tdlqeueyxkky e4hb2vem99 [URL=http://www.217941.com/642746.html] e1k81xp5p63x [/URL] mukq3uftv6uh

k2bt04wejjwr7 q8orcc8g1t [URL=http://www.955277.com/121207.html] r88op4u7 [/URL] jlqpegs20cx3

4ugime1m7l4qwf5s d6rwpfaev228oflyj ikembnn7hsq1pd

4ugime1m7l4qwf5s whtb7e1jods [URL=http://www.517135.com/292480.html] 632xoeit97 [/URL] ikembnn7hsq1pd

On Edwards, it's morally wrong to get a $400 haircut and indicates poor judgment on his part. Not on the scale of his vote for the Iraq War Resolution but it will be tricky for this populist candidacy to get around either. Populist/progressive and vulgar ostentation don't go together very well, and progressives don't typically support imperialism. That's bad news for Hillary, not just because she voted for the war, but because she needs a strong Edwards candidacy to water down Obama's support.

As a Democrat, I fear a Fred Thompson candidacy much more than any other Republican in the field. He's obviously good on TV, looks presidential, and has solid conservative credentials. I still think it will be hard for any pro war candidate to win the general though.

Razorback: "Why not let energy companies invest their own money in search of a solution? Whoever finds the solution is going to make a ton of money. Let the energy companies take the risk."

Sure, ultimately the private sector is probably going to provide most of the solutions to this problem, but why not add motivation by slowly ramping up carbon taxes and funding the search for a solution? The real problem is getting over the hump where carbon-neutral technologies cost more. It's reasonable to spend several billion a year to try to make it faster, in my judgment. Should give us a nice leg up on other countries if we do, too.

There's also a good reason to invest in the early pilot stages of tech. Working in science, I see it all the time; all of the successes of the pharma companies are built on the back of basic research, which does not provide a good return on investment.

"That is all good and fine, but why can't they be HONEST about the fact that the ultimate bill is paid for by consumers, not the energy companies?"

Sure, the talk is of a "manhattan project" for energy. This is an election year. Republicans, from my point of view, have been dishonest about where global warming is taking us and what our current oil/gas subsidies are buying - and that's worse.

"If company A gets a subsidy and discovers the anwer, when company A gets rich of it, those silly liberals will be asking why did we subsidize company A, look how rich they are."

Liberals really aren't a pack, I think the oil company questioning is silly. I'm sure someone will go after any successful companies as well. I'll be rolling my eyes. I'd like to think I'm a bit more pragmatic on this issue.

Here's the problem with the conservative approach: it does nothing to stop the increasing rate of carbon emissions. It lets companies quickly tap valuable reserves that might be better held for the future when we start running through our oil (which many other countries are doing.) And it hasn't resulted in cheap transportation, nor would the tiny additions from ANWR/near shore drilling offer more than a tiny reprieve (maybe a couple mbd in a market of 85 mbd).

"You invest 1,500 more in the car, and you save 750 in reduced gas expenses. How is that for a great investment? Consumers are concerned about higher prices, and the liberal "solution" winds up costing consumers more, because CAFE standards save money for gas, but make the car cost more."

Or you could just, you know, drive a smaller car. Corollas and Civics are cheap. That's mostly what CAFE would do for now.

It is true, though, that the current generation of hybrids isn't worth it until gas hits something like $4 a gallon (saw that calculation a few years ago... getting close now, eh!) Looking forward to the plug-in hybrids coming out soon, might actually be able to save money driving one of them.

Anyway, I think we're back to the core liberal/conservative split: how much you expect the market to accomplish, and how wasteful you expect the government to be in prodding it one direction or another.

Can anybody clarify this point?: Did Sen. Clinton hold a fundraiser at Timbaland's home before or after the Rutgers/Imus controversy? Has she made any comments on his music in this context? I don't know his music, but a columnist in the Post described it as very negative toward black women. Should she give back the money?

I'm starting to believe you're somehow related to Sam Brownback to continue to give his campaign any kind of credibility whatsoever. He's No. 5 on your list because some GOP politico thinks he might, might have a bunch of church people on the ground for him in Iowa? This isn't 1988 fellows and Sam Brownback is certainly no Pat Robertson.

The EU set voluntary targets for companies to meet and research into. They ignored them, so know the EU are setting compulsory targets.

Companies are there to make money, not save the environment, so sometimes they don't do as much as they could.

"Why not let energy companies invest their own money in search of a solution?"

Who's stopping them from doing that? Nobody!

americans, ha, ha, ha....

Fatigue is likely to set in, which I think Edwards understands. Dems in partiuclar like someone new to pop up (Clinton, Carter) rather than the tried and tested (Gephardt, Lieberman).

Clinton & Obama as the frontrunners suits the other candidates, as the pressure is off them until Iowa. If they can get a strong showing there, all bets are off. Richardson & Edwards are playing this very well, and on the Repub side Brownback understands he needs to play that way too.

The elite liberal media is in the process of coronating America's first queen-Hillary Clinton. They will decide the next president-not the American people. As for me. I will happily vote the republican line in protest of a rigged game. Thank you

Razorback,

|||! |, || |||| ||| || |||||. ||, ||| |||||! || | ||||, "||, ||| |||||?" ||, ||| ||||||!

|||| ||||,

|||||

The approach of liberals and conservatives to gas prices is different, although most agree that the source of the problem is a supply/demand issue.

