Political Gum.

[Ken]

Nice JoB JoB :)

Those interested in one of the “sources” some here would use to refute the statements JoB is making, should find this series interesting.

Sure it is on Daily KOS, but the words quoted are indeed the insane lies and crazier opinions of those 23% who would have us believe that Bush was right to invade Iraq.

William Kristol is neither stupid nor uneducated.

This does not seem to stop him from letting his ideology overrule the evidence, the history of the region, or the reports from those on the ground.

Also note, as “Dan Quayle’s Brain” in the Regan Administration, he knew first hand much of the information he continually seems to ignore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol

So fire up your link following tabbed browser and follow along the twisted talking points path that the wingnuts follow blindly and at deliberate speed.

Punditry Kristolized

by BarbinMD

After a New York Times editorial page editor defended the hiring of William Kristol by making the laughable claim that he was, “a serious, respected conservative intellectual,” I was inspired to put together a collection that would show how often and overwhelmingly wrong Kristol has been. In Part I of this series, Kristol’s relentless drum beat for war in Iraq was highlighted, while Part II focused on his fearmongering claims about WMD and his later rationalizations when those weapons failed to materialize. And this week I will concentrate on Kristol’s demonization of those who opposed the war and his rosy assessments of progress in Iraq.

Part 1

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/20/153833/705/250/440121

Part 2

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/27/16475/2488/123/444316

Part 3

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/3/43337/74399

The above series “Kristolizes” one question.

If a pundit is continually and disastrously wrong, why are they still employed as a “pundit?

Share This

[JoB]

thank you Ken…

Having debunked Ann Coulter and William Kristol, I hope we will now see reference to someone who actually supports a viable position for the Republicans… not innuendo and half truths.

And yes,i do believe there are viable Republican positions. I happen to come down on the other side of most of them… but truly enjoy learning from those who feel as passionately and rationally about their positions as i do about mine.

It would be good if this became a thinking discussion… presenting both sides clearly instead of the lobbed insults that FOX has taught us to think of as commentary.

I don’t believe that we will be withdrawing from Iraq until the Iraqi govt ratifies the oil agreement that basically gives a few large companies control of Iraqi oil.

I thought that had happened, but my hubby who watches such things closely tells me it has not been ratified.

Until then, or until we make the rules change… we are stuck propping up a weak govt that is unwilling to make the compromises it needs to function.

In the meantime, we are increasing hatred for the United States with every day we spend there… thus increasing our own personal terrorist risk. Not to mention losing any credibility in World politics.

It’s a sad thing.

Share This

[JoB]

charlabob,

i don’t know if anyone will ever replace Molly Ivens. Her sharp eyes and willingness to see absurdity are sorely missed. I often find myself wondering what Molly would think about all of this.

I can understand your desire for change… but i don’t think we can get there just by putting a fresh face in the white house.

I am so torn. When i listen to Obama, like everyone else who actually hears him, i am won by his charismatic charm. And maybe America does need a self esteem boost… to feel really good about who is leading them. If so, i truly believe he would deliver that.

But.. and here is where it gets tricky for me… I believe we have landed ourselves in one of the most complicated international and internal situations this nation has ever faced. In the words of one of the women at the anti-freeze meeting “i just can’t forget that he is a one term senator who spent most of that term campaigning”.

And.. i can’t forget that the Democratic party leadership is more focused on electing a democrat than on what that democrat produces once in office.

That is frightening to me.

I wish America could sit down with a one on one with Hillary… just one evening… I don’t think anyone would fail to realize how brilliant and dedicated she is. And that she has actually thought all of this through and has a plan for what she would do in office… not one for what would get her there. But his is America and that won’t happen.

As to Edwards as Commerce Secretary… now that is an interesting idea…

One of the things that Madeleine Albright said that i really valued was that it was necessary for our next President to fill the cabinet with people whose positions on issues were not identical to the president’s own… we have had enough of government by yes men and seen clearly what that produces.

Share This

[JoB]

House, what do you mean by Fiscal Conservatism? Because it seems that you and i both call ourselves fiscal conservatives, but i think we mean different things by the term.

Fiscal conservatism: from Wickipedia

“Fiscal conservatism is a political phrase term used in North America to attack government spending and advocate instead lower spending and a lower federal debt; it may also include higher taxes in order to lower the debt. It does not necessarily denote advocacy of free market economics as a whole, and is a distinct concept from that of neo-liberalism.

A major cause of the American Revolution was “No Taxation without Representation.” The Americans insisted that their historic rights as Britons entitled them to a voice in setting tax policies, which Britain denied. The issue was not the tax itself or its size, but approval by elected representatives.”

This definition pretty closely resembles how i use the term. I believe that fiscal conservatism requires using public money according to public desires in the most efficient way possible. I suppose it is possible that my stance could more accurately be called fiscal responsibility… but still i think fiscal conservatism fits.

