10 reasons why Rudy won't and shouldn't win...

1. NY social liberal
2. Pro gay rights/marriage
3. Pro choice
4. Pro gun control
5. Marches in the gay pride parades in NYC.
6. Dresses in Drag several times as seen on "You Tube"
7. Married 3 times
8. His first wife was his second cousin
9. His current wife was his mistress who broke up his second marriage.
10. estranged from his children and didn't even attend his own son's high school graduation.

Now come on people...can you imagine this selling to South Carolina or Iowa primary voters??? Can you imagine the religious right voting for this man? I am a Bush/Cheney voter in 2000 and 2004. I can tell you hands down I will stay home on election day should Rudy win the nomination. My pastor in church was also informing us of Rudy's social positions any many people had no idea. Once the evangelicals like myself find out, He is toast. Go ahead..nominate him and and be prepared to call Hillary Rodham Clinton Madam President.

Wake up people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow, MidwestRepub:

You began your first post by calling me Influenza (saying that I wanted to flush all the nation's wealth away) and calling me a communist.

Now you're whining that I'm picking on you. Typical schoolyard bully/conservative republican claptrap.

I'm not quite sure what the flu virus has to do with flushing wealth away, but the rest of your posts haven't been all that coherent either.

You go on at length about the enormous tax burden paid by America's most affluent citizens, then you say you're happy with the tax code just as it is.

You accuse folks of being communists for supporting progressive taxation but say you also support government programs.

Do YOU even have the faintest idea of what you believe in?

It appears that the one thing that's near and dear to your heart is the support of private charities. It seems that your entire world view is seen solely through that prism.

You remind me of a fellow I know who works in textiles. He's seen his income and opportunities plummet with free trade agreements and cheap imports from Asia. There is no other political issue for him. Everything is determined by whether it's good for the American textile industry or not.

For you, it's charities. The more the affluent pay in taxes, the less they're willing to give to charity. (I wonder what charitable giving is like in countries without income taxes. Must be through the roof!)

But you also said that charitable giving is a matter of the heart. More inconsistencies.

(For the record, my family and I volunteer about 10 hours a week at a nonprofit).

Considering the deleterious effect taxation has on charitable giving, surely you supported the Bush/Cheney ticket in 2000 and 2004?

Regarding class warfare/hatred of the rich: My wife and I bring in over six figures and live quite well. But in my lifetime, I've seen CEO compensation rise from 20 times that of the average employee to nearly 400 times. This kind of income disparity is a prescription for social and political instability. (Although I'm sure a great many of those CEOs donate generously to the charities that you cherish so much.)

Regarding relocating to Uruguay: Why, out of that illustrious list of nations, did you single out Uruguay? The Bahamas, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands are all lovely resort destinations. And I've heard that the scuba diving off of Vanuatu is simply superb!

Lastly, if, despite all evidence to the contrary, you vaguely associate yourself with being a Democrat, please be sure to vote Democratic in 2008. The Midwest can't afford another Republican administration, not for a long, long time.

Hang in there MidwestDem. Influential Thinker wants you to go to Uruguay, huh? Our first clue to ignore him completely is his name, Influential Thinker. That is easily the most conceited blog name I have ever come across. Why doesn't he just call himself the Ultimate Smart Guy? It has more cache and is more marketable. The current Bush tax system that went into place exempted 10 million poor taxpayers from paying any taxes at all. Perhaps thats what roo, colin, and the ultimate smart guy have a problem with. Don't expect them to be satisfied with the current rate of taxation. Some Democrats can never have enough taxes.

Wow. MidwestDem sure underwent some unfair attacks from Influential Thinker and Colin and Roo. I reread his/her posts and can't see where any of those three got their ideas from. MidwestDem never once said the current system was bad. He just said that everyone was already paying their fair share today, and that increasing taxes even more would hurt charitable contributions. It's true. You three sound like the typical anti-rich, pro-government crowd that thinks they should take care of all of us poor, stupid people because they know what is best for us crowd. A lot of people like that were slaveowners. Of course, that is essentially what forcing us and others to rely on the government still is, isn't it. Please take care of us, master. This middle class Independent thinks he's paying enough taxes, too. Take away the work of our charities today and this nation would collapse. Oh, well, time for someone else to twist a couple words and go off on an unrelated tangent to prove a faulty argument.

Sorry Thinker. Just a wise crack about serving on national boards and telling me to live in Uruquay? Weak. You didn't even bother to address my points. And yes, some Democrats, like me, don't like to be overtaxed. I never in all my posts complained about the current tax rates. I just don't believe they should go any highter than they are now. I love my $50,000 a year life and pay my taxes without complaining. I just don't envy the rich so much I think they should be OVERtaxed. The top 1 percent of taxpayers already are paying 34.3 per cent of the taxes but are making 19 per cent of the wages. The top 25 percent of taxpayers are paying 83.9 per cent of all taxes. Is that too little? You seem to have some problems, though, with envy of other peoples wealth. I've served for years on local boards. Boards which you appear to have no knowledge of which in turn indicates your dirth of knowledge of charities. Try volunteering your time instead of your dollars. You gave your argument why the government should take care of people speech. I never denigrated any government programs. That wasn't the point of my post and you know it. It was that as taxes increase charities suffer and sometimes close down because their contributions dry up. People end of paying so much in taxes they can't afford to be as generous to charities anymore. And my list of charities was miniscule compared to the number that is affected. If you are advocating taking money from charities so we can get even more taxes go ahead. The IRS reports we are now collecting more than the government is spending. Again, the charities that would suffer are those like Aids Research Foundation, American Cancer Society, Alzheimers Association, American Red Cross, Autism Society, Breast Cancer Fund, American Diabetes Association, Easter Seals, Habitat for Humanity, United Way, Make-A-Wish Foundation, Multiple Sclerosis Society, Sickle Cell Association, Hospice Foundation of America, and on and on.