Liberals propose to reduce demand by CAFE standards, which set the standards for gas mileage of vehicles.

Conservatives propose increasing supply by permitting more drilling and relaxing rules that are so strict that no refineries have been built in the US for decades.

Imagine the price of a house if no houses had been built since 1980.

The problem with the liberal approach is that while it does reduce demand, which would over time reduce gas prices, it does NOT reduce the total cost of transportation, because you must also include the price of the car.

When you mandate higher mileage, you increase the cost of the car by an ammount that exceeds the gas price savings. You invest 1,500 more in the car, and you save 750 in reduced gas expenses. How is that for a great investment? Consumers are concerned about higher prices, and the liberal "solution" winds up costing consumers more, because CAFE standards save money for gas, but make the car cost more.

So what about improvements in cars that do not exceed gas price saving? The car companies do that anyway, because that is what consumers want.

Refrigerators, for example, use much less energy than they did 30 years ago, but you dont hear liberals harping about that. Consumers want efficiency, and the market provides it up to the limits of technology, providing the cost of the energy savings is not exceeded by the increase of the product.

Technology is the ultimate answer. I say let the private sector, which will make the money from the new technology, invest the research money.

Some silly liberals thing that we should subsidize those energy companies. If Company A gets a subsidy, and discovers nothing, we just wasted our money. If company A gets a subsidy and discovers the anwer, when company A gets rich of it, those silly liberals will be asking why did we subsidize company A, look how rich they are.

Nissl:

Why not let energy companies invest their own money in search of a solution? Whoever finds the solution is going to make a ton of money. Let the energy companies take the risk.

Global warming carbon taxes add to the cost of gasoline and electricity. You still havn't answered the question. Most liberals resolve this question by stating that they will force the energy companies to clean up.

That is all good and fine, but why can't they be HONEST about the fact that the ultimate bill is paid for by consumers, not the energy companies? Especially when they are so vocal with the false promise that they are going to "get" the oil companies so gas prices will be lower.

Gasoline over four dollars a gallon in Californis.

@Razorback

(random spew deleted)

"Liberals rail against big oil subsidies, price gouging on gasoline and utilities, and promise LOWER prices at the pump and LOWER utility bills. FLIP

Liberals also rail about global warming, environmentalism and energy independence, ALL OF WHICH IMPOSE COSTS on gasoline and utilities which are paid for by the consumer in the form of higher prices. FLOP

"Energy independence" is a canard invented by BIG OIL when asking for subsidies, suggesting that the government should force consumers to buy oil from the high cost provider (THEM) instead of the low cost overseas provider. Buying from a higher cost provider necessarily INCREASES prices.

Global warming and carbon mitigation INCREASES utility bills. The Supreme Court of the United States says that regulated utilities have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to pass costs on to consumers if those costs are mandated by the government. This is well settled law and has been so for decades. It is also the law in all 50 states."

I don't think anyone's got a magic bullet for cheap prices. Obviously both left and right would like cheap prices. However, right now we are giving out money hand over fist for subsidies, and it isn't producing affordable oil/gas, let alone the global warming problem. The solution is to stop handing money to oil producers and spend more money developing practical alternatives.

"Liberals say they are against subsidies for energy providers on one hand, and on the other hand, propose energy subsidies?"

Um, energy subsidies for carbon neutral technologies, paid for by ending energy subsidies for non-renewable, carbon spewing technologies?

That's a totally consistent position as well.

At least try to make a little sense.

The problem with your primary source is that is a "SPAM or VIRUS" cite, everyone stay away from it.

"|" i don't remember who lambasted Jimmy Carter, I was wearing diapers then.

Do you really think Jay Leno is the right? Tell me you arn't that stupid.

John Edwards problem isn't that he is acting rich. His problem is he is pretending to be a populist and acting rich. Read what Dee Dee Myers said about that. You might not think its a problem for Edwards, but Dee Dee understands and so do the people hanging out in the Quad Cities barber shop.

Dee Dee, Leno, and Quad Cities barbers now have to be added as conspirators in your idiotic conspiracy theory. The plot thickens.

So I wonder who is telling the truth about Clinton's infamous Christophe haircut?

Is Dee Dee Myers telling the truth or is "|"?

"|" this is Clinton flack DEE DEE MYERS version of the haircut story in a frontline interview:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/interviews/myers2.html

The president is here in Los Angeles and he gets a haircut from Christophe in May [1993]. And the press finds out about it. Did you know you had a PR disaster in the making?

No. God, I sound like a complete idiot, all the things that I didn't see coming. The president was here in Los Angeles. Christophe had cut his hair a few times during the campaign. He was friend through Harry and Linda Thomason, [a] delightful guy, really nice person. Of course he'd be happy to cut the president's hair. So he jumps on the plane -- the plane is sitting on the tarmac. And he gets his haircut. He's really kind of jolly. You know, hi, he's had a good trip to L.A. He loves California. He's out here.

And for the first time, maybe the second time of his entire presidency, he decides to take a trip back to visit the press, sitting in the press cabin on Air Force One, which he never does. So, he goes back there and says hello. Five minutes, you know. Wasn't it great to be here in California? He leaves. I believe it was John King who was then with the AP. He said "Did he just get his hair cut?" And, you know, what am I going to say? I said, "Yeah, he did." "And was that the guy we saw going down the back stairs of the plane, the long hair, that guy that used to be around the campaign sometimes?" "Yeah."

