I posted on this an hour before you did...hence I'm better (kidding)...and if you had trackbacks, I'd send ya one.

But I mean, I LITERALLY posted the same thing...dude...that's freaky weird man...

Hillary is echoing what is found on Kerry's very own campaign site. See here.
I blogged about this back in March.

Why are you even bothering to watch the convention? There is absolutely nothing the Democrats could say or do that would change your mind about anything.

Look, Clinton even told you to vote for Bush:

For the first time ever when America was on a war footing, there were two huge tax cuts, nearly half of which went to the top one percent. I’m in that group now for the first time in my life.

When I was in office, the Republicans were pretty mean to me. When I left and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. At first I thought I should send them a thank you note—until I realized they were sending you the bill.

They protected my tax cuts while:

·         Withholding promised funding for the Leave No Child Behind Act, leaving over 2 million children behind

·         Cutting 140,000 unemployed workers out of job training

·         100,000 working families out of child care assistance

·         300,000 poor children out of after school programs

·         Raising out of pocket healthcare costs to veterans

·         Weakening or reversing important environmental advances for clean air and the preservation of our forests.

Everyone had to sacrifice except the wealthiest Americans, who wanted to do their part but were asked only to expend the energy necessary to open the envelopes containing our tax cuts. If you agree with these choices, you should vote to return them to the White House and Congress.

-- Former President Bill Clinton speaking at the Democratic National Convention, 7/26/04

"We need to fully equip and train our firefighters, police officers and emergency medical technicians-our first responders in the event of a terrorist attack."

Hire more "first-responders" to clean up the blood after a terrorist attack. That will scare the crap out of the jihadistas.

Isn't it convenient that all those police and firefighters she wants to hire would be unionized public-sector employees, who would divert millions of dollars in union dues to democrat campaign coffers?

I found carter's speech much more interesting. Somehow, and this is truly bizarre, the democrats have become the chief supporters of the palestinian war party. It should be bipartisan mantra that the current part of the conflict is not soluble, but merely manageable, so long as the palestinian war party heads the government there. yet somehow, carter is desperate to have the democrats push for an imposed solution. I used to be a democrat and am now a republican, but i have real problems with how bush manages to lose interest in things after awhile. However, i cannot bring myself to vote for a party that is taking the wrong side in the current middle east war.

i don't think either the dems or the republicans have the "solution" to terrorism (e.g. see israel since 1967 or ireland since long before that). our govt's failure to appropriately analyze and deliver intelligence (talk about the need to vet for irony!) cuts both ways:

1) clinton failed to prevent 9/11 b/c of inadequate intelligence; and

2) bush mistakenly assessed saddam's threat b/c of inadequate intelligence.

You can't play both sides of that issue simply for partisan gain.

What is clear by all accounts is that invading and occupying iraq has not made this country safer. It has satisfied the bloodlust and need for retribution which is increasing the basis for sentencing under our own criminal justice system, but it has not eliminated the terrorist threat.

Vote for Bush, as Clinton said. I think many republicans who do will be doing so out of blind party loyalty rather than results, b/c as has been documented all over the place, the Bush administration has NOT represented traditional republican values, much in the way that the dems have failed to represent their party's values.

-Dinesh
Then who do we vote for because apparently the american people need someone to tell them who to vote for, so if neither will do the job well then who do we vote for, or are we acctually supposed to come to our own conclusions and vote how we, as individuals, think we should vote.

hummmmm.....

right brett--we're all real individuals.....no herd mentality here...nope not in the land of the free and home of the brave (cue fox waving flag).....sure, uh huh... your opinion (and mine) really matter.....vote with your dollar.....vote your conscience...don't forget to recycle.....

Simon, you just don't get it:
Everyone had to sacrifice except the wealthiest Americans, who wanted to do their part but were asked only to expend the energy necessary to open the envelopes containing our tax cuts. No, no, no.