It is widely accepted that if Rudy were to be nominated, he could definitely be elected. I agree with that. It is also widely accepted that the overwhelming majority of GOP Primary voters are too conservative to accept Giuliani. I agree with that as well. This usually would lead one to think that Rudy WILL lose the Republican Primary, which I disagree with. There is one scenario in which Giuliani can be nominated. Of course it would help if GOP Primary voters were pragmatic enough to vote for him simply because he's the strongest candidate, and some will. However, it is not a necessity for that to happen. There are nine other candidates to choose from, and they are all (excluding Rep. Ron Paul) pandering towards the right. Despite the fact that McCain and Romney are vulnerable to suspicion from the right wing, they're trying to get the social conservatives behind them, too, and may be hurt by changing positions, and may turn off moderates by trying to pander to the right. With conservative support split 7 or 8 ways, the moderate vote, if strongly behind him, could give Giuliani an Iowa victory. Momentum would be able to get him through New Hampshire and South Carolina, and money would take him through Super-Super-Super-Super Tuesday. Therefore, Giuliani's moderate beliefs could clear the path for his nomination. If Gingrich ran, nobody would benefit as much as Giuliani would. This void on the right to find a social conservative candidate could split the vote so that Giuliani wins the nomination. Even if Giuliani loses the nomination, he would still have the option of seeking the nomination of Unity08, and his popularity could likely make him the candidate on the bipartisan ticket. So, one way or the other, Giuliani has a strong potential to be our next President.

Hmmm, MidWestDem is against progressive taxation and appears to have compared FDR and the new deal to communism.

I would also love to hear what makes you a Democrat rather than a troll. Is your next post going to talk about the evil unions that Democrats support? Or will it perhaps advocate in favor of even larger divides between the rich and poor? This may surprise you, but there is a difference between a progressive tax regime and communist style income redistribution.

MidwestDem:

Firstly, let me thank and congratulate you for being asked to serve on the boards of these prestigious national charities. I am surprised, however, that a man of moderate means such as yourself has been asked to serve.

Secondly, are you a Democrat? If so, I am curious as to why? What principles of the Democratic Party do you agree with or support?

Thirdly, while I fully support charitible giving and my wife and I donate a considerable amount ourselves, I find your arguments unpersuasive.

One of the chief arguments against many of FDR's New Deal programs was that charities existed to deal with the social ills of poverty, unemployment, hunger, illness, etc. Yet, despite the good work and good intentions of charities, the majority of Americans still died in poverty.

Private charities are terrific in raising awareness and providing research and assistance for specific causes. But human beings come together and form goverments to address issues that are too large for private efforts. Nobody enjoys paying taxes or going to the dentist, but you've got to do both if you want a healthy life and a healthy society.

And if you make more, you've got to pay more. Sorry if you think that's communism, Midwest (Repub?), but you could always relocate to a country without income taxes. Here's a list of possible locations:

Andorra
The Bahamas
Bahrain
Bermuda
Burundi
Cayman Islands
Kuwait
Monaco
Nigeria
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Vanuatu

Not sure about their immigration policies, however.

MidwestDem--Let us make the first chapter about the meaning of words. We can use the Democratic German Republic of DDR as an example. Not very democratic, right? But how can that be?! It says it is democratic right in the name but it is not! It boggles the mind! For further reference,

The second important thing to note is that the so-called communist states up to this point (if you really are not interested in the actual definition) have had the intellectual fortitude to call themselves *socialist*, not communist (Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, USSR.)

The difference between the two, if you are not familiar with Marx' work, is that socialism is the transitionary period from his perceived feudalism to communism that may require forcible means to ensure a smooth transition.

Sadly, Marx' vision completely crumbled at this point. His advocacy of revolution instead of evolution is one of the key problems in the rather naive real-world attempts of application thus far.

That said, I would still be happy to discuss the actual concept.

Yes Thinker, thanks for saying it for me. I don't want to punish people for being successful -- Bush, Soros, Kerry/Heinz, Gates, whomever. I believe the top tax brackets are being taxed fairly, even though I only make $50,000. If some people choose not to share their wealth, that's their problem. But we can't take it from them. The IRS says tax collections have once again returned to a surplus each month.

And I know for every action there is a reaction. Every study of tax increases, without exception, show that as taxes rise charitable giving goes down. Who do you think provides most of the financial support to our charities? Who is serving on their boards? I have been lucky to be asked to be on several boards and know its our most successful citizens who are providing the largest donations and personal time to keep these charities going. Raise taxes even more on the rich and what would happen to the Aids Research Foundation, American Cancer Society, Alzheimers Association, American Red Cross, Autism Society, Breast Cancer Fund, American Diabetes Association, Easter Seals, Habitat for Humanity, United Way, Make-A-Wish Foundation, Multiple Sclerosis Society, Sickle Cell Association, Hospice Foundation of America, and on and on?

We read daily about the enormous donations being made by individuals, foundations founded by the wealthy, and corporations. My company matches United Way donations dollar for dollar. Its owners are constantly donating hundreds of thousand of dollars to the community and charities. Most of the rich realize how fortunate they are and give back to charities and their communities far beyond their tax burden. Some don't. But again, that's a problem of the heart, not the tax system.

Yes Roo. I would like to hear your argument for communism. Not the definition from Websters but how you think real life applications of it have turned out well for the common people. Recent history shows that in each instance the government has taken the wealth and distributed little or nothing to the common people who were never allowed to achieve a decent standard of living. You were told what your jobs would be, there was no choice in careers. Any resistance was met with torture and killings. Can you say Gulag Archipelago? I knew you couldn't. In 1931-1932, the Gulag had approximately 200,000 prisoners in the camps. There's nothing like Siberian salt mines and Tiananmen Square to put communisn into perspective. Communist leaders lavished money on themselves and people like athletes so they could win in the Olympics, therefore reinforcing that communisn was the better form of government. All the while they provided third world quality medical care to their own people and provided lavish living quarters and lifestyles for the ruling politicians. But, yes, please do explain communism to me, as long as you don't quote from a textbook or dictionary, and please do use real life examples.

Thanks for the responses, they were interesting and informative!

I did want to respond to a point by Midwest (Dem?):

"But in a democracy at what point do we stop punishing those that have succeeded in life by taking more and more of their income?"

This is an interesting point and touches on the question of taxes on capital gains and dividend/interest income.

A number of years ago, I worked at a financial institution and was involved in transferring assets to heirs and into such tax-shelters as family trusts, etc.

What was quite revealing at the time, however, was the tremendous amount of family wealth out there. I can understand not wanting to punish success, and part of financial success is providing for one's children, but a lot of folks out there are living off of the wealth earned by their grandparents and great-grandparents.

It reminds me of when Steve Forbes was campaigning for the flat tax. He's nearly run the magazine his grandfather founded into the ground, and yet his brilliant idea for the nation is to enact a scheme whereby he could get to keep millions more of his completely inherited wealth.

And bringing the discussion back to politics, our current president fits the same mold. Every single one of his achievements has been the result of his family's wealth and connections.

