Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Palin resigning as governor
Sarah Palin has announced that she will resign as Alaska’s governor on July 26, fueling speculation of her plans to run for president in 2012.
In a statement, Palin said:
“Once I decided not to run for re-election, I also felt that to embrace the conventional Lame Duck status in this particular climate would just be another dose of politics as usual, something I campaigned against and will always oppose.
“It is my duty to always protect our great state. With that in mind, my family and I determined that it is best to make a difference this summer, and I am willing to change things, so that this administration, with its positive agenda, its accomplishments, and its successful road to an incredible future, can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success.”
According to Palin spokesman Dave Murrow, Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell will be sworn into office at the governor’s picnic in Fairbanks at the end of the month.
back to top231 Comments to “Palin resigning as governor”
Oh that is a shame. She would have been such an amazing train wreck in 2012.
I wonder what will happen to her PAC.
Report comment to moderator
Translation: I’ve decided to run for Pres (or maybe the Senate) and have decided to quit before I have to make any controversial decisions.
Actually, not a nice thing to do to the folks in Alaska who voted her in…
Report comment to moderator
And talk about making an announcement like this on “take out the trash” day. Friday on a holiday weekend when few will notice and fewer will be around to comment.
Quite shameless, really.
Report comment to moderator
” . . . few will notice and fewer will be around to comment.
Really?
The flip side is that if you are doing something and you feel you could do something better, wouldn’t it be a good idea to quit what you are doing and pursue something better?
It doesn’t matter if you or I think it is better. She may just be being true to her convictions.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the media. Although I think it will be quite predictable. I wonder if either side (supporters or detractors) will have a new spin. If not, most, except the lunatic fringe will move on in a few days.
Report comment to moderator
No Arcadia,
She’s out of politics for good.
Report comment to moderator
mynock post 5,
perhaps we can only hope Palin is out of politics for good: she has not been a positive influence on either the Democratic or Republican political dynamics.
A side of me almost hopes that she gets the GOP nomination for 2012 since it most plausibly would result in a landslide for the Democrats, but realisiticaly the U.S. needs a strong two party system if our politics is to be viable, and Palin is not making the GOP viable.
Report comment to moderator
So presumably this is to preempt an upcoming scandal of some sort. But my sources seem mum here. Any data out there???
Report comment to moderator
People talk about Oboma’s speechmaking.
Sarah gives a much better speech than Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Chas post 8,
as the 2008 election so eloquently demonstrated.
Report comment to moderator
Sarah decided that she has enough experience!
One week ago, Charles Colson told WorldMag:
“I think it’s dishonorable to get elected to something and withdraw from it.”
http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/15584
Report comment to moderator
Musing, the 2008 election has nothing to do with her speechmaking. The Republicans didn’t have a conservative candidate. but as a speechmaker:
She is expressive.
She looks at the people she’s talking to and about.
She knows what she wants to say, and she’s enthusiastic about it.
Obama stands there reading five words from one teleprompter, then turns and reads five words from the other teleprompter. He has zero eye contact with his audience, or, if he’s talking about (i.e. congratulating) someone else, he doesn’t look at them either.
After a few speeches, you begin to realize he’s reading what someone else wrote and may not even believe what he’s reading.
Everyone who has done any public speaking knows that eye contact with the audience is critical. Palin has great expressive eye contact. Obama has zero.
Report comment to moderator
If you can’t take the heat. get out of the kitchen.
She must have read the Vanity Fair article; or perhaps she read an article about Mark Sanford and got confused.
I truly hope she’s wised up enough to realize she doesn’t have the intelligence, temperament, knowledge, or experience for national office. Whatever the reason, I’m sure it won’t make much sense to a rational person.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson:
Sarah is more qualified to be president than I am.
I was more qualified, during the campaign, to be president than Obama.
He has done nothing but run for office since he was elected Senator. He did nothing significant before then.
He has done nothing for the country, except destroy it’s private economy, since he became president.
Obama is successfully making America a third world country. I think that’s his objective.
I hope he fails.
Report comment to moderator
I think the left is terrified of a real conservative who is smart, articulate, principled, and, BTW, beautiful.
Report comment to moderator
God bless her and her family and I wish them well.
Report comment to moderator
Look out folks, Chas is riled up.
Rational people will look past the political and media assassination once the campaign starts. Oh wait a minute, there aren’t enough rational people left. I know that’s true because Obama was elected.
I’m with Chas on most of what he has witten so far.
Report comment to moderator
Can someone please give clear reasons for all this vitrol against Palin? Other than wearing very expensive clothing (which would never have been an issue if she was a male) and going hunting, I’ve yet to hear any arguments about her outside of the “I don’t like her, she’s terrible” type.
Report comment to moderator
DanR, You’ve already heard here:
She doesn’t have intelligence,
She doesn’t have knowledge,
She doesn’t have termerament
She doesn’t have experience.
OTOH, Obama is a genius,
He has had years of people telling him what to believe,
He is tempermental
He has been a community organizer.
And he can read a teleprompter, going from one to the other without losing his place.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, the anti-Palin media hate fest has been at a fever pitch since last September. But this announcement brings all the cockroaches out of the basement. I have never seen so much raw personal hate from the left.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, Ly-ynn. What’s up with this?
I know, you probably can’t say even if you do know something.
Report comment to moderator
The last person the left was this desperate to destroy was Clarence Thomas. How dare a woman or a black turn on the them after all the welfare and abortions they’ve given them. That is what they want, right?
Report comment to moderator
Palin Derangement Syndrome is alive and well in here today.
Give it up you simps.
Report comment to moderator
How many colleges did Palin attend before she finally got a degree? Five I think. Where they nationally renowned institutions? No. Did she have good grades? No. Has she ever shown any intellectual curiosity? No. Is she scientifically literate? No. Has she praised an African witch hunter in public? Yes.
Obama was Editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Case closed on the intellect question.
Report comment to moderator
She so totally ROCKS!! Impeccable sense of timing. Awesome woman. She’s handled the heat with humor and grace.
Proud Alaskan
Report comment to moderator
DANR asked; “Can someone please give clear reasons for all this vitriol against Palin?”
Your question, Dan, indicates an enormous amount of innocence on your part. With respect, that you have to ask this shows that you have not followed politics all that closely of late and I don’t blame you for that at all.
Report comment to moderator
I think she’s plenty smart enough. Personally, I don’t care how intellectual the President is: he’s doing his best to destroy this country. There are plenty of intellectuals in prisons. Close the case. Your arguments are specious anyway.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson (23): Do you like Al Gore in spite of his academic failures, or does that particular stick only beat conservatives?
Report comment to moderator
StuBob, Yes I do like Al Gore. My opposition to Palin stems from much more than her academic record. Besides, Al Gore graduated cum laude from Harvard in 1969.
Report comment to moderator
I have never seen so much raw personal hate from the left.
Those are her assets. On the liability side, she faces the judgment of Republicans, Mit Romney, Mike Huckabee, and who knows whom.
She’s going to need all the raw personal hate from the left she can get, or the pretense of it.
Report comment to moderator
Is she really out of politics for good? Link, Mynock?
If so, I’m glad. She was not qualified for it. I wish her the best in her private life, which I hope improves as the media gradually pays less attention to her family.
Report comment to moderator
Obama was Editor of the Harvard Law Review.
But now she can go for her master’s.
Report comment to moderator
AKMOM, Palin is “plenty smart enough” for Alaska anyway.
Report comment to moderator
To bad she quit.
Report comment to moderator
Wow.
Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC: Palin has been telling friends and advisors that she’s fed up with politics, unhappy with her current life, and is getting out.
Oxdown Gazette on the Firedoglake blog says this:
Definitely unreliable (third hand), but would explain the very sudden departure.
Report comment to moderator
KWATSON – She never said quit. She never said resign. She’s a straight talker, so she said she will transfer power.
Report comment to moderator
JJF . . would explain the very sudden departure.
And would explain the ducky speech. She’s talking to prospective jurors, like Blago does.
Report comment to moderator
Rumor has it that Palin is resigning because of an ongoing investigation into this:
Just months before Palin left city hall to campaign for governor, she awarded a contract to SBS to help build the $13 million Wasilla Sports Complex. The most expensive building project in Wasilla history, the complex cost the city an addition $1.3 million in legal fees and threw it into severe long-term debt. For SBS, however, the bloated and bungled project was a cash cow.
Though Todd Palin told Fox News he built his Lake Lucille home with the help of a few “buddies,” according to Barrett’s report, public records revealed that SBS supplied the materials for the house. While serving as mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin blocked an initiative that would have required the public filing of building permits—thus momentarily preventing the revelation of such suspicious information.
Report comment to moderator
Three Republican Presidential hopefuls gone in one month. This is what passes for leadership in the Republican Party. What a mess.
Report comment to moderator
Kwatson-Ah, elitism. The fallacious notion that one is better than someone else because you are more intelligent, or articulate, or have more charisma, etc. than said person. That “all men are created equal” bit in the Declaration of Independence must really just stick in your craw, doesnt it?
Frankly, intelligence may be measurable, but wisdom is not. I would much rather have a wise man running the country than just a smart one. Hell, HITLER was smart. Intelligence alone does not a good leader make.
And to quote the Princess Bride about your use of “rational person”: You keep on using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Report comment to moderator
Ok. I’m going to go out on a limb here with no evidence or knowledge of the situtation, and predict that the “investigation” that KWatson is talking about is another witch hunt. This is another investigation trumped up and prompted by the left that’s hated her ever since she threatened to derail their route to power back last year. It will turn out to have no basis, just like the last investigation they pulled.
I predict disappointment for the liberals.
I predict
Report comment to moderator
I just watched her little speech. What a mess. Conservatives, do the country a favor and move on!
Report comment to moderator
“This is what passes for leadership in the Republican Party. What a mess.”
The mess is in the White House in case you hadn’t noticed. The administration is busily railroading through, all the trainloads of leftist drek that couldn’t see the light of day for the last couple decades…
Report comment to moderator
KWatson — AlGore flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity and dropped out of Vanderbilt Law. Do academic credentials matter to you or not? If so, perhaps I should get into politics, seeing as I have more formal education than anyone on the national stage except maybe Newt Gingrich.
Report comment to moderator
#37 Kwatson. the $13 million Wasilla Sports Complex.
Um. Obama is taking trillions from taxpayers to pay off Democratic supporters. Millions have disappeared into the ACORN voter fraud black hole.
How does a building project in Wasilla even rate at all? Oh, I forgot. Republicans must be wiped off the face of the earth. Homeland security is now specifically targeting Republicans. I get it.
Report comment to moderator
Saw portions of her speech when I went to the “Y”. I would have wished for a more focused presentation; she did come across as choppy, perhaps scattered (but this could be due to the editing from the Vile, No Good MSNBC).
As a general rule, politicians usually don’t make a choice like this as a career step. The timing, both for the release and for the point in her term, alike suggest something else is up. It also does seem to indicate that she is dropping out of politics rather than leaving to ramp up an American campaign. Think on this: if you were launching your bid for national office, would you kick off on July 3 or July 4? Would you kick it off at the end of the week’s news cycle, or the beginning (Mon, Tu)? These are the practical factors that suggest this is a withdrawal from public life (and perhaps hint of some yet-to-surface unfortunate news).
Finally, as to her public persona: even if she is not running, she will still be held up as an object of ridicule — think of how long Richard Nixon was spoofed. Again, another reason to think this departure isn’t voluntary, since the longer she serves, the more she gets to reset her public image.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe this isn’t scandal, maybe Sarah Palin is pregnant again. Oh no! The Christian fertility goddess gains strength from more babies! If she delivers co-joined twins she’ll be unstoppable!
I know some of you think that is over the top disrespect, but just watch her video. She is a train wreck. You need to distance yourself from this loser before you get further contaminated with her stink, or watch yourselves devolve into increasingly hateful and violent irrelevance.
I hope this helps us move into a post-Christian world with a new reformation that allows Christians to embrace facts instead of living in a good vs. evil land where Sarah Palin can be president.
Report comment to moderator
Xion.
“Obama is taking trillions from taxpayers to pay off Democratic supporters.”
What? That’s absurd. You shouldn’t just make stuff up
Report comment to moderator
Pregnant? That would also explain her precipitous resignation.
No sense speculating, I guess. Time will tell.
Make It Man, I have no desire to see Palin brought down in scandal, but I can’t help but think that there’s a lot of smoke for there to be no fire. But who can say at this point, so let’s not argue it. Let’s see if an investigation is forthcoming, and what it concludes.
Report comment to moderator
When I was a Democrat back in the 70s and early 80s, they never forced me to turn in my “human” card. When did they start? Anyone know?