If an economy is and its contributors are asked to operate under a principle of "sacrifice," what do you get? Other nations have tried to build a system based on the common good: they end up in a "common bad."

The whole bloody point is that productive energy for economic growth is best allocated by allowing private individuals to use capital.
Self-interest leads to an economy that helps the masses. EG: even if Bill Gates absolutely HATED the poor, he's helped them in spite of himself, by creating so many jobs, which create more, which creates economic growth, and wealth which is given, not taken.

In other words, if you really want to help the poor, don't "redistribute," let the economy grow.

Can anyone think of a more effective tactic for getting me to chande my vote than being told by an arrogant, condescending liberal that, surely, the only reason I would vote for Bush is because I'm a stupid, blind "party loyalist?" Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

"the democrats have become the chief supporters of the palestinian war party"...it goes even deeper than that. Consider, for example, Michael Moore's advocacy in favor of the enemy (of Americans and ordinary Iraqis) in Iraq. Increasingly, the left in America isn't anti-war at all...it's anti war-conducted-on-rational-grounds-by-a-civilized-state,
and pro war-in-the-form-of apocalyptic terrorism.

Thank you Dinesh

Very mature

If our votes don't matter than why does anyone vote, oh wait they do matter and we're trying to get younger voters to vote by saying that their vote matters, but you say it dosen't and that they're jsut joining one of two herds.

Well if that's what you believe then MOOOOOOOOO!

voting matters--that's why only 45% or thereabouts of eligible voters vote. what's the market analysis for that?

look i'm not trying to get you guys to change your minds anymore than your arguments will sway my mind. my point about blind partisan loyalty is that: if republicans stand for smaller govt, fewer taxes and balanced budgets, this administration fails on all 3 counts. bush said he's not into nation building. 140k troops are rebuilding iraq. bush says he's a uniter not a divider--the country is more polarized than ever. small govt? how about a constitutional amendment to bar gays from marriage. enviromnent? let's not get started. accountability? let's see, horrible wartime prison scandal and bush says to the defense secretary "you're doing a superb job". (were all bosses so easy on their teams!).

so, i can only attribute unwavering support of bush to partisan loyalty over substance. sorry for the use of 'blind'--i didn't mean to offend.

rather, i'm just taking the traditional republican scorecard (less govt, taxes, deficits, etc.) applying those criteria to this administration and giving it a grade by its own standards.

"bush says he's a uniter not a divider--the country is more polarized than ever."

Is that because of anything Bush did? Or is it because MoveOn, Michael Moore, the New York Times (and other media) and Most of the Democratic party have been engaged in a non-stop orgy of Bush-hatred for the past two years?

-Mat

*Pointing at my nose*

right on the nose, if the tabels were turned and a dem was in the white house doing everything wrong (like the dems say Bush is) then Those who said so would be hushed up, because nothing that the Dems do is wrong. Maybe i'm generalizing things a bit.

By the way i don't have Blind Loyalty to Bush, I think that he has made mistakes in what he's told us as citizens and the way he has continued to give out more money than he should by signing lots of bills, but then again if the senate was responsible then the bills wouldn't get to him in the first place.

I will point out flaws when i see them but the facts haven't been shown that Kerry will be better for our contry, in fact he will probably make it worse by sympathising with other contries that mean to do us harm.

Brett - I'm overall very disappointed in Bush, but I look at the alternative and say, "Bush will have to do." I suspect >90% of us "blind party loyalists" feel the same way.

Right now I am looking at the election in a very simpistic, cowboy-like manner: We are at war. The Dems want to pretend we are not, and Kerry is on record as saying he does not want to be a war president. Bush kows we are and is being a war president.