And yet, it appears that MidwestDem, with his $50,000 income, supports the president's tax policies (in fact, it seems he feels they don't go far enough) because he doesn't want to punish Bush's success in life.

The Republicans are geniuses, I tell ya!

MidwestDumb, I say Dumb because you like to change peoples' names to mock them and because it's hard to believe you're a Democrat.

Anyway, you forgot one important piece of context: How wealthy are that top few percent? The top 1% paid 34% of taxes in 2003, compared to 27% in 1992. But how much did their net worth increase in that time?

In 2004, the top 1% of all taxpayers made 19% of all income reported to the IRS. In 1986, the top 1% made 11% of all income. (I couldn't find that number for 1992, so I know it's not a direct comparison.) Since the top 1% in 2004 were a lot richer than the top 1% in 1986, it's to be expected that they also paid a lot more taxes.

MidwestDem--It appears you have absolutely no idea what 'communism' means (the 'commun' is the same as in 'community'.) I would be happy to help you shed any confusion between it and the type of oligarchy you describe. It is always sad when the government is seen as a separate and opposing entity to the public--which, granted, it IS in the U.S.

Influential Thinker--The cost of (comfortable) living argument that you give as justification for progressive tax rates can be used to posit either that there must be a ceiling after which all further is meaningless and therefore untaxable or that no-one should have more income than said ceiling (which is actually fine by me but probably a hard sell for the next few decades.)

The correct reason for progressive taxation is that the high earners are benefiting more from the society and its various infrastructure than the low earners and this disparity can be reduced though not eliminated by tax rate adjustments.

/In addition/ to that, you may certainly mention the COL argument as an additional supporting fact.

Being tough on terrorists without being smart won't get us anywhere. I can see Giuliani succeeding Bush as the terrorist's recruiter in chief. Diplomacy is not at all his strong suit and we need good diplomacy very badly right now. He'll be as supportive of Israeli hardliners as Bush has been (might be a political plus, but it's disgusting and dangerous).

It's amazing to me that Guiliani is actually way ahead in the polls. I still believe, though, that Guiliani's personal demons of his past and his liberal positions on social issues will destroy his chances in the Republican primary. He will be slandered, bloody and people who now look at him as "America's mayor" and a fresh look from McCain will turn from Guiliani when they learn more about him. Then, will McCain benefit? I doubt it. Who will benefit, then? It would appear at first glance to be Mitt Romney. He's worked very hard to build his organization and run things to his liking, as well as getting support from state legislative figures, grassroots activists and statewide officials. It does seem that McCain is leading the pack in endorsements, however. I'm wondering if Tommy Thompson could make waves and gain a shot at this nomination. For people who will learn of Guiliani and what he's done, and doesn't want McCain, it seems that Thompson and Romney are the 2 figures left that people will turn too. Romney has one up because he already has the organization and endorsements and donors in place, however.

Influenza Thinker, I say Influenza because you want to flush all the wealth away to the the lower income levels. Very close to a communist idea of an economy, which is make everyone poor and just let the government live in luxury. Yes, the taxes that person (which happens to be me) at $50,000 pays appears to have a bigger impact on his life. But in a democracy at what point do we stop punishing those that have succeeded in life by taking more and more of their income?

Guatemala is a poor analogy. It's recent history has been plagued by civil war and military coups, which have slowed the nation's development. Just today the Chicago Tribune noted that Guatemala knows it is losing the battle against drug trafficking--its police, military and justice system are beholden to traffickers who use the country as a way station for Colombian drug shipments to the U.S. The U.S. complains that three-quarters of the cocaine reaching U.S. consumers moves through Guatemala. If the U.S. were to come in and institute its free market system they would not have that division of wealth.

What are the true tax burdens. Well, because of the Bush tax cuts the share of taxes paid by the top 5 percent of taxpayers in 2006 will be 53.3 percent, compared to 51.6 percent without the tax cuts - an increase of 3 percent. The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will be 3.4 percent, and would have been 4.0 percent without the cuts -- a decline of 15 percent (from the Treasury Department).

What are the other figures? The Internal Revenue Service has recently released data on tax year 2003 that show the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent of the whole, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent of all taxes.

In 1992, the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 27.53 percent of all federal income taxes that year. They now pay 34.3 per cent. The gaps are not increasing, they are decreasing.

There is no way Rudy could possibly win the presidency. Talk about a life of scandals. It will be Mitt Romney.

I just wanted to respond to the numerous posts about taxes, the middle class, taxes, etc.

Let us create a hypothetical:

Mr. Jones's gross income is $10,000,000. In our hypothetical, the top tax rate is 60 percent, and, for whatever reason, Mr. Jones does not take advantage of any tax shelters or other means of reducing his tax bite. His net income, after paying 60 percent, is $4,000,000.

Mr. Smith's gross income is $50,000. His tax rate is only 20 percent, and so his gross income is $40,000.

Now, in our hypothetical, Mr. Jones pays far more taxes, both as a percentage of income and in total dollar amount. In fact, Mr. Jones pays six million dollars in taxes and Mr. Smith pays only ten thousand!

However, even after paying all those taxes, Mr. Jones's lifestyle probably won't suffer all that much. He'll be able to live where he pleases, drive what he pleases, eat what he pleases, pay for his children's tuition all the way to the Ivy Leagues, etc.

Mr. Smith, however, even though he paid much less in taxes, takes a much bigger hit in trying to support his family than Mr. Jones did.

Now, some might say that Mr. Jones has worked hard to earn his high income and that his wealth trickles down and helps others. It's also possible that his work helps generate income for others. This may or may not be true.

My point is that although the affluent may pay more taxes as a percentage of income and in total dollar amount, the middle class feels far more pain.

Furthermore, for a society to be truly healthy I believe, the impoverished must have a reasonable opportunity to move into the middle class (or higher), and the middle class must have a reasonable opportunity to become wealthy. America is still a land of opportunity, but the gaps are growing.

When the gaps grow too large, social and political instability follow. To see this reality up close, take a trip through some of our Latin American neighbors like Guatemala, where all of the nation's wealth is tightly held by a small percentage of the population.

It's not a pretty sight, and if the income gaps keep growing in the U.S., we could be headed there.