Report comment to moderator
#47 KWatson – You’re not paying attention. The Wall Street Journal calls the stimulus package “A 40-Year Wish List” — a gravy train, “a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.”
Very little of the stimulus package stimulates anything except the Democratic party. Payoffs to Reid and Pelosi and the unions and Obama’s supporters and ACORN are public knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
Had to stop by to share in the giggles
What a batcrap insane and erratic move. She is certainly GOP leadership material. I agree that the holiday resignation announcement implies the potential for very bad news coming for Palinistas. Somehow I doubt she suddenly became self aware and decided to stop hurting America.
Palin and Sanford in 2012!
Best wishes for a happy Independence Day!
Report comment to moderator
FOX News has been running comfort programming. After playing Palin’s announcement in toto, they run a Hannity interview that makes her look a lot better. Then two Republican analysts come on and gently suggests that the news isn’t good. One of them said she has the same feeling of something wrong that she had about Gov. Sanford. The program moderator immediately change the topic to, “Why do liberals hate her so much?” This lifts the analysts spirits and FOX cuts to ads.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
“manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.”
That’s why we voted for him!
Report comment to moderator
Speaking on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell reported that, according to “people very close to Sarah Palin,” she has “told her supporters that she is out of politics, period. She is fed up with politics. She doesn’t like her life. She feels that she needs to raise her family. She’s sick of the commute from Wasilla to the capital. And she really does not want to run for higher office,
One has to wonder why she said yes to McCain in the first place, It looks like she had no Idea what she was getting into.
Sick of the commute! Lightweight. How embarrassing, for both her and all her supporters.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: “raw personal hate”?
Sounds like a little projection going on.
Sarah seems like a nice likable, maybe even bright lady. She was considered too unpredictable last year to let her show herself. I’m sure she made a good small town mayor and would be fun and enjoyable to talk to. She has lots of gumption and energy.
But she was the second most unqualified person to run for Federal Executive Office in my lifetime.
The only people in the country who don’t seem to realize this are the evangelicals in the Republican Party, for whom she was, ever so briefly, a ray of sunshine in a terribly bleak electoral cycle. They latched onto her like some kind of Joan of Arc who was going to single-handedly snatch certain victory from the jaws of despair and defeat.
She turned out to be considerably less.
Just the other day, I commented that she needed to develop a tougher skin. Politics is a contact sport but you have to know when to engage and when not to.
Now you and a couple of Fox commentators are trying paint this Vice-Presidential candidate who could have been one tenuous heartbeat away from the power to single-handedly destroy the world, as some kind of victim. It is most unbecoming. If she can’t handle Katie Couric or David Letterman, she’d have to be mopped off the floor after a sit down with any real leader.
So cut it out. You’ve got enough martyrs. (And more than enough hypocrites).
She wasn’t ready last year, she won’t be ready in ‘12, but my guess is she’ll be a player in ‘16.
She apparently just got a $1,000,000 book deal, she’s got a grandkid to raise, and a lot of books to read… So don’t cry for her, Miss Alaska.
Report comment to moderator
#53 That’s why we voted for him!
And so, you should take back your statement in #47 “What? That’s absurd. You shouldn’t just make stuff up “ since you agree with me.
Report comment to moderator
#55 Arcadia? But she was the second most unqualified person to run for Federal Executive Office in my lifetime.
The first being Obama?
Name a single thing that makes Obama more qualified than Palin.
Report comment to moderator
She complained that her 14-month-old son, Trig, had been “mocked and ridiculed by some mean-spirited adults recently.” She didn’t elaborate.
I Think she’s making that up. I enjoy savaging Palin as much as the next guy, but I can’t imagine That’s going on.
I wonder if Lynn Vincent turned Palin on to WMB. I’d like to think my derisive comments where part of her decision.
Report comment to moderator
Sarah Palin is a bright, hard-working, multi-tasking governor,woman, wife, and mother.
She has made a decision and has given her reasons. Whatever her future plans, she will be able to devote herself to managing her marriage, family and future ambitions.
If she decides to re-enter politics, she will be in a unique situation to truly cast herself as an outsider.
I suspect there will come a time when the public will welcome an outsider as they see the mess that all of the insiders have and will make.
A perfect backlash is anticipated as the disappointment with PresBO mounts. He promised change and immediately surrounded himself with the hand me down good old boys of the Washington beltway.
I wish her the best in whatever she chooses to do in the future.
Report comment to moderator
What dread holiday comes next, folks?
Fathers’ Day, a GOP commits adultery. Fourth of July, a GOP gov. quits office. We better have a look at the calendar:
Labor Day, a GOP gov. will not leave a tip after a big, complicated meal at a restaurant
Columbus Day, a GOP gov will discover Caribbean Island banking.
Thanksgiving, a GOP gov. will deny a last meal to a prisoner facing lethal injection.
Christmas . . .
Report comment to moderator
Where’s Joel Mark? I hope he’s not to sad from his disillusionment.
I think an I TOLD YOU SO is in order.
Report comment to moderator
Name a single thing that makes Obama more qualified than Palin.
His IQ.
There are many many more as well.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, you’re so clever, except for the fact that Obama Xion, you’re so clever, except for the fact that Obama managing “to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years” isn’t corruption, it’s what he promised to get elected, it’s doing his job. Bogus Acorn conspiracy theories don’t change a thing. Giving a contract to a company and having them work on your house for free is a kickback, and against the law.
Report comment to moderator
Palin lied about Trig being mocked and ridiculed. Nobody did that.
She also lied about the Fourth of July. The purpose of this holiday is not to honor soldiers who sacrificed to make us free, as she falsely claimed. The ideals of the Declaration do not depend upon a military subculture. Independence comes from our aspiration as a people to liberty, equality, and justice. We have other holidays for soldiers. On the Fourth, we congratulate ourselves for the Liberty and happiness we enjoy, and which we ourselves guarantee to each other, knowing that the Founders did not want a standing army. They correctly predicted that, when democracy truly was threatened, the people answered the call of service to their country.
Report comment to moderator
I’m as liberal as you can get on many (most) issues. I’ve yet to vote GOP for President. But I actually like Sarah and wish her well.
And for the record, I think I was the first one to offer her name as a VP candidate, before she was on anyone’s radar. (See the “He’s making a list” thread from 4/2/08.) http://online.worldmag.com/2008/04/02/hes-making-a-list/
Report comment to moderator
Unfortunately she’s not, but she’s taking the mockery in a way I don’t think it was intended.
The key to understanding the scenario is the Fundamental Maxim of the Internet: John Gabriel’s Greater Internet D***wad Theory.
Someone photoshopped a picture of Palin holding up Trigg for the flashing cameras. They put the head of a right-wing Alaskan talk show host onto Trigg’s body. Palin took offense, said they were mocking Trigg’s disability. I don’t think they were, but her offense is an understandable reaction, and children should be entirely off limits. It was foul when Limbaugh called Chelsea ugly as a dog; it was foul when Letterman mocked the Palin girls as promiscuous; this was not aimed at Trigg, but still should not have been done.
Anyway, then the complete ******** that comprise the lowest dregs of the Internet got wind of it, and intentionally ratcheted the offense up two or three orders of magnitude. If you’re curious, google the SomethingAwful forums.
Report comment to moderator
KW/Scroop,
Before you catagorically say someone lied, do a fact check. You make all your comments irrelevant otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the information, JJF. I don’t think the blogs you are talking about count as offensive discourse by your political opponents. Palin should not talk as if this ridicule is coming from the media or the Democratic Party. It’s one thing to be cursed from the bleachers, it’s another thing to be cursed by the other ball players on the field.
I’m more cynical than you about understandable maternal reactions. I think Palin uses her kids as a shield.
Report comment to moderator
#63 “Obama managing “to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years” isn’t corruption, it’s what he promised to get elected, it’s doing his job.”
No president has immediately raised the debt by trillions to pay off his supporters in order to buy votes. Millions of taxpayer money was immediately sent to Reid, Pelosi, the unions, ACORN, etc. Presidents are supposed to be the servants of all the people. Obama only serves himself and his supporters. His Homeland Security department has placed a watch on Republicans and returning veterans. Obama is trying to acquire all power for himself and his party.
Report comment to moderator
And as a sword. Lots of pols play the “if I have a great family I must be a great person” game. There was a guy who ran a gubernatorial campaign in Va last month whose entire campaign seemed to feature shots of his kids running around.
But if little Johnny or Bristol or whoever turns out to not be quite so wholesome, they take great umbrage.
Report comment to moderator
Oh for heaven’s sake Xion–over 1600 banks applied for federal assistance this year. A bunch of ‘em got it. In the billions. So did GM, Chrysler, AIG, Goldman, and darn near everybody else in corporate America. Does that mean it all was some kind of political payoff?
And I’m sure somewhere in America a true blue socialist got an increase in his social security payments, which you find equally outrageous and evidence of corruption.
You seem to have the same kind of obsession with ACORN that you have with Palin.
Neither is important.
By the way, did you know that only one voter registration activist has been indicted, plead guilty and gone to jail for the last election cycle. He was, you guessed it, a Republican.
Report comment to moderator
Good. She’s unfit to rule.
Report comment to moderator
I knew RPN couldn’t stay away from this.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca,
You betray your desire to see an autocrat on the throne. Perhaps “govern” would have been a better choice of words.
Report comment to moderator
“…Obama managing “to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years” isn’t corruption, it’s what he promised to get elected, it’s doing his job.”
That doesn’t change anything. He’s still wasting trillions of dollars on government bureaucracy. And those who elected him are beginning to have second thoughts. BIG second thoughts, because they realize that he’s runnign the economy into the ground even further. And the ones that aren’t having second thoughts don’t give anything a second thought, because it’s “so… like, yesterday’s election”.
Report comment to moderator
Didn’t Bill Maher refer to Trig as an it?
Report comment to moderator
“Palin has great expressive eye contact. Obama has zero.”
He connects with his teleprompter.
My prediction is this: that the Republicans didn’t get it when they had control of Congress, and we saw what happened, and the Dems also don’t get it — talk about drunken sailors — so when the country has had enough and turns, it will rend the Dems into shreds.
Now, I can understand Ms. Palin pulling out if it turns out her reason was because her baby was attacked. The leftys who find that sort of thing so wonderful and fun are despicable people.
My rent is going up, my taxes are going up, food prices are out of control, my electric and gas bill doubled — everything one needs just to live, including car insurance, etc., all those basics are going up and there is no money, no increase in salary. The Dems are bleeding people dry, and this will cure middle America.
So, leftys, drink up while you can — you know what they say about payback.
Report comment to moderator
In re: Scroop Moth 07.03.09 AT 5:30 PM
Please if you are going to quote someone and give a link, make it in context. Colson was responding to a particular question in the specific context of the Mark Sanford situation. Being a very wise man, I’m sure he would evaluate the particular circumstances and reasons of Palin and draw his conclusion: maybe the same, maybe not.
Report comment to moderator
BIANCA (72): Good. She’s unfit to rule.
MAKE IT MAN (74): You betray your desire to see an autocrat on the throne.
Frank: No more than you do by your use of the word “throne” …
MAKE IT MAN (74): Perhaps “govern” would have been a better choice of words.
Frank: I wouldn’t fret too much over Bianca’s use of “rule” vs. “govern.” If you’re familiar with her posts, the last thing she wants … ahem, “on the throne” is an autocrat!
Besides, my NKJV Bible uses both words in the same context at Romans 13:
So relax, I don’t think Bianca desires an autocrat any more than you or I!
(Incidentally, to borrow a bit from Luther, I’d rather live under a godly autocrat than in a godless republic!)
Report comment to moderator
Whether that’s the entirety of her reason remains to be seen. I stayed up too late last night scouring the blogs for news, and it looks like there may be trouble brewing for Palin. She and Todd were given free materials to build their home from a building company to whom she gave Alaska’s most expensive construction project.
That’s still “reportedly,” so we will have to see if an indictment is forthcoming.
Second, it’s no more fair to broadly blame “leftys” for attacking Palin’s family than it is to blame “the Right” for George Tiller’s murder. You cannot fairly take the most extreme, despicable people from a group and use them to tarnish the entire movement.
Report comment to moderator
NJL (77): My rent is going up, my taxes are going up, food prices are out of control, my electric and gas bill doubled — everything one needs just to live, including car insurance, etc., all those basics are going up and there is no money, no increase in salary. The Dems are bleeding people dry, and this will cure middle America.
So, leftys, drink up while you can — you know what they say about payback.
Frank: Thus my concern that our present social and economic situation will continue to be seen by conservatives as a symptom of Democrat rule (sorry, MIM!) — sure to be reversed by merely returning Republicans to the majority and the White House — rather than a symptom of godless and unconstitutional governance by the vast majority of pols from both parties.