Screw everything else. Bush gets my vote because he wants to fight this war we're in, while the DNC is clicking their ruby slippers and repeating "There's no place like 9/10..."

excuse me steve--i think you missed bush's flip flop on the war president/peace president.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/21/politics/campaign/21bush.html

and related sullivan link on 7/21.

bush can't find half the world's countries on a map. he reads everything he says, b/c his handlers don't trust him to speak extemporaneously. he doesn't hold press conferences b/c his thoughts are not available to the public and he's determined to only be held accountable once (the next election). look the guy did a bunch of coke and booze for 20 adult years, got c's all through college, woke up and found god, and is now ruining the country. he's failed at everything he's ever done, and his daddy's rich friends bailed him out every time. he didn't even win the popular vote to become president! what a loser. republicans really can do better--just like dems should/could have done better than kerry!

he's alienated many prominent allies and as a result we are largely manning and funding this war on global terrorism.

as clinton said last night, we can't kill, jail or occupy every terrorist (see israel), so we'll be at war forever using this administration's (il)logic.

its good that you are so certain--it will allow you to skip all of the mindless campaigning that will now occur (its like a high school govt election on steriods!).

dinesh's invective seems pretty one-sided for someone who claims to be up the center.

matt--that's probably true, given the abysmal (imo) record this administration has racked up thus far. i'm no fan of kerry, but i do believe in basic accountablity, and i plan to demonstrate my belief in accountability through my vote.

unfortunately, i think that both sides are running a campaign of "i'm not as bad as their candidate."

that said, i repeat my earlier statement. bush has no credibility on reducing deficits, controlling spending, eliminating unnecessaary programs, shrinking govt, or foreign policy. his record speaks for itself i believe. i let the partisans make excuses for it, smear kerry (not hard to do) or simply ignore it. bush is a failure by nearly every measure and unfortunately partisanship prevents honest discussion of that fact.

"bush is a failure by nearly every measure and unfortunately partisanship prevents honest discussion of that fact."

Whose partisanship would that be? Certainly not the partisanship that can't debate policy without hauling out nastiness like "bush can't find half the world's countries on a map.... did a bunch of coke and booze for 20 adult years, got c's all through college, woke up and found god, and is now ruining the country." Yeah, that's real conducive to a dispassionate discussion of policy differences.

Now hold on: he's alienated many prominent allies and as a result we are largely manning and funding this war on global terrorism.
When, they become targets, maybe they'll care too. Think about what you're saying: they hate Bush so much, that they're not going to fight against terrorists. Why haven't they helped Israel? Did Rabin/Peres/Netanyahu/Sharon alienate them?
Why do you think Britain and Australia have stood by us?

as clinton said last night, we can't kill, jail or occupy every terrorist (see israel), so we'll be at war forever using this administration's (il)logic.

Until we win or they win. That's not "forever."

Pick a side.

How many people were the 9-11 killers hoping to murder? If they'd had a nuke, do you think they would have used it?

And tell me: what were the "justifications" (barf) that Osama claimed? How do we take those away?
#1 Leave Saudi Arabia- check
#2 Stop the sanctions- check

and his third "Casus terrori" is one we will not respond to: destroy Israel. The best alternative to that is: destroy tyranny, and allow democracy to flourish. A free Iraq, for example, seeking a better life, will not be like the ones that constantly obsess on the tiny, harangued nation of Israel.

Bush did coke? Sure, and Kerry murdered three women, and buried them in his basement. The two statements have the same amount of foundation (none), and are equally likely to be true. No, I don't know that Bush didn't do coke, but you don't know that Kerry wasn't a serial murderer. You don't make allegations like that without some sort of foundation, i.e. that the charge comes from someone who was in a position to know it.

Ditto for the claims Falwell was circulating 10 years ago, that Clinton gunned down about 20 people. On the other hand, the charge that Clinton did coke comes from Gennifer Flowers, who was his mistress at the time, and therefore in a position to know it it was true, so it is legitimate to air it. And the charge that he raped Juanita Broadrick came straight from her, so it needs to be taken very seriously.

Oh, and Bush "can't find half the world's countries on a map"? Again, without foundation. I have no idea whether it's true of him, but for all I know it's true of you.