Gee -- if Giuliani gets elected President I sure am glad that I am not a ferret! One of the first things that he will do is to issue an executive order for our entire nation, making mere possession of ferrets a felony, and sending Storm Troopers house-to-house across the nation searching for ferrets. Think that I am exaggerating? From the public record, on the Web: __Theres something deranged about you__ Giuliani told the ferret advocate. __The excessive concern that you have for ferrets is something you should examine with a therapist - not with me . . . This excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness.__ My daughter has owned many ferrets. They are legal in our state. They are meek, friendly, sociable, and generally housebroken pets. After millenia of being domesticated, they cannot survive in the wild. But they are illegal in California, in Hawaii, and in New York City where Giuliani has campaigned against them. Does Giuliani have that same wonderful level of judgment about everything else too? I cannot believe that people consider fascist-mindset Giuliani to be some kind of liberal.

"User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. "

william and i are lovers. shhh!

Many of the posts on taxes had to be the Virginia House of Delegates flaming The Fix.

koz: "the tax increase was relayed to me by a congressman in passing conversation. I will have to look it up but do not doubt the veracity considering my source."

me: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

koz posted this drivel: "Here is the Dem wisdom - stats are meaningless, my feelings are what count."

No, koz, the other poster didn't say stats are meaningless, she said YOUR stats are meaningless. That changes the meaning just a bit, no?

Don't you post enough without resorting to blatant lies?

Actually, JD, I didn't say that capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate. I said that they are taxed at a lower rate than wages. That's a fact. Pointing out a fact doesn't mean that I want it to change. Please don't put words in my mouth.

And I disagree with your analysis. Capital gains tax rates are lower now than they were 25 years ago. Meanwhile, the savings rate is lower now than it was 25 years ago. So there's no evidence that lower capital gains rates cause people to save more.

The Repubs lost their roots in 2006, they said. They need to focus more on conservative principles and less on being focused on electability, they said.

Rudy does not embody conservative principles (although he's moving that way as fast as he can). He is high in the polls because of name recognition and perceived "electability" to stop the Clinton menace. Dems are evil, remember, a vote for them is a vote for the terrorists.

If he is the nominee, thats proof that conservatives have adopted a "win at all costs" mentality. If Brownback, Huckabee, Gilmore or Romney comes through, they've regained their roots. I'm picking the former, they're running scared.

There is still a logistical issue with taxing gains. how do you track them, it is not like income which can be reported by a US employer. If you examine a filthy rich person's portfolio, take teddy Kennedy for example, you will find that most of the nest egg has been transferred offshore so it will not be subject to that sort of tax. If a true Lib like Kennedy does this how do you think a real capitalist will behave. OK, I will grant that almost any person on earth behaves better than a Kennedy, especially that one. but I am sure you get my point about the source of revenue, which has not escaped the congress who ultimately needs to collect this money to stay in business. as the penalty for not hiding your money rises, more and more evaders emerge on island vacations.

Ultimately, we will all pay the AMT and the society will have morphed into a flat tax. This works well under the Dem strategy of "do nothing". sounds good to me.

Giuliani won his first mayoral election with 49 percent of the vote. His reelection total was 59 percent. This in a city with an 8 to 1 registration advantage for Democrats. I would guess he should be taken seriously. One of the fun Hillary and Rudy debates will be over the Marc Rich controversy. Rudy was the US Attorney who prosecuted Rich, who then fled the country, and was later pardoned by Bill Clinton after Rich's wife contributed $70,000 to a fund supporting Hillary Clintons Senate bid, and also made a large contribution to the Clinton presidential library. I am sure Rudy was not happy with that pardon.

Blarg and Roo, I hear you both saying that cap gains need to be taxed at the same amount, or higher, as regular earned income (As an aside, HTF did we get on this topic from discussing Rudy's winnability? anyway...) If the problem is that America isn't saving or investing enough and constantly relying on Uncle Sucker to provide greater social sec benefits, won't your plan worsen that problem? And as someone said before, the money to buy that house, that stock, that bar of gold, whatever, was paid for with after tax money, not pre-tax, so in effect you're being taxed (punished) for taking risks.

roo, i am surprised at you. a committed leftist that actually fights fair and makes sense. this could be a new day in blogology. there are so few of you I was giving up hope.
If you examine state pensions which are fairly large, you will find that contractors bid very low on fees to get the business and then go after volume to make a profit. the windfall that brokers might get is mostly fiction. there would be many small, underperforming accounts that would still have to be maintained for little incentive. the main concern for any reasonable individual contemplating SS privitization would be the transaction cost of changing over. the existing system would run short while the new system was put in place. the question is how short and can this be actuarially compared to future debits? a very prickly question given the interests concerned. But the math doesn't lie and there is a very certain break even point, which goes up every minute we delay. the SS ROI is less than even paltry US bonds.

If you are prepared to reject currency, how will my relative value in the society be tracked. Is sweeping streets equal to medicine? I wish I had known that before grad school.

I sympathize with your instinct to tax old wealth at a higher rate but doesn't that punish thrift and savings, something that is required for economic growth? Are you willing to sacrifice the economy on the alter of rightousness?

Ooh--and yes, I fully support any attempts to simplify and shorten the tax code to, say, a 10-page document with only a few conditions:

1) It remains a progressive tax on income, not spending. Preferrably slightly more aggressive than currently.

2) Capital gains etc. are to be taxed higher than earned income. Working for your money must be more valuable than sitting n your ass.

Everything else such as facilitating small businesses avoid the inheritance tax problem (though that really should be a SBA issue) are fine to discuss.

kingofzouk--"the tax increase was relayed to me by a congressman in passing conversation. I will have to look it upo but do not doubt the veracity considering my source."

I have no doubt the Democrats are planning to repeal tax cuts and/or raise taxes and we may disagree on whether this is a good thing or not.

koz--"In the future you shouldn't take every single thing I say as a publishable fact. ..."

Everything you say should be taken as a publishable fact--by you. Including conjecture, opinions and rumours is fine in a conversational piece when indicated as such.

They have no place in serious policy discussion, though.

koz--"as far as whether Bush or Rudy are apt leaders, I will let history and the polls dictate this one."

Pleading the fifth? :)

koz--"When pressed for when the Democrats would offer a Social Security reform plan of their own, Pelosi responded that they would offer a plan "never." So much for thinking about the children."

Heh, this is a crass mischaracterisation of her position which is not unsurprising given the source in Time.

In context, she said that they were 'never' going to give a /rivaling/ plan to Bush's ill-advised scheme back in 2005 which is what the conservatives were demanding at the time because they were getting frustrated by the Democrats' successful blocking of it along with AARP et al. A cynical tactic to be sure, but no less so than the opposing one.