Socialist Party A rules no better than — and thus is no genuine alternative to — Socialist Party B.
Both parties insist on maintaining the facade of a “free market economy” when they — in concert with the Federal Reserve — have done nothing but interfere with economic liberty for nearly a hundred years.
Report comment to moderator
This is the Bush legacy, NJLawyer. It will take some time to correct.
Don’t you remember those “leftys” you so despise decrying the largest gap between rich and poor in our nation’s history? The fact that wages remained stagnant when adjusted for inflation? The ever-increasing number of people who couldn’t afford health care? These are the issues the Left typically addresses, and the Right typically mocks (”lazy welfare queens just want a government handout so they don’t have to work,” etc, etc). Is this now your cause celebre? You’re a bit late to the party.
Report comment to moderator
80. So, let’s dig for dirt and then throw out rumors rather than wait and see.
Report comment to moderator
I’m in “wait and see” mode. I sent Ron Paul money, but was eventually persuaded to vote for Obama on civil liberties issues.
Which hasn’t turned out so well, to be honest.
For the economy, I was (and am) willing to set my assumptions aside and see if the other party has better solutions. I realize that what I “know” about economics (not much) is all theory. And everybody has a theory, even when their party just ran the country into the ground. Their theory becomes we weren’t Conservative enough; we became too much like those liberals — something I call the “honestly, Officer, I’m normally a very good driver” school of economics.
So the Left has their theory, widely held by economists as far as I can see, that crazy government spending during recession is a Good and Necessary Thing. I don’t know. Seriously, no clue. But the alternative — breaks for the wealthy, roll back regulation, and let the market work its magic — sure didn’t work too well for us. So I’m willing to wait four years and see. What’s the worst that can happen? The catastrophic near-collapse of our financial system and record deficits? We were already there!
I’ve also read a very convincing case by Jim Wallis that systems to care for the poor is a moral imperative of just government. He’s much more convincing than, say, Alex Tokarev arguing (or reiterating, I guess) that unregulated free markets can be trusted to work out just solutions.
Report comment to moderator
#81 Frank Socialist Party A rules no better than — and thus is no genuine alternative to — Socialist Party B.
True. But if “government which governs least is best”, then wasting billions is better than wasting trillions.
Report comment to moderator
To liberals, government is the answer. To conservatives, government is the problem.
Both parties are liberal.
Report comment to moderator
Unless we want to spy on people without warrants, lock them up without charges, torture them if we feel the need, or topple foreign dictators. Then government is a just fine answer.
Report comment to moderator
JJF (84),
I’d encourage you to check out Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse by Thomas Woods (author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History). Meltdown a very current and very readable review, from the perspective of the Austrian School of economics, of how we arrived at our present economic condition.
It’ll answer a lot of your questions — it has mine!
Report comment to moderator
Kwatson,
Are you playing dumb, or is it the real thing? Not only have they done it in the past, they did it again yesterday. But your friends at HuffPo pulled it.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/03/rock-bottom-huffpo-poster-bids-palin-farewell-with-retard-jokes/
The headline, prior to pulling it was;
Palin Will Run In “12 On More Retardation Platform
With sheeple like you around, it’s no wonder Obama won. You’re so easily fooled.
Report comment to moderator
JJF: See Krugman in the NYT yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/opinion/03krugman.html
Frank: …rather than a symptom of godless and unconstitutional governance by the vast majority of pols from both parties…
Both parties insist on maintaining the facade of a “free market economy” when they — in concert with the Federal Reserve — have done nothing but interfere with economic liberty for nearly a hundred years.
It really is a pity that we have collectively been so impoverished by such insane policies that we couldn’t win two world wars and become the unquestioned greatest economy in the world, not to mention the country that, until very recently, most people admired the most. If this be treason, we have made the most of it.
By all means, lets turn social policy over to Pope Jerry Fallwell
and economic policy over to Bernie and Hank. They surely have all of our best interests at heart.
Report comment to moderator
JJF (84): But the alternative — breaks for the wealthy, roll back regulation, and let the market work its magic — sure didn’t work too well for us.
Frank: That is the standard response of the left, and it is false.
Not because we need to “return to a less regulated free market,” but rather, because we haven’t lived under a truly free market for nearly a century!
See Jeffrey A. Tucker’s brief piece “How Free Is the ‘Free Market’?”
America’s economy has been subject to some manner of government interference longer than most of us realize. The current outworkings of it didn’t occur overnight.
Report comment to moderator
JJF. Read my comments again. Both parties are liberal.
Increasing government control is a move to the left, regardless of party. Government intrusion into private lives is the stuff of totalitarianism, communism, socialism, fascism, social progressivism – all to the far left. Libertarians, Constitutionalists, conservatives all want less government.
Whatever Bush did, Obama will do in spades. Government intrusion into personal lives will increase dramatically, controlling what you say, what you eat, what you drive, how much you weigh, what you set your thermostat to, what you buy, the quality of your health care, the quality of your life, etc. Of course, you will support all of those things.
Report comment to moderator
Economically speaking, Krugman can’t find his own tukhis with two hands and a flashlight.
“Outrage! Krugman’s a Nobel Prize winning economist!”
A prize granted by Keynesians to a fellow Keynesian? Do tell …
Report comment to moderator
XION (92): JJF. Read my comments again. Both parties are liberal.
Frank: That’s how I took it. Mostly. But JJF makes a valid observation …
XION (92): Increasing government control is a move to the left, regardless of party. Government intrusion into private lives is the stuff of totalitarianism, communism, socialism, fascism, social progressivism – all to the far left. Libertarians, Constitutionalists, conservatives all want less government.
Frank: Except that way too many professing “conservatives” hitch their wagon to the “national greatness/American exceptionalist” program of the war-mongering neo-cons.
The problem is, individual liberties and domestic freedoms crumble under a government that feels at liberty to garrison the globe, nation-build and launch wars on “terror.”
Additionally Xion, don’t get too locked in to that “left” vs. “right” paradigm. It’s more like a full circle, with the extreme right and extreme left meeting at a point at the back of the circle — a point called Statism.
Statism knows nothing of “left” or “right” — it only knows the primacy of the State, and is perfectly happy using the rhetoric of both left and right to achieve it.
Report comment to moderator
JJF (and Arcadia),
“Krugman Failure, Not Market Failure” by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Report comment to moderator
MGJ: Please if you are going to quote someone and give a link, make it in context. Colson was responding to a particular question in the specific context of the Mark Sanford situation.
As one of the more accurate and responsible regulars on this blog, I gave the time and place of Colson’s comment, which told regular readers that Colson was talking to Christians at the time that Sanford was dominating the news at WorldMag and everywhere. If my readers couldn’t figure that out on their own, I provided a link to enable them to quickly assess Colson’s statement and dispel any misconceptions.
You should thank me for an apropos post, instead of implying that I misused Colson’s statement. The fact that he may need to explain his comment isn’t my fault.
I think you yourself may be misinterpreting Colson’s comment. You suggest his comment was inductive. In other words, due to “the specific context of the Mark Sanford situation,” Colson infers the general principle that quitting elective office is dishonorable. Other politicians in other circumstances might suggest a different rule. That may be what Colson meant to say, but that’s not the form in which Colson expressed himself. Colson was speaking deductively (as moral absolutists love to do). He invoked a pre-existent moral standard and applied it to Sanford’s behavior. Further, he didn’t talk as though there was very much that could excuse politicians from this duty.
You don’t say so, but I think Colson’s comment cries out for explanation.
Report comment to moderator
Frank #94 “with the extreme right and extreme left meeting at a point at the back of the circle — a point called Statism.”
That is what I once thought too. It was the only way to reconcile the continuous refrain that the Nazis and fascists are to the right. But Hitler and Mussolini were both Socialists. Stalin accused them of being right-wing because they were slightly to the right of him. But the mislabeling of left and right aren’t what is important.
The far right in America are libertarian. And there is no such thing as “war-mongering neo-cons”. Where are they? The Iraq war was approved by both parties. The Patriot Act was approved by both parties. Guantanamo was approved by both parties. Waterboarding was approved by Nancy Pelosi. Denying all of this just happens to be expedient now.
As for “national greatness/American exceptionalist” this is not based on a superiority of race, but a superiority of ideals. Was not the American experiment great and exceptional in 1776 and today? White supremacist movements in America, such as the KKK, were the military wing of the Democratic party in the south.
But the south was defeated in the bloodiest war in American history. The racist nationalism of Germany and Japan has no correlation today. Racism in America today comes mostly from the left, from Jesse Jackson, Rev Wright, Sotomayer and even Obama himself, labeling poor whites as xenophobes clinging to guns and religion.
Who is nation building now? My son is a Marine and Obama has sent more Marines overseas. I am in contact with Marines in Afghanistan and they say it is shear chaos. There are so many Marines in tight quarters that officers and enlisted are sleeping on one another. They have no mission, no direction, no orders, no plan and no exit strategy. Bush grossly mismanaged the war, but what Obama is doing is no management whatsoever.
Report comment to moderator
I read Krugman’s Depression Economics and found him to be far too conventional. He has a Keynesian bent but he, like Keynes, holds to a capitalist model for the economy.
BTW Krugman received his Nobel for his analysis of trade and location of economic active. Nothing Keynesian, just technical work.
BTW the economic prize is properly called the Nobel Memorial Prize awarded by the Swedish central bank. The real Nobel prizes do not include a prize for economics. The central bank is attempting to elevate the prestige of economics as a field of study although it is no more successful than a weatherman.
Report comment to moderator
JJF wrote at #87; “Unless we want to spy on people without warrants, lock them up without charges…”
Which BVarack Obama is continuing to do in the same ways and to the same proportions and under the same policies as President Bush. Wake up, JJF. Partisan passions are blinding.
Report comment to moderator
As for Palin
I began to feel sorry for her toward the end of the campaign. Her political experience in Alaska left unprepared to face the “other” America. She was both out of her league and completely misused by the McCain people. It was like watching a car wreck in slow motion.
I find it odd to resign once one has decided not to re-run to avoid lame duck status. If one accepts this rationale, term limits will produce automatic resignations. Thus, it makes sense for people to look elsewhere for her reasons. I’m surprised she didn’t use the old stand-by “more time with the family” as that would appear to be legitimate. News of kickbacks is not surprising — if you dig deep enough there’s a kickback, scratching backs is human nature.
Report comment to moderator
#97, “The Iraq war was approved by both parties. The Patriot Act was approved by both parties. Guantanamo was approved by both parties. Waterboarding was approved by Nancy Pelosi.”
Good reminder of reality, Xion, but it won’t make a difference for leftist haters.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson #61, see #49.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the links, Arcadia and Frank.
First of all, Frank, if it is true that we haven’t had “conservative enough” government for a century, you’ve got to understand my confusion. The Right consistently claims that mantle, and when they get into power they do enact anti-government policies. Not exclusively, and they certainly enact big government policies in other areas, but cutting back government regulation of business is their hallmark.
It is a matter of record that Bush passed huge breaks that disproportionately favored the wealthy, that he rolled back some regulatory agencies and fostered a culture that discouraged active oversight, and that large corporations made out very well during his presidency. You may argue that he didn’t go far enough in axing government regulation, or maybe that he was feeding the bureaucrats in some areas even as he was starving them in others, but I still find it hard to believe that those anti-regulation policies he did follow played no part in the economic crisis, that the problem was entirely that he didn’t push that even further.
But I also haven’t read Woods article (or book) yet.
I’ll say something similar to Xion. People who self-identify as conservatives overwhelmingly support the Strong Surveillance State policies I listed. You may claim that they’re “not real conservatives,” but they say they are.
And I’m sure you consider yourself a conservative, and we’ve had discussions where you’ve defended our foreign wars and interrogation policies. (I don’t remember any about surveillance, but honestly I’d be surprised to learn that you deviate from the party line.) Maybe your thinking on these issues has evolved, but as of our last discussions on them, you, a conservative, supported policies that I find completely antithetical to the idea that government must be limited because it cannot be trusted.
Arcadia, Krugman’s article seems to me more of the “not (pet philosophy) enough” excuse that I don’t buy from the conservatives, so I won’t from the liberals. Now I’m not judging Obama’s policies yet. I’m giving them some time (namely, four years). But if he can’t deliver, then I will have no sympathy for the “he wasn’t liberal enough” argument.
I’ve decided on a pragmatic economic approach: any economic philosophy that cannot be sold well enough to the American people to allow your party’s supermajority to enact it, is a philosophy flawed in that regard. I don’t much care what economic models would work in a sandbox. We need models that work in our current political landscape.