So, you know, he's like "This is funny. Oh, this is great." So I think John puts something on the AP that said that Clinton had gotten his hair cut. Well somebody called the FAA or something. Some unnamed source at the FAA said, "Yeah, delayed aircraft," which became "delayed aircraft all over the country" which never was really true. And so did I think I had a big problem? The president got his hair cut on Air Force One. What's the problem with that? Okay. It's not a great idea maybe to have this sort of high priced Beverly Hills coiffure. We just won a populist campaign, not a great idea. But it's not the end of the world. I mean who cares?

For $200.

As if the president paid $200 for his haircut, but, yes, he charges $200 a haircut and probably more. Then when it was married to this notion that air traffic was delayed and here was this, you know, populist, putting-people-first president just basking in the perks of his new power sitting on the runway, air travelers be damned. This is the story that got out there and by the time I realized that this was a serious problem it was off to the races. And that thing dominated the news for at least three days. I think it led ABC's broadcast on day two. Because it becomes such a symbolic thing. You have to be careful of these things that become metaphors.

The hardcopy of Politico.com is available at my Metro stop.

They way they placed the dispenser in such a way as to block the trash can.

In three issues I've only seen two articles which told me something I didn't know already. Unfortunately, those articles were about the arcane procedures of how certain specific legislation was crafted. The type of story which puts most people to sleep.

In the trashcan, would have been a better placement of the Politico.com dispenser.

Razorback - Jimmy Carter acted like a common person and the Right lambasted him for it.

John Edwards acts like a rich person and the Right lambasts him for it.

One of the basic principles of logic is consistency. See a problem here?

"|" the $400 haircut is a story because of the reaction of the voters in Iowa.

Now I have to watch Leno and Letterman the next few days.

Leno nailed Edwards on the house too:

"Well, I think we know which America he's living in," Jay Leno quipped on NBC's "Tonight Show," a riff of Edwards' frequent mention of the "two Americas" -- one for the wealthy and one for the poor.

"|" why don't you go to the primary source on the $400 hair cut? It was not The Politico, it was Bill Wundram of the Quad City Times.

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/19/news/local/doc4626f3bd6f2f2920813459.txt

Primary sources, that is what it is all about. So much for your nutty little conspiracy theory.

Pssstt! Hey, Razorback.

That $400 haircut is a non-story. Don't tell your friends but it is as relevant as that Clinton "haircut on the plane at LAX" story that they're till telling innaccurately 13 years later.

It's best to just keep it to yourself, or Grover may begin to question your committment to the cause.

lylepink - Why not just go to the primary source? In any research it is the most authoritative!

see: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06slipopinion.html

Click on Gonzales v. Carhart

You missed a STEP in your conspiracy of stupidity "|". The final step is for an idiot like you to keep on talking about the $400 haircut, when all of the real flacks for Edwards are just trying to make the story go away.

You can cut and paste articles on here all day long, and I will not utter a peep,"|", but when you say something stupid, I am going to spank you.

lylepink - just make it the eight year of the Third Millenium. 992 to go!

BTW: The century I was refering to is the 21st.

STEP 1: Lecture America about unequal consumption.

STEP 2: By a 29,000 square foot house.

STEP 3: Continute to lecture America about unequal consumption, and pretent to be a humble working class American.

STEP 4: Get multiple $400 haircuts and have your campaign pay for them, a violation of law.

STEP 5: Figure out that having a campaing pay for $400 haircuts is a violation of law, and reimburse the campaing for the haircuts.

STEP 6: Become a laughingstock, because real people have heard your rhetoric about being a common American, and then hear that you got a $400 haircut.

STEP 7: A newspaper person in quad city Iowa goes the the barbershop, pricing haircuts and asking the regular people who happen to be there about the incident.

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/19/news/local/doc4626f3bd6f2f2920813459.txt

STEP 8: Realize that you have made a serious error, and try to use humor to difuse the situation and to make the story go away.

STEP 9: Find an idiot flack like "|" so that you can pretend the problem is the Drudge Report, even though the real problem is how the outside the beltway voters at the barbershop in Quad Cities reacted to the $400 haircut.

But none of this is substantive criticism. It is just petty, cheap personality-based mockery of the strain that dominates (and degrades and destroys) our political discourse -- it is Al Gore inventing the Internet and claiming to be the inspiration for Love Story, and John Kerry wind-surfing and speaking French. It is all just mindless gossipy shorthand intended to fuel right-wing caricatures and platitudes that have nothing to do with substance and everything to do with demonizing the personality of these political figures in order to render them ugly and embarrassing -- hence, Edwards is a girlish fop and Obama is an intellectual lightweight who relies on empty fancy-sounding buzzphrases in lieu of substance.

What is notable here is not so much the specific petty attacks, but the method of how they are disseminated and engrained as conventional wisdom among our Really Smart Political Insiders. This is the process that occurred here, and it is the process that repeats itself endlessly:

STEP 1: A new right-wing gossip (Ben Smith) at a new substance-free political rag (The Politico) seizes on some petty, manufactured incident to fuel personality caricatures of Democratic candidates.

STEP 2: The old right-wing gossip (Drudge) uses his old substance-free political rag (The Drudge Report) to amplify the inane personality caricatures.

STEP 3: Right-wing hacks with pretenses of respectability -- like Mickey Kaus and others -- follow the script by "analyzing" the gossip and embracing it.