The main problem most have with privatization is the so-called 'windfall' to the brokers. A slightly higher-risk solution managed my private investment companies with administrative costs not exceeding those of the SSA and profit margins locked to and limited by the tenths of investment gains as compared to current SSA ROI for any differentials of, say, 5% or more would be perfectly acceptable to me, for example.

Of course, I personally completely reject even the concept of currency so in my ideal world this would be a nonissue but one has to compromise until utopia can be reached.

And you thought some other folks here were 'ultra-left-wing' :P

The existing tax code was written during the Democratic party's nonstop control of Congress, with minor exceptions, from the 1950s to the 1994. Maybe they should be held accountable for all those tax shelters that have existed for decades. Im sure the party in power received a lot of campaign contributions from those needing tax breaks. Before 1994, 48 of the top 50 Congressman receiving the most Political Action Committee (PAC) monies were Democrats. The money goes to those in power. Read The Washington Post article titled, Democrats Offer Up Chairmen for Donors (2/24). Nancy Pelosi admitted they were selling to lobbyists meetings with committee chairman. Money for influence. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

AMT is 28% with absolutely no deductions. no mortgage, school loans, rental property, charity, nothing. so it is simply not possible to pay less than 28% if you are even modestly wealthy. this tax kicks in around 175K now.
this is 28% across the board, not 10% of the 1st x plus 15% of the next x plus...

Roo, I FEEL those arguments are correct. that should be all I need if the standards we established today are OK with you.

the tax increase was relayed to me by a congressman in passing conversation. I will have to look it upo but do not doubt the veracity considering my source.

In the future you shouldn't take every single thing I say as a publishable fact. I do tend to draw some conclusions based on bias, history, opinion and heresay. but the market was going up, up, up until Nancy et. al. came along. Seems plausible to me. Plus it fits nicely into my mindless zealotry.

as far as whether Bush or Rudy are apt leaders, I will let history and the polls dictate this one. At the moment, rudy is considered to be a strong leader by most. I already said I prefer my foreign policy conducted by a strong (stubborn to some) leader who is not swayed by daily polls. I don't think he has done such a good job leading on other issues that I care about, such as social security. but still not worse than the Dems.

consider what Pelosi said about it:"Responsible, forward-looking leaders would take this looming problem seriously. Yet politicians -- Pelosi herself chief among them -- have viewed Social Security as a convenient political weapon, not a problem to be solved. In 2005, when the president launched his effort to place Social Security on firmer financial footing, then Minority Leader Pelosi didn't simply critique his approach and offer an alternative. She sought to squelch debate and use the issue for political leverage. When pressed for when the Democrats would offer a Social Security reform plan of their own, Pelosi responded that they would offer a plan "never." So much for thinking about the children. "

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDJhMWRhYTg3N2MwOGI2ODljZDM1ZTFlZWI4MDQyM2E=

I would call that poor leadership.

Of course the middle-class pay a lower percentage of their income (or net worth) than the wealthy in taxes.

The tax rate on wages is higher than the tax rate on alternative forms of income such as capital gains. The wealthy make better wages than the middle-class, but they also have far higher income from capital gains. So their overall tax rate is a combination of a slightly higher wage rate and a much lower capital gain rate.

And the wealthy have the capability to exploit tax loopholes and shelters, which is much harder to do when you're middle-class. Yes, there's the AMT, which limits the effect of tax shelters. But AMT rates are also lower than normal tax rates.

Total amount of taxes paid by the wealthy aren't the issue. Neither are taxes paid by the poor. Because capital gain tax rates are lower than tax rates on wages, the wealthy pay a lower rate than the middle-class.

'give it up, you are out of your depth.'

Lara, give it up, you are out of your depth.

kingofzouk--"roo, you delve into the past history of each event to try to show that each event is not clearly failed leadership because the culprit is not so easily found. But that misses the point entirely. George Bush was not the culprit for the 9/11 attacks, more responsibility should be laid at the feet of clinton and all before him."

No, I was specifically disagreeing that those instances were necessarily show of poor leadership as well as indicating cases which *I* thought were such, in each case for a situation relating to your example.

koz--"Yet my point was to say that regardless of origination, the response to a crisis is a decent measure of leadership."

To a degree and for whatever parts they may be directly responsible.

I stand by my assertion that neither Rudy or Bush did anything extraordinary and were, in fact, rather unimaginative or disingenious in their leadership approach.

You may have commented on it but I am not clear if you share this view (independent of what other leaders may have done.)

koz--"It took two months for the first market adjustment in the realization that the Dems are in charge."

This is a completely baseless argument, wholly unsupported by any respectable market analysts let alone facts.

This type of hyperbole, nigh-outright falsification, just hurts your cause in trying to establish the Republicans as the fiscally more apt party.

koz--"It only took them a few days to enact the first tax increase."

Please cite the legislation. I know Rubin called for increased revenue but did not specify means.

koz--"but 40% of a billion is a lot to ask in my opinion."

Fourty percent of, say, a million a year is much less than fourty percent of fifty thousand when you consider what money is supposedly /for/.

5% pay 57% of all taxes, at least in 2004,'

that has nothing to with how much you pay as an individual, as a percentage of your income.

if i pay 33%, why should someone with much more pay 15%?

Lara - I didn't claim something false as you did. I went to the hourse's mouth, the opposite end of the animal as you. If you don't believe the IRS, just what is the source of your knowledge on tax policy? I don't think we need to continue with this. the visitors to this blog can smell defeat when it is this obvious. I suppose you have better things to do with your time, right?? Te he.

Maybe next time you can simply reply to all questions about your inventions with the Dem retort "It's a fact!".

I think Rudy has a couple of potetial problems. One was described very well this weekend on the show "Desperate Houswives." Andrew tells Austin, "You're a dog and you're going to end up cheating again." As much as we know about Giullianni more women coming forward could damage him significantly.
His strength is also his biggest problem. People like him because he does what he thinks is right and doesn't care about other people's opinions. That is what made him such an effective mayor, but at the same time it makes him a very flawed man. Voter's in NYC could care less about his personal life but the national audience will not stick with him through multiple scandals.
I also suspect that some other types of scandals could come out. Considering how close he was with Bernard Kerik and the scandals associated with him it's hard to believe that Rudy wasn't tainted as well.

Charles Coulter, the first of your recent 2 posts is brilliant and spot on. I suspect most people won't get it, however; they let fierce partisanship blind them to reality.