And if (as I suspect) your party is hobbled because it’s just as beholden to corporate interests as the other one, then you too deserve the wrath of the American electorate come November.
Report comment to moderator
97
The solution to your queries and statements is simple — both Democratic and Republican parties are right wing.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I am aware of this. See my comment at #84:
See, Joel? I’m not the blinded partisan you seem to think I am.
It’s not an accurately reported reality. The Iraq War and the Patriot Act were foisted onto the craven Democrats, over their loud and frequent objections, by all kinds of steamrolling tactics. You might remember the Patriot Act was rushed through Congress, and that (like both Bush’s and Obama’s bailout/stimulus bills) without time to read them in their entirety or debate them adequately.
That doesn’t exonerate the Dems. You can (and I do) blame them for being spineless wimps too afraid of the next election to take any strong stands, but you cannot pretend that these were bipartisan policies.
Report comment to moderator
XION – Please don’t conflate the Democratic party with the Left. The Left did not approve the Iraqi invasion, executive detention, illegal surveillance, etc. The Left now is struggling over how to oppose Obama’s adoption/adaption of Bush’s abuses. cf. Glenn Greenwald. It’s a frightening situation, and we’ll probably need conservative help to put this terrible genie back in the bottle.
Also, you declare that the victims of racism today are poor whites, as illustrated by Obama’s bitter clinger remark and Sotomayor’s role in Ricci. This is astonishing to me, because Whites have it pretty good here, compared with Blacks and Mexicans. Their economic sorrows are explainable without recourse to stories about racial prejudice. Maybe it’s just a matter of time, however, until Anne Coulter writes the book on how White bitter clingers are economically disadvantaged as a result of racism.
According to Leftist social analysis, bitter clingers are not poor whites but solidly middle and upper-middle class whites in culturally conservative regions. These people have incomes which place them in the upper half of their own communities and often bring them into social contact with upper-class whites in church, neighborhoods, and the Rotary Club. Their incomes would leave them in the bottom half of urban communities in Blue states, but it’s enough to obtain/retain status in Red State communities. The difference between Red and Blue states is the difference in cultural attitude in the top half of each place. The poor vote and think the same everywhere, Red or Blue. The top half is far more conservative in Red states. Leftists only look down on bourgeois whites (and don’t tell me that upper class Evangelicals don’t look down on them too).
Report comment to moderator
XION 997): … there is no such thing as “war-mongering neo-cons”. Where are they?
Frank: Hitching their wagons to Obama’s star, these days.
If you think “neo-con” is a synonym for “conservative” politicians, you’re mistaken. They tend to be intellectual elitists or pundits, not politicians. The closest they may get to politics per se is in serving in presidential cabinets.
Report comment to moderator
XION (97): … there is no such thing as “war-mongering neo-cons”. Where are they?
Frank: Hitching their wagons to Obama’s star, these days.
If you think “neo-con” is a synonym for “conservative” politicians, you’re mistaken. They tend to be intellectual elitists or pundits, not politicians. The closest they may get to politics per se is in serving in presidential cabinets.
Report comment to moderator
Frank #108. Can you name a single war-mongering neo-con?
Report comment to moderator
#106 Scroop. There isn’t a single polician alive today who is more left than Obama, yet you say “The Left now is struggling over how to oppose Obama’s adoption/adaption of Bush’s abuses.”
So then, what you are really saying is that the actual left is not represented by the Democratic party. I am curious. How left are they? Would they make Stalin blush?
Report comment to moderator
“polician?” Sounds like something from Athens in 250BC or an episode from Star Trek. I meant politician, of course.
Report comment to moderator
Sarah Palin was the one breath of fresh air that came out of the McCain campaign. Her rallies were the best attended and attracted the most enthusiasm of any on the Republican side. So, lacking anything substantive against her, the Obama left immediately launched a dishonest smear campaign that was on of the most vicious and vile in recent memory.
It continues to this day. In contrast, here is an objective and reasonable assessment of the most likely reasons for her recent resignation:
Sarah Palin is Running a Marathon
Report comment to moderator
This game is no fun, XION. you ask all the questions and never answer any.
Hugh Hewitt: The quittah from Wasilla quit because she’s not a quitter.
Yes, that’s what she says. She was forced out of office by all the opposition and all the crap her kids have to read on the internet. Trust her. The wisdom under her parents’ refrigerator magnet says, “don’t explain.”
Report comment to moderator
Yes, like the “crap” than comes out of your mouth, Moth!
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin #112, I have a gut feeling Hugh Hewitt is right,
BTW, #114 could get you in trouble around here. You’ve got some good things to say. Hate to lose you.
Report comment to moderator
Oh excuse me, MICHAEL. She’s the strategic quittah from Wasilla.
Strategic like roaches when you switch on the light in the kitchen! Watch Republicans govern, and they resign. This is because, for Republicans, governing is an inconvenient distraction from the enterprise of running for office on the promise to cut gu’ment. According to Republican logic, there’s no difference between resigning from office and deconstructing it. Sarah is building up! This is her fruitfulness!
As a military man, Michael, you’ll have to admit that Sarah is no Douglas MacArthur. In fact, she doesn’t know her generals. MacArthur did not say what she said in her peroration, “We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.” Marine Gen. Oliver P. Smith said it, and he said it better:
Retreat, hell! We’re not retreating, we’re just advancing in a different direction.
Another difference, he knew the difference between strategic retreat and cut and run.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_P._Smith
Report comment to moderator
JJF writes to me: “This is the Bush legacy, NJLawyer. It will take some time to correct.”
No, JJF. My problems are a direct result of the Dems refusal to fix Fannie and Freddie because they put winning the election ahead of the country — something all liberals, leftys do because they don’t care about the country. And Obama is making things even worse. Ask Colin Powell, if you don’t believe me.
Obama’s health plan — no matter what happens we will all pay more, all the papers are saying it. And there just isn’t more for people to pay.
Democrats have bankrupted the state of NJ and Democrats are bankrupting the whole country. All the same policies. They spend money they don’t have.
Like the pharisees, they lay burdens on others they themselves will not carry. It is the Dems themselves which set the stage for Palin to win, if that is her goal.
Report comment to moderator
Is this a trick question?
John Bolton was arguing just two days ago that now is the perfect time to bomb Iran:
Report comment to moderator
Wow. No liberals care about the country? You live in a pretty narrow American, NJL.
Look, I don’t doubt you care very deeply about America. I disagree with you on nearly every major policy we discuss around here, but I don’t see any reason to assign you nefarious motives. Can’t we honor civil discourse? After all, if leftys don’t even care about the country, there’s no sense arguing with them. You have no common ground to proceed from. They become only an irrational enemy to be defeated. Like orcs or Cobra agents. Not a great foundation for a civil society.
Do you really think Palin now has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning a 2012 election? She’d be pegged as a quitter who couldn’t even finish her first term as governor. I think she knows that. This was a career-ending move.
Report comment to moderator
Moth,
I’ll take Palin’s explanation at face value. Undoubtedly there are other reasons that are open to speculation. Hewitt’s conjectures, all things considered, are the most reasonable and objective that I’ve read.
Other comments, like yours, are merely malicious insults. They have little or no objective value and they come from a basically hateful disposition towards those who disagree with you.
Comparing Mrs. Palin to a cockroach is just typical. It goes hand-in-hand with Letterman’s despicable comments. They reveal a lot about you and him, but absolutely nothing about Sarah Palin.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Shrum says “She could make more in two weeks on just speaking fees than in the rest of her time as governor,”
Could that be it? Does she simply realize she can make allot of money from her celebrity? That’s going to be allot of pressure on Lynn Vincent. Remember Palin fans, in order for her plan to work it is your duty to buy her book.
Report comment to moderator
Unfortunately it doesn’t look like she’ll just go away of her own accord. There’s no fame and money in that. Maybe she can do a reality TV show, “Megalomaniac Mom” I think it has a nice ring to it.
Perhaps her chronic lying will end her up in prison. It would be tragic, but at least we wouldn’t have to listen to her anymore.
Report comment to moderator
#23 KWatson Obama was Editor of the Harvard Law Review. Case closed on the intellect question.
OK, let me get this straight. One person is governor of the largest state, cleaned up the corrupt Republican party in that state and fixed the relationship with big oil.
The other guy was editor of his school newspaper. Um, OK I guess that’s cool and stuff, but how is that the same as actual experience?
Report comment to moderator
#113 Scroop. This game is no fun, XION. you ask all the questions and never answer any.
Like what?
Report comment to moderator
#118 JJF “Is this a trick question? John Bolton was arguing just two days ago that now is the perfect time to bomb Iran.”
A warmonger is a promoter of war for war’s sake. How do you know that Bolton’s motive is simply to blow away human flesh? Does not a promoter of peace stop those who promote war? Perhaps Bolton then is a peacemonger.
Since Iran has promised to make Israel a smoking hole in the ground, will you wait until it happens and then say, “Yep John Bolton was right”?
Report comment to moderator
Xion #23, I contrasted the college careers of the two to make a point about intellect. You take my quote out of context by removing my references to Palin’s contrasting academically miserable college career.
Besides, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. One of them lead a successful presidential campaign and is having a great deal of success doing what he promised to do. The other became a drag on the ticket, and ended up resigning from her job halfway thru her first term.
Comparing Palin to Obama is like comparing a Big Mac to a gourmet meal.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, some people prefer the Big Mac. There’s no accounting for taste.
Report comment to moderator
I find it SHOCKING that so many non-christians apparently read this news magazine. Prayerfully, the Truth of CHRISTIANITY–THE GOOD NEWS will get through to them. I pray for all of them. May GOD open their eyes and ears before it is too late. Amen
Report comment to moderator
Comparing Mrs. Palin to a cockroach is just typical.
You don’t understand, MICHAEL. It’s not just she. I’m comparing half the Republicans in elective office to roaches. Larry Craig was the last Republican with brass. Ever since Trent Lott quit, quitting has been epidemic. Arlen Specter. John Ensign (from leadership). Gov. Sanford (from the Repub. Gov’s Conference). Now Palin. There must be 50 others, as hard to remember as roaches.
And what’s wrong with comparing Palin to a pest that hates the light? By her own account, she’s getting out because she’s tired of inquiry. Take her at her word, MICHAEL. If she didn’t run, I couldn’t have characterized her behavior in that fashion.
Report comment to moderator
I am reminded of the thing about Democrats that I dislike most: Name Calling.
Report comment to moderator
XION (109): Can you name a single war-mongering neo-con?
Frank: Sorry, just got back from a Fourth of July shindig at my brother’s, including volleyball & fireworks after dark.
But to answer your question, there are so many, I simply don’t know where to start. I guess Michael Ledeen comes to mind:
Oh, and Jonah Goldberg. That’s two.
Report comment to moderator
Xion (125): A warmonger is a promoter of war for war’s sake.
Frank: Hmm. My Mac’s dictionary defines “warmonger” thus:
Merriam-Webster’s defines it this way:
one who urges or attempts to stir up war
And wikipedia’s definition:
None of those definitions say anything about the warmonger’s motives, so I think you are being disingenuous to say it is “for war’s sake.”
But regardless of their motives, warmongers consider military strength a primary tool of state, rather than a tool of last resort.
Report comment to moderator
Xion (125): Since Iran has promised to make Israel a smoking hole in the ground, will you wait until it happens and then say, “Yep John Bolton was right”?
Frank: Whether Iran has promised anything of the sort is open for debate. But let us assume for the sake of argument that Iran has said as much. This raises an obvious (to me) question:
How is it the job of the US to act militarily to prevent this?
Report comment to moderator
“Whether Iran has promised anything of the sort is open for debate.”
Hmmmm… I suppose it could have been phrased more precisely. I’m not sure that Iran, as an entity, has said such a thing. But suffice it to say, the sentiment is certainly there, in a large segment of the population. And what a large segment of the population thinks, is often carried out. And I don’t think that’s up for debate.
Report comment to moderator
Palin said “And though it’s honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make.”
This is absurd. The only honorable way for an elected official at her level to leave office without finishing a term is if they are asked to serve in the executive branch. Nobody asked her to quit so that she can travel, and help Republicans win. Her caprice surprised everyone. If she’s being treated differently it’s because her move was unprecedented and in keeping with her penchant for erratic behavior.
Report comment to moderator
Chas post 11,
actually if you noted I made no judgement about how the 2008 election reflected on her eloquence one way or the other: you would seem to have imposed your own impressons on my post, and that you judged it as reflecting negatively I suggest perhaps represents your inner position: as posted it did not represent mine.
The eleoquence and quality of ones speeches is indeed one of the qualities which contributes to getting elected: indeed a criticism of Obama’s eleoquence as a contributior to his success has been made in the past.