According to this definition, you and i would only disagree on how the money should be spent and thus would battle to have representative who support our views elected.

However, Wikipedia went further:

“Fiscal Conservatism was rhetorically promoted during the presidency of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989). During his tenure, Reagan touted economic policies that became known as Reaganomics. Based on the theory of supply-side economics, Reagan cut income taxes, raised social security taxes, deregulated the economy, and instituted a tight monetary policy to stop inflation. Reagan favored reducing the size and scope of government (see limited government), proposing a balanced federal budget.�

This Reagonomics definition is more in keeping with how the term is used most often these days.

According to Wikipedia, this is how that turned out:

“However, by the end of Reagan’s second term the national debt held by the public ballooned from 26 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 1980 to 41 percent in 1989, the highest level since 1963. The increase in national debt cannot be attributed to lower taxes because despite the massive tax cuts that occurred during Reagan’s Presidency, Federal tax revenue actually increased, from $728.1 billion in 1980 to $916.2 billion in 1989 (Inflation adjusted, 1987 dollars). Therefore the only cause of a ballooning national deficit and national debt would have to be increased spending. By 1988, the debt totaled $2.6 trillion, due in part to both increased military spending at the end of the Cold War and growth in the federal government. The country owed more to foreigners than it was owed, and the United States moved from being the world’s largest international creditor to the world’s largest debtor nation. [2]â€Â�

This defines for me the difference between the rhetoric of fiscal conservatism and the actual policy.

House.. are you rhetorical or actual?

Did you buy your snow chains because you intend to cross a mountain pass or are you afraid you won’t be able to get down your driveway for a day or two if we have a snowstorm?

i bought a set for a rental car because i wanted to cross a mountain pass to get to grandbabies in Bend Oregon just after Christmas… and yes, i needed them. But, being the fiscal conservative that i am, i stopped at my brother’s in Portland on the way home and checked to see if my niece’s car could use them. They could… and she wanted to go skiing and got to take her own car. So now that expenditure has produced the greatest possible good.

Don’t you love my highly personal fable for how this fiscal conservative lives ;-)

ok.. i’m going to go do something else now:)

Share This

[cheyenne]

NewResident if you’re still listening… Republicans are all about ‘conserving’ their money, once they’ve got it they want more. Excuse me if that’s a generalization that may not apply to you.

Also, according to Rush Limbaugh, who by the way is no moral beacon (I can’t think of any amongst the republicans for some reason) the right is trying to undo the New Deal programs.

Yes, they’ve already done away with the forty-hour workweek. Sure, there’s no right to privacy anymore. I happen to be happy with the child-labor laws, worker safety laws (actually they don’t go far enough–I’ve breathed in enough asbestos to ensure an early death!) and the robber barons at least gave us a break for awhile. But they too are back.

Bush may not _seem_ like a liar, and just because it’s not about sex please, please don’t think it’s no big deal! The deaths of thousands upon thousands rest squarely on his shoulders.

Morality is not just about sex.

Don’t get me started on the insurance racket.

Share This

[Anonymous]

Hey, Cheyenne, and anyone else that enjoys criticizing and bashing our President, what would you have done if YOU were President?

Share This

[Anonymous]

I realized someone had mentioned that 9/11 didn’t really affect us. Not even considering the effect 9/11 had on the entire WORLD, I knew people on the planes that crashed. So, yeah, it did effect some people personally. That was a little insensitive of whoever wrote that.

Share This

[JoB]

New Resident, whether we personally knew someone who was directly affected by 911 or not, we were all affected by that tragedy.

I don’t think the person who made that remark meant to say that we weren’t affected, just that our lives have not been impacted in the way the lives of the Iraqi people have.

We were all affected. Our children will look back to where they were on that day the same way i look back to where i was the day kennedy was shot. it is a pivotal turning point in all our lives.

That said, it is important to focus our resulting rage on those who perpetrated that terrorist act.

What would i have done?

I would have pursued the Al Quaida by any and all means possible.

I would have let Pakistan know that it wasn’t ok to harbor them across the border and if neccessary i would have used clandestine surgical strikes… e\whether the Pakistani govt agreed or not.

I would have put pressure on Egypt to stop terrorist dollars from passing through their citizens to terrorist networks around the world.

I would have asked for worldwide assistance in shutting down any banking system willing to harbor funds from know Al Quaida operatives.

I would have immediately hired more middle eastern interpreters in our intelligence community.

I would have funded and followed up with the best medical care and counseling possible for all those who went into the disaster and participated in the cleanup of 911.

i would have taken alesson from England’s many years of dealing with irish terrorists. You don’t persecute the people, you prosecute terrorists.

I would have asked the muslim world to join in condemning senseless acts of violence perpetrated on innocent people.

I would have invested in aid programs around the world for muslim people living in destitution. In short.. i would have killed them with kindness.