STEP 4: National media outlets -- such as AP and CNN -- whose world is ruled by Drudge, turn the gossip into "news stories."

STEP 5: Our Serious Beltway Political Analysts -- in this case, the very somber and smart Substantive Journalists at The New Republic -- mindlessly repeat all of it, thereby solidifying it as conventional wisdom, showing that "even Democrats and liberals are embarrassed by their candidates."

One should note here that Step 5, the Final Stage, is almost always sponsored by those who endlessly proclaim how irresponsible and substance-free and unserious political bloggers are, and who thereafter write pieces which do nothing other than repeat the latest Drudge gossip.

We have been treated in the last 48 hours to an extremely vivid illustration of how conventional political Beltway wisdom is created. It all began with The Politico's in-house gossip, Ben Smith, who on consecutive days published a gossipy, petty article designed to fuel right-wing caricatures of the personality traits of John Edwards and Barack Obama, respectively.

First was a story on Monday about the costs of Edwards' haircuts and visits to a spa, plainly intended to fuel the principal right-wing anti-Edwards caricature -- his effeminate obsession with his hair.

That was followed by another Smith story yesterday ripping out of context a small part of Obama's speech -- in which he spoke of various types of "violence" (beyond physical violence) that create divisions in America. Attaching himself to the prevailing anti-Obama cliche, Smith asserts that these excerpts illustrate Obama's "instinct for abstraction and large themes, and his sense that America's problems have at their root solutions that have as much to do with hope and process as with any specific course of action."

Obama's crime? Instead of proposing specific policies to "solve" the problem of school shootings (as though such problems can be "solved"), Obama "moves quickly to the abstract: Violence, and the general place of violence in American life." In the rotted world of Beltway media cynicism, any talk of "root solutions" or "ideas" or "abstract concepts" is automatically insincere, irrelevant and merely a tactic for avoiding "real substance."

Predictably, both Politico items were immediately trumpeted by Drudge, almost certainly the real goal of Smith's stories. Thereafter, the standard right-wing hacks then dutifully followed along, reciting the exact storyline manufactured by Smith and Drudge. The conventional wisdom-spewing internet gossip Mickey Kaus then joined in with an item entitled "Barack the Hack," which claims -- in an act of extreme projection -- that the speech reflects "a mindset that tries to fit every event into a familiar, comforting framework he can spoon-feed his audience without disturbing them." Kaus says the Obama excerpts are "not exactly evidence of a fresh intelligence, or even basic common sense" -- but that "Democratic primary campaigns will do that to you."

The Associated Press then does its part, churning out a story, published by CNN (among others), that begins with this sentence: "Looking pretty is costing John Edwards' presidential campaign a lot of pennies." The Associated Press then interviewed Edwards' hair stylist, and reported that he admitted this: "'I do cut his hair and I have cut it for quite a while,' Torrenueva said. 'We've been friends a long time.'"

All of that leads The New Republic, a day late but right on script, to lament the effeminate and vain Edwards and the shallow and empty Obama. Eve Fairbanks posts an item she headlines "He Feels Pretty and Witty and . . . ." in which she let's us know that she (of course) is far too sophisticated and serious to "give a damn that Edwards went to the Pink Sapphire." It is striking how they all use the word "pretty" to describe how John Edwards wants to look. She then links to the three-year-old You Tube clip of Edwards brushing his hair.

Melanie Phillips is a British neoconservative who has devoted herself to warning England that Muslims are taking over and destroying its culture. Her book, oh-so-cleverly titled Londonistan, warns of "the collapse of traditional British identity and accommodation of a particularly virulent form of multiculturalism."
She has described James Baker and Jimmy Carter as "the kept creatures of the Arab world" who "are intent on smoothing the path to Israel's destruction." She thinks global warming is a "con-trick" because everything is "well within the normal cyclical fluctuations in temperature from century to century." And on and on and on. Needless to say, she is a deeply admired figure in the world of Fox News and right-wing blogs.
But all of that is rendered moderate, restrained, sober and even sane by a new article she wrote for the British magazine, The Spectator (headline: I Found Saddam's WMD Bunkers), which claims that: (a) WMDs really were found in Iraq after the invasion, (b) they were located in vast underground bunkers (c) which contained "nuclear, chemical and biological materials", but (d) the U.S., through negligence, failed to secure those sites and, as a result, (e) the WMDs were stolen by The Terrorists and/or Syrian agents, who now have them and are actively plotting (along with China, Russia and North Korea) to use them against the West, but --
(f) because the Bush administration is so embarrassed by their failure to prevent the theft of all these dastardly weapons, and because Democrats are embarrassed by this discovery because it proves that Saddam really did have WMDs all along, they have all jointly created a vast conspiracy where they conceal the discovery of WMDs in order to cover up for their negligence.

'And you, "|", have finally learned that if you mess with the bull, you get the horn.'

i don't feel a thing, impotent one.. must be a very very small horn...

The Justice Department is conducting a probe of a $6 billion reading initiative at the center of President Bush's No Child Left Behind law, another blow to a program besieged by allegations of financial conflicts of interest and cronyism, people familiar with the matter said yesterday.

The disclosure came as a congressional hearing revealed how people implementing the $1 billion-a-year Reading First program made at least $1 million off textbooks and tests toward which the federal government steered states.