As for his having "got c's all through college", that may be true of Yale, but he got an MBA from Harvard, which you don't get with Cs. Harvard Business School expels you if you get Cs; nobody comes out of it with an MBA who isn't smart and capable. Nor do idiots qualify as fighter pilots, and come in the top few percent in tests for aptitude to command.

uhhhh i think hbs is pass/fail (although i may be confusing that with stanford bschool which definitely is pass/fail).

right, well 4 posts ago i mentioned the following:

"if republicans stand for smaller govt, fewer taxes and balanced budgets, this administration fails on all 3 counts. bush said he's not into nation building. 140k troops are rebuilding iraq. bush says he's a uniter not a divider--the country is more polarized than ever. small govt? how about a constitutional amendment to bar gays from marriage. enviromnent? let's not get started. accountability? let's see, horrible wartime prison scandal and bush says to the defense secretary "you're doing a superb job". (were all bosses so easy on their teams!)."

the only comment it elicited was the one regarding moveon.org and division. that was a rather non-polarized presentation of key facts. again, no real takers. matt, i believe that earlier post was my attempt to assess this president on a record. aside from the iraq war, i don't think this president has a record to run on.

oh, and let's not forget that medicare boondogle. talk about anti-competetive! the govt can't negotiate with drug manufacturers re pricing. what's the market analysis of that?!

zev:

i don't wish to interrupt your hero worship with facts, but sometimes facts matter.

George W. Bush was quoted as describing himself as a “C Student” in
TIME Magazine’s Jay Carney’s editorial article here:

"To those of you who received honors, awards and distinctions, I say,
'Well done,'" he told Yale graduates before breaking into a grin. "To
the 'C' students, I say, 'You, too, can be president of the United
States.'"
TIME
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/carney/article/0,9565,127630,00.html

Here is what is reported to be a copy of his college transcript – and,
as it turns out, sure enough, he was.

AMERICAN POLITICS
http://www.americanpolitics.com/bushgeorgewtranscript.jpg

So apparently bush did get his hbs mba with c's from yale. geee, i wonder how he got in??????

Yes, he got Cs in Yale; I never challenged that. But his college years included Harvard, where he certainly didn't get Cs. Yes, I believe HBS is pass/fail, and a pass requires a high standard, not C work. C work gets you expelled. Bush wasn't expelled, therefore he didn't do C work. QED. Pull might get you in to HBS, but it certainly doesn't get you out the other end.

Meanwhile, I want you to withdraw that 'Bush did coke' allegation, or admit that Kerry murdered three women and buried them in the basement.

I'm not going to defend the Bush domestic agenda, it has been execrable. It is, however, laughable to hear left-wingers whine about Bush "governing from the extreme far right," when he has pushed for and gotten huge entitlement increases and left 90% of the Clinton environmental agenda intact.

However, as awful as Bush has been domestically, it is not a compelling reason to vote for the alternative, who has proposed far vaster spending increases.

Since the closest thing to a real conservative in this race is Dick Cheney, Bush will simply have to suffice for now, although, in my heart, I would much prefer a Bill Owen or a Mark Sanford. For that matter, if the Democrats had nominated John Breaux as their candidate, he would have been a fiscally responsible, strong-on-terror alternative to Bush.

The problem is, candidates who want to restrain spending and defend American interests have no chance of being nominated now that the donks are dominated by trial lawyers, public employee unionists, and leftover sixties socialists.

zev: do you know anyone who went to hbs? of my handful of friends that have, i cannot recall a single mention of any expulsions for 'c' work. i may see a couple alums this weekend and i'll be sure to ask.

matt: see clinton's 8 years for balanced budgets, neutral taxes and reduced govt size and spending. it can be done--perhaps a split gov't is necessary, since both parties are corrupt to their bones.

one of these days america will develop a true 3rd party that caters to the interests of the 260 million people that are not the ceo or head of some organization that donates big money to the parties.

Federal spending has continued to increase year after year under both Democratic and Republician Administrations.