And Lara, I'm sorry you believe that the middle class pay a higher percentage of their income than do the upper class. As Zouk said (somewhat sharply, but hey), you'll have to show us the numbers that bear out your case. I've shown you mine, the link above, and it clearly shows that the top 5% pay 57% of all taxes, at least in 2004, the most recent year where data is available. Is 57% enough, or did the top 5% need to pay 100% of all taxes to make it fair? or 90%? What's your number?

If ANYONE is paying 'their fair share', it's the 'rich'.

Careful Lara, you just called yourself a mindless zealot.

It would seem you don't.

10 million poor Americans were taken off the tax rolls when the Bush tax cuts were enacted. Bush raised the yearly income level that could be taxed so these poorest taxpayers were excluded entirely. I would say eliminating the taxation of 10 million poor Americans was a positive, for them. But, it doesnt count since Bush did it, right? Or you could take the far left view and say it never happened. Those posts will probably follow.

zok -- your saying something doesn't make it true -- and unlike you, I have more important things to do with my time than argue with a mindless zealot.

- NASA officials say the space agency is capable of finding nearly all the asteroids that might pose a devastating hit to Earth, but there isn't enough money to pay for the task so it won't get done.

BAGHDAD -- Bombers and gunmen killed more than 110 Shiite Muslim pilgrims observing a religious ritual and wounded more than 250 others in scores of sectarian attacks today.

When confronted with indisputable facts from a reliable source - the IRS, Lara resorts to chanting mantras.

The AMT is a tax that kicks in at a certain level that insures write-offs do not lower any person's tax below a certain minimum percentage. find me one wealthy person who didn't pay taxes. since you think there are so many you should be able to find plenty.

As I predict you will not and prove once a for all that you are talking nonsense.

As I have have definitively shown above, your premise is just false. you may continue to chant it with your fingers in your ears but your view at this point is utterly worthless from a factual standpoint. I will not further degrade your naive notions with additional facts. If you choose to remain ignorant despite clear evidence to the contrary, I suppose you will just have to remain a committed Liberal.

Look for stark contrasts: That's the key, he whispered with a "Follow the money" sense of prescience.

Seriously, if the race is McCain versus Obama, experience versus youth, McCain will be hung with the war. Obama, although far less experienced, is the worst candidate for McCain to face. The contrast Pro-controversial War and Against Controversial war. Hale and hearty versus white-haired and eighty at the end of the second term -- it is too stark. Obama wins by two-three states in the Midwest.

Hillary loses to McCain; she finesses the war, and, although she is winning in some heats with him now, she tanks by the same two-three states.

Richardson beats McCain.

Giuliani beats the whole field. (He finesses the war issue in such a manner that, against Hillary, he comes out the clear winner; versus Obama, his finesse seems weaker, but he changes tact, dumps the war as well, closes the gap between being against it and crafts an image as a tough-minded problem solver.

Giuliani, versus Obama, basically plays up experience, but does it without the old and he's 80 ... eighty ... by the close of the second term.

'As the stat above showed, if you're poor, not only do you not pay, but you get money back in the form of EITC.'

JD, I keep telling you. I'm not talking about the poor, I'm talking about the MIDDLE CLASS. We pay a higher percentage of our income in taxes than the wealthy. Nome sayin'?

No, zouk just YOUR stats are meaningless. What are you babbling about the AMT? I know what it is -- I have an accountant. The wealthy have all sorts of ways to avoid paying anything and many do not.

Capital gains being taxed at a lower rate is politics, pure and simple. It's becuase some people can afford to buy candidates. They can afford to buy more 'free speech' as you would say.

I never understood the pundits on Matthews and in other venues who truly thought Guiliani would not have a shot.

I know his positions. I see how wildly far out of synch they are with the GOP candidates of the past thirty years post-Ford.

But the GOP was handed a stunning defeat in the last election. To not see Giuliani as relevent in the wake of a defeat like that is to think the GOP mainstream is simply unpragmatic in the way the Democrats were during the Nixon era.

You don't win election after freakin' election by running losing candidates. Bush 2 had razor-thin victories.

If Democrats were cagey in a GOP manner, they would not have sent a Northeastern Senator after him -- yes, Kerry appeared more able than a Dean, but, please, in a field with Edwards and Clark and real electability.

I have always seen conservatism as pragmatic first. Conservatives understand the new playing field. They adapt. They don't retreat into a den and salve their wounds with Anne Coulter's hair-dye.

Liberals should read more "National Review" and "Weekly Standard" and stop parodying their enemy, and begin to understand what is at their core; hint: you can't find it at Daily Kos.

Nor can the right wing understand liberalism by listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Giuliani was always a player. Not Hamlet. He is made for this race. McCain's worst nightmare, obviously even moreso than Herr Obama is for Hillary (in terms of how quickly the Mayor built momentum) although, read it here -- Obama will close teh gap between Hillary fast before the debates begin.

Here is the Dem wisdom - stats are meaningless, my feelings are what count.
I know more about taxes than the IRS from just accessing my feelings. this sort of argument is what passes for Dem intellect these days. no wonder you can't be trusted with the economy.

If your wealthy friends actually shared their income and taxes paid with you, and they didn't mention the AMT, then they are not what most people would consider wealthy.

Saving and investing may be anathema to Libs but most people consider this a virtue. the savings has already been taxed once and the gains on this is again taxed, at a lower rate, because that is what the congress voted for, not what you FEEL is correct.

'Capital gains and other such were called 'unearned income' and taxed at a much higher rate than wages, which people actually earned'. True, but in an effort to get people to invest in corporations longer than a year, Cap Gains taxes were lowered in an effort to stimulate the economy.

The only way to get a true fair and balanced tax code is a flat percentage with NO deductions and NO exemptions.

Posted by me. Sorry Lara.

Lara, I hate to keep beating this dead horse, but how do you pay less than 0%? As the stat above showed, if you're poor, not only do you not pay, but you get money back in the form of EITC.

If you have a problem with sales taxes, tax on cigs, booze, tires, et al, hey so do I. But Rudy or whoever the next Prez is can't do a thing about that, complain to Richmond (or DC, Annapolis, or wherever you are). And if you want to lower those taxes, welcome to the conservative/libertarian movement, we're happy to have you.

'Capital gains and other such were called 'unearned income' and taxed at a much higher rate than wages, which people actually earned'. True, but in an effort to get people to invest in corporations longer than a year, Cap Gains taxes were lowered in an effort to stimulate the economy.

The only way to get a true fair and balanced tax code is a flat percentage with NO deductions and NO exemptions.

Actually the Rep candidates are not in support of the War, they are however in support of keeping a foreign government from slipping into a full blown civil war.