"That sounds like a criminal enterprise to me," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House education committee, which held a five-hour investigative hearing. "You don't get to override the law," he angrily told a panel of Reading First officials. "But the fact of the matter is that you did."

And you, "|", have finally learned that if you mess with the bull, you get the horn.

sure are sensitive about your identity, ain't you boy. trolls so hate to be outed. must be sad and lonely for you when there's nobody around to bamboozle with your prefab talking points.

Just to correct something someone typed earlier. As of 1 January 2007 we started on the 8th [EIGHTth] year of the new centuary.

Opps, cutting and pasting "|" so that other posters will know who the moron I refer to is cause me to accidently post under "|". The last post was from Razorback, not "|"

Basement? What basement? Try the pool capitalism provided, with the high speed laptop capitalism provided and the high speed internet that capitalism provided, watching the babes that God provided.

Ain't life grand.

Yo "|" you petulent mental midget, if I was in the Senate, I would have voted FOR Reid's Iraq bill, if I was in the House, I would have voted FOR Pelosi's Iraq bill.

We have tried to help Iraq, but its becoming obvious that they don't want our help. I think we should withdraw from Iraq, and let them get on with the genocide that so many of them seem so anxious to get on with. They don't want our values, and they don't want our help. I think we should give them what they want.

How is that for RNC talking points you complete and total idiot.

If "|" didn't use all of he/she/it's limited mental energy trying to figure out who RAZORBACK is he/she/it might actually come up with something substantive to say.

it's a nice day razorback -- come up out of the basement...

"|" are you one of those hypocrites that believe the US should use military force to stop genocide in Darfur, but think the US should leave Iraq, accelerating genocide there?

'It looks as if Zouk is suffering from burnout. I think he recruited Razorback.'

nah, the RNC rotates them. notice how razorback came in exactly the same day 'zouk' went out? they're here push their Club for Growth tqlking pointd

"|" gives him/her/it self way too much credit. It doesn't take that much time or effort to refute your stupidity. It takes even less time when you don't state what your positions are, because you would rather cherish your false idiological notions in private that submit them to scrutiny.

So, "|" are you a global warming activist that wants gas and electricity prices to go up? Or are you a consumer advocate that thinks utilities and oil companies gouge consumers by overcharging them, and you want prices to go down?

FYI: The abortion decision can be found at "FindLaw".

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Criticism mounted Saturday over a wall U.S. troops are building around a Sunni enclave surrounded by Shiite areas in Baghdad, with residents calling it "collective punishment" and the local council leader saying the community did not approve the project before construction began.

Violence continued Saturday, with at least three people killed when a bomb left on a bus exploded in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, police said. The minibus was gutted by flames and its windows shattered.

It looks as if Zouk is suffering from burnout. I think he recruited Razorback.

'Libs' are to blame for all my problems... oh, those bad bad boogiemen.

wow--razorback has apparently no life at all... no job, no family, no friends. he's on here 24 hours a day, desparately trying to prove he's right about something...

Razorback - You need to spend less time at the Club for Growth website.

I heard a rumor yesterday that Al Gore had hired a personal trainer.... a sure sign of announcements to come. Whether true or not, I think Gore should be ranked at least #5 (since you also have non-announcer Fred Thompson on the GOP list).

Romney is in the process of proving that it will take more than money to win this election. When he opens his mouth all the voters hear is the rushing sound of an empty suit.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Nissl says:

"The issues are the big picture problems the market doesn't address as readily as producing jobs and developing new technology: global warming, pollution, health insurance, energy management, education, etc."

The reason you do not like what the market does on energy/energy management/global warming is because the market is focused on PRICE.

There is no public policy issue that reveals the contradictions and dishonesty of the american left more than the energy issue.

Liberals rail against big oil subsidies, price gouging on gasoline and utilities, and promise LOWER prices at the pump and LOWER utility bills. FLIP

Liberals also rail about global warming, environmentalism and energy independence, ALL OF WHICH IMPOSE COSTS on gasoline and utilities which are paid for by the consumer in the form of higher prices. FLOP

"Energy independence" is a canard invented by BIG OIL when asking for subsidies, suggesting that the government should force consumers to buy oil from the high cost provider (THEM) instead of the low cost overseas provider. Buying from a higher cost provider necessarily INCREASES prices.

Global warming and carbon mitigation INCREASES utility bills. The Supreme Court of the United States says that regulated utilities have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to pass costs on to consumers if those costs are mandated by the government. This is well settled law and has been so for decades. It is also the law in all 50 states.

The CEO of General Electric wants to use global warming "costs" to justify massive public subidies of nuclear power, which cannot beat the cost of coal power. Regulatory commissions that set electric rates insist on the low cost provider. Nuclear becomes the low cost provider only when massive carbon taxes are imposed on coal. WHO PAYS? Consumers. All of the nuclear plants built by GENERAL ELECTRIC will be paid for by ratepayers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/15green.t.html?em&ex=1177041600&en=bee4ce13af3acd1a&ei=5070 (Thomas Friedman article where GE CEO talks about subsidies is on page 8)

Liberals say they are against subsidies for energy providers on one hand, and on the other hand, propose energy subsidies?

Who is going to get thrown under the bus???
Global warming activists that want HIhGER prices, or consumer advocates that want LOWER prices?

Glad to see Dodd up there at #5. Anything can happen during a campaign and if it does having someone decent and reliable in the wings might turn out to be a real blessing. I have a better feeling about Dodd than Richardson, Biden, and certainly than Hillary or Edwards. For some reason Biden and Dodd are always mentioned in the same breath but they are actually two different people. I'm pleased that Dodd is the one up here.