I am assuming that you don’t want to know what i wouldn’t have done because that list would take a long time.

My very conservative republican niece once asked me why i supported terrorists when we were discussing the war… her approval.. my condemnation.

I will tell you what i told her. Not supporting the war in Iraq is not unpatriotic. It doesn’t mean i support terrorism. It simply means that i think we should have warred against the terrorists who warred against us… not Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people.

I fully support our troops. I support actually spending the money to adequately equip them. i think it is a disgrace that families in the states have to hold fundraisers to provide their sons and daughters in the guard with adequate military gear.

I support their families. I support paying them adequately while they are in service. I think it is a disgrace that many of their families are forced to welfare programs just to exist.

I support giving guard members who serve the same kind of benefits we give regular military… all of the same protections as to length and number of tours and the same kind of benefits when they come home.

I support stepping up to the plate and actually providing the kind of services they need when they come home… medical care… housing assistance… job assistance… education benefits…etc.

I support a draft if that is what it will take to stop extending the active status of our soldiers well past their agreed upon discharge dates.

I think if we are going to war… we ought to treat the military who are waging that war for us very well.

I would rather we weren’t there. i would not have put us there. i don’t know if any other president … including our current president’s father… would have done so under the circumstances.

Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

In spite of every justification so far fed to us, that war has nothing to do with 911.

It is time to stop citing 911 it as though it has relevance to the war in Iraq.

I think we owe that to those who lost their lives in a totally senseless act of violence on 911.

We should honor them by responding to what killed them… not by perpetrating some senseless war. how can killing people who had nothing to do with that tragedy ever honor those who lost their lives?

Share This

[TheHouse]

JoB, once again I will use my analogy of stopping at a car accident and pointing fingers at both drivers involved as they lay on the pavement bleeding.

All of your ramblings has created a positve outcome though. Through my research I just realized that there is a $50 million reward for information leading to the capture of Osama bin Laden and the Pilots Union will throw in another $2 million. Screw blogging….I’m going to start looking for his ass!

Share This

[JoB]

House.. now that is a very constructive idea… and it sounds like the money isn’t bad either.

but I don’t get your analogy for the auto accident. 911 involved the united states and Al Quaida terrorists.

Can’t say this clearly enough.

Saddam (Iraq) wasn’t in either car. They weren’t driving either car. (Egyptians) They didn’t finance either car. (again.. a lot of it came from Egyptians) They didn’t own either car. They didn’t insure either car. They didn’t tell either car where to go. (Osama Bin Laden) They didn’t tamper with streetlights or stop signs. The didn’t teach the drivers how to drive. They weren’t distracting the drivers. They weren’t even at the scene of the accident.

Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

They are largely muslim. Saddam was a dictator and did terrorize his own people. Could i say that again… his own people. He was not a nice guy. But he and Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

Saddam may have financed other terrorist acts.. never any related to Al Quaida. Osama Bin Laden was an Egyptian. That may not have meant much to us, but it sure meant a lot to saddam. He never would have financed anything that would lead to an Egyptian gaining more power.. . this is not and never was, rocket science.

911 was just the excuse we used to invade his country and depose him. Thanks to us, the Iraqi people are now dealing with Al Quaida’s terrorism. Our bad.

saying it doesn’t make it so.

Share This

[JoB]

oh, and this morning i got the other implication… that the war is already there and there is little we can do about that.

you are so right there.

so the question becomes, what do we do now? The United States is not an innocent bystander in Iraq.

the first step is to elect someone who will admit that we created this mess and we need to clean it up. NOW!

Share This

[TheHouse]

Cha-Ching. I’m glad that my little nuggest of an analogy brewed all night and became a yummy cup of coffee.

Both Clinton and Obama support immediate withdrawl, which would immediately turn Iraq into an even larger breeding ground of terrorism and would most likely be worse for the citizens of Iraq.

I agree that the situation needs to be repaired, but I do not believe the two leading Democratic candidates or the apparent Republican front runner (McCain) are the best people for the job.

I also would hope that you understand that you will not effectively fix the situation “NOW”. It will take many years to withdraw and in many phases. With potential military force needed in Iran and North Korea, you might see our troops shift to those areas as well.

I’m glad I started all of this dialouge. Time for a new topic.

Share This

[JoB]

house.. ok sometimes i am a little slow ;(

and yes, i know we won’t fix it now. We won’t fix it for a very long time. That’s why it’s such a big deal.

But we could start to fix it now.

And i disagree that the terrorists would get worse if we withdrew.

We are the point they are making.

However, the current govt would collapse in a heartbeat and there would be tremendous political instability… And that probably wouldn’t be a good thing. It certainly wouldn’t be a good thing for the oil companies who are trying their best to get their hands on Iraqi oil.

life is complicated. you just have to do what you can.

Share This

[Author]

Posts