That the country rather stunningly rejected McCaion and Palin does, perhaps, howevwer, speak for itself on Palin’s eloquence.
Report comment to moderator
It is perhaps interesting that there have been recent revelations on a potential criminal fraud investigation of Palin.
We will have to see how this plays out, but such a criminal investigation would perhaps drive one to resign before being impeached: she can still perhaps aspire to natinal office after a resignation, but this would be nearly untenable after an impeachment.
Report comment to moderator
Just found this this morning:
Report comment to moderator
“It is perhaps interesting that there have been recent revelations on a potential criminal fraud investigation of Palin.”
Perhaps. I suggest NOT. To wit; 15 unwarranted ethics investigations have been made into Palin’s dealings. All of which she handily won. The legal costs remain. (Remember my prediction made in post 40? Still stands)
I suggest that the reason she’s leaving is because she can no longer afford to pay legal bills run up by the elitist left. Even more to the point, I think the reason the left hates her so much is because she’s a prime example of the everyday, common person taking on the elites.
There’s a great editorial by Jay Valentine over on American Thinker. He says the fight isn’t between liberals and conservatives, or even Republicans and Democrats, no:
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
Told ya so. Na nanny boo boo. Phhhllllbbbbbt!
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry, but lately I haven’t met the liberal who has any ability to read the Constitution, won’t even consider that what Obama is doing unconstitutional — it simply doesn’t matter to the liberals I’ve been meeting. They accept big government without question and totally ignore how this country was founded. All of the liberals here do!
A new “friend” (co-worker) just keeps telling me how he is a “real Montclair liberal,” that he adopted an interracial child as proof of his being a liberal. Never mentions whether he loves the kid, just that he did the politically correct thing every white guy should do – adopt a black kid. Well, he has now learned that there are Republicans in this town (me and a few others in the office) and the man is shocked, shocked I tell you that there is even one. Nice guy? You bet! But like all liberals, he follows party line without question. Maybe it’s not nefarious — maybe it’s just incredibly brain dead! Do any of you question anything???? You’ve been defending Obama’s view of the economy, and now even his administration is saying they had it wrong. You guys NEVER wavered at all. You look at the same things we do and you say they are working, and now when Biden says they aren’t, you’ll change your tune — but only to the extent to which they tell you to change your tune.
With respect to Palin, I have often told you this: when you live by the crystal ball, you eat glass. I haven’t got a clue what she’s going to do! What I am saying to you is that if she comes to the fore, it will be because Democrats messed up so badly (which they’re doing right now every time they vote without reading a bill that isn’t even fully written), that Democrats are setting the stage for her comeback and may be responsible for her prevailing. There’s a long time before the next election, and there are people who we don’t even know yet who will come forward.
One of the things I’d like her to do, is to get the media talking about ALL the Founders of this country. I’d like her to mention a lot of names that have been pushed out of the history books. Teach the country the same things she’s learning. I’d like her to mention that Congress published a Bible for use in American homes and schools — that Congress believed if the Bible wasn’t taught in the schools that we’d lose our freedoms. I’d even like to have her quote Jefferson that comparing America to Europe is like comparing heaven and hell. Someone should force that stuff into the public domain again. Do I think the MSM will report that? No. I don’t think it has the guts, any more than the schools have the guts to teach from original, primary documents.
You liberals have a guy in office, Obama, who had a very short list of accomplishments, but he did prevail in the election. Yet you liberals can’t even fathom the idea that Palin could prevail. You should examine your hatred for this woman — and that’s what it is — hatred. That kind of hatred is what got George W. Bush elected.
Report comment to moderator
“I am saying to you is that if she (Palin) comes to the fore, it will be because Democrats messed up so badly ”
That says mote about Palin than it does the Democrats.
Report comment to moderator
You mean he can’t be a friend, only a “friend” (co-worker), because he’s a liberal? Harsh.
I don’t know the guy or the situation, but on the face of it, this says more about you than it does about him. You seem to be assuming that he doesn’t love his child, but only keeps him as a political statement. That’s a deeply offensive claim, so it’s one I’d think you would want a lot of evidence before you make it.
I don’t know who you’re talking to, NJL. I think maybe those evil America-hating libruls that exist in your head.
If you’re talking to me, I have said (in this very thread) that I’m waiting to see if Obama’s policies work before I pass judgment. I’ll make that determination in 2012.
If you’re talking about liberalism generally, you are just plain wrong. Many prominent liberals have criticized Obama, on economic matters (Krugman), on civil liberties matters (Greenwald), on social matters (gay-rights groups), and on international matters (anti-war groups).
Report comment to moderator
#132 Frank your point is so subtle I can barely see any distinction. You say that warmongering doesn’t refer to motives, but then quote “someone who is eager to encourage” or “one who urges or attempts to stir up” or “activist who encourages or advocates”.
A “monger” is a peddler of illegitimate wares, a seller of non-good goods. Hatemongers market hate. Whoremongers peddle the flesh.
If fanning the flames of war is without motive then war itself suffices as the motive. By ignoring the motive, what you are really saying is that only warmongers go to war. That would make warmongers of all Democrats who also voted for the war. Can there be any legitimate war then? Are you an isolationist?
Report comment to moderator
Regarding the Goldberg article in #131; I disagree with him. Is he a neo-con? No. There is no such thing. Is he a warmonger? Mmaybe, depending on one’s definition. He advocated war as did pretty much every politician in the West. 58% of the Senate Democrats voted in favor as did 39% in the House.
I didn’t oppose the war at the time for the same reason that most people didn’t, because we just didn’t have enough information. We assumed the President knew something we didn’t and we supported our troops. Turns out he didn’t.
However, I said then what I still say now. Bush’s real motive (contrary to what he said) was to build a democracy in the heart of the Middle East as a beacon of light. That is the essence of the Goldberg article. Both were wrong. To suggest that the Middle East could be turned around like the Marshall Plan did with Germany and Japan is extremely naive.
The elephant in the room which everyone ignored was Islam. It is still true today. Bush refused to account for Islam as a major impediment and that radical Islamic society can never embrace democracy since the Koran calls for theocracy and dictatorship.
Report comment to moderator
Back to Palin. Just as electing Obama did not lessen, but only increased the accusations of racism, Palin’s quitting will not lessen, but only increase the raw venom from media hatemongers.
“It’s fair to say that I’ve been no fan of Palin’s since John McCain picked her as his running mate, and my estimation of her has only gone downhill from there. I think my hostility has to do with our shared gender: I’m anxious to see women succeed in the political arena, as elsewhere, and I think McCain’s cynical choice of Palin and her faltering performance since has served to set back that cause.” (Ruth Marcus – Washington Post)
Report comment to moderator
Yet you liberals can’t even fathom the idea that Palin could prevail.
That’s up to you conservatives, NJLAWYER. We don’t vote in your primaries. You can please yourselves, as far as that goes.
You should examine your hatred for this woman — and that’s what it is — hatred. That kind of hatred is what got George W. Bush elected.
You’re probably right on both counts. Liberals’ hatred of Palin makes her more popular with conservatives. And Liberals’ hatred of Bush certainly helped get him elected in 2004. But this reflects more badly on conservatives. Think about it. Hatred sometimes can be explained, but blind loyalty in reaction to the hatred of others never makes sense.
So then, let’s examine. There’s hatred and there’s hatred. Palin elicits the kind of hatred that Liberals love. It’s no different than the emotion that Republicans indulge with respect to their bete noires, Paul Krugman, for example. I’d hate to lose Palin . . . or Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol, etc.
Report comment to moderator
Bush’s real motive (contrary to what he said) was to build a democracy in the heart of the Middle East as a beacon of light.
His real motive was (in his words) to kick Saddam’s “sorry mfa all over the Middle East.” There’s a huge fact that makes this more believable than the democracy hypothesis. Bush purposely, by design, ignored the expertise of the CIA and the State Department in stitching together his flimsy post-invasion plan in a small pair of rooms on the floor underneath Sec. Def. Rumsfeld’s office. Then Bush stubbornly broke every rule of counter-insurgency for four years, because he wanted to prove how easy it is for the USA to kick someone’s “sorry mfa” wherever the President wants. Bush’s actions spoke louder than his talk about democracy.
Report comment to moderator
If Palin elicits the kind of hatred that liberals love, then liberals are all one sick bunch. What kind of people mock a little boy with Downs? Examine that. Do I think these despicable acts will continue? And that doesn’t reflect on conservatives — it reflects on Dems and liberals and leftys. One day they will go too far and turn everyone’s stomachs — maybe even the lefty ones here.
Report comment to moderator
“There’s hatred and there’s hatred. Palin elicits the kind of hatred that Liberals love.”
Y’know, you make ZERO sense with that statement. I know you think Palin is a disaster (for the Republican party), but I don’t think you know why you even hate her.
Palin is a plain spoken person not in touch, (nor does she care) with the Washington establishment, or the liberal elite, or the liberal media. (I know you and others like you, think the liberal media is a myth, but that’s because you think just like them, and you don’t know anyone who voted for McCain/Palin.)
Another great editorial at American Thinker by C. Edmund Wright, that says this:
Report comment to moderator
“Bush purposely, by design, ignored the expertise of the CIA and the State Department in stitching together his flimsy post-invasion plan in a small pair of rooms on the floor underneath Sec. Def. Rumsfeld’s office.”
How conveneniently you leave out Jamie “I made millions from Fannie Mae” Gorelick from any part of your blame casting…
Report comment to moderator
Bush purposely, by design, ignored the expertise of the CIA and the State Department in stitching together his flimsy post-invasion plan
According to what actual Marines on the ground in Afghanistan are telling me, that sounds precisely like Obama’s plan now. There is no mission, there is no plan, there is no exit strategy. Marines are sleeping on top of one another, jammed in close quarters with no discernible purpose whatsoever.
Report comment to moderator
What kind of people mock a little boy with Downs? Examine that.
Nobody I know, or know of, NJLAWYER. Names? Venues?
Report comment to moderator
The reason the left hates Palin is very simple. She was a threat. She represented everything NOW advocates, but she was (ooops) in the wrong party. Same thing happened to Clarence Thomas (oops) a black man in the wrong party.
And so the feeding frenzy reached a fever pitch. The slash and burn policy stopped at nothing, trashing her children, her husband, her looks, her intelligence, the Alaskan lifestyle and so on. The last straw to the feministas was that she didn’t abort her Downs Syndrome child, whom they claimed wasn’t even her own.
When liberals can’t win an argument, they attack the person.
Report comment to moderator
That sounds like a bad situation, but not the worst. Jammed up is better than undermanned, and no discernible purpose is better than a mistaken purpose. The worst is to be short-handed on a road to failure, as in Iraq from 2003 through 2007.
Before Obama, our efforts in Afghanistan seemed to be for naught. Who knows if he can fix it, but he has to. Obama immediately ordered construction of two huge bases in the South, one in a place where a British army was destroyed in 1880, and the other in a province controlled by criminal gangs and the Taleban. Room to spread out, at least. These bases are in addition to the permanent new base Bush started in Kandahar as he was leaving office.
Of course, Obama needs a successful purpose, which is why he took the drastic action of removing Gen. David McKiernan from command of OEF and replacing him with Gen. McChrystal. The strategy can’t be transplanted from Iraq, and it won’t have the winds at its back that helped out the counterinsurgency in Iraq. I’m also concerned that efforts in Afghanistan won’t have the same level of support as our efforts closer to Israel and the oilfields.
Report comment to moderator
When liberals can’t win an argument, they attack the person.
That’s why Sen. James Inhofe calls Sen-elect Franken a loud-mouthed clown. Al Franken in fact is a policy polymath second only in wonkiness to Rep. Rush Holt, who formerly ran the plasma physics lab at Princeton. Let me make a prediction, XION. Inhofe will never engage in a colloquy with Franken, and it will be due to an impossible imbalance of intellect and foolishness, at Inhofe’s expense. Al Franken was a math jock at Harvard.
People hated the title, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right . I read the book. It’s an enduring contribution to the history of popular political rhetoric that takes words, meanings, and arguments seriously. It’s the result of thousands of hours of research by a team of students at Harvard. The only offensive thing about it is that it’s a look at the Right. If you don’t like it, then you write a book about Leftist rhetoric that is just as good. Please!
As you know, I adore all efforts to document and prove lies, and have utter contempt for unsubstantiated accusations of lying. We need a cabinet-level Department devoted to the collection and display of lies, like the Smithsonian.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t entirely disagree with you Scroop in #156 and #157. We agree that Obama’s mission in Afghanistan has no stated purpose yet and we are hoping he’ll think of something soon. That is good, since my own flesh and blood is involved.
As for Franken, his career is no secret. He’s spent a good portion of his life as a loud mouthed clown. That isn’t a personal attack since Franken himself would admit it.
