desk of the local district attorney, but nobody from Sutton's office said 'if you can't go on this case, we'll help you out.'"

WND asked Angle to explain how politics drove the decisions not to prosecute.

"If you read the letters from Sutton's office or from DOJ, it's really amazing what abuse they describe and then downplay as not being serious," Angle explained. "They describe systematic and widespread abuse of juveniles who were held in these facilities by the people who were administering these facilities, and they acknowledge this fully, yet they determine that the evidence is not sufficient to warrant federal prosecution."

Limbaugh keeps harping on John and Elizabeth Edwards. This guy is really a class act. Sorry you couldn't manage to have a successful relationship in your life, Rush. People like you keep the sex tourism trade in the Dominican Republic alive and well! Your Rethuglican listeners just keep looking the other way and polishing those flag pins.

Rudy could pick any number of radio talk shows to appear on that are not as repulsive to moderates as Limbaugh and Hannity. He better start paying attention to what happened to McCain's numbers when he started kissing up to Dobson and Robertson.

'Zouk is a bit over the top with the rhetoric at times but he lays a reasoned approach for his views.'

LOL -- only if you call rabid, foaming, stale, failed and discredited neocon corporate propaganda 'reasoned.'

Everything in his endlessly recycled talking points is about privatization. More taxpayer money to global corporations. That's not a view, it's slavish obseisance.

"(Texas Ranger Brian) Burzynski presented his findings to the attorney general in Texas, to the U.S. Attorney Sutton, and to the Department of Justice civil rights division. From all three, Burzynski received no interest in prosecuting the alleged sexual offenses."

Hmmm, two different judicial systems, three different litigating organizations, a key investigative organization not involved (the FBI on the Federal side).

Conspiracy, or did Burzynski just aim his shotgun expecting everybody to jump?

Looks like a matter for the Texas Attorney General to handle first. Assuming there was substance to the charge, the Federal side would come into play after the Texas A.G. failed to handle it.

A little too quick to blame Attorney General Gonzales on this one.

Here's a new JAA idea - FREE CHEESE FOR ALL.

All mine are.

JAA3,

I see that this new discourse that you speak of will be truly elevated because of its absence of dissenting views. Huh?

Zouk is a bit over the top with the rhetoric at times but he lays a reasoned approach for his views. Is your point that those that disagree simply shouldn't engage in the debate because it is beneath them? I mean I know that is how most of you feel but I just think it is funny that you admitted it and think it is a new idea.

I just wanted to leave an irrelevant comment too.

Rudy is advertising in venues where his addressable market is listening, the GOP base that votes in the primaries. Why is that so wrong? If there is a COI, it's on the part of the hosts, not Rudy himself.

You might personally disagree with Sean and Rush most of the time, but what you have him do...advertise on Air America, which in DC is on a radio station so far up the dial that only dogs can hear it?

Hi -

Some of you think that the U.N. is evil and some of you think that economic "globalization" is "treason". Yet you are not the same folks.

Is it not interesting how fear of lost sovereignty motivates both the far left and the far right?

Best evidence yet of global warming - Dems get dumber as earth warms - al bore the smallest brain of the mammals. the Dem base should like it warmer according to this.

"Humans grew bigger brains as the climate they lived in got cooler, according to researchers at the University at Albany, New York. The researchers concluded that humans got brainier because they had to adapt to a more challenging environment. They base this assertion on a plot of cranial capacity of 109 fossilised human skulls against the corresponding paleontological record of two million years of changing climate."

I think they are referring to Byrd when they discuss "fossilised human skulls".

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, both already under siege for other matters, are now being accused of failing to prosecute officers of the Texas Youth Commission after a Texas Ranger investigation documented that guards and administrators were sexually abusing the institution's minor boy inmates.

Among the charges in the Texas Ranger report were that administrators would rouse boys from their sleep for the purpose of conducting all-night sex parties.

Ray Brookins, one of the officials named in the report, was a Texas prison guard before being hired at the youth commission school. As a prison guard, Brookins had a history of disciplinary and petty criminal records dating back 21 years. He retained his job despite charges of using pornography on the job, including viewing nude photos of men and women on state computers.