As has been said MANY times. The Iraq war is VERY over. The Iraq occupatioin is an ugly nightmare.

What happens to the world when Iraq's Sunni population explodes on itself? Currently there is no Police force but us and our allies. Cutting our losses and leaving will only serve to undo all the good things that have been accomplished in Iraq. And yes, contrary to what you hear in the news, good things are happening in Iraq.

'rich people pay more, poor pay less.' not as a percentage of their gross income, no. yes, the poor pay less. But not the middle class. No wealthy person pays 35%, do they? But a lot of middle class people do. The middle class' income derives chiefly from wages, which are taxed at a higher rate than investment income. Which is exactly the opposite of the way it was years ago, when there was real progressive taxation. Capital gains and other such were called 'unearned income' and taxed at a much higher rate than wages, which people actually earned.

I know a few wealthy people. With deductions, tax planners, writeoffs, shelters, untaxed perks, capital gains and the like, they pay a far lower percentage of their ncome in taxes than I do.

'Lara, you need to take a breath. what does percentage of income have to do with the equity of tax policy? Are you saying everyone should pay the same percentage?'

Precisely, unless they fall below the poverty level.

and the stats you quote are utterly meainingless.

Rudy can't win the Republican nomination because of god, guns, and gays. He can't win the general election because of Iraq. The latter issue is and will be a problem for whoever the GOP nominates, which seemingly no one is talking about.

More than any other reason, Iraq is the reason that George W has 30% approval numbers. All of the players for the GOP nod are STRONG supporters of W's war. Me thinks that will prove just a tad problematic in the general election.

The funny thing is Lara, NorEaster, JD, and pretty much everyone is right about the tax issue. The middle class actually does end up paying a larger marginal tax rate due to tax shelters and tax deductions many in the 35% bracket use effectively. Those in the 35% bracket still end up shouldering a larger percentage of the entire tax burden.

Thanks JD.

Lara Please note that 43 million of 130 million filers actually PAID NO TAXES.

Talk about not paying a fair share.

Lara, let me dumb it down for you, since I understand you're pretty emotional right now:

The top 5% of all earners in US pay a little over 57% of all the taxes. That means, of course, that the bottom 95 PERCENT pay barely more than 2 in 5 dollars of tax revenue. Does that sound like the poor are paying more than their fair share?

No, the legislature and the voter is the heart of Democracy. Courts are simply necessary for civilization.

Lara and NorEaster, please educate yourselves:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Face it: rich people pay more, poor pay less. It's called progressive taxation.

' There is a national, largely bipartisan consensus that issues like gay marriage and abortion should be decided democratically, and not by the courts.'

Uh, sorry, but the court system is at the heart of democracy -- what country do YOU live in?

Typical Dem response to any challenge - It's a fact.

they seem to have a repository of facts that the rest of the scientific world doesn't have access to. I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Let's look at one contraversy. Dems say Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, that there are no terrorists there and we are between normal natives fighting themselves.

On another day they say that there were no terrorists before we got there but the place is now crawling with them.

Before the war:
"On August 30, 1980, the New York Times reported in an article titled "U.S. Forbids Sale of Jetliners to Iraq" that the Carter Administration decided to block the sale of five Boeing jets due to Iraq's involvement in recent terrorist activities. The article reported that, within the previous few months, Iraqi diplomats were involved in attempted bomb attacks in Vienna and West Berlin."

Pick one and settle on it please.

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

A dense collection of actual citations showing some FACTS, actual facts, not Lara facts. I am sure the usual response will be to search for motivations, call out lies and totally ignore the content. I guess if you have nothing else you will have to stick with your usual Dem game plan.

William why is there air?

I know.

Do you really think the base is going to stay home again after 2 years of Nancy Pelosi?

Remember, the Indies aren't going to have a Bush to vote against. They are going to be voting against Nancy and her tax policy. Nothing gets R's up like more taxes.

Dan W... actually you're wrong.

Look at the 2006 election for an example the base stayed home and independents came out in huge numbers. Not to say it will happen in 2008, but it can and has happenned.

It would seem the IRS itself does not concur with Lara's proclaimations.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in34tr.xls

Tax rate % %of income

5 percent 1.3
8 percent 6.7
10 percent 1.2
15 percent 6.2
20 percent 12.2
25 percent 12.0
28 percent 17.2
33 percent 21.1
35 percent 26.1

this does not include capital gains which will lower the overall percentage of tax since it is taxed at a lower rate. What it does show is that the usual Dem talking points originate in fantasy land.

this was the response to asking for a citation from Lara about her tax knowledge :
"Here's your answer -- you don't have a clue about anything you talk about. It's all BS and lies, propanda and rightwing spin. You;re a joke and you know."

now you see why she didn't want to back up her BS with anything measurable and real.

"I thought Capehart's column was good today. Don't know if Rudy can make it a year without exploding. Also, the GOP base isn't helping any -- they are rallying to Ann Coulter's defense: http://www.solidpolitics.com"

Hey ass-ole, stop posting under my handle!!!

"The conservatives will just stay home..."

There is a serious flaw in this logic. Thinking the Religious right will stay home and not vote in the General is rediculous.

When November comes around, the Social Conservatives are going to pull the R lever no matter who is the nominee. They are smart enough to know that by not voting they are going to have to suffer through somewhat they disagree with socially AND ideologically. Better have someone you sorta didagree with rather than someone you totally disagree with.

roo, you delve into the past history of each event to try to show that each event is not clearly failed leadership because the culprit is not so easily found. But that misses the point entirely. George Bush was not the culprit for the 9/11 attacks, more responsibility should be laid at the feet of clinton and all before him. Yet my point was to say that regardless of origination, the response to a crisis is a decent measure of leadership. Bush I responded to the Kuwait invasion in an appropriate fashion - good leadership on this measure. Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon - poor leadership.
Carter boycotted the olympics - whoopee. he put on a sweater when it got expensive to heat your home - hmmmmm. carter alone is a study in poor leadership. Bush II maintains his policy despite popularity sinking - make up your own mind if this is good leadership or stubborness. but I perfer it to poll taking when making foreign policy.

I believe rudy will maintain the will of the americans to win this war and keep the economy cruising. he turned the NYC economy around while there and this fact will emerge as one of his strengths. big government Liberals will only harm the economy, not so bad at first but eventually.....
It took two months for the first market adjustment in the realization that the Dems are in charge. It only took them a few days to enact the first tax increase.