As for Lying Liars, if anything he said in that book is true, then more power to him. The more truth we have, the better off this world will be. If a Republican is caught lying, Republicans will chastise him.
If a Democrat is caught lying, cheating, murder, committing adultery, running a prostitution ring or trashing the economy they will become Democratic heroes, a shoe-in for perpetual re-election. Obama tells a new lie nearly every day, but it simply makes him more enamored by his devoted worshipers.
Report comment to moderator
Prove it, please.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve spent a total of an hour with the guy, so he’s a co-worker.
The attack on the child was mentioned on this blog, I believe. Something about putting somebody’s head on the body of the baby or vice versa. It’s sick.
The “libruls” who post here have not questioned anything Obama has done, have endorsed all enthusiastically and attack anyone who disagrees with Obama. We’ll see if any libruls here can approach Obama and the Democratic Congress fairly. So far, you’ve all been defending voting on bills without reading them even when they’re not finished.
Palin will be helped by the Democrats because they’ve fired her up, she’ll be on her game and will come prepared. Liberals are afraid of her, and they should be. They are bankrupting state after state, and her common sense, anti-Washington elite approach will be more than welcome by the people.
Report comment to moderator
Xion #158. What kind of hateful alternate reality do you live in? When it comes to relatively recent sex scandals, Democrats are involved in far fewer and have suffered far greater consequences.
Democrats:
Clinton – Impeached, continued to serve
Edwards- Career over
Spitzer- resigned
Republicans:
Foley- continued to serve
Vitter- continued to serve
Craig- continued to serve
Ensign- continued to serve
Sanford- continued to serve
On top of this obvious disparity of consequences, most. if not all these Republicans are hypocrites for having supported the Clinton impeachment. With the possible exception of a few diehard Clinton supporters, nobody thinks of these Democrats are heroes,
Xion, Grunts on the ground in Afghanistan are among the last to know what’s going on. Haven’t you seen the news of the large Marine offensive, or the recent interviews with our generals in Afghanistan discussing our new strategy?
Report comment to moderator
NJL #160, I’m liberal and I have some serious problems with Obama. Many Liberals think Obama has moved to strongly toward the center, He’s not nearly left enough for me on health care, domestic surveillance, and energy policy to name a few. Liberal criticism of Obama is easy to find if you look.
The reason you don’t hear many liberals say anything about it here is that WMB is a right-wing blob that starts with the premise that Obama is a supper lefty. The liberals here end up arguing against the extreme right wing distortions, slanders, hatefulness, and outright lies pedaled by people like you, Xion and others.
Report comment to moderator
Something about putting somebody’s head on the body of the baby or vice versa. It’s sick.
You’re referring to pictures, NJLAWYER. You can’t explain what’s “sick” about it if you don’t know whether it was vice or versa.
This particular photoshop job was an attack on Sarah’s relationship to an infantile talk show host in Alaska. It had nothing to do with the baby’s condition, everything to do with the fact that the picture demeaned Sarah’s relationship to her advocates. Here’s the proof. Sarah’s internet supporters previously photoshopped the same picture by substituting the head of David Letterman. Sarah liked that joke because it diminished David Letterman. So you see, Palin doesn’t mind photoshops that celebrate her triumphs.
Moreover, the Alaska bloggers gave Palin what she deserved. Palin referred to the Maddona and Child picture of herself and baby as a sacred “icon.” The generations may call her blessed, but Palin is not the Holy Mother and Trigg isn’t the Savior of the World.
Report comment to moderator
No one knows why Palin is stepping down – whatever her reasons are, she certainly owes an explanation to those who voted for her, and those who financially supported her.
Quitting her elected office as Governor of Alaska is strange indeed – what it projects is an individual with their own agenda, not that of a governor. I’m disappointed in Palin, not only for quitting, but not being clear as to WHY, she owes not only the citizens of Alaska a precise answer but also those of us who voted for her in the Presidential ticket last November.
Sarah Palin’s constant complaints about those who ridicule her children are valid – her eldest daughter and her youngest son – that is a mean-spirited attempt to attack her – - HOWEVER, that does not excuse Palin from leaving an office with such responsibility, nor does (if some of the rumors are correct) running for the Presidency of the United States. Palin still has a job to do in Alaska, which she’s trading in for what? – she hasn’t made it clear.
I’m not impressed whatsoever -
Report comment to moderator
makeitman post 139,
indeed it is possible that these revelations are incorrect: they have not been coroborated (although arguing that the FBI denial refutes them is, I suggest, disingenuous).
However, as even Victoria notes, Palin has provided no coherent explanation for her actions.
And by apparently deliberatly not providing a clear explanation, as noted by the musing of even a number of conservative commentators, speculation is inevitable.
You are correct, she has so far dodged all ethical complaints against her. Therefore, one path for speculaition is that what is about to break is very serious indeed.
And as I noted, we will indeed have to watch this unfold to know the true story.
And Palin has certainly increased the mystery about the whole situation.
And plausibly, Palin has seriously hurt any of her future white house aspirations.
Report comment to moderator
Hm 161 posts. and more coming. Sarah does get people energized
I wish Sarah well.
And to all of her female detractors I say , ”Meowwwwwwwwwwrrrrrrrrr.”
To all of her Male detractors I say , “Wow! Look at her legs!”
To all of her supporters I say ,“We have a treasure.”
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 142,
now I find your statement:
“I’m sorry, but lately I haven’t met the liberal who has any ability to read the Constitution, won’t even consider that what Obama is doing unconstitutional — it simply doesn’t matter to the liberals I’ve been meeting. ”
a bit amusing.
In one set of posts you appear to assert that a government health care program would be unconsitutiuonal.
Yet of course medicare is a government funded health care program, and it appears to have withstood constitutional muster.
My sense is that pehraps you seem to be reading the constitution as you see fit: remember it is the supreme court which is final arbiter of the meaning and intent of the constitution.
Report comment to moderator
And plausibly, Palin has seriously hurt any of her future white house aspirations.</b
hmm I will ask her about it in the Oval Office.
Report comment to moderator
montyfiusherwoof post 168,
ah an interesting comment:
“hmm I will ask her about it in the Oval Office.”.
I seem to be detecting a pattern here, it would appear that when I make tentative suggestions of future possiblities, and you would seem to respond with unfounded but confidently predicted assertions.
I am so glad your crystal ball is so clear.
Sure montyfisherwoof, sure.
Report comment to moderator
montyfisherwoof post 166,
hmm, I have never noticed her legs: I have only looked at her policy positions.
That you would find her legs a qualification for president is indeed a very interesting statement indeed.
Report comment to moderator
It is perhaps interesting to consider that victoria has perhaps stated the most cogent and coherent conservative perspective on Palin’s resignation so far in this discussion.
Many of the other response would appear to deonstrate a focus on cheerleading and a limited perspectvie on fact and the actual situation.
My hat is off to victoria for her comment.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson #161 Xion #158. What kind of hateful alternate reality do you live in?
What do you mean? Name one thing I have ever said that is hateful. Do you deny that the all out attack on Palin is anything but?
How do we know this? Because it is genetically impossible for liberals to ever say anything nice about a Republican. I issued the challenge here numerous times. Musing gave a feeble attempt but all others couldn’t do it.
This is because liberals don’t view people as individuals, but as members of a class. And all Republicans are hatemongers in your worldview, which is why you accuse me of hate, even though I am not a Republican and have never said anything hateful. Accusing a class of people is called prejudice. Liberals deny that the raw vitriol against Palin is hate, because it is assumed that liberals are incapable of hate. And so the hate continues.
Did you know that Palin deviated from her party and took on the corruption within that party? Do you know that she took on the oil companies and other special interests that had the inside track? Didn’t think so.
As for Democrats who are worshipped as demigods despite foibles, the list is endless:
- Kennedy was involved in the death of a girl. He was enthroned for ever.
- Barney Frank solicited a gay prostitute who ran a prostitution ring out of his house. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990. Later he had a gay love affair for over a decade with a Fannie Mae executive who wrote the Title One loans that caused the economic melt-down. He was in charge of Fannie Mae oversight. Now he is a darling of Mass. voters and a national demigod, responsible for fixing the economy.
- Clinton – ‘nough said.
- Gerry Studds had a gay affair with a 17 year old page. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.
- John Edwards’ career isn’t over. He simply lost an election and the media gave him a free ride.
- Sen. Daniel Inouye was involved in numerous sexual harrasement suits. The Democratic ethics committee buried it.
- Rep. Gus Savage was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.
- Rep. Fred Richmond was arrested for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election, before eventually resigning after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.
- Obama spent 20 years at a racist hate filled church and associated with terrorists, both Ayers and Hamas supporters. Some of his staff were current members of the Communist party. But such things make him a Democratic hero.
… And so on. In reality, I have no interest in proving which party is better, since they are both horrible. I am merely pointing out the gross double standard which Democrats are blind to.
Report comment to moderator
Let me take one thing back in #172. All liberals aren’t O-bot zombies as I have described. Liberal friends and co-workers are reasonable people who are capable of give and take. Some I consider very close friends and we can disagree civilly.
It is the unique status of liberals here to press their agenda regardless of the facts or topic. I assume it is because it takes a special breed to hunt down Christians and take pleasure in ridiculing them day and night. These sorts are impervious to dialog and simply peddle their malignant wares, regardless of the actual conversation.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 173,
why I have said many times in this blog that Bush for example appears to be a nice enough person and it would undoubtedly be fun to watch a game over beer with him.
His policies, by contrast, have been shown through time to have been disasterous.
By contrast it would appear that many conservatives seem unable to separate their distaste for Obama and their distaste for his policies.
It does seem that so often people will accuse others of the peccadillos they themselves succomb to.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 174,
ah but as we see repeatedly in this blog it seem that conservatives demand facts from liberals but fail to provide them for their own unsubstantiated positions. A classic response is that the posts here should not be an academic theses.
To be sure it need not be, but assertions should it would seem be substantiataqble by facts. And to demand facts and supporting evidence should not be, as is so often the case in the response of conservatives in this blog, denigrated.
Report comment to moderator
Another canard often expressed in this blog is that liberals will forgive Obama of everything. As noted earlier in this thread however, and as I have said myself, many liberals are frustrated with some of Obama’s policies, particularly when it comes to torture, internal espionage, and Guantanemo.
I have also, noted, however, that Obama has been scrupulously (well almost scurpulously) consistent with his campaign promises: liberals often read more into the promises than was said.
Which of course raisaes the other often heard canard given by conservatives: Obama is far from the most liberal person in the senate during his tenure. The simplest demonstration is an existence proof: Sanders claims he is a socialist. It is clear that Obama is no more socialistic than say Bush was towards the end of his term (think nationlizing the financial institutions in the U.S.).
Report comment to moderator
Xion, Some of your examples in #172 go back 25 years or more. I’m Talking about the modern Republican and Democratic parties.
In #172 You ask to “name one thing that I’ve said that is hateful. Two sentences later you say “it is genetically impossible for liberals to ever say anything nice about a Republican. Incredible. Do you really think it’s genetically impossible, or was that just a hateful barb?
I accuse you of hatefulness not because “liberals don’t view people as individuals” which is a hateful thing to say, but because you say hateful things all the time.
How about this one from #158 “If a Democrat is caught lying, cheating, murder, committing adultery, running a prostitution ring or trashing the economy they will become Democratic heroes, a shoe-in for perpetual re-election.” Do you really think that if a Democrat is caught murdering he will become a Democratic hero? Do you? That’s an absurd assertion, and a hateful smear of all Democrats.
In #19 you called Palin’s critics “cockroaches” I think reasonable people would agree that’s hateful.
I could go back to older treads, but I think I made my point.
Report comment to moderator
Xion:
There’s no such thing as a neo-conservative? You have some very strange political ideas. You seem to have a habit of taking terms that everybody uses and redefining them as you see fit (e.g., your “Right-wing = Anarchy, Left-Wing = Totalitarianism” theory).
You seem to think that Israel would be justified in a first strike against tumultuous Iran in the middle of a democratic upheaval because of Ahmedinejad’s comments about Israel. If that is the case, I could name for you another warmongering neo-con we both know.
It used to be that everyone agreed war should be an absolute last resort, and preemption was only justified in the face of imminent attack. Thanks to the neo-cons, it seems the bar has been lowered to “they’ve said threatening things.”
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer:
No one here or in the mainstream Left mocked Palin’s son. You are unfairly passing judgment on half of the country because of what some vicious dolts did in the nastiest corners of the Internet.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson. Let me hear you say something nice about Palin. If you cannot, then please explain why. Maybe it isn’t genetics. I’m still trying to diagnose the malady.