The Federal Budget became a surplus in the last few years of Clinton's term because Federal spending grew very slowly for several years in Clinton's second term and Federal revenues grew strongly.

With the Federal budget in substancial surplus, Federal tax receipts at an almost all-time high as a percentage of GDP and with the Fed tightening interest rates, slowing the rate of money growth, guess what happens? A recession.

Hey, that decrease in Federal spending during the mid-to-late 90s didn't happen because "Clinton balanced the budget" -- only a hypocritical Democrat shill could say that with a straight face.

Yes, only an NPR-parroting Ivy League elitist would say "Clinton created surpluses" while claiming that during the 90s the United States was crippled by the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS under the evil Newt Gingrich or Dennis Hastert who "cut funding for healthcare, education, and the elderly."

You can't say Clinton "balanced the budget and our economy was great" if you say "but there was no money for important things because of the stingy Republicans."

You can't have it both ways, you enemies of thoughtfulness.

Federal spending never declined in the 1990's
The budget gap closed and we eventually had surpluses because spending slowed and tax receipts grew.

Year Receipts Outlays
1990 1,032.0 1,253.2
1991 1,055.0 1,324.4
1992 1,091.3 1,381.7
1993 1,154.4 1,409.5
1994 1,258.6 1,461.9
1995 1,351.8 1,515.8
1996 1,453.1 1,560.5
1997 1,579.3 1,601.3
1998 1,721.8 1,652.6
1999 1,827.5 1,701.9
2000 2,025.2 1,788.8

From http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table1

i'm fine to agree that the product of a republican congress, clinton as president and increase in federal revenue led to the economic picture you all describe.

unfortunately for you all, it doesn't appear you have the intellectual honesty to say that a republican congress and a republican president have presided over an unprecedented growth in federal spending and driven the country into deficit, or something like that. say it--it will bring you credibility.

scott--if you're going to resort to name calling--at least get your facts straight--i didn't go to an ivy league school. man you sound like a whiny wimpy brat who can't stand to see republicans fail as miserably as they have after holding power for 4 years. oh, don't forget to tune into fox--i'm sure they have something more 'fair and balanced' than any of that communist pinko npr stuff!

MOOOOOOOOOO
MOOOOOOOO
MOOOOOOOOO
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Federal spending deficits during recessions is fairly conventional economics. Cutting marginal tax rates to incentivize work and risk-taking is fairly conventional supply side economics. Cutting marginal tax rates has worked and the US economies growth rate leads the world.

The news is good.

How have spending deficits of the size and timing occurring under the Bush administration hurt the economy?

The old Robert Rubin rational would argue interest rates will increase as Federal borrowing expands. Hasn't happened. Even today's rates are lower than in the late 1990's Federal budget surpluses.

Are today's deficits larger than those under any past administration. Yes in absolute dollars, but they are far lower than under Reagan as a percentage of GDP. And that's the only meaningful measure.

Slow spending, keep the lower marginal tax rates in place, make the cuts in capital gains taxes and dividend taxes permanent and the Federal spending deficits disappear.

Has the Bush administration used all of the policy tools at it's disposal effectively? I give it pretty goods marks given the state of hte economy in 2001 compared to today. We didn't need the Mediare programs expansion to help the economy along. This was however, a plank of Bush's campaign.

the medicare boondoggle was a plank? did that plank include the splinter of the anticompetitive provision that the govt would be barred from price negotiations with the drug companies?

did the plank include the current deficit?

things are good for you perhaps. but i recall that alan greenspan even suggested triggers for tax cuts, which triggers were, shockingly, eliminated by the president and his republican colleagues. so i'd agree they didn't use all of the tools available and I'd argue that like the dems or the breed of many politicians we have today, the tools were not used b/c of partisan reasons.

"I am for lower taxes and lower spending and lower deficits," Greenspan told the House Financial Services Committee in his second day of testimony on the Fed's midyear economic outlook.

http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-7/109048263018580.xml

Bravo Alan.