The Texas Youth Comission controversy traces back to a criminal investigation conducted in 2005 by Texas Ranger Brian Burzynski. The investigation revealed key employees at the West Texas State School in Pyote, Texas, were systematically abusing youth inmates in their custody.

Burzynski presented his findings to the attorney general in Texas, to the U.S. Attorney Sutton, and to the Department of Justice civil rights division. From all three, Burzynski received no interest in prosecuting the alleged sexual offenses.

More examples:
1. School children aren't getting a good education. Dem answer -pay all teachers more and more, don't ever fire any, hire as many admin people as you can and ignore any standards. Result - ever worsening education, but plenty of school adminstrators. school choice is somehow considered antithetical to progress???
2. SS is running dry, letting people invest for themselves at a higher return would eliminate our power over them. Pretend nothing is wrong that a few big tax hikes can't fix.
3. Medicaid is obscenely expensive. Yet we FEEL poor people should be covered, in fact, more should be covered. Instead of tinkering with the margins, invent a whole new way and ruin it for everyone while raising the costs through the roof. Ignore the lessons learned from large-scale military health care.
4. college tuition is expensive, we FEEL everyone would benefit from a college education. answer - give money away so kids can attend college. Result - colleges raise prices accordingly in exact ratios to tuitions grants, college is more expensive for all AND taxes have gone up.

amazing isn't it?

JAA, perhaps you would like to demogogue on this? I suppose you have "dialogically determined facticity upon which any functioning political system is based?"

Is this a private set of truths you keep hidden from the rest of us troglydites?

Georgia Dog - Nothing is going to be investigated, or, if it is, nothing is going to come of it. The far right made a conscious decision to innolate themselves from their criminal actions and set up Fox and various right wing talk shows. Now, the Post knows it full well, but doesn't report on it, that these people have millions of dollars behind them to gain enterance into various key markets. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to gain audiances like New York for such shows as Limbaught, O'Reilly, name any Fox News Show, etc. Virtually all of these are money loosers and exist solely to drum up the right wing crazies and spread the neocon religion. In the face of things like the Attoney General Firings fr purely politcial motives, you have Fox News Shows in a steady drumbeat claiming that this is nothing but a Democratic witch hunt. Similarly, Intels building their latest IC fabrication plants in China is a genuine danger to this county. These technologies don't even exist here. But American corporations are providing them tp the Chinese...and these ARE the very core to weapons systems that WILL be used to kill millions of Amercian's one day. Fox News simply cheers this one. Sqame for outsourced jobs, guest workers, databases moved illegally to India, and much that is even worse and more dangerous to this country. Every thinking individual knows that this is treason and these people, these executives and their apologists on FIX, are quite simply traitors, but the millions that have been invested in talk radio serve to derail any genuine public outcry and postpone judgement of these criminals.

..."the same discursive universe as your own and erodes the entire enterprise of dialogically determined facticity"

ummmm, jarjar? time for your next dose

What consistently surprises me on these boards is the Libs belief that they already know everything and if anyone with any sense bothered to listen, they would surely be convinced of the rightousness of the Dem cause. you do indeed know much - all wrong. It defies logic what Dems promise and advocate. One must rely upon FEELINGS to arrive at the Lib conclusions. Even then, the FEELINGS are so misplaced, more often than not, the policies advocated have the reverse effect on the subject population. example - poor people deserve better wages, get government to fix the price, min wage bill - result, lowest paid workers get fired.
Example - war is bad so let's end it, not now, in a little while, bribe wavering pols, this is to benefit the Iraqis with some tought love, result - killers take over after US is gone. thankfully, we are not stupid enough to fall for this gamut. I am pleased the Dems have cut their own throat for years to come by revealing themselves as the party of capitulation - again. they are now trying to figure out - how can we surrender and make it look like a victory - we may need some new words invented for this one. Is there a synonym for surrender that doesn't sound so bad?

Why is this not being investigated?