I have given examples of everyone one of those facts and each one of those people have become Democratic heroes. Kennedy’s crime wasn’t premeditated murder, but he did kill a girl and became a Democratic icon.
I have given numerous examples how liberals favor classes of people because of the color of their skin or their income or their social status or their ethnic background or the type of car they drive or the party they vote for etc. There has been an unprecedented resistance to just treating people by their individual merits and not based on the class they belong to. The hatred for Palin has nothing to do with Palin. If she were a Democrat she would be your hero.
But you are right. Calling the liberal paparazzi cockroaches for destroying a family was over the top. I apologize.
Report comment to moderator
JJF – I see your point JJF. Israel’s only option is to die. Fair enough. Oh, and you are probably right that socialists are right wing. Got it.
Report comment to moderator
- Laura Bush was involved in the death of a boy.
- Democrats voted overwhelmingly to reprimand Barney Frank, because he used House stationary to request dismissal of parking tickets for a hustler he paid for sex once and befriended. The Ethics Committee cleared Frank of knowing that the man brought sexual clients to Frank’s apartment. Frank kicked the man out when he detected the conduct. Frank’s former lover, Herb Moses, left Fannie Mae in 1998, years before the subprime mortgage business ballooned and burst. Moses’ loans were “performing” for nine years, minimum. The proximate cause of the financial meltdown was the Republican deregulation bill of 1999. Frank made futile efforts against Republican resistance to reform and regulation, including opposition from Bush. As soon as Frank took control in 2007, he pushed through two reform bills. Frank is not accountable for the failure of 12 years of Republican rule.
- Clinton paid heavily and lost the succession after his term. The majority of Americans, not just Democrats, decided he was more sinned against than sinning.
- Gerry Studds “affair” with a 17-year-old was a relationship of many years.
- John Edwards has been denounced by everyone active in Democratic politics.
- Obama and the church he belonged to are not racist. Obama associated with no terrorist. Bush was advised by former communists. Some of the greatest Americans were communists. Ronald Reagan asked to join the Communist Party but didn’t get in. Obama isn’t just a Democratic hero, he enjoys 63-32% approval.
Report comment to moderator
#155, Xion wrote; “The reason the left hates Palin is very simple. She was a threat.”
Perhaps, Xion. But after reading many comments on this thread and others in the past (especially about Governor Palin), I tend to sincerely suspect that hate is simply like oxygen for some leftists. They breathe it in and breathe it out as naturally and unconsciously as other living creatures breathe air. Beyond that, I can’t really claim to grasp why they so viciously hate those with whom they disagree–except maybe to say that for many leftists, politics is actually their religion and theirs is a “religion” of hate.
__________
Report comment to moderator
I do take your point KWatson though. Your words have some truth. But it isn’t hate on my part. I’ve tried to find some way, any way that might cause a liberal to admit that maybe just maybe there may be a slight double standard. I have pushed the limits to absurdity and still you guys are party line all the time. Surprisingly those who criticize Obama on the left say he is not liberal enough. Is that possible?
But you’re right. I have become bitter and I don’t like the way I sound. It is frustrating to try and have dialog with people who have such a radical agenda and won’t ever break rank. I am glad that you have some limits as extreme as they are.
At any rate, being bitter is not good for me or this blog. There are more important things to do than bicker with ideologues. Just as Palin is throwing in the towel, so do I. Palin is going back to her family. I am going back to mine. Her son and my son are serving this country. Our concern turns to them. God Bless and Good Night.
Report comment to moderator
#183 True enough Joel. For the left politics is religion. For us though, Christianity has very little to do with politics. So I ask myself why I spend so much time debating something so vain. I think my love for America has caused me to forget that our citizenship is really in heaven. The things of this life are vanity of vanities.
I need to make some changes in my life. I just got my new ESV study bible Mickey mentioned in one thread and am really enjoying it. Pray for me to set my affections on things above and not get so caught up in the things of this world. I haven’t been praying for Obama and his family. I plan to start doing so. My days are so few. It is time to redeem the time. I hope to stay away from here for a while. I appreciate you brother. Take care. God Bless.
Report comment to moderator
Everyone knows that Laura Bush was involved in an accident aged 17 which resulted in the death of one of her classmates. What is your point? – do you have one, or is this just a random comment?
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
Christianity has much to do with politics, just as it has much to do with sports, business, medicine, ethics, and family values. It is a Christian virtue to be grateful for a true blessing, like the give of liberty that has come to us as Americans (and needs to be defended). Love of country must never become idoloarty or arrogance, but as sheer gratitude, it is a Christian virtue. Gratitude for this country will not rob you of your far more precious citizenship in heaven.
I will pray for you, but I am not anxious about your loyalties. I think you have your spiritual priorities well in mind or you would not have asked for the prayer you asked for.
Report comment to moderator
On occasion I feel like Xion. I see the absolutely lunacy in discussing anything with closed hearted people like Scroop Moth et al. I get to where I wonder why I am drawn to this blog. And I start to think that God is really pushing me. And then I come across a post by someone like Joel Mark. I see the beauty in his words that convey the beauty in his soul I know that God is letting me see that His words do not go out and return void. Thank you Joel and thank you Xion. And thanks to others here who can be wonderfully honest.
Report comment to moderator
montyfiusherwoof post 188,
you find it useless to discuss issues with close hearted people like scroop moth???
You appear to have have repeatedly demonstrated that you have difficulty not personalizing any opposition to your views.
Ideas are ideas. They are sepoarate from people and can be discussed independently of the person involved.
But to do so requires havinjg ideas, and it would sem right now most of the conservatives in this blog seem to have run out of ideas.
And indeed when one does not have ideas, perhaps the only path left is to attack the person.
Report comment to moderator
xion,
Palin may or may hot be a nice person: behnd the haze of rhetoric which she has provided it is tough to see what the actual individual is.
We can say that her understanding of policies appears to be weak in general (comments form the McCain campaign on her knowledge and ability to be briefed for example).
And we can say that she took a very major poltical actioon with incomplete explanation to teither her detractors or her supporters.
And I suggest the combination will most plausibly make her poltical future very difficult.
Report comment to moderator
My observatiuon about the conservative posisiton as presented in WMB appears to continue to be supported: there is much rhetoric about the failures of the liberal political establishment, often personal not policy based. But little presentation of realisitic alternative policy which can be shown to address our present challenges.
The U.S. is still crawling out form under one of the worst economic challenges since the 1920s. The U.S. health care system is in a state of near implosion. Obama has grabbed the initiative and is moving forward.
Meanwhile the conservatives by all appearances are sulking like Achilles in his tent. And providing apologies for Ensign, Sanford, and Palin while not developing any apparent real leaders with real proposals.
Without real policy alternatives which clearly and directly address these challenges, conservatvies cede the field to Obama, and their political voice becomes moot.
Report comment to moderator
The following is an example of the press material covering Palin’s resignation:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/05/palin.reaction/index.html
I suggest that as presented (and one can indeed look up each example of conservative concern on one’s own, Rove’s comments fore example have been widely reported), it does not look well for Palin’s forward looking chances as expresswed by conservatives.
As I noted, we will have to watch how this all plays out. But cheerleading on this event would seem to seriously undercut one’s credibility, even within the conservative movement.
Report comment to moderator
“You are correct, she has so far dodged all ethical complaints against her. Therefore, one path for speculaition is that what is about to break is very serious indeed.”
Ah yes… we see how neutral and unbiased you are by the choice of your words…
You poser.
Report comment to moderator
#191, Musing wrote: “The U.S. is still crawling out form under one of the worst economic challenges since the 1920s.”
1. This is partisan overstatement. I was around in the 70s to see and live through a worse economic challenge than what we have seen so far in 2000-01. The comparative numbers I have seen back up my assessment.
2. The cuurent challenge was caused mostly by bad policies toward home loans (pushed but Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and their ilk) and a bubble that actually NEEDED to burst to bring things down to earth. Previous to that, our economy sustained 9/11, efforts in Afghanistan & Iraq, and Katrina. This was an economic adjustment period and it could have been a healthy adjustment had we all not let the Democrat campaigning media and “drama queen” Democrat politicians use a perceived crisis for leftist big-government growth-killing measures.
3. The “drama queen” strategy was articulated by Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who said on November 19, 2008, to the Wall Street Journal Digital Network: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
Report comment to moderator
#191, “The U.S. health care system is in a state of near implosion.”
More unfounded “drama queen” rhetoric.
Musing, who exactly is “providing apologies” for Ensign and Andford (and so what?). Their behavior was indeed sorry and deserves apologies.
And your own comments were rather sickening in that you disingenuously added Palin’s name to those other two even though you well know there is no connection. That struck me as a morally diseased attempt to create associations on your part.
And it weas your comment itself that avoided actual policy and issue orientation but was just personal partisan flailing and drama queen rhetoric.
Report comment to moderator
Montyfisherwoof, thanks for your kind houghts.
Report comment to moderator
#186 YOU WRITE: – Laura Bush was involved in the death of a boy. . . What is your point? – do you have one, or is this just a random comment?
#172 - Kennedy was involved in the death of a girl. He was enthroned for ever.
Report comment to moderator
To mention Laura Bush like this so far out of the independent context of a tragedy that we know little details about is just craven. She is and never ws to my knowledge an elected official.
Do some of you people see how low you have stooped? How do you sleep at night?
Report comment to moderator
Wow this is one pathetic thread!!
Report comment to moderator
She is and never ws to my knowledge an elected official.
She was head of the Office of First Lady, which is a division of the Executive Office of President. She held a highly visible position in the US Government. The First Lady is a public figure. Dolly Madison risked her life and Eleanor Roosevelt carried out civic functions that FDR was unable to perform, due to polio. Hillary Clinton was the subject of intense personal inquiry and investigation as a result of the power of this position. (BTW, the FLOUS doesn’t not need to be the spouse of POTUS.)
Report comment to moderator
Give it up Moth – you’re trying to build a story upon an unfortunate accident when Laura Bush was only 17 years old – It was a tragic traffic accident – certainly you have more to do then focus on a traffic accident.
Report comment to moderator
By the way Moth, Laura knew this boy, they went to school together, she was broken hearted because of what happened – there was no alcohol involved, it was an ACCIDENT.
Report comment to moderator
Chappaquiddick was an accident
Report comment to moderator
Moth
Chappaquiddick – why wasn’t it reported in a timely manner? Have you actually read what transpired during that time? – the time-line to be exact?
Report comment to moderator
It was an accident.
Report comment to moderator
After the car went off the bridge at Chappaquiddick, Ted Kennedy emerged knowing that another human being was still inside. He waited no less than 10 hours to tell ANY officials. He even passed a fire station on his way home.
Scroop Moth, again I ask you, how do you sleep at night?
Report comment to moderator
It was a car accident.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#205):
There are questions about Chappaquiddick that have never been satisfactorily answered—questions that suggest a coverup that might involve everything from sexual indiscretions, D.U.I, perjury, manslaughter, or possibly even murder. Those questions were either ignored or implausibly answered, with the possible connivance of officials friendly to the powerful Kennedy family.
In the face of these glaring uncertainties, for you to unconditionally assert that, “It was an accident,” shows both your lack of objectivity and your fawning bias towards liberal politicians and causes. You epitomize the, “see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil,” approach to your side of the political spectrum.
The attempt to compare the Kennedy affair with Laura Bush’s accident is ludicrous in the extreme.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#207):
Now you sound like a parrot—an amusing, birdbrain mimic.
Report comment to moderator
Chappaquiddick was more than an accident. Teddy made no effort to help Mary Jo Kopechne, but rather looked out for himself entirely, not to mention that when he finally did show up at the police station, it was AFTER family advisors had come up with a plan of what he should do and how he should protect himself. If you want to help a drowning girl, you don’t go home and change your clothes first.
Report comment to moderator
“Possibly even murder” was not a potential criminal charge that emerged from the inquest or the grand jury. Kennedy was guilty of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. The DA decided there was not enough evidence to charge perjury or manslaughter.
Questions don’t suggest. Questions inquire. Answers suggest. The lack of an answer is not a suggestion, it’s just a question. Only moral certainty convicts.
Chappaquiddick was an accident.
Report comment to moderator
Teddy made no effort to help Mary Jo Kopechne.
You don’t know that.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 194,
your comment here:
“#191, Musing wrote: “The U.S. is still crawling out form under one of the worst economic challenges since the 1920s.”
1. This is partisan overstatement. I was around in the 70s to see and live through a worse economic challenge than what we have seen so far in 2000-01.”
would seem most interesting.