ROO says:

"The reason Germany has a higher rate of unemployment has nothing to do with any socialist elements--it directly has to do with the single capitalist tenet of maximising profits."

So it should rationally follow that those most insistant on maximizing profits should have the HIGHEST UNEMPLOYMENT? In the goofy world of ROO, Germany, less capitalistic than the US, should have the LOWEST unemployment.

Goofy ROO, in response to my statement about the comparative income levels in the US and France, responds as follows:

"Truly assessing the value of these meek forays is extremely difficult because societally our value seems so directly tied to wealth. Interestingly on an individual level wealth (past a reasonable comfort level) is completely secondary to so many other things."

Goofy ROO, are the feminists that complain about income disparity between women and men as a result of the misplaced societal value placed on weath? And African Americans talk of income disparity?

The LEFT focuses on US income disparity, but wants to ignore that African Americans in the US do about as well as French people in France. Comparisons of income of various countries provides unmistakable evidence of the superiority of market based economies.

Goofy ROO says "I am not even going to go into the imaginary existence of 'financial and investment services' which are in their entirety a parasite on the productivity of humankind with zero value added."

He forgets the role of stable transparant financial markets play in the provision of basic utility services. All those third worlders without electricity would love to have those kinds of markets in their contries.

Roo: "Social Darwinism" is not my choice of words. That is what OBAMA said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17818562/

As I stated in the post when I first brought this up, I don't know what OBAMA means when HE says "social darwinism" but I do know that OBAMA raised the most money on WALL STREET. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/17/AR2007041701688.html

Most Liberals associate "social darwinism" with what they see as the negative influences of competition in the society and see WALL STREET as the prime example.

My original point was that OBAMA didn't really mean what he said about Social Darwinism because at the end of the day what he told WALL STREET to raise all that money really matters.

Razorback--"With respect to Barack Obama and "social darwinism", he was doing what ALL liberals do."

Darwinism is the survival of the fittest. Social darwinism is the projection of darwinism to society, in particular the structure of society as determined by competition among its members and the role of this in the success and evolution of the society itself (which, in turn, is a part of the next order of magnitude in darwinist competition.)

So your statement makes no sense to me. You will need to be clearer unless you were simply mistaken in your original choice of words.

Razorback--"They use rhetoric about reducing the influence of market/competitive forces in the economy, but actual policy proposals are those things that unions/liberals have "achieved" in Old Europe, but not in the US."

Can you tell me where New Europe is on the map? Is it anywhere near the continent that is maneuvering to relegate the U.S. to third place in its own game only behind China?

Razorback--"Germany has 10 % unemployment and the French in France earn so much less than US workers that if those French were in the US, liberals would say they were being discriminated against. There is a greater degree of income disparity between Americans and French than there is between women and men in the US."

And you know, oddly, they manage to be overall pretty happy.

That inconvenience to your argument aside (it reveals the rather typical quantification of quality in currency and, naturally, the love of hating the French), those comparisons are meaningless because fundamentally the current global economy is and has been a capitalist one.

Operating in such a harsh adverse climate--remember, the 'socialist' elements are merely staving off the worst parts exploitative industrial feudalism that we see in the current cheap-labour countries--will absolutely produce sub-standard results.

Truly assessing the value of these meek forays is extremely difficult because societally our value seems so directly tied to wealth. Interestingly on an individual level wealth (past a reasonable comfort level) is completely secondary to so many other things.

The reason Germany has a higher rate of unemployment has nothing to do with any socialist elements--it directly has to do with the single capitalist tenet of maximising profits. We will naturally assume that for any given capitalist society there is always a segment of the population that will be unemployed for various reasons. However, those able and willing to work may not find jobs because of their outlandish demands of a living wage and refusal of reduction to servitude.

I am not even going to go into the imaginary existence of 'financial and investment services' which are in their entirety a parasite on the productivity of humankind with zero value added.

Anyway. See if you can comprehend a worldview as outlandish as mine. Step away from the thought that capitalism is necessary for a moment and see where you end up.

That concludes this week's Commie Pinko Hippie Hour. Next week, tune in for an exclusive interview of Elvis.

Razorback,

The thing is, current liberal plans are *not* the same as those in place in Europe. For example, a basic, low-level universal insurance plan that uses market incentives to keep costs down is a benefit. As of now, more and more people opt out and freeload off the system, which drives prices up, which drives more people out. It's a vicious cycle. There's a reason we spend far and away the world's highest percentage on our gdp but see no benefits in increased life expectency.

Nobody's talking about making it easy to live off welfare eternally, like in Germany, or force people to only work 35 hours a week and make them impossible to fire, as in France. That kind of stuff distorts the market, which the left now respects as the best way to organize labor and resources. The issues are the big picture problems the market doesn't address as readily as producing jobs and developing new technology: global warming, pollution, health insurance, energy management, education, etc.

Roo, my posistion on capitalism is not based on circular logic. It is based on the fact that in recent history there are very few examples of improvement in the standard of living in any nation that wasn't preceded by a shift to more market based allocation of resources as opposed to government allocation.

South Korea, Japan, Israel since the early 80s, recent growth in China and India, come to mind.

With respect to Barack Obama and "social darwinism", he was doing what ALL liberals do.