"Grandpa Simpson, someone sent you a check for no reason and you just cashed it?"

"I just thought it was because the Democrats were back in charge."

Lara, you need to take a breath. what does percentage of income have to do with the equity of tax policy? Are you saying everyone should pay the same percentage? this is quite contrary to a long history of the rich paying more. the federal tax code specifically allows for increasing marginal rates as the income rises. as your income becomes astronomical, the absolute percentage goes down, but the dollar figure continues to rise. but 40% of a billion is a lot to ask in my opinion.

As a percentage of their own gross income...

Lara, the Middle Class pays a higher percentage how?

As part of all taxes paid?
As part of income taxes paid?
As a percentage of their Gross Income?
As a percentage of their Net income?
As a percentage of somethingelse?

Some pundits think Giuliani's views on the social issues will bar him from getting the nomination," wrote Paul Mirengoff.

I disagree. . . . There is a national, largely bipartisan consensus that issues like gay marriage and abortion should be decided democratically, and not by the courts.

Let's Make a Deal
Social conservatives, Rudy Giuliani, and the end of the litmus test.
by Noemie Emery
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/370rvrau.asp

If Giuliani emphasizes the process issue, and says . . . the key question is whether such issues are to be decided democratically, by legislatures, or autocratically, by judges, he could forge a solid Republican majority.

The middle class pays a higher percentage than the wealthy do. That's a fact and clearly you are no finance major either... Whoopi? Who are you kidding? She's nobody. and Daly? Daly Who? I don't even know who you're talkinng about. And kucinich is a joke, like Nader. have you actually ever met a democrat?

Gore is hardly hardcore anything. Just smart and rational. obama is a Christian leader who gets applauded when he speaks in mega churches.

Drum circles? What a joke you are. Do you ever turn off Fox News and come out from under your rock?

Blarg, take a look at who the poster boys are right now for the left - Obama and Gore. Both of them exemplify the hardcore left wing of that party which pretty much runs things, aided by the Dem's rock stars: Daly, Colbert, Whoopi, Franken, etc.

Emotional arguments (like Lara above, who I suspect isn't exactly a finance major...the poor pay a higher % of their income in taxes than the rich do? lol) carry the day for the Dems most of the time. Probably a Viet Nam holdover, same playbook (Camp Casey, Bush lied people died, drum circles, etc)

Here's the Tv spot McCain's attack dogs use on Newt:

Interior of hospital.... all white, we see part of a pale woman's face... she's breathing raggedly. Nurse 1 whispering... 'do you think she'll make it?

nurse 2: 'i don't know. she's so sick already, and had quite a shock. Her husband came in just now, said he was leaving her for someone else.'

nurse 1: 'while she was dying of cancer? Can you imagine a guy like that?

VO: Now imagine a guy likle that as President. Can you trust him to make life and death decisions for you? Say NO to Newt.

"When the the picture clears and Hillary gets the nomination the evangelicals will hold their nose and back the horse that will win."

This is probably true and shows that the Evangelicals have no principles.

Giuliani, McCain and Gingrich are all public and notorious adulterers, exactly what the Evangelicals supposedly hate about Clintons.

The Evangelicals will back any Republican adulterer before they vote for Clinton.

The big lie is that the Evangelicals and the GOP stand for values. They are haters: pure and simple.

'your left-wing anti-military crap'

Hey it isn't the left that's sending young people to die for a reason that changes every week, is it? it isn't the left that privatized the VA and left wounded vets lying in filth, is it? don't have much connection to reality, do you?
'
'Have you ever heard of the AMT? do you know what it does? . Try to find a single reliable source to back up your claims. I won't expect an answer.'

Here's your answer -- you don't have a clue about anything you talk about. It's all BS and lies, propanda and rightwing spin. You;re a joke and you know.

kingofzouk--You did not answer the question I posed. I posit that Rudy nor Bush provided any kind of exemplary leadership. They could have picked pretty much any person off the street that day and they would have done just as well or badly.

Violent solutions are, certainly, often seen as the strong solutions albeit mostly by stupid people. In very rare circumstances are forceful means the optimal.

If your assertions were correct, they would certainly rank *even lower* on the leadership scale. However:

koz--"Example of weak leadership - a foreign country takes over your embassy, you talk it out for a year after a failed attempt at a rescue with 4 choppers. finally the new president resolves the crisis."

We will probably disagree but I thought the weakest point of this debacle was the decision to use force and the subsequent armed forces failure to complete the mission.

Of course if you *really* want to talk about leadership, we could have a conversation about the events that LEAD TO the Revolution in Iran in the first place, such as, oh, setting them up with the puppet Shah.

koz--"Example 2 - a foriegn terrorist bombs the parking garage of a NY landmark. you call it a law enforcement matter and ignore all international complications. Years later the entire structure is destroyed."

No, *certain aspects* of it were certainly a law enforcement matter such as the INS' incompetence in detaining some conspirators, previous arrests of some conspirators and the fact that the fellows were able to acquire all the materials and actually get the bomb in place. Those were the law enforcement problems.

The chain was not properly traced back to the beginnings of al-Qaeda and similar groups. Clinton's role is unclear but we can safely say there is blame to go around for this.

Of course here we could discuss the leadership that lead to the policies that contributed to the creation of the radical islamist terrorist groups such as the U.S. unilateral support of Israel and its policies as well as meddling in other Middle Eastern states' internal affairs for decades.

"Example 3 - a US warship is attacked and sailors are killed and the ship is crippled. you do nothing."

We could discuss the attack where a civilian boat was able to take down a military warship because of the ROE set by the Pentagon but that might be beside the point you were trying to make.

Clinton DID declare it an act of terrorism (which is debateable since the target was a military one) a MONTH before the 2000 election and THREE MONTHS before the end of his term. The intelligence agencies pursued the culprits.

koz--"example 4 - a contingent of Marines is ambushed in Mogadishu. you do not send air support and when they are mostly killed and their bodies dragged around, you go home with your tail between your legs."

This was a failed military operation with poor failsafe planning relying on faulty intelligence. I do not have much to say about it.

Of course, the achieved purpose of the operation turned pretty much the entire Somali populace against the U.S. anyway. Committing to the overall approach to Somalia is where you could claim leadership problems.

On the other hand, I never cease to be amazed at the 'free and independent' U.S. people's desire to be lead and told what to do by an emperor-like Great Leader.

I agree with Ted that Newt Gingrich will become the GOP nominee. He has positioned himself perfectly.

When around labor day the GOP has no set no