If one looks at one of the metrics used to consider the impact of the present crisis, the unemployment index (c.f. Stephanapolous’ interview with Bideen July 5, “This Week with …”), then as shownj by:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000“> Unemployment Rate
(set starting date to 1948 and hit go)
The first thing one can see is that if unemployment is used as the basis for economic challenge, the early 1980s are the worst on record since the Great Depression but the present is rapidly approaching this unemployment rate. It is perhaps interesting that Joel referenced instead the 70s which again by this metric was of lesser impact.
Second, if you want some fun, place the party in the presidency under the unemployment rate by year: it is illuminating.
Of course perhaps of more consequence, is the large, $20T to $60T, market for credit default swaps:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1723152,00.html
Note that as discussed in the article, this market dwarfs the mortgage market that Joel references as the root of the problem.
It is worth noting that this market has grown dramatically over the 2000s as noted by:
Credit Default Swap Historical Analysis
from less than $1t in 1997, to $5T in 2004, to between $20T and $60T in 2008. By contrast the GDP of the world is about $60T. And this unhregulated market effectively froze as we moved into late 2008. I leave it to the reader what the devaluation of perhaps 50% of the worlds GDP would have done to the economy. But don’t take my word for it, you can look to Paulson:
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp1280.htm
In short, I suggest that Joel Mark’s trivialization of the economic situation matches neither the consensus positon of economists nor the available data.
And with Joel as an exemplar, we see that at least some of the conservatives appear to be living in what is nothing less than an alternative reality.
P.S. it is perhaps worth exploring how the credit default swap market exploded in the 2000s. One can perhaps explore the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (perhaps look at Wikipedia first, and then trace the bills progress in thomas.gov). Note the presence of Phil Gramm as a key participant.
Report comment to moderator
JOel Mark post 195,
now Joel continues with the comment:
“#191, “The U.S. health care system is in a state of near implosion.”
More unfounded “drama queen” rhetoric.”
It is worth noting that those without medical insurance in this country number perhaps 45 million:
Uninsured in the U.S.
Meanwhile medeical costs have been rapidly increasing as a percentage of overall GDP:
Health Care costs as percent of GDP)
demonstraitng a growth rate significantly higher than inflation.
And of course a conference of a significant portion of the health care industry met in the white house, agreed there was a challenge, and agreed to help reign in costs:
Washington Post article on health care summit
In short, it appears that Joel Mark’s characterization of the health care situation does not seem to match the data.
Again it is an interesting subject to consider how conservatives such as Joel Mark intend to make progress with the electorate when their positons appear to be so out of step with the obviuous reality.
Report comment to moderator
Now it is worth noting that not only are Joel Mark’s positions out of step with the available data, it would seem that his positions are distinctly out of step with the positions as a whole of the American voters of which:
Poll on economics situation
Support of Obama Health Care reforms
are perhaps samples.
Now it would appear that certain portion sof the conservative comunity, of which Joel Mark would seem to be an exemplar, are both out of touchg with the actual reality of the situatiuon and even worst, out of touch with the electorate understanidng of the situation.
In short, if the conservatvie argument is inconsistent with the data, and the conservatvies can not convice the electorate of their positions, it is unclear to me how they intend to reverse their present declining minority position in American politics.
Report comment to moderator
And the conservatives want to rehash Chapaquidick????
Talk about arranging deck chairs.
Report comment to moderator
But the topics is of course about Palin’s resignation.
At some level I truly hope that she has not killed her chances of gaining the Republican nomination in 2012.
It will make for a very interesting Republican primary season.
It will undoubtedly (c.f. Purdum Vanity Fair article) instill fear in the Republican professionals.
It will most likely engender more internecine warfare among Republicans, a process already well underway.
So long as the economy improves, it would appear unlikely that Palin would have much traction in a general election.
Unfortunately, I suspect (see Victoria’s post) that my optimism on this point is probably unfounded.
Report comment to moderator
And of course Al Franken will be sworn in tomorrow. Senator by Senator the need for the Obama administration to need Republican participation in the legislative process is being eroded.
And with the Republican spurning of working at governing with Obama, it would seem plausible that increasingly the majority of Republicans will be ignored by Obama: with empty policies such as expressed by Joel Mark for example, there is little that Republicans seem to be actually adding to the debate.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Your statement about the worse challenge since the 20s was nothing but partisan overstatement.
The challenges of the 70s are what caused the struggles of the early 80s, the same struggles that President Reagan pulled us out of and gave us enough economic strength and growth to last through the end of that century.
Raw isolated numbers alone do not define the extent of a challenge when comparing times removed by several decades. But both numbers and over all proportions and observations all point to the end of the 70s and the beginning of the 80s as a worse challenge economically than the challenge we face today.
And Reagan pulled us out of that one in a way that should be a model for us today, if our heads were only on straght.
Musing wrote; “In short, I suggest that Joel Mark’s trivialization of the economic situation matches neither the consensus positon of economists nor the available data.”
WHAT trivialization? How have I trivialized anything? I am only saying that you are exaggurating with partisan tunnel vision. You completely forgot the greater cahllenges of the 70s and early 80s.
Report comment to moderator
The “Chicken Little” approach that the left has taken duing an election year toward the economy, health care, global warming hoaxs and so on are all explained by President Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who on November 19, 2008, told the Wall Street Journal Digital Network: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
They want us in constant crisis mode and too many uninformed Americans are too easily manipulated.
Report comment to moderator
If Obama and the left REALLY believed we were in desperate economic trouble, there is no way they would have boorowed and spend in unprecidented irresponsible proportions, enslaving us, our children and our grandchildren to enormous debts and deficits. That is ultimately selfish as well as unwise economically. Our debt is 11.3 TRILLION and rising fast! That’s not what anyone does when they REALLY think we are in big trouble economically.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 219/220:
when you state:
“The challenges of the 70s are what caused the struggles of the early 80s, the same struggles that President Reagan pulled us out of and gave us enough economic strength and growth to last through the end of that century.”
I merely note that I have provided a series of references which suggest the seriousness of the present challenges to the economy and health care. You appear to suggest that your mere ascertation of what you apparently believe is sufficient to establish it as fact.
The reader can of course explore the issues for themselves (I have provided links which may perhgaps assist them in this exploration), but I suggest that the electorate has already judged, and your assertions have been judged wanting.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 221,
now I suggest your comment:
“If Obama and the left REALLY believed we were in desperate economic trouble, there is no way they would have boorowed and spend in unprecidented irresponsible proportions, enslaving us, our children and our grandchildren to enormous debts and deficits.”
is either grossly misinforrmed or seriously disingenuous.
Standard economic theory for managing recession is based on the Keynesian model of governmental stimulus in times of recession. The following perhaps will provide some further discussion on these points:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
And this is the economic model which is most typically followed by cenrtrist and liberal politicians during a recession.
Tha contrasting approach you appear to suggest was explored by Hoover in the late 20s and early 30s and by Roosevelt latter in his period in office. In both cases the impact on the economy was extremely destructive and politicians have been loath to follow it since.
by contrast during periods of relatvie prosperity, government should try to reduce deficits and porepare for the nearly inevitable economic downturn in the future. It is notable that Clinton did so and Federal deficits were redcued. By contrast Bush did not do so and deficit ballooned during his administration.
In short, the charitable explanation for your argument here is that you would appear to be allowing your ideology to blind you to both the actual theoretical framework for the political and economic mainstream on this issue and have blinded yourself to the clear data demonstrating the folly of your proposal.
I suggest that this should casr clear doubt upon your credibility..
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Musing:
Hi. I was reading your posts. Are you an economist? A professor? Insightful thoughts. I was wondering if you’d be able to respond to a question I had regarding the current crisis.
Why does it appear that liberals follow Keynesian economics in a recession but refuse to “regulate” in times of economic upturn, when perhaps it would be an opportune time to be proactive in addressing potentially harmful trends? Seems part of our existing deficit reflects a “government” bail-out that perhaps could’ve been slightly less than what it was if there had been some practical foresight several years ago.
This was the case back in 2006 I believe when the Bush administration wished to “regulate” the mortgage companies. But Senator Frank and others mentioned he believed such oversight wasn’t necessary.
How does one describe an economic policy which flits back and forth between a Keynesian system and an unregulated free market?
Report comment to moderator
oldhickory68 post 223,
when you say:
” Why does it appear that liberals follow Keynesian economics in a recession but refuse to “regulate” in times of economic upturn, when perhaps it would be an opportune time to be proactive in addressing potentially harmful trends?”
I suggest we need to separate two questions here:
- deficit spending
- regulation
Keynesian econoomics as I understand it has as one of its principles that during good times one runs a surplus and in recessionary times one runs a deficit.
Bush clearly did not use this model. As I noted, Clinton did.
However, running surpluses in good times is arguably not nearly as much fun for any politician as spending on new programs: it is easier to explain the impact of say a new bridge than it is to say we have reduced the deficit.
Regulation is a different issue altogether and is not, as I understand it, directly addressed by classical Keynesian economics.
I also suggest I disagree with your characterizaton of the dergulation history than what you appear to be proposing.
I suggest that a key component of the crisis is the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which deruglated credit default swaps. You are correct, this deregulation occurred during good times. It even occurred under a Democratic president. The story here, as I have noted, is best researched by first looking at the Wikipedia article and then chasing the bill’s history through thomas.gov. I suggest looking closely at the role of Phil Gramm who perhaps not incidently appears to appear latter in the economic saga and in the 2008 election.
Since the credit default swap market dwarfs any other portion of the financial markets (references posted earlier), it would perhaps seem that you are focused on the wrong walnut in the classic shell game.
Report comment to moderator
oldhickory68 post 223,
now it is perhaps worth commenting that it was a conservative poster in this blog, Peter Leavitt, who first raised the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 as a major component of this economic crisis.
Peter argued that this was a Democratic enacted legslation. A look at the detailed history of this bill will, I suggest, make it clear that it was pushed through during a closing omnibus budget act driven by a bipartisan crew but led by Republican leadership in a Republican controlled congress. The act was attached to must pass legislation required to continue funding the Federal government.
Report comment to moderator
Ok, thanks for the reply. I suppose as a layman, when I see the government spend its surplus or run a deficit in a recession that it generally amounts to regulation.
No dollars from D.C. come without regulatory strings. It’s like they purchase the right to regulate or regulate the right to purchase, either way, I see there being more of a convergence of regulation and spending than there being two distinct spheres.
I tend to be bipartisan politically. I don’t try and blame a party line, for there has been enough folly in both camps to testify of the imperfect attempts at economic regulation and stimulus.
Keynesian economics. Doesn’t it encourage government participation and involvement in maintaining the economy? Sure. And where you have this involvement, you will have “regulation” and money spent to ensure the regulations are inforced or money spent to stimulate the economy. Either way, its regulation.
Liberal free-market economy I think has completely gone by the wayside. We’re on a fiat currency. We have the government presently “owning” large chunks of private industry, banks in debt up to their eyeballs, a floundering federal reserve and a volitile stock market which more and more is requiring government intervention. Keynesian economics stifles liberal free-markets by encouraging large-scale government intervention, which inevitably devalues a fiat currency. My original question is how does one reconcile the two for they are pretty much contrary to one another in their doctrines regarding government intervention.
Report comment to moderator
oldhickory68 post 226,
it would seem when you say:
“I suppose as a layman, when I see the government spend its surplus or run a deficit in a recession that it generally amounts to regulation. ”
You are confounding two different concepts which even show up in the period of validty for each of the actions of the legislation.
and without precision here, I suggest the discussion rapidly degenerates.
If you would likle to discuss Keynesian economics, lets talk Keynesian economics.
If you would like to discuss regulation lets discuss regulation.
But to call regulation Keynesian economics merely obscures the discussion without providing any clarity.
Report comment to moderator
oldhickory68 post 226,
now when jyoiu say:
“Liberal free-market economy I think has completely gone by the wayside. We’re on a fiat currency. We have the government presently “owning” large chunks of private industry, banks in debt up to their eyeballs, a floundering federal reserve and a volitile stock market which more and more is requiring government intervention.”
then I suggest the majority of your complaints occurred under the Bush administration. I suggest a discussion with Republicans on their behavior here is perhaps what you are asking for. I certainly will not defend the Bush administration’s economic and regulatory policies.
Report comment to moderator
oldhickory68 post 226,
and it would appear you still have not addressed the relative importance of the credit default swap market vs. the mortgage market.
Report comment to moderator
oldhickoty68 post 226,
now you appear to have made several comments on fiat currency. But if you look carefully all currency is fiat currency: none of it has any intrinsic value in and of itself. It has value only because people agree that it has value.
A good discussion of this perhaps can be found in “The Ascent of MOney” by Ferguson.
You also might look at “The Return of Depression Economics” by Krugman. The discussion of the baby sitting coop it perhaps most instructive here.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!