They use rhetoric about reducing the influence of market/competitive forces in the economy, but actual policy proposals are those things that unions/liberals have "achieved" in Old Europe, but not in the US. Germany has 10 % unemployment and the French in France earn so much less than US workers that if those French were in the US, liberals would say they were being discriminated against. There is a greater degree of income disparity between Americans and French than there is between women and men in the US.

This is a current snapshot. Obama should be number one right now too. How can you spin Obama's huge fundraising as a Hillary win? Chris, I defended you before, but that's pretty biased. Obama and Hillary have been previously called the co-frontrunners by Chris, but on the line Hillary's number one, despite being beaten by a newbie in fundraising. FUNDRAISING WAS HILLARY'S ACE IN THE HOLE, ALL SHE HAD BESIDES NAME RECOGNITION. OBAMA BEAT HER. ACCEPT IT. Chris took the extra step of omitting a number 2 from the GOP slot, and placed both McCain and Romney in the #3 spot, but neglected to put Obama and Hillary tied for first place. Ok, Romney should probably be above McCain in the first place. Romney has as good of an organization as McCain, and he's outraised and underspent him. Chris justified putting Hillary at the top by saying she will benefit long-term from this setback, by putting the spotlight on Obama. However, Rudy's position as #1 is considered only temporary, and is expected to be surpassed by almost any other candidate in the long-run, but is the frontrunner in the short-run. Those are conflicting and biased ranking theories. If using the method of who's the frontrunner at this point (which is the whole point of the Line, to be a snapshot, not a prediction), I'd put Hillary and Obama tied at #1, with Edwards at 3, and Richardson 4th, Dodd 5th. On the GOP side, I'd put nobody first, with Giuliani and Romney tied at 2nd, and McCain in 3rd. Using the long-term method would mean you'd have to travel into the future on Febuary 5th, 2008, and come back to do the line. Since that method cant be achieved, use the snapshot method.

Razorback--"Barack likes to have it both ways. He raises the most money on Wall Street, yet makes vieled references to social darwinism. Which is it Barack? Andy?"

I hope you do not think "social darwinism" means what you intended to say here.

I find this patronising talk about "understanding economics" extremely amusing. What the writers in fact mean is "acceptance of the capitalist economic model, its requirements and consequences."

They circulatorily try to prove that capitalism is necessary because--lo and behold--their proof model that is built on the foundation of capitalism clearly shows this is the case.

The two things--the ONLY two things--that have an intrinsic value are

A) Raw materials
B) Labour

Anything else on top of that is simply an archaic remnant of a society where fair sharing and trade of the two is not guaranteed.

The polls seem to indicate that a Thompson entry would hurt Giuliani the most. This leads me to believe that social conservatives were supporting Giuliani before rumors of a Thompson bid affected the field. Even though Giuliani has previously expressed liberal views on social positions, the other two of the Big Three have changed their minds on the issues, especially Mitt Romney. With no strong candidate backing up their beliefs, the social conservatives gravitate towards Giuliani and the image of his strong post-9/11 leadership.

I think this further contributes to the idea that Giuliani can indeed capture the Republican nomination if Thompson doesn't enter the race.

However, to weaken that point, a Washington Post poll shows that Giuliani has dipped among white evangelical Protestants over the last two months. Perhaps as people learn more about his positions, they switch over to other candidates.

stateoftheunion.wordpress.com

Jane--"Everyone believes in capitalism -- clown."

Not everyone.

Capitalism is to communism as tyranny is to democracy.

Clown :)

A good laugh can be had by listening to "THE Chicken Plucker" speech.

This is a good blog, it's too bad that its commenters generally call someone names rather than scrutinizing their ideas, and are too cowardly to submit their ideas to scrutiny, even to those they deride as "screwballs."

This is a good blog; it's too bad its commenters are generally screwballs.

You know you are dealing with a troll when he makes up stuff that isnt true because he cannot refute what you actually post.

I go after Edwards because even among liberals his hypocrisy is appalling.

What ever happened to the old time liberals who would tell you that inequality is NOT justified by "earning it" rather than these hacks that just defend Edwards because they have the same party ID?

You know you are dealing with a troll when he makes up stuff that isnt true because he cannot refute what you actually post.

I go after Edwards because even among liberals his hypocrisy is appalling.

What ever happened to the old time liberals who would tell you that inequality is NOT justified by "earning it" rather than these hacks that just defend Edwards because they have the same party ID?

How to spot an R troll:

Posts every 2-4 minutes all day long. Okay, you don't have a job if you are doing this.

Attacks you personally rather than responding to facts. Says things like, 'oh, you silly Libs [which means any democrat who isn't zell miller or joe lieberman], and your silly ideas about [the economy, defense, business, fill in the blanks]. Demonize, discredit, slime and devalue. All without basis.

Keeps repeating and reinforcing the same American Enterprise and NRA think tank talking points..

Blames the evil 'liberals' for all the ills of the world.

And keeps repeating the same talkig points about Dem candidates, like Edwards, focusing on his hair and his house, because they can't attack his record. It's cheap and it's sleazy but there's is nothing they won't stoop too.

Did ya ever notice how a liberal will see some lines in a song and try to say someone is a hypocrite, yet when John Edwards lectures about equality even though he owns an obviously UNequal 29,000 square foot house, lectures about environmentalism, even though he has a huge carbon footprint, and lectures about a war he voted for?