"Embattled AG now accused in sex scandal cover-up Attorney General Gonzales among officials who allegedly ignored abuse of minor boys"

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54861

What in Gods name is going on at our Department of Justice?

this is what rudy reportedly said:
"My campaign is about leadership and optimism," Giuliani says in the ad. "We need strong leadership to stay on offense in the war against terrorists."

He also highlights his support for "supply side policies and reduced government spending" to "keep the economy growing."

It is incredulous that you nut-jobs could find this offensive. where exactly do you think he should have played this message - Air america? not only is that venue dead of its own weight, but he would get zero or negative return on his investment - same as all Air america investment it seems.
do any of you rabid libs have the ability to think straight?

What consistently surprises me on these boards is the willingness to respond to posts from, in particular, kingofzouk.

Responding admits that his belief system exists within the same discursive universe as your own and erodes the entire enterprise of dialogically determined facticity upon which any functioning political system is based.

Instead, those whose ideologies are irreconcilable with the stance of kingofzouk should fashion their beliefs mimetically, and their comments here should excise mention of such demagogues just as the world we envision would be absent them.

Best to concentrate on the creation of new, more powerful political narratives then to squabble with the tired, failed mythologies of the past.

bush is out promoting war with no end. no clue as to how it will get paid for. typical con bait and switch. cut taxes for the rich, cut benefits for kids and the elderly and disabled, run up a huge deficit.

john edwards and abraham lincoln were'are 'trial lawyers' much like my doctor is an 'illness doctor.'

With regard to Rudy and the American Mullahs (love that phrase, btw!!)...a slightly altered version of Matthew 16:26 comes to mind: For what will it profit a man if he gains the Republican Nomination and forfeits his soul?

The people of Pakistan seem to care more about democracy than people here on the winger side do. Of course, or ally the brutal dictator Mushareff won't them the have it...

LAHORE, Pakistan (CNN) -- Police in Pakistan have arrested more than 1,000 protesters demonstrating against the dismissal of the country's top judge earlier this month.

Home Ministry sources told CNN the arrests were made Sunday night into Monday.

Opposition parties have launched a "Save the Judiciary" movement in support of lawyers, who have been boycotting the courts in response to Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry's removal.

On March 9, President Pervez Musharraf suspended Chaudhry, accusing him of misusing his powers.

Chaudhry was subsequently placed under house arrest -- outraging many Pakistanis, in addition to the country's attorneys.

At least 14 superior and civil court judges have resigned over the matter. Last week, one of Pakistan's deputy attorney generals, Nasir Saeed Sheikh, also stepped down in protest.

Chaudhry was appointed to the court by Musharraf in 2005, but recently started exercising independence from the government in a number of cases involving the disappearance of terror suspects and human rights activists.

Hillary is out proclaiming free health care for all. no clue as to how it will get paid for. dem economics - bait and switch, then raise taxes. We all see right through that. at least edwards admits he will raise taxes like crazy - a losing hand but honest. imagine that, an honest trial attorney. what is he hiding, must be something?

I know where rudy could get some expert advice on how to cheat and not get caught (that pesky blue dress), or at least get away with it and be championed by Fems. Is this really the issues you want to make your Alamo? "We cheat but stay with our wife." Or maybe the kennedy model - "We only have one car accidents."

If Rudy acts like Bush, he'll be just as hated as Bush. If Hillary runs a bad campaign, she'll be blamed for running a bad campaign. It seems like you could have come up with the answers to those questions yourself.

No Name Poster: I have not as yet found anything to disagree with you on or about how the 2008 campagn, and other matters. Rush and Sean are what I refer to as "Hate Mongers or Spreaders", which they are doing very well. They have Rudy now caught in this as stated by maria, ProudToBeADem, and drindl. My question would be, for an intellegent person as Rudy seems to be, How could he be this Stupid to lose the moderates in his party, and others, to pick up a few of the far-out "Wingers"?.

The fact that Giuliani is advertising on the shows of two vulgar hate-spewers is a very good reason not to vote for him in 2008.

It reeks of stale liberalism in here today. Again with the one-sided and hypocr