No name, its always name calling, never specifics. That is what makes you a dope.

The US Chamber of Commerce, the most significant lobby group funded by business is pro free trade. Numerous other special interest groups funded by business lobby in Congress for free trade.

Dopey liberals defend themselves against challenges to their anti-consumer trade policies by saying since someone doesn't meet their definition of 100% free trade, that they are against free trade.

Dopey liberals try to justify their psuedo socialist policies by saying there are no capitalists by using a pointy headed liberal definition of capitalist.

Again, liberals do this to justify their dihonest and ineffective economic policies

Hey Hog - Did 'ya ever notice that problem in Merel Haggard's song? Marijuana isn't okay, but illegal liquor is!

Razorback - Boy are you delusional thinking that business in this country is free trade.

Mr/Ms. no name:

First, I only attack those who attack me.

Second, I don't use "special interest" as a derogatory term, only as a contrast to the public interest. The chamber of commerce, free trade advocates, any group of corporation or an individual corporation is also obviously a special interest. I believe that since consumers are a broader group than labor unions, that
the public interest lies closer to consumers than it does labor unions.

With respect to corporations, it needs to be clear that if a company chooses to invest overseas must live with the consequences. When a quack like Hugo Chavez takes their property, that is there problem. They chose to invest in a country that isnt serious about property rights, so its their risk.

The challenge of globalization, which has been gradually happening since the times of the Phonecians, is not caused by the divergence in the interests of American and corporations.

The challenge of globalization is that for years, America had it easy because we were competeing with dopey socialists and dopier communists. While capitalism, socialism and communism all come in varying degrees, it was easy for America so succeed when we were the MOST capitalist in the world, even though we were not pure capitalist.

The challenge of globalization is that other nations are discovering for themselves the free market principles which have served the United States so well.

For years we have competed sucessfully against Europe by having a capitalistic system that had freer markets than whatever was being used in Europe.

Now Asian nations are seeking to do to us what we have been doing to Europe for the last 150 years. India, whose post colonial socialist leadership made it an economic basket case, is now seek as a competitive threat, just because they embraced capitalism.

Incorporating China into the world economy and creating an interdependent relationship makes the world more stable, not less so.

The US will do just fine competing, unless dopey liberals cause us to reject the market concepts that work and go the failed way of socialism.

yes, respond to my comments by attacking me. because that's your strategy.

demonic 'special interests' are the root of all evil. of course, it's not like corporations are 'special interests' are they? rather powerful 'special interests.'

the only purpose of a corporation is to make money. which is fine and good. when they were mostly american, rather than global, they provided jobs and services and goods. That was well and good. But with globalization, their interests and the interests of the public good of americans diverged.

now, the activities of transnations often present a security risk to the US -- presenting a challange to our stattus as a soveriegn nation. Do you care more about foreign corporations than the ability of the US to defend itself?

Selling our ports to Dubai, who hires mostly undocumented workers, is a prime example of this.

tell me, who's really a patriot?

Ok dope, the Chinese government has us over the barrel to do anything EXCEPT that which devalues what you describe as a very very large investment.

I agree with your statement about Romney. He is the most talented person out there in the Republican party. I think he is in the wrong party though (as a Mormon). Though he is trying to court the Robertson and Fallwell, I am not sure conservatives will vote for him. I would love to see Obama vs Romney. I think that one would be once in a life time match up. I will be voting for Obama though.

Ok Dope, all liberals are consumer, but not all consumers are liberals. Ok Dope, all dems are consumers, but not all consumers are dems. Ok Dope, all labor uniion members are consumers, but all consumers are not labor unions.

Ok dope, appealing to a broader interest (consumers) as opposed to special interests (liberals, labor unions) is usually good politics.

Ok dope, the Dems pander to unions by promising higher wages, which results in higher prices for consumers. THey have chosen the special interest over the public interest. That labor unino members are also consumer does not change that.

"Maybe the reason that there is reluctance to invest in America is that the liberals have set the taxes so high that investors choose to invest elsewhere?"

Umm, the fact that foreign governments are keeping us afloat because of their very very large investment in our debt, that just escapes you somehow?

We are borrowing billions of dollars a day from foreign government -- mostly to run this very expensive and not particularly rewarding war, but also just to keep our government from going under, it doesn't look to me like they are choosing to invest elsewhere. And of course, it's mostly the Chinese government. they have us over a barrel in so many ways it isn't funny.

'Liberals chose to pander to their labor union special interest allies and throw consumers under the bus.'

Because neither union folks or dems are consumers?

Again, incoherent.

BSimon:

The basis of my statement that there is a reluctance to invest in America is that practically every governor, regardless of party, and every mayor in almost every city is talking about what they will do to attract investment and create jobs.

BSimon asks:

What reluctance to invest in America? Seriously, do you just make this up?

I am referring to all of the American investment in China, creating all of those jobs in China.

Business, when not pandering for subsidies and corporate welfare, is free trade.

Labor unions, when not pandering for subsidies or plain ole' welfare, is against free trade.

Repubs could do alot better on this issue, but labor has the Dems so hogtied that Hillary has distanced herself from Bill's trade position.

An anti-corporate welfare pro free trade platform would capture the center and reform the rotten lobbyist culture in Washington in a way that McCain/Fiengold cannot even come close to.

Let the consumer, not the government, pick the economic winners and losers, and corporate giving would dry up, because corporations want a return on their investment.